IR 05000461/1985062

Insp Rept 50-461/85-62 on 851119-860127.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Quality Records Documenting Geotechnical Const

ML20153C122
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	02/10/1986
From:	Muffett J, Norton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153C120	List: IR 05000461/1985062 ML20153C114
References
50-461-85-62, NUDOCS 8602180299
Download: ML20153C122 (4)

Text

. . _ .

...,.

.

-

U.S.~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/s5F9(DRS)

Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licensee: Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, Illinois 62525 Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Clinton Site, Clinton, Illinois Inspection Conducted: November 19-22; December 3-6; 10-1, 1985; and January 15 a'nd 27,198 h Inspector: J. F. Norton t/so/sto Date

.-.)N .

N kw J. W. Muffett, dhief Approved By: 2 /lo[P Plant Systems Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on Novertber 19 through December 11, 1985; and January 15 and 27, 1986 (Report No. 50-461/85062(DRS))-

Areas Inspected: Review of quality records documenting geotechnical constructio Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspectio ! 8602190299 B60213 PDR ADOCK 05000461 G PDR

g

y DETAILS 1.: ' Persons-Contacted'

Illinois Power Company (IP)

• R. Weber, Quality--Assurance Supervisor

• G. Carter, Staff Engineer, NSED

* Brownell, Staff Engineer, Nuclear Licensing W. Hahn, Supervisory Civil / Structural Engineer G. Carter, Civil / Structural Engineer

.Sargent and Lundy (S&L)

--*L. Holish, Head, Geotechnical Division

• D.' Kocunik, Senior Geotechnical Engineer U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• P. Gwynn, Senior Resident Inspector D. Keating, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at exit interview on December- 11, 198 . Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open ' tem 50-461/84-27-01: Earthwork quality records necessary'to clarify several questions were not available for review-during a previous inspection. The ~ records were reviewed during this

-

-Inspection, and found acceptable, (Closed) Violation 50-461/85030-06:~ The violation addressed two concerns as.follows:

(1) Correlation of nuclear density testing equipment with sand cone test data. -

(2) Adequate records or assurance that type "B" (non-cohesive)

structural fill was placed in 12-inch maximum lifts.

,

A review of information relevant to the two concerns revealed that acceptable conditions exis . Correlation of Nuclear and_5and Cone Densi_ty_ Testing E_quipmeg

-

. S&L specifications K-2942.and K-2892 require the detemination of a correlation factor to be applied to nuclear densometer reading The correlation factor related the nuclear densometer readings (indirect method) to the data'taken from the sand cone (direct)

method to determine insitu density of placed material. The specifications require one direct in place density test be made for

, - .

.

>

each ten indirect test The correlation data point for each test is obtained by subtracting the wet density obtained from the indirect method from the wet density obtained from the direct metho The resulting correlation factor is successively updated with the accumulation of each ten data point sets. The resulting updated correlation factor is the arithmetic mean of the previous correlation points, and is noted on each of the nuclear field density reports. The resulting change in wet density is then applied to the test results to calculate the actual in place density. A review of earthwork documentation records revealed that the deficiencies identified resulted from procedural and arithmetic errors, and from differing interpretation of earthwork specification requirement Specific data concerning acceptance of several sand cone density test failures was selected from those listed in Nonconformance Report No. 17 For each of the selected failed sand cone density tests, the basis for acceptance of the failures fall within one of the following categories:

(1) The fill placement zone was re-compacted and tested in accordance with specification (2) The sand cone failure resulted from procedural errors noted by QC personnel and a subsequent acceptable nuclear density test is documente (3) More than one sand cone test was available within the specified-zone of compactio Conclusion The licensee's acceptance of specified fill material in question under NCR No. 174 is appropriate. Supporting documentation of tests and related data support the action taken in dispositioning the NC b. Lift Thickness of Type B Material Review of earthwork records revealed that some lif t thicknesses of type B structural fill placed in early construction (1976-1977) were in excess of the 12-inch maximum stated in Section V.B.3 of the FSA A review of the PSAR, specification K-2942, and the governing Baldwin Associates (BA) procedure indicated type B fill placement was not limited'to 12-inch lifts during the period in questio Acceptance of the earth fill was based on in place moisture / density measurement Also, pre-construction test fill data indicate only small differences ,

in dry density (a maximum of four percent) between 12-inch and 18-inch '

Iffts for the same compactive effort for the type 8 materia Conclusion Acceptance of earth fill was based on in place mositure/ density measurements. Also, construction of test fills showed nearly the same densities with lift thicknesses of 18-inches versus 12-inches

,

.

-

-.

'

were achieved with'the same compactive effort for the material _in

, question. It is.not knowns how the FSAR came to include the statements in Section V.B.3 regarding 12-inch maximum lift thickness

,

for type B material placement. It was placed in the FSAR (docketed in 1980) well after the work was essentially complete. The licensee has taken appropriate action to correct the subject FSAR statemen . Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) on December 12, 198 The inspector summarized the purpose-

-and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings as reported herein. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspector's report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.

.

L.