IR 05000358/1973003
Text
,,,,,,,,,
- - - - - -. - - -. _
l i
e.
..
U. S, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
~
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
~
REGION III
l Report of Construction Inspection RO Inspection Repert No. 050-358/73-03 Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88 Moscow, Ohio Category: A Type of Licensee:
!
l
'
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
April 10 - 11, 1973 Date of Previous Inspection:
January 25, 1973 Principal Inspecter:
T. E. Vande
,ffn xflJ~;r.s.>
)
6 - 2
~/.I Lead Project Inspe:: tor (Date)
))L s-b ua
,a, v l
Accompanying Inspector:
M. W. Dickerson 0 ' 2
'7 3 l
Engineering Inspector (Date)
l l
1 Other Accompanying Personnel:
None Reviewed By:
D. W.A ayes, P ject Inspector (Acting)
E 2-73 Reactor Construction Branch (Date)
.
l 8709240274 070921 I
,
-
- _ - - - - -. - - - - _
_
_
- -- - -- - - ------------~---~-~
~
.
.
.
.
,
--~
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
._,
_,
--
Enforcement Action A.
Violations
1.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and applicable specifications:
Testing requirements for aggregates were not included-in a.
the quality assurance inspection procedure.
(Paragraph 2.d)
b.
,
Concrete temperature measurements during placement were not i
required by the inspection procedure to demonstrate that temperature limits were being maintained.
l (Paragraph 2.c)
Documentation was not available to show that the time limita-c.
tion for placement of concrete after batching had been met
'
(Paragraph 3.a. (1))
.
d.
Assurance was not established that material and equipment met the quality requirements for:
(1) aggregate, since the sampling point was at variance with the applicable code, and (2) the batch plant had not been certified in accordance with requirements of the specification.
3.a. (3))
(Paragraphs 1.b.(2) and 2.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part codes, documentation was not available at50, Appendix B, Criterion VII and a design mix had been tested for adequacy.
the site to show that the (Paragraph 2.b)
3.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, criterion XVIII, no audits have been conducted of.the concrete operations.
(Paragraph 7)
B.
Safety thtters No safety matters were identified.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Fbtters No previously identified enforcement matters were involved.
Design Changes No new design changes were identified during the inspection.
-2-
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - - -- -----
-
L-
,..
.
a Unusual Occurrences
'
No unusual occurrences were identified.
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings 1.
Status of Construction Design work was reported as being approximately 60% complete a.
by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) for the balance of plant and 90%
i complete by the General Electric Company (GE) for the NSS l
system work.
b.
Site activities in progress include concrete placement and
,
welding erection of service water piping.
l 2.
Personnel Changes The Kaiser Engineering, Incorporated, (KEI) Site Quality Assurance Manager, Mr. J. H. Jackson, has resigned to accept other employment.
Mr. C. A. Smith is presently acting in the capacity of manager until a replacement is selected.
B.
Unresolved Matters 1.
Provision for Nonconforming Admixtures Quality Assurance Construction Methods Instruction (QACMI) C-1 (Receiving and Inspecting Concrete Materials)Section IV, Admixtures, made no provision for the hcndling of nonconfor=ing materials.
This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(Paragraph 2.d)
2.
Records Identification j
Records of the batch plant activities, as documented on the batch tickets, were not identified to the pignt pour location.
(Paragraph 1.b.(1))
C.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters 1.
Clarification of Massive concrete (R0 Inspection Report No. 050-358/73-01)
The previous RO inspection report described Section b.2.3 of specification No. H2174, Revision R3, as failing to define-3-L_______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -
_
I
-_-
.
.
.
<
.
.
massive concrete. A design document change,(DDC No._46) was issued'
which defined massive concrete as concrete cast to a size which is mora than 2 1/2 feet in its least dimension.
The lif t restriction, removed by paragraph b2.3.l(c) of the speci-fication, intended to be reimposed by DDC No. 46, was determined to be unaltered.
The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
civil QA engineer indicated that a specification revision would be made to impose a lift restriction, This matter will receive follow-up attention during the next inspection.
2.
Zimmer QA Manual, Criterion II, Section 2.6, " Control" (RO Inspection Report No. 050-358/73-01)
The lack of documentation of the CG&E QA and S review of vendor QA program submittals was reported in the previous RO inspection report.
Revision 9 of the CG&E QA Manual dated thrch 23, 1973, provided an additional section to part 7, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services," that requires the QA and S Section to (1) review QA requirements in purchase documents, (2) evaluate the vendor's QA program acceptability, (3) document the results of the review on Form QAS-150, and (4) release the procurement action for purchase.
This matter is considered resolved.
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection.
Cincinnati Cas and Ilectric Company (CGSE)
A. E. Rothenberg,, General Engineering Department Manager H. E. Crail, Assistant Principal Structural Engineer
W. B. Murray, Staff Engineer G. M. Pemberton, Principal Staff Engineer B. A. Gott, Structural Engineer J. H. Hoffman, Quality Assurance Civil Engineer B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel, were as follows:
1.
The RO inspector inquired as to the plans of the licensee regarding changes from the existing PSAR.
The general engineering manager l
responded that a revision to the PSAR is now being completed which I
is related to an urgent matter regarding fuel.
However, more routine changes are being collected for inclusion in the FSAR.
i
,
l
-4-(
- _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - _
- - -
__
_ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - _ - - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
.
..
.
2.
The RO inspector pointed out that due to the wording of the specification and procedure regarding frequency of tests, a small Class.I_ concrete pour could be placed without being sampled and tested for acceptability.
The general engineering manager responded that the requirements will be changed to avoid that possibility.
3.
The RO inspector suggested that the applicable ACI codes should be reviewed for restriction requirements relative to aggregate stockpiling and sampling.
The licensee agreed to review the matter.
4.
The RO inspector indicated that the CG&E QA program for audits should be initiated for onsite activities, particularly for Class I concrete work.
The licensee representatives agreed.
5.
The RO inspector pointed out that, contrary to the specifica-tion requirement for certification, the batch plant has not
yet been certified by the National Ready Mix Concrete l
Association. The QA civil engineer stated that this matter is being expedited and will be completed in the near future.
6.
The RO inspector confirmed that the following items had been discussed during the inspection and that agreement had been reached that the applicable procedures would be changed to
,
include these items.
QACMI C-2 will be revised to add a requirement to verify a.
the temperature of the concrete when placed.
b.
QACMI C-1, Sections 3, 4, and 5, will be revised to require aggregate testing in accordance with ASTM C-127 and C-128, to require that nonconforming admixes be controlled per QAP-16, and to reflect that the Sectlen 5 rec.uirement is an initial test only for water quality.
7.
The RO inspector suggested that the site QA personnel take addi-tional care with the documentation records to avoid such things as writeovers, incorrect references, question marks, etc., on the quality records.
8.
The RO inspector stated that it was the inspector's understanding that the licensee intends to obtain the documentation of the concrete design mix qualification tests and that they would be available for review at the site during the next inspection. The QA civil engineer stated that this was true.
Subsequent to the inspection the violation items cited in this report were discussed with the CG&E principal QA&S engineer.
-5-I
_
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
- - _ - - _ _ __
.
,
.
.
+
.
_ REPORT DETAILS.
~
~
'
.
Persons Contacted JThe following persons, in addition to individuals li t d
'
Management. Interview Section of this report, se under the the inspection.
were' contacted during Kaiser Engineers, ' Incorporated (KEI)
D. R. McSparrin', Project Manager C. A. Smith, Acting Quality Assurance Engineer J. P. Billings, Construction Engineer
_C_incinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
.
W. W. Schwiers, Field Quality Assurance Engineer i
_Hilltog__ Concrete Corporation (Hilltop)
i D. D. McKinley, Plant Manager H. C. Nutting Company W. S. Jackson, Batch Plant Inspector Results of Iuspection 1.
Concrete Quality Assurance Program The QA program manuals and the line organization, for the batch c.
Company), and the placing contractor (KEI) were l
established that the implementation of the quality assurance
{
Appendix B, and to the licensee's application. program was{
,
,
b.
Review of the site QA activities revealed several areas of inadequacies as follows:
'
(1)
Review of records planned for the batch plant and pouring activities determined that lack of traceability of. records i
was apparent in that batch plant records (batch tickets)
!
were not being identified to the plant pour location.
addition, documentation of received material (material test In
-
.
-6-t
'
.
- - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
_
.
- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
'
.
.
.
.
\\
.. _ _ _
. reports, supplier certifications, user sampling testing resulto,_.4..
receipt acceptance, etc.) were not always identifiable as to which lot or shipment number was involved.
During discussions with the KEI QA manager, it was s'uggested that consideration be q
given to a traceability numbering system.
This item will receive
.
follow-up action during subsequent inspections.
(2)
An inspection of the aggregate stockpiles and the control system utilized (to assure acceptable materials are received onsite)
was conducted.
It was determined that ACI Code No. 301-66 (required by the specification) was not being followed.
Chapter 2, Section 2.5, " Storage of Materials," requires that samples obtained for grading tests shall be secured from the aggregates at the point of batching. The sample test result records available were determined to have been secured from the barge
unloading conveyor. This item was also considered to be
.'
contary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and will be brought to the attention of corporate management in an i
attachment to the letter to the licensee summarizing the results of the inspection.
2.
Review of the Concrete Quality Control System A review of quality control procedures, work performance procedures, and record keeping requirements was performed for the production of Class I concrete (specification H-2174 designations Class I and IA).
a.
Areas of the review considered acceptable, including document approval, were rebar tests and user verification, tests for slump, strength and air containment, location of sampling, pumped concrete (including piping), curing procedurer, and placement centrol.
b.
The review also established that the mix design had been specified and approved.
However, documentation of the results of mix design tests required by ACI-301, Paragraph 3.8.2.1, were not available as is required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, criterion VII.
The CG&E representative indicated that this information would be available for review during the next inspection.
c.
Review of Quality Assurance Methods Instruction (QACMI) C-2, concrete Control Testing, established the procedural requirements for measure-ment of the temperature of the ingredients and mixed concrete at the batch plant. However, it did not specify a requirement to measure the temperature of the concrete as placed. This measurement is l
required to assure compliance with the placing temperatures specified in S&L specification Revision R3 to Specification H-2174, dated
'
-7-
,
L
_ - _ _ -
.__
-
_
,,
T
...
"
'
.,
."
,
,
1-r
.
--iu
'
(
'
.J November-29; 1972.: This matter appears to be in violation of AEC - - -
'
. regulations'as well as in nonconformance with the specification and willL be' brought' tolthe attention 'of corporate management by.
enclosure to-the letter summarizing the results of.the inspection.-
The KEI quality assurance representative stated that this' require-ment'would be~ included as a revision to the instruction.
d.
Review o'f QACMI C-1,. Receiving and Inspecting Concrete Materials,
.
dated April 19, 1972,- Section III, Coarse'and Fine Aggregate, indicated-that portions of these instructions did not meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, in that they were deficient in specifying the: requirements of S&L Specification H-2174, Revision
.R3, Section 3-2.3.3.c.
Moreover, Section'III, of QACMI C-1,'did
.
.c not include the requirements for testing of coarse and fine aggregates for specific gravity and absorption.(i.e., per ASTM C-127 and C-128, respectively).-
,
!
Section IV, Admixtures, of QACMI C-1, made no provisions for handling of materials which may-be nonconforming (other sections of the instruction, however, provide for nonconforming material disposition in accordance with'QAP-16).
The KEI quality assurance representative stated that these require-ments would be' included as a revision'to the instruction.
The foregoing determinations were a result of a review of the.
documents listed below:
(1)
Kaiser Engineers - Wm. H. Zicmer Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual, dated February 13, 1973.
,
(2)- Kaiser Engineers - Quality Assurance Construction Me~thods
' Instructions, Sections:
C-1, Receiving and Inspecting Concrete Materials, dated April'19, 1972 C-2, Revision 1, Concrete Control Testing, dated March 22, 1973
,
C-4, Material Control, Receiving, Sampling, and Testing of Rebar, dated Fbrch 8, 1973 C-5, Concrete Replacement Inspection Procedure, da~ted March 6, 1972
.
-8-o
,.
- ..
t,
.
.
.
"
C-6, Concrete Placement Inspection Procedure, dated March 6,1972
...
_ _. -
.. _._ _..
_
C-7, Post Placement Inspection, dated March 6, 1972 (3) Hilltop Concrete Corporation - Quality Control Procedure for Production of Ready Mixed Concrete, Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Project No. 7070-6, Unit No. 1, Moscow, Ohio, dated September 26, 1972.
(4)
Sargent and Lundy - Specification Revision R3 to Specification H-2174 for Building Work for Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1, the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, the Dayton Power and Light company, dated October 3, 1972.
(5)
Sargent and Lundy - Specification Revision R2 to Specification H-2174 for Building Work for Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1, the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, the Dayton Power
!
and Light Company, dated November 29, 1972.
j
!
3.
Follow-up Record Review a.
Examination of the records on file for three Class IA concrete pours for tendon tunnel base slab pour No. AT2-2 and tunnel valls pours Nos. AT2-3 and AT2-4 established that adequate concrete tests (slump, stength, air entrainment, and water /ccment ratio) were performed.
The mix design was as specified, and proper placement control was in effect including location preparation, proper mix specified and delivered, and an adequate placement crew.
However, the following were established as problem areas.
(1)
SLL Standard Specification for Concrete Work (Form 1715-Q)
.
Section 10.4 and QACMI C-2, specify that concrete is to be I
deposited in the forms within one hour af ter introduction of mixing water and in no case shall the time interval
between placing of successive batches be greater than 30 l
minutes. Although the KEI representative stated that this j
control was in effect, no records were maintained for the time of pour (the time of mix was recorded on each trip ticket). Therefore, conformance to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix j
B, Criterion V, could not be substantiated by the records.
l l
l The KEI representative indicated that in the future'the
time of pour would also be recorded on each trip ticket I
by the inspector at the pour.
i-9-l l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
J
-__
e
'
.
.
.
e l8
'(2)' The~ records reviewed also contained writeoversi question marks, and incorrect references.
These were pointed out to the KEI representatives for resolution.
(3)
Batch plant facility records were also reviewed and were established to be deficient in that certification of the l
!
National Ready Mix Concrete Association, as required by Specification H-2174, R3, had not been accomplished. This was considered to be contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
The KEI representative stated that required information would be submitted to the association by April 14, 1973.
b.
Also examined and determined to be acceptable was the certificate for inspection of the aggregate scales which had been certified l
on January 31, 1973, by the Howe Richardson Scale Company.
l 4.
Structures and Supports for Concrete Materials a.
Review of QC System Review of the QC system for concrete materials established that the
,
system was acceptable for:
(1) concrete materials chemical composi-
'
tion and physical character, (2) handling of nonconforming material, and (3) storage identification and control.
!
b.
Followup Record Review Review of the records for concrete materials established that the traceability numbering system required improvement (as outlined previously in this report in paragraph 1.b. (1)). However, the material records involved were determined to be acceptable for chemical composition and physical character and records of handling of nonconforming material.
5.
Construction Logs The RO inspector requested, for review, any construction logs being maintained on the construction site.
It was determined that a concrete
,
inspection log is maintained by KEI. This log is utilized to assure that all inspections required are being performed for each lif t (pour).
These inspections include replacement, placement, and post placement,
,
all of which are documented and approved by the QA manager.
This log
,
system for controlling inspections was considered acceptable by the
.
RO inspector.
b I
.
'
- 10 -
.
L__ _ _ _
_
_
. _ _ - - - _ _ _. - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _.
.)
'
.
y*-
'
L'..
- ..
.
,
n--
_ _. -. _ _. _.
_,
,.,_
r, l
,6..
Review of Deviations
,
r, One nonconformance report (NR-58) was. reviewed related to pour Nos.
AT2-2,
-3, and -4.
It was learned.that the report lists specifically the nonconformance and the recommended disposition and was reviewed and approved by the CG&E field QA engineer involved. The CG&E field
-
QA engineer said that all NR's would routinely pass through his office for review and approval. This nonconformance control system was considered acceptable by the RO inspector.
l 7.
Review'of Audits In response to a request to review audit reports of' concrete work, the CG&E field QA engineer stated.that there'have been no audits performed to date of,the site' activities by either CG&E QA&S personnel or by KEI QA personnel. This matter was considered to be contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVIII and was brought to the attention of corporation management in an attachment to the letter to the licensee, t
e
e
f L
i
!
- 11 -
.
__
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. _
_