ML20029B174
| ML20029B174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1991 |
| From: | Roth J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Hurt R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029B170 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-32, REF-QA-99990081-910227 NUDOCS 9103060084 | |
| Download: ML20029B174 (5) | |
Text
.. _
.js as+g e
f.
UNITED STATES 9
U i
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION MEQlON I 478 ALLENOALE MOAD
-KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 16400 Docket No. 99990081 (50-201)
FEB J 5 iss; g
- MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. Davis Hurt, West Valley Project Manager Advanced Fuel and Special Facilities Section Fuel Cycle Safety _ Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards THRU:
R. J. Bores, Chief Effluents Radiation Protection Section Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Reginn I FROM:
J'. Roth, Project Engineer, EPPS, FRSSB, DRSS, Region I
SUBJECT:
DOE WEST VALLEY PROJECT n o,.,
On Feervary 22-24, 1991, a monitoring visit was made to the Department of Energy (DOE) _ West Valley Demonstration Project site to review the contractor's (West Valley Nuclear Services Company - WVNS) activities with regard to the placement of concrete-into the vitrification facility shield wall modules, Details of this review are provided in Attachment 1.
Individuals present at the Exit Interview with the contractor are indicated in Attachment 2.
As a result of this review, the monitors determined that, in general, concrete construction activities at the site appeared to be adequate and the final product should be acceptable. However, as' discussed in Attachment 1,. DOE and its contract-, WVNS, should pay more attention to details, especially in the area of record keeping, so that appropriate records of concrete placement activities are maintained.
At the Exit Interview contractor personnel committed to provide the NRC Region I office with an updated schedule concerning placement of concrete into the top sections of each wall module.
f.
rome Roth, Project Engineer Ef fluents Radiation Protection Section Attachments:
As Stated 9103060084 910227 PDR PROJ M-32 PDR
i R, Davis Hurt 2
pgg,5 199; cc:
Docket File M. A. Austin, DRSS J. H. Joyner, DRSS
'J. Swift, NMSS C. Haughney, NMSS S. Chandary, DRS H. Gray, DRS 4
4
e ATTACHMENT 1 REVIEW OF WEST VALLEY VITRIFICATION FACILITY SHIELD WALL MODULE CONCRETE PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES (FEBRUARY 22-24,1991) a,mw The monitors reviewed documentation, held discussions with cognizant personnel, examined completed concrete construction and reinforcement bar placements, and witnessed part of the placement of concrete into the lower portions of two wall modules. The intent of this monitoring visit was to determine the adequacy of procedural and quality controls, planning and execution of concrete placement, and acceptability of documentation to establish conformance to design requirements. Based on the documentation review, discussions with DOE and contractor personnel, and personal observations, the monitors determined the following.
A.
GENERAL 1.
The construction specification contained sufficient information to define requirements and acceptance criteria.
2.
QA/QC procedure and testing requirements were adequate to assure and verify the quality of materials and construction activities.
3.
The mix-design of the concrete was qualified and was approved for use in the wall modules.
4.
Reinforcing bars were placed in conformance with the design details and the splices met the specification and code requirements.
5.
Concrete transporting equipment appeared to be suitable, and appeared to be in acceptable working condition.
6.
The time interval between mixing, transport, and delivery of the concrete did not exceed specification limits.
B.
PLACEMENT 1.
The planning for concrete placement was detailed and thorough to assure good quality of the concrete.
2.
Pre placement inspection assured that forms /re-bars were secure, concrete receiving surfaces were clean, and placement setup (concrete pump lines) was proper for minimizing segregation and ensuring effective consolidation of wet concrete.
3.
Batch tickets contained all required information to ascertain the acceptability of the concrete mix.
4.
Concrete temperature, slump, air content, and unit weight were being determined at the proper locations and frequencies, l
1
i.
ATTACHMENT 1 2
L 5.
Informal interviews and discussions with field craft, QC personnel, and supervision indicated that they were experienced and knowledgeable in' concrete construction techniques and the applicable specification requirements.
The monitors, however, observed that qualification data for accelerating admixture in the mix design were based on the use of type-I cement; whereas, the mix design itself was based on the use of l
type-II cement.
This anomaly was resolved, however, by the cement manufacturer (Master Builders). Qualification of the concrete mixture using type-II cement was verified, i
Another instance of oversight was identified in the acceptance and use of vibrators.
The vibrators used on site for consolidation of concrete had not been verified for acceptable frequency range prior I
to or during use.
However, the monitors observed that the vibrators were adequate to effectively consolidate the placed concrete.
The monitors also observed that the post placement inspection report and the compression-test reports containad contradictory information.
The post placement report indicated satisfactory curing for the required period (7' days).
However, this was verified before the fact on the day of form removal.
The compression test report indicated that the acceptable slump limit was 2 inches to 4 inches, whereas the mix was designed for a 7 inch to 10 inch-slump, and the actual slump of the tested batch was approximately 71: inches.
The monitors also noted that the contractor did not assure in all instances that the I
concrete surface was smoothed and that voids were filled with grout following removal of the forms.
This is needed to facilitate decontamination of the surface during subsequent decommissioning of the facility and to assure that the proper cover was present over the installed re-bar -in accordance with code requirements.
These anomalies were brought to the attention of contractor and 00E l
personnel, and satisfactory explanations were provided to the monitors.
DOE management at the site assured the monitors that these inconsistencies would be examined and corrected. Although the above observations did not materially degrade the quality of the i
l concrete, they did indicate a lack of attention to-detailgnd a lack of appreciation for good-record keeping.
C.
CONCLUSIONS Apart from the above observations, concrete construction at the site.
l appeared adequate, and the final product should be acceptable. However, the monitors indicated that 00E and its contractor should pay more l-attention to details, especially in the area of record keeping, so that appropriate records of concrete placement activities are maintained, i
(
l
6 ATTACHMENT 2
- 0. Crouthamel QA M. Haas RES & QA S. Harbison NYSERDA W. Ketola DOE-VVPO J. Knabenschuh ESH & QA R. Lawrence Vitrification W. Poulson DEPGM R. Provencher WVPO-D0E R. Schulz WVNS Const. Proj.
P. Van Loan DOE-WVPO