IR 05000546/1979009
| ML19260A425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Hayes D, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260A418 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-546-79-09-01, 50-546-79-9-1, 50-547-79-09, 50-547-79-9, NUDOCS 7911210092 | |
| Download: ML19260A425 (21) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
. Report No. 50-546/79-09; 50-547/79-09
$DocketNo. 50-546; 50-547 License No. CPPR-170; CPPR-171 Licensee: Public Service of Indiana 1000 East Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168 Facility Name: Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Marble Hill Site, Jefferson County, Indiana Inspection Conducted:
uly 9-13, 17-20, and 23-27, 1979 i(
Inspectors:
. Hawkins 9 /29 / M
.
I I
h0'V h2W C. C. Williams A 4' !
pt%~
J. F. Suermann
/0/ / /'/
Other Accompanying Personnel:
J. G. Keppler G. Fiorelli D. W. Hayes E. R. Schweibinz J. E. Foster 7[2f[77 Approved By:
D.
es f
Engineering Support Section 1
/
/
Inspection Summary Inspection on July 9-13, 17-20, 23-27, 1979 (Report No. 50-546/79-09; 50-546/79-09)
Areas Inspected: Observation of safety-related concrete work activities and review of related quality records; Inspection of concrete patches and their alleged improper repair (Reference, IE Inspection Report No.
S46/79-08; 547/79-08); Interviews with licensee and contractor personnel; Review of concrete nondestructive testing considerations. The inspection involved a total of 165 inspector hours onsite by three (3) NRC inspectors.
1381 B2OT P 7911210
.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, five apparent items of noncompliance were identified in one or more of the areas.
(Infraction - inadequate QC inspection, six examples - Paragraphs 1.a(1)-(4), 1.c(1) and (2); Infraction
- inadequate specification of quality requirements, four examples - Paragraphs 1.d(3)(b)3, 1.d(4), 3.b and 3.c; Infraction - lack of or failure to follow procedures, four examples - Paragraphs 1.d(3)(b)4, 1.d(3)(b)5 and 2; Infraction - failure to take effective ccrrective action, three examples
-- Parasraphs 2.a and b, 4.a; Infraction - lack of adequate training -
jaragraph4.b.
1381
?33
.
'.
-
.
e-2-
Introduction
-
This report is one of several reports documenting results of inspections performed at the Marble Hill construction site over the past several months by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) Region III and by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station culminating in the issuance of an Order Confirming Suspension of Construction on August 15, 1979.
^3n June 12, 1979, the NRC received information that a former worker at the Marble Hill site had alleged improper repairs of honeycomb areas in concrete. The allegations were contained in a sworn statement submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) through an attorney representing an Indiana intervenor group.
Subsequently Region III IE received a copy and initiated an investigation on June 22, 1979. The results of this investigation are documented in Report No. 50-546/79-08.
Prior to receipt of the allegations during inspections conducted in April 3-6 and April 30-May 3, 1979, problems were identified relative to the placement and repair of concrete. A management raeeting with PSI was held on May 15, 1979, to discuss these findings. The results of the inspections and the May 15, 1979, meeting are documented in Report Nos.
50-546/79-03, 79-04 and 79-05.
On June 26, 1979, a second meeting was held with PSI officials to discuss the findings of the investigation at that point and the fact that deficient repairs of concrete had been identified. As a result of this meeting PSI agreed to stop concrete activities for safety related structures, perform non-destructive examinations of various concrete structures, identify and evaluate repaired areas for adequacy and review their entire program for concrete activities on site. An Immediate Action Letter (IAL) dated June 27, 1979, was issued confirming this agreement. A copy of this letter is attached to Report No. 50-546/79-07.
On June 27-29 and July 2-7, 1979, an inspection was conducted relative to items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the IAL.
Based on the results of this inspection, documented in Report No. 50-546/79-07, IE: Region III concurred in the resumption of concrete placement for Safety Related Structures. The conditions for this concurrence are contained in a Region III letter to PSI dated July 13, 1979. A copy of the July 13 letter is attached to Report No. 50-546/79-07.
Report No. 50-546/79-09 documents results of an inspection conducted during the period July 9 through July 27, 1979.
Initial results of this inspection led to a site management meeting on July 20, 1979, and an understanding that PSI would again stop coverete activities for Safety Related structures. A second IAL dated July 23, 1979, was issued documenting this understanding and a copy is attached to Report No. 50-546/79-09.
Report No. 50-546/79-10 documents the results of an inspection conducted July 10-13, 1979, relative to the erection of safety related steel structures.
o-3-
)Y
.
On July 25, 1979, IE: Region III learned that a team from the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors had conducted an inspection on June 12-14, 1979, at the Marble Hill site during which numerous items of noncompliance with the ASME Code were found. As a result of the National Board's inspection and the IE: Region III findings a comprehen-sive team inspection was conducted during the period July 26-28 and July 31-August 3, 1979. The purpose of this inspection was to identify the underlying causes leading to the concrete and ASME code deficiencies nd to determine if they were eymptomatic of problems in other areas.
he results of this inspection, documented in Report No. 50-546/79-11, indicated that problems in the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC)
program in concrete construction activities extended to other construction areas as well.
At the request of PSI, representatives of Region III and PSI management met again on August 1, 1979, to discuss PSI's planned actions to correct the programmatic QA/QC problems at the Marble Hill site. The meeting included a discussion of the desirability of stopping all safety related construction activities at the Marble Hill site until such time as the licensee demonstrates that it has an effective QA program acceptable to the NRC. The licensee issued a stop work order on August 7, 1979, for all safety related construction. An order confirming this suspension of construction was issued on August 15, 1979, by the NRC. A Meeting was held with PSI management in the Region III offices on August 15, 1979, to discuss the conditions of the confirming order. The meeting is documented in Report No. 50-546/79-14.
On June 28, 1979, NRC headquarters personnel met with Congressman Deckard of Indiana. During this meeting Congressman Deckard provided information concerning allegations he had received involving improper activities by the concrete testing laboratory at the Marble Hill construction site. As a result of this information the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station was requested to perform an independent inspection of the testing laboratory activities. The rcsults of the Corps of Engineers inspection conducted July 25-27, 1979, are documented in Report No. 50-546/79-16.
Report No. 50-546/79-18 documents the results of HRC Region III followup inspection conducted August 13 and 14 and September 4-7, 1979, relative to the unresolved items identified by the Corps of Engineers in report No. 50-546/79-16.
Report Nos. 50-546/79-06, 12, 13, 15 and 17 document results of routine or surveillance inspections conducted May 29-June 1, August 7-10, August 3-17, August 21-24 and August 27-31, 1979, respectively.
.
-
)
.s
.
.
-4-
DETAILS Persons Contacted Public Service.of Indiana (PSI)
S. W. Shields, Vice President - Electric System 4. Coughlin, Vice President - Nuclear A. A. Crews, Vice President - Construction J. J. Cook, Senior Staff Construction Engineer - Nuclear F. R. Hodges, QA Manager R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent T. L. McLarty, QA Construction Supervisot W. A. Muenstermann, Senior Construction Project Engineer S. K. Farlow, Site Design Control Supervisor J. H. Mansker, Construction Project Engineer D. L. Shuter, QC Engineer W. G. Minnick, QC Inspector W. Emmerling, QC Inspector M. Bright, QC Inspector A. Kennedy, QC Inspector Newberg-Marble Hill F. Durocher, Construction Manager
"
C. Mayer, QA Administrator C. E. Guy, QA Administrator J. Ball, QC Engineer M. Rose, QC Engineer J. Spann, QC Engineer J. Moore, QC Engineer R. Narva QC Engineer, Batch Plant U. S. Testing Laboratory D. Lanham, Lab Manager W. Thompson, Field Concrete Testing Supervisor Other Personnel A. M. Weiss, Concrete Technological, S & L R. M. Muenow, Muenow & Associates, NDE Specialist Functional or Program Areas Inspected This report encompasses the activities relative to the resumption of concrete placement for safety-related (Category I) structures on-July 9,
'1979 through July 20, 1979, leading to the issuance of the July 23, 1979, IE Immediate Action Letter.
l bl b-5-
1.
Observation of Safety-Related Concrete Work Activities and Review of Related Quality Records The following is the chronological list of events which followed the July 7, 1979 verbal release to allow the resumption of safety related (Category I) concrete work. Both Newberg-Marble Hill Construction Company (N-MH) and Public Service of Indiana (PSI) quality control inspections were to be conducted in accordance with the upgraded QC
-
program.
In addition, PSI was to fully implement the "100% overview
" program as outlined in the PSI letter of July 3, 1979.
In effect, N-MH still retained all 100% first line inspection responsibilities, with PSI reverifying acceptability on a 100% basis in certain areas.
a.
Concrete Placement No. 2SW-377-7B On July 10, 1979, N-MH representatives notified psi QC inspectors and the RIII inspector that " sign off" for concrete placement for the Steam Tunnel #2 wall located on 'N' line and 28-31 lines was imminent. Upon arrival, the PSI QC insp etors and the RIII inspector performed independent pre-placement inspections.
After completion of these inspections, the RIII inspector inquired as to the acceptability of t;.e placcment area. A verbal release for acceptance of the pour area for concrete placement was given to PSI and the RIII inspector at this time by the N-MH QC Engineer. During the pre-placement inspection, N-MH concrete placing crews were standing by to begin work.
The Rill inspector identified the following conditions during the pre-placement inspection:
(1) Reinforcing steel which failed to meet the minimum clear distance to formed surfaces as specified in Sargent &
Lundy (S & L) Specification Y-2722, Section 412.
(2) Reinforcing steel which did not meet the minimum cleanliness requirement specified by ACI 318-71, Section 7.2.1 and the CRSI " Manual of Standard Practice", Chapter 8, as required by S & L Specification Y-2722, Section 412.
(3) The horizontal construction joint was not properly prepared for bond as specified in ACI 301-72, Chapter 6, as required by S & L Specification Y-2722, Section 411.
(4) The vertical construction joint contained embedded contam-inants (i.e., visqueen and styrofoam material) and areas of apparent honeycomb extending from the top of the vertical construction joint to the bottom around tbs
.
projectin;, horizontal reinforcing steel.
',
Placement No. 2SW-377-7B was not made on July 10,1979fdueto the RIII inspector's findings and the extent of work r6 quired to properly prepare the pour area for concrete placement.
-6-
{38]
[j j [
The licensee was advised that these failures by his contractor, as noted in items 1.a(1), (2), (3) and (4) above, to execute the program for inspection of activities affecting quality to verify conformance with documented instructions, procedures, and drawings
't considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, t -iterion X.
f70-09-01; 547/79-09-01)
"
This same condition we.re:ious?; im ntified in RIII Inspection j
Report Ne 546/79-03; '47/79-C3 (Items 546/79-03-03; 547/79-03-03)
and Inspection Report +o
' M/79-04; 547/79-04 (Items 546/79-04-02; 547/79-uO 02)
b.
Concrete Placement No. ICW-Ext.-9 On July 17, 1979, the N-MH QC Engineer notified PSI representative.
and the RIII inspect r that the Unit I containment exterior wall ninth lift was ready for placement. The RIII inspector verified at this time that the N-MH Concrete Placement Check Sheet had been completed by the responsible N-MH QC inspectors in accordance with QAPN-10, Revision 4.
The preplacement inspection performed by PSI QC and field engineering representatives identified fourteen nonconforming conditions still present, after the N-MH release. As a result of this inspection, Deviation Control Record (DCR) No.
C-045-79 was issued by the PSI QC department. The DCR states that during an informal preliminary inspection of the area one week prior to the scheduled pour date, several of the 14 nonconforming items were related to N-MH QC personnel for their awareness in order to expedite the correction of the deficiencies. Due to the extent of work required to correct the deficiencies identified by PSI, Placement No. ICW-Ext.-9 was cancelled.
This instance is another example of inadequate inspection resulting in the acceptance of nonconforming verk.
c.
Concrete Placement No. 2SW-377-7B On July 17, 1979, the N-MH QC Engineer again notified PSI representative and the RIII inspector, that the Steam Tunnel #2 wall was ready for concrete placement. Subsequent review confirmed that the N-MH Concrete Placement Check Sheet had been completed in accordance with QAPN-10, Revision 4 to release the area for concrete placement. A pre placement inspection performed by the RIII inspector revealed the following:
-
(1) Reinforcing steel which failed to meet the minimum clear distance to formed surfaces as specified in S & Il
,
Specification Y-2722, Section 412.
.
1381 038-7-
(2) As a result of concrete chipping, a featheredge condition was created against the 28 line bulkhead. ACI 301-72 Chapter 9, referenced by S & L Specification Y-2722, states that "No featheredges will be permitted" as a result of concrete chipping.
Items (1) and (2) are further examples of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 1.a of this report.
(546/79-09-01; j
547/79-09-01)
Due to the extent of rework necessary, the placement was cancelled.
Subsequent to the inspection, the PSI QC department identified both nonconforming conditions on DCR No. C-043-79.
d.
Concrete Placement No. ICW-Ext.-9 On July 18, 1979, the RIII inspector observed the N-MH QC and production personnel concrete work activities associated with the ninth lift of the Unit 1 containment exterior wali. The wall placement contained approximately 825 cubic yards of 5500 psi concrete.
The following specific observations were made:
(1) PSI Hold Points - Based on the upgraded QC program, PSI instituted a " Hold Point" program consisting of activities that could not be gone beyond without PSI QC verification that the activity had been accomplished correctly. During this inspection, all five hold points were in effect. The RIII inspection verified the completion of each hold point as follows:
(a) Hold Point No. 1 - The PSI Engineering Representative participated in the completion of the Production Preplacement Evaluation, WPN-34, and released the hold point by initialing the Pre-Placement Checklist.
(b) Hold Point No. 2 - The PSI QC inspector participated in the completion of the N-MH Pre-placement Batch Plant Checklist in accordance with WPN-11 and QAPN-10 and released the hold point by initialing the checklist.
(c) Hold Point No. 3 - After N-MH QC signoff, the PSI QC inspector completed a visual pre placcment inspection and released the hold point by initialing the N-MH Concrete Placement Check Sheet.
(d) Hold Point No. 4 - After completion of the prour, the
,
PSI QC inspector verified proper method of cure and
.
released the hold point by initialing the N-MH Concrete Curing Card.
1381
-8-
"'
.
(e) Hold Point No. 5 - Form stripping had not com ?nced at the time of this inspection.
Consequently, hold point no. 5 could not be verified.
(2) Pre-Placement Inspection (a) Horizontal construction joints were observed to be
.
properly prepared for concrete place.1ent.
(b) Reinforcing steel and embedments were observed to be free of excessive rust, mill scale, or other contaminants.
(c) Formwork was observed to be properly cleaned and prepared for concrete placement.
(d) The RIII inspector witnessed the completion of the N-MH Pre-Placement Evaluation Checklist by the N-MH Concrete Superintendent in accordance with WPN-34, Revision 0.
(e) Review of the N-MH Concrete Placement Check Sheet confirmed that all applicable pre placement check points had been met and signed off on July 18, 1979, by the responsible N-MH QC inspectors, subcontractor QC inspectors and the N-MH QC Engineer. After an independent pre placement inspection, the PSI QC inspector released the area for concrete placement through completion of the PSI Placement Check Sheet.
(f) The RIII inipector witnessed two training sessions conducted by the area N-MH QC inspector and the concrete supervisor in accordance with QAPN-10, Revision 4.
The purpose of the training sessions was to review proper placement and consolidation techniques with the concrete placing crews. Areas which might pose potential placing and consolidation difficulties
'
were highlighted to the placing crews. The training session was properly documented on the N-MH Placement Check List.
(3) Placement Inspection (a) In-Process Concrete Testing 1,.
The RIII inspector observed United States Testing (UST) field QC personnel perform slump tests,
-
temperature tests, percent entrained air tests, and cast compressing strength cylinders; The
.
-
tests were performed in accordance with.the
-
applicable ASTM standards and at the frequencies specif4ed by S & L Specific., tion Y-2722.
ia
/h v '. h l,1-9-v v
2_.
Concrete test equipment was observed to be calibrated and properly marked to indicate calibration status.
3.
Field curing boxes were observed to be suitably equipped to maintain freshly cast compressive strength specimens at the initial curing temperature specified by ASTM C-31.
4_.
A review of the UST In-Process Concrete Test Report showed that all concrete placed was withia the limits allowed for slump, tea.perature, and percent entraited air as specified in S & L Specification Y-2722.
(b) Delivery and Placement 1.
The RIII inspector observed three PSI QC inspectors, four N-MH QC inspectors (includes one inspector at each of two truck discharge points as' required by QAPN-10 Revision 4), and three N-MH labor crew foremen (one for each placement team as required by WPN-9, Revision 10) present at the placement area.
2_.
Concrete was transported to the placement area using two pump systems.
3.
Concrete hoppers with drop chutes placed throughout the pour assured that concrete during placement was adequately confined with a maximum five foot free fall.
The RIII inspector observed two instances in which the concrete hoppers were placed approxi-mately 20 feet apart, thereby requiring the concrete to move 10 feet laterally into place through the use of vibrators. Due to the con-figuration and congestion of this placement, a ten foot lateral movement of concrete is excessive and could result in segregation during placement.
PSI personael concurred with the inspector and requested additional hoppers be placed in these areas.
Licensee personnel stated that there is no
.
definitive specification requirement which specifies the maximum allowable lateral; flow of
'_
concrete. The liberal interpretation of ACI
-
.
- 10 -
301-72 and ACI 304-73 by U-MH QC and production personnel is unacceptable in this instance and demonstrates the need for more definitive requirements.
This failure to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified and included in design documents is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III.
2 (546/79-09-02; 547/79-09-02)
4_.
The RIII inspector observed two instances when concrete placing crews failed to properly consoli-date the preceeding 24" concrete lift prior to depositing fresh concrete in those areas.
In each instance, concrete placement was discontinued and the areas in question reconsolidated. ACI 304-73, specified by S & L Specification Y-2722, Section 413.2, requires that concrete be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 2 ft. in depth and be consolidated by vibration.
The licensee's failure to accomplish activities affecting quality in accordance with documented instructions, procedures, or drawings is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
(546/79--09-03; 547/79-09-03)
5.
The RIII inspector observed the use of internel concrete vibrators, which had been checked as required by WPN-9, Revision 10 to verify the minimum 8,000 cpm required.
Two concrete vibrator operators were observed to repeatedly insert their vibrators at intervals of up to 30 inches. S & L Specification Y-2722 and ACI 301-72 specify that vibrators shall be inserted and withdrawn at points approximately 18 in. apart. The licensee was promptly notified of these conditions and the areas were recon-solidated. This is another example of noncompliance as cited previously in Section 1.d.(3)(b)4 of this report.
(546/79-09-03; 547/79-09-03)
In addition, the RIII inspector noted that vibrators were being inserted on the outside of
.
the vertical row of reinforcing steel which was 12-13" from the containment liner. The. inspector
'.
inquired if the radius of action of the internal
.
~"~
1381 H2
vibrators being used was sufficient to assure proper consolidation of concrete against the liner. Licensee personnel were unable to address this question at the time of this inspection. This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed further during a subsequent
,
inspection.
(546/79-09-04; 547/79-09-04)
j (4) Post Placement Inspection The RIII inspector verified on July 19, 1979 that the horizontal construction joint was being properly cured.
Concrete Placement No. ICW-Ext.-9 was completed at approxi-mately 11:30 p.m. on July 18, 1979.
S & L Specifications Y-2722 and ACI 301-72 require that curi.ng be continued for at least 7 days. Review of the N-MH Concrete Curing Card showed that cure was to be maintained through July 24, 1979. The N-MH QA Supervisor stated that the first day of cure, was considered to be July 18, thereby meeting the 7 day cure requirement by discontinuing curing on July 24.
Licensee personnel concurred with the RIII inspector, that the 7 day cure period begins at the time of concrete placement completion. This liberal interpretation of ACI 301-71 is unacceptable and further demonstrates the need for more explicit requirements.
This is another example of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 1.d.(3)(b)3.
(546/79-09-02; 547/79-09-02)
2.
Identification and Repair of Defective Concrete This section contains specific information concerning the identification and repair of defective concrete areas in conjunction with the ongoing investigation concerning the alleged improper repair of defective concrete.
(Reference IE Inspection Report No. 546/79-08; 547/79-08). A total of 21 areas, some containing more than one patch, were investigated. Patch areas numbered 1 and 3 through 20 are located in the Auxiliary Building, area number 2 is located in the Reactor Building 1 and area number 21 is located in the Turbine Building. The RIII inspector was present for the removal of each patch which was identified by the alleger. Table 1 is a list of patch numbers, their previous identification, the type, and condition of the patch material, and the apparent preparation of the repair area prior to patching.
~
N-MH procedure QAPN-10, Revision 3 states that,"At completion of form removal, the QC inspector shall inspect and attach Tep orary p
.
-
Hold Tags to all defective areas."
Investigation of the 21. general
-
repaired areas revealed the following:
"
,
,
'd3
.
Two specific honeycomb areas, which were not identified, tagged a.
or repaired as required.
b.
Thirty specific defective concrete areas (i.e. minor and major honeycomb, variour contaminants) which were superficially patched before complete removal of defective material. These areas were not identified or tagged as required by QAPN-10.
These failures to assure that conditions adverse to quality are
2 promptly identified and corrected is considered an item of noncompliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
(546/79-09-05; 547/79-09-05)
Additionally, the installed dry pack material in twelve specific patches was observed to be sof t and unconsolidated when removed.
Licensee personnel stated that no procedural requirements for the mixing, installation, and inspection of dry pack material used in tne repair of defective concrete have been established.
Further, no qualitative requirements exist to specify what type of repair (i.e. dry pack, concrete pour back, grout pour back, pressure grout or gunite) should be used for any specific defective area based on the void size, configuration, and accessibility.
These failures to establish documented instructions or procedures ror activities affecting quality are further examples of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 1.d.(3)(b)4 of this report.
(546/79-09-03; 547/79-09-03)
Subsequent to this inspection the licensee has drafted a proposed
" Dry Pack Patching" procedure WPN-35, Revision B.
Approval for this procedure is still pending.
3.
Personnel Interviews The RIII inspector conducted interviews with selected PSI, N-MH, and UST QC personnel to further assess their knowledge of the existing program and general construction practices in their respective realms of responsibility. Certain of the QC personnel interviewed expressed concern over the following practices which are commonly employed at the Marble Hill site.
S & L Specification Y-2850, Section 411.8A.g. states the following a.
concerning tightened sampling when concrete test results are outside the allowable limits, but still within the extreme limits.
"If two consecutive samples test within the allowable
.
limits, resume normal sampling.
If, during tightness sampling, five consecutive loads test outside the allowable limi,ts,
'.
concrete production will be discontinued until corrections are
'
made."
- 13 -
f38}
j],A
'
J s T
Personnel interviewed stated that during tightened sampling,
due to high slump, they had observed N-tDi QC and production personnel remove trucks of questionabic acceptability from the line, substitute trucks not batched in sequence which contained concrete of acceptable slump, and then subsequently dump the trucks which were originally removed.
-
This, in effect, avoids the requirement to discontinue concrete production and allows all concrete outside the allowable a
A limits to be placed. Although this practice does not violate the specification requirements as written, it is contrary to quality and is not the intent of the specification.
The RIII inspector was unable to verify this practice through review of concrete records. This item is considered unresolved and will be rereviewed further during a future inspection.
(546/79-09-06; 547/79-09-06).
b.
S & L Specification Y-2722, Section 413.6.h. states, "For tightened sampling, sample shall be taken from the next available truck whether or not its discharge has begun. Discharge from this truck shall be resun d immediately after sample is taken.
If test results are beyond the extreme limits, discharge from the truck shall be discontinued,
."
...
Personnel stated that it is common practice during tightened sampling to resume concrete discharge from the delivery truck immediately after the sample is taken.
tiany times in actual practice, concrete trucks are completely discharged prior to the completion of the necessary concrete tests to determine their acceptability. The allowed practice of continued rapid discharge of concrete which is between the allowable and extreme (rejection) limit is unacceptable, in that the design documents do not include appropriate quality standards to prevent the placement of nonconforming concrete.
This is another example of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 1.d.(3)(b)3.
(546/79-09-02; 547/79-09-02)
S & L Specification Y-2850, Section 406.3 states in part that c.
"If the aggregate sample fails any of the tests of Paragraph 406.2 two additional samples shall be taken and the test not meeting specification requirements shall be repeated immediately on each.
If one or both of the retests fail, Purchaser's
..
Site QA representative shall be notified to determine what
-
action may be necessary. Otherwise concrete production shall not be interrupted to await results of tests."
,
Personnel stated that if during concrete production, the in-process aggregate gradation fails, two additional samples are
- 14 -
h b 0 \\
.,' E. sC
taken. Very often, the concrete placement is completed
-
before the test results for the two additional samples are available.
The Specification, as written, does not provide adequate control to prevent the use of out of specification aggregate, in that, test results attesting to the acceptability of the aggregate to be used are not available prior to its use.
$
This is another example of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 1.d(3)(b)3.
(546/79-09-02; 547/79-09-02)
4.
Other Concrete Repair Activities (Reference IE Report No. 50-546/79-08; 50-547/79-08 Paragraph 20, and RIII IAL dated June 27, 1979)
a.
Concrete Repair Materials As a result of destructive evaluation of certain concrete patches at the site prior to June 26, 1979, NRC inspectors concluded that the patching materials and/or cement were defective. This conclusion was based on the observed crumbling of the patches in many cases when struck by a hand held hammer or other light tool.
Subsequently, on July 7, 1979, Mr.
Charles Edward Cutshall, who had previously made documented allegations of nonconforming concrete practices, stated that he had frequently encountered " dead cement" while batching the
,
honeycomb repair mixes.
" Dead cement" is understood by the NRC inspector to describe cement materials which have been partially hydrated through exposure to moisture and other associated mishandling.
These issues were discussed with the licensee's representatives on and before June 26, 1979. However, they did not report any previous knowledge of this condition. During subsequent investi-gation and inspection activities on July 19, 1979, NRC received information during a discussion with a site Concrete Finisher, who alleged that " dead cement" was still in use at the site.
On July 20, 1979, this information was confirmed to be true by NRC Inspectors, as follows.
Type II cement in two (2) fifty gallon drums was observed to be lumpy (partially hydrated) and improperly protected from degradation.
These nonconforming drums of cement were the "cu-location"
.
supply for concrete patching activities, and were the source of the alleged " dead cement" identified by the Concrete Finisher.
.
-
-
.
.
[
1381 M
- 15 -
.
This matter was discussed with the Licensee's representatives and contractor personnel. As a result of questioning, licensee QC personnel reported that one of the identified drums of cement was " trash" and the other was for use. However, the NRC inspectors could observe no apparent difference between the condition of the cement in the " trash" drum and the drum reported to contain acceptable cement, The concrete work in process at this time was in accordance e
with the Licensee's commitments documented in the RIII IAL dated June 27, 1979.
This failure to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected is a further example of noncompliance as cited previously in Paragraph 2.
(546/79-09-05; 547/79-09-05)
b.
Training and Indoctrination Regarding Concrete Repair As the result of observation of work, destructive evaluation of concrete patches alleged to be improper, confirmation of improper repair, and discussion with concrete repair supervisors, QC inspectors and craftsmen; NRC inspectors have determined that gross deficiencies are manifest in concrete repair and associated activities at the site. These deficiencies include (1) failure to properly identify nonconforming concrete (honeycomb) in accordance with quality docementation requirements, (2) failure to properly prepare defective concrete for patching, (3) failure to use conforming material for repairs, (4) failure to notify responsible contractor or licensee authorities of concrete deficiencies, and (5) failure to provide adequate QA/QC process knowledge to craftsmen and others performing concrete repair work.
Although the explicit supporting details of the above findings are contained in a RIII investigation document (Report No.
50-546/79-08; 50-547/79-08) whose release is pending further review of this matter by the U. S. Attorney, it is concluded here that the above constitutes an item of noncompliance to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II as documented in Appendix "A" of this report. This item is an infraction.
(546/79-09-07; 547/79-09-07)
5.
July 23, 1979 Immediate Action Letter Based on the events discussed in this report, RIII issued an IE
.
Immediate Action Letter (IAL) on July 23, 1979.
(See attached Exhibit A)
-
-
,
~
138i
- 47
- 16 -
.
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 inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 1.d(3)(b)5 and 3.a.
Exit Interview
$he inspectors met with corporate and site staff representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 20, and July 27, 1979. The inspectors summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
Attachments:
1.
Exhibit A 2.
Table 1 l}gl
}f 0
.
.
.
.
e
- 17 -
g4 li. 4EDI ATE /LT :.:
y cu m r u
'
..
.....,
~
UNITED STATES
+
o
~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g REGION til Exhibit A a
- #
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD o
k.....,o[
. GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
jul. 2 31979 Docket No. 50-546 Docket No. 50-547 Public Service of Indiana ATIN:
Mr. S. W. Shields S
Vice President Electrical Systems 1000 East Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168
,
Gentlemen:
This refers to the meeting between you and me and others of our respective staffs on July 20, 1979, regarding the quality of concrete construction activities at the Harble Hill plant site.
We understand based on this meeting that Public Service of Indiana (PSI)
will not allow the placement of concrete for safety related structures until PSI presents a comprehensive program which is acceptable to the NRC -
for additional controls over this activity by its subcontractor to minimize future occurrences of the problems which have been experienced te date.
It is also our understanding that the proposed program is to be designed such that implementation of those controls will not compromise the overview of PSI for other construction activities currently in progress or planned for the future.
If your understanding is different from that described above, please contact this office immediately.
Sincerely, SN James G. Kepp er Director cc:
Mr. R. H. Brown, Construction f38l 1!G
!
Project Superintendent
Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b i
'
'
Local PDR
'. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
-
TNs
.
79-M
.
F7 D?.iEDI ATE I.TT'.
i
'
.
TME 1
.
Patch Previous Patch Material No.
Identification Type and Condition Preparation of Repair Areas la No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb bb No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb le No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb
N-MH NCR #337 Dry pack; soft, Acceptable - Chipped to unconsolidated sound concret.e 3a N-MH NCR #386 Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb 3b N-MH NCR #386 Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb, dirt, sawdust, plastic material and other contaminants 3c N-MH NCR #386 Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb
N-MH NCR #386 Superficial patch Patch applied over dirt, sawdust, and other contaminants
N-MH NCR #344; Concrete pour back; Acceptable - Chipped to 386 Good sound concrete
N-MH NCR #360; Dry pack; soft, Evidence of minor honeycomb
- 386 unconsolidated at the N & S ends of existing patch 7a No.
Not repaired Not applicable 7b No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb 8a No.
Not repaired Not applicable 8b N-MH Temp. Hold Dry pack; soft, Evidence of very minor
'.
Tag #118; unconsolidated honeycomb at S & E faces
~
NCR #386 of the column.
!rn l
j b
-
.v Table 1 Page 1 of 3
.
Patch Previous Patch Material No.
Identification Type and Condition Preparation of Repair Areas
N-MH NCR #386 Dry pack; soft Acceptable - Chipped to unconsolidated sound concrete
N-MH NCR #321; Dry pack; soft, Partially acceptable -
- 386 unconsolidated Superficial patch applied j
over major honeycomb adjacent to original patch 11a N-MH NCR #363; Grout pour back; Partially acceptable -
- 386 Good Superficial patch applied over minor honeycomb adjacent to original patch 11b No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb
No.
Superficial patch Evidence of some minor surface discontinuities
No.
Dry pack; Good Patch applied over embedded workman's glove
No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over minor surface discontinuities and sawdust 15a No.
Superficial patch Acceptable 15b No.
Superficial patch Acceptable 15c No.
Superficial patch Evidence of some minor surface discontinuities 15d No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over minor honeycomb 15e No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb and styrofoam material 15f No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb 15g No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb
,
15'h No.
Superficial patch Acceptable
i381
'S !
Table 1 Page 2 of 3
.
'
Patch Previous Patch Material No.,
Identification Type and Condition Preparation of Repair Areas 15i No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over minor honeycomb 16a N-MH NCR #386 Dry pack; soft, Evidence of some minor unconsolidated surface discontinuities j
adjacent to original patch area 16b N-MH NCR #386 Dry pack; sof t, Acceptable - Chipped to sound unconsolidated concrete 17a N-MH NCR #344; Dry pack; sof t, Acceptable - Chipped to sound
- 386 unconsolidated concrete 18a No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over sawdust, dirt, styrofoam, and other contaminants 18b N-MH NCR #386 Superficial patch Partially acceptable -
Patch applied over sawdust, dirt, paper and other contaminants in NW corner of column 19a N-MH NCR #386 Dry pack; sof t, Partially acceptable -
unconsolidated Patch was applied over one area of minor honeycomb 19b N-MH Temp. Hold Dry pack; soft, Partially acceptable -
Tag #111; unconsolidated Patch was applied over NRC #386 embedded rubber material present in one area
No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb
No.
Superficial patch Patch applied over major honeycomb Note: Major Honeycomb - When reinforcing steel is visible by half the bar size diameter Minor Honeycomb - All other surface defects that require patching
'
'
-
1381 3c'
vc L;
Table 1 Page 3 of 3