IR 05000508/1978008
| ML19282C647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1979 |
| From: | Albert W, Shackleton D, Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282C630 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-78-08-01, 50-508-78-8-1, 50-509-78-08, 50-509-78-8, NUDOCS 7903300435 | |
| Download: ML19282C647 (11) | |
Text
'
,
.
..
.
U. S. flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0t!
0FFICE OF IllSPECTIOil Af;D Ef!FORCEMEllT REGI0ft 'V
.
50-508/78-08 Report tio.
50-509/.78-08 50-508 CPPR-154 Docket flo.
50-509 License flo. C.PPR-155 Safeguards Group
_
Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 958 Richland, liashington 99352 Facility ?!ame:
WitP 3-5 (Satsop)
Construction site Inspection at:
Inspection Conduc i: il vember 13-16, D,ecember 6, 7, 18, 19, 1978 Inspectors
/
/'7
[
,
' W. G. AlbertWac~ tor Ins'pector O. F X fL 4 %
$M/n Date ' Signed O. C."Shacklet.on, Investigator Date Signed A v),tl/6 d&b i - !9-W hr
/
D. F. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector Date Signed k.Nm ~
/./9-77 R. 'C.
ayneGdction Chief Date Signed
/~/ 9-7 7 Approved By:
e mcc 1 G. S. Spencef, Chief, Reactor Construction Date Signed and Engineering Support Branch
'
Investigation on flovember 13-16, December 6, 7, 18, 19, 1978
'
Report flos. 50-508/78-08 and 50-509/78-08)
Areas Investigated: Two allegations of improper activities on the part of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory site personnel where (1) soil density testing equipment was not or could not be properly calibrated and (2)
certain personnel qualification training records had been backdated to show earlier qualification dates and false signatures entered as the person who administered and graded the examination.
In addition, soil compaction records for the Class A fill under the circulating water pipe (not safety-related) were audited, the installed circulating water pipe joints wer.e inspected, and the site records for the safety-related concrete design mix proportioning and verification tests were reviewed.
The investigation involved 100 inspector-hours on site by one !!RC Investigator, two Reactor Inspectors and one supervisor.
.
7903300435 IE:V Form 219 (2)
.
.
.
Washington Public Power Supply System-2-Docket Nos. 50-508 and 50-509 Sunmary:
(cont.)
Resul ts: Both allegations were substantiated; however, in the case of the soil density testing equipment allegation, it was found that cali-bration requirements were overstated or misunderstood and the equipment was not being used for safety-related work.
The soil compaction records for the Class A fill were found to be erroneous and incomplete, and certain design mix tests were performed by contractor personnel who had not been fully qualified in accordance with the requirements of the quality assurance program.
The falsification of personnel qualification training records and the performance of design mix tests by not fully qualified personnel were identified as items of noncompliance.
(Paragraphs 2.d and 3.b)
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Principal Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Employees
- D. L. Renberger, UPPSS Assistant Director, Technology
+#W. J. Talbott, Project Division Manager
+#C. E. Love, Deputy Project Division Manager
+T. B. Willis, QA Manager tR. Romanelli, Public Affairs
=L. E. Nilsen, QA Enginear b.
Principal Ebasco Employees
=P. J. Hannaway, Manager of Projects r#D. Quamme, Manager of Construction R. E. Graham, Project Quality Engineer, Swing Shift
=C. B. Tatum, Senior Resident Engineer F. E. Schack, QC Engineer L. E. Gleason, Lead Civil QC Engineer for Class 2 and G Backfill c.
Principal Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) Employees W.S.McKay, Manager,QualityAssurance(HomeOffice)
K. D. Drake, District Manager, PTL M. R. Tallent, Braidwood Project Site Manager (to be assigned to WNP 3-5)
d.
Other PTL Employees Ten present or former employees at the site laboratory were interviewed.
- Contacts made by telephone.
+ Denotes those present at the exit interview on 11/16/78.
- Denotes those principal attendees at exit interviews on 12/8/78 and 12/21/78.
= Denotes those attendees at exit interview on 12/21/78 onl.
-2-
,
2.
Investigation a.
Allegations On November 6,1978, The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries referred allegations they had received to the NRC.
The allegations concerned Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory activities at the WNP 3-5 site.
The alleger was interviewed on November 6 and 13, 1978 and made the following allegations to NRC Region V personnel.
(1)
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL), a subcontractor to Ebasco, the constructor for Washington Nuclear Plants (WNP) 3-5, was using an improperly calibrated and faulty Rainhart Volumeter for measuring soil density.
(2) Level I technician qualification examinations taken on September 7,1978, for " Sampling Fresh Concrete, Concrete Field," were backdated and the signature of the person shown as administering and grading the examinations was forged.
b.
Investigation Plan In order to determine the validity of the allegations, the NRC personnel interviewed individuals who the alleger recalled as having knowledge of the use of the Rainhart Volumeter.
The NRC personnel also interviewed PTL employees who purportedly took the Level I technicians' examination for " Sampling Fresh Concrete, Concrete Field," on September 7,1978.
These employees were randomly selected by the NRC personnel from the listed examinees.
c.
Interviews of Former and Present PTL Employees Interviews with PTL technicians having knowledge of the use of the Rainhart Volumeter corroborated the alleger's statements.
To correlate information received and refresh the memory of interviewees regarding personnel qualification examination records, a review of the qualification records maintained by PTL at the construction site was made by the NRC inspector on November 15, 1978 for those individuals identified by the alleger as having taken the Level I " Sampling Fresh Concrete, Concrete Field" examination on September 7,1978. The two tables below show the entries in question that were made in each of the individual's files.
It is to be noted that only two of the individual's files show they actually took the test on September 7,1978.
During the interviews, the alleger's statements were corroborated in five instances by both the individual who took the examination and the individual whose
.
-3-
.
.
name was falsely entered as administering and grading the examination. Also, the person responsible for backdating the records admitted to backdating some, but not all, of th?
alleged backdated records.
This person also admitted to entering false signatures on some backdated records.
TABLE A TABLE B Information from Personnel Information from Qualif' cation, Training Technical Examination -
and Technical Exam Sampling Fresh Concrete, Records Concrete Field
- Name of Date of
- Trained Date of Date of * Exam Adminis-Level I Training By Exam Exam tered and Technician graded by A
6-28-78 N
6-28-78 6-28-78 N
B 6-29-78
6-29-78 6-29-78
C 9-07-78 P
9-07-78 9-07-78 P
D 7-24-78 N
7-24-78 7-24-78 N
E 9-07-78 Q
9-07-78 9-07-78 Q
F 7-05-78 N
7-05-78 7-05-78 N
G 5-22-78
5-22-78 5-22-78
H 8-04-78 Q
8-04-78 8-04-78 Q
I 6-21-78 N by Q 6-21-78 6-21-78 N
J 6-28-78 N
6-28-78 6-28-78 N
K 6-14-78 N
6-14-78 6-14-78 U
L 6-15-78
6-15-78 (not in file)
M (no entry)
6-12-78 N
- Names withheld to protect individual's privacy.
d.
Investigation Findings Regarding the Original Allegations (1) Allegation No.1 - Use of an improperly calibrated and faulty Rainhart Volumeter.
This allegation was substantiated but was found to be not safety-related. The allegation relates to the measure-ment of soils density utilizing a Rainhart Volumeter, Series 200.
This equipment has been used on the site since early August, 1978.
The soil density data obtained during this time was for backfill associated with nonsafety-related structures and components.
The allegation specifically related to backfill around the Circulating Water Intake Piping (CWIF).
.
-4
-
Although the inspectors found that calibration volumes were now available to permit calibration of the volumeter, interviews with Ebasco and PTL personnel confirmed that this had not been the case until recently.
The inspectors noted that only one of the Rainhart Volumeters was in service at the time of the investigation and personnel interviewed confirmed that the machines had been dis-assembled and parts interchanged in attempts to provide one functioning piece of equipment.
During this investigation, it was also found that Ebasco had prepared a discrepancy report on the only Rainhart Volumeter in service on October 23. 1978.
The nonfunc-tioning of the vacuum pump, broken pressure gauge and interchanged parts were documented by Ebasco in an attachment to the October 23, 1978 discrepancy report.
The inspectors found that the Rainhart equipment was returned to service after the discrepancy report was-dispositioned by Ebasco engineering as acceptable.
However, this disposition was rejected by Ebasco field personnel within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Either during this period or immediately following, sand-cone volumes were used in place of the balloon volumes (Rainhart).
However, the Ebasco assistant project manager stated that the sand-cone density values had been found unacceptable for the gravel fill in use and new values were subsequently determined with the Rainhart equipment when it was returned to service.
Concern was expressed by PTL and Ebasco personnel regarding the pressure gauge on the Rainhart Voluireter which appar-ently was uncalibrated.
The inspectors examined the equipment and noted that the gauge provides a surcharge reading and is not directly related to the volume reading.
Hence, errors in the gauge would not significantly affect the results of tests unless the error was so gross that the soil around the test hole was physically displaced.
The machine requires a functioning gauge but not a cali-brated gauge as believed by the alleger.
The in:;pector found that none of the soils density data obtained with the Rainhart Volumeters involved safety-related fill and therefore the use of faulty volumeters would not affect safety-related structures or system.
-5-
..
.
(2) Allegation flo. 2 - Backdating of personnel qualification examination records.
The second allegation concerning falsification of exam-inations given to PTL Level I technicians for " Sampling Fresh Concrete, Concrete Field," was substantiated from testimony given by six PTL employees, identification of falsified signatures by the former Level II inspector whose name was used, admissions by the PTL site manager and correlation with PTL records.
This is as an item of noncompliance with the requirements for quality assurance records of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and the licensee's Quality Assurance Program.
(50-508/78-08-01)
c.
Additional Allegations Received During Investigation The following additional allegations were made during inter-views of PTL employees other than the original alleger and the inspector's findings were as follows.
(1)
It was alleged that calibration sticker placed on the bottom of the Rainhart Volumeter bore the name of a PTL employee and was affixed at a time when the employee was no longer employed by PTL. The inspector found no evi-dence to support this apparent allegation that the calibration had not been performed; however, safety-related fill had not been placed at the site at the time of this investigation.
(2)
It was alleged that calibration stickers were affixed to sieves for the "Gilson machine" in September,1978 with-out the calibrations being performed. The inspector found that the new stickers were affixed to indicate a change in calibration frequency (six months to one year)
and not to indicate that a new calibration had been performed.
(3)
It was alleged that six records of soil compaction tests at Stein Creek were altered when it was found that com-paction was below requirements.
The records were changed to indicate that retesting established adequate compaction was obtained although the retesting was not performed.
This allegation was not pursued by the inspector since it was obvious that no safety-related structures or concerns were involved.
The inspectors found no evidence that any of these additional itens affected safety-related activities. The licensee was informed of these allegation '
-6-
.
3.
Inspection of Pot _ential Safety Concerns a.
Circulating Water Pipe Backfill The inspector reviewed the installation details of the circu-lating water pipe because of its proximity to safety-related structures.
He inspected installed sections of the pipe to ascertain if there were any apparent indications of improper consolidation of fill material around the pipe.
The pipe was located in a pipe trench cut at the 359' elevation and placed on a bed of a cohesive sand backfill.
The sand backfill was required to be placed in six inch layers and compacted to 95%
of the laboratory maximum dry density determined per ASTM D-1557 (in-place density tests were to be performed by the rubber balloon method, ASTM D 2167-66).
Sections of the pipe run had been completed and the trench backfilled.
Class A fill (cohesive sand at 95% compaction)
was specified under the pipe and up to the pipe centerline.
Class B fill (up to 3" aggregate at 90% compaction) was specified from the pipe centerline to grade level at the 415'
elevation.
The pipe is designed for a maximum pressure of 75 psig and is a 144" diameter, prestressed concrete pipe using bell and spigot gasketed pipe joints with mortar seal.
The inspector observed compaction operations which used a Rayco Vibrator Roller for the bed area and air operated com-pactors (pogo sticks) for areas adjacent to the sides of the pipe.
This work was being followed by Ebasco QC inspectors.
The Ebasco specifications require the pipe to be hydro-statically tested to 150% of the design pressure after installation. Applicable Ebasco specifications reviewed by the inspector included tios. 553 and 409.
The inspector walked through the installed pipe sections and visually examined the pipe joints.
The pipe joints had smooth transitions and no cracking or evidence of pipe settlement or misalignment were observed.
During review of the Moisture-Density Relationship Test results (ASTil D-1557) performed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory personnel for the Class A backfill, the inspector observed
-
that test results were atypical and therefore questionable.
Consequently, although the PTL results for in-place density tests showed the desired compaction was achieved, erroneous data from the ASTM D 1557 test would affect the in-place density test results. PTL initiated action to resolve the atypical test results.
Results of these actions will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-508/78-08-02).
-7-The inspector's review of this item indicated that the pipe installation and compacting operations were not a safety concern notwithstanding the questionable soils density testing program of PTL.
b.
Concrete Batch Plant Oualification The inspector reviewed the results of selected tests performed by PTL technicians onsite for proportioning and verification using design mixes Nos. 5000.75 N, 5000.75 R, 50001.5 N and 50001.5 R.
This review was to ascertain if properly qualified (certified) technicians performed the tests as required by PTL Procedure No. QC-PQ-2, Revision 1 and whether tests were in accordance with applicable ASTM requirements.
The inspector's findings were as follows:
(1) Design Mix 5000.75 N, Trip Tickets 2 & 7, 5/12/78 (a)
Initial set determination performed by an uncertified technician.
(b) Uncertified technician cast concrete cylinders 150 A-K and 151 A-K.
(c) Uncertified technician performed sampling of concrete.
(d)
Initial set determination per ASTM C-403 for trip
-
ticket 7 was annotated as an invalid test but sub-sequently approved by PTL District Manager on December 11, 1978.
The penetration force at time test was terminated (11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> after mixing) vias 122 psi. Acceptance reportedly based on conversation between PTL District Manager and Ebasco site engineer and their determination that eight hours had elapsed and the three hour minimum requirements appeared to have been met.
Final set was not determined.
(2) Desian Mix 5000.75 R, Trip Tickets 159 & 163, 5/6/78 (a)
Initial and final set tests performed by an un-certified technician but approved by Level II technician.
(b)
Initial and final set tests for trip ticket No. 163
.
were not run to 500 psi to determine time of initial set.
Fine.1 set not determined.
No curves of set (ASTM C-403) drawn.
Initial set reported by Clll-A023 te be 9.8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> '
.
-8-
.
(c) Uncertified technician cast cylinders 131 A-K and 134 A-K.
(d)
Initial and final set records are incomplete and not evaluated as to conformance with requirements.
(3) Dest. Mix 50001.5N, Trip Ticket 124 & 149, 5/4/78 & 5/5/78 (a)
Initial set test performed by uncertified technician.
(b)
Initial set tests for ticket 149 carried to 54 psi instead of 500 psi; results were reviewed and approved by Level II technician.
(c) Test report shows scale SC110 used for unit weight determination for trip ticket 124 test. No such scale with that serial number is at PTL.
(4) Design Mix 50001.5R, Trip Tickets 197 & 190, 5/8/78 & 5/9/78 (a)
Initial set test performed by uncertified technician.
(b) Uncertified technician cast cylinders 144 A-K.
(c) Penatrameter SE 411 listed as used for initial set test on 5/9/78 for trip ticket 190.
This serial number is invalid.
(d) Unit weight on test reoort shows 140.7 lbs; calcu-lation using raw data shows 141.43 lbs.
Unit weight reported for trip ticket 190 by Clll-A-024 (8/7/78)
was 149.5 lbs; value could not be verified by test
data. Minimum dry weight was specified as 145 lbs/ft.
The failure to implement the procedural requirement that testing be conducted by personnel having the minimum qualifi-cation as a Level I technician is an item of noncompliance.
(50-508/78-08-03)
4.
Management Interviews The NRC investigator and reactor inspector met with licensee repre-sentatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on November 16, 1978.
The results of the investigation of the two allegations were discussed with the licensee.
The licensee was advised that IE Region V would examine the results of the licensee's corrective actions with particular emphasis on any items found which might possibly affect safety-related structures.
They noted that the NRC findings from this investigation revealed one apparent item of noncompliance (falsification of personnel qualification examination records by
.... _
%_
,
,,
.-
-
_9_
,
PTL personnel) and that PTL laboratory management was lax.
Mr. W. J. Talbott, WPPSS Project Division Manager, WNP 3-5, advised that WPPSS would immediately initiate their own investigation.
He said that WPPSS' investigation would further address the original allegations that the NRC had investigated and would also addrass the additional allegations received by NRC inspectors during the course of interviews with present and former PTL employees.
NRC inspectors also met with licensee representatives on December 8 and 21, 1978 to discuss the results of additional NRC inspections related to the observed improper practices at the PTL site testing laboratory.
The inspectors discussed one apparent iten of non-compliance (testing by uncertified PTL personnel) which was identified after the initial investigation of allegations.
_
F
. _.. _.... _