ML19323B727
| ML19323B727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood, Marble Hill  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Hayes D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323B715 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-546-80-06, 50-546-80-6, 50-547-80-06, 50-547-80-6, NUDOCS 8005140143 | |
| Download: ML19323B727 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000546/1980006
Text
b
0514 g
.
g
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
r
REGION III
-
Report Nos. 50-546/80-06; 50-547/80-06
Docket Nos. 50-546; 50-547
License Nos. CPPR-170; CPPR-171
Licensee: Public Service of Indiana
1000 East Main Street
Plainfield, IN 46168
Facility Name: Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: Marb e Hill Site, Jefferson County, IN
Inspection Conducted: February 6-8 and 12-15, 1980
k-
F'Q . wkins
.C
3 /24, / BO
Inspector:
I
I
,
Approved By:
. W. H es,
e
27
Engineering Support Section 1
7
'
Inspection Summary
Inspection on February 6-8 and 12-15, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-546/80-06;
50-547/80-On
Areas Inspec. *: Follow-up on a previously identified inspection finding;
review of implementing procedures, observation of work, and review of
quality records for the Construction Verification Program (SPP-5); review
of implementing procedures and review of quality records for safety-related
backfill; review of licensee conformance to PSAR commitments. This in-
spection involved a total of 55 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance
was identified in one area.
(Infraction - conflict between design specifi-
cation requirements and PSAR commitments - Section 3).
.
l
!
i
l
.. ,,_-.
..--..__ _
. . . _ .
- - . , . _ . _
.
_
_ _
.
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted
--
Public Service of Indiana (PSI)
- T. R. Burns, Project Engineering Manager
- N. Reichel, Acting Construction Manager
- R. E. Turner, Quality Assurance Manager
- J. Norris, Manager - Quality Engineering
S. Farlow, Special Projects Engineering Supervisor
- L. A. Nicodemus, Supervisor - Program Support
- D. B. Ingmire, Quality Assurance Superintendent - Civil
- G. T. Warner, Quality Assurance Engineer
- I. J. Lefman, Quality Assurance Audit Coordinator
D. L. Shuter, Quality Assurance Engineer
R. Royer, Reactor Building Area Engineer
I
D. Blackwell, Reactor Building Area Engineer
W. Minick, Quality Control Inspector
M. Bright, Quality Control Inspector
G. K. Newberg Construction Company (N-MH)
C. E. Guy, Quality Assurance Supervisor
J. M. Coffman, Quality Control Supervisor
J. Spann, Quality Control Inspector
R. Alcorn, Quality Control Inspector
J. Olson, Quality Control Inspector
J. Mull,igan, Quality Control Inspector
M. Rose, Quality Control Inspector
United States Testing Company (UST)
D. Lanham, Site Project Manager
Other Personnel
- J.
E. Foster, RIII NRC Investigation Specialist
- J. J. Harrison, RIII NRC Resident Inspector
i
K. Seeber, Sargent and Lundy Site Structural Engineer
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings
(Open) Noncompliance (546/79-18-01; 547/79-18-01):
a.
The loading rate applied to two compressive strength concrete cylin-
ders was observed to exceed the 20-50 psi loading rate specified in
ASTM C39.
-2-
_. - _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _
__-
. _ ,
.-
, , . .
.
The two compressive strength specimens which were incorrectly loaded
.
were the 28 day breaks for Cylinder No. 2360. These cylinders rep-
resented concrete placements which were not safety related. To as-
sure that the proper loading rate is applied when tasting safety
.
related compressive strength cylinders, UST has instructed tiechnicians
breaking cylinders to verify the rate of load a minimum of twice a
day, for a minimum of ten second intervals. This verification is to
be documented in the ' Remarks' section of the break sheet for the
cylinder tested.
.
The RIII inspector verified on February 12, 1980 that the loading
rate for two cylinders was checked and properly documented during
the in process compressive strength testing. The identification
and proper disposition of this item on UST ICAR 1036-53 was also
noted.
Item a. is closed,
b.
Several instances were noted in which the sample fraction retained
on an 8-inch diameter sieve at the completion of the sieving opera-
tion exceeded the maximum of 200g allowed by ASTM C136.
The RIII inspector reviewed the records of the August 27, 1979
training session which was held to instruct laboratory persoanel
of the proper method to reduce samples and perform a sieve analysis
in accordance with ASTM C136.
In addition, all gradation reports
were reviewed and a list of those individual sieves which were
found to rete a more than the allowed 200g was forwarded to the
design control group for engineering disposition. The results of
the engineering evaluation concluded that the values reported would
not adversely affect the test results. The identification and proper
disposition of this item on UST ICAR 1036-54 was verified by the RIII
inspector.
Item b. is closed.
c.
The specific gravity of the heavy liquid (zine chloride) used to per-
'
form the Test for Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate was not monitored
during the test with a calibrated hydrometer to verify that it re-
mained within 0.01 of the specified value at all times as required
by ASTM C123.
See item d. below for the licensee's resolution and actions to pre-
vent recurrence.
d.
The specific gravity of the heavy liquid (zinc chloride) used to
perform the Test for Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate was not con-
firmed to be 2.0 as specified by ASTM C33 for the coal and lignite
test.
Following the identification of items c. and d., UST:
t
l
l
-3-
I
!
,
t.
. . . , _ -
.7,.,._-..,,,,._--,..-...,...
-.
. . .
.
.
1
1
(1) forwarded hydrometer No. 457.0 to the manufacturer for calibra-
.
tion. The satisfactory results of this calibration were reviewed
by the RIII inspector as documented in the manufacturer's
Report of Calibration.
s
_.
.
(2) revised form QCP-2.6 (10/79) to include the requirement to
check the specific gravity of the heavy liquid before, during,
and after the test is performed.
(3) conducted a training session on September 28, 1979 to instruct
the responsible laboratory technicians of the proper method
to perform the test for lightweight pieces in accordance with
ASTM C123.
(4) obtained a satisfactory engineering disposition from the design
control group concerning the improper test method's impact on
previous work.
The proper identification and disposition of these conditions on
PSI DCR Nos. C-070-79, C-073-79, and UST ICAR No. 1036-57 were
verified.
Items c. and d. are closed.
e.
The 2" grout cube molds were not properly pre-treated prior to use
with a mixture of three parts of paraffin to five parts rosin as
required by ASTM C109.
This item was satisfactorily addressed by the licensee and the
results documented in IE Report 546/79-18; 547/79-18.
Item e. is closed.
f.
Field cast 2" grout cubes were not being initially cured in accord-
ance with ASTM C109, Section 8.5 as referenced by S&L Specification
Y-2850, Section 411A.1.
This item was satisfactorily addressed by the licensee and the results
documented in IE Report 546/79-18; 547/79-18.
Item f. is closed.
'
g.
Four occassions in which UST Level II personnel were evaluated for
certification by other UST Level ~II personnel.
In response, the certification records for all Level II personnel
were reviewed to verify compliance with the certification require-
ments specified in UST Procedure No. UST-TQ-1, Revision 9.
The
Proficiency Evaluation Records of the four Level II personnel in
question were subsequently co-signed by the responsible Level III
inspector. This signature was based on a detailed evaluation of
each technician's qualifications and observed work performance by
the responsible Level III.
_4_
-.. .
. . . . . . . , - _ . - . . -
- - -
--
.
_
_
. __-_
- - -
- -__ _ _ _ _ _ .
.
This noncompliance was determined to be a result of the misinterpret-
.
ation by UST of the requirements specified in UST-TQ-1, Revision 9,
1
Section IV, paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6.
--
Item g. is closed.
i
-
h.
Five occasions in which UST personnel were certified to Level I
requirements prior to completion of the interview and practical
demonstration of their proficiency.
It is the inspector's understanding that it is presently the practice
,
of UST to title newly employed personnel as Level I prior to the com-
)
pletion of the required certification program. This practice allows
UST to include these personnel on the site payroll. The title, Level
I, infers that the individual has met 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. and is qualified to perform " record" tests. Being a
Level I at UST does not presently assure that the individual ~is
qualified in accordance irith ANSI N45.2.6-1973.
In response, UST management personnel stated that at no time, either
in the past or present, are laboratory technicians allowed to_ perform
" record" tests until they have successfully met all the certification
requirements as specified in UST-TQ-1, Revision 9,Section V.
l
This practice of titling technicians as Level I before all require-
'
ments have been met is unacceptable regardless of any contractual
arrangements or understandings that may exist.
Item h. remains open.
i.
Two occasions in which UST personnel were certified to Level I require-
ments prior to receiving visual examinations.
UST has proposed the use of a new employee checklist which would
have to be completed prior to the release of any UST employee to
perform work. This list would include a check point for the
employee's physical / visual examination.
,
The records of satisiactory visual examinations for both UST personnel
in question were reviewed by the RIII inspector.
Item i. remains open pending the incorporation of this form or a
similar form into the formal UST program. Other methods to
resolve this noncompliance may exist and will be reviewed for
their merit at the time they are presented.
J.
Four occasions in which the required physical and visual re-examinations
were overdue for periods up to two months.
The records of satisfactory physical / visual re-examinations for the
four UST personnel in question were reviewed by the RIII inspector.
-5-
. - . ~ .- - , , . , _ - - . . . - . .
.
. - .
. . . .
.
.
To preclude recurrence of this situation, UST has established a
" tickler" file system to assure timely re qualification of labora-
tory personnel Proficiency Evaluations, Document of Qualifications,
and physical / visual examinations.
--
Item J. is closed.
k.
At least seven UST personnel were certified to Level I that did not
meet the experience requirements as specified in ANSI N45.2.6-73.
UST management personnel stated that it is their intent to qualify
certain laboratory technicians in accordance with paragraph 3.1
of ANSI N45.2.6-73.
At present, UST-TQ-1 Revision 9 does not
specifically address the method for certification of personnel in
accordance with paragraph 3.1.
It is imperative that UST-TQ-1
be consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.58, which endorses ANSI
N45.2.6-73Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.6-73" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
If the general education and experience requirements of ANSI
N45.2.6-73Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.6-73" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. are not being met, and the basis for this is paragraph
3.1, then the rationale for this action and criteria for evaluation
must be established.
Item k. remains open.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
.
1.
Construction Verification Program (SPP-5)
Review of Implementing Procedures - The RIII inspector reviewed
a.
Construction Verification Program Procedure No. SPP-5, Revision
0 entitled Category I Concrete Surface Irregularities to verify
that it included appropriate inspection personnel qualification
requirements, that it was technically adequate, and that adequate
quality documentation would be generated as a result of its im-
plementation. On January 30, 1980, RIII concurred with the use
of Procedure No. SPP-5, Revision 0 as a part of the Construction
Verification Program. Subsequent revisions and the date of RIII
concurrence are as follows:
Revision 1 - February 5, 1980
Revision 2 - February 5, 1980
Revision 3 - February 11, 1980
Revision 4 - February 15, 1980
Each revision was reviewed to determine its impact on previously
completed work.
b.
Observation of Work - In process work being performed in the
Auxiliary Building was observed in the following specific
areas:
-6-
.-
.
. . . . . .
- . - .. . . - . -
. - . . . , . .
.
.. .
.
(1) February 13, 1980 - Observed Physical Survey Team (PST)
e
inspection of the west face of L line wall, 16-18 lines;
S&L Drawing S-690, Revision P; Elevation 383'.
(2) February 13, 1980 - Observed PST inspection of the-ceiling
and walls in an area L-P lines and 8-10 lines; S&L Drawing
S-705, Revision G; Elevation 383'.
(3) February 14, 1980 - Observed PST inspection of columns
in an area M-P lines and 11-12 lines; S&L Drawing S-690,
Revision P; Elevation 383'.
(4) February 14, 1980 - Observed PST inspection of the ceiling
in an area M-P lines and 13-15 lines; S&L Drawing S-696,
Revision W; Elevation 383'.
,
The specific observations included verification that the in-
process inspections were being performed in accordance with the
specified procedural requirements.
c.
Review of Quality Records - Individual daily inspection packages
generated as a result of the concrete verification program in
the Auxiliary Building were reviewed. Each package included
marked-up drawings; Concrete Patch Data Sheets, Repair Area
Data Sheets, and the identity of the inspectors performing the
work. Specific packages reviewed are as follows:
(1) February 6, 1980 - Inspection of walls and columns in an
area L-Q lines and 24-26 lines; S&L Drawing S-691, Revision
P; Elevation 383'.
j
i
(2) February 7, 1980 - Inspection of ceiling and beams in an
area L-Q lines and 24-26 lines, also the west face of L
line wall from 20-24 lines; S&L Drawings S-691, Revision
i
P and S-697, Revision W; Elevation 383'.
(3) February 8, 1980 - Inspection of the ceiling in an area
,
L-M lines and 23-24 lines, also walls and columns in an
area L-Q lines and 20-24 lines; S&L Drawings S-691, Revi-
'
sion P and S-697, Revision W; Elevation 383'.
(4) February 11, 1980 - Inspection cf the ceiling in an area
L-Q lines and 20-24 lines (excluding L-M lines and 23-24
lines; P-Q lines and 20-21 liner); Elevation 383'.
(5) February 12, 1980 -
Team 1 - Inspection of the ceiling in an area L-Q lines and
\\
18-20 lines, also P-Q lines and 20-21 lines; S&L Drawings
S-691, Revision P and S-697, Revision W; Elevation 383'.
-7-
.
. .
. . . . , - . . - . . .
- - -
. -
.
-
,
_
.
!
Team 2 - Inspection wf walls on L and P' lines 8-10 lines,
-
also south face of 10 line wall, L-P lines; S&L Drawings
S-705, Revision G; Elevation 383'.
--
(6) February 13, 1980 -
Team 1 - Inspection of walls and columns in an area L-Q
,
lines and 13-18 lines, also the ceiling in an area M-Q
lines and 15-18 lines; S&L Drawings S-690, Revision P
and S-696, Revision W; Elevation 383'.
1
Team 2 - Inspection of the. ceiling in an area M-P lines and
2
8-10 lines, also the north face of 8 line wall, L-P lines;
S&L Drawings S-695, Revision L and S-705, Revision G;
Elevation 383'.
"
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Safety Related Backfill - The RIII inspector reviewed the applicable
sections of the S&L Specification Y-2722 dealing with backfill, N-MH
,
!
implementing Procedure WPN-4, and quality documentation regarding the
placement, inspection, and testing of backfill at the Marble Hill
site. The following areas of concern were identified during the
review.
Licensee personnel are not aware if a test fill for safety-
a.
related backfill has been performed. ior a specific type of
fill material, the test fill would establish acceptable lift
thicknesses, type of compaction equiament, and number of roller
passes required to assure acceptable in place densities. Fur-
,
thermore, due to the variation of in place density within a
'
single lift thickness, a test fill would establish the most
critical depth within a lift at which in place density tests
should be performed.
4
i
b.
No procedural requirements for QC inspection for backfill placing
and compaction exist. These inspections would typically verify
.,
type of compaction equipment, number of roller passes, lift
thickness, etc.
It appears that no system exists to assure timely sampling of
c.
,
backfill material for the required relative densit, tests
'
(ASTM D2049). Records were not available during this inspection
to demonstrate that the 4000 cubic yard sample / test frequency
for relative density had been met.
j
d.
Presently, the relative density sample is taken from the material
stock pile. .Along with this sample, a sieve analysis sample is
taken. Records were not available at the time of this inspection
to establish that the material gradation had not varied substan-
4
tially from the stockpile:to the point of placement, due to
material handling. This change in gradation, if it occurs, can
affect the relative density test results.
'
'
,
i
-8-
i
--+-,-*A-*-
w- +w.-.e
e-.
7y w - * * -* a - - +.
+ -
.
_
.
e.
Substantial test result variations for the minimum and maximum
density tests (ASTM D2049) performed by UST were observed in
the relative density log.
,
f.
There are presently no provisions established which control the
use of #53 stone which fails to meet the gradation requirement
.r.pecified in S&L Specification Y-2722, Section 302-14.e1.
g.
The responsible QC backfill inspectors were not aware of the S&L
Specification Y-2722, Section 302.14 d7. requirement which speci-
fies that, "The maximum loose lift thickness shall not exceed
three inches where power tampers or similar special compaction
equipment are used."
Resulting from the identification of these unresolved items, the
licensee stated that safety-related backfill would be included as a
part of the Construction Verification Program.
Items a. through g. above are considered unresolved.
(546/80-06-01;
547/80-06-01).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Review of Licensee Conformance to PSAR Commitments
A review of S&L Specifications Y-2722 and Y-2850 identifie2 several
areas in which the specification requirements were not ia conform-
ance with PSAR commitments in Chapter 17. Section 17.1.2.1 of
Chapter 17 states that PSI will comply with the AEC Regulatory
Guide, Guidance on Quality Assurance Requirements During Construction
Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 0 dated May 1974 (Green Book
- Revision 0) The Green Book, Revision 0 endorses ANSI N45.2.5-1973,
Draf t 3, Revision 1 - January 1974.
'
The following are specific areas in which conflicts between the
referenced specification and PSAR commitments were identified.
a.
ANSI N45.2.5-1973, Table B states that fresh concrete shall be
sampled in accordance with ASTM C172. ASTM C-172, Section
3.2.3 states that when concrete is sampled from revolving drum
truck mixers or agitators, the sample shall be obtained from
two or more regularly spaced intervals during discharge of the
middle portion of the batch and that those samples shall be
composited into one sample for test purposes.
Contrary to the above, S&L Specification Y-2850, Section 411.8A.b.
'
states that, " Samples (concrete) shall be obtained in accordance
with ASTM C172, except that when sample is secured by diverting
truck chute or pipe discharge into wheelbarrow, no compositing
is required; and when central mixed concrete is delivered, sample
may be taken from'any portion of truck discharge.
-9-
. _ . . _
.
,.
7 . .
_.
_m
_.. __ _
_ _ _ _ _ .
_
,
.
b.
ANSI N45.2.5-1973, Table B requires cement to be sampled and
,
tested every 500 bbls (94 tons) in accordance with ASTM C183
for in process chemical and physical testing as required by
ASTM C150.
__
.
Contrary to the above, S&L Specification Y-2722, Section 403.3 b.
states that cement sampling and testing, to ascertain conformance
with ASTM C150, be performd at a frequency of every 1200 tons.
c.
ANSI N45.2.5-1973, Table B endorses ASTM C31, Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens.in the Field. Section 7.3 of ASTM C31
requires that compressive strength test specimens be removed
from the molds at the end of 20t4 hours and stored in a moist
condition at 73.413 F until the moment of test
Contrary to the above, S&L Specification Y-2850, Section 411.7A
states that, "Holded cylinders may be left at the point of
sampling for a maximum of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before being moved into
"
moist curing in the laboratory. . .
.
d.
ANSI N45.2.5-1973, Table B requires that the design age compressive
strength cylinders be cast from concrete samples obtained at
the frequency of every 100 cubic yards.
Contrary to the above, S&L Specification Y-2722, Table 4-1-5
states that for "Other" Category I work, concrete samples shall
be obtained from every 150 cubic yards.
The licensee was advised that these failures (items a. through
d. above) to correctly translate the requirements specified in
the license application into specifications, drawings, proce-
dures, and instructions are considered an item of noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III.
(546/80-06-02;
547/80-06-02).
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-
)
ance, or deviations. One unresolved item disclosed during this inspection
is discussed in Section 2 in the Functional or Program Areas Inspected
section of this report.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with the staff representatives (denoted in the Persons
Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 8 and
15, 1980. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspec-
tion. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
- 10 -
'
.
. __._ ....
- . . ~ . . _ , . _
. - , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ .
_ , _
_ . .
.
_