Text

IE Insp Repts 50-546/79-07 & 50-547/79-07 on 790609,21-22, 25-29 & 0702-07.Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Assure Purchased Svcs Conform to Procurement Documents
	ML19260A480
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	09/18/1979
From:	Hawkins F, Hayes D, Williams C; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19260A472	List: ML19260A471; ML19260A474; ML19260A480;
References
	50-546-79-07-01, 50-546-79-7-1, 50-547-79-07, 50-547-79-7, NUDOCS 7911210247
	Download: ML19260A480 (28)
	v • d • e

.

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEh"I

REGION III

Reprort No. 50-546/79-07; 50-547/79-07

Docket No. 50-546; 50-546

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: June 9, 21-22, and 25-29 and July 2-7, 1979

4

b

/N [77

Inspectors:

. C. Hawkin

sejdL/

C. C.~ Williams

7 // 8['/ f

/

I

W:A -lD%~

9'[/I[79

,- J. E. Konklin

,

J?c 6 Ln

F.J.Jablonsk!I

.-

'?

7

//f'//9

J.

rm

f/VffV

3.

/

Other Accompanying Personnel:

J. G. Keppler

G. Fiorelli

D. W. Hayes

E. R. Schweibinz

J. E. Foster

Approved by:

D. W.' Hayes, Ch ef

/,I[77

'

Engineering Support Section 1

_

1382

321

W"S

7911210

-

.

'

.

Inspection Summary

Inspection on June 9, 21-22, 25-29, and July 2-7, 1979 (Report No.

50-546/79-07; 50-547/79-07)

Areas Inspected: Follow-up on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item concerning the repair

of defective concrete located in the Auxiliary Building; Review of PSI

and G. K. Newberg (N-MH) implementing procedures; Review of Qualification

and Training records for licensee and contractor personnel; Interviews

with licensee and contractor personnel; Observations of Category II

Concrete Work under the provisions of the Region III Immediate Action

Letter of June 27, 1979; Review of concrete quality recotas (Units 1 and

2); Review of the licensee's 100% " Overview Program"; Observation of

concrete nondestructive testing work and review of related quality records.

This inspection involved a total of 258 inspector-hours onsite by eleven

inspectors.

Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or

deviations were found in seven areas; one item of noncompliance was

identified relative to the nondestructive concrete testing program

(Infraction - Failure to assure purchased services conform to procurement

documents - Paragraph 6.c.(1).

I382

322

-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.

On 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 end repair of concrete. A management meeting 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 concrete activities for Safety

Related structures. A second IAL orted July 23, 1979, was issued documenting

this understanding and a copy is attached to Report No. 50-5(6/79-09.

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.

1382

323

-3-

.

~

On July 24, 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

and to determine if they were symptomatic of problems in other areas.

The resnits 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 results 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 NRC 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.

-

1382

324

-4-

'

.

DETAILS

Persons Contacted

Public Service of Indiana (PSI)

S. W. Shields, Vice President - Electric System

J. Coughlin, Vice President - Nuclear

L. A. Crews, Vice President- Construction

F. R. Hodges, QA Manager

J. J. Cook, Senior Staff Construction Engineer-Nuclear

J. Simmons, Public Relations

R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent

R. E. Woolley, Construction Supervisor, Engineering

W. E. Ward, Nuclear Construction Manager

T. L. McLarty, QA Construction Supervisor

W. A. Muensterman, Senior Construction Project Engineer

S. K. Farlow, Site Design Control Supervision

R. Latronica, Senior Construction Project Engineer

J. H. Mansker, Construction Project Engineer

D. L. Shuter, QC Engineer

W. T. Smith, Construction Field Office Supervisor

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 Supervisor

J. Ball, QC Engineer

M. Rose, QC Engineer

J. Spann, QC Engineer

J. Moore, QC Engineer

R. Narva, QC Engineer

T. Zimmer, QC Engineer

U.S. Testing Laboratory

D. Lanham, Lab Manager

W. Thompson, Field Concrete Testing Supervisor

Whalen-Chilstrom Joint Venture

R. W. Noyes, Quality Assurance Supervisor

.

l382

.525

s

-5-

.

'

Other Personnel:

K. T. Kostal, Senior Structural Project Engineer, S & L

A. M. Weiss, Concrete Technologist, S & L

R. Muenow, Muenow & Associates, NDE Specialists

J. Guest, Foreman, American Gunniting Company

R. F. Klouthis, Material Technologist, Portland Cement Association

Other Inspection Areas:

Review of 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item Reported by the Licensee (0 pen)

On June 9, 1979, the inspector witnessed in-process work related to the

repair of an area of defective concrete identified and reported by the

The area is

licensee pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).

located at elevation 373'-6", L to N line and 28 to 31.3 line in the

auxiliary building and is identified by Newberg NCR No. 347.

The method

of repair was as specified in G. K. Newberg procedure APN-33, Revision 0,

entitled Gunniting.

Inspections were performed during pre-placement,

placement and post-placement phases of the gunite repair work with the

following specific observations being made.

1.

Replacement Work Activities and Related Quality Records

The inspector:

confirmed that Newberg Gunite Procedure WPN-33 Revision 0,

a.

dated June 9, 1979 had been reviewed and approved by the

appropriate authorities prior to commencement of work.

b.

reviewed the qualification records of the two American Gunniting

Company personnel and confirmed that they met the minimum

guidelines for experience as set forth in ACI 506-66, Chapter 5.

confirmed that the back-up batch scales for cement / fly ash (due

c.

July 8, 1979) and aggregate (due July 8, 1979) were calibrated

and properly tagged to indicate calibration status,

d.

confirmed that all unsound material was removed from the void

area by chipping and the surface cleaned by water blasting.

The prepared surface was dampened as directed by the architect

engineer prior to the start of operations in accordance with

ACI 506-66.

confirmed that inspection and signoff had been completed and

e.

the prepared area released for placement by Newberg Quality

Control. Placement Release had been received from PSI prior to

commencement of the repair work.

I382

126

-6-

2.

Placement Work Acti.ities

In addition to the actual repair, three 3' x3' x9" test panels

a.

were prepared and gunited to simulate the actual conditions to

be encountered in the void repair. The investigation into the

acceptability of these test panels is discussed in detail in

Paragraph 3 below.

b.

The inspector verified that properly proportioned dry mix (3200

lbs. sand, 940 lbs. cement) was batched by the back-up batch

plant (Tickets 1through 4), and mixed in ready-mix trucks in

accordance with ACI 504-44.

3.

Post-Placement Work Activities

Licensee personnel stated that six 3" diameter cores were taken

a.

from the overhead 3' x3' x9" test panel. Compressive strength

testing yielded the following results:

Core No.

Compressive Strength (psi)

Test Age (days)

5-1

9720

6

2-0

6880

11

6-1

8680

11

5-0

5940

11

8-1

8990

11

3-0

5970

11

Minimum strength required for the repair material was 3500 psi.

b.

The vertical 3' x3' x9" test panel, which contained four layers

of No. 11 reinforcing bars, was saw cut into quarters to determine

if proper consolidation was achieved in this simulation of the

actual repair area. The results of the investigation showed

areas of poor gunite consolidation between and behind the No.

11 reinforcing steel. Licensee personnel stated that the

repaired area would be re-evaluated using nondestructive ultra-

sonic testing to determine if proper bonding and consolidation

was actually achieved in the repair area.

Pending review of the nondestructive ultrasonic test results,

this matter remains open.

(546/79-07-01; 547/79-07-01)

Functional or Program Areas Inspected

This report encompasses the events immediately following the IE Immediate

Action Letter (IAL) of June 27, 1979 (see attached Exhibit A) Inspection

results through July 7 and the July 13, 1979, RIII letter allowing the

placement of safety related (Category I) concrete to resume based on

PSI's completion of Items 3 and 4 of the IAL. The following specific

areas were reviewed in detail:

b b .)2 [

-7-

1.

Review of PSI and G. K. Newberg Construction Company Procedures

PSI Procedures - The RIII inspector reviewed the following PSI

a.

Construction Management Manual Procedure CMP 3.8

" Surveillance

of Site Activities." The procedure met requirements in that it

included appropriate quantitative and qualitative acceptance

criteria.

b.

G. K. Newberg (N-MH) Procedures - The inspector reviewed spe ific

N-MH procedures related to the receipt and storage of concret-

materials; the transportation, placement, curing and finishing

of safety-related concrete; repair of defective in place concrete;

inspection and test control as related to concrete activities;

audits; and nonconformance identification and corrective action.

The following specific procedures were reviewed:

-

WPN-7, Revision 5, dated June 23, 1979, " Receiving and

Storage of Concrete Materials."

-

WPN-9, Revision 10, dated July 3, 1979, " Concrete Placement,

Cure, and Finish."

WPN-25, Revision 0, dated July 25, 1978, " Major Void

-

Concrete Repair."

-

WPN-29, Revision 0, dated January 9, 1979, " Concrete Wall

Sealing."

-

WPN-31, Revision 0, dated March 13, 1979, " Grout Placement."

WPN-33, Revision 0, dated June 8, 1979, "Guniting."

-

WPN-35, Revisica B, dated June 24, 1979, " Dry Pack Patching."

-

QAPN-4 (latest revision), " Audits."

-

\\PN-10, Revison 4, dated June 24, 1979, " Inspection and

Test Control."

-

QAPN-14 (latest revision), "Nonconformance and Corrective

Action."

Review of these procedures included verification that they

contained the upgraded quality control program requirements.

Following is a list of licensee commitments and their corres-

ponding implementing procedures.

Develop " Production Preplacement Evaluation" procedure;

-

WPN-34, Rev. O, dated June 23, 1979.

1382 .$28

-8-

.

Proceduralize that a minimum of one N-MH QC inspector will

-

be at concrete truck discharge for assurance of proper mix

and one N-MH QC inspector (minimum) at point of placement

to assure proper concrete placement and consolidation;

QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section 4.1.4, dated June 24, 1979.

-

Procedurealize the use of 3" air vibrators in lieu of 2"

electric vibrators to increase the sphere of influence in

some applications; WPN-34, Rev. O, dated June 23, 1979.

-

Provide concrete placing personnel with additional indoc-

trination; WPN-9, Rev. 10, Section 4.5.3 dated July 3,

1979.

-

Provide one concrete foreman for each concrete placement

team; WPN-9, Rev. 10, Section 4.1.2, dated July 3, 1979.

Only a maximum of two Category I (safety-related) placements

-

will occur at the same time to assure direct control of

placement operations by N-MH QC personnel; WPN-9, Rev. 10,

Section 4.2.1, dated July 3, 1979, and QAPN-10, Rev. 5,

Section 4.9 (approval pending).

-

Only the concrete superintendent can order concrete after

being notifed of complete sign off by PSI and N-MH QC

personnel; WPN-9, Rev. 10, Section 4.1.2.

Develop " Dry Pack Repair" procedure; WPN-35 (approval

-

pending).

-

Provide additional Finisher superintendent to allow one

Superintendent for patching of defective concrete and one

superintendent for concrete finishing; WPN-35 (approval

pending).

Provide training of finishers to job patching standards by

-

superintendent before being allowed to begin wori".

Only

trained finishers will be allowed to patch defective

concrete repair areas; WPN-9, Rev. 10, Section 4.7.2,

dated July 3, 1979, and WPN-35, Section 4.13 (approval

pending).

-

Provide training of laborers for mixin; ef dry pack patching

materials; WPN-35, Section 4.14 (approval pending).

-

Proceduralize the use of bag cement for patching; WPN-35

(approval pending).

Proceduralize the practice of discarding mixed dry pack

-

-

material after two hours; WPN-35, Section 4.7 (approval

pending).

1382

529

-9-

Proceduralize the use of a volume container for mixing of

-

dry pack patch materials; WPN-35, Section 4.8 (approval

pending).

Revise the honeycomb repair sections of QAPN-10 to allow

-

control of identification, chipping, and patching of

defective concrete areas and to allow for PSI concurrence;

QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section 4.10.3, dated June 24, 1979.

Proceduralize the use of the N-MH Daily Work Schedule to

-

notify N-HM QC personnel and PSI personnel of areas being

form stripped to assure timely identification of defective

concrete areas; QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section 4.1.1, dated

June 24, 1979.

-

Assign N-MH, QC personnel to specific areas of responsibility;

N-MH letter dated May 3, 1979, and subsequent N-MH letter

dated July 20, 1979.

Appoint an assistant to N-MH site Vice President to allow

-

closer management involvment; no confirmation that this

commitment has been met at the time of this inspection.

-

Proceduralize the requirement to place a member of the

concrete curing crew with the form stripping crew when

form removal is accomplished prior to the end of the

specified curing period; WH!-9, Rev.10, Section 4.8.2

dated July 3, 1979.

-

Assure sign off of the Concrete Placement Check List by

N-MH QC personnel and subcontractor QC personnel is accom-

plished only when there is evidence that the in-place work

will not be rendered unacceptable by work still in progress.

Sign off is valid only for the date indicated.

If for any

.

reason, concrete placement is postponed beyond the indicated

sign off date, a reinspection and sign off will be accomplished

prior to the new scheduled date; QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section

4.5, dated June 24, 1979.

-

Proceduralize the requirement to conduct a training class

by N-MH QC and production supervisor immediately prior to

commencement of concrete placement with emphasis on placement

in unique areas; QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section 4.9, dated

June 24, 1979.

N-MH QA Administrator will be on-site to conduct an indepth

-

review of existing procedures and to assist in further

intensified training of supervisory personnel; the RIII

inspector verified that the QA Administrator was on-site

_

and performing the necessary reviews and training.

1382 MO

- 10 -

.

Reduce mix coarse aggregate by 10% for conveyor mixes; the

.

-

licensee informed the RIII inspector that mix qualification

tests were underway for these adjusted mixes but that the

mixes were not approved or presently being used on site.

Contact Scott Co. Stone Company and request that screening

-

at the quarry be changed to allow the coarse aggregate

gradation to move toward the finer end of the established

gradation scale; the N-MH June 22, 1979, memo from H-MH QA

manager to Scott Co. Stone Co. requesting them to increase

the fine content was reviewed by the RIII inspector. The

licensee stated that this requirement has not been fully

implemented as of this date.

Items denoted above with an asterisk (*) are considered to be

unresolved and will be further reviewed during a future inspection.

(546/79-07-02; 547/79-07-02)

No items of noncompliance were identified.

2.

Review of Qualification and Training Records for Marble Hill Site

Personnel

a.

PSI QC Personnel

(1) The IE inspector reviewed PSI procedures CMP 3.10 " Qualification

of Construction QA Personnel," Rev. 1, dated November 7,

1977, and QAP 6.8 " Training and Qualification," Rev. 21,

dated July 17, 1978. Both of these documents are PSI's

implementation of ANSI Standard N45.2.6-1973 " Qualifications

of Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel for the

Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants." The inspector

reviewed the personnel records of seven PSI QC inspectors

against the requirements stated in the above documents.

(2) The qualification and training records for four U.S.

Testing Co. (Hoboken, NJ office) personnel, hired as

temporary augmentation of PSI's QC staff, were evaluated

against the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-1973 and each was

found to be qualified.

(3) The qualification and training records for three Sargent

and Lundy (S&L) personnel, hired as tempory augmentation

of PSI's QC staff, were evaluated against the requirements

of ANSI N45.2.6-1973 and each was found to be qualified.

(4) Subsequent to these reviews (Items 1-3), the RIII inspector

reviewed records of training classes given concerning the

.

upgraded program requirements as follows:

1382 331

'

c.

- 11 -

.

(a) Training class records showed that on July 2-3, 1979,

five PSI QC inspectors, four U.S. Testing Co. (Hoboken,

NJ office) personnel, and two S&L personnel were

given training on the latest revisions of WPN-34,

WPN-9, QAPN-10, and WPN-35. The U.S. Testing and S&L

personnel referred to here are part of the PSI

augmented QC program.

The July 2-3, 1979, class topics were:

1_

N-MH (onstruction organization

2

Prerequisites for concrete placement

3_

Concrete placement and inspection during placement

t

Post-placemert inspections

/

5

" Hold" and repair procedures for defective concrete

6

Repair inspections and release

7

Documentation

(b) A subsequent review on July 12, 1979, revealed that

two PSI QC inspectors received training on QAPN-10,

Rev. 4, WPN-9, Rev. 10, and WPN-34, Rev. O.

The RIII

inspector confirmed that all PSI QC personnel performing

inspections under the upgraded QC program had received

training on the latest approved revisions to that

program.

b.

N-MH QC Personnel

(1) The qualification and training records for twelve N-MH QC

personnel were evaluated against the requirements of ANSI

N45.2.6-1973Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.6-1973" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..

(2) In addition, the RIII inspector reviewed records of training

classes given relative to the upgraded prograr requirements

as follows:

(a) Training class records showed that on June 25, 1979,

eight N-MH QC inspectors received training on QAPN-10,

Rev. 4.

(b) Training class records showed that on July 5, 1979,

eight N-MH QC inspectors received training on WPN-34,

Rev. O, and WPN-7, Rev. 5.

(c) On July 3, 1979, a training class which outlined and

defined the five PSI " Hold Points" was given to seven

N-MH QC inspectors.

(d) Subsequent review of training class records on July 13,

1979, showed that on July 12, 1979, eight N-MH QC

inspectors received training on WPN-9, Rev. 10.

l N 2

.'; h 2

- 12 -

.

b-

The RIII inspector confirmed that all N-MH QC personnel

'

presently inspecting under the upgraded QC program have

received training on the latest approved revisions to that

program.

c.

N-FDi Production Personnel

Records of indoctrination and crientation training of production

personnel were reviewed.

On July 3, 1979, two concrete super-

intendents were given training relative to the requirements of

N-MH procedures WPN-7, Rev. 5, WPN-9, Rev. 10, and WPN-34,

Rev. O.

d.

Whalen-Chilstrom Personnel

(1) The qualification and training records for three Whalen-

Chilstrom (W-C) QC personnel were evaluated against the

requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-1973 and found to be qualified

in accordance with this standard.

(2) Subsequently, on July 10, 1979, the RIII inspector confirmed

that on July 9, 1979, the W-C QA supervisor conducted a

training session on WCQAP-9, Rev. 5 (upgraded program

requirements) for three QC inspectors. This training was

conducted in accordance with WCQAP-7.

Overall, the training records appeared to meet the requirements

of the applicable procedures or standard; but in some cases for

PSI and N-MH QC personnel, it appears a liberal interpretation

of " prior experience" (an allowable factor in determining level

of capability according to ANSI N45.2.6-1973) was used in

assigning levels of capability to QC personnel.

The ANSI standard is recognized as a guide and the requirements

are not absolute, but the judgment used in giving credit for

non-technical degrees or length of service in related but not

similar inspection or testing work is open to question. The

lack of nuclear QA/QC experience places a heavy burden on the

licensee's training program to insure capable fully qualified

inspectors.

In the specific case of PSI, the fact that PSI

procedure CMP 3.10, Rev.1, allowed for a liberal interpretation

of the educational and prior experience requirements enumerated

in ANSI N45.2.6, resulted in several personnel being only

marginally qualified. This matter is considered unresolved.

(546/79-07-03; 547/79-07-03)

No items of noncompliance were identified.

.

- 13 -

.

3.

Personnel Interviews

_

The RIII inspectors conducted interviews with QC and production

personnel concerning their knowledge of QC program requirements and

general construction practices.

a.

PSI QC Inspectors

On June 29, 1979, the inspector talked to two PSI civil inspectors

who are qualified to sign off for concrete placement on safety-

related pours, but who had not done so because safety-related

concrete had been stopped at this time. The purpose of the

discussion was to assess the PSI inspector's knowledge of the

requirements for the activities they are performing, including

their familiarity with the recent changes to the procedures

which are part of the PSI upgraded program.

The inspector found that neither of the two PSI civil inspectors

had reviewed the recent procedure changes and that, therefore,

they were not able to disucss the upgraded program requirements

for concrete work in a knowledgeable manner.

In addition, both PSI civil inspectors exhibited a lack of

knowledge regarding specific requirements relating to concrete

inspection. For example, neither inspector could correctly

define the difference between a major honeycomb and a minor

honeycomb, one inspector did not know the curing time require-

ment for a grout placement used in void repair, neither inspector

was clear regarding what constitutes clean reinforcing steel,

and one inspector who performs inspections on concrete materials

did not know the requirements for water quality or where to

find them.

Subsequent to these interviews, the licensee conducted training

classes to familiarize the responsible PSI QC inspectors with

the requirements of the upgraded program. These training

classes are discussed in detail in Paragraph 2.a(4) above.

Through additional discussions, the RIII inspector confirmed

that the PSI QC inspectors were cognizant of the upgraded

program requirement prior to the start of Category I (safety-

related) concrete activities.

The inspector discussed the results of the above interviews

with the PSI QA Hanager and Construction Project Superintendent.

The licensee stated that the training requirements for inspectors

are being evaluated as part of the upgraded program. This is

considered to be an unresolved item.

(546/79-07-04; 547/79-07-04)

.

- 14 -

.

b.

N-MH QC Inspectors

On July 2, 1979, the RIII inspector held discussions with two

N-MR QC inspectors to assess their knowledge of concrete placement

techniques and general construction knowledge. The two inspectors

we.ft knowledgable of specific concrete specification requirements,

applicable industry standards requirements, and the requirements

of the upgraded QC program.

c.

N-MH Production Personnel

On July 2 and 6, 1979, the RIII inspector discussed with four

N-MH concrete placing personnel the proper methods of concrete

placement and consolidation. Each was aware of specific placing

and consolidation techniques which apply to the Marble Hill

site,

4.

Observation of Category II Concrete Work and Associated Concrete

Quality Records

The RIII inspectors observed two Category II concrete placements

(non-safety related) during the week of July 2, 1979, under the

provisions in Item 3 of the IE Immediate Action Letter of June 27,

1979.

This program was implemented to permit the NRC to review and

evaluate QA program improvements instituted by PSI as a result of

previously identified concrete deficiencies in Category I work.

Under this revised program, QA/QC controls for Category II concrete

activities were the same as would be applied for Category I concrete

work in safety related structures.

Specific observations for each

Category II placement are as follows:

a.

Radwaste Tunnel Walls Placement

The RIII inspector observed the in process pre-placement,

placement, and post placement concrete work activities for the

July 2, 1979, placement of pour No. RTW-388-2A and 3A.

The

placement consisted of approximately 60 cubic yards of mix No.

3504 concrete and 17 cubic yards of mix No. 3551 grout.

(1) Pre-Placement Inspection

(a) Horizontal and vertical construction joints were

observed to be properly prepared for concrete placement.

(b) Reinforcing steel and embedments were observed to be

free of excessive rust, mill o mile, concrete, or

other contaminants.

,

(c) Formwork was observed to be properly cleaned and

prepared for concrete placement.

- 15 -

.

(d) Review of the N-MH " Check Placement Check Sheet"

-

confirmed that all applicable pre placement check

points had been met and signed off on July 2, 1979,

by the responsible N-FDI QC inspectors, subcontractor

QC inspectors and the N-MH QC Engineer. The area was

finally released for concrete placement through

completion of the PSI Placement Check Sheet.

(e) The RIII inspector reviewed Contractor Change' Request

(CCR) No. 330 requesting that grout be used in lieu

of concrete in congested areas of the radwaste tunnel

east wall.

CCR No. 330 was properly approved prior

to commencement of the pour.

(2) Placement Inspection

(a) In-Process Concrete Testing

1_

The dIII inspector observed U.S. Testing (UST)

field QC personnel perform temperature tests,

percent entrained air tests, unit weight tests,

and cast compressive strength cylinders as

required by specification No. Y-2850 Amendment

3, Section 411 for grout used in lieu of concrete.

The test results were within the allowed limits

and performed at the frequencies specified.

2

The RIII inspector observed UST field QC personnel

perform slump tests, temperature tests, percent

entrained air tests and cast compressive strength

cylinders for concrete mix No. 3504 delivered to

the pour area. The test results were within the

allowed limits and performed at the frequencies

specified.

3

Concrete test equipment was observed to be

calibrated and properly marked to indicate

calibration status.

4

Field curing boxes which were suitably equipped

to maintain freshly cast compressive strength

cylinders at the initial curing temperature

specified by ASTM C31 were inspected. The

60-80*F temperature required was verified during

this inspection.

(b) Delivery and Placement

-

1_

Concrete was pumped to the placement area and

then deposited via concrete drop chutes which

adequately confined the concrete with a maximum

- 16 -

1382

336

.

five foot free fall.

Lift height thicknesses of

deposited concrete was verified not to exceed 24

inches when consolidated.

2

Concrete was observed to be properly consolidated

using internal concrete vibrators, which had

been checked as required by WPN-9, Rev. 10 to

verify the minimum 8000 cpm required. The

vibrators were observed to be properly inserted

at 12-18 inch intervals for time periods not

exceeding 15 seconds.

3

The RIII inspector observed, two PSI QC inspectors

and two N-MH QC inspectors present at the placement

area (one at truck discharge and one at the

placement area). This amount of QC coverage on

a placement of this magnitude is considered

adequate to assure proper placement and

consolidation.

(3) Post Placement Inspection

The RIII inspector verified proper curing of the radwaste

walls thoughout the specified 7 day cure period.

In

addition, the RIII inspector verified through review of

the N-MH " Concrete Curing Card," that N-MH QC inspectors

physically checked proper cure on a daily basis throughout

the cure period.

'

b.

Unit No. 2 Turbine Pier

The RIII inspectors observed the in process pre placement,

placement, and post placement concrete work activities for pour

No. 2TS-451-1. The Turbine Pier pour was placed on July 6-7,

1979, and consisted of approximately 4050 cubic yards of concrete

(mix No. 3503 and 3504).

(1) Pr.e-Placement Inspection

(a) Horizontal construction joints were observed to be

properly prepared for concrete placement.

(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.

-

1382

537

- 17 -

(d) The RIII inspector witnessed the completion of the

N-MH " Pre-Placement Evaluation Checklist" on July 5,

1979, by the N-MH Concrete Superintendent in accordance

with WPN-34, Rev. O.

(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 6, 1979,

by the responsible N-MH QC inspectors, subcontractor

QC inspectors and the N-MH QC Engineer. The area was

finally released for concrete placement through

completion of the PSI Placement Check Sheet.

(f) The RIII inspector witnessed two training sessions

conducted by the area N-MH QC Engineer.

and the

concrete supervisor (foreman).

The purpose of the

training sessions were to review proper placement and

consolidation methods 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.

(2) Place _ ment Inspection

(a)

li.-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 compressive strength cylinders. The

tests were performed in accordance with the

applicable ASTM designation for each and performed

at the frequencies specified by job specification

Y-2722.

2

Concrete test equipment was observed to be

calibrated and properly marked to indicate

calibration status as follows:

Item

ID No.

Calibration Due

Thermometer

314.0

7/17/79

'

347.0

8/8/79

"

427.0

12/8/79

"

432.0

12/8/79

"

Air Meter

272

7/9/79

273

9/5/79

"

274

9/15/79

"

.

"

318

8/7/79

-

,

<

,

L

b

- 18 -

Field Scale

232

11/7/79

.

Unit Wt. Container

217

8/18/79

264

11/10/79

"

265

11/14/79

"

267

11/14/79

"

Slump Cone

249

10/17/79

252

10/17/79

"

364

9/19/79

"

367

9/19/79

"

438

6/8/80

"

441

6/8/80

"

3

Field curing boxes which were suitably equipped

to maintain freshly cast compressive strength

specimens at the initial curing temperature

specified by ASTM C31 were inspected. The

60-80 F temperature required was verified for

,

two' curing boxes during this inspection.

(b) Delivery and Placement

i

Concrete was transported to the placement area

using one conveyor system and two pumps.

Concrete

hoppers with drop chutes placed throughout the

pour assured that concrete during placement was

adequately confined with a maximum five foot

free tall.

2

The RIII inspector observed one instance in

which concrete placing personnel exceeded the

allowable 24" consolidated lift thickness. The

matter was brought to the attention of PSI QC,

N-MH, and N-MH Production personnel. Action was

immediately taken to properly consolidate the

concrete in this area.

3

The RIII inspector observed the use of internal

concrete vibrators, which had been checked as

required by WPN-9, Rev. 10 to verify the minimum

8000 cpm required. The vibrators were observed

to be properly inserted at 12-18" intervals for

time periods not exceeding 15 seconds.

Specific

vibrators checked are as follows:

Vibrator No.

Calibration Due Date

55

7/26/79

65

8/4/79

67

7/26/79

-

69

7/19/79

- 19 -

80

8/4/79

84

8/4/79

85

8/4/79

86

8/4/79

91

8/4/79

76

8/6/79

77

8/6/79

79

8/6/79

81

8/6/79

75

8/6/79

4

The RIII inspector observed a minimum of three

PSI QC personnel, seven N-MH QC personnel, one

at each of three truck discharge points as

required by QAPN-10, Rev. 4, Section 4.1.4), and

five N-MH labor crew foremen (one for each

placement team as required by WPN-9, Rev. 10,

Section 4.1.2) present at the placement area.

(3) Post-Placement Inspection

The RIII inspector verified, through observation of curing

compound application and wet cure of the cold joint and

review of the N-MH " Curing Card" which stated that the

placement was properly cured for the specified seven days.

In addition, the inspector verified that a member of the

concrete curing crew accompanied the form stripping crew

during form removal prior to the expiration of the cure

period, as required by WPN-9, Rev. 10, Section 4.8.2.

(4) Review of Nonconformance Reports (NCR)

(a) N-MH NCR No. 396 - Main Batch plant operated in

manual mode due to computer malfunction without

procedural requirements (WPN-11). This NCR remains

open.

(b) N-MH NCR No. 397 - Out of specification concrete

placed.

-

licket 5427716; 6 1/4" slump (maximum allowed is

6") 9 cubic yard placed

Ticket 670457; 76 F temp. (maximum allowed is

-

75 F) 10 cubic yards placed

Two compressive strength cylinders were cast in each

instance, for engineering evaluation. This NCR

remains open.

_

l382

340

- 20 -

(c) N-MH NCR No. 398 - Non plastic (cold) joint (12' x 12'

x 2') formed in the West middle of the Turbine Pier.

The area is to be treated in accordance with S&L

Specification 2722, and ACI 301-72. This NCR remains

open.

c.

Review of Bates Plant Quality Records

The RIII inspector performed a curveillance inspection of the

main batch plant during concrete production on July 6, 1979,

and reviewed selected quality records on July 10, 1979. Specifics

are as follows:

(1) The main and back-up batch plant NRMCA certificates were

reviewed by the inspector and found to be in current

status.

(2) Volumetric batching devices and scales for the main and

back-up batch plant were observed to be calibrated and

properly tagged to indicate calibration status as follows:

Main Plant Device

Date Due

Aggregate Scale

7/20/79

Cement / Fly Ash Scale

7/20/79

Ice Scale

7/20/79

Water Meter

7/15/79

Darex Dispenser

7/18/79

Lock-up Plant Device

Date Due

Aggregate Scale

10/3/79

Cement / Fly Ash Scale

10/3/79

Water Meter

10/3/79

Darex Dispenser

7/19/79

Review of the calibration reports confirmed that the

mein and back-up batch plant devices were calibrated and

that the calibrations were performed at the required

inte rvals .

During review of these reports, the RIII inspector requested

documentation verifying NBS traceability of the test

weights used by the two scale calibration companies performing

work at the Marble Hill site. N-MH QC personnel stated

that that information was not available en site, but had

been requested from the two respective companies. This

item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed during

a future inspection.

(546/79-07-05; 547/79-07-05)

l382 34l

- 21 -

(3) The most recent main and truck mixer uniformity test

results. were reviewed and found to meet the requirements

of ASTM-C94-74. The test frequency was also found to meet

the 6 month interval specified in S&L Specification Y-2850

Section 411B.3.

(4) The water sight gauges on Truck Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12,

13, and 14 were observed to be calibrated and properly

tagged to indicate calibration status.

Review of the

calibration reports confirmed that the truck water sight

gauges met the discharge tolerances specified in the NRMCA

checklist.

(5) N-MH QC inspection reports for the main batch plant mixer

and truck mixers to verify proper blade height and condition,

mixer condition and revolution counter operation (truck

mixers) were reviewed. The report showed all items met

requirements.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

5.

Review of PSI 100% " Overview" Program (Item 5 of the IE IAL of

June 27, 1979)

On July 3,1979, the licensee submitted for approval the 100% " Overview

Program" encompassing safety related concrete activities performed

by the G. K. Newberg Company. The program as proposed, consisted of

the following:

a.

Gust K. Newberg has upgraded certain work and quality control

procedures; based on the revisions, PSI will institute a " Hold

Point" program consisting of activities that cannot be gone

beyond without PSI QC verification that the activity has been

accomplished correctly. This verification will consist of

actual physical inspections and surveillances performed and

documented in accordance with approved procedures.

b.

The " Hold Points" will be transmitted to the Newberg QA Supervisor

on a weekly basis or until such time the " Hold Points" are

changed or recinded.

c.

Each " Hold Point" is defined as follows:

(1) Hold Point No. 1

N-MH's Production Department will notify PSI when final

evaluation for major placement areas will be accomplished

in accordance with Procedure WPN-34, " Production Preplacement

Evaluaticn". PSI Engineering Representative will participate

_

1382 .542

- 22 -

in this function to assist in the evaluation of critical

areas that may require special mix considerations and

release the hold point by initialing the " Pre-Placement

Checklist".

(2) Hold Point No. 2

In accordance with WPN-11 and QAPN-10, the N-MH QC Engineer

at the Batch Plant will prepare the Preplacement Batch

Plant Checklist once daily. This will occur with the

start up of normal operations at 7:00 a.m.

The responsible

PSI QC inspector will release the hold point by initialing

the " Batch Plant Checklist".

(3) Hold Point No. 3

The N-MH field QC Inspectors will accomplish normal inspections

through sign off of N-MH Concrete Placement Checksheet in

accordance with QAPN-10. NOTE: Meeting with placement

personnel as required by QAPN-10 will be conducted at sign

off of PSI Placement form. Subsequent to completion of

PSI's duplicate visual pre placement inspection, the PSI

QC inspector will release the hold point by initialing the

N-MH Concrete Placement Check Sheet.

(4) Hold Point No. 4

N-MH Concrete Cure Card (QAPN-10) will be initiated by the

N-MH QC Inspector indicating the method to be used. As

curing may start prior to completion of the placement,

this will be accomplished as soon as the placement is

released. The responsible PSI QC inspector will verify

proper method of curing and release the hold point by

initialing the N-MH Concrete Curing Card.

(5) Hold Point No. 5

As stripping is in progress, the N-MH QC Inspector will

inspect the area and complete Part I of the Honeycomb

Report in accordance with QAPN-10.

Copy of this preliminary

report will be transmitted to PSI. When the area is ready

for preparation inspection, PSI will be notified and Part

II completed. NOTE: The amount of stripping in any area

will be controlled by subsequent operations and may only

be partial, in which case a new Honeycomb Report if required

will be initiated when the balance of forms are removed.

d.

The " Hold Point" program was instituted July 3, 1979, in order

.

to " burn in" the system to demonstrate it's effectiveness.

-

1382

343

- 23 -

.

PSI has augmented its QC inspection and engineering staff (two

e.

QC engineers, three Level II Concrete inspectors, and one Level

I concrete inspector) to perform or survey concrete activities

as required.

f.

PSI has performed and documented an indoctrination review and

training session of the " Hold Point" program as well as the

revised N-MH work and QC procedures.

g.

PSI has implemented the program effective July 3, 1979, per CMP

3.8.

On July 7, 1979, verbal approval of th: PSI 100% "overviev' program

and verbal release to begin safety related (Category I) concrete

work was given by the RIII staff.

On July 13, 1979, the RIII office released a letter (Exhibit B) to

PSI to confirm the following points.

-

Items 3 and 4 of the June 27, 1979, IAL have been met.

-

The proposed PSI 100% " overview" program is approved for use.

Placement of concrete for safety relatc3 structures (Category

-

I) may resume with the understandings specifcally addressed in

Exhibit B.

6.

Nondestructive Examination (Microseismic) of Safety Related Concrete

Structures

(Reference NRC III Reports 50-546/79-08, 50-547/79-08, and Immediate

Action Letter dated June 27, 1979)

a.

Background

(1) As the result of the identification of hundreds of instances

of major and minor concrete honeycombing in plant structures,

nonconforming concrete placement and repair activities,

the licensee committed to evaluate the adequacy of all

existing safety related concrete structures by nondestructive

examination. Moreover, certain of the nondestructive test

results are to be verified by destructive testing (coring)

and evaluation.

(2) As documented in RIII Immediate Action Letter dated June 27,

1979, (copy attached) the licensee is to ".

. continue

.

surface and volumetric examination of existing concrete to

establish it's adequacy, and randomly select and test a

statistical sample, representative of both congested and

)

u

1382

544

- 24 -

other concrete volumes to assure with 95% reliability and

95% confidence level, that concrete quality meets

"

requirements

. . ..

(3) To accomplish this the licensee and it's civil contractor

(Newburg) contracted the Portland Cement Association. The

Portland Cement Association provided, under their P.

O.,

Richard Huenow and others to conduct the nondestructive

examinations.

,

(4) The nondestructive test technique employs an " ultrasonic"

test technique developed by Richard Muenow and Associates.

The examination is titled " Test Method for Microseismic

Evaluation of Concrete (Pulse Echo Method)."

(5) Fundamentally, this test method evaluates the seismic

response of a volume of concrete.

It employs an array of

transducers in one housing, which are coupled to the test

specimen with a liquid or grease; a cathode ray scope with

associated devices for signal processing , and memory; a

five pound Schmidt hammer to initiate a seismic event

within the specimen under test; and a Polaroid Camera for

recording.

(6) The response of the test specimen is retained on the

" memorizing cathode ray tube."

(7) This system, from one side of the test specimen, is capable

of providing highly reliable information regarding the

depth of an inhomogeneity in concrete, and its area as

determined by translating the transducer over the inspection

surface.

It does not provide a measure of the volume of

the inhomogeneity (i.e. honeyecmb, or embeds). Also, the

compresive strength of concrete is measureable by this test

method as determined by the velocity of the microseismic

disturbances within the concrete.

While this system provides an indication of the character

of an inhomogeneity in concrete, the accuracy of these

characterizations (i.e. honeycomb, reinforcement steel,

e.nbeds, etc.) depends entirely upon the skill and experience

of the test engineer and his knowledge of the configuration

and content of the concrete structure.

(8) Demonstration of this test technique on a prepared concrete

specimen three feet thick (and actual test to 12 feet

thick) with known and observable it.homogeneities (honeycomb,

reinforcing steel and air voids) was witnessed by the NRC

inspector. This testing disclosed all of the known and

observable conditions (cracking, honeycomb and embeds)

1382

345

- 25 -

with complete accuracy as to depth, extent and description.

Subsequently, microseismic examination on six of the

existing concrete patches (all of which are to be removed,

see report No. 79-15) again demonstrated that the test

system and Mr. Muenow's interpretation are highly reliable.

All six of the patches were subsequently destroyed (removed)

ard in each instance the test results (all rejectable)

were verified to be correct.

b.

Test Program Requirements

As a result of inspection, and discussion with licensee representa-

tives, the following commitments were established or reconfirmed

on or about June 29, 1979.

(1) Microseismic evaluation of existing concrete shall be

conducted in accordance with a scientific sampling plan.

(2) All indications of inhomogeneity are to be subjected to an

engineering evaluation based on design drawings to determine

if a planned embed or a nonconforming condition is res} nsible

for the indication.

(3) All indications of inhomogeneity in the concrete, which

are not attributable to a planned condition, are to be

further evaluated by destructive test (i.e. coring) to

determine their acceptability.

(4) The licensee shall randomly core some areas judged to be

acceptable by microseismic evaluation to further verify

the accuracy of these techniques. These areas may be at

the same locations where cores planned for other purposes

are to be located.

(5) All processes (testing, documentation, evaluation, etc.)

are to be controlled and in accordance with fully documented

and comprehensive procedures.

(6) NRC shall be informed of any test results prior to any

destructive evaluation and removal of defective materials.

c.

Personnel, Equipment, and Procedural Documentation

(1) On June 27, 28, and 29 the NRC inspector reviewed the test

procedure for concrete nondestructive examination titled

" Test Method for Microseismic Evaluation of Concrete

(Pulse Echo Method)."

(Note: This method is not relatable

to the ASTM-C-597 test, and is considered by this evaluator

to be a considerably superior concrete test technique).

-

The copy of the procedure reviewed is considered Revision

,

d

1382

346

- 26 -

A.

As a result of this document review and discussion

with the licensee's representative, it was determined that

the procedure as written was not comprehensive enough for

application at Marble Hill, in that it (1) did not fully

address specimen scanning methodology, (2) did not provide

an adequate common criterion for evaluation of adverse

indications, (3) did not adequately indicate how records

were to be accumulated and controlled, (4) provided a less

than comprehensive basis for its reported capabilities,

and (5) did not show evidence of proper control within the

civil contractor's QA system.

Subsequent to the identification of the above the licensee

stopped testing and provided comprehensive procedures to

control this work, now documented as " Test Method for

Microseismic Evaluation of Concrete (Pulse Echo Method),

Newburg Marble Hill, Revision B, dated July 5, 1979.

Other instructions as necessary for control of this work

were also provided.

The adverse conditions identified in the above paragraph

C(l) are considered to be nonconforming to the licensee's

QA commitments. See Appendix A of this report.

(546/79-07-06; 547/79-07-06)

(2) On June 27, 28 and 29 the NRC inspector examined the

electronic and mechanical equipment which included:

(a)

the ocilloscope and associated signal processing equipment,

(b) the transducer (receiver) array, and (c) the Schmidt

hammer used in the microseismic testing.

It was determined

that documentation to certify adequate calibration of

performance of those devices, and thereby conformance to

purchase requirements was unavailable for review. Further,

some method for verifying the operability of the system

routinely was required.

Note that these electronic devices are unique to

Mr. Richard Muenow, as he is apparently their sole developer

with the exception of the memory scope.

Subsequent to the identification of these adverse conditions

by the NRC inspector, the licensee and its agents took

immediate corrective actions.

Conforming equipment perfor-

mance documentation and requirements were made available

prior to resuming concrete testing for the record.

The conditions adverse to quality noted i,n this subparagraph

are considered to have been in nonconformance to the

licensee's quality requirements, in that documentary

_

evidence of quality was not available prior to use. See

Appendix A of this report.

(546/79-07-06; 547/79-07-06)

'

}382

34[

- 27 -

(3) Review of personnel qualification records for concrete

evaluation disclosed that the personnel qualification

records for one of the test Engineers was unavailable at

the site. This condition is contrary to PSI quality

assurance commitments, and is considered an element of

nonconformance.

It is noted that the performance of all

the test engineers was in accordance with the existing

instructions and procedures. Subsequently, the licensee

requested and received the required documentation. This

adverse condition is considered in noncompliance to the

licensee quality commitments. See Appendix A (546/79-07-06;

547/79-07-06). Subsequent corrective actions are identified

in licensee letter dated July 18, 1979, file No. 0718795013.

d.

Subsequent Surveillance of Concrete Testing

Subsequent to the identification of the documentation noncom-

pliances identified in this report, it has been observed that

the ongoing conduct of the microseismic evaluation of existing

concrete has met all quality requirements as documented in

approved procedures and instructions. Examples of these NRC

surveillance activities are documented in RIII Report Nos.

".. 79-10" and ".. 79-15".

Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in

order to sscertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance

or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are dis-

cussed under Functional Areas Inspected in Paragraphs 1.b, 2.d(2), 3.a

and 4.c(2).

Exit Interview

The inspectors met with corporate and site staff representatives (denoted

under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 7,

1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection.

The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.

Attachments: Exhibits A & B

l382

348

.

- 28 -

_.

4 0. A .

_

-

_

UNITED STATES

'

a nao

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[

%,

nEcion es:

8

%

Tee nooseveLv moao

$

-l

ettN ELLYN. ILUNOIS 60137

g

~*

June 27, 1979

.^~

..

Docket Nos. 50-546

50-547

Public Service of Indiana

Attention: Mr. S. W. Shields

Vice President

Electric System

1000 E. Main Street

Plainfield, IN 46168

Gentlemen:

This refers to the discussion between you and I and others of our

26, 1979, regarding the quality of concre?.e

respective staffs on June

ennstruction activities at the Harble Hill Units 1 and 2 plant site.

' . understand based on these discussions that Public S

iana vill:

/

1. Jith_its contracted creanizations. continue surfsee and vn1'=arrie

amenklinh fe's adantimev

en

examination of existine concraea

and randomly select and test a statistical sample, representative '

c

of both congested and other concrete volumes to assure with

95% reliability and 95% confidence level, that concrete quality -

This examination program shall be

meets requirements.

expeditiously implemented and completed.

Evaluate and take appropriate corrective actions of all identified

deficiencies and assess them in terms of their impact on safety

related concrete construction activities.

.

2. _ Identifv and evaluate concrete rena4r ara ==bnr

ad antia e v .

_

This effort is to include no less than those areas referenced

by existing QA/QC documentation for repaired areas and those

identified by 100% visual / mechanical examination of existing

concrete structures.

_ Limit future concrete placetent to non-safety related structures

" rovm.cata ,~~

3.

to permit.,the.Ji]LC to review aud.sair

^%uar

4 6stltuted on or about May 16, 1979 by PSI as a result of previously

During the existence of

identified concrete deficiencies.

this concrete placement limitation, QA/QC controls for non-safety

related concrete activities will be the same as would be used

-

for safety related structures.

C

,' 7 'g P

U'

r

a

bO

(f[i

ap(o

q

-

1382 49

_ _ . _

e

2-

-

Not resume concrete niac ean*

Fa-

--r ty r-1-tu =*enetures

e

'

until the NRC is satisfied by comprehensive demonstration that

your upgraded QA/QC program and process controls are adkquate.

5.

Following resumption of concrete placement for safety related

structures, provide complete (100%) " overview" of all safety

related concrete activities at the site. This " overview" is to

continue until adequate confidence is established to the

satisfaction of PSI and NRC.

Evidence of PSI's overview of the involved contractor's quality

ML19260A480

Text

Navigation menu

Search