ML20005C175

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Request for Admission of Genuineness & Authenticity of Encl Audit Repts.Related Correspondence
ML20005C175
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 11/11/1981
From: Stamiris B
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, STAMIRIS, B.
To:
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8111180520
Download: ML20005C175 (16)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . ___________ - ___ ______

.- a '

W J D CC.T;37;::; 3 CI l---

~

U.s. NUC1. EAR REGUI./ STORY C'EAI%},gM. -

'85 1;3V 16 Pi255 In the matter of vocxet~.Nos. 50-329 CPCo.;*1dland clant /Alk 50-330

" ' ' " ' ~ " ' " ' ' ' '

Units 1 & 2 OM, OL 3EFORI. Tr!C ATOMIC SA?:TY AND LIC2NSINC- ECARD 11/11/81 Jlf S P gA L('sS.

7 ~

INTERVENOR REOUEST FOR ADMLSSION OF THE b N O V I y ;gg y

u. s. %, ,,

GENUINENESS AND AIRHENTICITV 0F % TWOc%cu DOCIR.'hiiT N/A

/l Ty%'>

I r scuest Consumers - Power Comoany to admit the genuidehess and authenticity of the enclosed Audit Reports dated Ma*y 25 &' June .

8-10, 197.7 and October 3-7, 1977,in accordance with section 2.742, 4

Part 2 of NRC Rules of Practice.

I make this recuest now in the hopes of excediting the hearing by allowing the documents to be used in Ey pronosed Findings of Fact duc November 21, 1931,as onposed to r:cuesting an ext:nsIon of the Onality Assurance and '!anage rici J.tt itude issues into the upcoming sessions, or suspicme.nting my Proposed Findings after the fact.

If Consumers Power Company would respond to this recuest at their earliest possible convenienc:, it would f acilitate .ny ability to have complete Proposed Findings submit ted by November 21, 1931. go3 s

//

Respectfully Submitted,

- g'g/SL cc: A5LT. Mc: .hcrs. , . , , .

Tm. Paton*;:NRC a 2%Lh41./ l '

M.. Miller,. CPCo.

en . nw 8111180520 811111

.81 PDR ADOCK 05000329 l G

.f?.. G -

  • WNIIIlO

.3 WLBarclay WRBird

((

1 .' POUT DA October 3--7. 77 "o *- -

SHHowall .g( / CO @ y PLANT: Midland UNIT 1 & 2 aMng BWMarguglio OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement JFNewgen etn<,w..a.n, Records l QA SUBJ FILE i

~

I. ALTIT SCOPE M

The purpose of this record review audit is to verify the documentation associated ~ vith the placement of Structural Backfill, North Plant. Dike.

West- Plant Dike, and Plant Area Fill conforms to the specifications and -

to expedite ~ dike turnover.,

II AUDITORS.

      • D. A. Blumenthal, CPCo QAE (IE&TV) - Team Member ,
    • D. E. Horn, CPCo QAE Civil Supervisor - Team-Leader

^

III. PERSONNEL CONTACTED

    • Ben Cheek,'Bechtel Lead Civil Quality Control Engineer

~

  • Keith Berk, Bechtel QCE (QC Vault) *
  • Pat.Guiette, Bechtel QCE (QC Vault)
  • Mary Kerridge, Bechtel QC Documentation Clerk '
  • Ji= Miller, Bechtel QC Documentation Lead
  • Tom Lieb, Bechtel QCE (Civil) *
        • Daryl Osborn, Bechtel Assistant Lead Civil QCE
  • John Speltz, U.S. Testing Lab Chief , . , , ,

IV

SUMMARY

OF AUDIT ~~ ~

A. A' Prs-Aud'it Conference was held on August 31, 1977 in Ben Cheek's office with those in attendance as noted in Sections II and III above.

The audit scope was the only item discussed. ' The audit scope originally was to observe soil placement, however, due to heavy rains and no soil placement in "Q" areas, the audit scope was changed to that given in Section I. -

B. The audit was performed on soil reports North Plant Dike')D 72 (5-23-74) through MD 514 (9-21-74), West Plant. Dike MD 25 (9-12-74) through MD 307 2

(9-27-76), Struc tural Backfill MDR 611 (10-7-76) through MDR 1121 (8-11-77),

Plant Area Fill MD 1122 (10-7-76) through MD 1854-(8-12-77) and- gradation.

reports. for structural backfill. material received February 4,1977 through August 31, 1977 to assure failing tests have been cleared by passing tests; correct optimum moisture contents, maximum and minimum dry lab densities have been used; the test results were properly evaluated for acceptance; -

and cut reports could be located in the Quality Control Documentation.

Vault using the attached checklist.

C. The. findings associate'd. vith this audit are noted in Section V. ~

e

/

' *Contac ted. 'during Audit - ,

    • Attended Pre-Audit Conference and Post . Audit Conference l*** Attended ContactedPost-Audit Conference during Audit and attended Post-Audit Conference

{ BY .

DATE II- Y -D SHEET 1 OF 12 ff"=

N .

f

~ ~

v .s .

<6 O *

. rite:

DATE:

0.4.3.6418.4.3.6 Octob3r 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO J-77-32

.IV. SUntARY OF AUD1". (Contd)

D. Future tudits. vill be run the same, when scheduled.

E. 'A. Post ~ tit. Conference was held on October 11,.1977 in Ben Cheek's J office wit.

those in attendance as noted in Sections Il and III above. '

' The audit sindings were presented to 'those in attendance by D. A.

Blumenthal and D. E.' Horn. Bechtel QC understood and agreed with the findings and recommended corrective action.

V CLOSED OUT FINDINGS -

~

Finding 1 .

. Hest Plant Dike -

MD-2.76 and' 2.77 (sampled 9-15-76), 278 (sampled 9-16-76), and 285 (sampled 9-17-76) have NA in the - optimum moisture content column.

North Plant Dike

. - 'm . - -

_ _ ~, _ ,

i MD-92. (sampled 5-25-74) shows ==vf=m dry lab density 110.6. It. should -

have been 103.4. .

MD-93 (sampled 5-25-74) shows maximum dry lab desnity Il0.6. It should

, , have been 103.4. .

MD-109 (sampled 5-28-74) shows maximum dry lab density 103.4. It should have.been 115.1,

~

MD-119 (sampled 5-28-74) shows maximum dry- lab density 127.2. It should have been 128.0.

MD-155 - (sampled 6-4-74) shows optimum moisture < content 18.8. It sh.ould i

. have been .18. 4.

l~ MD-L95. (sampled 6-24-74) shows optimum moisture content 11.0. It should have been.11.6. "

MD-223 (sampled 6-25-74) sh'ows eptimum. moisture content 10.3. It.should have been 11.6. .

MD-224' (sampled 6-25-74) shows optimum moisture content 13.5. It should have been 13.0.

MD-257 (sampled 7-L1-74) shows optimum moisture content 9.8. It should' have-been 10.4. This,also shows maximum dry lab density-126.8, It shculd have been ,127.4.

FILE:

h]) ,

DATE:

(f).4.3.4&13.4.3.6 Jctob r 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midland UNIT 162 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placc=ent Records

~

AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-31 v '.

V. Cl0 SED OUT FINDINGS '

Findine 1 North Plant Dike (Contd)

HD-269 (sa= pled 7-12-74) shows maxi =u: dry lab density 116.2. It should have been 116.3.

MD-290 (sa= pled 7-16-74) shows maxi =u= dry lab density 125.2. It should have been 128,3.

MD-318 (sa= pled 7-19-74) shows opti=u:4 roasture content 13.0. It should have been 13.3.

MD-336 (sa= pled 7-20-74) shows op ti=u= =oisture content 20.5. It should have been 20.0.

~

MD-341 (sa= pled 7-25-74) shows opti=u= moisture content 17.0. It should have been 15.5.

MD-377 (sampled 8-6-74) shows maximu::t lab ' dry density 10h. It should. have been 111.9. .

MD-476 (sampled 8-19-74) shows opti=u= =oisture content 17.0.

It should have been 17.1.

ED-512 (sa= pled S-28-74) shows =axi=u= lab dry density 109.4. This should have been 109.0.

Structural Backfill Area MDR-919 (sa= pled S-25-77) shcus maxi =u= dry lab density of 109.3. It should have been 125.3. It also shows =dni=um dry lab density as 90.3. It should have been 109.3.

Plant Area Fill MD-L26Z (sacpled 4-8-77) gives maxi =u= dry lab density of 117.0. It should have been 117.1.

MD-1300 (saepled 5'-2-77) gives cpti=u= mois ture content of 11.1. It should have been 10.4.

MD-1385 (sampled 6-1-77) gives opti=um noisture content of 13.5. It shoeld have been- 13. 4.

QO M O 9 0

I (]) - [ FILE: lh).4.3.4&18.4.3.6

, ~

s. -

DATE: uctobor 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midlend UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 w.

V. CLOSED CUT FINDINCS Findinr 1 Planc Area Fill (Contd)

MD-1420 (sampled 6-8-77) gives optimum moisture content of 9'.8. It should have been 8.6. It also gives maximum dry lab density of 127.3. It should have been 132.9.

MD-1521 (sampled 6-17-77) gives maximum dry lab density of 117.0. It should have been 117.1. g Corrective Action Requested: Recalculate the test. results using the proper values and determine the acceptability of the corrected test results.

Corrective Action Taken: The test results were recalculated and corrections made. The above errors did not change the acceptance of these tests even

, thou'gh they did change the test results. .

Corrective action verified October 25-26, 1977. -

1 -

For further corrective action see. Section V1 "Open Findings" Finding 1.

Finding 2

~

i Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 12.6.1 states in part, "The water centent during compaction- shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture content. and. shall not be more than 2 percentage points

  • above optimum moisture content.3."

SpecLfica tion C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.1 states, "All cohesive back-fill in the plant areac and the barn shall be compacted to not less than. 95 percent of maxi: um density as. determined by ASTM D 1557, Method D".

I l

' Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-less backfill in the plant arca and the berm shall be compacted to not less than 80 percent of relative density as deter =ined by ASIli D 2049..."

l l Contrary to these requirements, the following tests had failing results

andidid .not indica te being cleared by passing tests.

f Sheet 4 of 12 .

DATE: .4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6 Octobcr 3-7', 1977

s. .

PLANT: Midland SUBJECT OF AUDIT:

UNI % 1&2 Scil Placement Records AUDIT REPCRT NO F-77-32 -

V.

Q.OSED OUT FINDINGS ~

~~

w, Iindine 2 (Centd) '

Plant Area Fill _

Tese No. _

Date Samoled _

Ccmosction_ Moisture

-MD 1153#

10-21-76 Actual Optimum 1155 10-21-76 61.6" of Relative Density 1191- 73.5% of Relative Density 1194' 11-03-76 '

'1317 11-02-76 74.6% of Relative Density

s. et I 1318 5-09-77 75.4% of Relative Density d([ 1319 5-09-77 18.0%

5-09-77 15.2%

1320 11.5% 15.2%

5-09-77 , -

1321/ 5-09-77 11.7% 15.2"

~

1337' 5-17-77 94.0% of Man cum Density 12.2% 15 .2%

1388" 6-02-77 .

1393s 12.4" 15.2%

s~

1398- 6-03-77 9.8%

6-03-77 15.2%

1404/ 6-03-77 11.1% 13.4%

1415 ' 6-07-77 11.2% 13.4%

1498' 6-15 -7 7 10.2% 13.4*

1509 ' 6-1o-77 88.2% of thxi=um Density 9.9% 13.4%

14.5" 10.0%

12.9% 15.2%

North Plant Dike MD 418 8-14-74  !

17.2% 20.0% "

Structural Backfill MDR 620 625/ 10-13-76 10-12-76 72.3% of ReLitive Density 629 51.5% of Relative Density 632 10-20-76 637 10-20-76 79.2% of Relative Density 10-21-76 73.5% of Relative Density 663/ 76.3% of Relative Density 664# 11-11-76 667 / 11-11-76 53.0% of Relative Density 11-11-76 72.3% of Relative Density 673 67.5% of Relative Density 11-23 679 33.9% of Relative Density 11-23-76 630 / 11-23-76 71.8% of Rela tive Density 682/' 11-24-76 60.0% of Rela tive Density 688 / 11 76 70.6% of Relative Density 700 1-13-77 77.1%

. 7.5 of Relative Density 701 1-13-77 0% of Relative Density 721 / 3-14-77 68.1" of Relative Density ...

60.0% of Relative Density q;r- 7:e r-E fiM e- Sheet 5 of

, FILE: .4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6

. DATE: October 3-7, 1977 Midicnd PLANT: UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:

Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 s'

V. CIOSED OUT' FINDINGS '

Finding 2' Structural Backfill (Contd)-

Pbisture Test No. 'Date Sampled Compaction Actual Optimum HDR 734/ 3-17-77 34.0% of Relative Density 736/ 3-18-77 79.0% of Relative Density 737j 3-18-77 41.9% of Relative Density 738 j 3-18-77 72.4% of Relative Density

  • 739 3-18-77 70.6%. of Relative Density 740 # 3-18-77 69.3% of Relative Density 741f 3-11-77 77'.8% of Re*1ative Density
  • 744?' 3-21-77 56.2%.of Relative Density 746 ' 3-21-77 54.91 of. Relative Density

, . 757 3-23-77 68.7% of Relative Density 767- 3-29-77 54.3% of Relative Density

  • 768s" 3-30-77 66'.9L of Relative Density - - -

'770 ~ 3-30-77 .65.00 of Relative Density 78 5 ' 4-07-77 69.3T of Relative Density 79 9' 4-12-77 78.8% of Relative Density .

~

826' 4 7 7 70.4% of Rela tive Density 843- 4-28-77 66.8% of Relative Density 845 " 4-29-77 70.4%. of Relative Density 854 5-09-77 67.4% of Relative Density 861 5-10-77 76.31 of Relative Density 861 5-10-77 74.0% of Relative Density 889' 5-13-7 7 56.5I of Relative Density 914

  • 5-24-77 9.0% 11.8%

922' 5-26-77 75.7% of Relative Det.sity 925 ' 5-27-77 11.4% 15.2%

938' 6-08-77 56.5E of Relative Density 940/ 6-08-77 78.6% of Relative Density l 993 / 6-25-77 60.2% of Relative Density 998', 6-25-77 77.4% of Relative Density i

l Corrective Action Requested: Determine if there are passing tests in the l same. arca to clear these failing tests. .

Corrective Action Taken: Test reports. Plant Area Fill MD 1317-1320; North

! Plant Dike KD 418; and Structural Backfill MDR 620, 629, 632r 637, 673, 679, .

700, 701, 757, 767, 768 and 770 have been cleared by ~ passing tests. and Struc-tural Backfill represented by MDR 854, 861 and 862 was removed.

~

Corrective Actton Verified October 26, 1977.

l 1

'N . ._ __ _ . , ,_

~

, FILE: . 4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6

. DATE: Oc tobcr 3-7, 1977 PIANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 -

. A ,

V. CLOSED OUT' FINDINGS -

' ~

Finding 2 (Contd)

Corrective Action Takent Test ' reports Plant Area Fill MD 1153, 1155, 1191, 1194, 1321,1337,1388,- 1393,1398,1404,1415,1498,1509 'and Structural Backfill MDR 625, 663, 664, 667, 680, 682, 688, 721, 734, 736-741, 744, 746, 757, 768, 770, 785, 799, 826, 843, 845, 889, 914, 922, 925, 938, 940, 993 and 998' are it. A "Non-0" area and have been efven to CpCo Proiect Manage-ment Organization _ (Field) fo_r resolution in lette- 186FOA.77 ,

Fon further corrective action .see Sectica VI "Open Findings" Finding 2.

4

~

. Finding 3 _

Relative Density Reports 59 and 61 vere missing from the QC Vault.

Corrective Action Requested:. Obtain copies of these reports and place them-

~

~

in the QC Vaul % -

"r-Corrective Action Takent Copies have been obtained and placed in the QC

' Document. Vault. ' - ~ ^

Corrective actica, verified October 26, 1977.

VI. OPEN FI5 DINGS -

Finding 1 -

Specification. C-210, Revisien 5 Section 12.6.1 states in part, "The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture contene and shall not be more chan 2' percentage points above moisture content..J' Specification C-210, Revisipn 5' Section 13.7.1 states, "All cohesive back-

^

. fill in the. plant area and the berr shall be ec=pacted to not less than 95 percent. of maximum density as . determined by ASTM D 1557,.. Method D".

Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-less backfill in. the plant area and the. bern shall be. compacted to not less than 80 percent of relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049.. ."

, Cont'rary to these requirements, the following tests- had been passed using incorrect testingtdata. Using ~ the correct: testing data, the tests fail.

~

Sheet 7 of 12

1. ' i' FILE: 1.4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6 DATE: October 3-7, 1977

~

PLANT: 'Mid1rnd UNIT 1&2

  • SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement-Records.

AUDIT. REPORT NO F'-77-32 -

VI. OPEN FINDINGS ,

Finding 1 (Contd)

North Pisnt Dika

-. ~ ~

MD 290. (sampled 7-16-74) shows optimum moisture content 11.6. It should be 9.5. Using the correct optimum moisture content of 9.5%, the actual

. moisture content is 2.2% above optimud moisture ' content.

HD 360 (sampled 7-31-74) shows optimum moistura content as 21.,4. It should be:15.2. This also shows maximum lab dry density as 103.2. It. should be 115.1. . Using tha. correct optimum moisture ' content of 15.2%, the actual moisture content is 5.4% above optimum moisture content. Also using the correct. maximum lab dry density of 115.1, the co'rrect percent of maximum density is 86.4%.  ; ,

HD 377 (sampled 8-6-74) shows ' optimum moisture content as 18.0. It should

, be 15. 2. Using the correct optimum moisture content of 15.2%, the actual

. moisture content is 4.5% above optimum moisture content.

- ~ ' '

Structural Backfill .

~

~

MDR 621.(s~amplid 10-14-76) shows minimum dry lab density as 94.2. . It should be 112.2~. Using the- correct minimum dry lak density of 112.2o the. correct percent of relative ' density is 41.5. '

Corrective Action Requested: -

(1) Determine if there are passing tests in the same area to clear these failing tes ts.,

l (2) If these failing tests cannot be cleared by passing tests in the same

. arca, present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering so Project Engineering can determine what additional tests, reviews, etc. are needed to justify the material these tests represent.. Have P,roject Engineering justify the material these failing tests represent. '

i (3) , Determine- the underlying cause(s)- and. take corrective action to pr(clude

. repe tition.

Correceive Action Taken:. .

' (1) North. Plant Dike MD 290 and MD 377 have- been identified on Bechtel ,

NCR 1005 , North Plant' Dike MD~ 360 and Structural Backfill HDR 621 density problems have been identified on Bechtel NCR 100.4.

Corrective action. verified October' 26,1977.

North Plant Dike MD 360 =oisture proble= has been identified on revised NCR 1005. .

_ .c u_ _ _; Corrective action verified _ October 28m_1977.

h , , FILE:

DATE:

4.3.4 & 18.4'.3.6 vetebar 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SU3 JECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 h

4 VI. OPEN FINDINGS ' '

Finding- 1 (Contd)

NCR. QF-199 bas been written to resolve the corrective action still open.

~

Finding 2.

Spec 4.fication C-210, Revision 5 Section 12.6.1 states in part, "The water content during compactica shall not be more. than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture content and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above optimum moistura content..." '

Specification C-210, 2evision 5 Section 13.7.1 states, "All cohesive backfill in the plant area. and the berm sh'all be compacted I.o not less than 95 percent

- of maximum density as deter =ined. by ' ASTM D 1557, Method D".

Specification C-210, Revision Section 12.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-

~ less backfill in the plant. area and the berm shall be ecmpacted to not less than 80 percent of relative density as deter =ined by ASTM D 2049".

. . .. - e. - .

Contrary to these requirements, the following tests had failing results ani did not indicate being cleared by passing tests or had been marked passing.

North Plant Dike. . -

MD 142 (sampled 5-30-74) shcws optimum moisture content 8.0, moisture conten 10.3. This test failed but it is shown as passing.

MD 143 (sa= pled'5-30-74) shows opti=um moisture content 13.8, moisture content 11.4. This failed but it is shown as passing.

l -

l West- Plant Dike MD 227 (sa= pled 10-6-75) failed moisture but has not been cleared.

Plant drea Fill Moisture Test No. Date Samoled Comnaced x2 Actual- Ootimum MD 1311 5-03-77 61.6% _ '.ela ..t Density 1326 5-10-77 18.5% 15.22 1328 -

5'10-77 12.2% 15.2%

1412 6-07-77 10.4% 15.22

\ -

I

[" - -

FILE:- .4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6' ,

.. DATE: Octobar 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records

~

' AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 VI. OPEN FINDINGS wi Finding 2 (Contd)

, Structural Backfill Moisture Test No. Date Samoled Comeaction Actual Op timum MDR 621 10-14-76 78.0% of Relative Density 671 11-12-76 74.8% of Relative Density 672 11-23-76 75.4% of Relative Density 11-24-76 685 56.2% of Relativk Density 686 11-24-76 70.9% of Relative Density 691 11-24-76 62.0% of Relative Density Corrective Action Requested:

(1) Determine if there are passing tests in the same area to clear these,

, failing tests.

(2) If these failing tests. cannot be cleared by passing ' tests in the same .

's.

' area, present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering so Project Engi *ering can determine.. what additional tests, reviews, etc. are needos to justify the material these tests represent. Have Project Engineering. justify the material these failing tes.ts represent.

(3) Determine the underlying cause(s) and take correc;.ive action to pre-clude repetition. __

Corrective Action Taken:

(1) Bechtel QC has determined that none' of the above have passing tests in the same arca to elecr the failing. tests. -

(2) North Plant Dike MD 141 and MD 143, West Plant Dike MD 227 and Planr

, Area Fill MD 1326,1328 and.1411 have been- identified on Cechtel NCR 1005. Structural Backfill MDR 621, ~671, 672, 685, and 686 have been identified. on Bechtel NCR.1004.

(3) Corrective action has been taken as of the last oi July,1977 by Bechtel QC and U.S. Testing to more adequately clear failing tests. Therefore, the corrective action to preclude re etition for not clearing failing tests need not be addressed.

Corrective action verified October 26, 1977 Plant Area FLL1 MD 1311 has been identified on revised NCR 1004.

Corrective action ve;tlied November 1,1977.

NCR QF-199 has been wriiten to resolve the corrective action still open.

,' ', (h) FILE:

DATE:

(().4.3.4618.4.3.6 vetobar 3-7, 1977 s

PLANT: Midland UNIT 1&1 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Scil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 .

VI. OPEN~FI5 DINGS (Contd) -

Finding 3 S'pecification- C-211 Revision 3 Section 5.6.2 states in part, " Material de-livered to the jobsite for use as structural backfill shall be visually in -

spected, and tested in accordance with ASTM. C-136. . ." ,

ASIE Cl36-71 Section 4.2 states in part, "In no case, however, shall the frac-tion retained on any sieve at the completion of the sieving operation weigh more than 4g/in.2 of sieving surface. ~

Note 2"- This amounts 'to 200g for the usual 8. in. (203-mm) diameter sieve".

To preclude repetition to NCR' QF-152 (the same deficiency as this) 3 U.S.

Testing developed a new gradation ~ form that has check points that include documenting that the 200 gram materi'al limit on any individual 8' inch sieve has. not been exceeded. In addition, a training session was held on February 21, 1977.

(7 ,

( Project Quality Control Instruction No. SC-1.05 " Material Testing Services N -

and Concrete. Production" Rev. 3 Section. 2.7.1 Reports, Item A states, "Perfors

. a daily ' review of the subcontractor's jobsite inspection and test. reports.

'fo' r acceptability, completeness, and the laboratory chie1's signature for concrete, steel, and soils. Sign and date en the report verifying the acceptable s ta tus"~.

Contrary to these require =ents:

Structural Backffl1 Date Samoled Amount Retained Log Number

  • G- 270 1-13-77 #40 Sit e-- 225.2g 0364 , 4-27-77 #10 Sieve - 217.lg 0417 5-11-77 #10 Sieve - 221.4g 0431 5-16-77 #10 Sieve - 260.lg 045L 5-18-77 #10 Sieve - 211.7g 0505 6-02-77 #.00 Sieve - 228.0g-0704 7-18 #10 Sieve - 249.5g Corrective- Action Requested:

~

(1) Present thesc findings to Bechtel Project En'gineering and obtain engineer-ing rationale from 3echtel Project Engineering as to the acceptability of the =sterial these tests represent.

(2) Evic*antly the corrective action taken in NCF QF-152 was. not adeqr. ate.

Determine the underlying cause(s) and take further corrective cetion to preclude repetition. .

=~ -

Sneet 11 of 17 I

', , , (") ,, ,

FILE: h.4.3.4&18.4.3.6

, .- DATE: 'occobar 3-7, 1977 Midland

~

  • PLANT: UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement Records AUDIT' REPORT NO F-77-32 VI. OPEN FINDINGS - -

Finding 3'(Contd)

Corrective Actio'n Taken:

(1)~ These- findings; have been" identified on Bechtel. NCR 1006.

Corrective action verified October 26, 1977.

NCR QF-195 has been written to resolve the corrective action still open.

VII. NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS

  • QF-195 '

QF-199 -

t l

l l

l l

1

( -

l i

(

- Sheet 11 of 12

{ .

,. uuu i t: iu i nio t.v - r run n y- _

r s i.c - . . . . . - . . . .

ay une , 9, 10, 1977 f#

a kfi Ib  ! ' ,

l hN

,a I JFNewgen

GLRichardson I.hdj U~'UEEIIY QUALITY ASSURANCE

  • PLAN@h  : Midland UNIT I F, ? -

HWSlager PRocRAM SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soils Placement and Inspection OA SUBJ FILE i .

I. AUDIT-SCOPE The purpose of this audit is to' verify that . oils placement and inspection are' s

being accomplished in accordance with Bechtel's procedures, specifications and -

codes.<

II. AUDITOR G. B. Johnson, CPCo' Field Quality Assurance Engineer (Civil)

III. PERSONNEL CONTACTED

~ ** Ben Cheek, Bechtel Lead Civil Quality Contsrol Engineer .

  • Daryle Osborn, Bechtel Quality Control Engineer (Civil)

IV. SU;'?.ARY OF AUDIT '

~

A. A Pre-Audit Conference was held'on May 23, 1977 at Daryle Osborn's desk with those in attendance as noted in Sections II and III above. The audit scope was the only item discussed.

8. The audit was performed on the placement and inspection of zone 2 material e in the plant area South of the Turbine Building at elevations 620' - 622'.

The backfilling operation was centered aro.md plant coordinates S 5070 and E 36Q.. The attached checklist was used.

C. The soils placement and inspection seeme'd adequate except as described in Section V of this report.

D. Future audits will be run the same, when scheduled.

E. A Post-Audit Conference was held on June 16, 1977 in Ben Cheek's office .

with those in attendance as noted in Sections II and III above. The Post-Audit Conference consisted of telling Ben Cheek and Daryle Osborn that the results of this audit were adequate except for Findings #1 & #2 in Section V.

CLOSED OUT V. FINDINGS Finding #1 Bechtel Specification 7220-C-210, Rev. 4, Section 12.6.1, states in part:

! The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage .

points below optimum moisture content and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above optimum moisture content. . . . .

'[

. .:. 2m T

  • Attended Pre-Audit Conference and Fost-Audit Conference
    • Attended Post Audit Conference _

BY VI . ibd-M DATE h i fulv ~7 '7 SHEET. 1 OF

~

~3

%.W. b ct M.

~

. ,..u (- 2 S.!.7 X

/

.  ; 4./ -

File: "'

/ ,,-

h' Date: M. 4.3.4, 25, &18.4.3.6 June 8, 9, 10, 1977 Plent: Midland 1 & 2 Subject of Audit: Soils Placement tand Inspection Ricort No F-77-21

/ -

CLOSED OUT V. FINDINGS - "

a Findinq #1 (Contd) '

Contrary to These Requirenents: .

Backfill was placec at.a lif t which was determined to be greater than 2% below optimum mcis ure content.(Plant Backfill Test #1352, optimum -

15.2%, actual 12.S".;-). When questioned, the Foreman directirig the : soils work stated that he w:uld continue backfilling since satisfactory compaction had beam a:tained.

Recommended Corrective A:fon:

1. Th direc-ing the soils work should be instructed as to the requireo moisture content limits.
2. Bechtel QC shou id determine if a re-test had been accomplished on the lif t in ques"on. If a re-test had not been. accomplished .it will be necessa y :o obtain one. If the affected material 'is found.

to be nonconfo, .irg, gn evaluation will have to be made tas to the acceptability c- :le in-place material by Project Engineering.

Corrective Action Taken:

1. Bechtel QC infer:r+.i th forema directing the soils work of the required moistu: e :ontene ....a ts and what to do if a failing test occurs.
2. A retest was tamer in the area and the retest passed (Plant Backfill

. Test 1414).

Finding #2 Bechtel Specification C .23f, Rev.10, Table 9-1,. states in part:

Field Densities and ".dsture Contents will be taken at the frequency of .

one test per every 53: cubic yards of fill.

Contrary to These Requirrats:

During the audit it wu discovered that the Foreman directing the soils work believed that :nt required frequency for testing of field density and moisture conten . as one test per 1000 cubic yards of fill.

Recomnended Corrective Ac m:

~

r 1.

Thsfareman correc t tes t.

dire- ar the soils work should be instructed as to the isc..ancy requirements.

Sheet 2 of 3

__ _. _. - -o

1

' Date: Ma y 25, & 'Jun2 8, 9, 10, 1977

? /

d' - *

h. .

,, Plant: g land 1 & 2 Subject v. Audit:

Soils Placement and s Inspection Report ho F-77-21 CLOSED OUT - ' ~'

[ V. FINDINGS . -

Finding #2 (Contd) -

  • Recommended Corrective Action: (Contd)

~

2. Bechtel QC should determine if the 1/500 cy test frequency has been exceeded. If the test frequency has been exceeded, an evaluation will have. to be made as to the acceptability of the in-place material by Project Engi~neering., '

Corrective Action -Taken:

1. Becht'el QC informed th directing the soils work of the correct test frequency requireme,nts. -
2. Bechtel QC made an evaluation concerning the frequency of testing in the affected area. It was determined that between 5/13/77 and 6/17/77, 18,200 cy of random backfill was placed South and East of -

the Turbine Building. 57 Tests were taken on this material which results in an overall test frequency of 320 cy/ test. The majoritj

.. of this 18,200 cy was placed in a fl0N-Q area.

VI. HONCONFORMANCE REPORTS -"

None , -

G

~

~

Sheet 3 of 3

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20005C175&oldid=2602518"