ML20072E114: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:e s | ||
e s | 8 p | ||
f | 4 0 | ||
P. O. B OX 16 4 0. J AC K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 3 9 2 0 5 JAMES P. McGAUGHY, JR. | f MISSISSIPPI POWER &L:lG.HL COMPANY Helping Build' Mississippi. | ||
ASSIST ANT VICE PREstDENT | P. O. B OX 16 4 0. J AC K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 3 9 2 0 5 h ruar 18 1983 JAMES P. McGAUGHY, JR. | ||
Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N.W. | 8 ASSIST ANT VICE PREstDENT Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N.W. | ||
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention: | Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention: | ||
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator | |||
==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:== | ==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:== | ||
SUB 'ECT: | |||
SUB 'ECT: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 2 Docket No. 50-417 License No. NPF-13 File 0260/15525/15526 IE Inspection Report of January 4-7, 1983 AECM-83/2-0001 Re fe renc e: MAEC-83/018, 1/19/83 This letter provides our response to NRC Violation 417/83-01-01 as trans-mitted by your letter MAEC-82/018, dated January 19, 1983. | Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 2 Docket No. 50-417 License No. NPF-13 File 0260/15525/15526 IE Inspection Report of January 4-7, 1983 AECM-83/2-0001 Re fe renc e: MAEC-83/018, 1/19/83 This letter provides our response to NRC Violation 417/83-01-01 as trans-mitted by your letter MAEC-82/018, dated January 19, 1983. | ||
I. | I. | ||
ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF ALLEGED VIOLATION The nonconforming condition did occur as stated in the finding. | |||
Although the nonconformance did occur, Mississippi Power & Light Co. | Although the nonconformance did occur, Mississippi Power & Light Co. | ||
has determined the condition was isolated and would have been identi-fled and corrected under the existing Quality Assurance Program within a short period of time. Due to the fact this item was determined to be isolated and only involved a 2.3 sq. ft. portion of the 160 sq. f t. | has determined the condition was isolated and would have been identi-fled and corrected under the existing Quality Assurance Program within a short period of time. Due to the fact this item was determined to be isolated and only involved a 2.3 sq. ft. portion of the 160 sq. f t. | ||
surface area, MP&L requests this item be reviewed as to applicability of being in the category of a violation. | surface area, MP&L requests this item be reviewed as to applicability of being in the category of a violation. | ||
II. | II. | ||
THE REASONS FOR VIOLATION, IF ADMITTED Discussions with Bechtel construction supervision and craft personnel that installed the burlap curing mats indicated that the area in ques-tion initially was covered. Bechtel QC verified that the curing process was initiated at the proper time and curing mats were in place. | |||
No reason can he given for the cause of the condition except that it is thought that during the night the wind blew the burlap mats apart or that someone, by walking across the mats, pulled the burlap mats apart. | No reason can he given for the cause of the condition except that it is thought that during the night the wind blew the burlap mats apart or that someone, by walking across the mats, pulled the burlap mats apart. | ||
h 0 | |||
DR C | |||
Member Middle South Utilities System u | |||
g- | g- | ||
~ | |||
s, | *i s, 3 | ||
3 | - s | ||
~ | |||
-Mr. J.:P. O'Reilly AECM-83/2-0001 NRC-Page. 2 o f 3 | |||
.III. | |||
THE CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH ' RAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULT ACHIEVED Concrete wall pour fQ2T22-W-22183WIA was completed at approximately 5:00 p.m. on 1/4/83. - Quality Control (QC)~ verified that the curing process was' initiated at the proper time and burlap buring mats were in | |||
~ | |||
. place. At the end of the second shif t (approximately 11:30 pe) on 1/4/83, the proper curing methods were insured. A 2.3 sq. ft. portion of ~ the horizontal construction joint became uncovered and surface dry between the end of the second shift and the time of discovery of the condition. | |||
Bechtel Field Engineering and QC performed an inspection of the area in question and recommended to Project Engineering a "Use-As-Is" disposi-tion. This recommendation was based on the follow: All concrete surrcunding the small portion of noncured concrete was cured properly and the_ compressive strength results show that the concrete used sur-passed the strength requirements at seven (7) days. In addition, an inspection of the surrounding areas identified no visible surface cracks. It should be.noted that improper curing only occured for a short duration of time during the seven (7) day curing period. | It should be noted that the total surface area of the hor-isontal construction joint under cure was approximately 160 sq. ft. | ||
Project Engineering reviewed the NCR and, based on the inspection results by Field Engineering and QC, concurred with the "Use-As-Is" recommenda t ion. .In addition, Project Engineering noted that structural integrity of the wall was not impaired. | At the beginning of the first shif t on 1/5/83, the NRC Inspector and MP&L Quality Assuraace Representative (QAR) arrieved at the Bechtel QC Field Of fice. Th'e Bechtel QC Engineer (QCE) was in the process of preparing to perform his ~ daily monitoring inspection and was asked if the NRC and MP&L QAR could accompany him. | ||
i k | It should be noted that Bechtel QC monitors concrete curing each day for the first seven (7) days follow-ing each pour. This activity is documented in the daily curing log maintained by the Bechtel Civil QC group. On their arrival at the pour, the Bechtel-QCE took the required temperature readings and examined the pour for cold weather protection. During this examination, all three persons observed the uncovered, dry area simultaneously. The Bechtel QCE contacted 'the Superintendent and General Foreman for that area in order to get the condition corrected. The Bechtel QCE informed the NRC Inspector that the dry area condition would be documented on a noncon-formance document (NC R). The QUE verified that the area was recovered with wet burlap mats then initiated NCR-6512 to document the condition. | ||
Bechtel Field Engineering and QC performed an inspection of the area in question and recommended to Project Engineering a "Use-As-Is" disposi-tion. This recommendation was based on the follow: | |||
All concrete surrcunding the small portion of noncured concrete was cured properly and the_ compressive strength results show that the concrete used sur-passed the strength requirements at seven (7) days. | |||
In addition, an inspection of the surrounding areas identified no visible surface cracks. | |||
It should be.noted that improper curing only occured for a short duration of time during the seven (7) day curing period. | |||
Project Engineering reviewed the NCR and, based on the inspection results by Field Engineering and QC, concurred with the "Use-As-Is" recommenda t ion..In addition, Project Engineering noted that structural integrity of the wall was not impaired. | |||
i k | |||
_______________m | |||
.~- | |||
'n c., | |||
ih. | |||
?L, w, +' | |||
Mr. 'J. = P. ; 0' Reilly. | ~ | ||
:NRC | Mr. 'J. = P. ; 0' Reilly. | ||
Page-3 of 3-v | . AECM-83/2-0001 ' | ||
:NRC Page-3 of 3-v | |||
- ~ | |||
IV. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE REEN TAKEN TO' AVOID FURTHER VIOLATION LMP&L has determined the condition to be an isolated incident. - This'was | + | ||
IV. | |||
CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE REEN TAKEN TO' AVOID FURTHER VIOLATION LMP&L has determined the condition to be an isolated incident. - This'was based on a review'of nonconformance documents generated since January J1',(1982, 'which identified no similar conditions. | |||
In addition, MP&L QA. | |||
interviewed responsible non-manual personnel tol determine that no similar incidents had occured. While Mechtel. feels that there is no lack of understanding of the specification requirements concerning concrete curing; a class was conducted by Bechtel QC (01/06/83) to reiterate the requirements of Specification C-103.0 to the craft fore-man and construction supervision. | interviewed responsible non-manual personnel tol determine that no similar incidents had occured. While Mechtel. feels that there is no lack of understanding of the specification requirements concerning concrete curing; a class was conducted by Bechtel QC (01/06/83) to reiterate the requirements of Specification C-103.0 to the craft fore-man and construction supervision. | ||
r-V. 'THE DATE 'WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED Ful1' compliance was achieved on' January 19, 1983. | r-V. | ||
'THE DATE 'WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED Ful1' compliance was achieved on' January 19, 1983. | |||
Yours truly, J. P. McGaughy, Jr. | Yours truly, J. P. McGaughy, Jr. | ||
ACP:dr~ | ACP:dr~ | ||
.cc: | |||
South Miss. Electric Power Association P. O. Box 1589 l | Mr. N. L. Stampley Mr. R.-B. | ||
McGehee Mr. T. B. Conner Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. G. B. Taylor South Miss. Electric Power Association i | |||
P. O. Box 1589 l | |||
l ' | Hattiesburg, MS 39401 lv i | ||
s l ' | |||
e e.._,-., | |||
,,.r_ | |||
m.-- -, -, | |||
wm,. | |||
.,~,,,}} | |||
Latest revision as of 05:33, 15 December 2024
| ML20072E114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1983 |
| From: | Mcgaughy J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072E069 | List: |
| References | |
| AECM-83-2-001, AECM-83-2-1, NUDOCS 8303210579 | |
| Download: ML20072E114 (3) | |
Text
e s
8 p
4 0
f MISSISSIPPI POWER &L:lG.HL COMPANY Helping Build' Mississippi.
P. O. B OX 16 4 0. J AC K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 3 9 2 0 5 h ruar 18 1983 JAMES P. McGAUGHY, JR.
8 ASSIST ANT VICE PREstDENT Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention:
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
SUB 'ECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 2 Docket No. 50-417 License No. NPF-13 File 0260/15525/15526 IE Inspection Report of January 4-7, 1983 AECM-83/2-0001 Re fe renc e: MAEC-83/018, 1/19/83 This letter provides our response to NRC Violation 417/83-01-01 as trans-mitted by your letter MAEC-82/018, dated January 19, 1983.
I.
ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF ALLEGED VIOLATION The nonconforming condition did occur as stated in the finding.
Although the nonconformance did occur, Mississippi Power & Light Co.
has determined the condition was isolated and would have been identi-fled and corrected under the existing Quality Assurance Program within a short period of time. Due to the fact this item was determined to be isolated and only involved a 2.3 sq. ft. portion of the 160 sq. f t.
surface area, MP&L requests this item be reviewed as to applicability of being in the category of a violation.
II.
THE REASONS FOR VIOLATION, IF ADMITTED Discussions with Bechtel construction supervision and craft personnel that installed the burlap curing mats indicated that the area in ques-tion initially was covered. Bechtel QC verified that the curing process was initiated at the proper time and curing mats were in place.
No reason can he given for the cause of the condition except that it is thought that during the night the wind blew the burlap mats apart or that someone, by walking across the mats, pulled the burlap mats apart.
h 0
DR C
Member Middle South Utilities System u
g-
~
- i s, 3
- s
~
-Mr. J.:P. O'Reilly AECM-83/2-0001 NRC-Page. 2 o f 3
.III.
THE CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH ' RAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULT ACHIEVED Concrete wall pour fQ2T22-W-22183WIA was completed at approximately 5:00 p.m. on 1/4/83. - Quality Control (QC)~ verified that the curing process was' initiated at the proper time and burlap buring mats were in
~
. place. At the end of the second shif t (approximately 11:30 pe) on 1/4/83, the proper curing methods were insured. A 2.3 sq. ft. portion of ~ the horizontal construction joint became uncovered and surface dry between the end of the second shift and the time of discovery of the condition.
It should be noted that the total surface area of the hor-isontal construction joint under cure was approximately 160 sq. ft.
At the beginning of the first shif t on 1/5/83, the NRC Inspector and MP&L Quality Assuraace Representative (QAR) arrieved at the Bechtel QC Field Of fice. Th'e Bechtel QC Engineer (QCE) was in the process of preparing to perform his ~ daily monitoring inspection and was asked if the NRC and MP&L QAR could accompany him.
It should be noted that Bechtel QC monitors concrete curing each day for the first seven (7) days follow-ing each pour. This activity is documented in the daily curing log maintained by the Bechtel Civil QC group. On their arrival at the pour, the Bechtel-QCE took the required temperature readings and examined the pour for cold weather protection. During this examination, all three persons observed the uncovered, dry area simultaneously. The Bechtel QCE contacted 'the Superintendent and General Foreman for that area in order to get the condition corrected. The Bechtel QCE informed the NRC Inspector that the dry area condition would be documented on a noncon-formance document (NC R). The QUE verified that the area was recovered with wet burlap mats then initiated NCR-6512 to document the condition.
Bechtel Field Engineering and QC performed an inspection of the area in question and recommended to Project Engineering a "Use-As-Is" disposi-tion. This recommendation was based on the follow:
All concrete surrcunding the small portion of noncured concrete was cured properly and the_ compressive strength results show that the concrete used sur-passed the strength requirements at seven (7) days.
In addition, an inspection of the surrounding areas identified no visible surface cracks.
It should be.noted that improper curing only occured for a short duration of time during the seven (7) day curing period.
Project Engineering reviewed the NCR and, based on the inspection results by Field Engineering and QC, concurred with the "Use-As-Is" recommenda t ion..In addition, Project Engineering noted that structural integrity of the wall was not impaired.
i k
_______________m
.~-
'n c.,
ih.
?L, w, +'
~
Mr. 'J. = P. ; 0' Reilly.
. AECM-83/2-0001 '
- NRC Page-3 of 3-v
- ~
+
IV.
CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE REEN TAKEN TO' AVOID FURTHER VIOLATION LMP&L has determined the condition to be an isolated incident. - This'was based on a review'of nonconformance documents generated since January J1',(1982, 'which identified no similar conditions.
In addition, MP&L QA.
interviewed responsible non-manual personnel tol determine that no similar incidents had occured. While Mechtel. feels that there is no lack of understanding of the specification requirements concerning concrete curing; a class was conducted by Bechtel QC (01/06/83) to reiterate the requirements of Specification C-103.0 to the craft fore-man and construction supervision.
r-V.
'THE DATE 'WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED Ful1' compliance was achieved on' January 19, 1983.
Yours truly, J. P. McGaughy, Jr.
ACP:dr~
.cc:
Mr. N. L. Stampley Mr. R.-B.
McGehee Mr. T. B. Conner Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. G. B. Taylor South Miss. Electric Power Association i
P. O. Box 1589 l
Hattiesburg, MS 39401 lv i
s l '
e e.._,-.,
,,.r_
m.-- -, -,
wm,.
.,~,,,