ML20215L412

Insp Repts 50-327/87-29 & 50-328/87-29 on 870511-13.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Util Response to Element Rept 313.06, Questionable Concrete Grout Repair

ML20215L412
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/11/1987
From:	Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215L398	List: ML20215L394 ML20215L412
References
50-327-87-29, 50-328-87-29, NUDOCS 8706260043
Download: ML20215L412 (6)

See also: IR 05000327/1987029

Text

, 42

. l

>

h f %' .

,%

3;t:

4

j

uty

,

gw

-

y

-

>

-

,

9 g i ,-

'

. .

$4:2.j 7

' , [ga 9805gC.~f

-

. .

!

.

UNITED STATES

.

';

' ' "

'

.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%

'

- ;[

[ "

.

REGION il'

-

,.

J>

.j

101MARIETTA STREET,N.W.

-p

.l

+

y;

,

,4",

"

'*

• [C .

-

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

'-c-

,

"

O

,

.

e>

s

.Ib

'

/

seas*

i,

u

.s

,

,kj-

'.:

,'

-

,

x

,

.

_

.,

, . , (A

-

. . .

'

.

.

,

'4

7'

. Report 1Nosl:! l50-327/87 29 and-50-328/87-29-

m

..

i

Licensee: bTdnnessee Valley Authority

i

.

$

I6N 38A Lookout Place-

'j

'

-w

1101 Market Street'

. . .

Chattanooga, TN' 37402-2801

. #j

'

.:

'M

. Docket Nos.:

50-327cand 50-328'

License Nos~.:

DPR-77 and DPR-79

j

'

-

.

-

.a

- .

"?

'

Facility Name: eSequoya'h 1 and 2

"

w

3

Inspection Conducted: May 11-13 1987

ej

In^spectori c==%!h

l-cy,whb-

C

d- // 7 7

'"

'J. K. Harris

/.

Date 51gned:

)

'

.

J

,-

1

,

,

,

1

' Approved b -

/<5%'fk

/87

.

c,

l. Conlon, bection Chleb

Uate 51gned-

"j

.

.

Engineering > Branch

-

, .

Division ~ of Reactor. Safety'

'

,

-

.s

l

.

s.

,

SUMMARY

1

G.:

I

.

8

-

,

!

Scope:

This specialEannounced inspection was conducted in the areas Tof

I

reviewing? TVA's response' to Element Report 313.06, Questionable Concrete!

q

'

Grout Repair..

c

.

No violations or deviations were identified.

!

Results:

.

.

0

,

l

4

.

,

!

>

'.

8706260043 B70611

!

PDR

ADOCK 05000327

.. ;

O

PDR

1

..

.. u

/[

,)'.

./s

_ )' :

-

'

c.;

,

g

,

eif

.

'

, -(

x;

y

'

r

1

i

y

'

. REPORT DETAILS ,

<

'N

'\\

1..

PersonsLContacted

'

L-

Licensee' Employees'

.

'3

'

'

i

,

.,

.a

,

• M.-C.; Coo)er,ComplianceLicensing,Sequoyah-(SQN)..

,'

• T. E.: Cri abe, Licensing Engineer, SQN

,

,

• R.' C. Denne

Project-Manager,SQN

' *S? Franks,: fm,plo ee Concerns' Task Group, W' tts Bar

t

,

a

i

• T.lA. Flip

• G. B. Kir(po ' Qu lity Surveillance Supervisor

.

lomp lance Licensing Manager, SQN

'

• D.:E. Nixon,, Employee Concerns Task Group, BCN

_*A. M. Qualls :

"*A. - Ritter, Ed' Ptant Management, SQN

Engineer, DNE

Other 'licenseeJemployees contact'ed. included construction. craf tsmen,

r

engineers,Atio. technicians.

NRCResidentbInspector

l

-

w

.M.sBranch7RestartCoordinator,SQN

j

. . .

.

-

l

• Attended exit 4 interview

.+

i

'

l2.

Exit. Interview

'

b

The' inspection scope' and findings were ' summarized on May 13,.1987, with

L

athose persons .. indicated in paragraph 1 above.

The inspector described

l

the areas inspected and discussed inJdetail the ins

dissenting comments were received from the licensee.pection findings.

No.

'

c

The11icensee did not;

1

'

~ identify as proprietary any of- the material provided to or reviewed by the

H

y

inspector during this' inspection.

,

3.

Licensee Action on. Previous Enforcement Matters

This'si:bject was not addressed in the inspection.

i

4.

Unresolved Items

1

y

'

Unresolveditemswefenotidentifiedduringthisinspection.

'

i>

r

'

!

i

t

j

l

'

,

,

,

,

!-

,

'

t

i

>

.

.

- - -

N

'

. . .

<

+

x

1

t

n

a

s;-

>

y

'

2'

y

wi

n

Independent:: Ins ection Effort (Element. Report OP L 313.d6,- Questionable

',

5.-

Concrete Repairp(Grout))

_

>

hThis' element report- contains concerns-identified to the' Quality Technology-

Company?(QTC) regarding improper concrete' application at the Watts Bar

Nuclear Plante The concerns identified'at the Watts Bar plant were:

~

y

a.<

Turbine : building,_ Elevation 676',. straight out of the elevator. down a

? set of steps', and to the right, CI stated that the concrete / grout used

~

-

to install sleeves in;the wall penetrations was improperly prepared

c

1

and the: forms were not installed correctly,

b.

Turbine' building, Elevation 676', straight out of the elevator, down

a. set 'of. steps,ide' by 3\\ to 4' long was filled with grout in lieu ofand to th

12' dee) by.3 w

ConCre".e.

The- following methodology:was used by TVA to determine if these concernsL

were germane to the Sequoyah Nuclear.Planti

.j

'

>

,

'a.

Files were reviewed to determine if additional information relative

"' '

'to the concerns could be obtained.

b'

' Reviewed SQH "SAR and the TVA Topical Report.for. commitments.

.

c.

< Interviewed a cognizant QA and civiliengineer and supervisor of the?

-medanic' alt modifications unit' to determine if procedures existed for

'3 ' x

'

1;

yrepair .of structural concrete and backfill. placement and to' what

'

-

'

- extent repair and backfill work had taken place sinc,e operations

-

, began, . and.to determine what controls existed for concrete and grout

placements.

k

d .1

-Interviewed cognizant quality contrc.1 personnel ~ for' information

regarding control of modifications relative to civil installations,

e.

Reviewed applicable aarts of Administrative Instruction (AI), AI-19

a

Part IV, Rev. 17,."P' ant Modification After Licensing."

l

!

'

,f.

Reviewed Modifications 'and Additions Instruction (M&AI)', M&AI-17,

' compliance with construction specifications. plates or Sleeves," for

Rev. 5. and-Rev. 6, " Grouting of Support Base

'

4

' g.

Reviewed Corrective Action Report SQN-CAR-86-08-04-022 for informe

p

tion.

i

' h;

Interviedad the support craft general foreman to determine if any

repairs were performed by Office of Nuclear Power (0NP) and craft

u

' familiarity with controlling G-specifications.

L

b

i.

Performed a visual inspection of a portion of the concrete reltded

!

items performed by.0NP for compliance with specifications,

l ..

,

l

t.

.

l

bO

\\.

_

'

ipW%

'

'

f

3)

-'

<

,

.

,

,

,

r

f

.

,

F

'f,y

L

,

ba

pi

, sg _ - - ' ,

>

,

. ,

,

.

+

w3 ,

j;;

)i ; -,

' *

,

.,

3, < . ,

,,

'c

s;-

<

<

.-

.

'

f{h

i3'

i

/f;

,

,

w

l'

^

~ '

,

<

<

1

}

Lj.,

Reviewed chil? portions of work plans'11952,11910,10821 and 11107<

..j

,

.for compliance ,with G-specifications,.

.<

Ai

-

.

,

,

k.

. Ir,terviewed thy Mechanical Modificationi0ait' Supervisor'to determine: 7

!

. how c'oncrete" repairs 'would . be' controlled to- meet . specification' . .

~

.

,

'

-

requirements iin anon-safety-rehted structured such -as the turbinei

<

.buikiing.

Le

r ",

,'

M,

j

.

.

u. -

.

-

.-

-

Results1 of the inve~stigation- tiy TVA evaluators indicued the problems

' identified at Watts,Bar, with the exception cf th'e groutpreparation which

had previously beentidentified by DNPQ were 'not; consideredd sroblem.at / f<

. the Sequoyah plaiitt eThe (liscrepancy with grout preparatiorWddntified by -

+

LONP was documented on .Cotrective Actionhport, SQN-CAR.86-04-.022. ' There.

o

were nolindications' that ' rot.t - had be@used Lin 1th4 turt,inibuilding or :

l

g

<

related Estructures whdrog re-i

.

safety d unless ap#oved tijl .a FCIk.acement concretd would1haVe been

require 1 inspections such /as ? form wot bwere performed and documer#cd

nt.dditionaHy, preinsta

f

'

the' work'-

'

. plan. . Backfill ? installation. b :d been Llimited toirsarea and based on 'a

"

review ,of1the work' plans, ~~us Tiiscrepanci;s 'were: noted.? However, :some-

l,

"i

' discrepancies were noted whevsimilan conditions;were svaluate&.in the.

'

LareasEof structural concrete!placemeWand grouting.

The' discrepanci.es;

noted 'were: '

>

'

.

,

,

Portions 1of- M&AI-17 'were not consNunt with' the req'uirements ;of-

a.

i

specifications G-34 'and G'-51 in tFitt tore drilled holes were not'

I

required to -be - scarified betwe inst' llation Sf repair material and

a

the' 12-hour surface. wetting critsia was allowed to be waived,,which .

1

was' contrary to requiremente whem de/ pack' mortar is used.

J

b .'

Even<though implementation of'in proc'ess testirq according'to G-511

was part o' the cor;ecti'!e action: gi'ven .in.4QWCAR-66-04-022,?the

' impact as to the affect in regards to quality was not addressed for

those installations conducted previously where the in-urocess testing

was not performed.

l

'

Engineering personnel were not familiar with specific requirements

construction specifications G-2 and G-34 in that requirements in.wo.of

c. .

rk-

!

. plans.11910 and 10821 stipulated wetting of concrete surfaces. - This'

,

was contrary to the G-2 specifications which specified a dry surface

q

for superior bon' ding;

..

!

d.-

Work plans specified voids be repaired according .to M&AI-17.

This.

)

instruction did not incorporate or give reference :to construction

specification G-34 which is the controlling' concrete repair specifi-

,

cation.

j

>

!

L

b

f.-.,...__.,....j.

. ... _.

.

~

_

.

.

.J

1

,

.

.

!

4

The< root cause of ONP failure to comply with the specifics of construction

specifications was determined to be caused by an unfamiliarity of the

i

provisions of the QA topical report on the part of personnel involved in

!

preparation and review of the work plans and M&AI-17.

Corrective action

plans for these discrepancies are documented on the following Corrective

i

Action Tracking Documents (CATD):

'

CATD -31306-SQ)N-01 (Roughening and Wetting Requirement for Core

i

a.

Drilled Holes '- Revisions have been made to M&AI-17 to clarify

roughening requirements for core-drilled holes and to remove the

'

section which allows a waiver of wetting criteria.

These changes

have been apprrved by DNE and will prevent future violations of G-34

and G-51 requicements.

b.

CATD 313.06-SQN-02 (Lack of In process Testing of Grout) - A lack of-

in process testing on past grout installations is not considered

detrimental to the quality of those installations for the following

reasons:

(1). M&AI-17 has historically required the use of 5-Star grout or

equal and the "or equal' option has- never been exercised.

'

(2) Qualification-test results from Singleton Materials Engineering

Laboratory indicate acceptability of the material over a wide

range of water contents.

c.

CATD 313.06-SQN-03 (Wet Sacking Concrete Surfaces When G-2 Specifica-

'

tion Specified Dry Surface for Superior Bonding)ior bonding was not

- Wet sacking when

specifications stipulated a dry surface for super

i

.b

considered a problem detrimental to quality since work plans indi-

L

cated the surfaces were scarified.

Even though superior bonding may

not have been obtained, acceptable bond should have occurred if all

surface water was removed.

d.

CATD 313.06-SQN-04 (Work Plans Specified Voids be Repaired In

Accordance with M&AI-17).

M&AI-17 did not provide instructions for

repair of voids which are specified in specification G-34.

Repair to voids performed by work plans 11910 and 10821 were cosmetic

in nature and would have been performed using grout.

No indications

of ' repairs were found; thus, no actions are required.

Reference to

General Construction Specification No. G-34 are now included in

Modifications and Additions Instruction M&AI-21, Concrete Placement

and Repair.

In following ,up on TVA's evaluation of Element Report 313.06, the NRC

inspector reviewed the 'FSAR, Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8, applicable

specifications, work plans for concrete and grout repairs and examined

concrete and grout repairs made in the Auxillary and Turbine Buildings

since the Sequoyah plant began operating.

The inspector also discussed

l

1

j

L

)

e

' 4

,

,,

,

. f , y

.

-

U

S

5

'

D

i

.TVA's evaluation' of ~ the element report with responsible TVA personnel,

-

reviewed changes madeLto the Modifications and Additions' Instructions and

o

examined Corrective Action Report CAR-86-04-022, QualificationTestingof

.5-Star Grout.at various water / grout ratios.

y

Review of the FSAR:and Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8; Specifications, Work

Plans and Modifications.and Additions Instructions confirmed that instruc-

'

tions for grout'and concrete repairs made since'the plant began operating

did not. meet some tof the requirements .specified { in the construction -

-

specifications.

Review of changes made to the Modifications and Additions

-

Instructionsishowed .that .these : requirements are now included in thes'e

instructions.

Review of .the response to CAR 86-04-022 Qualification

o

Testing of1 5-Star Grout at various water grout / ratios sbowed that tests-

n

'

were perform'ed on the grout _ at _up to 14 quarts: of water per 100 pounds

of grout.

This was:done because there was no evidence that the amount of

water added to'the grout had ever been measured. . Results of the test

showed that even when-14 quarts of water were added (manufacturers require-

ments were 7:to 11-quarts per 100 pounds of grout).that design requirements-

-

Fourteen quarts were the maxim'm amount. selected because it was

v

were met.

u

-

felt.that it~ would- not have been practical to place the grout with any

more than, fourteen quarts to one hundred pounds of grout.

Examination of

concrete and grout repairs in .the. turbine and auxiliary buildings made

since= the' plant began operating showed no evidence of any problems with

concrete;or. grout repairs.

i

~

Based on the above reviews

discussions with-TVA evaluators, and visual

i

A

.

examination of concrete and grout repairs ~ the NRC inspector agrees with

i

- TVA's. evaluation that concerns identified at the Watts Bar plant in the

i

element report were not germane to Sequoyah.

The inspector also agrees

with the! corrective action plans for discrepancies identified on the

referenced Corrective Action Tracking Documents (CATD) with the exception

that CATD 313,06-SQN-01.did not determine what was the significance of

- failure to roughen and wet cored holes as required by specification G-34.

Responsible engineers indicated-this.would be evaluated and the results

. ;

,

provided to the NRC inspector.

j

l

l

'

i

!

)

3

!

6

\\