ML19225A149
| ML19225A149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Knop R, Schweibinz E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A130 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-546-79-03, 50-546-79-3, 50-547-79-03, 50-547-79-3, NUDOCS 7907180474 | |
| Download: ML19225A149 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000546/1979003
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-546/79-03; 50-547/79-03
Docket No. 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 and 2
Inspection At:
Marble Hill Site, Jefferson County, Indiana
Inspection Conducted:
April 3-6, 1979
E dww
<0,,
b-
,
,
7
Inspectors:
E.
R.
Schweibinz
1
70
43f
/
'
J.
F. Suerma
[ '-
h
'
Accompanying Personnel:
D. W.
Hayes
U
'nop,Chie}b
[l
,
Approved By:
R. C.
,f
Projects Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on April 3-6, 1979 (Report No. 50-546/79-03; 50-547/79-03)
Areas Inspected: Radiographic examination procedures for containment
liner plate; structural concrete work (Unit 1); post-tensioning work
and related quality records (Units 1 and 2); and quality records for
Unit 2 basemat.
This inspection involved a total of 76 inspector-hours
onsite by three inspectors.
.
M sults: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or
destations were found in one area; three apparent items of noncompliance
were identified in three areas (inf raction - f ailure to properly control
deviations to design documents - Section I, Paragragph 2.b; infraction -
failure to adequately inspect concrete work activities - Section II,
Paragraphs 1.a and 1.c.(2); infraction - failure to adequately
indoctrinate and train post-tensioning QC inspection personnel - Section
II, Paragraph 2.b); One apparent deviation was identified in one
area (deviation - failure to use proper penetrameter for radiograpny
of containment liner plate - Section I, Paragraph 2.a).
~7907180y7p
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
Public Service of Indiana (PSI)
-
- R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent
- W.
T.
Smith, Construction Field Office Supervisor
- C. E. Chmielewski, Quality Assurance Operations Supervisor
- T. L. McLarty, Quality Assurance Construction Supervisor
- D.
L. Shuter, QC Engineer
- T.
J. Geyman, QC Engineer
- S.
T. Crumbo, Senior QC Engineer
- W.
C. Minick, QC Inspector - Civil
W.
A.
Muenstermaa, Senior Construction Project Engineer
S. K. Farlow, Site Design Group Coordinator
Newberg - Marble Hill
- T.
L. Kueck, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J.
W.
Ball, QC Engineer
J. Moore, Field QC Inspector
W.
Smith, Second Shif t Project Superintendent
Whalen - Chilstrom
- R.
W. Noyes, Quality Assurance Supervisor
The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and
contractor personnel, including craftsmen, QA/QC, technical and
engineering staff members.
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Noncompliance (546/78-08-01; 546/79-02):
Failure to follow the
procedures in the handling of NSSS equipment.
That portion of this
item had previously remained open was that the licensee had committed
to conduct training on ANSI N45.2.2 and the requirements of Regula:ory
Guide 1.38, and to change the lesson plan for training on ANSI standards
to reflect the requirements of Regulatory Guides. The inspector
reviewed the training sesson records of the training conducted
on March 19 and March 26, 1979, on the subject of ANSI N45.2.2 and
Lesson plan titled " Lesson Plan for ANSI Standard
and Applicable Nuclear Regulatory Guide Training Sessons" was reviewed
and found to be acceptabic.
This item is closed.
-2-
34/
00
(Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) (546/79-02-01):
10 CFR 50.55(e) report
on cubicle coolers supplied by the Trane Company.
The following
documentation was reviewed:
A letter f rom ".rane Company to the
Director, RIII, USNRC, dated April 3, 1979, describing the repair
and retest of the cubicle coolers; and the final report on this
item f rom Public Service of Indiana in their letter dated March 8,
1979. Evaluation of the above has determined the reports to
be acceptable. The inspector observed that four of the seven cubicle
coolers have been returned to the Marb]c Hill site and was informed
by the licensee that the other three coolers were in transit to the
site.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Noncompliance (546/78-08-02):
Inadequate inspection of
B-type cadwelds in No. 1 containment.
Training records of the U.S.
Testing QC Inspectors reflect that additional training was received
on cadwelds with emphasis applied to the calculation of void areas.
The NRC inspector reviewed several records indicating the previously
incorrect void areas were recalculated and the proper areas were
entered on the inspection records.
U.S. Testing Company cadweld
inspection records now contain a check point requiring porous metal
to be checked. This item is closed.
Functional or Prograr Areas Insr,ected
Details of functional or program areas inspected are documented in
Sections I,
11 and III as f ollows:
- 3-
- )4/-
071
.
Section I
Prepared by E. R. Schweibinz
Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief
-
Projects Section
Radiographic Examination of Containment Liner Plate
1.
The following documentation was revicc,d:
e
a.
Marble Hill PSAR Paragraph 3. 8. 2. 6. 7, Nondestructive
Examination of Liner Plate Welds, which states, in part,
"All nondestructive examination will be performed by
personnel qualified in accordance with Section II of the
ASME B&PV Code and all examination procedures will be
in accordance with Appendix X to Section III and
Section V of the ASME BSPV Code."
b.
Appendix X to Section III of the 1971 addition of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Nondestructive Exam'. nation
Methods for Metal Containment Vessels.
(1) Paragraph X-3325, Penetrameters, Subparagraph X-3325.1,
Material, Size and Shape, states, in part, "The maximum
thickness of the penetrameter shall be as shown in
Table X-3325.1 '."
(2) Table X-3325.1-1, Standard Penetrameter Sizes, indicates
that "For a weld thickness between the range of over
1/4" through 3/8" the thickness of the penetraneter on
the source side shall be 0.0075" and the designation on
the penetraneter shall be Jo. 7."
(3)
Subsu'aarticle X-3330, Technique for Radiographic Examination
of Welded Joints, Paragraph X-3332, Required Sensitivity
of Radiographic Technique, states " Radiography shall be
performed with a technique which will have sufficient
sensitivity to indicate the features in X-3334.5 of a ,
penetrameter of the thickness specified for the thickness
of the weld being examined, as shown in Table X-3325.1-1."
(4)
Subparagraph X-3334.5, Images Which Shall Appear on
Radiographs, (a) "The images of the indentifying numbers
of the penetrameter outline and of the 2T hole are all
essential indexes of image quality on the radiograph and
they shall appear on the radiograph, except that for
penetrameters 5, 7, and 10, the slit shall appear clearly,
and hole need not appear."
-4-
34/
072
c.
Sargent and Lundy Specification No. Y-2725, Steel Liner Work
for Reactor Containment Structures Marble Hill Nuclear
Generating Station - Units 1 and 2, Division 8 - Inspection
and Testing, December 16, 1975, Division 802, Examination of
Welded Joints, Subparagraph 802.2 states that, " Examination
and testing of welds for steel liner work shal1~be in accordance
with the requirements of Standard Specification Forn STRI, with
the following modifications and as modified by Section II of
contractor's proposal:
Paragraphs 6.1.1,
as indicated
. .
below, shall be used in lieu of the same parts as specified in
Standard Specification Form STRI."
6.1.1.
Contractors shall perform all radiographic exami-
nation in accordance with che requirements of
Article 3, ASME Section V,
except that:
a.
Lead intensifying screens shall be used,
b.
Types 1 and 2 film shall be used,
c.
The minimum density for single viewing shall
be 1.5.
d.
Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I) Procedure No. RT2N, Rev.
3,
approved by Sargent and Lundy by a letter dated May 23, 1978,
from Kurtz to Kenyon titled " Spot Radiographic Examination
Procedure for Welds, for tne Containment and Pool Liners."
(1)
Section 3.0, References;
Subparagraph 3.1, 1974 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code,Section III and Section V, Article 3, with the
following addenda:
S74, W74.
Subparagraph 3.2, S6L Specifications Y-2725 and Y-2766
(2) Section 4.8, Penetrameter:
The type, size and shape of
penetrameter shall be in accordance with pages 11 and
12 of this procedure.
Note:
There appears to be a typographical error as the
correct pages should be pages 12 and 13.
(3) Section 7.1.A, "The images of the identifying numbers,'
the penetrameter outline, and of the essential nole of
Table T-320 are all essential indexes of image quality
on the radiograph."
- 5-
347
073
(4) Section 7.1.B. "The film density through the veld metal
shall be 1.3 minimum for single viewing and 1.8 minimum for
composite viewing of double film exposures.
The maximum
film density through the weld shall be 3.8."
(5) Page 13 of 13, Thickness and ID of Penetraneters,
Table T-320, Thickness, Penetrameter Designations, and
Essential Holes, requires that for a single wall material
thickness of a range of over 1/4" through 3/8" the source
size penetrameter shall have a designation of No. 12 and
the essential hole shall be 4T.
Note:
The thickness of a No. 12 penetrameter is 0.012".
e.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section V,
1974 edition,
Article 3, Radiographic Examination, Table T-320, Thickness,
Penetrameter Designations, and Essential Holes, requires
that for a single wall material thickness of the range of
over 1/4" through 3/8" that the source side penetrameter shall
be a size 12 with an essential hole of 4T.
Note: A size 12 penetrameter has a thickness of 0.012".
2.
Evaluation of the Above Documents
a.
The RIII inspector requested the licensee to explain the
apparent deviation between:
(1) The commitment in the PSAR to
have all nondestructive examintion procedures in accordance
with Appendix X to Section III of the ASPE Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, which requires the use of a 0.0075" thick pene-
trameter f or a weld thickness over 1/4" through 3/8" (the
liner plate is 1/4" thick) and; (2) The requirement of CB&I
Procedure No. RT2S to determine the thickness of the pene-
trameter in accordence with Table T-320 which requires a
penetrameter 0.012" thick for the same material thickness.
Table T-320 appears in the Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I)
procedure RT25.
The licensee contacted Mr. R. Kurtz from Sargent and Lundy
(S6L) for assista. ace.
Mr. Kurtz explained that CB&I had requested
to use Article 3 of Section V instead of Appendix X to Section
III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
An evaluation
of the two documents made by Sargent and Lundy, determined
Article 3 to ASME Section V could be used with some exceptions.
These exceptions were stated in the S6L Specificction Y-2725.
It
should be noted at this time that the No. 12 penetrameter
called for in Article 3 of Section V is 60% thicker than the
No. 7 penetrameter as called for in Appendix X to Section III.
Mr. Kurtz could not explain why the thicker penetrameter was
allowed to be used in lieu of the commitment in the PSAR.
-6-
347
0/4
.
This item is a deviation from a commitment in the PSAR.
(546/79-03-01:547/79-03-01)
Note:
The RIII inspector recognizes that Section III of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code does not require that
the containment liner plate seam welds be radiographed.
However, Regulatory Guide 1.19 does require that these seam
welds be spot radiographed.
Marble Hill PSAR Section 1.7
commits to Regulatory Guide 1.19, August 11, 1972, Non-
destructive Examination of Primary Containment Liner Welds.
Regulatory Guide 1.19: Paragraph C.1, Nondestructive
Examination of Liner Seam Welds, Subparagraph C.1.a requires
that welds be examined radiographically in accordance with
the techniques prescribed in Section V.
(ASME BLPV Code);
Subparagraph 7.a, Containment Liner Seam Welds Examined
by Radiography, states, "Where a spot in the seam weld is
judged acceptable in accordance with the referenced
standards of NE-5120 of Section III of the ASFE BLPV Code,
the entire weld test unit represented by this spot radio-
graph is considered acceptable."
Subarticle NE-5120, Examination Requirements cf Welded
Joints for Vessels, of Section III of the 1971 Edition of
the ASME B&PV Code states, " Examination in accordance with
the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 of this Code
shall be made of welded joints for vessels as follows:
(a) Welded joints of Categories A and B as defined in
NB-3351 shall be radiographed in accordance with UW-51."
Subparagraph NB-3351.1 defines Category A welded joints
as longitudinal welded joints within the main shell.
Subparagraph NB-3351.2 defines Categorv B welded joints
as circumferential welded joints within the main shell.
UW-51 to Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, Table UW-51, Standard Penetrameter
Sizes, requires that a penetrameter for weld thickness
range of over 1/4" through 3/8" be of a thickness of
0.0075" and designated a No. 7 penetrameter.
The liner
plate is 1/4" thick. The commitment in the PSAR Paragraph
3.8.2.6.7 requires that all examination procedures will be
in accordance with Appendix X to Section III and Section V
of the ASMI Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Appendix X '
to Section III and Article 2 of Section V are acceptable
methods of meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.19, since their examination requirements are equivalent.
-7-
c
,4/
0,/J
.-
3
.
b.
Minimum Field Density
As required by Sargent and Lundy Specification Y-2725, the
minimum density for single viewing shall be 1.5.
CB6I procedure
No. RT2N states, "The minimum film density through the weld
metal shall be 1.3 minimum for single viewing,
."
It
. . .
_
was determined during the discussions with Mr. Kurtz that the
original issue of procedure No. RT2N did have the requirement
of the 1.5 minimum film density for single viewing but that
a later revision had revised the minimum film down to 1.3 in
that procedure which is contrary to the requirements of SEL
Specification Y-2725.
The procedure was approved by Sargent
and Lundy and it did not conform to the requirements of the
specification.
This is an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion III.
(546/79-03-02; 547/79-03-02)
,
- 8-
34/
076
Section II
Prepared by F. C. Hawkins
,
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief _
Engineering Support
Section 1
1.
Observation of Safety Related Concrete Work Activities and
Related Quality Records
The inspector observed in process pre-placement and post-placement
concrete work activities and the related quality records for
several Category I concrete placements.
Specific observations
were as follows:
a.
Pre-Placement Inspection - On April 5, 1979, the inspector
performed a pre-placement inspection of placement No.
15-377-1 is a 96 cubic yard slab located in
Steam Tunnel No. 1.
At the time of the inspection
(approximately 5:00 p.m.) the following observations were
made:
(1)
Five reinforcing bars were not secured against displace-
ment during concrete placement
required by WCJV
am
WCQAP-9, Rev.
1, Attachment A, Item 8.
(2) Reinforcing steel was not free from containments as
required by WCJV WCQAP-9, Rev.
1, Attachment A,
Item 2.
(3) Adjacent concrete surfaces, forework, waterstops, and
joint filler material were not adequately cleaned for
concrete placement as required by Newberg QAPN-10,
Rev. 3, Section 4.4.
Subsequent review of the ISS-377-1 Newberg Placement Check
Sheet revealed that it had been signed-off by the responsible
WCJV and Newberg QC inspectors to accept Items 1 through 3
above prior to their completion, without noting any work -
to be completed after concrete placement had begun.
In
addition, the Newberg QC Engineer had also signed off the
Placement Check Sheet prior to completion of Items 1 through
3 above.
This sign-off gives him the authority to sign the
PSI Placement Check Sheet for release of the area for place-
ment of concrete as stated in Newberg QAPN-10, Rev. 3,
Section 4.6.
_9_
347
077
The accompanying PSI QC Civil Inspector concurred with the
inspector that Items 1 through 3, noted above, were not
acceptable and that more work would be required prior to
concrete placement.
Furthermore, he stated that he would
not release the area for placement until the required work
.
was complete.
_
Licensee personnel stated that the WCJV and Newberg QC
inspectors are charged with the responsibility of 1007 first
line inspection of concrete placements to verify quality
cf the work in their respective disciplines.
Civil Inspector performs only surveillance inspection of the
placement area and must base his release for concrete place-
ment on that inspection.
It is the inspector's concern that
the first line inspection is adequate to verify quality of
all completed work prior to concrete placement.
The licensee was advised that this failure to execute the
program for inspection of activities affecting quality
to verify conformance with documented instruction, proc ec'ur es
and drawings is considered an item of noncompliance with
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X.
(546/79-03-03;
547/79-03-03)
b.
Concrete Testing - Compressive strength cylinder Nos. 1847,
1849, 1854, 1857 and grout cube No. 1846 representing
placement No. ICW-Ext-4, 4a, 4b were observed to be initially
cured in accordance with ASTM C31. The inspector also
verified the cylinders and cubes were transported from the
field within the time limit specified by ASTM C31, stripped
and placed in the required curing at 73.4 + 3F at the
U. S. Testing Laboratory.
c.
Post-Placement Inspection
(1) Curing of In-Place Concrete - Proper curing techniques
in accordance with the job specification were observed
for placement Nos. ICS-390-1 and ICW-Ext-4, 4a , 4b.
Review of the Newberg Curing Card verified that both
placements were inspected at least once daily by the
Newberg QC inspector to assure proper curing methods
and duration.
-
(2) Form Removal Inspection - During a tour of the Auxi'iary
Building, the inspector observed numerous areas of
defective concrete (i.e., honeycomb).
Further inspection
revealed the following:
_
- 10 -
34/
C78
~
(a) One area of hrneycomb located at U and 16-17
lines, Elevation 383' slab, which had not been
identified by Newberg QC.
Newberg QAPN-10, Rev.
3,
dated May 1, 1978, Section 4.7.3 states that,
"At completion of form removal, the QC inspector
shall inspect and attach Temporary Hold Tags
(Att. G) to all defective areas."
Repair work
had commenced in this one defective area without
the responsible Newberg QC inspector's knowledge
of it. In addition, at least three honeycomb
areas in each the Auxiliary Building, Elevation
383' slab and the Reactor Building Unit I exterior
wall, Az. 300 , were not properly tagged for
status and repair in accordance with Newberg QAPN-10.
(b) Two repaired areas, one located at P between 17 and
18 lines, Elevation 383' slab and another located
at U and 19 lines, Elevation 364', which were not
cured in accordance with ACI 301-72, Chapter 9 and
Newberg WPN-25, Rev. O.
ACI 301-72 states in
part, that, "The patched area shall be kept damp
for 7 days."
WPN-25 states in part, that, "If
forms are removed prior to completion of the
seven-day core period, the surface will be sprayed
with an approved curing compound .
." Licensee
. .
personnel concurred with the inspector that
neither area was being cured properly at the
time of this inspection.
Items (a) and (b) are further examples of noncompliance
as cited previously in Section 1.a of this report.
(546/79-03-03; 347/79-03-03)
2.
Containment Post-Tensioning - Observation of Work Activities and
Related Quality Records
The inspector toured the Units 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings and
observed that post-tensioning work at this time consists of the
installation of trumplates, funnels, conduits, and couplers.
Newberg Construction Company subcontractor, Whalen-Chilstrom
Joint Venture (WCJV) is performing the installation and QC
-
inspe_ tion of this hardware.
a.
Maintenance of Installed Post-Tensioning Items
(1) Trumplates (Units 1 and 2) - The installed trumplates
in Unit I tendon gallery were inspected by licensee
personnel and the inspector for maintenance of corrosion
- 11 -
7 !7
nTO
Jk/
h//
protective paint.
Some slight corrosion around the
edge of all ten trumplates inspected was noted.
To
preclude detrimental corrosion of the trumplates, the
licensee stated that he would institute periodic
inspection of them as part of a scheduled surveillance
plan.
The inspector has no further questions about
this matter at this time.
(2) Conduit (Unit 1) - During the course of the inspection,
it was noted to licensee personnel that the temporary
plastic conduit covers were not installed in the Unit I
horizontal tendon conduits as suggested by the manu-
facturer.
The licensee stated that it was his intention
to do so, and immediately initiated installation of
the plastic covers.
The inspector has no further
questions about this matter at this time.
b.
Certification of Post-Tensioning Personnel
A review of the indoctrination and training records for
WCJV post-tensioning QC personnel revealed the certification
records failed to meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-73,
in that they included ne Certificate of Qualification as
specified in ANSI N45.2.6-73, Section 2.2.4.
In addition,
WCJV WCQAP-7, Rev. 2, Section 4.1.2 and Attachment A does
not provide for the indoctrination and training of post-
tensioning QC personnel.
This failure to provide for the indoctrination and training
of personnel performing activities affecting quality as
necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved
and maintained is considered an item of noncompliance with
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II.
(546/79-03-04;
547/79-03-04)
.
.
- 12 -
347
030
Section III
Prepared by J. F.
Suermann
_
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief
_
Engineering Support
Section 1
Quality Records - Unit II Basemat
1.
Geneqal
Public Service of Indiana (PSI) performs site surveillcnce of its
contractors for the installation of reinforcing steel (rebar) and
the use of mechanical splices (cadwelds) associated with rebar
installation. PSI's site contractor for basemat work is
G. K. Newberg Company and the sub-contractor for rebar work and
cadweld work is Whalen-Chilstrom Joint Venture (Whalen-Chilstrom).
The quality records on a portion of the basemat rebar and cadwelds
were reviewed against the requirements of Sargent and Lundy
Specification Y-2850, dated February ll, 1977, " Inspection and
Testing Services," and Sargent and Lundy Specification BY/ER/MCS,
Rev. 7, July 5, 1978, "Specificaticn for Making and Inspecting
Mechanical (Cadweld) Splices."
The inspector noted that Paragraph
1.3.3 of Specification BY/BR/MCS incorrectly made re2erence to ANSI
Standard N45.2.5-1975.
Discussion between the licensee and Sargent
and Lundy ascertained that the standard should have read N45.2.5-
Draft 1975 (which subsequently became N45. 2. 5-1978) .
The licensee
obtained a commitment from Sargent and Lundy that the specification
would be corrected. A representative of ERICO Products,
Incorporated (the cadweld supplier) observed the first twenty-five
production cadweld splices on January 11-12, 1978, as required by
Paragraph 5.2 of Specification BY/BR/MCS.
The cadwelds were
found to be acceptable.
2.
Cadweld Inspection Records
The inspector reviewed Whalen-Chilstrom drawing CMS C17B dated
May 21, 1978, which plotted and identified a total of 62 cadweid
splices in layer 12 of the basemat for the Unit II containment.,
All splices were made on grade 60 steel No. 18 rebar and were
installed in the horizontal position.
All 62 splices were made
.
e
- 13 -
jy/
b
using kit No. RBT-1891-H, sleeve No. S-1298, and powde" batch No.
P20884 or No. P20348. The installation records revie-ed by the
inspector were as follows:
a.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, and the associated U. S. Testing Company-Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report.
The report was properly approved
and stated the following splices met the specificaticn.
P-561-1
P-561-6
P-561-2
P-561-7
P-561-3
P-561-8
P-561-4
P-561-9
P-561-5
P-561-10
b.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, and the assoicated U.
S. Testing Company Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report. The report was properly approved
and stated the following splices met the specification.
P-562-2
P -5 62-5
P-562-3
T-562-6
P-562-4
One splice, P-562-1, wa s rej ec ted due to a damaged sleeve and
replaced by P-569-1 (which was accepted).
c.
Whalen-Chilstron Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, and the associated U.
S. Testing Company Field
Cadweld Visual Inspection Report.
The report was properly
approved and stated the 'ollowing splices met the specification.
P-563-1
P- 56 3- 5
P-563-2
P-563-6
P-563-3
P-563-7
P-563-4
P-563-8
d.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, and the associated U. S. Testing Company Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report.
The report was properly approved
and stated the following splices met the specification.
'
.
P-564-1
P-564-7
P-564-2
P-564-8
P-564-3
P-564-9
P-564-4
P-564-10
P-564-11
P-564-6
_
- 14 -
347
082
e.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, a..o the associated U. S. Testing Company Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report.
The report was properly approved
and stated the following splices met the specification.
P-567-1
P-567-6
P-567-11
P-567-2
P-567-7
P-567-3
P-567-8
P-567-13
P-567-4
P- 567- 9
P-567-14
P-567-5
P-567-10
P-567-15
A " sister" splice, S-567-12, was made relative to production
splice No. P-567-11 and was subsequently tested to 96,250 psi
which exceeded requirements.
f.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 1,
1978, and Daily Inspection Checklist for Cadweld Inspections
f or splices P-568-2 and P-568-5 dated September 1, 1978, which
indicated pre-placement checkpoints were acceptable for both
splices. The associated U. S. Testing Company Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report was also reviewed and stated that the
following splices met the specifications.
P-568-1
P-568-6
P-568-11
P-568-2
P-568-7
P-568-12
P-568-3
P-56 8- 8
P-568-13
P-568-4
P-568-9
P-558-14
P-568-5
A " sister" splice, S-568-10, was made relative to production
splice No. P-568-9 and was subsequently tensile tested to
105,750 psi which exceeded requirements.
g.
Whalen-Chilstrom Request for Cadweld Material, dated September 2,
1978, and the associated U.
S. Testing Company Field Cadweld
Visual Inspection Report.
The report was properly approved
and stated splice P-569-1 met the specification.
3.
Cadweld Tensile Testing
The inspector reviewed U. S. Testing Company Incorporated Prccedure
QCP-ll, Rev. 1, dated November 7, 1978, " Inspection and Testing of
Reinforcing Steel and Cadweld Splices." Cadweld Splice Test Report
No. 78- 160, dated Septceber 5,1978, was checked by a Level II
inspect or and reviewed by a Level III inspector.
The test report
appeared to meet the requirements of the testing procedure and
indicated the following:
_
- 15 -
347
083
Splice
Ult. Load
Failura Mode
Iensile Strength
S-568-10
423,000 lbs.
Bar Failure
105,750 psi
S-567-12
385,000 lbs.
Bar Failure
96,250 psi
-
The report stated both splices met the required criteria.
4.
Material Certification - Cadwelds
Whalen-Chilstrom audits ERICO Products, Incorporated, on an annual
basis with audits having been done March 22, 1978 and, most recently,
March 26, 1979. The March 26, 1979, audit done by the Whalen-
Chilstrom QA Supervisor found ERICO's QA program to be acceptable.
The site contractor, G. K. Newberg, in turn reviews and audits
Whalen-Chilstrom's QA program approxirctely every 90 days.
The
inspector reviewed the following documents for compliance with the
requirements of ANSI standard N45.2.13-1976 and they appeared te be
in order:
a.
Material Certification, dated June 30, 1978, on sleeve type
S-1298 was signed by the ERICO QA manager. Certification indi-
cated a yield strength of 90,500 psi and a tensile strength of
104,100 psi.
b.
Final Inspection Report, dated August 29, 1978, signed by r.i
ERICO QA representative indicated splice kit T-1891-H was
acceptable.
c.
Certificate of Conformance, No. 10340, (ated August 29, 1978,
was signed by an ERICO QA representative and indicated confor-
mance to recognized standards for powder batch P-20884,
sleeve S-1298 and kit T-1891-H.
5.
Storage Inspection and Surveillance - Cadweld and Rebar
G. K. Newberg Company has neasures to accomplish storage inspection
and surveillance o; cadweld material incorpormted in their quality
control procedures. The inspector reviewed quality records as
fellows and they appeared to be in order:
a.
Site Surveillance Report No. 1103785038, dated November 1,
1978, was signed by a PSI 0C en;4naar and indicated proper-
tagging, logging and storing of rebar ano proper issuiog
and storing of cadweld materials.
b.
Site Surveillance Report No. 0215795024, dated February 13,
1979, was signed by a PSI QC ergineer and indicated cadweld
materials were stored properly. Additionally,_the report
- 16 -
34/
084
indicated crucibles used for the cadwelds were preheated,
splice sleeves were cleaned and preheated as were the rebar
ends, and finally the cadwelds were identified and inspected
according to procedures with no apparent discrepancies.
c.
Site Surveillance Report No. 0309795028, dated March 6, 1979.
-
was signed by a PSI QC engineer and indicated rebar was stored
in designated areas and tagged and logged in upon receipt
at the storage area; cadwelds were stored in dry areas,
issued by requisition and logged in the QA field office.
6.
Nonconformances - Corrective Action
The inspector reviewed approximately ten of the change requests
and nonconformances written on the Unit II basemat.
The following
documents, typical of all those reviewed, indicated that corrective
action was applied to a field change or nonconforming situation,
that the required engineering review vas accomplished, and that
final approval by the QA department was obtained:
a.
Newberg Contractor Change Request (CCR) No. 037, dated
August 17, 1978.
b.
Newberg Contractor Change Request (CCR) No. 073, dated
September 14, 1978.
c.
Whalen-Chilstror Nonconformance Report (NCR) No. 32, dated
February 8, 1979.
d.
Newberg Nonconf ormance Report (NCR) No. 083, dated
May 4,
1978.
7.
Cadweld Operator Qualification
Regulatory Guide 1.10, Rev.
1, datee sanuary 2,
1973, and Specification
BY/BR/MCS require that each operator perform two qualification
splices on the largest size rebar used in a given position.
The
inspector reviewed the quality records of Whalen-Chilstrom and
U. S. Testing Company and determined for the six operators who
installed the 62 splices in layer 12 of the Unit II basemat that
(a) they had all performed the two qualifications splices in the
horizontal position, (b) the qualification splices were all
accep!9hle based on tensile testing, and (c) all six operators l
were qualified at the time the layer 12 splices were made.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the above areas.
.
- 17 -
347
085
.
.
Exit Meeting
The inspectors met with the site staff representatives (denoted in
the Persons Contacted paragraph) at thc conclusion of the inspection
on April 6, 1979. The inspectors sum =arized the scope and findings
of the inspection including the three apparent items of noncocpliance
identified in Section I, Paragraph 2.b,Section II, Paragraphs 1.a
and 1.c.(2), and Section II, Paragraph 2.b, and the one apparent
deviation identified in Section I, Paragraph 2.a of the Details section
of this report. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
.
- 18 -
347
086