IR 05000567/1979009
| ML19247B010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Gouge M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247A971 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-79-09, 50-566-79-9, 50-567-79-09, 50-567-79-9, NUDOCS 7908060308 | |
| Download: ML19247B010 (6) | |
Text
.
.
- ga an.go, UNITE D STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM SSION
.
.c REGION 11
- .( ( J >.
r S fv/,J
[
101 M ARIE T T A sT, N.W., SUIT E 3100 AT L ANT A, GE okGI A 30303
[
6,
'\\,
.....
Report Nos. 50-566/79-09 and 50-567/79-09 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nrs.
50-566 and 50-567 License Nos.
CPPR-1,_ and CPPR-173 Inspection at Yellow Creek site near luka, Mississippi Inspector:
'g d i
[ M 29
,
M; A Gouge Da e Signed
)
'
e Approved bv:~ I T Cantrell, Actin Spetion Chici, RCES Branch Dite Si'gned
/
SUMMARY Inspection on June 5-8, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspecticn involved twenty-seven inspector-hours onsite in the areas of concrete placement (Unit 1), containment welding (Unit 1), QA records, QA procedures and followup on a licensee identified item.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; two apparent items.I noncompliar..e were found in two areas (infraction - Concrete Activities, pa rt. graph 5.a. ; infraction
-
Bulkweld Powdered Metal Chemical Analysis, paragrpah 5.b.).
421 195 7908060soe
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. M. Price, Project Manager
- L.
S. Cox, Construction Engineer
- C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer (QC)
S. G. Carr, Assistant Construction Engineer (PE)
J. C. Adams, Assistant Construction Superintendent
- L. G. Hebert, OEDC QA Staf f
- J. N. Holladay, Supervisor, Project QA Unit
- R. G. Delay, Supervisor, Civil QC Unit
- M. F. Stakley, Supervisor, Welding QC Unit E. W. McGuire, General Labor Foreman S. E. Alge, Supervisor, DCU G. B. Alexander, Civil QC Unit D. P. Reynolds, Civil QC Unit L. E. Swafford, DCU
- J.
M. Guillot, Porject QA Unit J. Putman, Civil QC Unit Other licensee employees contacted incluc ' various construction craftsmen, tecLnicians and office personnel.
Other Organizations Chicago Bridge and Iron Company C. L. Spears, QA Superintendent L. Savage, QA Technician
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized ca June 8, 1979, with those per :ns indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
2f f96 4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
_
.
.
.
.
"
-2-5.
Independent Inspection Ef fort Concrete Placement and Related Activities (Unit 1)
a.
The inspector oh.er W partial placement of Category I concrete pour Al-D4 at elevation 445 feet in the Unit I reactor building area.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are specified in the f ollowing documents:
1)
Section 3.8 of the PSAR and TVA Topical Report 75-1A 2)
TVA Specification G _, " Plain and Reinforced Concrete" 3)
Quality Control Instructions C-201 through C-214 4)
Drawing 4RE0417-5R-1, RS, Walls and Slabs 5)
Drawing 4RE0418-5R-1, R3, Reinforcement 6)
Specification NSC-881, " Plain and Reinf orced Concrete" Forms were tight and clezn and preplacescrt inspection was indicated by the signed pour cart Areas iny+cted included delivery, conveying, placement, consolidation, testing aad curing of concrete.
The following records were reviewed oy the inspector for pour Al-D4:
1)
Concrete Pour Card 2)
Concrete Sample Data Sheet 3)
hixing Plant Report 4)
Concre'.e Curing Report 5)
Slump Control Record Concrete operations were continuously monitored by Civil QC personnel.
The licensee's program for control of Category I concrete w_s given a broad review by the Region II inspector.
During the review it was determined that the licensee was not following procedures in several areas. These areas are described in detail below:
1)
The Region II inspector witnessed slump, unit weight and air content tests for a sample from Category I pour Al-D4.
The sample was representative of 100 cubic yards of concrete produced by the batch plant for pour Al-D4 as required by QCI C-208, R5.
The measured slump was 3 inches which exceeded the limit specified in Table 1, QCl C-208 for slabs greater th>n 48 inches thick.
The QC inspector ordered the truck wasted that contained concrete
/}l from the rample batch, destroyed the data sheet for the sample,
.
-3-and wasted the compressive strength cylinders molded f rom the concrete sample. Another sample of the concrete mix was obtained and properly recorded in accordance with QCI C-208.
The practice of discarding out of specification concrete sample results when the sample represents 100 cubic yards of concrete is unacceptable and contrary to QCI C-208, which provides procedures for documenting and controlling out of specification test results. Out of specifi-cation samples should be documented, identified as nonconforming, if applicable, and dispositioned per established procedures. The Region II inspector discussed the significance of this problem with licensee management. Licensee management stated the problem would be corrected immediately and all concrete samples properly recorded and compressive strength cylinders retained.
2)
The Region II inspector noted improper vibration of the top layer of pour Al-D4.
Vibrators were inserted at acute angles and failed to penetrate to the previous layer of concrete. This is not in accordance with the licensee's procedure QCI C-201, Appendix 4, Section 11.2.
3)
Concrete was deposited on occasion during pour Al-D4 in one large pile f rom the bucket, and vibrators were used to flow the concrete excessive horizontal distances (6 - 8 feet) to outlying areas.
This is not in accordance with the licensee's procedure QCI C-201, Appendix 3, Section 10.4.
4)
Some concrete compressive strength cylinders were observed to be surf ace dry in the moist curing room. This is not in accordance with the licensee's procedure QCl C-208, Appendix 4, Section 7.3.
5)
The mold f rom cylinder 684 was not removed at 16 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after molding as required by the licensee's procedure QCl C-208, Appendix 4, Section 7.3.
The examples discussed above of failure to follow procedures for the control of Category I concrete are contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
This item is identified as Inf raction 566/79-09-03, Concrete Activities.
b.
Containment Vessel Welding Program (Unit 1)
The inspector observed in process velding of the carbon steel spherical containment vessel plates.
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI) is the contractor responsibile for fabrication of the spherical steel containment vessel.
CBI is utilizing an automatic submerged are welding process with twin EH-14 electrodes on the vessel plates. CBI has recently implemented a bulkweld powder metal that is fed into the veld by a metering device attached to the automatic welding machine.
CBI has developed procedures to control the EH-14 with bulkveld powdered 421 19 8 metal process. The Region II inspector reviewed Certified Material Test
-4-Reports for electrode heat number 40lH0961 and TAPCO bulkweld powdered metal heat number 0479008.
Procedure VMS 479, Rev 0 (CBI) states in part 4.0, "The chemical analysis of the powdered metal shall conform to AWS classification EH-14 in SFA 5.17 of Section II, Part C, Table I of the ASME code and the special requiremonts of this section." Table I in SFA 5.17 of Section II, Part C, ASME Code, 1974 edition with Summer 1976 addenda requires an analysis of the following six elements:
carbon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, silicon and copper. The Certified Material Test Report submitted to CBI by Tapco (heat number 0479008)
and reviewed by CBI QA staff had a chemical analysis of only three of the six required elements. No chemical analysis had been performed to determine the concentrations of phosphorus, sulfur or copper. CBI has placed the bulkweld powdered metal on QC hold, and has placed the plates welded with the powdered metal on the project nonconformance list pending a determination of the concentrations of the three elements listed above. Failure to follow procedures to control the chemical concentrations of critical elements in the bulkweld po.:dered metal is contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and is identified as Infraction 566/79-09-04, Bulkweld Powdered Metal Chemical Analysis, c.
Quality Assurance (QA) Records (Units 1 and 2)
1)
Quality Control Investigation Reports (QCIR)/Nonconformance Report (NCR) System (Units 1 and 2)
The master QCIR log maintained by the Document Control Unit was reviewed for content and accuracy in accordance with Construction Engineering Procedure (CEP) 15.01.
Completed (cleared) QCIR's up to and including QCIR 12143 were reviewed for acceptable disposition.
Site originated NCR's 001 through 009 were reviewed for conformance to CEP 15.03. The QCIR and NCR systems were found to be implemented and functioning in accordance with CEP 15.01 and CEP 15.03, respectively.
2)
Quality Assurance (QA) Audits (Units 1 and 2)
The following audits conducted by the site QA Unit were examined by the p roj ect inspector for completeness, deficiencies found, corrective action taken and implementation in accordance with the licensee's procedures QASP 7.1 and CE? 18.01:
Audit No.
SAiect YC-L-79-01
" Concrete Mixing Plant Operations: Material and Concrete Sampling and Testing" YC-G-79-05
" Site Originated Procurement Document Control" YC-C-79-06
" Identification and Marking of Materials, 421 149 Parts and Components"
'
-5-YC-C-79-04
"Cadwelding Activities" YC-C-79-05
" Grouting of Rebars and Anchors" The above audits were found to be conducted and documented in an objective manner.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
Quality Assurance (QA) P;ocedures (Units 1 and 2)
The licensee has written approximately 24 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) that are unique to Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant and are used to augment or clarify Construction Engineering Procedures (CEP's) or Quality Control Instructions (QCI's). The policy memorandum contained in the CEP manual provides for review and approval of the CEP/QCI procedures by the Quality Assurance Staff.
The site generated SOP's are not reviewed nor approved by the QA Staf f.
The licensee is currently evaluating the content of the SOP's to determine if a QA review and approval is necessary.
Pending the results of this determination and subsequent review by the project inspector, this area is identified as inspector followup item 566-567/79-09-01 Standard Operating Procedure QA Review.
The licensee identifies those personnel with stop work authority on page 3 of the policy memorandum contained in the CE. maunal. The licensee does not, however, have a procedure describing how stop work action is initiated or how work can be resumed once it is halted.
Discussions with licensee employees in the engineering and quality assurance units indicate some confusion exists as to how to stop work and what management level controls the stopping or resumption of safety related work. Pending further evalaution by the project inspector this item is identified as inspector followup item 566-567/79-09-02, Stop Work Procedure.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Identified Item (LII) (Units 1 and 2)
(Closed) Item 566-567/79-07-01: Piping elbows made of unspecified materials.
The seven nonconforming piping elbows have been returned to the vendor (Tube Turns).
Nonconformance Report (NCR) 007 documenting this problem had been closed by site personnel. The licensee's final report dated May 25, 1979, has been reviewed by the project inspector. The corrective actions and measures to prevent a recurrence described in the report are acceptable. This item is closed.
421 200