ML19319C183
| ML19319C183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1970 |
| From: | Gower G, Vetter W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319C181 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-70-04, 50-346-70-4, NUDOCS 8001310541 | |
| Download: ML19319C183 (19) | |
Text
-
/N I
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
~
DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE REGION III Report of Construction Inspection CO Report No. 346/70-4 Licensee:
Toledo Edison Co=pany (Davis-Besse)
Construction Permit (CPPR not issued)
Category A l
Dates of Inspection:
Nove=ber 5 and 6, 1970 Dates of. Previous Inspection:
July 13 and 14, 1970 Ot@2 b vn Inspected By:
G. C. G8wer, Reactor Inspector 12-2-70 Reviewed By:
W. E. Vetter, Senior Reactor Inspector 12-2-70 Proprietary Information:
None SCOPE Type of Facility:
Pressurized water reactor.
Power Level:
872 Mwe.
Location:
Southwest shore of Lake Erie, Ottawa County, Ohio.
Type of Inspection:
Routine - announced.
Accompanying Personnel:
D. W. Hayes performed the inspection and report preparation effort associated with PI 3800/2, Attachment C - Concrete.
i i
)
I~
8001310 N N
s
\\~_-)
SUMMARY
Safety Items - None.
Noncompliance Items - None.
Unusual Occurrences - None.
Status of Previously Reported Problems 1.
Previously reported problems 1/ regarding an apparent confusion between the intent of the AEC Criteria V and VI has been cor-rected by a rewrite of their implementing documents.
This item is being removed from our follow-up list.
2.
Regarding the need for supplemental implementing procedures o
be used in conjunction'with the applicant's audit check 11sc2, Toledo Edison Company (TECO) has added a general procedure to their QA Manual (Section 2.?..o) which specifies the documents that the TECO auditors must be cognizant of before and during s,/
each QA audit. Additionally, the applicant has stated that each auditor has received training, or is to be trained, prior to auditing assignments.
This item is being removed from our follow-up list.
Regarding AEC Criterion No. XI /, test control, TECO is in the 3
3.
process of developing procedures and/or guides which are to identify TECO's involvement and any special requirements during the testing of systems, etc This item will receive follow-up attention.
4.
TECO has developed and implemented a material receiving instruction and inspection form (D-4-1) for use throughout the project.
When used in conjunction with the procurement and equipment specifications, which is a requirement of the f meet the requirements of AEC Criterion No. XIIIg
, it should Records were reviewed which indicated adequate implementation of the material receiving and inspection process (report reference II-B-1).
This item is being removed from our follow-up list.
1/ CO Report No. 346/70-3, Section E-2, Page 8.
2/ CO Report No. 346/70-3,- Sections I-2, J-2, L-2, M-2, 0-2, and P-2.
3/ CO Report No. 346/70-3, Section K-2.
/N
][/ C0 Report No. 346/70-3, Section M-2, Pages 13 and 14.
s
7-l I -
5.
The applicant is in the process of establishing a tagging procedure to be used throughout the project.
This system is planned to supplement a contract requirement that each contractor, or supplier have a program which meets the requirements of AEC Criterion XIV1/.,
This item will require followup.
6.
Regarding AEC Criteria XV and XVI$/, TECO has added a section to their QA Manual (Section 2.3.7) to cover these criteria and has implemented a tagging procedure to be used throughout the project. This program supplements the Bechtel procedures for nonconforming material, parts, and components and corrective action.
This item is being removed from our follow-up list.
7.
TECO has employed a qualified engineer to assist in carrying out l
the QA/QC programs in the area of concrete and other civil engineering aspects. The applicant plans to have a qualified mechanical engineer added to the site QA staff prior to January 1971, when work is slated to resume pending developments associated with issuance of a construction permit. Additionally, TECO is
[~'%
committed to have a qualified welding technician ons1te before
. ( _,)
the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CB&I) does any field welding on the containment vessel.
TECO is making arrangements to have an electrical engineer on the site QA staff.by mid-summer of 1971 (report reference II--A).
Other Significant Items 1.
A review of concrete specifications revealed the lack of guidance or control measures for the pumping of concrete. Although no concrete has been pumped at the site so far, the applicant could not rule out the possibility that pumping may be employed at some time in the future.
TECO representatives said that the specifica-tions will be revised and approved prior to doing any concrete pumping (reference II-B-5-c).
5/ CO Report No. 346/70-3, Section N-2.
6/ CO Report No. 346/70-3, Sections 0-1 and 2.
l N
l f
s l
l r
m t
p
~\\
'\\v).
. 2.
Discussion with TECO and CB&I indicated that only typical analysis may be furnished for the weld rod to be used on the containment vessel. Later discussions have indicated that CB&I is to furniah actual analysis of the welding materials (reference II-C-ll).
3.
The plant bedrock " Verification and Remedial Treatment Program,"
under the direction of Woodward-Clyde and Associates (WCA),
did not indicate the presence of bedrock conditions which would require remedial treatment. The program is essentially complete.
A report covering this work is being prepared and is scheduled to be sent to DRL in January 1971 (reference II-D).
4.
A review of the QC system to be in effect when CB&I constructs the containment vessel revealed that C3&I's QA records would not satisfy AEC Criterion XVII in that the NDT personnel, who actually perform magnetic particic (MT) and dye penetrant (PT) examinations, would not have been identified. The applicant has taken this matter up with CB&I, subsequent to the inspection, and has reported to Region III that the program will be changed
}
to include the required identification of NDT technicians s_,/
(reference II-C-6).
Management. Interview Personnel in Attendance Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
J. A. Lenardson - QA Engineer for Davis-Besse N. L. Wadsworth - General Superintendent, Power Plant Construction G. W. Eichenauer - QA Representative Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
M. R. Stephens - Project Construction Manager D. P. Eisenhardt - QC Engineer A. S. Martin - QA Engineer The following significant items were di1 cussed:
l.
Regarding the potential problem concerning the lack of identifica-tion of NDT technicians performing MT and PT examinations, the applicant has informed Region III subsequent to the inspection that they (TECO) have obtained CB&I's agreement to provide the f
}-
necessary. identification to comply with AEC Criterion XVII.
v
l 1
m mf
')
\\, -
2.
In response to the inspector's questioning regarding the intended use of typical analysis for welding rod (to be used on the containment vessel), TECO has informed Region III, subsequent to the inspection, that they have pursued the matter with CB&I and have concluded that actual analysis for the welding materials will be supplied.
3.
The applicant was informed of the apparent lack of specifica-tions to cover pumping of concrete on Q-list structures. Both Bechtel and the applicant assured the ittspectore that, if it becomes necessary. to pump concrete on the Davis-Besse project, adequate specifications which reflect the requirements of ACI-301 will be available and will be followed.
4.
The plans and commitments regarding TECO's site QA staffing, as outlined under Item 7 of the " Status of Previous Problems,"
section of this report were confirmed.
I.
Persons Contacted TECO L. E. Roe - Project Engineer, Davis-Besse J. D. Lenardson - Quality Assurance Engineer, Davis-Besse G. W. Eichenauer - Quality Assurance Representative, Davis-Besse N. L. Wadsworth - General Superintendent, Power Plant Construction, Davis-Besse Bechtel M. R. Stephens - Project Construction Manager A. S. Martin - Quality Assurance Engineer D. P. Eisenhardt - Quality Ccntrol Engineer Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I)
N. J. Paresky - Project Manager R. A. kehrle - Nuclear Quality Assurance Coordinator A. Bentlev & Sons (AB&S) lE. J. Subleski - Quality Control Engineer R. J. Segar - Construction Supervisor v) l
1-s.
. Nicholson Concrete and Supply Company V. L. Smith - Supervisor Pittsburgh Testina Laboratory (PTL)
J. (NMS) Barnes - Supervisor Woodworth-Clyde & Associates (WC&A)
R. A. Millet - Site Geotechnical Engineer II.
Results of Inspection A.
Organiza;aon Mr. G. W. Eichenauer has recently been hired as a quality assurance representative at the construction site.
Mr. Eichenauer had been previously employed for two years (1968 to 1970) as a field engineer with the architect and engineering firm of Harrison and Abromvitz Company
(
of New York City, New York. He also was the Commissioner of Public Buildings with the city of Toledo, Ohio, for five years (1963 to 1968).
Prior to this, Mr. Eichenauer was employed in various positions, including the position of Plant Engineer with the Dana Corporation of Toledo, Ohio (1944 to 1963).
The applicant has also made plans to hire a qualified i
mechanical engineer for their site QA staff, prior to January 1971,
-when work is scheduled to resume pending receipt of a construction permit.
Jim Lenardson, TECO QA Engineer, has informed Region III that they are committed to have a qualified welding technician on the TECO site QA staff prior to field welding on the containment vessel.
3 TECO is making arrangements to have an electrical engineer on the QA staff by mid-summer 1971.
The staffing of TECO's site QA forces will remain a follow-up item on future inspections.
B.
Containment (PI 3800/2 - Concrete)
Review of OC Systems (4605.04) and Follow-up Record Review (4605.05) i 1.
Rebar Test - User Verification (4605.04.a.6)
Tha applicant's program to certify reinforcing steel l-for Class I structures was reviewed and found to i'
comply with the PS AR, Section 5.2.2.4.2.
Mill tast x
i L
m
['N k-s 4
results are obtained from reinforcing steel suppliers for each hea of steel.
The CO inspectors reviewed the material test records for the rebar received i
.l and imbedded in the containment building foundation.
The test results met ASTM 615-68 requirements l
for the grade specified.
4 It was also noted, during review of the records, that four partial shipments of rebar have been held in quuantine.
Three of the "QC l' olds" were because the physical and/or chemical certifications were not available for review at the time the material was received and the fourth because outward appearances were questionable.
Later records indicated satis-factory correction of the deficiencies and a release of the material.
User. verification tests for reinforcing steel for Class I systems are specified la Bechtel Technical
/'"'N Specification No. 7749-C-29A. Samples are randomly
- (,)
taken at the construction site for every fif ty cons of rebar, size 11 and smaller, and for every 100 tons of size 14 and larger. The tensile tests ate performed by the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory and the results cocpared with those obtained from the 1
rebar supplier. Copies of the random sample test i
results were observed in both PTL and Bechtel QC files.
- 2.
Mix Designs (4605.04.b.1 and b.2)
As of November 5,1970. only :.;ueu u dcrete mix designs have been approved and certified for use in Class I structures.
Other mixes are to be approved as needed.
The inspector was assured by Messrs. A. S. Martin and G.- W. Eichenauer that additional mixes would be properly tested and certified prior to use.
The presently certified mixes are designated C-1, C-2, and C-grout.
The mix designs were in accordance
- with ACI-613, and proof testing was performed by both the Toledo Testing Lab (TTL) and PTL.
The inspector reviewed the certification test results and found them to be in agreement with each other and with design
'~'N
. requirements.
Mix designs were approved by -H.
W.
.r s
Wahl of the Bechtel Corporation. Test results
~
ap
-m-*
~m--=
m-em se u*t-ew-y&
y g
4w-_-
c g-e m
-+yyw---
7
--e--
m V,
were approved by Mr. L. F. Wilson, for TTL, and Mr. G. F. Bigham for PTL.
The overall program was considered to be adequately responsive to commitments made in the PS AR, Section 5.2.2.4.1.
3.
Rebar Solices (4605.04.c)
No production rebar Cadweld splices have been made to date. A review of Bechte? Technical Specification l
7749-C-30 and discussions with TECO and Bechtel personnel confirmed that the commitments made in the PSAR, Appendix 5.C, regarding sampling and testing of rebar splices, are to be adhered to.
Plans and provisions have been made to train and qualify an adequate number of Cadweld operators, including crew foremen and supervisors, in the proper techniques for making quality splices. An Erico representative is to provide the training and
/'~
testing and is to certify the operators.
4 In response to questioning, the inspector was informed that records would be maintained of all splices made by the Cadweld process.
These records are to include splice location, splicing crew designation, and the materials used.
Concrete placement specification (Bechtel 7749-C 26A) and i
the placement checklist (AB&S Form 10) are provided for " feedback" of test results of Cadweld splices.
The checklist is to be approved before concrete is placed over the splices.
i It was also learned that one shipment of Cadweld splice material had been received at the site, but that the powder was in quarantine because of incomplete chemical property records.
The powder was observed to be quarantined inside a locked storage trailer.
Follow-up inspections will be made on the above item.
s J-s l
l l
l o
1
-y d
. 4.
& ch Plant (4605.04.d and 4605.05.b.3)
The Nicholson Concrete and Supply Company (Nicholson) has erected a new, twelve cubic yard capacity, Rex Company Batch Plant near the site.
The unit was placed in operation in August 1970 and, to date, has produced about 1,700 cubic yards of concrete for the Davis-Besse project.
Documentation resulting from the uniformity checks made on the batch plant and concrete mixes was reviewed by the inspector. The data indicated the capability of the batch plant to consistently produce the specified mixes within the acceptability limits established for the Davis-Besse project. No dis-crepancies were noted. The inspector also reviewed the quality assurance program, prepared by Nicholson and approved by Bechtel, and found it complete, detailed, and responsive to the specifications.
w The batch plant scales are calibrated yearly by the Holtgreven Scale Company and certified by the State of Ohio.
Scale calibration is checked by PTL every 90 days.
The date of the last calibration by the Holtgreven Scale Company was August 11 and 12, 1970. Other items included in the plant certification report, and test frequencies, are listed below:
a.
Moisture meter - once per day.
b.
Timer - once per day.
c.
Water meter - once per day.
d.
Scale, knife edges - once per day.
e.
Scale, zero - once per day.
f.
Equipment inspection - once per day.
g.
Admixture meters - once per month.
h.
Water tests - once per month -
m
.(J
XU.
. Regarding the water tests noted above, the water tests for pH, chlorides, and total solids are made once per month.
In addition, a water test in accordance with the American Association cf State Highway Officials (AASHO, T26-51) is made once every i
three months.
The inspector reviewed the records and daily inspection sheets for the above and found them complete and in conformance with the e ecifications.
Calibration and certification records for the two scales used on the 50 cubic yard per hour, dry mix, standby plant were also reviewed.
Aggregate is stored on concrete slabs, and the stock piling appeared to be in accordance with ACI 614, 5.
Manufacture and Transportation (4605.04.e) a.
Temperature and Delivery Time Limits (e.1)
The inspector reviewed Bechtel Technical Specification No. 7749-C-26A, " Concrete Placing and Finishing." Delivery time requirements and temperature limitations specified were in con-formance with the ACI standards and ASTM C-94.
j i
b.
Slump. Strength, and Air Entrainment Test (e.2)
Specifications for concrete testing were reviewed and found to be in agreement with the PSAR, Section 5.4.2.2.1 in that they referenced ASTM'C-172, C-31, C-143, and C-231 requirements. Sampling and testing are performed by PTL. Slump tests are performed at both the batch plant and place-ment site.
Results are recorded on the transit tickets.
c.
Concrete Pumping and Test Location (e.3 and e.4)
No pumped concrete has been used at the Davis-Besse site to date, nor do specifications or procedures exist for pumping concrete.
The inspector was informed by Messrs. A. S. Martin
/)
and D. P. Eisenhardt that, if pumped concrete
~_sl
I
.;y s_s
- is used, specifications and procedures (including the appropriate requirements of ACI 301) will be prepared and approved prior to the pumping operation.
The applicant was also cautioned regarding the use of aluminum pipe for pumping concrete.
Follow-up inspect 1ons will be made on the above items.
6.
l
-Curing (4605.04.f.1) a.
Strength Cylinders The inspector reviewed PTL's QA Manual. It was observed that Bechtel had reviewed and approved this document. Specifications were in agreement with PSAR commitments that test cylinders be cured in accordance with ASTM C-31.
PTL site facilities were inspected to observe r~'s the test cylinder curing procedure. The concrete f
(
)
cylinders were stored under lime water.
Tem-perature records for the previous ten days were reviewed, and limits were in accordance with ASTM C-31.
Work to enlarge the curing room and to add another curing tank was in progress at the time of the inspection.
Follow-up inspections in this area will be made.
b.
Curing of Concrete Pours Bechtel Technical Specification No. 7749-C-26A,
" Curing of Concrete," and A. Bentley and Sons Inspection Procedure No. ABSP-7 provide instructions for curing both normal and mass concrete in accordance with ACI 318 and 301.
Temperature limits, curing time, and protection methods specific to cold weather concreting were included in these specifications.
In reviewing the records (Form ABS-12), the inspector noted there was no provision for recording the concrete temperatures during cold weather conditions as recommended by ACI standards.
Mr. A. S. Martin l
stated it was their intention to maintain these
/
\\
temperature records, when required, and that I,)
revisions to the forms are to be made.
A q_
j.
follow-up inspection of this item will be made.
s
\\
s
./
7.
Placement Control (4605.04.h) and Impleeentation (4605.05.b. 7) a.
Location Preparation (h.1)
Inspection procedures and field inspection reports were reviewed.
They were in agreement with specifications and appeared adequate to assure proper preparation and readiness for concrete placement.
The field inspection report (ABS-Form No.10, " Concrete Placement Checklist")
hassprovisions for signoff by the responsible supervisors, as well as the QC engineer.
In addition, final approval by the Bechtel construction manager is required before concrete is placed.
The inspector reviewed the records for two major concrete pours for Class I structures. The pours were designated CB-FR-P1 and P2 and were part of the containment building foundation. The records indicated the pour location had been properly prepared and inspected prior to concrete place-('"'}
ment. On four inspection reports made by t
- ,)
Michigan Testing Engineering Company (MIE) pe deviations were noted pertaining to rebar placement. Deviation reports had been issued and follow-up records were present... indicating that acceptable corrections had been made and inspected, b.
Proper Mix Specified and Delivered (h.2 and h.3) and Slump Tests (4605.05.a.2)
ABS Form 10, mentioned above, also has provisions for specifying the required concrete mix.
The specified mix is verified by Bechtel who then initiates a request to the batch plant and provides notification to PTL.
Each concrete delivery truck is provided with a transit ticket issued by the batch plant operator.
The weight, and/or amounts, of all of the ingredients, time, date, etc., are automatically printed on the ticket.
The PTL engineer checks and initials the ticket and enters the design mix number and results of the slump test.
The ABS supervisar in charge of the concrete place-
,- s ment receives the tickets at the pour site.
I i
\\s,,/
J/ MTE was retained by A. Bentley and Sons to assist with their QC program. They operate. independently of the contractor's constructiot.
forces in; performance of QC activities.
m t
"s(<~Q b
~
\\s_s/ -
+
t He checks the tickets and enters the time the truck was emptied. MTE testing personnel perform the site slump test and enter the results on the transit ticket. Random review of the tickets is made by TECO, Bechtel, and MTE QA/QC pe rsonnel, c.
Mix Design Adhered to (4605.05.b.2)
The C0 inspector reviewed all the transit tickets for pours CB-FR-P1 and P2.
Transit times were well within specification and approximately 25% of the tickets were initialed by a QC engineer.
It was noted two of the loads were rejected by the concrete placement supervisor because of low slumps (1-1/2").
d.
Adequate Placement Crew (b.1) p ~g Crew sizes are not specified, but the inspectors g
j were informed that adequate personnel would be v
present to assure proper placement. Check-off procedures do exist to assure that adequate numbers and types of cools and equipment are available at the pour site.
The inspectors questioned the applicant regarding QA/QC coverage for Class I pours.
The following coverage information was provided:
(1) TECO-QA/QC coverage for all major pours.
(2) Bechtel - for all pours.
(3) MIE - for all pours.
(4) AB&S - for most pours.
C.
Containment - Welding (PI 3800/2, Attachment C) i CB&I has been contracted to design, erect, and test the free standing containment vessel for the Davis-Besse plant.
CB&I is to i
procure all material required for the vesaal. At the time of the j
inspection, no construction activity-associated with the containment s
vessal erection was apparent at the site.
Only those aspects of l
I the QC system (PI 4805.04) were discussed with CB&I representatives.
V; l
t
g=*
3 p.
s_-
1.
Qualification of Weld Procedures (a.1 and b.3)
CB&I is to maintain a copy and a list of all qualified weld procedures at the site.
The procedures are to be qualified in accordance with the governing co;tes.
The procedures, both manual and automatic, are currently being qualified at CB&I's facilities.
2.
Qualification of Welders (a.2)
CB&I is to maintain a list of all qualified welders and welding operators.
The procedures to which they are qualified will be listed, and records are to indicate when the welders used a particular procedure. Welder qualification will be shown on an established CB&I form (No. WL-lll) which includes the requirements for qualifica-tion for ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX.
3.
Qualification of NUr Techniques (a.3 and b.5)
(
RT, MT, PT, and UT examination techniques are to be performed in accordance with ASME B&PV Code,Section III. CB&I Laternal procedures for these NDT techniques appear to be in conformance with Section III. These procedures are identified and documented in CB&I's "QA Program for Nuclear Vessels and Parts."
4.
Qualification of NDT. Technicians (a.4)
CB&I is to maintain qualification records (" Form WL-30")
for all NDT technicians working on the Davis-Besse containment.
RT, MT, PT, and UT qualifications will be in accordance with the " Society of Nondestructive Testing,"
Supplements A, B, C, and D.
Actual NDT work will be performed by Level II individuals and their work reviewed by a person with a Level III rating.
5.
Identification of Weld Location and Welder (b.1, b.2, and e.6)
CB&I plans to generate and keep welder and weld location records for-the containment vessel. As-built drawings are to be made which include the above information and are to be retained by the applicant. CB&I plans to record
-['
this information on a routine basis on CB&I Form GE-4.
\\
i ss, t
h t:
. 6.
Identification of NDT Technicians (b.4) 6 The QC system for the identification of NDT technicians, discussed during the inspection, would not provide a permanant record.
The applicant was informed that this l
system would not adequately comply with the AEC Criterion XVII.. Subsequent to the inspection, Region III was informed that TECO had discussed this matter with CB&I, and that the QC system is to Le modified to provide the required identification of NDT technicians.
This item will receive follow-up attention on future inspections.
7.
Identification of NUT Results (b.6)
CB&I has established QC forms for documenting NDT results.
These forms were reviewed and found to be adequate -for the intended purpose.
8.
Radiograph Quality (e.1 and e.2)
Radiography on the containment vessel is to be done and evaluated in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, for Class B vessels.
These requirements agree with the commitments in the PSAR.
t 9.
MT, PT, and UT Examinations (e.3, e.4, and e.5)_
Magnetic particle, dye penetrant, and ultrasonic examina-tions to be conducted on the containment vessel welds are to be done in accordance with established procedures contained in CB&I's QA Manual. These procedures, according to CB&I, meet all the MT, PT, and UT requirements for Section III, Class B vessels.
10.
Defect Removal Verification and Acceptance (f.2 and f.6)
Minor weld defects noted during the welding and inspection process,- and which can be easily repaired within the
" welding shift," do not receive permanent documentation.
Significant weld defects and any defects that are not repaired within the "shif t" are documented on CB&I's Form GE-519.
This form, when completed, is to include the defect -location, description, welder identification, and ' documents the repair operation, reinspection, and final acceptance.
l I
o
's
\\
/
. 11.
Welding Material Receipt Verification (g.1)
Procedures to control welding supplies have been established.
These procedures require that the job site QA personnel initiate a Form GO-604 for each shipment of welding materials received.
The procedures require receipt inspection for damage, proper identification and a verification of materials certifications by comparison with the purchase order.
Any nonconformance items are to be noted on the GO-604 form. Nonconformance items are to be tagged with a " hold" until resolution notation.
Acceptable materials are marked for release to construction by the job site quality assurance personnel.
Discussions during the inspection indicated that CB&I's suppliers for welding rod may provide typical analysis instead of actual analysis for material certification purposes. TECO had previously questioned this 9ractice and were in the process of resolving differences at the
/N time of the inspection. Jim Lenardson, TECO QA Engineer,
(,,,)
advised Region III, subsequent to the inspection, that it is their current understanding with CB&I that the welding material certificates will show actual chemical analysis results for each heat number shown on the certificates. This matter will receive follow-up action at the onset of the containment vessel erection.
12.
Pre-Issue Storage Conditions (g.2)
All welding materials are to be stored in a locked, dry storage enclosure.
Only welding foremen and the supervisory personnel, designated by the project welding and QA supervisor, may possess keys to this enclosure.
Control procedures exist to cover the storage of welding materials.
13.
Issue Control (g.3)
Welding materials are under the control of the CB&I welding supervisor (s). According to the existing control procedures, only enough electrodes from the storage oven are to be issued to each welder to last one shift.
-s 1
\\s_/
'e
x
(
\\
\\s_-)
. 14.
Post-Issue Environmental Ccntrol (g.4)
The CB&I representatives said that each welder will have a small storage oven near his work location. Excess electrodes which have been exposed to the atmosphere are to be restored in the holding ovens. Wet electrodes are not to be restored and/or baked, but are to be discarded.
15.
Disposition of Unused Material (g.5)
According to the established procedures, the welding supervisor is to police work areas near the end of each work shift to assure that loose electrodes are discarded, or returned to che storage ovens, as specified in the control procedures.
Electrodes left out in the open for more than eight hours, and those that have become wet, are to be discarded and removed from the job site.
D.
Site Preparations (PI 4405.08)
(
TECO has engaged Woodworth-Clyde and Associates (WCA) as their consultant on the plant site preparatory work.. Early in the exploratory work, evidence of solution cavities and fissuits nare detected in the subsurface bedrock a short distance south che Davis-Besse plant. The applicant reported the results of the exploratory work, associated with the cavities, in their PSAR sup-plement, ismendment No. 5.
Subsequent to the submittal of Amendment No. 5, the applicant, in conjunction with WCA, developed a " Site Verification and Remedial Treatment Program." This program was submitted in Anandment No. 7 to the applicant.
During the inspection, the status anc results of the
" Verification and Remedial Treatment Program" were reviewed with TECO and WCA personnel.
Mr. R. Millet, Site Geotechnical Engineer, represented WCi et the construction site.
Mr. Millet discussed the overall verification program, the various exp7. oratory techniques used, the results obtained from the program, the data evaluation, and the concitsions drawn from the program.
The verification program as described in the WCA, "Geotechnical QA Mar.ual," consists of two parts.
Part A is an exploratory program consisting of the following four subparts:
'}
(%
9 m.e e
+
P
~
V
. 1.
Detailed inspection and mapping of. the. bedrock as it is exposed in the excavation.
2.
Drilling of additional core borings.
3.
Drilling of rock probes in areas of joint concentration.
1 4.
Making geophysical surveys to measure compression wave velocity, the local gravity field, and resistivity of the bedrock.
The ourpose of Part A was to locate areas of suspected solution activity by direct methods (mapping, boring, and rock probes) or by indirect methods (geophysical surveys).
Part B of the program consisted of a local exploratory program to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of the suspected solution activities.
The inspectors reviewed typical weekly progress reports which provided the status, findings, and the conclusions reached.
Mr. Millet said that the data collected and analyzed is provided to Bechtel for s
their review.
i The program is essentially complete at this time. Plant bedrock conditions of a nature. requiring remedial treatment were. not encountered.
Mr. Millet said that a report is being prepared covering the entire verification program.
This report is slated to be sent to LRL in January 1971.
III. Ccastruction Status The construction efforts currently underway are covered by a construction permit exemption, dated September 10, 1970. At the time of the inspection, the concrete and reinforcing steel placement for the construction of the ring foundation had been completed.
The construction ef the shield building wall up to grade level (583' - 6")
is being deferred for the time being...p=ading developments associated with obtaining a construction permit.
The mud mat for the auxiliary building has been poured, and waterproof membranes have been. installed at several locations.
The t'
installation of imbedded piping, grounding conduit, and floor drains is expected to start soon.
Overall construction is estimated to be less than 5%.
N i
,, 3 m
U DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE MONTHLY REPORT. NOVEMBER 1970 8
Toledo Edison.Cocoany (Davis-Basee) - An inspection was con-ducted on November 5 and 6.
construction activities were found to be in accordance with the construction permit exemption authorized by DRL on September 10.
The QA systems in effect for structural concrete and the " Foundation Verification and Remedial Treatment Program" were reviewed.
The QA preparations for contain-ment construction (not yet authorized or initiated) were reviewed.
Minor deficiencies with respect to record keep 1ng requirements
~
were identified.
e d
/b
--.