IR 05000546/1978006
| ML20150D031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1978 |
| From: | Hayes D, Clint Jones, Naidu K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150D026 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-546-78-06, 50-546-78-6, 50-547-78-06, 50-547-78-6, NUDOCS 7812040163 | |
| Download: ML20150D031 (26) | |
Text
. -.
.. - - - _ _ _. -_-_- _ _ _ _ - -
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!OtISSION
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT g
,
,
REGION III
.
Report No. 50-546/78-06; 50-547/78-06
'
Docket No. 50-546; 50-547 License No. CPPR-170; CPPR-171 Licensee:
Public Service of Indiana j
1000 East Main Street" Plainfield, IN 46168
Facility Name:
Marble Hill Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Marble Hill Site, Jefferson County, IN Inspection Conducted:
September 6-8 arid 19-21,1978 C h.sjet o '
Inspectors:
C.
J nes (September 6-8, 1978 only)
M-4 8-76
.
)
ll
~"
QQ K. R. Naidu (September 6-8, 1978 only)
/C - 2 3' 78 As
!
W(0{ h/ CW* d_ --,
b j
l
\\
]O gp/76
/
,, G. F. Man:vell (September 6-8, 1978 only)
'
/d - 23 -76 G.
. Gallaghe' (September 6-8 and 19-21, 1978)
-
s F. C. Hav ins (September 19-21, 1978
/D /23 / 7E,
'
'
only)
Approved By:
D. W. Hayes, C ie
/C
2/ M
,
Projects Sect on
/
Inspection Summary Inspection on September 6-8 and 19-21, 1978 (Reports No. 50-546/78-06; 50-547/78-06)
Areas Inspected: Quality assurance implementing procedures, observation of work and review of quality records for concrete; quality assurance implementing procedures for containment structural steel welding and safety related structures, work observation for structural steel welding for containment and safety related structures; Review quality records for containment structural steel and safety related structures; review of status of construction: review of placement of essential service water lines and site tour. This inspection involved a total of 108 inspector hours on site by five NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
781204cl63
_
.
--
.
__ _
. _ -.
. _ -.
.- - _ - _ _ -
i
.
5
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted
'
Principal Licensee Employees
,
a Public Service of Indiana (PSI)
!
- R. M. Brown, Construction Project Engineer (September 8, 1978)
'
- W. T. Smith, Construction Field Office Supervisor (September 8, 1978)
l
- R. S. Peterson, QA Supervisor, Construction (September 8 and 21, 1978)
- T. L. McLarty, QC Engineer, Mechanical (September 8, 1978)
'
- J. M. Coffman, QC Engineer (September 8 and 21, 1978)
.
- D. L. Shutter, QC Engineer (September 8 and 21,1978)
D. A. Dedrick, Senior QA Engineer
!
T.
I. Ceyman, QA Inspector S. Farlow, Supervisor, Design Group
~
Other Personnel
- D. Lanham, Supervisor U.S. Testing Laboratory (September 21, 1978)
j J. West, Technician, U.S. Testing Laboratory
- T. Kueck, QA Supervisor, Newberg - Marble Hill (September 8 and 21, 1978)
- W. Hamilton, Project Manager, Newberg - Marble Hill (September 8,1978)
- J. A. Mash, Project Manager, Whalen - Chilstrom (September 8,1978)
- R. W. Noyes, QA Supervisor, Whalen - Chilstrom (September 8, 1978)
<
l An exit interview was held at the conclusion of the inspection on September 21, 1978. A short interview was also held at the conclusion of the portion of the inspection concluded on September 8, 1978.
,
- Denotes those who attended the exit interviews.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Open - Unresolved Item (546/78-02-04; 547/78-02-04) Inadequate receipt inspection checklist for receipt inspection.
It was previously reported that the receipt inspection checklist, intended to be used to visually inspect incoming safety related components and determine whether the material met the quality requirements was considered inadequate in that it lacked quantitative acceptance criteria.
The revised receipt inspection checklist is in the review process. This item remains open.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (546/78-02-04; 547/78-02-04) Curing require-ments for heavy weight concrete using iron ore aggregate.
The previous Region III report (78-02) questioned whether any special curing methods or surface preparation would be required to preclude surface degradation due to corrosive effects of the iron aggregate used in the heavy weight The licensee verified that no special curing or surface concrete.
preparation other than normal curing would be required.
-2-
.--.
.
.
-.
_ _.
,
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (546/78-02-05) The field and lab curing l
conditions were noted to be unacceptable prior to placing Category I j
,
concrete.
The previous Region III inspection report (78-02) identified curing conditions unacceptable for Category I concrete.
The inspector observed that curing conditions were now in compliance with ASTM C-31.
<
During this inspection, the inspector verified that the curing boxes
'
and moist room were adequate for the control of curing cylinders used I
to accept concrete production.
(Open) Noncompliance (546/78-03-02; 547/78-03-02) Drawing control.
Prior to this inspection the licensee's response for this item (PSI letter dated August 22, 1978) was being evaluated in the Region III office and was considered to be not fully responsive.
Therefore, the
)
area of drawing control was reexamined in greater depth during this inspection to more fully define the problem. The inspectors checked 119 drawings which were being used by Whalen-Chilstrom and/or Newberg-j Twelve (12) of the drawings were found not Marble Hill personnel.
to be of current revision; PSI's Document Control had no record for l
The 9 drawings were all Steel Services Co.
9 of the 119 drawings.
For additional drawings (detail drawings for reenforcement steel).
(section II, information, refer to the details section of this report This item remains open pending Region III receipt and paragraph 3). evaluation of a revised response and followup or PSI's corrective action
'
l-3-i
.
Section I
-
Prepared by C. E. Jones Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Site Tour The inspector made an exten'sive tour of the construction site.
The tour included sites for the reactor and turbine buildings, essential service pond, cooling towers and the flood plain.
The licensee explained that the rock formation in the vicinity of the essential service water lines was not as anticipated from earlier soil boring samples.
He also explained that PSI and their consultants had been meeting with reactor licensing personnel con-cerning the problem and that a design change had been developed and approved that would provide the desired strength and safety for specified seismic conditions.
In addition, clay seams were observed in portions of the canals to both cooling towers.
The licensee stated this condition was anticipated from earlier core borings. The fix that appeared most desirable was to remove the mixed stone and clay and replace them with a good grade of compacted stone.
Also it was understood that the canal would be lined with concrete.
A visit to the flood plain indicated the deep wells were dug and one was in operation. The other was waiting delivery of a pump.
Also, excavation and inspection by the Archeology and Historic Preservation teams were complete and the area adjacent to the wells had been released for excavation but they requested that excavation in the area between the screen house and the blown-down structure be delayed pending additional exploration.
The licensee has fenced this area to prevent unauthorized excavation pending release. Prior to erection of the fence a bulldozer entered the restricted area and removed the grass The licensee from an area approximately 75 feet in diameter.
contacted their consultant the Glen A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University and were informed that no harm had been done to the area.
l
-
2.
Status of Construction The general status of construction is approximately as follows:
One ring, 30' section, and the dome remain to be placed on a.
the Unit 1 containment liner.
-4-
.
.-
- -
__ _ _ _ __ _ - -__________
__ _ _
'
b.
Deep wells have been dug and one is in service, c.
Circulating water lines are being installed.
d.
CB61 has started assembly of Unit 2 containment liner on temporary pads.
Approximately 40% of the structural concrete has been poured.
e.
f.
Erection of construction office facilities is nearing completion, g.
Construction completion is estimated at 15% for Unit 1 and 4% for Unit 2.
-5-
.
-
._.
..
- -
_-
'
.
i
Section II
Prepared by K. R. Naidu Reviewed by D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 1.
Observation of Containment Structural Steel Welding Activities Unit 1 The inspector observed the following:
The velding activities associated with the installation of a.
the Polar Crane Bracket Assemblies (PCBA).
Requirements were met in the following areas:
(1) The joint preparation and alignment of PCBA 350A-15 was complete.
(2) The veld was identified on the record drawing R-19.
(3) The welding inspector indicated his acceptance on sheet 59 of the record drawing table (RDT)
i b.
The welds on PCBA 350A-12 were completed on the outside and inside of the liner plate.
Requirements were met in the following areas:
(1) Weld was identified on record drawing R-19.
(2) Weld Prodedure Specification (WPS) E-7018/5-4492/5,
.
Revision 2, for the use of weldrod type E-7018 was used.
(3) Weldor identified as GJB who performed the welding was qualified.
a (4) Weldrod type E-7018 was being used; weldrod was being carried in pouches; depleted weldrod was being discarded in dispensers.
(5) Weldrod burnoff rates were being measured to verify that welding variables were within specified limits.
Storage of weldrod appeared to be adequated and the type of weldrod stored was identified on the weldrod oven.
The temperature of the weldrod inside the oven was verified with a temp-stick and determined to be 250 F.
-6-l l
_.
-
- - - _- -
.-
---
- --.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in
<
-
the above areas.
2.
Review of Containment Structural Steel Quality Records - Unit 1 The inspector reviewed the pertinent material and quality a.
records associated with the PCBA No. 351A-12, 7 and 9.
Documents indicate that the quality requirements were met in i
the following areas:
l (1) Shop release for Shipment Checklist (SRSC) indicater that the material was released by CBI Greenville shop representative confirming that the material met all the specification requirements.
SRSC sequence 122 dated August 22, 1978, indicates that the PCBA were received on site with no visible shipping damage.
(2) The welds on the PCBA conformed to CBI drawings 350 and 351.
(3) Installation has not been completed, b.
The inspector reviewed the records relative to the installation of PCBA 350A-16. Documents indicate that the quality require-ments were met in the following areas:
!
(1) PCBA 350A *,6 was installed to CBI drawing No. R-19.
(2) RDT sheet 57 indicates that quality requirements were met for fitup and welding.
(3) Records of inspection personnel indicate that they were qualified to perform inspections.
,
The inspector reviewed the quality records relative to the c.
installation of liner plates 47-A-95 and 47-A-89.
Quality requirements were met in the following areas:
(1) SRSC sequences 77 and 79 indicate that the liner plates
were inspected on May 5, 1978, at the Marble Hill site.
,
No shipping damage was identified. The CBI Greenville
"
shop representative certified that all the specification requirements were met.
!
(2) The installation conformed to CBI drawing R22, Revision 1.
'
RDT sheets 101 and 102 indicate that the installation l
requirements were met.
-7-
.-
-
.
.-
-
-- - -. -.
.
(3) Qualified inspection personnel performed the inspections.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the
'
above areas, 3.
Review of Containment Structural Steel Welding Records - Unit 1 i
l The inspector reviewed relevant records for velds identified as vertical seam 17P and horizontal 16 to 17 girth, on drawing R22.
Records reflect work accomplishment in the following areas
,
i a.
RDT sheets 101 and 102 indicate verification of joint, weldor and material.
b.
Heat treatment was not specified.
Interpass temperatures are j
randomly checked with a tempstick and are documented in surveillance checklists.
The welds were subjected to final Visual, Vacuum Box and c.
Magnetic Particle Tests. These tests were considered acceptable.
d.
CBI Welding Material Authorization and Release Report (WMARR)
No. 21 dated May 5, 1978, indicates that 500 lbs of 1/8" diameter veldrod type E-7018 meeting the requirements of CBI specification WM S 501, Revision 2, and QAS 311, Revision 9, were supplied by Chemetron to the CBI Marble Hill site of fice.
Chemetron certified that the weldrod also met ASME SFA 5.1 requirements.
j The inspector reviewed five nonconformance reports initiated by CBI j
and determined that the resolution and verification of completion
<
of corrective action was adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
4.
Observation of Safety Related Structures Work Activities - Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed CBI fabrication activities for the Fuel Transfer Canal (FTC) and the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Liner Assembly
,
(SFSPL) and determine. that the quality requirements were being met in the following neas:
FTC liner plates 1 to 2E, 1 to 2C and 1 to 2VV vere installed a.
-
to CBI drawings R-3 and R-5.
b.
SFSPL plates 168-1 and 168-8 vere installed to CBI drawing
R-10.
-8-
,.
I
__
.
.
.
.
.
.
c.
Receipt inspection had been performed and storage of additional plates appeared to be adequate.
I d.
Qualified inspection personnel were available on site.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
5.
Observation of Safety Related Structures Welding Activities Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed welding and NDE activities in progress for the partially completed FTC and SFSPL and determined the following:
a.
Welding on SFSPL plates 1 to 2 AS,1 to 2 BS,1 to 2 DS and 1 to 2 CS were being completed, b.
Qualified weldor was performing the veld.
c.
WPS 309/73301/2, Revision 0, with veldrod type E-309-16, was being used to perform the welding.
d.
The we.dc were cleaned with grinders or arc gouging between passes.
c.
Periodic checks on the burnoff rates were being made to measure that the welding variables were within the prescribed limits.
l f.
CBI WMARR No. 18, dated August 23, 1978, indicates that 480 lbs.
of 5/32" diameter weldrod type E-309-16-DCT meeting the require-ments of CBI specifications WMS 420, Revision 3, with supplement QAS 311, Revision 8, were supplied by Teledyne-McKav to the CBI Marble Hill site office. Teledyne-McKay certified that the weldrod meets the AWS A5.4-69 and ASME Section II, Part C, SFA3.4 requirements.
g.
The liquid penetrant examination being performed on vertical seams of the FTC identified as 2VV, 2C and girth seam 1 to 2 E and 1 to W was performed by a CBI Level II inspector to CBI procedure PTIN. Penetrant type Dubl-Chek DP-50 manufac-tured by Sherwin Incorporated was sprayed, washed with water, dried with air and clean rags. Liquid developed type Dubl-Chek D-100, also manufactured by Sherwin, Inc., was sprayed on the weld seams.
Unacceptable indications were identified for repair.
-9_
l
_ _ _ _.
_. _ _
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l
'
Sherwin, Inc. certified that the Dubl-Chek DP-50 and Dubl-Chek D-100 were analyzed in accordance with ASME Section V, paragraph T630, July 1,1977 Edition and furnished the contents of the total Halogens and Sulphur measured utilizing ASTM D 808-63 and D 129-64 respectively.
The certification stated that the penetrant and developer also met the MIL-I-25135C specifications.
h.
The following activities were performed by the licensee i
i on CBl facilities:
(1) Vendor surveillance on CBI Greenville, Pennsylvania shop date April 19, 1978, indicates that documentation, including i
representative physical examination and release to CBI site, was performed on several containment roof assembly liner J
it was identified that five document packages were plates, presented for review without the Authorized Inspector's
>
signoff.
Corrective Action Request CH1BROG-020 documented this discrepancy.
(2) Vendor surveillance on CBI Greenville, Pennsylvania shop dated May 3-4, 10, 1978, verifies that corrective action taken on CHlBRDG-020 was completed and indicates that documentation, including representative physical examina-tion and release to CBI site and CBI to PSI, was performed on several shell assembly components and surp pump flared fittings. No adverse findings were identified.
Vendor surveillance on CBI Birmingham, Alabama shop dated (3)
July 5, 1977, indicates that the inprocess fabrication activities were observed and documentation relative to the personnel locks verified.
Instances of incorrect heat numbers being transcribed in the Daily Fabrication Reports were identified.
The inspector determined that the above surveillances established that sufficient documentation was available in the CBI shop facilities in Birmingham and Greenville to substantiate the CBI certification method for shop releases. The reports were complete, legible and retrievable.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
Observation of Storage of Safety Related Structures 6.
The inspector observed components of seismic Category 1 Safety (IR)
Related Structural components furnished by Inland Ryerson The components were roped off and segregated
~
in the storage area.
The from seismic II components and had not been receipt inspected, inspector, accompanied by licensee's representatives, performed a prelimianry visual inspection of the randomly selected welds and identified the following:
- 10 -
-
.
The size of the welds on beams identified as 8126 B4 was a.
determined to be less than specified on IR drawing No. 8126 B4 The licensee noted the weldor identification symbol (MR) and stated that he would verify the qualifications of the weldor.
b.
The fillet weld on the clip angle welded to beam 4246 B5 was measured to be less than 1/4" in several places; IR drawing 4246 specifies 1/4" fillet weld, One Nelson stud which was repaired by stick welding was not c.
bend tested as required in paragraph 4.30.1 of AWS D1.1-77.
Corrective action taken by the licensee to correct the defective welds and preclude recurrence will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. This is considered an unresolved item.
(546/78-06-01; 547/78-06-01)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
7.
Review of PSI Audits The inspector reviewed the following audits performed by PSI on Inland Ryerson (the supplier of safety related structures) and determined that the program requirements relative to the evaluation, preaward survey and vendor surveillance were met.
The reports were complete, legible and retrievable, a.
PSI's evaluation dated October 17, 1977, of all the prospective bidders.
b.
Preaward survey report of IR dated October 17, 1977.
c.
Surveillance report dated April 27, 1978, covering the following:
(1) Followup and closcout of preaward survey comments (2) Verification of radiographic procedure approval (3) Verification of NDE personnel qualification records (4) Materials review and release (5) Verification of quality of workmanship (6) Review of work in process
- 11 -
i
. -
-
. -
. -.
_ - - - _ - _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
d.
Corrective Action Request No. 001 dated April 28, 1978, relative
'
to the use of AWS pentrameters instead of penetrameters conforming to ASTM E94 and E142 specifications.
Sargent 6 Lundy (S&L) Specification No. Y2735, Division 3, paragraph 305.5a, requires that radiographic procedures and methods conform to AWS D1.1, 1976 Edition using ASTM pentrameters E94 and E142.
The IR procedure for radiography, AW 13, submitted and approved (
by S&L on February 6, 1978, stated that the radiography will conform to AWS code only. This item was resolved by verbal approval from S&L to delete the requirement for the penetrameters to conform to ASTM E94 and E142.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the above areas.
- 12 -
Section III Prepared by G. F. Maxwell Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief Engineering Support Section 1 1.
Quality Assurance Program for Concrete Structures Work -
Units 1 and 2 To ascertain adequacy of the Quality Assurance Program being implemented by Newberg-Marble Hill, a site contractor having construction and inspection responsibilities for the erection of safety related concrete structures, the inspector reviewed selected sections of the Newberg-Marble Hill Quality Assurance Program. The sections which were selected and reviewed are as follows:
a.
Organizational structure and Quality Assurance personnel -
reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section I, revision 1.
b.
Procurement document control - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section IV revision "O" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-7, current revision, Work and quality inspection procedures - reviewed Newberg's c.
'
Quality Assurance Manual Section V, revision "1".
d.
Control of material - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Sections VII, revision "1" and Section VIII, revision
"1" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-9, revision "1".
e.
Document Contrcl - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section VI, revision "1" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-16, revision "5".
f.
Control of special processes - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section IX, revision "0".
g.
Test Control - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section XI, revision "0" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-3
'
revision "5".
l h.
Control of measuring and test equipment - reviewed Newberg's
'
Quality Assurance Manual Section XII, revision "0".
- 13 -
.
_
_
-
_.
i.
Quality records - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section XVII, revision "0" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-18, revision "3".
j.
Corrective action - reviewed Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section XVI, revision "2" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-19, revision "0".
k.
Audits - reveived Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual Section XVIII, revision "0" and Newberg's procedure QAPN-4, revision
"4".
The above listed sr tions of Newberg's Quality Assurance Manual and Newberg's proc. Nres were compared with the procurement speci-fication titled "Quatity Assurance Specification for Concrete Structures Work" (Y-2722, dated August 11, 1976) and applicable sections of the Marble Hill PSAR Chapter 17.1 This specification (Y-2722 dated August 11, 1976) was provided by PSI as required in PSI procedure QAP-3.1 dated April 4,1977, paragraph 4.1.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Surveillance of Vendors and Contractors - Units 1 and 2 The inspector reviewed PSI surveillance reports and supportive a.
documentation identified as: CB&I report numbers 173, 196, 247, 265 and 351 and PSI surveillance report UST number 159.
These surveillance reports and supportive documents were written by PSI site Quality Assurance personnel either before, during or af ter the completion of surveillance of site construc-tion activities. The documentation contained such information as:
(1) Date and location of surveillance (2) Reference documents, specific activities monitored and results (3) Action taken to correct discrepancies noted during the j
surveillance, including general comments and resulting Nonconformance Reports or Field Corrective Action Requests.
(4) Signature and date of reporting discipline QC engineers, b.
The inspector noted that the PSI Quality Assurance Construction Group Supervisor has been preparing quarterly site surveillance i
'
plans and has been forwarding monthly surveillance reports to management, as prescribed in PSI Quality Assurance Procedure QAP 4.3 February 22, 1978, paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.5.
- 14 -
,
The inspector reviewed PSI vendor surveillance reports CE-004, c.
WHSTD-009, 010, 011, 014 (dated April 18,1978) and 014 (dated May 30, 1978) and GRINIPD-007, 009, 010 and 012; the pre-award survey of ITT-Grinnell (dated December 27, 1976) and site construction audit report 16 ENGCNUC-04, 05 and audit report 16 US TEST-02. As a result of the review, the inspector noted:
(1) Two of the vendor surveillance reports had been assigned the same report numbers (WHSTD-014, dated April 18, 1978 and WHSTD-014, dated May 30, 1978), thus causing a potential records control problem. This matter was promptly corrected following discussion with the PSI Quality Assurance Manager, and no further action is re-quired.
(2) One of the vendor surveillance reports (WHSTS-Oll, dated January 23, 1978, Part II) had not been signed and dated by the " Legal Surveillance Representative", to identify that the report had been properly reviewed.
This matter was promptly corrected following discussions with the PSI l
Quality Assurance Manager, and no further action is required.
(3) The inspector could not determine if PSI vendor surveillance representatives, who conducted the above listed vendor observations, were adequately trained and qualified since, according to the PSI Quality Assurance Manager, personnel records for PSI Vendor Surveillance Personnel were located in the PSI Plainfield, Indiana Office. This matter
.
is unresolved.
(546/78-06-02; 547/78-06-02).
,
(4) The inspector could not determine exactly what specific checkpoints were made during the above listed PSI Vendor Surveillances, as the supportive documentation for these reports was not available at the job site.
The inspector was advised by the PSI Quality Assurance Manager, that such supplemental information may be available at the PSI Plainfield, Indiana office.
This matter is unresolved.
'
(546/78-06-03; 547/78-06-03).
(5) The inspector noted that the above audit reports were processed in accordance with the applicable requirements of PSI procedure QAP 6.3 dated April 4,1978.
Followup audits, as required to assure that unsatisfactory audit findings were corrected, was conducted by PSI Quality Assurance personnel in accordance with PSI Quality Assurance procedure QAP 6.4 dated March 31, 1976.
- 15 -
l l
-
.. -.
._
..
_
__ _
_
. _ - _ _ _ _
.
__
_ _ _ _
__
_
E
?
i
(6) The inspector noted that PSI Quality Assurance Personnel have docceented and brought to PSI management's attention numerous specific and programmatic unsatisf actory audit /
surveillance findings related to ITT Grinnell Industrial J
Piping; ITT Grinnell is an off-site vendor supplying
,
safety related piping for Marble Hill Units 1 and 2.
At:
this time the inspector has no further questions about the licensee's actions concerning this supplier. However,
j during subsequent. inspection (s) the inspector will reevaluate PSI's audit / surveillance activities related to ITT Grinnell.
(546/78-02-04; 547/78-02-04)
No 1tems of noncompliance were identified.
.
3.
Drawing Control - Units 1 and 2 On September 7-8, 1978, the inspectors checked 119 drawings which were being used by Whalen-Chilstrom and/or Newberg Marble Hill personnel. The inspectors observed that 12 of the drawings were not the most current revisions. The drawings found not to be of current revision were identified as S&L drawings C-16, Rev.1; C-9, Rev. 2; Steel Services drawings numbered S-904, Rev. H;
,
S-905, Rev. H; S-965, Rev. J; S-966, Rev. J; S-967, Rev. H;
S-968, Rev. D; S-1072, Rev. E; AB-109, initial issue; AB-109,
.
revision 1; AB-74, Rev. 2 and AB-120, initial issue. None of the above listed drawings were marked or identified as superseded
,
or outdated.
q PSI's Document control " foreign drawing log" had no record for 9 of the 119 drawings. The 9 drawings were identified as Steel Services Co. drawing numbers AB-174, initial issue; AB-175,
initial issue, AB-183, Rev. 1; AB-185A, Rev. 1; AB-185B, Rev. 1;
"
AB-185E, initial issue; AB-186, Rev. 1; AB-179, Rev. 1 and AB-188, initial issue.
,
The inspectors informed PSI site Quality Assurance personnel of the above conditions. The inspectors were informed, on September 8, 1978, by PSI Quality Assurance personnel, that action was being taken by both Whalen-Chilstrom and Newberg-Marble Hill personnel to recall all superseded drawings. On September 12,
,
1978, the Region III inspectors informed the PSI Quality ~ Assurance
Manager that the above conditions would not be documented as a
"
new item of noncompliance, since similar conditions had been
,
,
previously identified as an item of noncompliance in IE Inspection
,
i Report 50-546/78-03 and 50-547/78-03 and the licensee's actions on this matter were still under preview by Region III. The inspectors were informed by the licensee, that in light of the above conditions
- 16 -
- _
_
.
_.,
.
...
.
.
--
_, _ _. _, _..
.-.
_ _ _
!
observed by the inspectors on September 7-8, 1978, PSI will revise
their original response to the previously identified item of noncompliance.
The revised response will address action taken by l
PSI to assure the recall of superseded / outdated drawings and the accountability of foreign drawings.
<
The inspectors informed the licensee that the applicable item of noncompliance (546/78-03-02; 547/78-03-02) will remain open pending
l Region III receipt of a more responsive reply from PSI and the completion of a satisfactory followup inspection by Region III j
inspection personnel.
.
i
,
l
.
- 17 -
-
.,
n
. -, -
.
,,
Secti3n IV Prepa*.ed by E. J. Gallagher and F. C. Hawkins Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief Engineering Support Section No. 1 1.
Review of Quality Records for Structural Concrete - (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector reviewed the pertinent material and quality records associated with the production of structural concrete and determined that the quality and specification requirements of Y-2722 were met in the following areas:
a.
Cement Material - User test reports performed by U.S. Testing (report Nos. 2, 7, 9, 15 and 21) indicate the cement meets the requirements of ASTM C-150-73(a).
b.
Fly Ash Material - Test reports No. 9, 14, 18 and 21 were found to meet the requirements of type F fly ash material in accordance with ASTM C-618-72.
c.
Water and Ice - Quality test Nos. 3 and 5 indicate the water quality meets the requirement of ASTM D-512 (chloride content)
and ASTM D-1888 (total solids),
d.
Admixtures - Air entraining admixture tests for batch Nos.
CH06-A148-27 and CG09-148-23 meet the ASTM C-260-73 require-ments and Y-2722 spec requirements for ph value, solid content, chloride ion and specific gravity (section 404.2).
e.
Aggregates - The daily, weekly, monthly and 6 month aggregate tests for July,1978 met the applicable ASTM standards and specification requirements for aggregate tests.
f.
Reinforcing Steel - Reinforcing steel installed in the Unit 2 base mat were traced to the following heat Nos. B49740, B49714, C47559 and C47572. The certified mill test reports indicate the physical and chemical properties to be in accordance with ASTM A-615.
g.
Statistical Analysis of Concrete Quality - In accordar.ce with S6L spec Y-2722, Section 402.2e2.1, a statistical analysis of the 91 day strength results was performed according to ACI-
- 18 -
-
..
. _.
.-
i l
.
214. Report No. MB Con-3 dated August 10, 1978 was reviewed.
The 3500 psi mix had accumulated 63 samples with a variation of 7.8% and a standard deviation of 486 psi; the 5500 psi mix had 35 samples with a variation of 7.0% and a standard deviation of 509 psi. The relatively low coefficient of variation demonstrates satisfactory quality control of concrete production and material quality.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Observation of Containment Concrete Work Activities (Unit 2)
The inspector observed concrete work activities in the Unit 2 Reactor Building core cavity (RB2 351-1).
The placement was
'
estimated to be 90 cu. yds. The following specific observations were made:
)
a.
Placement Preparation - The inspector verified that forms, reinforcing steel and embeds were in the proper location according to the design drawings.
The G. K. Newberg traveler was available at the placement and indicated appropriate i
inspection checkpoints had been accomplished.
b.
Deliverv & Placement (1) A 5500 psi grouting mix with fly ash identified as mix 5551 was specified and approved for use via RFI No.
552 between elevations 350 and 374 due to the heavy congestion of reinforcing, blockouts and embedments.
(2) Grout was being batched using the central mix, automatic batch plant.
(3) The grout was discharged from the truck onto a belt conveyor to the placement area. The material was then deposited using " elephant trunks" that confined the grout with a maximum free fall of 5 feet.
(4) FCR's No. 289 and 290 were initiated to specify the testing required, i.e., temperature, air content and compressive strength cubes.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- 19 -
. _..
3.
Concrete Testing and Inspection Laboratory Facility The inspector performed r.n inspection of the laboratory facility performing the testing and inspection of concrete and reinforcing materials. The following specific observations were made:
Equipment Calibration - The inspector observed the following a.
lab equipment and calibration records:
,
(1) Airmeters:
No. 273, 274, 272 (2) Unit Wt. bucket:
No. 266 (3) Field scale:
No. 271 (4) Slump cone:
No. 250 (5) Thermometer:
No. 338 (6)
Sand Cone:
No. 224 and 225 (7) Compressive Testing device:
No. 322 (8) Reinforcing Tensile and Bend Test:
The above lab equipment was found to be in acceptable condition with the required calibration records at the required inspection frequencies.
b.
Qualification of Testing Personnel - The inspector reviewed the training and qualification records of 4 quality control technicians and determined that each met the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.
c.
Reinforcing and Concrete Testing 4 Cadweld test specimen S-570-5(g) and concrete test cylinder No. 552 was observed being tested by lab technicians. The tests were performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test methods, and the results exceeded the specification requirements for reinforcing steel and concrete strength.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
4.
Review of Reinforcing Steel Deficiency (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector reviewed a report regarding the testing and retesting of reinforcing steel heats that had originally failed the user test performed onsite, but had passed the retest. The S6L
- 20 -
_ __
._ __
_
_.
._ __
._ _
_
_.
.
.
.
,
specification Y-2722 Section 409.1 requires a minimum of two (2)
retests in the event of a failure; if both retests pass, the heat may be accepted. Due to not following the specification requirements for two retests, the heats were accepted with only one retest. The licensee identified this deficiency and proceeded to procure specimens from the heats in question to perform the required number of retests. The results of this testing are as follows:
He,at No.
Status of Retests V2F5324 Both retests passed elongation; accepted for use.
V1F0783 First retest passed, second sample not available; engineering accepted.
V2F5861 First retest passed, second sample not available; heat rej ected.
V2F5947 Both retests passed elongation; accepted for use.
V1F1023 Both retests passed bend & elongation; accepted for use.
V1F0819 Both retests passed yield strength; accepted for use.
B51281 The initial test was determined not to be a failure C49098 on elongation due to the bars breaking in the grip C49103 zone, making the tests invalid since elongation
,
C49097 measurements could not be measured. The initial
A49505
--
test was discarded and a retest was performed in
A49506 each case.
B51289 C49095 The retest for each heat passed the requirements B51287 of ASTM A615; all heats were accepted for use.
A49525 C49101.__
VIF0859 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
V2F5952 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
V2F6117 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
V2F6114 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
V2F5915 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
V2F6373 Both retests passed bend test; accepted for use.
Based on the above retests, all heats were accepted for use excluding V2F5861 which was rejected.
It was determined that all failures due to bend test were the result of testing error, in that the test specimens were too long, and consequently, a double bending was induced to the steel which is not in accordance
with ASTM A370. This has been corrected, and specimens of the correct length are being used. This matter regarding reinforcing steel deficiencies was evaluated by the licensee pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e), and it was determined not to be reportable. The inspector has no further questions on this matter at this time.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- 21 -
_
_
_,
. _.,
, - _ _ _ _. _,... _...,.., _ ~. _. _ _ _ _. _. _... _ _. _... _ _ _ _ _...
5.
Observation of Containment Foundation Base Mat Work Activities (Unit 2)
During a subsequent visit to the Marble Hill site between Sep-tember 19-21, 1978, the inspector observed the first of three concrete placements forming the containment building foundation base mat.
This placement was identified as No. 2 CS-374-1 which is a 12 feet thick section, 2,970 cubic yards of concrete between azimuths 90 to 217.
The entire Unit 2 base mat is estimated to be 7,983 cubic yards of reinforced concrete.
The following specific observations were made:
a.
Placement Preparation: The forms, reinforcing steel, cadwelds and embedded plate anchorage were in the proper location in accordance with appropriate design drawings. The G. K.
Newberg QC inspection traveler was available at the placement and indicated inspection checkpoints had been accomplished.
Construction joints were provided with a one-third key formed with expanding wire mesh.
b.
Delivery and Placement of Concrete:
(1) Concrete mix design 5501 with fly ash was specified and delivered.
The required strength is 5500 psi at 91 days.
'
These results will be reviewed when availabic.
(2) The concrete was being batched using a central mix, fully automatic batch plant. Full mixing was accomplished in the central mixer; no truck mixing was required unless water was added by the truck.
l
(3)
Concrete was being discharged from the truck onto a belt j
conveyor system from three points down to the placement j
area via " elephant trunks" into tremie hoppers that confined the concrete with a maximum free fall of five feet.
(4) The concrete was specified to be below 70 F with an extreme allowable of 75 F.
Concrete above 70 F, however, I
would institute a tightened sampling whereby subsequent i
trucks would be tested until two consecutive batches were below the allowable 70 F.
This was achieved by using
/
approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of the required mixing water as shaved ice.
- 22 -
r
--
(5)
U. S. testing field laboratory performed the slump, air content, temperature and unit weight tests on the con-crete produced. Tests were taken on.very 50 cubic yards delivered and six cc:.pressive test cylinders made on every 100 cubic yards delivered. Unit weight tests were performed once a day. The following is a list of tests witnessed by the RIII inspectors:
~
Test Taken @
S1 ump Air Concrete Cu. Yds. Delivered (Inches)
Content (%)
Temp ( F)
513 3 1/2 3.4
j 567 4 1/2 3.6
i 621
3.5
'
675
3.4
711
3.4
774 *
5 1/2 3.5
783 *
3 3/4 N/A
792 *
N/A
801 3 3/4 N/A
819 4 1/4 4.2
1,230 3 3/4 3.8
1,307
3.5
2,034 2 3/4 3.0
2,070 3 1/2 2.6
2,124 3 3/4 3.0
2,214 4 1/4 2.6
i 2,250 4 3/4 2.7
2,313 4 1/4 2.8
i Note: F Specified allowable slump was five inches; any test over five inches required tightened sampling, whereby batches were tested until two consecutive tests were less than five inches. The normal frequency of tests every 50 cubic yards were continued thereafter.
(6)
U. S. Testing Field Tests: The inspector observed
.
'
the following equipment which U. S. Testing was utilizing to perform field tests on the concrete, and later the inspector verified the equipment to be properly calibrated at the prescribed frequency according to procedure QCP-4.
Slump cones No. 365, 249, 364, 252, 366; Unit weight buckets No. 264 and 272; Thermometers No. 353, 363, 337, 362; Air meters No. 273, 274; i
- 23 -
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
Sieves (aggregate gradations):
sieve sizes No. 4, 8, 16, 30, 40, 50, 100 and 200 were calibrated using National Bureau of Standards reference samples in accordance with ASTM E-11.
(7)
G. K. Newberg Associates had adequate craf t personnel to handle the concrete placement which proceeded at a rate of approximately 170 cubic yards per hour. Adequate vibration equipment with the prescribed frequency of 8,000 cps was available. RIII inspectors observed vibrators being used in the proper manner, i.e.,
at the correct spacing and embedded in the concrete for the proper length of time.
c.
Curing of In-Place Concrete: A curing compound was applied on the surface of the concrete, except in the construction joint for the containment building walls where a wet burlap was applied. The inspector observed this curing had been applied satisfactorily.
d.
Concrete Material Storage: The coarse and fine aggregate was properly segregated and of acceptable pile heights.
The cement and fly ash material were stored in sealed bins free of deleterious materials and moisture.
e.
Post-Tensioning System Embedded Steel: The inspector observed the bearing plates, trumplets and funnels and sheathing for the post-tensioning system had been installed and maintained in the proper condition.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Review of Containment Foundation Base Mat Quality Records (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed the quality records associated with the containment foundation base mat placement No. 2 CS-374-1 relative to the following specific items:
a.
Preplacement Inspection Records: The inspector reviewed the quality control inspection records and found adequate documentary evidence that an inspection had been performed relative to reinforcing steel installation, forms, cadwelds, nelson stud inspection, post-tensioning embedded posts and final clean-up of the placement area. The package also included applicable drawings and procedures required to perform the QC inspection activities.
- 24 -
I
,
,
I
b.
Placement Records: The day following the concrete placement,
)
the inspector reviewed the placement documentation records.
,
The batch plant report indicated that a total of 2,970 i
cubic yards of concrete had been placed with a total of two batches of concrete rejected due to failing to meet specification requirements.
c.
U. S. Testing Placement Records: The inspector reviewed i
U. S. Testing records of the in-process concrete tests per-formed during the plac'ement. The records indicated that the required slump, air content and temperature tests had been per-formed at the prescribed frequency, e.g., each 50 cubic yards delivered to the point of placement.
<
d.
Concrete Material Records-
)
(1) Cement: The inspector reviewed certified mill test report (CMTR) for cement sample from silo No. 21 G (Lehigh Cement) Type II and verified that the material met the physical and chemical requirements of ASTM C-150.
(2) Fly Ash: The inspector reviewed CMTR for the fly ash material from silo No. 1 (September 6, 1978) and found the material to meet the requirements of ASTM C-618 and S and L specification Y-2722, section 404.1.
'
(3) Fine and Coarse Aggregate:
Scott County Stone supplies the fine and coarse aggregate.
The inspector reviewed the CMTR test report No. 199 for the coarse aggregate and test report No. 140 for the fine aggregate and determined the material to meet the requirements of ASTM C-33-74a.
(4) Water Quality for Concrete: Water sample analysis was performed on June 6, 1978, and determined the chloride content to be 86 ppe and total solids to be 316 ppm which satisfies the requirements of ASTM D 512 and D 1888, respectively.
Reinforcing Steel Material Records: The inspector reviewed c.
the records for reinforcing steel heats Nos. VIF 0293, VIF 0299 and VIE 2190 supplied by Steel Service Company.
The results of the CMTR's for the above heats indicated the chemical and physical properties met ASTM A-615.
Bars from these heats were installed in the Unit 2 foun-dation mat and were observed with steel tags for traceability.
- 25 -
l l
.
-
_
_
_ _
.
._
_ _
.
__
_
_
_
. _. _ _. _ _ _
_
_._
.
.
f.
Reinforcing Mechanical Splice Records: The inspector observed the following cadwelds installed in the Unit 2 base mat and then reviewed the documentation associated with these cadwelds: Horizontal cadwelds No. B-531(8),
L-532(15), X-476(1), M-554(11), U-555(6), S-556(3) and V-552(11). The records indicated these cadwelds had been inspected and found acceptable.
Cadwelders identified as B, L, X, M, U, S and V had been qualified by test splices for the horizontal position. A cadweld mapping program is being used to locate and monitor the frequency of testing
,
for production and sister splices in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.15.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Results of Concrete Cylinder Tests from Unit 1 Base Mat:
During this inspection U. S. Testing Company was compressive testing the concrete cylinders made and observed during the placement of the containment foundation mat for Unit 1 (placement No. ICS-374-1). The inspector observed the compressive testing and later reviewed all the test results for that placement.
The results are as follows: The 91 day test cylinder set identi-fied as Nos. 601 through 636 met the required compressive strength of 5500 psi with the exception of cylinder set 628.
These two i
cylinders failed at 5540 psi and 5260 psi.
It was later deter-mined through the placement records that this set of cylinders were made due to a batch of high slump (11 inches).
It was also determined that one cubic yard was placed before the batch was rejected by quality control. The above results indicate acceptable test results for the placement.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of
-
noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the l
inspection are discussed in the Details Section.II, paragraph 6.c and Section III, paragraphs 2.c.(3), 2.c(4) and 2.c(6).
Exit Interview
-
c The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the first part of the inspection on September 8, 1978 and the last part on September 21, 1978. The inspectors summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
- 26 -
.,_
. _
_ _ _, _ _
.
-
..~.
.
.. -
.
.