ML19322A833
| ML19322A833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1971 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Crossman W, Long F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A832 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-71-02, 50-270-71-2, 50-287-71-02, 50-287-71-2, NUDOCS 7911270370 | |
| Download: ML19322A833 (15) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- O U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY CO.'NISSION REGION II 1 j DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE i Report of Construction inspection 4 C0 Report Nos. 50-270/71-2 i 50-287/71-2 l Licensee: Duke Power Company Oconee 2 and 3 License Nos. CPPR-34 and 35 Category A l Date of Inspection: March 11-12, 1971 Date of Previous Inspection: January 6-7, 1971 Inspected By: b b y99 1 04 h4!7/ V. L. Brownlee, Reactor Inspector 'D6te ~/ i (In Charge) M- ~~ BY24'7/ W. A. Crossman, Reactor Inspector Date M,24/7/ Reviewed 3y: C 7 F. J. Longf, Senior Eiactor Inspector '/' Proprietary Information: None 4 SCOPE An unannounced inspection was perforced at the two 2,568 Mwe pressurized water reactors under construction near Seneca, South Carolina, known as Oconee Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Inspection efforts were directed toward a review of pregress of construction, site document and document change control, follow-on inspection of contain-ment construction, and review of the reactor vessel and steam generator setting. Containment construction efforts were performed to the scope of PI 3800/2 and by the requirements of the provisional instructions of Attach-ment C (P1 4600 - Concrete, PI 4700 - Post-tensioning and PI 4500 - Welding). 7911270 3 7 0
.s C0 Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 Ccaments relating to the concrete and post-tensioning portion of the inspection are contained in Sections F and G, by Crossman, i i
SUMMARY
l Safety Items - None l Nonconformance Items - A CDN is recommended for lack of a field QA/QC pro-gram for control of documents and document changes. (See Section D.) Unusual occurrences - None Status of Previously Reoorted Problems - Pressurizer Relief (Safety) Valves (C0 Report Nos. 50-270, 287/71-1, Section D and Iten No. 3 of other Significant Items) Duke Power Company (Duke) has amended the FSAR, and Babcock and Wilcox Co=pany (E&W) has issued a change to the purchase order / specification to eliminate the requirement for the shell hydrostatic test to be per-formed per USAS B16.5. Test pressure will be 3750 psi. Other Significant Itens - 1. Procress of Construction l a. Unit No. 2 is es timated to be 63T, complete. b. Unit No. 2 steam generators and reactor vessel have been set. I c. Unit No. 2 dome concrete has been placed. d. Unit No. 3 is estimated to be 40% complete. (See Section C.) 2. Organization Duke has been enlarging the QC and technical support group at Oconee in preparation for manning the McGuire facility. The organizational realignment has started. (See Section B.) w m
CO Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 3. Concrete Material Records Test records which indicate the quality of materials were not complete. (See Section F.) Followup action is not anticipated. 4. Design Mix The mix for 5000 psi concrete, at 28-day strength, was field designed and tested. The nix varies considerably from the original design. (See Section F.) Followup action is not anticip ated. 5. Containment Wall Placement Obs e rvat iot. f work performance, inspection and testing was performed during an 86 cy pour in Unit No. 3 containment wall. (See Section F.) No discrepancies were noted. 6. Tendon Sheathing Inspection Tendon sheathing records were reviewed for Unit No. 2 dome placement and the pour of a section of the Unit No. 3 vall.. Mortar tightness of the aheathing was checked during the wall pour. (See Section G.) No discrepancies were noted. Management Exit Interview .The inspectors met informally with licensee's representatives Beam and Hunnicutt. The inspectors debriefed the licensee representatives on those areas covered by the insicetion and the findings. Brewnlee 1. Ecuipment Hatch Installation The inspection was a follow-on inspection f rom the previous inspection. No deficiencies were noted, i 2. Document and Document Change Control The licensee was informed that the inspector fcund Duke lacking a docu-mented field QC procedure for control of documents and document changes (drawings). The licensee was informed of the several discrepancies j noted during the inspection (see Section D) and that issuance of a CDN i would be reconmended. A
-q 00 Rp t. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 3. Vendor Insoection Arrangements were made for Oller, Region III, Vendor Inspector, to audit the B&W shops, Mt. Vernon, during the week of March 31 through April'1, 1971. Unit No. 3 reactor vessel will be the subject of the audit. Crossman 1. Material Tests The inspector pointed out that not all material tests were available. It was also stated that proof of material quality should be available prior to design mix batching. Hunnicutt stated that he was sure the material tests were available at the time of design mix testing and that they must be on file in Charlotte. The inspector explained to Hunnicutt that degradation of materials is possible and that a routine test of quality should be made at regular inte rvals. 2. Design Mixes Variation of the present C-1 and C-2 mixes from the originally designed mixes was discussed. The inspector-pointed out that changes from the original design were so great as to, render the original proportions invalid. McCrary explained that the original mixes,.which contained flyash, could not be used because the flyash contained so much carbon that required levels of entrained air could not be maintained..Conse-quently, the flyash addition was eliminated and the cement addition in creas e d. He s tated further that the final C-1 and C-2 mixes had been field tested and proofed by placing and testing approximately 6000 cy of the mixes in structures before utilizing it in Class I structures. DETAILS A. Persons Contacted
- D.
G. Beam - Assistant Project Engineer
- G.
L. Hunnicutt - Senior Field Engineer T. E. Touchs tone - Field Engineer (Civil)
- Present at the management exit interview.
e-CU Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-7 50-287/71-2 D. L. breeze.- Field. Engineer (Office) R. E..Blaisdell.-. Assis tant _ Field Enginee r (Welding) G..W. Grier . Field Engineer (NDI) A. B. McCrary.- Supervising Technician, Concrete C. Alexander - Pipe Foreman H. Grant.- Pipe Foreman R. Wald - Pipe Inspector W. E. Martin - Pipe Foreman Powell - Carpenter Foreman B. Organization Personnel.for.the Duke site QC.and technical support organization have progressively increased in number during the past ten-month period. The buildup is in preparation for manning the McGuire site organization with qualified personnel.. Wells, Principal Field Engineer at Oconee,.has.been assigned to Assis tant Project Engineer to.the McGuire.f acility. Hunnicutt has replaced Wells as the Oconee Principal Field Engineer. Rogers, Oconee. Project Engineer, has been . assigned as Project Engineer.for.the Oconee and McGuire facilities. Beam has.been. assigned as Assistant Project Engineer for the Oconee facility, replacing Rogers as Project Engineer. C. Progress of Construction Percent of physical. construction completion for Unit No. 2 is estimated to be 68% and Unit No. 3 is 40%. 1. Unit No. 2 Steam generator 2A was. set.on February 19, 1971, steam generator 2B on March.1,1971,.and. reactor vessel on March 3,19 71. Contain-ment done concrete was.placed on March 9-10, 1971. Primary loop pipe is expected to be.onsite the first of April and loop erection is expected to commence af ter April 15, 1971. Present construction efforts are concentrated.on containment internal s tructures and supports in preparation for loop erection. Duke has electe3 to install Bingham Pump Company (31ngham) pumps in Unit 2. The inspec-tor has made. arrangements to discuss, at the next scheduled inspec-tien, the problens associated with the Bingham pumps, correction and Duke's evaluation and decision to use the pumps. (See Exhibit A, Photos 4, 5, 6, and 7.)
l ~ CO Rp t. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 2. Unit No. 3 i Containment. liner erection is at the eight course with concrete i at the.fifth lift. Containment internal structural and support work continues. (See Exhibit A, Photos 1, 2, and 3.) Major component arrival dates (estimate) are as follows: Item Shipping Forecast Pressurizer October 25, 1971 Steam Generator 3A July 28,1971 Steam Generator 3B August 16, 1971 Raactor Vessel July 14, 1971 Reactor Ccolant Pipe September 15, 1971 I D. Locument and Document Change _ l The inspector performed an inspection of Duke's field document and document change, control QA/QC program. The inspector utilized drawings I as the selected sample for test. j It was determined.that Duke dees not have a documented field QC pro-i cedure for document and document change control; field forces are functioning with an informal (not documented) distribution control system; field.QC personnel were not familiar with the informal system requirements, particularly regarding recordkeeping; and drawings identified for." Unit Cne Only".were observed in the working stick' files for Unit 2 together with obsolete drawings. Several workbenches l-throughout the facility were noted to have obsolete drawings stacked 4 on tcp or beneath the workbench. Several prints were noted to be ) taped to walls with. tape over the legend data such that identification ~ f o f print, revision, etc., could not be es tablished. Duke's QA/QC program.for field control of documents and document changes is considered to be inadequate and a CDN is recommended. l-E. Eaulement Hatch I { The inspector. performed a follow-on inspection of QC records and inspection of.the finished ins tallation. The inspector reviewed the j radiographs.of circled. areas noted on_ Exhibit C. Numbers located at i circled areas are veldor. symbols. The inspector reviewed the "Dady l Welding inspection Record," Form QC-17. All welds were noted to be 100% PT and 100% visual inspected. The " Radiographic Inspection i.
3 i C0 Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2,, 50-287/71-2 ~- 1. s Report," QC-30, was reviewed. All radiographs were accepted. Notations on. radiographs were. visually. checked and properly noted. The inspector found all reviewed radiographs acceptable. No further inspection regarding the equipment hatch is anticipated. F. Concrete Dome pour No. 4 (Oconee pour No. 2351) of containment structure No. 2 and.the. pour of wall 6-A (Oconee pour No. 2353) at 30* to 90* and elevation 824 feet to 834 feet were selected for record review. The pour of wall 6-A was observed to follow work performance. 4605.05 - Record Review Dome pour No. 4 of containment structure 2 was estimated at 1,100 cy. .Ihe " Record of. Concrete Placed," Form QC-5, estimated the quantity placed.1,0SO.cy. ' The quantity. batched by " Record of Concrete Batched," Form QC-1, was.1,096 cy. Two 8 cy batches were rejected because of delay. The placement was begun at 8:30 a.m. on March 9,1971, and was completed at 10:30 a.m. on March 10, 1971. The method of place-ment was by 2 cy buckets from a Manitowac and Tower Crane, a.1 - Concrete Strength Tes ts Or.2 set of six specimen cylinders is required for each 100 cy of con-crete placed. Twelve sets were obtained during the doce placement. No compressive strength tests data was available since seven days had not elapsed. a.2 - Slumo Tests Slump and air entrainment. tests.are required every 36 cy. Thirty-two slump. tests and air entrainment determinations were made during the pour. Slump. varied.from 1-1/2 inches to 2-1/2 inches and the air entrainment. varied.f rom 3.4% to 6.4%. Cr ncrete temperature was. observed to range.from 44*F to 56*F. b.1 - Material' Selection Records and Tests b.l.(a) - Aggregate Tests (1) Coarse Aggregate Coarse aggregate used in the.C-2 mix is equal proportions of No. 4 and.No. 67 s tone. Coarse. aggregate is supplied f rom the Campbell Limes tone Quarry, Blacksburg, South Carolina. A ~ s ,Pk-_ h.w f 7 ,m = 9- -y ei H 3 -W%- -g A. - te y
C0 Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 gradation tes t is performed on each railcar. Four cars (260 tons) of No. 4 material were rej ected between February 17, 19 71, and February 25, 1971, because the one-inch and three-fourths-inch s tone were higher than the allowable limits of ASTM C33, " Concrete Aggregates." Sieve analysis, specific gravity tests and abscrption deter-ednations were. observed.to be performed with adequate f requency and adequacy. However,.there.were no records to indicate that tes ts such as "Tes t for Soundness of Aggregates," C88; "Tes t for Fine Materials in Aggregates," Cll7; "Resis tance to Abrasion by Use of the LA Machine," C131; " Friable Particles in Aggregates," Cl42 ; and "Tes t for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates," C2 89. Hunnicutt stated that he was sure that all the above tests had been performed and the records were on file in Charlorte, except that the alkali content of the cement was so low (0.5% to 1.0%) that the reactivity potential of the aggregate with the cement alkali would be negligible and C239 was not performed. (2) Fine Acgregate Sand is supplied by the Becker Sand and Gravel Company of Hagood, South Carolina. Sieve analysis, colorimetric tests, specific gravity tes ts, and absorp tion measurements were reviewed and observed to be within specifications. Moisture content is monitored continuously during batching operations. b.l.(b) - Water The Gree.nville Concrete Company utilizes water f rom Seneca and ice from Anderson and Greenville. Analyses on an annual basis are supplied by the South Carolina State 3ccrd of Health for each source. The tests are per farmed and certified by Parker Laboratory of Charles ton, South Carolina. Results address color, chloride, nitrates, alkalinity, ^ hardness, free carbon dioxide, iron, total solids, pH and fluoride. b.1.(c) - Ceuent Portland cement is supplied by Universal Atlas Cement Company (Atlas). One mill test per shipment is supplied to Duke. The Atlas test of grind for type II,1cw elkali was certified to be in accordance with " Standard Specification for Portland Cement," C150.
C0 Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 In addition to tests by Atlas,.the cement is sampled at each new grinding or.cace per month by Duke and analyzed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL). b.l.(e) - Admixes An. air entraining admix and a set retarding adnix are used in the C-2. design. nix.. "Elastiment," canufactured by Sika Chemical Company, is used as.the.regarding agent; "Solair," manuf actured by Swif t and Cocpany, is utilized as an air entraining agent. b. 2 - Mir De sign Place =ent records verify the mix design as C-2. Trip tickets reviewed for truck Nos. 90 and.94 from the batch plant reflected weights of ingredients for 8 cy of the mix. (See Section 4505.05.) b.3 - Batch Plant Calibratien The cement, aggregate and water scales were last checked and calibrated an January 16,.1971. They are sealed by the South Carolina Department of Agriculture. Admix. measuring equipment is in a glass calibrated cylinder. Barring excessive density changes in the adnixtures, the amount added to the mix is cons tant. b.7 - Placement Records and Centrols (a) Location Inspection "Prepour Site Inspection," For: QC-4, shows that the electrical, layout party, form and reinforcing, concrete and techanical foremen. signed.off before the placement began. In additien, the concrete inspector and QC engineer signed the inspection sheet. (b) Mix Design The prepour inspection record requires mix No. 2-C. The above (b.2) truck trip tickets indicate ingredients of proportions corresponding to design mix No. C-2. (c) Mix Time The " Record of Cont. rete Placed" with the " Record of Concrete Batched" gives a co=plete mix time his tory of each batch including time batched, time arrived at site, time poured and time the truck departed. Batch plant mixing requires that the truck not leave
C0 Rp t. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 the plant until 70 revolutions at mixing speed have been accomplished. Total revolutions are checked at the placement area to assure that mixing was adequate. The inspector observed that the counters shewed 184 and 192 revolutiens, respectively, prior to discharge. 4605.05 - Observation of Work Performance a.3 - Preplacement Inspection The pour in wall 6-A of the No. 3 unit containment structure was Oconce Pour No. 2353. Esticated placement was 91 cy and actual placed was 86 cy. Prepour inspection was by concrete inspector R. M. Simmons. The site inspection record indicates that all cognizant craft foreman signed off. a.4 and 5 - Mix Desizn and Tes ting Batches 2, 7 and 11 from trucks 91, 94 and 93, respectively, were utilized for testing. The six cylinders for ccepressive strength testing were fron Batch 7. The QC engineers who performed the tests and prepared the specimens were W. Pack and P. Burrell. a.6 - Crew Size Crew size for the A-6 placement consisted of eight ren. The foreman was H. McMurray. Two electric vibrators were utilized and a third was kept as a s tandby. For the small pour, crew size and equipment was adequate. b.5 - Proper Mix, Location and Timing Both the QC engineer and QC inspector are charged with review of the trip tickets, mixing time,.rdxing revolutions and visual inspection of the concrete as it arrives at the placement site. The QC engineer has ultimate inspection responsibility. Two-way co==unications are available to the inspectors at the site, laboratory, and batch plant. Trucks timed f rom the ba tch plant to the placement site were observed to be within allowable time limits f rc= vater addtion to unicading. I
~ C0 Rp t. Nos. 50-270/71-2. 50-287/71-2 b.8 - QC Inspectors Batching and placing. records.for placement A-6 reflect adequate surveillance and. inspection by the QC inspectors. The records indicate good communication between Si= mons at the batch plant and Pace at the site. No concrete was rejected during the pour. G. Prestressed Concrete Dome pour No. 4 (0conee pour No. 2351) of ccatainment structure No. 2 and the pour of wall 6-A (0conee Pour No. 2353) were also utilized for record review of tendon sheathing inspection and the latter pour was utilized for observation of work performance regarding care of sheathing during concrete placement. 4705.05 - Record Review a.3.(b) - Installation Records - Sheathing The location and anchorage of tendon sheaths prior to concrete place-ment and the. location, roundness and mortar tightness are checked after the. concrete is cast. Inside clearance is checked for correctness by pulling a calibrated " rat" through each tendon sheath. The " Tendon Sheathing Inspection" record, Fora QC-21, for the pour of wall 6-A is attached as Exhibit B. The record shows that 29 vertical sheath and 12 horizontal sheath checks were witnessed by Burrell. All tendon sheaths in the doce pour were lis ted horizontally. Four layers at the various azimuths were checked for a total of 324 sheaths as follows: Level No. of Sheaths 1 84 2 84 3 78 4 78 All clearance checking was witnessed by Simmons. 4705.06 - Observation of Work Performance a.1 - Placement and Anchorage The inspcetor observed that the vertical and horizontal sheathing was positioned at regular intervals and with enough clearance to allow concrete to satisf actorily surround each sheath.
C0 Rpt. Nos. 50-270/71-2 50-287/71-2 The tendons were observed to be solidly anchored to reinforcing steel spurs to avoid their being floated out of position during concrete placement. The inspector noted specifically that care was exercised not to allow the concrate f rom the tremie to f all on the horizontal sheaths. a.2 - Roundness and Mortar Tighti ess The tendon sheaths were of a corrugated spiral design to achieve maximum conpressive strength for the wall thickness. No tendons were observed to be damaged and all sheaths exhibited satisf actory inside clearances before and af ter the pour (Exhibit B). The ends of the. vertical sheaths were observed to be plugged with wooden plugs but a. couple missing in the horizontal sheaths were pointed out to Hunnicutt. a.6 and 7 - Work Procedures and QC The. work practices of.the placement crew andicated that work pro-cedures.were adequate and that the crew had been properly instructed both in protection of the sheathing during concrete placement and in checking of the inside cl2arance of the sheathing. It was observed that proper QC inspections were perforced in the critical areas. Documentation of all checkpoints appeared to be adequate. Attachments: Exhibits A, B, and C (Exhibit A - C0 HQ cy only)
- t 3
a% DUKE POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION DEPT. QUALITY CONTROL RECORDS TENDON SHEATHING INSPECTION &'g'L.gregg, *. PROJECT 000 l'E UNIT ~3 u $ d M *'VECK IF o CCRRECT VERTICAL TENDON I$E TENDON LOCATION ' '//d'S 30 f0 REMAEKS & pre.jpem b'llr'R".5' 'I '?/ b*jfg" 3-R ')/ n o' ~' fi' p'( s/ / ^ l
- ' W HORIZONTAL y $ y