ML20137F642
Text
r g
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY 2003 It RY AN TOWEH. DA LLW.TE.N A14 75201 TXX-1331 January 15, 3976 Mr. G. L. Madsen, Acting Chief Reactor Construction and Operations Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection &~ Enforcement 6 1 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION RESPONSE TO Nku INSPECTION REPORT NO. 75-13 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 & 50-446 FILE NO. 10130
Dear Mr. Madsen:
We have reviewed the report on the inspection conducted by Messrs. R. C. Stewart and W. G. Hubacek (November 18-21 &
December 1,1975) of the activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR 126 and.127, for the Comanche Peak facility. We have-responded to the finding listed in the "Sumary of Findings" section of your " Inspection Report" dated December 16, 1975.
To aid in the understanding of our response, we have repeated the requirement and your finding, followed on the same page by our corrective action.
We believe the attached information to be responsive to the Inspector's finding. If you have any questions, please advise.
Yours very truly, l
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
.$ W
~
fJ Q L Forbis
/ Vice President V
JLF ld Attachment cc:
Mr. P. G. Brittain 8512020065 851106 PDR FOIA GARDE 8 5-59 PDR I
.. ~..... -
m_
s'
=c 3.
per letter GTN-4455 Gibbs & Hill established a daily inspection control program for coarse aggregate grada-tions. This testing program was subsequently expanded (FPAR-71, GHF-328 & GHF-332) to include fineness modulus, minus #200 material and fine aggregate, and as such 6 of 25 DDR's issued during the interim period were dispositioned.
4.
In order to improve gradation characteristics aggre-gate stockpiles on site have been removed from the bins and remixed.
Subsequent testing indicated the materials conformed to specifications. This disposi-tion accounted for the material in 2 of the 25 DDR's.
5.
Materials scrapped. This disposition accounted for the i
material in 3 of 25 of the DDR's.
6.
Handling and loading procedures at'the aggre' gate supplier's Brazos River facility have been improved by installing boxes and/or chutes in ahe end of the stacker conveyor, revised stockpile loading proce-dures, installing a V-trough on the stacker conveyor' to prevent segregation of fines and installing. divider walls between the 3/4" aggregate stockpiles.
This disposition accounted for the material in 1 of 25 j
DDR's.
7.
In isolated instances when the site storage bins are
. full or otherwise unavailable for new aggregate retention, the material is stockpiled on concrete slabs located adjacent to the. main storage facility.
One DDR relating to~ sampling techniques resulted from stockpile in lieu of conveyor belt sampling, an alternate method approved by Engineer on a case by case basis. The gradation tests cited in rhis DDR indicated specification conformance.
Additional corrective actions which have been' taken include utilization of an independent testing lab to do visual inspection, as well as cleanliness and gradation tests at the supplier's facilities, completion of on site gradation j
testing before concrete is to be placed, and the installa-tion of rock ladders at two site storage bins.
The inspection report also noted the followingi..." the accumulative resolutions and dispositions contained in the DDR's and CAR-2 do not provide objective or qualitative evidence that the approximately 6,000 cubic yards of C1 css' I concrete previously placed in containment foundation base mats is of uniform concrete".
e,
,. - _..... ~ _
,.J_._
a
.i ' '.
/
An additional source of #67 size aggregate for Class "A" concrete has been selected and design mixes have been approved. This is a manufactured (crushed rock) aggre-gate which can be expected to have more consistent grada-tion results.
+
1 To facilitate monitoring trends in aggregate test results, j
plots are now being maintained and updated regularly.
Clarification of Inspection Report Line 3 of paragraph 2 of item 3a,- found on page 7 of " Summary of Findings"
[
stated that 25 DDR's were written.... "during receiving inspection....".
i None of the 25 were written "during receiving. inspection". Four;of 25 were written on aggregate not yet received on jobsite. The remainder were written
- as results of daily in process acceptance tests of aggregates.
Line 7 of paragraph 4 of item 3a, found on page 7 of " Summary of Findings" stated'that the reply to the CAR-2 was dated December 18, 1975. The reply' l
was dated November 18, 1975. The reply was 11 days later than required, rather !
than 41 days. The complete reply was late; however, individual items of l
~~
' corrections had begun prior to the composite completion of the response to CAR-2.
'.Date Full Compliance Will be Achieved
~
While some nonconformances may occur due to the nature of the product, we feel the project records illustrate the aggregate used on the project was not out of control, and did not result in questionable concrete at any time.
We also feel that the action described above will eliminate problems found
-in the implementation of our corrective action program.
We, therefore, l
l feel that full compliance has been achieved at this time in most items as i
described above, and that full. compliance of the remaining item will be achieved by February 15, 1976.
i i
t e
7' s
a y
4
?
f
.-v..
~.,
,+
....o.,,
em-.-.
<-4.-
f
--.-. w e
._c-.
__+- _. __, _-, _.,
_