IR 05000566/1980014
| ML19345D285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345D268 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-80-14, 50-567-80-14, NUDOCS 8012120377 | |
| Download: ML19345D285 (6) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _
. _. _ -
_ __ _
_
_ _ - -
pm Rf G
'o UNITED STATES 4["
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
-
g
,
m
,
.
~r REGION 11
'
e[
101 M ARIETTA ST., N W.. SUITE 3100 o,
C j
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
- ...+
,
Report Nos. 50-566/80-14 and 50-567/80-14 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-566 and 50-567 License Nos. CPPR-172 and CPPR-173 Inspection at Yellow Creek Site near near luka, Mississippi Inspector:
hid[
7M5dC J.R. Harps Ilate signed
'
Approved by: r M
/]
4 - Z 4-fo
T. E. Conlon,' Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 2-5, 1980
,
Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours on site in the areas of structural concrete, structural earthfill, previously identified items and licensee identified items.
Results Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were iden-tified in three areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infrac-tion - Evaluation of concrete test cylinders that break below specified require-ments paragraph 3.a.).
e02 2 mo77
.
.
_
.
-
--
-
-
- -
-.
..
__
-
. _ -
.
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted i
Licensee Employees
- C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer, QC
,
- R. G. Delay, Supervisor, Materials & Civil QC Unit
- C E. Hale, Assistant Construction Engineer, Engineering Support
- J. B. Nelson, QA Engineer
- E. D. Charton, QA Engineer, Knoxville
- C. A. Burshears, Geologist
.
-
- S. R. Watson, Document Control Unit
.
D. Weatherford, Civil QC Inspector R. Quail, Civil QC Inspector R. Eason, Civil QC Engineer
M. Harris, Civil QC Engineer Other licensee employees contacted during this insoection included three construction craftsmen, four technicians, and three office personnel.
- Attended exit interview.
i
'
Exit Interview
'
.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 5,1980,
.
'
with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
t 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
,
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 566/80-11-04 and 567/80-11-03:
" Evaluation of concrete test cylinders that break below design strengths." No documentation was available to show that concrete test cylinders which broke below specified strengths were being tracked or evaluated. Exam-ination of test cylinder data showed that 13% of test cylinders for concrete Class 401.5 AFW have broken below the specified strength and no QCIR has been issued nor has an evaluation of the questionable results been made. Paragraph 4.3 of the G-2 specification' states that no more than 10% of strength test results shall be below the specified strength for classes with a specified strength of 3000 psi or more.
This item is closed as unresolved item 566/80-11-04 and 567/80-11-03 and upgraded to noncompliance number 566/80-14-01 and 567/80-14-01, Evaluation of concrete test cylinders.
b.
(Closed) Deficiency 566/80-07-01 and 567/80-07-01: " Documentation of materials in concrete mix." Water contents and slump results were not compatible on pour number A1, J1 and records generated by the batch plant recorder - on pour number Al-Pr were inaccurate. The inspector examined the licensee's response dated May 19, 1980 and implementation of that response. The batch plant recorder is now being controlled to produce more accurate records.
More frequent moisture checks are
.
-u
-+--,,
y.
%_e,__.,_3.
,,.,n,
._,-%,-v.-,_.r_r,,,,-my,m-w,_,-.nyw..,,,
.
,w,-=_
,,...,y,.*-,my,,,m.,w,--n-~,
,.
-
--.,--
.
.
-2-
.
being made on aggregates so that the batch plant moisture compensator can be more accurately adjusted. Test cylinder strengths met specified requirements. This item is closed.
c.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-566/80-07-02 and 567/80-07-02:
" Concrete Controls." Paragraph 6.9 of Specification G-2 requires in general, that concrete be placed within 30 minutes of mixing. The Specifica-tion states, "the time limit can be extended if the slump is no more than 2 inches less than specified, if there has been no separation of ingredients and if the concrete can be adequately consolidated."
Discussions with responsible engineers disclosed that there does not appear to be a suitable method for tracking the time interval between when the mix is batched and when the mix is placed. This item remains open pending clarification of a method for tracking the time interval between when the mix is batched and placed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined ongoing work activities in the Unit 1 powerhouse block, and soils and concrete testing laboratory.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Lakes, Dams and Canals - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Units 1 and 2 The inspector examined the completed excavation in the Unit 2 spray pond and ongoing fill operations in the Unit 1 spray pond. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in the following documents:
a.
Section 2.5 of the PSAR b.
Paragraph 2.5.3 of the SER c.
Specification N8C-882, Earth and Rock Foundations and Fills d.
QCT-C-101, Earthfill Daily Inspection Observations and discussions with responsible engineers showed that excavations, work activities, QC controls, soil compaction, testing and conttol of materials were being performed in accordance with acceptance criteria. Examination of memoranda YCP 80212300 and CEB 800513008 showed that the Unit 2 spray pond had been inspected by the TVA foundation inspection team from Knoxville.
I No deviations or items of noncompliance were disclosed.
i
>
a
!
-
_ _ __.. _._.
-._
-.. _ _ _..
__.._._
w we,e.,3e..en-p.e yw-g e*g-e-.-Tyv.wWy+pwyr.y-.g
-3-
.
7.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Observation of Work and Vark Activities, Unit 1 The inspector observed partial placement of concrete pour numbers F1-G1, F7 and F8. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in the following documents:
a.
Section 3.8 of the PSAR b.
TVA Specification G-2, Plain and Reinforced Concrete c.
Procedures QCI C-201, C-202, C-205, C-208 and C-212, and drawing numbers 4 FED 380-F2-7, 4FE0380-F2-5, 4FE0380-F2-7 and 4FE0380-F2-6 Observations showed that forms were tight and clean and rebar was properly installed and cleau. Preplacement inspection was indicated by the signed pour card.
Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, freefall, flow distance, layer thickness and consolidation conformed to specifications.
Activities were continuously monitored by QC personnel. Samples for temper-ature, slump, air content, unit weight and test cylinders met frequency and acceptance criteria. Examination of the batch plant and storage facilities showed that inspection, materials and records controls were in accordance with acceptance criteria.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Licensee Identified Item 10 CFR 50.55(e)
a.
(0 pen) Item 50-566/80-07-03:
Defective Concrete Pour in Auxiliary Building Concrete placement Al-P3 failed to obtain initial set in normal time.
The inspector examined the licensee's final response dated June 13, 1980 and the pour placement area. Portions of the affected area were removed and cores were taken on the remaining inplace concrete.
Strength test results from the cores varied from a minimum 3790 psi to 6500 psi, with only one test below the specified strength of 4000 psi.
A detailed analysis showed that a minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi will meet all loading requirements for slabs represented by pour Al-P3.
This item remains opea pending review of records by NEC RII:IE on that portion of Al-P3 which was replaced.
b.
(0 pen) Item 566 and 567/80-08-01: Deficiencies in Concrete Testing.
Sampling of 3/4-inch and 1-\\-inch aggregate and compressive strength tests not performed in accordance with procedure.
Interim reports were submitted to NRC, RII on May 21,1980, July 9,1980 and August 20, 1980. The final report on this item is due October 20, 1980.
This item remains open pending review of the final report by NRC, RII:I.
.
-4-
.
c.
(Open) Item 566 and 567/80-08-02:
Improper Placement and Compaction of Concrete A licensee audit of pour A2-D1 disclosed improper vibration, lift height and water being pushed with concrete. A review of the QCIR log showed 32 QCIRs were written in 1979 and 22 QCIRs to date on honeycomb.
Honeycomb is due to improper compaction.
Improper compaction is considered to be a generic problem at Yellow Creek.
The inspector examined the licensee's response dated July 11, 1980, implementation of that response and discussed the response with respon-sible engineers.
QCIR 223356 and NCR YC-066 were written on the subject pour. The NCR showed that the subject pour was stopped prior to completion and the deficiencies corrected prior to commencement of placement activities. The remaining 90% of the pour was placed without incident.. Examination of records showed that responsible QC and craft personnel were reinstructed on required placement techniques.
The inspector pointed out to the licensee that their written response was not clear as to whether or not proper corrective action had been taken.
In a telephone call on September 8, 1980, between J. Cox, TVA Supervisor Nuclear Licensing Section and J. Harris and F. Cantrell of RII:IE, the licensee agreed to clarify the response.
This item remains open pending review of that response and further NRC RII:IE observations of corrective measures.
d.
(0 pen) Item 566/80-11-02:
Earthfill Placement and Inspection for Unit 1 ERCW Spray Pond A licensee audit disclosed that earthfill activities were not being controlled in accordance with acceptance criteria.
Region II:IE issued a confirmation of action letter dated June 24, 1980, in which it was understood that the licensee will not resume earthfill activities in the Unit 1 ERCW spray pond until the deficiencies listed in Site Audit No. YC-C-80-07 had been resolved and corrc tive measures concurred in by the NRC.
NRC RII:IE examined the licensee's response dated July 11, 1980, and issued a confirmation of concurrence letter dated July 16, 1980, concurring with the licensee's plans for resumption of earthfill in the ERCW spray ponds.
The inspector examined the licensee's response dated July 11, 1980, and observed implementation of that response.
Six laborers were observed picking unsuitable root material from the fill. Insufficiently compacted material was removed, the allowable amount of root material specified by the G-9 specification was clarified through a design information request, more frequent moisture tests are being made, penetrometer tests were being performed, and additional block samples were taken to verify that insitu compaction requirements were me __
.
_
,
.
.
-S-This item remains open pending NRC RII:IE examination of test results from the block samples.
d.
(0 pen) Item 566/80-14-02: Omission of Reinforcement Steel in Reactor Control Building The licensee reported a CDR on August 26, 1980, regarding 84 reinforcing bars (rebar) that were lef t out of wall pour Cl-F1 in the reactor control building. Region II:IE issued a confirmation of action letter o'n August 27, 1980, in which it was understood that Class I concrete containing rebar would not be placed until the matter was investigated and appropriate corrective measures were taken.
I i
._.
-
--,
,- --
- -.. -,,.
,,,
. -.,.
- -. -
,