ML19312E487

From kanterella
Revision as of 08:21, 1 February 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
First Interim Deficiency Rept Re Placement & Compaction of Concrete Pour A2-D1.Concrete Placement Is Being Evaluated for Acceptability w/G-2 Requirements.Honeycomb Increase Determined Not Excessive
ML19312E487
Person / Time
Site: Yellow Creek  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 05/27/1980
From:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML19312E486 List:
References
NUDOCS 8006050004
Download: ML19312E487 (1)


Text

Oi ENCLOSURE YELLOW CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 C5HSTRUCTION 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 subje:t 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.

Approxi=ately 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 compaction of concrete is a generic problem at Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant.

Interim Progress The concrete placement questioned by the auditors ia 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 defect 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 on the increase in frequeacy for the early part of 1980. Our analysis of all the honeycomb indi.:ates that the increase could have been c:gceted and was not excessive.

8006 050CH9d 15