IR 05000508/1986012

Insp Rept 50-508/86-12 on 860915-1215.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Readiness Review Program Module C3-01, Earthwork & Followup on Insp Repts 50-508/86-10 & 50-508/86-11

ML20211H410
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	02/06/1987
From:	Peranich W, Phillips H, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211H295	List: IR 05000508/1986012 ML20211H290
References
50-508-86-12, NUDOCS 8702260172
Download: ML20211H410 (25)

Text

.

Report No.: 50-508/86-12

'

Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)

P. O. Box 1223 Elma, Washington, 98541 Docket No.: 50-508 Construction Permit No.: CPPR-154-Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Module: C3-01 Earthwork

ProjectNo.3(WNP-3)

Reviews Conducted: September 15, 1986 - December 15, 1986 On-Site Inspections Conducted: September 15-19, 1986 and October 27-31, 1986 NRC Offices Participating in Inspections / Reviews:

Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), Bethesda, MD Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Bethesda, MD Office of General Counsel (OGC),

Bethesda, MD Region V, Walnut Creek, CA Reviewers: H. W. Phillips, Reactor Construction Engineer, RCPB, DI, IE

, (Primary Reviewer)

R. S. Lee, Licensing Project Manager, NRR G. S. Lewis, Inspection Specialist, QAB, DQAVT, IE H. B. Wang, Inspection Specialist, QAB, DQAVT, IE

-

0. P. Mallon, Consultant W. P. Ang, Project Inspector, Region V A. D. Toth, Project Inspector, Region V J. Rutberg, Attorney, 0GC A. Hodgdon, Attorney, 0GC c~

Prepared By: dM A roo 2 + B7 H. W. Phillips, Primary Reviewer Date Signed Reactor Construction Programs Branch, DI, IE Approved By: bN A M. W. Peranich, Section Chief Fort 2-6-87 Date Signed Reactor Construction Programs Branch, DI, IE MYb GA S. A. Richards, Chief, Engineering Section 1 -6 - Qa Date Signed Region V B702260172 870206 PDR ADOCK 05000508 G PDR

_ .- . ,- - -

.

s WASHINGTONNUCLEARPROJECTNO.3(WNP-3)

READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MODULE NO. C3-01 EARTHWORK

, CONTENTS Topic PaSe Summary and Statement of Module Acceptability (Conclusions).... 1 Purpose and Scope of Review.................................... 1

-

NRC Methodology................................................ 3

'

NRC Staff Evaluation / Findings.................................. 4 References..................................................... 22 Tables......................................................... 23 Li s t of Pe rsons Conta cted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Acronyms....................................................... 26

4 i

t

+

'

<

.

.

.

,

'

WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 3 (WNP-3)

'

'

READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM

,

l MODULE NO. C3-01 EARTHWORK -i

, l l

SUMMARY l

.

I

~

- The Readiness Review Program is being conducted at the initiative of Washington I Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) management to assure that design, construc-tion,"and operational comitments have been pro at the Washington Nuclear Project No. 3 (WNP-3)perly

.

identified Earthwork and implemented Module C3-01, which was submitted by Washington Public Power Supply System on September 10, 1986, presents an assessment of the compliance of the Earthwork program with Final i Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) commitments and regulatory requirements for the '

construction phase. This evaluation by the NRC was conducted to determine if the results of the. program. review of Earthwork represent an effective and accurate assessment of the requirements, and that these requirements have been properly implemente .

This evaluation was perfomed by NRC reviewers from the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and from Region V. Also,' appropriate reviews were performed by the Office of the General Council (OGC). The evaluation consisted of a detailed examination of each section of the Earthwork Module. Specific NRC staff evaluation of each section of the Earthwork Module C3-01 is provided in this repor ~

In general, with the exception of the open. items (01) listed below, the NRC evaluation indicates that the licensee's program-review was comprehensive and provides adequate assurance that the safety-related soil cement and the safety-related Class A-1 backfill were placed in accordance with the FSAR commitments and regulatory requirements and will-adequately perform their intended func-tions. The NRC review also indicates that'the licensee has taken appropriate

,

actions with regard to licensee identified deficiencies and that the Earthwork program effectiveness has been enhanced by active' management participatio STATEMENT OF MODULE ACCEPTABILITY (CONCLUSIONS)

The Construction Assurance Program (CAP) Module C3-01 Earthwork was found to be acceptable for work already completed, except for the following open items (01): Since EAP Module E3-02 Civil / Structural, which includes engineering / design aspects of Earthwork, has not yet been completed or submitted to the NRC,

"

follow-up is required to determine the impact on construction Module C3-01 Earthwork by the results of the NRC review of EAP Module E3-02. Final

'

acceptance of Module C3-01 is contingent upon acceptance of Module E3-0 This follow-up item is identified as Open Item (01) 50-508/86-12-01 Interface With Module E3-0 i

_-_____

, - . _ - -- .. - -. . . . .

.

,

L

.

During discussions with the licensee, it was understood that NRC review of Module C3-01 would be primarily of construction aspects, but that any questions raised during limited review of excerpt material from Module E3-02 included'in

~

Module C3-01 would be noted for follow-up. The following items requiring follow-up, when Module E3-02 is submitted, were identified:

]

FSAR changes were mentioned in the report but have not been processed

through the review and approval cycles. Final review and acceptance

of Module C3-01 will be made by the NRC after the FSAR changes are l submitted and approved. This follow-up item is identified as-0I 50-508/86-12-02 FSAR Change *

'

A question was raised by the NRC inspectors regarding the in-situ' '

rock stresses and-the lack of data on measurements of resulting i~

pressures on the Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) exterior walls below grade. The licensee indicated that this matter would be e

addressed in the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) Module E3-02 Civil / Structural . This follow-up item is identified as 01 50-508/86-12-03 Rock Stress Data.

,

Aquestionwasalsoraised'bydheNRCinspectorsregardingthe mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis of the RAB and whether the 32 foot excavation for the circulating water pipes along the' west wall of the:RAB had been considered in selecting mathemati-cal properties of the dynamic analysis model. The licensee indicated that this matter would be addressed in the EAP Module E3-02 Civil /

j Structural. .This follow-up item is, identified as 01 50-508/86-12-04 i

Excavation Consideration In Dynamic Analysi . Physical'andchemicalrequirementsforbementandsandusedintheproduc-tion of soil cement fill were-riot reviewed by the licensee. The licensee

stated that the cement and sand qualifications would be reviewed and submitted in the Concrete Module C3-02. This follow-up item is identified i as 01 50-508/86-12-05' Cement and Sand Qualification Dat *

,j

a I

e

'

t i

f

)

t h

- - - - _- _ - - .

.

.

WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 3 (WNP-3)

READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MODULE N0. C3-01 EARTHWORK A. Purpose and Scope of Review The purpose of this evaluation by the NRC was to determine if the results of the program review of Earthwork presented in Module C3-01 are an effective and accurate assessment of construction requirements, and that these requirements have been properly implemente It was noted that the scope of Module C3-01 includes applicable Construc-tion Assurance Program (CAP) information, and also limited design informa-tion in the form of an excerpt from Module E3-02 Civil / Structural of the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP). Since Module E3-02 has not yet been completed or submitted to the-NRC, it was recognized that the NRC review and inspection of Module C3-01 Earthwork for acceptance is limited to the construction portion of the Module, and that further review and inspection of design information will be required when more complete information is submitted in Module E3-02 Civil / Structural. During discussions with licensee personnel, it was understood that the NRC reviewers would note any questions concerning EAP aspects for follow-u The review included an examination of each section of Module C3-01 Earthwork and was performed by reviewers assigned from the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and from NRC Region V. Also, the material was reviewed as appro-priate by the Office of the General Counsel (0GC). The following is a list of the sections of Module C3-01 reviewed:

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Executive Sumary 3.0 EAP Summary Report on Earthwork Design 4.0 Review of Program Description 5.0 -Program Management 6.0 . Methodology 7.0 Program Results 8.0 Conclusions and Recomendations 9.0 Oversight Comittee Assessment The NRC review of Section 3.0 EAP Sumary Report on Earthwork Design and Section 6.0 Methodology was limited to information useful in the review of construction aspects of earthwork. It was recognized that Module E3-02 Civil / Structural covers design aspects, including design information for earthwork, and has not yet been completed or submitted to the NRC. Also, it was recognized that Methodology, particularly Sampling Rationale, requires special consideration and judgement for application to each module for WNP- The NRC review of Module C3-01 Earthwork included an in-depth review of Section 7.0 Program Results, a review of critical elements of earthwork,

_ _ _

.

,

': . and an' inspection of a selected sample of critical elements, which, in the judgement cf the NRC inspectors, required independent. review as a part of

,

the NRC evaluation'of Module C3-01 (see Table 1 Earthwork Critical Elements).

The NRC methodology and evaluation of each section is provided in the

discussion which follow NRC Methodology i The primary review of Module C3-01 Earthwork was performed by the NRC 0ffice of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) with the cooperation and participation of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the

" Office of the General Counsel (0GC) and Region NRC Inspection Reports (IR) relative to earthwork prior to submittal of Module C3-01 were reviewed. These included irs 50-508/86-04 (March 24-28, 1986), 50-508/86-05 (April 28-May 2, 1986), 50-508/86-6 (May 19-23,'1986),

50-508/86-08 (July 15-18, 1986), and 50-508/86-9 (August 1,'1986). Also, inspection report 50-508/86-10 (September 15-19,1986), for an inspection performed after the licensee submitted Module C3-01, was reviewe An additional inspedtion was performed by the primary reviewer and a technical consultant to examine an independent sample of critical elements of earthwork.- Reference inspection' report 50-508/86-11 (October 27-31, 1986) and Table 1 Earthwork Critical Element In addition, the NRC reviewers examined prior NRC inspection reports issued during the earthwork construction time period, prior Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports, and other reference material. Section D contains a list of selected reference The NRC team ' reviews of the nine sections of Module C3-01 Earthwork, and the evaluations, with reference by number to the Sections of Module C3-01, are included in the following portion of this repor NRC Staff Evaluations-Findings Section 1.0 - Introduction

. Discussion , ,

This section'of Module C3-01 provides brief background

'

infonnation regarding the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program, the purpose and scope of the Construction Assurance Program (CAP),

and specifically, the review of earthwork construction

!. activities; how and by whom it was implemented; and how it was

'

reporte ,

It was noted under paragraph 1.1 that it is stated: "The scope

of the Readiness Review of earthwork is all Quality Class 1 (QC-1) soils and soil-cement backfill operations, materials, inspection, and testing that were completed prior to the

-

construction delay period which began May 23, 1983. This earthwork is all that could be considered safety-related, ...."

'l

. -- , .. - . . . , , - . , - . _ , . _ , - . , - . . _ , . . . . . , , . . _ - . - - , - . - . , -

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

.- . . . -- . . .

>

'

a

.

x .

'

'Also, it was noted under paragraph 7.2 of Section 7.0 that it is stated: ."The work remaining to complete the WNP-3' earthwork is

'

identified in paragraph 7.4.7...." Paragraph 7.4.7 was not

-found in the WPPSS report, but paragraph'7.6.7 identifies incomplete work ~and it was noted that Figure 7.2-2 of-the report shows uncompleted safety-related earthwor '

.

'

, .Also, it was noted that paragraph 3.1 implies that the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) for earthwork is a part of '

Module C3-01. Since EAP Module E3-02 Civil / Structural, which ,

includes earthwork, has not yet been completed or submitted to

'-

the NRC, discussions with WNP-3 personnel revealed that it was intended that' Module C3-01 be reviewed for acceptance of only

Construction Assurance Program (CAP) aspects of earthwork, and

! , that any questions regarding EAP aspects would be noted for

,

follow-u Findings *

'

Thiss[cti6nwasrev'iewedforbackgroun'dinformationonly. No violations or deviations were noted. However, the licensee should

, review the uncompleted earthwork and assure that future safety-i' ,

related earthwork is perfonned in accordance with requirement .. Section 2.0 - Executive Sumary ,

,

- Discussion

' '

'

This section of Module C3-01 provides a brief summary of the

-

status of WNP-3, and results of the WPPSS Review Team activity.

'

It.was noted that the third paragraph includes a statement:

"The in-depth examination of records shows that FSAR comitments

-

and specification requirements were satisfied, and that NRC commitments were met for.all safety-related earthwork of the l plant." Since Figure 7.2-2 Unccmpleted Earthwork of the report

indicates that safety-related earthwork has not been completed, the statement is not entirely correct for the remaining earth-p work. FSAR commitments must be applied when completing the i

I earthwork construction, and open items identified in this report must be resolve Also, it "was noted that the fourth paragraph includes a state-ment: ...this report also establishes that earthwork design and engineering was properly accomplished...." Since Module

, E3-02 has not yet been completed or submitted, NRC evaluation of

." this statement for earthwork design and engineering is deferred pending submittal of Module E3-02. Follow-up is required, and this item is identified as 0I 50-508/86-12-01 Interface'With Module E3-02.-

i

Findings No violations or deviations were noted in Section 2.0 of Module

, C3-01. However, receipt of Module E3-02 is required to permit l

-

l-L

.

.

NRC evaluation of earthwork design and engineering, and any

' impact on construction Module C3-01. Also, open items identi-fied in this report and summarized in the Sumary/ Statement of Module Acceptability (Conclusions) must be resolved and close . Section 3.0 - EAP Sumary Report on Earthwork Design This section of Module C3-01 provides an excerpt from Module E3-02 Civil / Structural. Since Module E3-02 has not been completed or submitted to the NRC, review of the excerpt material included in Module C3-01 was limited as further review will be required when the completed Module E3-02 is submitted. A prerequisite to the accept-ance of Module C3-01 is the review and acceptance by the NRC of completed Module E3-02, particularly aspects pertaining to Earthwor The following paragraphs cover the limited review of excerpt material from Module E3-02 that was submitted in Module C3-0 Discussion The excerpt material from Module E3-02~ presented in this section of Module C3-01 included an Earthwork Checklist with listings of Criteria / Commitments, Source Document, Review Results and Remarks. Also a FSAR Commitment Matrix with references to items on the Earthwork Checklist was included. ~The following observations were made: <

(1) FSAR changes were mentioned under Remarks for items. , 15,.18 and 20 on the Earthwork Checklist. The licensee stated that such items had not been processed through review and approval cycles, however, they were placed in the Commitments on the WNP-3 General Tracking System which is auditable (reference: IR50-508/86-11). Follow-up OI 50-508/86-12-02 -FSAR Change (2) A question was raised by NRC inspectors regarding the design of the Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) exterior wall below grade without results of in-situ rock stress test measurements and the resulting rock pressure on the RAB exterior walls below grade. The licensee indicated that this matter would be addressed in Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) Module E3-02 Civil / Structural (reference: IR50-508/86-11). Follow-up 01 50-508/86-12-03 Rock Stress Data.

l (3) A question was also raised by NRC inspectors regarding the mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis of the RAB and whether the 32 foot excavation for the circulating water pipes along the west wall of the RAB had been considered in selecting mathematical properties of the dynamic analysis model. The licensee indicated that this matter would be addressed in EAP Module E3-02 Civil /

Structural (reference: IR50-508/86-11). Follow-up OI 50-508/86-12-04 Excavation Consideration In Dynamic Analysi '.

, . - . -

x --

n ( -

f p~ '

-

',, j , ,

F ,s y *

cf

'

-

(4) Geological mapping aspects were not reviewed. Since '

-

'

geological mappingiuilt be included in EAP Module E3-02 ^

t Civil / Structural for'the WNP-3 project, NRC review will be - '

performad when Module,E3-02 is submitte ,

A,

'

.. (5) TheEngineeringBranchoftheDivisionhfPWRLicensing-B

'

u has reviewed the Washington Nuclear Project-3, WNP-3) <

Readiness Review Program Earthwork Module C3-0 F.inal

.

'

Report with respect.to ideni.ification and imph.etation of Final Safety Analysis Repire(FSAR) comitments. FSAR

'

n(

/'

Section 2.5.4 and FSAR Ap'per. dices.2.5A, 2.'5B', 2.5C, 2.5D,

, and 2.5L through FSAR Amendnent 6 were n yieved for ,J;

earthwork commitments and compared with' the Earthwork Module C3-01 Final Report (Final Raport). ,

FSARSection2.5.4.5.2ibdi[ cuss.ingth$excavationof-Category I structures states. M ll exposed sandstone . '

l surfaces of the excav.itica dist,urbed during construction .t were cleaned by air jetting; mapped 1(see Appendix 2.5F) and ^

proteated against slaking and weethering by means of shotcreting over welded w!re fabric. l The final excavated fresn sandstone bottom was also mapped and 'co hred with a .

protcctive concrete mud iat." This commitment is nct '

identified in the Final P.cpor ,

, ,'

~

FSAR Appendix 2.5A Secticri 2.5.A.2.1.3 in discussing soil

.samp1tng s' cates, " Standard yenetration tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard D1586-67. The maximum depth interval between tests was 5 ft. ... Material recovered from t's split spocn was used for indt.k property deterwination in the laboratory. Undisturbed soil samples >

were obtained by using thin isli tube samples. ...The ,

,,

- sampling procedure was in accordance with ASME Standard

~

.

D1587-67." This commitment is not identified in the Final '

Repor ,

As a result of the review of the documentation', e conclude

'

that the FSAR comitments identified in the Final Report have been implemented exceptr for those identified in Section 7.6.7 of the Final Report' and those FSAR commit-ments identified in the preceding two paragraphs, which

'

were not identified in the Final Repor In addition, the .0ffice cf Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

issued a Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) for WNF-3 in

-

November 1985 documating the staff review of the FSAR to that date. The staff's evaluation findings in the'0S together with the staff's review findings as stated above -

pertaining to the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program Final Report constitute the staff's position in this subject are .

_ _

m ' ,

Y

'

'. ,,

, .,

,

~

'

}. ,

-g'

_ _ Findings -

y' Sirce EAP Module E3-02. Civil / Structural has not yet been

, completed or submitted to the NRC, further review of EAP aspects

is required when Module E3-02 is submitted. Follow-up is

.. required to' verify that FSAR commitments mentioned above as not

'

^ < identified in-the Final Report are covered, and to determine the

'4 , impact on construction. Module C3-01 of deficiencies, if any, (that may be found during the review of EAP Module E3-02. This follow-up item is identified as 0I 50-508/86-12-01 Interface

• '

With Module E3-0 ,

~

. . , , .

Also, follow-up is required for 01 50-508/86-12-02 FSAR Changes, OI-50-508/86-12-03 Rock Stress Data, and OI 50-508/86-12-04

~

Excavation Consideration in Dynamic Analysis mentioned above.

, ,

, -

.J Sectionf4~.0'- Review Program Description #'

- '

, c

,

' Discussion.

m

~

This section of Module 'C3-01 provided'a brief description ~of the' l review program for completed safety-related earthwork construc-tion at WNP-3. Applicable contractors were identified, program

, content was described, and related project reviews were note ~ Lists and brief descriptions of applicable Construction Assur-

! .ance Program (CAP) procedures and instructions were provide Also, a review plan (Appendix 1) and a list of. checklists used 7 in the earthwork review were include J

'

The NRC inspector [ noted that design mix control for soil cement

'

fill should have been included as an attribute. Also, it was considered that the review of soil cement lift thickness should t have been covered as a separate attribute instead of being combined with curing. However, review of records indicated'that field personnel used proper mixes and that lift thickness was

,

controlled.

i- ' Findings

,

The contents of this sectior L9rs ound to be reasonable. No

'

j violations or deviations w.t.e n d .

! Section 5.0 - Program Management - Discussion

, ,

This section of Module C3-01 described the organization,

'

internal controls, management involvement, NRC involvement, and oversight committe Findings This section was reviewed for background information. The contents of this section were found to be reasonable. No violations or deviations were note .,

d f

'

(, n ,.

e ,

f 3

.

6. ~ Section 6)0 - Methodolog)

p - , Discussion .

.'

TheIationaleappliedtosamplingandthetechniquesusedto Lv select items >for inspection for this module were found generally

-

acceptable except as noted belo As stated in paragraph 6.2, Review and Inspection Philosophy,

.~the primary method-of determining that earthwork met specified requirements was by review of key quality documentation prepared at the time the work was in progress. This is-necessary but not sufficient in that a limited number of "as-built" reviews should be made as shown in Section C.3.a(2) of this report with the

. ; example of the-question regarding in-situ rock stresses and resulting pressures on the RAB exterior walls below grade. The rationale as stated in Module C3-01 did not require this type of revie '

.The introduction to this section indicates that it covers the philosophy applied to reviews and inspections in the Readiness Review Program generally and the methods used to perform the J The folicwing comments pertain to this philosophy: '

(1) Review and Inspection Philosophy The attributes reviewed to provide added assurance that a given construction area such as " concrete" is in conformance to regulatory requirements must be selected using " good engineering judgement." A sufficient set of these attributes may not always be effectively drawn from a random sample of contractor-generated documents. The attributes should also include those that have already been identified as " problem areas" from previous licensee, NRC, and INP0 audits and inspections. This should include experiences of both WPPSS and other utilities with plants similar to WNP- (2) Sampling' Rationale ThesamhlingmethodologydescribedinModuleC3-01is geared to " binomial populations." As such, its use in the CAP should be limited to those situations which meet the

'. necessary conditions for application of the binomial probability distribution theory, such as:

'

homogeneity of items within a population r * random selection of items from a population L ability to classify - with certainty - each item

as acceptable or unacceptable.

?

'

,

t

.

i -- - "

-

,

,

.. ,

(3) Earthwork Module'C3 01 Methodology

- . 4

'

The review' of. earthwork documents.by'WPPSS was noted to

'

cover such items as'in-place density testing and equipment calibration. In these cases', 100% of.the reports were

. reviewe '

TheNRCinspec' tors'reviewhdpriorNRCinspectionreports-and conducted an inspection October 27, 1986 through October 31, 1986 during which 100% of earthwork records were reviewed for nonconformance reports, measuring and test equipment, placement and compaction and density test records for soil cement fill, and_ density test records for Class'A-1 backfill. No significant violations or deviations were identifie Findings

,

In general, the methodology used for earthwork by WPPSS was found acceptable.

However, the methodology to be used by WPPSS for future modules will be reviewed by the NRC on a case by case basis in view of the coments made abov . Section 7.0 - Program Results Discussion of Results of Licensee CAP Reviews of Earthwork

_ This section of Module C3-01 presents the results of licensee CAP reviews of earthwork, and required extensive review by the

-

NRC reviewers and inspectors. The NRC review included examina-tion of results of CAP reviews of earthwork and the results of

. .an independent NRC inspection (Reference IR 50-508/86-11) to review a selected sample of critical elements and attributes of earthwork (see Table 1 Earthwork Critical Elements). Comments regarding NRC review of this section of Module C3-01 relative to numbered paragraphs, and results of the independent NRC inspec-tion are as follows:

(1) Paragraph 7.1 General Findings This paragraph provided a brief sumary of the WNP-3 review l program activity for earthwork. It includes a statement:

"A review of the original laboratory testing for soil cement was made to verify the establishment of the soil-cement mix design." It does not address the fact that the i design mix was changed twice during the placement of soil cement. Also, it does not address the effect of these changes on the soil cement properties. However, review of records indicated that the proper mixes were used and verified by field inspection personne .; b

- , - , _ _ .- . . . . , _ ~

.

.

.

(2) Paragraph 7.2 Placement Areas This program includes, with figures, identification of placement areas for both soil cement and Class A-1 structural backfil It included a statement: "The work remaining to complete WNP-3 earthwork is identified in paragraph 7.4.7...." Paragraph 7.4.7 was not included in the report, but paragraph 7.6.7 identifies incomplete work and figure 7.2-2 Uncompleted Earthwork was included. It was noted that safety-related earthwork has not been-complete (3) Paragraph 7.3 Checklist Findings This portion describes findings and resolutions of deficiencies found in the WNP-3 review of earthw7rk. The analysis provided a summary of results for each o' the 21 checklists developed by the licensee including findngs and resolutions of deficiencies found. Review by NRC inspectors resulted in the following comments:

In paragraph-7.3.1 the report states: "All in-place density test reports were found to exceed the specified compaction requirements and the moisture content was within specified limits." This was not found to be completely accurate, in that the NRC inspectors found one density test and ten moisture contents that were not within specified limits. Also, in section 7.3.15 the report is misleading when it states that all the in-place density tests for Class A-1 backfill exceeded the specified requirement The NRC inspectors found two tests that were slightly below the specified minimum dry density. However, the specifica-tions allow for 10% of the minimum dry density tests to fall 5% below the specified limi In table 7.5-1, item 4 states that the sand used in the production of soil cement will be reviewed in Concrete Module C3-02. This review should have been made as part of module C3-01 Earthwork. However, WNP-3 representatives stated that the physical and chemical qualifications of cement and sand met requirements, and that confirming information would be included in Module C3-02. Follow-up is required to confirm that the cement and sand used in soil cement fill is acceptable. Follow-up 01 50-508/

86-12-05 Cement and Sand Qualification Dat In table 7.5-1, item 7 states that the optimum moisture content of the soil cement was 10.4%. The mix changed twice and so did the optimurn moisture content (11.2% and

'

11.1%). See Section C.6.b.(2)(b) of this report for further discussion which indicates that proper mixes were used by field personne ..

< ,

,

' '

.

e-

,

'

(4) Paragraph ~7.4 Evaluation of Contractor Performance Th sl portion.'provides a discussion of activities of the contractors directly involved with earthwork, 'and perform-ance charts _were included; The NRC inspectors reviewed the material presented in the module C3-01 report..and also the

, Ebasco specifications for soil cement and structural

. backfill ,the Ebasco Specification for supply and delivery of concrete, the Morrison-Knudsen placement procedures, the PTL inspection and field test procedures and placement and compaction records; The reviews indicated that performance of the contractors was reasonable, and that, in general, soil cement and Class A-1. backfill had been placed in accordance with specifications'and contractor procedure No significant violations or deviations were identifie (5) Paragraph 7.5 FSAR Comitments Refer to C.3.a(5) of this document for discussion of FSAR comitment (6) . Paragraph 7.6 Other CAP Technical Assessments This portion contains discussions of Excavation Permit Review, Sand Sieve Analysis Review, NRC Items of Non-compliance, NRC Circular No. IEC-81-08-Foundation Materials, Construction Management Activities, Drainage System Walkdown, Identification of Incomplete Work, Sumary of NCRs Written During Earthwork Operations and Soil Cement Laboratory Testing. In general, these items were found to be acceptable and no significant violations or deviations were identified. The discussion of incomplete work and the referenced figures showed that safety-related earthwork had

, not been completed, b. Discussion of Independent NRC Inspection Results

'

The independent NRC inspection covered programatic and other critical elements of safety-related earthwork, including criti-

'

,

cal element attributes of soil-cement backfill and Class A-1 backfill (reference Table 1 Earthwork Critical Elements). The results of the independent NRC inspection are as follows:

i (1) Programatic Critical Elements Inspection

' Resumes of the Five WPPSS Readines: Review Team i

members for Module C3-01: T. McCormick, N. Blais, Cochran, L. Fields and F. Teague were reviewed, and their qualifications were found to be reasonable and

acceptable for Module C3-01 Earthwork.

!

l i

- - -

.,

, ,

• ', -

,

,

' Quality Assurance (QA) manuals and applicable Quality Control (QC) procedures-for three contractors involved with earthwork: . Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL),

Associated Sand and Gravel Company (AS&G) and Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. (M-K) were reviewed and found to be acceptabl ' Corrective actions pertaining to earthwork were reviewed. A total of 20 Nonconformance Reports (NCRs)

were reviewed and corrective actions / dispositions with proper signatures and approvals were found to be reasonable and acceptabl Audit reports for 12 internal audits by three contractors involved with earthwork were reviewed: 6 by PTL, 4 by AS&G and 2 by M-K. Also, three audits of the contractors by WPPSS/Ebasco were reviewed: one each for PTL, AS&G and M-K. It was found that findings and concerns revealed by these audits were reasonably resolved and dispositioned, Material control and traceability records were reviewed. Mill test reports for 9343 tons of cement (3 lots: No. 45, No. 46 and No. 47) were examined and found acceptable. It was noted that records included a copy of the applicable mill test report for each truck load of cemen The control of Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) was reviewed. It was noted that PTL controlled the M&TE applicable to earthwork activities of PTL, AS&G and M- Calibration records for 24 items of M&TE were reviewed and control was found to be acceptable. In one case, PP-10 Automatic Soil Compactor, calibration was found to be 8.38% out of tolerance. A NCR was issued ( No. 204-10) and appropriate evaluation and disposition of prior work was performed. The control of M&TE was found to be reasonable and acceptabl A question regarding the status of required changes to the FSAR as mentioned in Module C3-01 Earthwork was discussed. The applicant stated that four changes had not been processed through review and approval cycle However, these items were placed in the Commitments On the WNP-3 General Tracking System as of October 29, 1986: LIC-RRCA-0001, -0002, -0003, and -0004. The applicant stated that contents of the Tracking System were auditabl In general, the control of programmatic critical elements was considered to be reasonable and acceptable. However, follow-up is required to confirm that FSAR changes are processed and approve ,

-f' f g

-

. . .

-

T-

/ g

, Eg ' '

'n $ '

,

? ,,

>

-

. ji[;, *

a t '

'

"t* -

4; L, .

'

.- .. . ,

(2) Earthwork scr;itical Elements'. Inspection (a) . Construction Assurance Pr'ogfam - Earthwork

" Module: Review .

<3 )

"A " review of construction aspects of earth' work was perfonned at the WNP-3 site with emphasis on critical

,

elements.of earthwork which include soil-cement backfill with significant attributes and Class A-1

. backfill with significant attributes. for safety-related applications. The following construction

+ procedures, specifications and earthwork placement and compaction records were reviewed:

, Ebasco Specification WPPSS-3240-466 Soil' Cement and Structural Backfill, Rev. 2 dated August 2, 1982

'

Ebasco Specification WPPSS-3240-466 Soil Cenient Engineered Backfill for RAB Access Ramps and *

Adjacent Araas, Rev. I dated October 24, 1979

Ebasco Specification 3240-209 Supply and Deliver

^

of Concrete, Rev. 16 dated March 2, 1986

Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.~CP 17 Procedure for Placing, Compacting, Curing and Inspection of Soil Cement and Class.A-1 Structural Fill, Rev. 5 dated May 4, 1983. The NRC inspector examined the original and. latest revisions and noted that the latest revision included minor improvements-in definition of work control

Woodward-Clyde Report dated March 25, 1981 Soil Cement Engineered Backfill Design Mix Test Program

l Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Procedure QC-ST-1 ( Soils Inspection and Tests-Field, Rev. 3 dated

, May 24, 1979. The NRC inspector examined the i original and latest revisions and noted that the I latest revision included minor improvements in definition of work control

• Placement and Compaction records for soil cement l . placed in the RAB access ramp between June 2, 1980 and June 16, 198 *

Placement and Compaction records for soil cement i

placed beneath diesel oil storage tan Placement and conipaction records for soil cement placed beneath dry cooling tower, electrical i

vault and duct bank area.

l

,

m

_. _ - . . , , . - , . . _ - . .__ . . . . _ . . . - _ . . . _ , - . . _ - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , . . . . _ . _

_ . . _ . _ . _ _ . ___ ____ . . . _ .

. s: ,

,

+

L* ,

.

.

'

- (b) Soil-Cement Backfill i Cement Backfill was placed in the RAB access ramp So'l

,

area, below the diesel storage tank A and under the

'

, . Dry Cooling Tower in the nrea of the electrical vault and duct bank ,

,

Approximately 150 compaction records were reviewed and t only one'was slightly below the specified compactio The specification allows 10% of tests to be 5% below

'

-

-

i specified compactio Ten moisture contents exceeded specification limit These were accepted by Ebasco field personnel. The specification and the procedure do not specifically state that the Ebasco field personnel have this authority. However, the in-place density tests were acceptable and, therefore, the moisture content

variations were not significant.

'

The soil cement design mix was specified in Ebasco Specification 3240-209 and is basically 90% sand and

>

10% cement. This is in agreement with the FSAR and the Woodward-Clyde test repor However, during the placement of the soil cement fill, the type of sand was changed two times. This changed

'

the basic test acceptance criteria, that is the minimum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content. The three mixes (original and two changes)

are as follows:

Lab Optimum Test . Minimum Dry Unit Moisture Mix N Weight t/ Content-%

S0 Cem N/A 11 .4 S0 Cem #1 276 13 .2 S0 Cem #2 277 12 .1

,

'

The CAP Checklist Instruction CAP-D-C-01-01 lists the acceptance criteria for the soil cement mixes as

-

follows:

. Lab Optimum

.

Test Minimum Dry Unit Moisture i Mix N Weight Lbs./C.F.

l Content-% i 2%

!

S0 Cem --

11 .4 RAB Access

-

Ramp

!

'

--

276 12 .2

--

277 11 .1 i

. . - ._m. _ , . . - . - - ,._._,,..,_,_.m.-.__ _

_ . _ _ _ , , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . , , _ . _ , - _ . . . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ , . . . . _ . _ _ _

_

__

.

.

-

.

' ~

'

It does not appear that specific acceptance criteria was given to the site inspectors,-and the NRC inspectors were not able to confirm the laboratory

' test number from approximately 60% of the inspection reports. The laboratory test number is listed on the in-place density tests as N/A. The specifications are not specific as to the type of sand to be used. The specifications state that the sand shall be similar to the sand used in the mixing of concrete. However, review of the records indicated that the proper mixes were used and evaluated by field inspection personne Three NCRs were written by the CAP earthwork module team as follows and were dispositioned as acceptable with appropriate approvals:

NCR N Description 20000 Horizontal location of soil tests are not identified on the test report Weather data is not identified on soil test report Testing frequency for 28 lifts of soil cement placed on RAB Access Ramp was not in accordance with specificatio In general, the soil cement placement appeared to be acceptable and no significant violations or deviations were identifie (c) Class A-1 Backfill Class _A-1 Backfill was used as bedding and part of the overburden for the ASME piping south and east of the RAB. This piping included chemical and volume control

. systems, the component cooling water system and emergency generator syste Approximately 80 density tests results were reviewed with only two falling slightly below the specified minimum dry density. This is acceptable in accordance with the specification The horizontal location and weather data were not incorporated in the test reports as specified and were dispositioned in NCRs 20000 and 2000 The Class A-1 backfill appeared to be placed in a controlled manner, and no significant violations or deviations were identifie , (- _

~,4 .. . .

g

,

o ,

,

-

.

3-

'

,*: -

%,, _,

a

'

,

. Findings a

.No significant violations or deviations were noted. This

'

g.- Section is generally acceptable for completed earthwork with 4- consideration of comments mentioned in the above paragraph ,

,. Followup is required to confirm that the cement and sand used in

soil cement fill is acceptable.- This open item is identified as

.

, 0I 50-508/86-12-05 Cement and Sand Qualification Dat . Section 8.0 - Conclusions and Recommendations

~ Discussion s This section of construction Module C3-01 includes a brief summary and-discussion of results of the activities of the WNP-3 Review Team. Conclusions stated that: " ...the earthwork perfonned to date at WNP-3 is of high quality and meets appro-priate standards for safety-related construction." Recommenda-

. tions stated: "The Review Team recomunends that this report provide the basis for acceptance of WNP-3 earthwork, with no outstanding quality issues to.be addressed after. restart of construction."

The NRC review of construction Module C3-01 revealed that engineering / design Module E3-02 Civil / Structural, which contains earthwork aspects had not been completed or submitted, and that final NRC acceptance of Module C3-01 is contingent upon review and acceptance of Module E3-02, particularly earthwork engineer-ing/ design aspects. Also, the NRC review revealed that physical and chemical requirements and qualifications for cement and sand used in the production of soil cement fill would be included in Module'C3-02 Concrete which has not yet been completed or submitte Findings -

'

-

_ The conclusions and reconsnendations are generally acceptable,

, ' pending acceptable resolution of prior inentioned open items, as i

follows:

(1) .01'50-508/86-12-01 Interface With Module E3-02, including:

i

',

• 01 50-508/86-12-02 FSAR Changes

.

9 OI 50-508/86-12-03 Rock Stress Data

-

L * OI 50-508/86-12-04 Excavation Consideration in

[ Dynamic Analysis

, (2) OI 50-508/86-12-05 Cement and Sand Qualification Data

,

.. ~

- '~

' >

a- ;

-

.

-

.

.'

r ,

, 9. Section 9.0 - 0versight Committee Assessment Discussion-This section of Module C3-01 briefly described the ' activities of

<

the WNP-3 Oversight Committee. Mr. Specer H. Bush, PE, Chairman, stated in a letter dated September 10, 1986: "In our opinion, this issue'is resolved by the report which provides an

<. excellent basis-with regard to Earthwork for future reactivation of WNP-3." Findings ,

The contents of this section were found to be reasonable. No violations or deviations were noted. However, the licensee must resolve open items identified in this repor '

, ,

i

'

i

!

!

- -

.

.

D. References Washington Public Power Supply System, Final Report of Earthwork Module C3-01 of the WNP-3 Construction Assurance Program of the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program, September, 198 September 10, 1986, letter from D. W. Mazur, Managing Director, Washington Public Power Supply System forwarding Earthwork Module C3-01 for NRC evaluatio NRC Inspection Report No. 50-508/86-10 covering an inspection conducted September 15-19, 198 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-508/86-11 covering an inspection conducted October 27-31, 198 Other NRC Inspection Reports applicable to Earthwork Module C3-01:

50-508/86-04 50-508/86-05 50-508/86-06 50-508/86-08 50-508/86-09 Other NRC Inspection Reports applicable to construction:

50-508/78-04 50-508/81-08 50-508/78-06 50-508/82-15 50-508/78-09 50-508/82-16

, 50-508/79-01 50-508/82-20 50-508/79-04 50-508/82-23

-

50-508/79-05 50-508/82-06 SALP Report, September 15, 1982 transmitted January 3,1983 SALP Report, transmitted November 4,1981

.

.

.

E. Tables Earthwork Critical Elements

' r

.. ,

'

TABLE 1 EARTHWORK CRITICAL ELEMENTS

,

..>.

s Programmatic Team Qualifications *

-QA Manuals *

QC Procedures *

Corrective Actions *

QA Audits *

,

Material Control and Traceability *

Measuring and Test Equipment Control *

,

Design Change Control

- ,

Safety-Related Safety-Related Soil Cement Class A-1 Backfill

'

Materials Productio Materials Production

,

Cement * Batching * Granular Backfill Placing *

Sand Mixing * Compacting *

Water * Transporting Testing *

Placing *

Compacting *

Testing *

• Critical elements inspected by NRC inspectors for confomance to FSAR commitments, specifications, procedures and industry standard _ _ _

.

>,

' List of Persons Contacted

• '

,

- Washington Public Power Supply System ,

G. Block, Readiness Review, Engineering Assurance Program (EAP)

Manager s 4 A. Carlyle, Sr. QA Engineer D. Coleman, Licensing Manager

. D. Coody, Project QA Manager J. Garvin, Readiness Review Program Manager .

D. Dulbert, Project Technical Manager l R. Knawa, Readiness Review, Construction Assurance Program (CAP)

Manager C. Love, Project Support Manager M. Monopoli, Plant Manager P. Olson, WNP-3 Program Director E. Staugger, Plant QA/QC Manager +

' Ebasco Services, In *

P. Pitman, QA Manager (Acting)

F. Teague, Civil / Structural. Enginee R. Taylor, Project General Manager <s

' Bechtel Power Corporation - ,'

T. McCorm'ick,' Readiness Review,' ons,truction Assurance Program

.

,

, United Engineers and Constructors s

'

N. Amaria, Readiness'~ Review, Engineering Assurance Program (via telephone conferences). -

" -

.

. ,

+

n '

L

+

i

l l

!

L

. .-

P

"  !

'

i I

- G. Acronyms AS&G Associated Sand and Gravel Company CAI Conditionally Acceptable Item CAP WPPSS Construction Assurance Program Cubic Foot EAP WPPSS Engineering Assurance Program Ebasco Ebasco Services Company FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report IE NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement IR NRC Inspection Report M-K Morrison-Knudsen Company M&TE Measuring and Test Equipment liCR Nonconformance Report NRC U.S. huclear Regulatory Commission NRR NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 0GC NRC Office of the General Counsel PTL Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory QA Quality Assurance-QC Quality Control QC-1 WPPSS Quality Class 1 RAB Reactor Auxiliary Building WNP-3 Washington Nuclear Project No. 3 WPPSS Washington Public Power Supply System f

i l

,

J

,

!

r