ML19269F497

Technical Assistance in QA & Nondestructive Testing, Field Rept 2,790810-1110

ML19269F497
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	11/30/1979
From:	Albert W INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
To:
Shared Package
ML19269F483	List: ML19269F482 ML19269F493 ML19269F497
References
PHI-9F-06-B, PHI-9F-6-B, NUDOCS 7912210173
Download: ML19269F497 (30)

Text

g.,sy g. v.. *:y, c_.

,... a:,,;

-. ~,,.,.1..g i.-..

v.

~,

c..

.3 %.,-

.e.., e

..4P.,

, - e,.e

..,. n

. ;,e

?

(

=.4.,...

.v

.s.. ~

..,).r;

. x.

.,u,r..n.,.,s-e,..._,..

.,.a~...n......<

,.m..,

.. as...s,...,.,...

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY.

~

iC.

W

't..r.: m'2i.i") yf '.3; r. -Q

'? 's;.,

.g

/. ".4 5 ;F :,..v; /.'.,,e..

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE I,,N. :<

v M :.

2 r~...-

,r w.r-w,)y.r...

n

-o"~-'.'

.f 1.

.: ~,

%...r...... n. H.,- !

"W.',

Wi *, W}w. 0'.;~.,*#>,QUALITYgASSURANCE AND NON.~ DESTRUCTIVE TESTI J $** eJ 5

.,,..... m.

. '.n $ % <. -

V.'.,. '.

~. ; 1..

.lr s.. +sn.

.E'*', ii T:. h.lv. s. j....::M'.:,...

-,..m n =

-,w.

-~;

.m, :

1

. m, g..

..r.

py.g.g,..r

.,..s..m. f.,... -.. '

2

,,.s....

ce.n ; w.

u I

Q ':

Lli";.

e..,:.,.. t.t.

r*.,. r,. e -

3,.,.,d. 4

.c

-..,..s e.

.m....v.

.g y..,..

....,f-

~.

.m. -,. -.

PHILIPPINES * ~

~ P' "

~- ~

y.

s. _....

.'-N1'M":s *gf*.....,... W,

.r.

.hrg v &; e.. m >.-:7 a.u;

..,w y,,,v......

.w

.v, w.,.

i....:.

c

y. r:. n

.IQ.d.-.

2 '_ r.

.. PROJECT No.:

PHI /9F/06-B (Rev.)

g.q.. e

- t 4~:: L ->

• e.,%. r. p.

.u.

y n,...,

W-:a.s-

.,.a,,,,..

a..

- 15 FIELD REPORT No. 2

. x,,m "...

.1.

"Y f,e* -..,.

,. c..

10 August to 10 November 1979 l-Y]b,o &&

-WILLIAM G. ALBERT Technical Cooperation Expert'.'

. g 4.u....,.:... >. c ;,

c. 2:..

.....A

+: st.,

w

.v.. x....,,,,. ^

- M,v... a....-

..,.s. s...v...

g,

f,.,,

% y...

.. ~ m.,y,.:.,,.::

w.

-y

.m.

.;. 2.

.r..

. :.:n g.%..

,'6%..,= 8,. ;,t( ),.y '..

. s. -,..,

..--( r.US Q.3

,-D.A1,a.,..-

., 3.p,. s

.. e.-t s, s Wl.. t.., *

f. c.., e s uV:,5(" - e f

-e

......a.. ;,.

74 iv,.

a,.. ;,.

,s.

p,..

m.g...... u....

f.Ah",r. J14 WO:*.W.t.W,6'V:i.W2 *rhi AWL'.'M.*,,6'r,4*A W f.'.,4 6..a'

/ O...,s..* w;.'v.5.'. h !.W.

i y..,,.

.t....

e

,..,......u...., c, a 4 J....,..u. ;.v

,:> n,,.. c m...... v.s. t,.,. f,e c..v..,_.w1,;,y. <,... ~, =.,...

,. t,:.r.

..y..,,, s r

.., l i,o ;.'

.4.s f..

..,.s,.. ~..

-.. s.~r

...a,._

. g.t.

' s.

... s e a.:

e*

gn - b.{ %

-*;.-..* ) % u93 %'$5}"h L.?* ;f.'.tgJ..y,a e.

e...

{. s*W,4,'-"Novemb"er' 19 79

/. 6 18 9 4 5.i t k.L e l } ') g.

G

.e

.A

.-r-

. *.p.'Pfr f f'[ J.

f

,.. G,

}:

y,...1,

.3 v

<3

,w.

a...

n.

a...

. w.,.

y ;

,,\\

p' y

g

/

...o 7913g101 w/

v

il

,I I

16 November 1979 MEMD to:

D.A. NETI!SINGHE, Head Asia & Pacific Section Division of Technical Assistance International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria F R 0 M:

W.G. ALBERT IAEA Technical Cooperation Expert Philippine Atomic Energy Go=sission (PAEC)

P.O. Box 932 Metro Manila, Philippines

SUBJECT:

Field Report No. 2 Project PHI /9F/06-B Rev.

Enclosed is the subject report. Any suggestion or -ts vould be appreciated.

You vill note that this report was prepared prior to the announcement by the President on Nov. 13, 1979, that the work suspension on PNPP-1 was to be continued until Westinghouse modified the reactor design.

This sa=e announce=ent stated that issues related to volcanology and seisnology had been satisfactorily resolved.

W.G. ALBERT

/gsm 2166 316 P00R ORGINAL l

l ak

I I

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY I'

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN L

f QUALITY ASSURANCE AND NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING PHILIEPINES g

I L

i i

D PROJECT NO.: PHI /9F/06-B (Rev.)

N,

~

FIELD REPORT No. 2 i

I.

10 August to 10 November 1979 WILLIAM G. ALBERT TECHNICAL COOPERATION EXPERT b

m November 1979 s

4 j

2166 317 4

. t 3

g

.y.....-=..

Field Report No. 2 1

s I

COUNTRY Republic of the Philippines 1

j NAME OF EXPERT - WILLIAM G. ALBERT i

f POST TITLE Expert in Quality Assurance and g

Non-Destruetive Testing 4

I PERIOD COVERfD - 10 August to 10 Nove=ber 1979 2

Copies to 1)

D.A. Nethsinghe, Head, Asia & Pacific Section, N

Division of Technical Ass,istance, IAEA, Vienna.

)

2)

A.Y. Morvan, Resident Representative a.i.

(

UNDP, Manila, Philippines A.

TECHNICAL MATfERS (1) Progress:

Regulatory Training - A course in " Regulatory Inspection a.

Fundamentals" has been completed for fifteen Philippine Atomic Energy Coc=ission (PAEC) inspectors or prospective inspectors. The course was presented in 20 sessions of 2 to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> each session. The material for the course was adapted from that used in a similar course routinely presented by the USNRC. However, the course material was changed to make it conform to the needs of a group generally unfamiliar with USNRC management and administrative practices.

The progress of the students was monitored by a series of quizzes and a final exam. Since the comparable USNRC course does not utilize any exasination =aterials, the quizzes with ecx= ent were infor= ally sent to the NRC organization respen-sibic for inspector training.

2166 318 a

"MOMw-em

3

]

1 I

FIELD REPORT NO. 2

~

Page 2

(

The write-up of course material into a handbook or text 3

3 remains to be completed.

b.

Reactor Physics Technical Training - A course is scheduled during Nov.-Dec.1979. Text material written by C.A. Willis for a Reactor Core Physics ' course is now being typed and printed by PAEC. In addition to proof reading the material, I am also participating in the presentation of the course (see program below).

c.

Concrete Technical Training - Training seas conducted in regard to concrete placement practice.

However, this was a single session, which was only intended to assist inspectors in recognizing problems associated with the consolidation of concrete.

It was not intended to be a general course in concrete practice (see program below).

(2)

Reco==endations:

a.

Internal Training Program Management - Attachment 1 to this report is a reco==endation to the Department of Nuclear Regulations and Safeguards of PAEC on the subject of training programs and the management of such programs. The Memo essentially recommends that DNRS/PAEC appoint a single individual to be a training coordinator and that PAEC evaluate and document the qualifications and needs of each professional engaged in regulatory activities. Although P90R BRBhM 2'ss m

f f

a i

FIELD REPORT NO. 2 Page 3 4

?

l favorably received, the recot:=endations are still under i

tensideration.

b.

PNPP-1 Observations - Attachments 2 and 3 to this report contain recommendations to PAEC regarding my findings 1

during two trips to PNPP-1.

PAEC is following up on all of these along with their own findings. It will be noted that the problem vita pre-heating of rebars for welding has already been satisfactorily resolved.

In regard to these proble=s, it is important to place then

~

in the proper perspective. While the absence of pre-heat on welded rebar is serious, the number of rebars subject to SMAW welding are very few. The largest size bar used on the site is No.11, so nearly all splices are lap splices with welded splices being used only in instances where dowels are of insufficient length to develop a lap splice. Most of this SMAW splicing will be in " pour backs" which are generally completed later in the project. The licensee stated that less than 15 splices had been made thus far using SMAW. Since the finding, these splices have been subject to engineering review and dispcsition. Also to place the concern over the use of E-9018 weld rod in perspective, one should note that the containment was erected by CBI using E-7018, which is less critical with regard to moisture control. The weld rod 2166 320

1'

'1 i

l FIELD REPORT No. 2 Page 4 3

h, of greatest concern, Ee9018, had been procured only recently by PCI, the civil contractor. Also with regard to rebar cover, the concern is not as significant in a f

climate where freeze-thaw is not a problem.

l 5

f Notwithstanding the above, all of the problems are k

acknowledged and recognized by the licensee and they are being addressed both with regard to disposition of the observed conditions and corrective action to prevent recurrence.

Job Specific Training for Censtructien Inspectors - Attach-c.

ment 4 is an outline of recocnended training specifically directed to construction inspectors during the earlier stages of construction.

(see program of work below).

d.

Miscellaneous Kecoc-andations which were the subject of nemos (not attached) were as follows:

Resolution of any site problem which may be the subject of future hearings should be addressed by specific PAEC inspections.

PAEC should ask for data on possible tritium leakage in U.S. supplir.d bcck-lights from the 'DDE Corp., Cubao Metro Manila.

Reco=nended a specific format for letters to licensees forwarding inspection reports.

2166 321 e

I I-1 6

3 FIELD REPOKI NO 2

(

Page 5 k

Establish a task force to determine which codes and i

o standards documents need to be procured by PAEC for a

references.

l 3

j PAEC has responded positively to all of these recommendations.

(3) Acceeplishments:

a.

NDT Certification Other than that noted above, the most si nificant accom-5 plishment for the quarter was the redirection and partici-pation in a non-destructive testing (NDT) seminar. With the help of Ms. Linda Lumba, Dr. R.J. Palabrica and other PAEC employees, the NDT seminar was directed (or redirected) specifically to the subject of NDT certification in the Philippines. Other speakers on the subject of NDT certifi-cation were found and the seminar addressed the question of Certification by explaining the systems - which have been adepted in the U.S., U.K. and Japan.

Meeting in congress during the afternoon following the se n,nar, a committee of approximately twenty Philippine NDT specialists from various Philippine organi::ations concluded that a " Philip-pine Society for Nondestructive Testing" should be formed as j

1 an initial step towards a Philippine certification system.

The question of affiliation with the "American Society for 2166 322 o

==- ama o.

_m.

w m-

=

s_-

FIELD REPORT NO. 2 a

Page 6 1

I Nondestructive Testing" was left open pending a response I

from that organization and the completica of initial i

j organization activities. Subcoc:mittees were organized which have subsequently cou:pleted initial steps, such as 1

the drafting of a consti,tution.

b'.

f b.

Review of PNPP-1 Honeycomb Problem At the request of DNRS, I examined available reports and documentation on the resolution of a significant concrete consolidation problem that occurred im 1978. I concluded that the problem had been properly dispositioned and that the licensee had been correct in accepting the disposition eventually proposed by his contractor (s). A memo in this effect was sent to DNRS.

(4) Wrking Relations:

There has been no change in my working relationships within PAEC since my previous report.

On October 31, 1979, I met with officials of the National Power Corporation to briefly explain my role of assistance to PAEC and answer questions. The meeting was initiated by me as a t

means of becoming acquainted as well as being an information

~1

]

maeting.

2166 323 P00R ORGINAL

.I FIELD REPORT NO. 2 Page 7 W

(5) Fellowships:

PAEC has sent in nominations for two individuals in QA training and electrical systems trdining (Messrs. Wisco and Gesalta) and two individuals for operator licensing training (Messrs. Tibay

(

and Leonin) and is avaiting action by IAEA.

J a

i (6) Equip =ent: Nil (7) Programme of Work:

a.

Training With the completion of the Regulatory Inspection Fundamentals Course, the next course activity will be participation in the Reactor Core Physics Course. Following that course, training will be oriented more to the specific needs of construction inspectors. Job specific training recommendations have baen made to PAEC, attach =ent 4, with initial emphasis on QA systems, concrete, structural steel, welding and NITI. These initial courses should be completed by the end of 1980 if PAEC inspectors are to obtain full benefit from it for PNPP-1 inspections.

I will attempt to handle the bulk of such training, although support in certain areas will be sought. Tre regulatory inspection fundamentals course should also be repeated for other PAEC individuals but it is expected that two or more PAEC inspectors could handle the instruction for any repeat of this course.

2166 324

P a

'5 I

l FIELD FIPORT NO. 2

{

Pqe 8 i

b.

Regulatory Inspection Program No change from my initial field report (pp. 5, para. c).

i g

B.

GENERAL h

11) General Information on Local Conditions 1

Progress at PNPP-1 has been minimal during the report period.

The local hearings on reactor safety have been concluded, but the hearing board has not yet reported on its conclusions nor forwarded its recommendations to the President. However, the report of the hearing board is expected momentarily.

The issue of the USNRC export license is uppermost in the minds of local officials. The general attitude towards this issue is that the USNRC should not t+ involved in matters under the jurisdiction of hilippine agencies other than non-proliferation issues. Filipinos note that an export license has been issued for another facility in the interim, and although volcanology has never been an issue in export licenses issued previously even for high volcanic activity areas, it is now an issue in the case of this license. In addition, the volcanology and seismic issues are raised despite the fact that they were addressed in the PSAR and questions from all sources including IAEA, were i

3 resolved to PAEC's satisfaction.

2166 325

4 l

FIELD REPORT NO. 2 Page 9 3

(2)

Infomatien on other Projects In a memo of 4 October 1979 to D.A. Nethsinghe. I relayed I

information on the proposed siting of a UNHCR Pefugee Processing Center near PNPP-1. No further information on this matter has i

come to my attention.

2166 326 e

0 3

+

9 e

o

===-w

o 9 October 1979 MEMO TO:

Dr. C.R. Aleta F R 0 M:

W.G. Albert I

SUBJECT:

Training Program for DNRS Personnel including l

New Inspectors.

I In response to ywr rec.uests for sug'gestions regarding a training f

program for new inspectors, I have prepared the attached. However,

5 I have found it difficult to comment and prepare suggestions for only new employees. The reason for this is that training is an ongoing activity which needs to be constantly evaluated in the light of a progressing technology and changing DNRS program requirements. Therefore, the attached program is prepared to encompass all employees, although the orientation phases and some of the on-the-job training phases may apply to new cmployees only.

You will note that the 2,usgasted program calls for training and qualification record; which are to be matched to job requirements.

This has been a crucial point in USNRC programs during the past few years since the NRC has been most anxious to avoid any impli-cation that its people are not qualified for the particular inspection activity they are performing.

W.G. ALBERT IAEA QA/!aT Expert cc:

Dr. R.J. Palabrica P00R ORGINAL 2366 327 m

me<

P N

I I

TRAINING PROGRM4 FOR DNRS g

9 The following outlines a proposed approach to training of all DNRS personnel.

It. is based on a determination of need f or training which in turn, must be based on the existing qualifications of the employee as weighed against job requirements.

1 The program outlined below, in three phases, provides for full training of new employees, but the administrative and management guidance explains how existing employees are entered into the training cycle depending upon g

a

• (

the qualifications of these current employees, f,

1.

Program Outline a) Orientation of New E=ployees -

Each employee who starts work at PAEC needs to be oriented to PAEC itself, what it does and what its relationship to the employee will be.

Orientation should also include a similar activity within DNRS and may include the basic courses which would be required of all DNRS professional employees such as inspection fundamentals, QA systems and PWR technology.

I understand that a general course in Radiological Health and Saf ety is currently provided also. However, the training which is organized into course structures may be treated separately from that which h concerned strictly with the f amiliarization of the e=ployee with his work environ =ent.

b) On-the-job Training -

The second phase consists of on-the-job training. For this phase the trainee is assigned to an experienced and productive employee who will have the responsibility for getting the man started on the right foot with regard to work habits, conduct during inspections, approaches to the job and work performance standards. This is very i=portant but unfortunately it is of ten neglected. The neglect arises for two reasons, first the pro-ductive employee is usually the one who is too busy to take on an added task such as training; and secondly, the new employee is of ten assigned to less productive e=ployees in the forlorn hope that these less productive c=ployees will improve thair perfor=ance as a result of such assignments.

In the situation of a new inspector, it is extremely important to have the nan

]

develop proper work habits, since he is of ten on his own in the field.

2166 328 s

-=- -

e-

I c)

Specialized Training Phase -

i l

The third part of a training program is the specialized training needed by the man to adequately prepare him for vark in a s

particular field. The way DNRS categorizes their inspectors and reviewers into civil, mechanical and electrical seens adequate for construction types. For operations inspectors you probably want specialization in PWR operations, refueling activities, radiation protection and research reactors. Materials inspectors would be a specialized category but they could also provide for operations inspections in the area of radiation protection.

Other specializations would be environmental, security and SF material accountability. Needless to say, many inspectors will be qualified in more than one area.

2.

Implementation of Orientation Phase.

e 8

In the orientation phase of training, new employees are introduced to PAEC itself. They can learn the f unctions of each department by using a check off list which is initialed and dated by each department manager or his designee af ter the enployee receives the necessary orientation in that department. This can usually be done in a day or two.

Next the e=ployee should be oriented to DNRS and to the various references he may be using from time to time in his assignments. Again a check list should be prepared and completed.

One suggestien for orientations of this type, would be to assign problems. For instance, " Find what ACI requires regarding the frequency of casting concrete compression cylinders" or " find out if PAIC has the legal right to repossess radiographic sources".

Af ter a person completes such simple problems they are familiar with the existence of available references and the general content of the references.

The present course in radiological health and safety should be a fundamental part of orientation. The completion of a Regulatory Inspection Fundamentals course, is a necessity for all DNRS esployees who may later perform inspections of any type. This course does not need to be as lengthy or detailed as the initial course. However, it is a definite need. DNRS should be able to provide the instructor for the next course. Orientation should also include a QA systems course which simply goes through the eighteen criteria and discusses how management systems are cons-tructed to implement each criterion.

Each of these courses could be compiered with 40 hrs. of class work.

4

,j Orientation must include basic nuclear technolopa' even for a

]

construction inspector and also include a course in PWR systems.

Forty hours of class work in each would be a minimum for all inspectors.

2166 329 S

-*'e e

-e

-e

= =*

i 4

3.

Implementation of on-the-Job Training.

i On-the-job training should also be controlled by a check list, which is completed when a man has actually experienced certain phases of the work. The checklist provides a management control similar to that of more for=alized training.

For instance, draf ting an inspection report, preparing an inspection plan, preparation of enf' rcement actions, examination of records, etc.

There can be no o

fixed schedule for an on-the-job training program.

Since scce individuals will progress f aster then others, either by ability or availability of tasks which provide the necessary experience.

4 Implementation of Soecialized Training, f

The initial action of any specialized training program is to determine what the deparcsent requirements are in order for peeple to be qualified for particular positions which meet these require-

{

ments.

Each individual's experience should then be examined in L

the light of these departmental needs and then training schedules developed to fill in the remaining qualifications which are necessary to meet position rc

?;ements for the department.

For instance two men may be hired as construction inspectors but if one haa considerable experience and training in concrete work, there 3 little point in sending his to a ceurse in concrete technology.

5.

Administration Training programs will drif t unless the department to which the man reports also maintains one person who is responsible for training records, monitoring of progress, scheduling of training and reporting on status of trainin?. to managenent.

This is the responsibility of the organization to which the man reports.

While an organization such as Palabrica's can keep master files of the training conducted by his organization, they are basically a service organization for providing needed training.

The deter-mination of needs is a function of individual depart =ents.

Thus, DNRS should have one person who follows the program, keeps the check lists, arranges for courses, reports to manage =ent on status, and advises the trainee. A tt iaing file should be maintained for each employee of DNRS.

6.

Recom= ended Actions:

The following manage =ent actions are rece=: ended to implement a training program.

a) Appoint =ent of a DNRS Training Coordinator.

The program needs an individuel who can accurately determine training needs, and nanage them.

This is the person who will be responsible for administration of the department training Program.

Initially, he will need to spend almost full time e..

~^

O 2166 330

4-on the task until items b), c) and d) below are completed.

Later, about one fourth of his time will be devoted to training program administration.

b) Develop a Oualification Procedure.

This should be the training coordinators first task.

The procedure should state how business will be done, including the responsibilitics and interfaces.

It will be particularly important that the relationships with organizations providing training be spelled out and that the procedure be coordinated and reviewed with Palabrica. The checklists for orientation, on-the-job training and various specialized training programs should be developed as appendices to this procedure.

These vill need frequent revision and the coordinator should see that they are maintained to meet current requirements, j

c) Establish Individual Training Files for all Department Employees.

.f Whether new or old employees, a training / qualification file 6

should be maintained.

j d)

Evaluate E=ployees' Oualifications.

The needs for training for any employee should be determined by a specific evaluation of his experience and past training against the checklists established for his job.

This evaluation should result in a specific determination that the e=ployee is qualified to do all phases of his job, or what restrictions are involved in the performance of the job until the necessary training is completed.

e) Arrange for Reouired Training.

Af ter evaluation, individuals can be grouped by needs and the necessary arrange =ents can then be completed for the required training.

f)

Provide for Groun Briefing.

The training coordinator should periodically schedule round table discussions wherein depart =ent personnel brief others regarding the knowledge they have gained as a result of experiences on the job, any reviews they have made into a i

particular subject or any material from courses they may have taken. Such briefings should also insure that inspectors are aware of experiences gained by the USNRC or others which have a bearing on their activities.

In particular, those NRC e

bulletins, circulars and infor=ation la.tters which relate to 2166 331 g

._m

• r-e+

=,,.+-=4.-

ape w,

e e_

+

l

. 1

(*

the job of the inspector, should be covered in a manner which insures a full understanding at the problems discussed F

O in the bulletins, circulars and infor=ation letters.

I The training coordinator should also provide for seminars conducted by individuals whc have returned from on-the-job training and special assign =ents abroad.

i me m 3

i

?

?

e b

h se P

a i

e n

28 August 1979 i

HEMO TO DR. C.R. ALETA, Chief, DNRS FR0M :

W.G. ALBERT SUBJECT : Observation from Si = Visit During Week of 23 July 1979.

i l

During the week of 23 July 1979, I acconpanied DNRS personnel to the i

FNPP-1 site and participated in the inspection activitie.a. Three ite=s i

of concern were noted as follows:

l J

1.

Welding of Grade 60 Reinforcing Steel'Without Preheating.

1 In one area of the auxiliary building, it was noted that Westinghouse welding procedures requiring preheat to 100*F were not being followed.

The rebar was being welded at ambient temperatures which at the time of my observation was approximately 80*F.

In addition, with carbon steel of 0.42% carbon, the use of 100*F as a preheat would appear to be an absolute mini =us and with steel in any configuration heavier than size 11, it would be unacceptable. For instance, ASME Section III Div. 2 (which is not applicable to PNPP-1 but does address arc welding of rebar) calls for a preheat of 450*F minimum if the carbon equivalency (C.E.) is between 0.31 and 0.55%.

I cite this not as a code requirement but to indicate the general range of industry requirement.

Similarly, pre-heat of 200-400*F was recoc= ended by Prof. Green at Ohio State for a C.E. 0.40 to 0.48% at a course I attended and the Tempil Corporation considers the preheating range to be between 350* and 500*F for 0.42:

carbon steel. None of these other sources discuss section thie.kness.

However, section thickness must logically enter into consideration and nor= ally does; so the Westinghouse procedure is not necessarily wrong by specifying a preheat of 100*F when considering the smaller size rebars.

ACI-318-71 simply specifies that the welded connection develop at least 125% of the specified strength of the bar. This means that the Westinghouse procedure should be qualified by tensile test of splices and that such tests should produce results in excess of 125%

of 60 Ksi. Therefore, I reco==end three follow-up inspection actions:

a) Assure that the minimum requirements of the Westinghouse procedure, as presently written, are now being met.

b) Determine the basis for the preheat in the Westinghouse welding specification.

c) Assure that the procedure was qualified by tensile test of j

sp..:icens.

2 f

2166 333

-h

-e Neww e

w%

em

4 l

MEMO 10 C.R. ALETA I

Page 2 4

2.

Curing of Concrete Test Cylinders at Ambient Temperature.

p During a tour of the concrete test laboratory, I noted that all curing of concrete test cylinders was being done in an outside vat or pond.

The water in this vat measured 84*F.

At the time of the inspection, (morning) the pond vac in the shade and the ambient air was approximately 80*F.

Thus, one would assume that diurnal variations would produce an even higher average temperature in the vat and that 84*F vas probably the lowest temperature one might expect.

In this regard, ASTM standards are very specific: ASTM C-31-69 pa'ra 7.3 " Curing cylinders -- as the Basis for Acceptance or Quality Control" states that af ter removal from molds at the end of 24 + 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, the cylinders are to be " stored in a

~

moist condition at 73.4 + 3*F until the mecent of test."

It is apparent that this standard is noE being met.

The effect af not meeting this standard is to have test cylinders show higher 28 day strengths than g

they actually would develop if cured at the proper temperature. The a

attached graph from ACI publication SP-1, illustrates the dif ference s

t in 28 day strength which I would estimate to be in the range of 5 to 9

10%,

i 4

ACI-301 is the controlling standard for cencrete quality as shown in p

the PSAR Section 3.8.

The sue of ASTM C-31 is almost certainly incor-porated in ACI-301. However, I find that PA7.C does not actually have a

a copy of ACI-301 and certain other ACI standards. This situation should be corrected as soon as possible.

My recoc=endations are:

a) That a catalog of ACI and ASTM publicaticus be obtained and that certain publications and standards be ordered for PAEC-DNRS er PAEC library retention.

In general, the reference materials in PAEC should be augmented and organized. Ihis could be a significant budget ites but is defiritely needed in order to provide adequate support for regulatory inspection activity.

L

[

b) That the problem with curing of concrete cylinders be addressed in correspondence to NPC since it was not included in the DNRS inspection report.

4[

c) That the first " job specific" training course for me f

should be on concrete. This can be set up to run cencur-3 rently with the present course on inspection fundamentals.

3 5

2166 334c

MEMO 'IO C.R. ALETA f

Page 3 i

I-3.

Low Hydrogen Weld Rod was Being Utilized for 8 Hours or More Without Rebake.

I have no specific recommendation to make at this time, except to f

advise further study and follow-up in this matter. PNPP-1 is in a very high humidity environment. AWS D1.1 Standard, which probably does not apply, requires a limit of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> out of storage ovens and no reuse without rebake.

f

).

The practices at PNPP-1 are considenably different. However, they must be in accordance with some standard or rules detemined by test

[

or other methods to be satisfactory'.

i s

My reco=mendatica is simply:

[,

a) Examine the basic for procedures which control low hydrogen weld rod during the next PNPP-1 inspection.

L

?

W.G. ALBER"'

IAEA Quality Assurance Expert

~

4 2166 335 G

eaa W

e

.J 3

e e

a e M O

e

.p.

l-l O

v t.

.sI

,9O, E

l'20 -

<I

'h' ** **D''"'" 0' 0 110

, yf 3

moist cunng room i

8 N

I

}

m

, +

I i"

/!/ l J_ +-1' T 4

I

\\

l l

/ /,W h

b"

_g

?"

/X L/

l

+ i ',

l /4 /l

<T I I le C

1 AXt A L

-n

}

~d,VI)"' \\

\\

(

l I

~

\\

~

i t

i <', - r 1 i l

l I

l l

l 17 to

?

oz 4 e a o 2 i4 is is zo 22 24 z6 ze O,

j n o,,.,,...

N 200R ORl8NAL 2166 336 m

O e

• =

.ame - -

amis.-

.-e=es-e

o n

w v

~

.l 12 september 1979 Memo for : Dr. C.R. Aleta, Chief, DNRS I

Prom a

W.G. Albert, IAEA Expert Subject

Observations from Second Site Visit on

'f,

September 5-7, 1979

. During the subject period I accocpanied DNRS personnel on an inspection

[

at the PNPP-1 site and participated in the inspection activities.

9 e

A T Hy observations were as follows:

li General

{

PAEC/ Inspection efficiency should be improved. While this is not of too cucli significance during the work suspension period, when work resumes it

[

will be difficult to adequately cover all activities unless assigned canpower are sufficiently briefed and prepared prior to the inspection.

I believe you should take a direct and personal interest in proposed inspection plans, the assign =ent of people and what is expected to be accecplished.

Inspection team members should be sufficiently prepared that they can function as individual inspectors e.xcept when training activity is involved in which case no core than two inspectors should acco=pany one another.

Specific Itecs 1.

Welding of Retars Without Preheat Westinghouse procedures have been revised to show a preheat of 3 COOP for-06 and smaller rebars and 400 F for rebars larger in size. Also instructions have been sent to the field for fore =an to specifically cover the a-oblem of preheat with their welders.

One sample of the five welded bars that we observed was tensile tested.

We noted that tne first report showed about 77,000 psi which meets the criteria of ACI 318 (1257. of yield).

J-*

e t.

The item appears to be properly dispositioned and adequate corrective action is stated.

I would recoumend closin:; the item.

'wo of =y recocnenda-f tions on this item (cemo of 28 August 1979) were based on questions I had with regard to preheat requirecents stated originally (which were not being followed). However, since Westinghouse procedures have.been revised to 3000F for s= aller bars, instead of ambient and 4000F for larger bars, instead 2166 337

f...

o O

^

y

' 0 v

of 100 F, I conclude that preheating now coincides ith accepted industry practice and have no further questions.

2. Concrete Test cylinders During the previous inspection we observed that concrete test cylinders were being cured ih an open vat at ambient temperature.

The temperature was censured at 840F. As noted in.my previous memn on observations from the. inspection of July 23-27, this was contrary to ASTM C-39-(69) which permitted a maximum curing temperature of 76.40F. During this inspection we conferred with NPC and their contractors in this matter. Mr. Earle of s

PCI stated that water temperature was being maintained at lower levels by circulation and ice. Mr. Jaime Saez (E3ASCO consaltant to NPC) stated that his observations were that curing temperatures were barely at the upper limit. Mr. Earle stated that plans were being cade to enalose the curing vat and install airconditioning when the work suspersion was lifted. This d

seems like an effective and obvious corrective action. With regard to data adjust = cuts for cylinders which had b' en previously cured at higher temperature, e

Hr. Earle stated that available literature was being researched.

He did not 3

accept the curve which I showed him which was the same as that attached to i

my memo of 28 August to you.

9 My recoc:xndations remain as stated in cy August 28th memo.

C - ications 4

with the licensee should be as a citatics for non-compliance with comitments f.

lofthePSAR.

3. How Hydrogen Ueld Rod is Permitted Out of Holding Ovens for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or Hore Vithout Ecbars.

The adecuacy of control procedures was exacined further as reco:cended in cy meco of 28 August. The examination produced certain discrepancies.

First we were presented with a procedure for control of E 7018 rod which permitted the E 7013 t.o be out of holding ovens for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

Next we were inforced that the actual rod in use is E 9018 (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> out with 7013).

Upon questionin: the use of the E 7013 procedure for F. 9018 we were informed that a further revised procedure had been issued (instead of the one presented) specifically for E 9013 but that this procedure had no require =ents for per=1ssible tice out of the holding oven. CIPCO's Mr. Ros: stated thnt corrections would be made to the procedures.

In addition to cy recom,endation of 28 August for further examination of this item, I believe even nore is required.

My reco m fations ares a) PAEC should determine specifically what welding standards are applicable.

Also if the licensee replies to this problem by stating criteria which

,j do not meet AWS D 1.1, they should be asked to justify why core relaxed criteria are being used.

b) That the licensee be cited for the absence of adequate procedures

~

700R ORGINAL

il 9

g, 9

1 4.

Concrete Cover for Reinforcin: Steel Outside valls are required to hsve a cover of 5 cms (2") and inside walls are required to have a cover of 2 cas (3/4"). Also coluz::ns (either inside or out) are required to have a cover of 4 cas (1-1/2").

These requirements of ACI 318-71, sectien 7.14 were definitely not being i F "*'

met in the colu=ns of the turbine building. In two instances bars which were at existing open joint faces did not meet the requirements and in another case f ams and bars which.were ready for concraf.e placement did 3 5-j not indicate satisfactory cicarances. The attached sketch illustrates at approximstely half scale the condition of rebars in one column. Mr. Reyes and Mr. San Pedro followed up on the observations and can probably provide L

greater detail.

Although the questionable rebars were in non-safety related structures.

I bellew the extent and nature of the observations should call into qusstion site inspection practices for reinforcing steel.

I My recocxsendations are:

s Examine a large sample of safety related cold joints at time. site.

[

a.

L -

including the large joint at the top of the shield building which will

(..,

be subject to flexural stresses.

Mr. Reyes has expressed concern about i

cover of rubar in this structure.

r f

b.

Include a statement in the RIP regarding those observations but note that it is not an item of non-complicnce. Also state that the subject f

will be held open for further examination by PAEC in safety related structures.

e En 5.

Concrete Curing Practices In one area of the turbine building it was noted that the concrete cure was bein; =arginally maintained. Burlap uss not used on the joint surface and concrete test cylinders were covered with burlap and plastic but the burlap on the cylinders had dried or was never wet is tim first place.

Later in response to questions from Mr. San Pedro, the cure was reestablished.

Again our observations were in a non-safety related area, but result in 3

questions regarding curing practice and inspection practices in general.

Reconnendstionss I

y a) That cuzin*, be examined during the next inspection. This examination sho&ld include observations on an off-shift to verify that cure is bein; l

maintained amour.d the clock.

4 0

Il.C. ALBERT 1

s j

cc:

R.J. Palabrica 5

~

2166 339 3

1... ~ ~ ~ ~

~

. 3.

O M'

.fja f'l

/sf?

g

)_,0o 'ilY y,/ y rh{'It' L-/>

A /

Q l Y.,,,N' )',

{

jnaf;0e<

i i

d f p'

/i p' f, 3

E~

g r

f 6,r lE e

g p I

e' i.

C t

7 I.

i I

I

\\

o O,

d# j,1r' V'r/N/

l l

4. #.

r i

I pI fs '

s

+

E i

i 4

O x

2166 34.0'

~

x w

?DDR ORGWL d'

m-*

W**

,e 4

+e

l 25 October 1979 Memo for: Dr. R.J. Palabrica Chief, Dept. of Nuclear Training e

From

W.G. Albert IAEA Expert f

SUBJECT : Job Specific Training for' Construction Inspectors 4

l l

This is in response to your request for. a listing of recommended " job specific" training areas which should be covered for regulatory inspectors who will be assigned to follow PNPP-1 construction activity. The following list is arranged in an order of priority for such training. The list does not contain items which I believe are in the distant future (three years or more) < ; ite=s which are not applicable or critical to future PNPP-1 g

activities, such as, terlen installation, soils mechanics, dewatering syste=s and cadwelding.

g To ~ start with, early next year there should be a review of specific Rj Q.A. program topics. This should be oriented to the regulatory inspector and will fill gaps in his knowledge or reinforce material he may already a

{

have studied. The course should be oreinted to 4.A, systems. In cther words, the course material should deal with how management systems are set up to actually implement basic QA criteria. The extent to which such topics need to be addressed is uncertain to =e.

Perhaps Charlie Tejada or others g

Topics for such a QA systems course would include but not be could advise.

y) limited to the following:

Non-confor=ance controls a

Corrective Action Syste=s Surveillance & Audits Calibration Controls Design Review Design Change Controls

[

Records Storage Records Management p

y Procurement & Supplier Selection Procedure Control p

y Drawing Control Third Party Inspection e

Vendor Controls a

Storage & Warehousing Inspection (QC) Planning Field Generated Drawings Ju:nper & Lif t Controls i

Tag and Marking Systems Inspection Stamp Control 3

2166 341 86 w

'.+,

1 II,

.I f Construction Turnover Test Surveillance i

Application of Codes g

Training Systems Conditional Release Systems New Process Controls Spare Parts' Controls In the area of specific d'sciplines, training should be conducted in the following subjects. In this list I have not designated the extent of training in terms of classroom hours but would imagine that each subject would require from 8 to 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> depending upon the subject, the depth of coverage and present knowledge of the students. In ease subjects, field l

trips or observations would be desirable.

1.

Concrete Production I

Theory, cement and aggregate testing, qualification, mix design,

(

admixtures, mixing, governing criteria, transportation, inspector S

qualifications.

h 2.

Concrete Place =ent_

4 t-Pre-placement, consolidation, practices, controls, curing, records, placement methods, connon problems.

.s 3.

Concrete Testing e

Test lab operation, tests, records, governing codes and standards, laboratory functions and relationships.

4.

Reinforcing Steel e

Detailing, installation, splicing, welding and inspectien, governing codes and standards, i

3 5.

Welding 9f Ferrous metallurgy, welding processes, welding materials, control of materials, practices for carbon and stainless, purge dams, i

pre-heat and post heat, welder qualification, procedure qualification,

'i wcld inspection, codes and standards, repairs of weldments, k

applications, automatic processes, co=en problems, and special nuclear industry concerns.

l 6.

Structural Steel 4

g Installation, velding and bolting, bolt inspection, special fasteners, inspection controls.

S 5

2166 342 O

?

m

. 7.

Piping Banger installation, seismic restraints, snubbers, pipe whio restraints, testing, cleaning, insulation, isometrics, preparation for PSE.

8.

Special Fasteners and Anchors Sleeve and shell type anchor bolts, Nelson studs, rock anchors, testing, inspection, co= mon mistakes and problems.

~

9.

Radiography Applications, review of testing practice, qualification of personnel, technique sheets, reading, reader sheets, designation g

g of repairs, sources, x-ray, films and processing, common problems, nefarious practices, ASNT certification, records, codes and y

standards.

g E

10.

Heavy Ecuipment Installation fk~

Load Terting, installation methods and sequences, measurements,

[

storage, cleanliness and corrosion controls.

l 11.

NDT for Surface Defects t

[

Mag particle, solvent penetrant, eddy current, interpretation, surface preparation, cleaning.

T l

12.

Leak Testing Methods Vacuum box, pressure testing, helium leak detector, hydrostatic, integrated leak testing of contain=ent, methods, records, specifi-cations and regulations.

13.

Fire Protection 6

Construction of barriers, fire doors, fire loops, protection

(

systa=s, blanketing systems, Browns Ferry lessons.

S 14.

Ultrasonic Testing a

Pre-service, special applications, qualification, ISI systems,

}

linitations, problems, records.

9 l

15. Installation of Core Internals d

3 procedure, measure =ents, sequence, records 5

2166 34,3 9

w 8

, f 16.

Electrical cables _

Cable tray installation, grounding, cable separatien, conduits, embedded ducts, cable pulling, cable termination, fill criteria, tracing, testing, protection.

17.

Electrical Equipment Installation Switch gear, control centers, batteries, valves, motors, diesel generators, anchoring, receipt, storage and test data, seismic qualification.

W.G. ALBERT cc. c.x. m ta g

k 2166 344 8-It'.

i i

?

h L

h.

f.

k V

f R

s 3e

,t i

kI v

2 e

Y

_ _ _ _