ML19316B081

First Interim Deficiency Rept Re Const QA Audit YC-C-80-05. on 800422,pour Not Placed & Compacted Per Const Specs.No QA Insp Performed.Inspectors Instructed in Requirements of General Const Spec G-2

ML19316B081
Person / Time
Site:	Yellow Creek
Issue date:	05/27/1980
From:	TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML19316B072	List: ML19316B071 ML19316B081
References
NUDOCS 8006110284
Download: ML19316B081 (1)

Text

_ .-- _ -_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _

~

) . . .. . .. . . . . . _ _ .

- -

.,

. .

,

ENCLOSURE YELLOW CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 CONSTRUCTION QA AUDIT YC-C-80-05 10 CFR 50.55(e) -.

FIRST INTERIM REPORT Description of Deficiency Observation of the placement and compaction of Concrete Pour A2-D1 took place during the first shift of April 22, 1980. It was found, during the auditor's presence that the subject pour was not being *

- placed and compacted in accordance with the requirements of TVA General Construction Specification G-2, nor was the QC inspection being performed in accordance with the requirements of,QCI C-201.

Approximately thirty-two (32) QCIR's were written in 1979 for honey-

. comb in concrete. Twenty-two (22) QCIR's have been written to date in 1980 for honeycomb in concrete. Some of these QCIR's listed more than one concrete pour with honeycomb. Since improper compaction is the major, if not sole, cause of honeycomb, it appears that improper compaccion of concrete is a generic problem at Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant.

Interim Progress The concrete placement questioned by the auditors is being evaluated for acceptability. Inspectors have been instructed in the requirements of General Construction Specification G-2 and admonished to be more assertive in seeing that all requirements of G-2 are met.

'

Honeycomb is an inherent dafect in the placement of concrete. The  ;

increase in the frequency of honeycomb for 1980 is due to the increase in wall pours which contained significantly more embedded items. The auditor based his decision to indicate honeycomb as significant solely j on the increase in frequency for the early part of 1980. Our analysis i of all the honeycomb indicates that the increase could have been expected l ', and was not excessive.

l

.

,. .

8006110284

-