ML19210B542
| ML19210B542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1973 |
| From: | Avers B GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B541 | List: |
| References | |
| OC-30, NUDOCS 7911090501 | |
| Download: ML19210B542 (4) | |
Text
.o
)dd C
UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS INC.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURE OC-30, REV. 4 FOR WORK STOPPAGE May 9, 1973 g .s
~.
THREE MILE ISLAND - PROJECT NO. 1 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Approved by:j - ,w 8/ J//..?
B.'G. Avers ' /
Mattager of Quality Assurance
\ Cencral Public Utilities I
1566 123 7911090 h O
- Rev. 4
)
~
5/9/73 Page 1 r UNITED ENGINEP.RS & CONSTRUCTORS INC.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURE QC-30 FOR k'ORK STOPPAGE SCOPE
'O
- D D'3' A I. A h
%s s This procedure is applicable to work performed by UESC within the scope of its responsibility as Construction Manager for Three Mile Island Unit No.1.
II. CENERAL During site construction, the UE6C_ Project Suoerintendent and the GPUSC Quality Assurance Manneer will be advised immediately of any uncorrected -
deviations from specification requirements. For shop or field fabrication the GFUSC Project Manager and CPUSC Quality Assurance Manceer, as appropriate, are authorized to initiate corrective action which includes ordering stoppage of work.
A. Purpose .
The purpose of this procedure is to clarify and e=ohasize that. significant N t'$5 o' deficiencies noted by the UEIC Tield Supervisor - Quality Control shall
' f' bc -brought ir_nediately to cae attention of the CPUSC Ouality Assurance Mann er and the UEOC Project Superintendent for corrective action before s 'd*
proceeding with the work. The CPUSC Project Manager and/or GFUSC Proiect Engineer will also be notified immediately. Furthermo re, the GPUSC Project Manager has delegated authority to stop work to the appropriate GPUSC Project Engineer until corrective action is taken.
B. Reference Documents
- 1. Three Mile Island Unit No.1 - Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Supplements.
- 2. Three Mile Island Unit No.1 - Final Safety Analysis Report.
- 3. Material and Construction Specifications, (prepared by GAI) .
- 4. Quality Acceptance Standards, SP-3550 (GAI) .'
- 5. UE&C Quality Control Procedure - QC-17, " Control of Nonconfor=ing Conditions".
\
1566 124 (N.
4
' * -- - _p y we_ . . .
i-Rc3. 4
, 5/9/73 Page 2 r
II. ~CE':ER/J. (Continued) D N c O W "
C. Def initions 09 sSi '"t ; )). b ,
Major Pc.rtion: When referenced in this procedure, a " Major Portion" applies to an entire discipline operation; e.g. concrete operations, we) ding, cable pulling, Cadwelding, etc. Other, tore specific quality contrc] dcficiencies related to craft activities will be handled in accordance with QC-17, " Control of Nonconforming Conditions".
III. PPOCEDUM
~
If a con _dj rion _ arises wherein the UE&C Field Supervisor - Quality Control determinca that project vork or major portions thereof tust ce stopped in order to preserve the Quality of the project, he shall so infort the UE&C Project Stlperintendent and the GPUSC Quality Assurance Manager. if the UELC Project Superintendcat does no t take inmediate action to stop work, the UE&C Field Supervir.or - Quality Control shall recommend to the GPUSC Project Manager and/or the GPUSC Quality Assurance Manacer that work be stopped until such time as satisfactory corrective action is taken.
Information supplied by the UESC Field Supervisor - Quality Control pertinent to his vorb eteppage ------- >--'-
shall include all applicable documenta:iun such as inspection reports, test reports, analyses, deficiency 7- reports of design criteria furnished by the Design Contractor.
IV. DOCUMENTATION The UE&C Field Supervisor - Quality Control will caintain a log of all stop work reports initiated by his function and shall reference all documented procedures, practices, codes, design criteria, or written instructions that were violated thereby initiating the stop work action. .
In addition, the log will reference the action by serial number and shall include the following information:
A. Date initiated.
- B. Name of initiator.
C. Discipline involved and contractor or supplier involved.
D. Duc date for action statement.
1566 125 N
' Rev. 4
,. ~
~
Q' 5/9/73 Page 3 IV. NCLC1E'?T.'d !d! (Continucd)
E. Data action statement received.
F. Date action is to be effective.
G. Nace of assigned auditor (inspector or Q.C. Engineer) .
H. Date audit or inspection is co=plete.
I. Revision of procedure brought about by this action.
~
J. - Con:..rcunce ornon-concurrence of UE&C Site Project Superintendent.
The UE6C Field Supervisor - Quality Control will utill e the status 'of this log to assure that corrective action is taken in a titely and effective manner, and to accu:,ulate a regular conthly canagement report sun =arizing this activity to the CPUSC Quality Assurance Manager.
g*P 9 "9 sw a b _ .y , -Y o.
k 1566 126 e
o 9
\
.y
,, -y, ,_
-o*=w. --
QUESTION 6:
"Please state all particulars regarding an inspectors authority to rtop construction."
RESPONSE
(See Response to Question 5).
k 1566 127 S
-m ___ . .- _ _ .----..e _ __
- - - g
3 #
QUESTION 7:
" State in detail the discussion and by whom the decision was made with regard to the continuation of construction after the "honeycon6" concrete defect was discovered in the North 180* of the ring girder."
RESPONSE
The decision to continue placement of concrete on the South 180*
sector of the ring girder, after the " honeycomb" concrete defect was discovered and evaluated on the North 180* pour, was a joint effort on the part of United Engineers & Constructors, (UESC) Gilbert Associates, Inc. (CAI) and GPU Service Corporation (GPUSC) .
Because of the difficulties encountered in placing concrete in Lift 3 - North 180*, the constructor (UE&C) requested and received permission from the architcet engineer (GAI) to change the location of the construction joint for the South 180* area. With the new construction choice permitting a decrease in. depth of concrete lifts for the South 180*
area, there was no problem experienced in placing and vibrating the concrete into all of the areas in Lifts 3, 4 and 5. To accomplish this, much of the reinforcing bar above each lift was taken out and replaced .
prior to concreting the next step. In addition, men were stationed on the form scaffolds to inspect, through windows cut in the form panels, that the concrete was being properly consolidated. Concrete uns placed for Lif t 3 on the South 180* area in two 90' sections rather than a complete 180* section to allow the inspectors to concentrate on a smaller area. Lifts 4 and 5 were cast in a 180* section each and the crancs placing the concrete were supplemented by a concrete pump.
The decreased depth of Lifts 3, 4 and 5 on the South 180* and the absence of the reinforcing bar above cach lif t provided coniplete physical and visual access for placement, consolidation and inspection.
Therefore, based on the above facts and as a result of complete and th'orough placement incpection, it was the judgement of the concrete supervisor, area superintendent, field engineers and inspectors that the concrete in Lifts 3, 4 and 5 of the South 180* area of the ring girder was properly placed and consolidated.
1566 128
. w o= a * * = _ .- _ _- - - -g
)
QUESTION 8:
"What will be the effect of any repairs made to the ring girder?"
RESPONSE
There will be no adverse effect as a result of the repairs made to the ring girder. Additional pertinent information is contained in Section 5.06 of the " Report on Containment Ring Girder Construction and Repair", dated December 1, 1971, and addenda 3 and 4 to that report, referenced in your Question 1.
1566 129 k
e e
e
,- * 'M _ -r
9 0 QUESTION 9:
" State in detail the effect of the repairs upon the strength and integrity of the containment structure."
RESPONSE
(See Response to Question 8).
1566 130 s
-- ~~
_-.e -
- - - ~ .. - . - ... -- -
G @
QUESTION 10:
"Name the persons who will perform the Structural Integrity Test, their immediate supervisor and job title."
RESPONSE
The persons who will perform the Structural Integrity test, including gathering of test data, will be employees of the testing instrument contractors, Btcer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. The names of these persons are not available at this time. Brewer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. will be supervised in thic regard by the Structural Intecrity Test Engineer (presently anticipated to be Mr. Kory Nodland) of Gilbert Associates, Inc., who will make all decisions with respect to the structural portion of the Structural Integrity Test. Gilbert Associates, Inc.'s Structural Integrity Test Engineer will be supervised by the GPU Service Corporation Test Director (presently anticipated to be Mr. Gary Miller) who will oversee and coordinate the Structural Integrity Test.
I 1566 131
- -. -~~~~~e -~ __
y
QUESTION 11: .
"Name the persons, their job function and titic who will do the in-spection, before during and af ter the Structural Integrity Test."
RESPONSE
The persons responsible for inspection before, during and af ter the Structural Integrity Test are the United Engineers and Constructors -
Structural Quality Control Group. The nancs, job functions and titles of these persons are contained in the response to Question 4. UE&C Structural Quality Control personnel vill report to Mr. Joseph E. Wright, GPU Service Corporation's Three Mile Island Site Quality Assurance Manager.
1566 132 s
/ .
I I
--e- - e = - --
d+ +*. __ _ _ _
QUESTION 12:
"llow will the Structural Integrity Tests be performed, by what organization, who will supervise the operation, and will reports be made available to the gencral public."
RESPONSE
The Structural Integrity Test will be performed as described in Appendix SE of the TMI Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report. The test data will be gathered by Brewer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. , as directed by Gilbert Associates, Inc. 's Structural Integrity Test Engineer. The report will be filed with the Atomic Energy Commission and will be made available to the public.
'. 1566 133 wW '*** * '** -
QQ w
3 . 1 QUESTION 13: ,
"What are the limiting factors for disapproval of the structural integrity of the containment, and who nakes the decision?"
RESPONSE
Paragraph 7 of Appendix SE to the TMI Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report states the acceptance criteria for the str.uctural integrity test.
The Structural Integrity Test Engineer makes these decisions.
1566 134
\
e O
I
~ --.w've~ .11 + = ~ * * + - - , -w , . . - _ n ,, , , , , , . 7 _ , , .
,3 y y
QUESTION 14:
"Please state whether a final report was issued with regard to the Plume effects of Natural Draf t Hyperbolic Cooling Towers? If so, please submit."
RESPONSE :
The latest status report entitled " Potential Effects of Plumes From Cooling Tower Operation at Three Mile Island' Nuclear Station" was issued on June 25, 1973. The purpose of this report (a copy of which is enclosed) is to advise what has been done to date and the data that is presently available as a result of this study as well as to outline future studies. In view of the importance of environmental considerations the study will continue beyond initial plant operation, before a final report can be issued.
1566 135
\
-- w- .-. .meo u-- wm . _ - -- -. - -- -- .- 1
D**D D'T oo o bt . _2 OUESTION 15:
"What corrective measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate
" Fogging" effects from the cooling towers? Please state all alternatives and their approximate cost."
RESPONSE :
Environmental effects of potential increased " Fogging" as a result of cooling tower operations are discussed in the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Environmental Report, Section 5.1. Therein, it is estimated that under the most adverse meteorological circumstances there is a statistical possibility of " Fogging" or " Fogging" effects near ground level at Olmstead Airport for approximately 39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br /> per year due to station cooling tower operation. In determining the hours of potential additional " Fogging,"
it was assumed that there was maximum evaporation of both units, TMI-l and TMI-2, at full rated capacity throughout the year.
" Fogging" effects from the cooling towers could be reduced by modi-fication of the TMI station circulating water systems for "once through" cooling, i.e. , discharging circulating unter directly to the river and bypassing the cooling towers. Modification of the station for this mode of operation would entail cxpenditures in excess of $10,000,000 for design engineering, material and construction, and would also require permits, as a minimum, from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental-Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers.
Alternatively, " Fogging" effects could be reduced by reduction in station electrical, and consequently thermal, output; however, a re-duction in power. fcr example, by 50%, would result in substantially Jess than a reduction of 50% in the potential for " Fogging.". The logical extention of this approach is that " Fogging" effects could be "clininated" by total shutdown of the station. The direct cost resulting .
from such complete loss of generation is presently estimated to be in excess of $150,000 per day. The indirect cost, at sometima in the future, of items such as loss of sys, tem reliability or the necessity for selec,ted load shedding are incalculable.
Other alternatives to reduction of " Fogging", such as cloud seeding or area heating, have not been analyzed -in detail in that it is antici-pated that the ongoing metcorological st.udles which vill be continued during initial plant operation will shou that even the present minimal estimates of " Fogging" or "Fegging" effects are conservative. Further, it is recogni:cd that alternatives similar to those mentioned above present their own substantial environter.tal problems.
1566 136
,f'
. .ra +v, , _ ____ w=.4 -
-= __ _ __ - __ _ -.yw,F
QUESTION 16:
" List tests performed on concrete in the containment structure This listing should include destructive testing as well as non-de-structive."
RESPONSE
The following tests were performed in accordance with the require-ments of UESC Quality Control Procedure No. 1, Rev. 8 on concrete placed in the containment structure:
- a. Compressive strength tests of representative samples
- b. Slump tests
- c. Air and entrainment tests
- d. Temperature tests .
- e. Core borings (used on ring girder only).
A copy of UESC Quality Control Procedure No. 1, Rev. 8 is enclosed.
\
O e
~ == * , g