IR 05000566/1981010
| ML20033D314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D305 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-81-10, 50-567-81-10, NUDOCS 8112070522 | |
| Download: ML20033D314 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:p - ,- . _.- ., - - .. . / 'T UNITED STATES f, 3 4
d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' $ Eo REGION 11 r r "/r(. q 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 % ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 > ,j w .. a ?/
- i
- i p, . '. "
- g Report Nos. 50-566/81-10 and 50-567/81-10 . t .e ,
Licensee'; ' Tennessee Valley Authority '6 y ' 500A Chestnut Street , 'v '/' Chattanooga, TN 37401
-. , Facility Name: Yellow Creek . [; 0ccket Nos. 50-566 and 50-567 ' r . ,. cens'e Nos. CPPR-172 and CPPR-173 Li "
, ,. [nspectiori at Yellow Creek site near luka, MS Ibspectoi.T pr & //~ 6>- El ' - ' . J. R. Har r.i s Date Signed < , Approve tr>14f??Y / / - 6> ~ 2/ I T. E.' Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed f Engineering Inspection Branch /
- .
Engineering and Technical Inspection Division J/ I, , ' , ./ ; ' ? - SUMM/AY ' r r, Insp_ection on October 28, 1981 / , Areas Inspected ' / " This routine, unannounced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site'~in the ? firns of structural concrete, earthfill and previously identified items.
'results ', J
, Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
, I N ',. !
- f
, ' . . fA f (,,4 , , ,' ' ', * *., l' - , -. ' ' p, 0 y' , C;: ,;,. '~ .' 8112070522 811113 . - ,4 PDR ADOCK 05000$66 .0- ... - POR . 'b h .
-- _ _ _ ~., ,p . _ e , ' -{,; ,x " REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted ' Licensee Employees
- M. M. Price, Project Manager
- L. S. Cox, Construction Manager
'
- R. G. Delay, Supervisor, Materials and Civil QC Unit
- C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer, QC
-
- J. Hunt, Civil QC Engineer
- M. Harris, Civil QC Engineer C. Freeman, Supervisor, Project Fngineer, Civil
- J. Holladay, Suprvisor, QA Unit
- S. Carr, Assistant Construction Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included three construction craftsmen, five technicians and four office personnel.
'
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 28, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
. 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings - a.
(Closed) Violation 50-566/81-02-02 and 50-567/81-02-02: Failure to Follow Concrete Inspection Procedure.
Reinforcir;g steel was spliced together without the one-inch minimt m splice separation. The inspector examined the licensee's response dated March 30, 1981 and impl aenta-tion of that response. Conct,!te was removed fiom around the ends of the four mislocated bars and the bars were repositioned to the required clearance. Drawing - 4GE0100-00-01R2, General Civil. Standard Notes, has been revised to clarify spacing requirements of reinforcing steel.
This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Violation 50-566/81-07-01 and 50-567/81-07-01: -Failure to Follow Preventative Maintenance ~ Procedure. The preventative mainter.- ance inspector faiIed to sign and date.the computer' card when the biweekly inspections.were performed on the CE Reactor Coolant Piping ' for the weeks beginning March 23, April 20 and May - 18, 1981.
The inspector examined the licensee's response dated August 20, 1981 and ( 'inplementation of that response'. The computerized preventative main- 'tenance program -has been modified so that the' computer will issue o inspection cards as required for. each' inspection, e.g., weekly, btweekly, or monthly.
. , j- ! l k ?'
- . -.
This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection The inspector examined ongoing work in the unit I reactor building, the concrete and soils testing laboratory, and backfilling operations around the west side of the unit I reactor building. No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Observation of Work and Work Activi-ties, Unit 1 The inspector observed partial placement of concrete pour number F1-T13 in the unit 1 fuel building. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appears in the following documents: a.
Section 3.8 of the PSAR b.
TV Specification G-2, Plain and Reinforced Concrete c.
Procedures QCI C-201, C-202, C-205, C-208, and C-12.
d.
Drawing numbers 4FE0385-F2-1R5, 4FE0386-F2-3R2, 4FN109-10RO, 4FE0386-F2-6R2, and 4FE0384-F2-4R5.
Observations showed that forms were tight and clean and rebar was properly installed and clean.
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.
Post placement observations showed that curing controls were being performed in accordance with specifications.
No violations or dev';' ions were identified.
7.
Licensee Identified Item 10 CFR 50.55(e) a.
(Closed) Item 50-566/80-07-04 and 50-567/80-07-04: Improper Documen - tation and Utilization of TVA Computer Program INERTIA. TVA computer program INERTIA, used in seismic analysis of structures at Yellow Creek was n.t documented as being technf ally correct for open sections such as found in the control building.
The inspector examined the licensee's. responses dated October 14, 1980 and May 28, 1981 and discussed the item with responsible engineers.
TVA analyzed four different open sections using beam theory, rigidity; method (INERTIA program), and finite element method. Results showed - . ,.
. . . .
that the rigidity method and finite element method were consistently more accurate.
IN RTIA (rigidity method) has now been documented as being an acceptable method for seismic analysis of open structures such as those at Yellow Creek.
' This item is closed.
b.
(0 pen) Item 50-566/81-05-02 and 50-567/81-05-02: Tornado Depressuri-zation Desic-Deficiency. Drawings for the intake and ERCW pumping station structures do not provide for sufficient vents for adequate depressurization durir.g tornado canditions.
The inspector examined the licensee's response dated September 9,1981.
The next licensee response will be submitted to NRC by January 27, 1982.
This item remains open pending NRC review of the January response.
c.
(0 pen) Item 50-oK/81-03: Lamination of Soil in Unit 1 ERCW Spray Pond. Laminations were observed in several block samples taken from the earthfill liner in the unit I spray pond.
The NRC inspector examined the licensee's final response dated August 11, 1981 and discussed the results with responsible engineers.
Five additional block samples were taken in the vicinity of the samples with laminations. No shear planes or weak zones were observed in the samples or trenches dug to obtain the s.mples. Vertical and horizontal , permeability tests and shear tests were performed on samples showing l laminations. Test results exceeded design requirements. To lessen the probability of laminations occuring again, TVA has revised specifica-tion N8C-882 to include new guidelines for earthfi.11 compaction.
This item is closed.
d.
(0 pen) Item 50-566/81-04 and 50-567/8.' 03: Unverified Seismic Analysis for Design. During review of design orawings, it was discovered that the final design had been completed and construction drawings issued based on a preliminary seismic analysis for the ERCW pumping station, the equipment hatch access platform, and the waste management building.
The inspector examined the licensee's report dated July 17, 1981. TVA is proceeding to complete the seismic analyses for the structures in question. TVA's next report is due October 28, 1981.
e.
(0 pen) Item 50-566/81-16 and 50-567/81-13: Rebar Left Out of Concrete Pour. Top face bars on pour number WH-6 east which extend 21 inches into pour number WH-6 west were not installed before pouring pour number WH-6 West. Pour number WH-6 east was' on design' hold and was not poured.
i
- . - . .. ....-
The !!RC inspector discussed the item with responsible engineers and examined the licensee's response dated July 27, 1981.
Holes were drilled 24 inches into pour number WH-6 west and splice bars were grouted in place. The top face bars of pour WH-6 east were spliced with the grouted splice bars.
To prevent a recurrence, Project Engineering - Civil will monitor the installation of rebar for double assurance that all rebar is installed in accordance with drawings.
Examination of repair records and NCR YC-197 showed corrective action has been completed.
Observation of controls on pour number F1-T13 showed that preventative measures are being implemented.
This item is closed.
f.
Item 50-566/81-14: Concrete Placement Fuel Building.
Concrete slab pour number F1-N1 was placed at the wrong top and bottom grade eleva-tion. The top of the slab was placed at 507.7 feet instead.of 507.0 , feet and the bottom of the slab was placed at 506 feet instead of 505 feet.
The inspector examined the licensee's final response dated May 14, 1981 and discussed the item with responsible engineers.
Concrete was chipped out, reinforcement relocated and the slab repoured to comply with drawings.
The NRC inspector examined the completed work and records documenting the repairs. Additional rebar inspection takeoff checklists have been implemented by Civil - Quality Control. Craftf foremen now verify proper installation with their fabrication check-lists.
s Thic, item is closed.
_, s , -. = }}