ML19344F292
| ML19344F292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1976 |
| From: | Crossman W, Rosenberg A, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F268 | List:
|
| References | |
| 50-445-76-08, 50-445-76-8, 50-446-76-08, 50-446-76-8, NUDOCS 8009150083 | |
| Download: ML19344F292 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1976008
Text
3 ,,
.
- ..
-
.e
'
_
. ;.
n
r~s.
,
- i$. , -
-
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
bh
.IE Inspection Report Nos.- 50-445/76-08
Docket Nos. 50-445
50-446/76-08
50-446
~ Applicant: ' Texas Utilities Generating Company
Category A2
2001 Bryan Tower
Dalla; , Texas.75201
~
...
Facility:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Units 1 and.2
, Location:
Clen Rose, Texas
Type of Licensee:
W, PWR, 1161 W(e)
. Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
Dates of Inspection: July 26-30, 1976
- @li
.
Dates of Previous Inspection: July 13-16,1976
5 MO
8 /9 M
' Principal Inspector:
p
R. C. Stet,WBeactor InliIpector
Date'
.
Accompanying
Inspectors:
. A. B. Rosenberg, Reactor Inspector (Details II)
.
.
R. E. Hall, Chief,' Engineering Support Section (Details III)
[!/'7 '/$
Reviewed by:
.#+f_E. A. Crossnyh, Chief, Projects Section
Da'te /
,
.
$
!:
?.'. . . ?
' %:
-
,
.
R
B009150
-
- _=
--
'
,
L
-
.m_.
,
-
-
.
'X
X-
j#
"j+
.*
g_
'~
- py
,
,
.
i
.
..
SUMSARY OF FIUDIUCS
SI.
Enforcement Actions-
- .pr
A.
Items of Noncompliance
,
1.
Violations
None-
2. -
Infractions
k
a. 76-08/I.A.2a Document Control
u.
Criterion VI, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, " Document Control," which
'
states, " Measures shall be established to control the issuance
of documents, such as ... procedures, and drcwings, including
'
changes thereto ....
These measures shall assure that documents,
including changes, are ... distributed to and used at the location
where the prescribed activity is performed." Brown & Root Con-
struction Procedures 35-1195*DCP-3, Rev. 4, " Reproduction," and
'
-
35-1195-DCP-3, Rev. 3, " Document Control Procedure for Distribu-
,
'57
tion," implement these provisions.
,
(1)
Coptrary to the above requirements', Gibbs & Hfil drawing
G-H 2323-S1-0620, Rev. 1, " Safeguards Building E!scellaneous
Parts Plans Reinforcement," control number 034 was not
controlled in that it was in the field on the drawing stick.
The document control office had received notification that
Rev. 1 had been removed and destroyed and replaced by Rev. 2.
- -
(Details II, paragraph 4)
(2)
Contrary to the above requirements, Interim Change.Not' ice 2
(ICN #2) to Brown & Root Construction Procedure 35-il95-CCP-14,
,
Rev. O, " Concrete Pre-Pour Inspection and Pour Card Sign-Off,"
control number 034 was n'ot controlled in that ICN #2 was not
,
"
available'at the' location of the subject procedure.
ICN #1
- and~ICN #3 were available.
(Details II, paragraph 4)
~
b. 76-08/I. A. 2.b
TUSI-QA Documentation of Surveillance Activities
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criterion V, states in part: " Activities
affecting. quality shall ~be prescribed by documented inst uctions,
procedures or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances
and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions,
procedures or drawini,s." CPSES QA Plan, Section 3.0; " Site QA-
Construction Surveillance,". states in.part: "The results of sur-
p=,.
veillance activities are to;be documented by use of the site
surveillance l form;(Figure 3.0.1) ."
,,,,
-2-
a-
-_.
- - _ - _
.
m
n
./
-
.
.
-
s
Contrary to the above requirements, the TUSI Site Surveillance
Inspector observed that the F&N QA Manager's duties and responsi-
bilities encompassed engineering functions beyond that which is
i
described in the CPSES QA program manual.
This item of noncon-
-
fornance was not documented as prescribed in the TUSI QA Plan.
(Details I, paragraph 7)
3.
Deficiencies
None
B.
Deviations
.
None
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
A.
Items of Noncompliance
Infractions
i
76-07/I.A.2 Welding of Safety Related Components
e
During this inspection the B&R Miscellaneous Steel Fabrication Shop
.;;;.
"
had not resumed fabrication activities on safety related miscellaneous
steel components as a result of a "stop-work order" initiated by the
TUSI QA Site Supervisor. B&R is currently continuing the development
of plans and procedures for miscellaneous steel fabrication in accordance
with the CPSES PSAR, Section 17.1.1.5.
This matter remains unresolved pending _" rev12w of the licensee's
-'
written statement of explanation in reply to the written notice sent
to the licensee August 5, 1976.
B.
Deviations
76-07/I.B Stop-Vork Authority
As previously reported, this matter is in conjunction with the infraction,
Item 76-07/I.A.2 above.
The matter remains unresolved pending IE review
of the written reply to this item.
III.
New Unresolved Items
76-08/III.A Extra Concrete Cylinders - DDR-C-320
Extra concrete cylinders were not cast for all batches of concrete batched
without ice as required by DDR-C-320 and attachments. Although the concrete
cylinder requirements of DDR-C-320 were unived as agreed by TUSI, G6H, B&R
, , ,
and R. W. Hunt Co., there was no evidence of this verbal agreement observed
by the IE inspector during the inspection.
(Details II, paragraph 3.b)
-3-
1
_..
.
-
-
-
y_-
'
m
n
, j
.
,
F
1
76-08/III.E EER Pipe Shop Fabrication QA/QC Program
The current D&R pipe fabrication program includes a plan to initiate fabri-
cation from ' unapproved drawings supplied by a sub-contractor which is
contrary to the CPSES PSAR, paragraph 17.1.3.3.
In addition, the B&R QA/QC
plan / program does appear to meet the prescribed requirements contained in
the CPSES PSAR, paragraph 17.1.1.5.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
CDR - Unit 1 - Containment Base }bt Coring
This iten was identified during a previous inspection ff.
The final report
has been received and reviewed by IE Region IV.
Matters concerning repair
procedures, revised procedures and engineering evaluations will be reviewed
,
during subsequent inspections.
This ite:a remains open.
(Details II,
paragraph 5)
76-07/1.
Incomplete CB&I Forms
i
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBEI) did not have fully ccmpleted forts
G0830 for several pieces of liner plate.
The problem had been identified
-
by CE&I internal audit prior to this inspection, but has not been corrected.
==
This matter was not reviewed during this inspection.
The item remains un-
resolved.
-
V.
Design Changes
.None
VI.
Unusual Occur cnces
None
VII.
Other Significant Items
,
.
None
VIII.
Ibnagement Interview
Site Meeting
On July 30, 1976, at the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held
with the following lic<,cee representatives in attendance:
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TUSI)
.
B. G. Bradley, Vice President
,,,,
if
IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-04,Section III, dated April 20, 1976
-4-
_
_-- .
m .
. _ . -
_
__ _ __
- .
- ,o
n
.,
.
,;., o , c . .
'
'
Texas Utilities' Services, Inc. (TUSI) continued
i
H. C.-Schmidt, QA Manager
C. H. Gatchell,' Resident Manager
P. M. Milam, Site QA Supervisor-
.
R. H. Hickman, Project Engineer
. -
.
' '
Gibbs &-Hill (G&H)
.
J._J. Moorhead, Resident Engineer
R. V. Fleck,.QA' Supervisor
J. V.'Hawkins, Site-QA Representative
Brown & Root. Inc. (B&R)
H. C. Dodd, Project -thnager-
~
P. L. Bussolini, Project. QA Manager
,
W. E. Childress, Chief Project Engineer
,
_Freese & Nichols (FLN)
-
,
R. G. Thompson, Project Engineer
[
J. M. Dodson, Resident QA Manager
. ,.;g
' Mason-Johnson Associates (MHA)
,,,,
195;
-
R. C. Mason, Project bbnager
W. T. Cromeans, Resident Chief Technician
Items of' Noncompliance
During'the meeting, the IE inspectors identified and discussed the following
items of noncompliance:
-
Document Control '(Details II, paragraph 4)
TUSI QA Documentation of Surveillance' Activities
(Details I, paragraph 7)
Unresolved Items
.
,
During the meeting,-the-IE inspectors identified and discussed the following
unresolved items:
-
Extra Concrete Cylinders - DDR-C-320
(Details II, paragraph 3.b)
The-licensee representatives indicated that the matter would be reviewed.
B&R Pipe Shop Fabrication QA/QC Progran (Details I, paragraph 6)
The licensee representatives stated that the metter regarding the use of
!1
E:::
unapproved vendor drawings for pipe spool fabrication would be reviewed
-
2
~5-
.
. -
. -
-
.
.
.
.
.
-..
.
m .
-
-
...
s
.
-
-
-
..
.p
.
.
-
3;
,,
..
-.
n.
f' .. -
-.
,
,
j ;Gk
i
i
'
..
.
f
and corrective measures initiated.
'
.
,
. In discussing the TUSI requirements prescribed in paragraph 17.1.15,
,
i-
the licensee representatives indicated that the require =ents are
currently under review by B6R' engineering staff .and are' being incor-
porated in the B&R QA/QC plans / programs for both .the miscellaneous
steel and pipe fabrication shops.
Subsequent to the management interview on July 30, a meeting was held -
-
~ by the IE inspectors with Messrs. B. .G. Bradley and H. C. Schmidt. - The
_ purpose o,f the caeting was ',to briefly. discuss the ovarall QA program
,
status, trenda, enforcement history and matters of IE concern reflected
'
in the TUSI mor.Jhly reports and QA surveillance concittee reports. Al
. follow-on meeting is currently. scheduled for September 3, 1976, at the
/
Region'IV offices.
[
4
E
. f= =-
,
.
e
4
e
.S
e
.
.
.
8
--e
~i!=
s
-6 :--
- -g
.. ., . ;
. _ _ _ _ . .
..
. .
._.
.a
._ i.m i
. ,
_
F',.
.
.
, , - . . . -
%-
m~
- '5'0-445/76-08
i
.
ff,,
50-446/76-08
DETAILS I
Y
f
i
'
Inspector:
/
'R.
C. Stewar' , Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
t
Reviewed by,:
.
,/
'[f.A.Crossmja, Chief, Projects Section
< W
,
,
~1.
Persons-Contacted
a.
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TUSI)~
B. G. Bradley, Vice President
C. H. Gatchell, Resident Manager
H. C. Schmidt, QA Manager
.
',
'
P. M. Milam, Site' QA Supervisor
b.
Gibbs & Hill (C5H)
!
~-
R. V. Fleck, Site QA Supervisor
~ @2y;
J. V. Hawkins, Site QA Representative
.
-
c.
Brown & Root., Inc. (B&R)~
H. C. Dodd, Project Manager
.
P. L. Bussolini, Project QA Manager
D. L. Hansford, Senior QC Engineer
R. Crosno,-QC Engineer-(Mechanical)
H. G. Ruble, Pipe Shop Superintendent
-W. W. Lloyd, General Foreman, Piping
,
G.'W. Allen, Piping Foreman
.
d.
.Freese & Nichols (F6N)
J. M.-Dodson, Resident QA Manager
W. : L. McGrath, Assistant SSI Dam QA Administrator
c.
Mason-Johnson Associates (MJA)
~R.
D. Cody, Assistant Resident Technician
2..
Scope of Inspection
This portion of the inspection was linited to a follow-on' review of QA/QC
records relative to the SSI Dam construction; observation of the SSI Dam
., ._
fill placement; a review of the pipe shop fabrication program and facilities;
--
I- 1
9
U
a-
k
l
.
-
-
m
.
.
,
.
(
.
5
and a revf.4 of TUSI QA/QC documentation relative to the status of TUSI
management participation in the QA program.
3.
Status of Project
g
The plant progress, as of July 24, 1976, is reported as 15.3% complete.
(Unit 1, 13.5% and Unit 2, 1.8%)
CBSI construction creus are continuing installation of the Unit 1 contain-
ment wall liner plates. The ninth tier ring is currently being positioned
and welded in place.
. Installation of the Unit 2 containment base mat reinforcing steel, to the
,.
805'-2" elevation, is still in progress.
Vork is continuing on the foundation installations for the auxiliary, cafc-
guards, and turbine buildings.
The first concrete pours for the auxiliary
building columns were cocpleted the past week.
Construction of the SSI Dam is coqtinuing.
Fill placement is reported
i'
33% complete as of July 1, 1976.
4.
SSI Dam - Work Observation
m:
On July 26 and 29, 1976, the IE inspector observed fill placecent activities
at the SSI Dam site.
On July 26, it was observed by the inspector that
portions of a previous placed two foot lift rock fill layer was in the
process of being removed.
During subsequent discussions with the licensee
representatives and a review of the related QA/QC records, it was revealed
that, of fourteen gradation tests taken of the particular in-place rock fill
layer (elevation 746' to 749'), nine test results indicated out-of-specifica-
tion conditions.
The percentages of material passing the 12",
4", and k"
sieve sizes were excessive in a range of .8% to 5%.
The out-of-specification
condition has been attributed to high moisture condition during the rock
crushing operation.
The QA/QC records indicate approximately 8200 cu. yds were removed
Removal
-
began July 23, 1976, and was completed July 27, 1976.
The IE inspectcr reviewed the overall QA/QC activities involved with the
renoval, stockpiling, replacement, and documentation related to this matter.
No discrepancies were identified in this part of the inspection.
5.
SSI Dam - Records Review
'
On July 29, the It inspector cet with the cognizant IDA QC Representative
for the purpose of a follow-on review of the QC test. ng documentation re-
lative to the fill placement during construction of the SSI Dam.
The
u;
P
I-2
___
na
-.
,-- -
,
"
.
,
L
.p ? .' -
'
n.
o
.
. i.
i
-
,
,
--inspector randbely selected test records of in-place rock shell densities
~
3
-and gradation. tests; in-place impervious clay core materials densities;
and in-place A&B filter material gradations. No discrepancies were identi-
ified_in this-part of the inspection.
.-
6.
B&R Pipe Fabrication Facility
On July 27, the IE inspector conducted a walk-through of the on-site B&R
.
pipe fabrication-facility.
In addition,-the B&R representatives briefly
'
described the proposed Quality Assurance program currently being_deveAoped
for the on-site fabrication of "Q" listed pipe spool pieces, 6 inches and
.under,'and related assemblies.
.
'At present, the pipe shop fabrication activities are restricted to a'licited
amount of non-safety related piping fabrications.
B&R is in the process of
l
developing the Pipe Fabrication ASME Manual, with an intended ASME "N" . stamp
certification by early December.
During the inspector's review of the B&R proposed program, the inspector was
informed that the current plan includes the involvement of the Grinnell
.
Corporation providing BSR with isometric 1'pe spool drauings which are to
.
delineate fabrication requirements.
The licensee representatives further
!
indicated that the Grinnell Isometric-Drawings are not intended to be an
..~
.
approved Gibbs & 11111 Drawing, nor an approved Grinnell Drawing. This
'
matter appears to be contrary to the CPSES PSAR, Section 17.1, paragraph
17.1.3.3, wherein it states in part, "B&R, as the constructor, will receive
only approved drahings, specifications and special instructions from Gibbs
& Hill."
!-
The IE inspector also indicated to the licensee representatives that the
proposed B&R plan / program does not appear to provide the necessary' require-
~~
ments prescribed by the CPSES -PSAR, Section 17.1, paragraph 17.1.1.5, uhere-
in it states, "The TUSI/TUGCO-QA plan requires that'an inspection procedure
~
,
include flow charts, shop travelers or narrative description of the s' quence
~
e
of activities or operation-for fabrication, processing, assembly, inspection
j
)
and test.
Instructions shall indicate the operations or processess to be
'
_ performed, ...."
t'
-
During subsequent discussions. held by the IE inspector with the licensee
,
representatives, the, cognizant TUSI representative informed the IE inspector
l
.that these matters will be reviewed to insure that specific requirements
,
prescribed by the PSAR are contained in the B&R Pipe Shop Fabrication QA
Program.
4
- -
The IE inspector informed the licensee representative that these matters
will be considered unresolved pending IE review of the final TUSI approved
B&R QA/QC plan / program for the pipe-shop fabrication processes.
l^f
m
'
I-3
..w
.
_ , _ . . + .
-
-
---
-
~
_J
- - -
_
._
_
,
'
- -
- '
-
.
-
,
,
,
.
.
t *T
T
.
7.
TUSI - QA/QC Documentation Review
During tim inspection, the IE inspector conducted a documentation review
of the TLSI QA administrative activities related to management partici-
i7'
pation and control of other on-site organizations perforning quality
assurance functions.
The w fiew of TUSI QA documents include: monthly site QA activity su::ary
reports, dated October 17, 1975 through July 1, 1976; quarterly QA sur-
veillance concittee reports, dated October 17, 1975, February 13, 1976,
April 8, 1976 and July 2, 1976; and other reinted internal mecoranda.
During the inspector's review of the above documents, the inspector ob-
served that the site QA activity su= mary report for tee nonth of 1-hy,
dated June 4, 1976, included a matter of concern to the TUSI site QA
staff in that the work activity of the Freese & Nichols QA manager is
encompassing site management and/or engineering activities.
This natter
,
is identified under Item 4.f in the May report.
The natter was again
identified as Item 4.d in the June report, dated July 1,1976.
.
During subsequent discussions held by the inspector with TUSI site repre-
sentatives and the FSN site QA canager, the inspector was infm. 2ed by
the FEN QA manager that his duties and responsibilities do i.. Aude project
p---
engineering activities and, in fact, he is the Senior Site Representative
=
for F6N.
This situation is not in accordance with the duties and respon-
sibilities described in the "CPSES QA Plan Supplement-SSI Dam," Revisica
i
I, dated October 17, 1974,Section I, paragraphs 1.4.3 and 1.4.4.
The
IE inspector was also informed that the matter had been identified during
a routine site surveillance inspection of F6N activities conducted by the
TUSI site QA staff; however, contrary to the CPSES QA plan, Section 3.0,
this item was not documented nor identified in the surveillance report.
Section 3.0 entitled, " Site QA Construction Surveillance," states in part,
"The results of surveillance activities are to be documented by use of the
site surveillance report form." Proper documentation of this problem in
accordance with the TUSI QA Procedure would have required its resolution.
The IE inspector identified this matter as an item of noncompliance uith
Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, Criterion V.
D
I-4
.
-.
=.
w.
-
-
-.
-
-
. , 4 . ; ,..
.
-
-W
_
-.
,
.y.
- .
-
_
_
' t -
-50-445/76-08-..
i
'
'50-446/76-03!
DETAILS II
-
~
[
.
_
_ Accompanying Inspector: 4
g*c. -
B. Rosenberg, R'eactor Inspector
Engineering Support _Section
,
[
@/
Revi.ewed by:
~o
R. E. Hall, Chief,' Engineering Support Section
1.
Persons Contacted
a.
LTexas Utilities Services, Inc. (TUSI)
.
,
P. M. Milan, Site QA Supervisor
.
b.
Gibbs'& Hill (G6H)
R. V. Fleck, QA Supervisor
,
J. V. Hawkins, Site QA Representative
'J._-J. Moorhead, Resident Engineer
D. A. Fellinger, Civil Engineer
.GEG
.
(BER)
.
c..
Brown & Root
S. Miller, QC Inspector
R. Crosno,-QC Inspector
p
M. Robinson, QC Inspector
[ '1
'A. McCreary, QC Inspector
R.-Best, DDR Supervisor
,
J.
E'.
Fitzsimons,-Document Control Supervisor
G. McGee, Project Civil Engineer
,
!G. Mochel, Engineer
~
f
-)
.
2.
Scope of Inspection
'
?
The scope of this inspection included a' follow-on review and observation
'
of the on-site : construction- activities related to seismic category I con-
. crete placement and quality assurance. programs. The inspection included
the review of Quality Control records associated with concrete pour. number
-205-1773-001 of the Unit #2 Safeguards - Building 'and the concrete temperature
'
'
problem' associated with that pour.
Also reviewed were document control,
records for radialishear bar welding,and current Deficiency and Disposition
' Reports'(DDR's). .The status and' disposition of previously identifie.d
unresolved matters were also reviewed.
-
' h'
'Ul..
M
.-
11-1
,
.- ' -
,
>
-
-
-
y
_,.. W
m
- P
'
. ..
. ~ .
-
.; . y
w ..
.
3.-
Unit 62 Safe:;uards Building Foundation - Pour #205-2773-001
a.
Documentation Review
.
The inspector re~'ewed the following records associated with
concrete pour #205--2773-001:
Concrete:Pourdard,datedJune 17,'1976
- Concrete Placement Checklist, ci '.ed June 17, 1976
Reinforcing Steel, Electrical and Embedded Item Placement
Checklist, dated June 17, 1976
- Design Engineers Pre-Pour Plan, dated June 17, 1976
.
Concrete' Placement Plan, dated June 17, 1976
.
Letter from R. W. Hunt to Brown & Root, Re: Pre-Pour Plan
?
^
HCP-12614, dated June 17, 1976
Meco from M.'R. McBay to P. Bessolini, he: Approval of Reinforc-
!'
ing Steel Tolerance Deviations, dated June 17, 1976
Acceptance Tests for concrete HCP-12671, dated June 17, 1976
4
Batch Tickets for Pour #205-2773-001
)
Material / Equipment Control History Reports for Aggregate, Type 11
!
I
Cement, and Reinforcing Steel
Material Test Reports for Cecent and Reinforcing S:cel
.
Monthly Water In-Process Tests for Wells #1 & #2
.
!!5:
In-Prc cess Teste on Ag3regate including Moisture, Cradation,
,
-
Passing #200, and Organic Matter
Curing, Report' Form & Checklist-Pour, dated June 18, 1976
- Concrete Compressive Strengths HCP-13829 thru HCP-13841
- DDR-C-320, Re: . Concrete Temperatures as Placed and Attachments
Documentation was found to be in accordance uith CLH Specification
2323-SS-9.and D&R Procedures CP-QCP-2.3, CP-QCP-2.4, CP-QCP-2.6 and
,-
Those documents marked by an asterisk (*) are germane
to high concrete temperatures for the last approximately 80 cubic
yards placed, which are discussed below. No discrepancies-vere'
identified in this part of the inspection.
,
b.
Completing Pour Uith Concrete Temperatures In Excess of 70 F
g
The inspector reviewed the documentation and correspondence relating
to the B&R Deficiency and' Disposition. Report C-320 (DDR-C-320) . The
attachments to DDR-C-320 required extra concrete cylinders to be cant
for the remaining loads placed and extra thermocouples to be embedded
in~the placement-to monitor-the heat of hydration. The heat of hydra-
.
-tion peaked at'about 136 F.
Temperatures above 155 F would have been
"
cause for concern.
..
I.yc.i
- Correspondence between TUSI, G6H and B&R concerning the concrete
~
tecperature and ice situation near the end of the pour.
-
.II-2
o
p-
._
l
>
,
/
.
,
'
m
n
.
s
s
v
The concrete compressive strength test records indicate only
two cylinders broken from batches where the placing te=perature
was in excess of 70 F.
Although, these two cylinders broke at
greater than 4000 PSI,there is no evidence of the cylinder
t
strength tests for the other thirteen batches of concrete which
possibly exceeded 70 F because they also contained no ice.
The
B&R QC inspector informed the inspector that TUSI, G6H, B&R and R.
W. Hunt representative agreed, during the pour, that only extra
thermocouples would be required and not extra cylinders. Records
of this agreement were not available to the inspector.
This matter
will be reviewed further during a subsequent inspection.
e-
4.
Document Control
On July 29, 1976, the inspector randomly selected nineteen documents
from field locations including BLR Construction Frocedures, G&H Speci-
fications, G6H Drawings, and Bethlehem Steel Corn. Drawings. On July
'
30, 1976, the inspector then verified the up-to-date revisions for the
docu=ents with the document control office. G6H drawing GH2323-SI-0620,
Rev. 1, which was in the active stich file in the shed in the Auxiliary
[
Building area, was found to have been superseded.
The document control
office bad received notification dated July 30, 1976 that Rev. I had
'
been dcstroyed and replaced by Rev. 2.
The inspector returned to the
""""
-
field and reverified that Rev. I was still on the drcuing stick where
criginally located.
The inspector also found that ICN #2 to B&R Construc-
tion Procedura 35-1195-CCP-14, Rev. O had been issued but uss not with
the subject procedure in the field.
The inspector also reviewed Site
Surveillance Report No. SR-C-108-76, dated July 8,
1976, which identified
forty findings concerning document control.
These findings are in the
process of being closed out.
.
.
The inspector's observations relative to the lack of control of drawings
has been identified as an infraction, since Criterion V1,10 CFR 50,
requires controls to assure that revisions to drawings are distribut'ed
i
to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed.
"'
5.
CDR-Unit 1 - Containeent Base Mat Coring
The inspector discussed the progress of corrective action relative to
the 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report On Unit 1 Containment Mat Evaluation, Rev. 1,
with representatives of TUSI, G&H and BLR.
The principal area inspected
concerned the actions taken to preclude the recurrence of the sate
problems on Unit 2.
Specifically reviewed were: G&H drawing S2-501, Rev.
1; G6H GTN-8311, dated April 22, 1976; and BLR FDCR-249, dated June 14,19 5,
which describe improved provisions for access into the wall section to
deliver and consolidate the concrete. The inspector was informed'by GLH
representatives that the Unit 2 base mat would be four pours rather than
one as for Unit 1.
Provisions for the segregation of the four pours were
U
observed in the Unit 2 assembly.
-
II-3
-
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
_
.m
.
-
^
-
e/.'
. .
.
.m
- =
.L;;.-
'
5
g
.
LIn addition to.the new and, revised construction'and inspection
procedures-under preparation, the inspector also identified to
'USI and GEH representative the following data which the inspector
desired to review relative to the 50.55(c) Report On Unit 1 Contain-
,-
cent Mat Evaluation, Rev. 1, dated, July 12, 1976.
,
a.
DDR-C-227
Calculations and/or documents supporting the evaluation of the
valve isolation embedments to perform their safety related
. function after repairs.
b.-
SR-C-075-76
-
Calculations and/or documents supporting the evaluation and con-
clusions D.3.a.,.and the evaluation of the preventive measures
D.5.6 for Unit 2 on the ability of the structure to perform its
safety related functions.
-
c.
SR-C-079-76
.
Information supporting-the conclusions of the evaluation contained
.
in Appendix 1 to Law Engineering Testing Company Report, Section 5.0
=
""""
. states, " Areas of category 2 and 3 are numerous in the area investi-
"=
gated. These areas require evaluation by the design engineer."
.
The inspector requested of TUSI and G&H representatives that the
-above documents be available for review during a subsequent inspec-
tion.
,
6.
_ Radial Shear Bar Uelding
The inspector observed the storage area of the Unit 2 Containment radial
shear bar ladders and found then clean, out of the mud, without excessive
-
rust and identified.
The inspector identified five velds with different
weld-codes. .The veld inspection records and welder performance qualifica-
-tion records for the.five welds were reviewed. One radiographed weld for
.
E
four of the welders was identified.and.the radiographs and reader sheets
were reviewed for these welds. Documentation reviewed was consistant with
B&R Construction Procedures CP-QCP-8.2 and CP-QCP-8.3.
No discrepancies were identified in this portion of the inspection.
7.
Corrective Actions - DDR's-
,
.The' inspector. reviewed thirty two DDR's generated since June 15, 1976. No
l
-
. discrepancies were identified during this part of the inspection,
,
t
-
M
.
'
11-4
7
f. -} t .z . . , .
-
--
=
.
._
.-
. _
.
-
..
,,.e
.c -
7
.
. d;.*h
3D9 *50-445/76-08~
5
~
i
.
"
'50-446/76-08-
.DETA.
III-
y
-
/ C'
.
- AccompanyingInspector:grh'57
s
,
E'
.
R.
E.. Hall, Chief.
.
Engineering Support.Section
1.-
' Persons Contacted
,
- J. V. Hawkins, Site QA Representative, Gibbs & Hill, Inc. (G&H)
M. Jeffers, Project'QA Supervisor, Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I)
'
12.
Scope of Inspection
~
~This inspection encompassed the Unit 1 containment liner erection
>
progress.
3. -
Containment Liner Erection'
l
Gibbs & Hill, Inc. (C&H)' Specification 2323-SS-14, Rev. 3, dated Nov-
ember 17, 1975, establishes requirements for erection of the containment
,
liner. Liner crection has proceeded to the point that the ninth ring
, . . ."'
has been placed with no supporting concrete structures. As permitted'
""""
~~
?by the G6H Specification, ring girders'are being installed by Chicago
Bridge L. Iron (CELI)-on-the internal surface-of alternate rings to main-
l
tain~ rigidity and specified tolerances until the concrete walls have
l
'been placed.
Section 8.2 of the G&H Specification establishes tolerances on the diamet-
j'
rical variation and Section 8.9 establishes vertical plumb tolerances.-
L
During this inspection, preliminary CB&I construction data for the first
L
seven rings were inspected. No out-of-tolerance data were recorded for
i
either parameter.
Optical techniques in use for obtaining data.appe'ar
.
to satisfy specification requirements. - Af ter installation of penetrations
,
and. placement of containment wall concrete, diacetrical and plumb measure-
cents will be inspected by CB&I .in accordance with specification require-
'
ments.
No discrepancies were identified in this part of the inspection.
'
,
I
r
^'
I'
. =m
- ...,
= . ~ '.
.
-
6
111-1
.
_
,,
w
.p
-
s
9
.Pym.-
p-
T-
"' "
9
7