ML20010A184
| ML20010A184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Kelley W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010A180 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900748 NUDOCS 8108110154 | |
| Download: ML20010A184 (11) | |
Text
q m
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV 46 Report No. 999007M/81-01 Program No. 51400 Company:
Hilti, Inc.
4115 South 100 East Ave.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145 Inspection Conducted:
April 27-30, 1981 h.,
/, ////h Inspector:
.t Wm. D. Kelley, ContractorjInspector - Mecnanical Engineere Date /
Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch 0
).
V) 6/Wh Approvedeby:
,b Lu] t(n
/
I.NBarnes, Chief
/
Uate Reactive Inspectior. Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summary 46 Inspection on April 27-30, 1981 (999007M/81-01)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and applicaule cndes and standards including: initial management meeting; quality assurance program review; and the Hilti, Inc. reported 10 CFR Part 21 deficiency concerning one inch Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors.
The inspection involved 27 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
In the three areas inspected, no nonconformances or unresolved items were identified.
8AOB110154 810622 PDR GA999 EMVHILTI 99900748 PDR
e-
\\
2 DETAILS A.
Persons Contacted Hilti, Inc. (HI)
- J. Bradley - Executive Vice President
- M. Friedman - Vice President / Marketing
- H. L. Henkel - Director / Technical Serv'ces D. Judd - Metallurgist S. Ray 1 - Director / Quality Assurance
- Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Interview (See paragraph E).
B.
Initial Management Meeting 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to accomplish the following:
To meet with the HI management and those persons responsible a.
for the administration of the Quality Assurance Program, for the purpose of establishing channels of communication.
b.
To determine the extent of the company's involvement in the commercial nuclear business.
c.
To explain the NRC direct inspection program including the LCVIP organization, VIB inspection method and documentation.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by a meeting on April 30, 1981.
The following is a summary of the meeting:
a.
Attendees were:
J. Bradley - Executive Vice President M. Briedman - Vice President / Marketing H. L. Henkel - Director / Technical Services b.
The VIB organization was described and its relationship to Region IV and Headquarters component of NRC-Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
3 The LCVIP function was described including the reasons for its c.
establishment, its objectives, its implementation structure, and the more significant program changes.
d.
The conduct of VIB inspections was described and how the inspec-tions results are documented and reported, and what the responses to reports, should include.
How proprietary information is handled, the Public Document Room, and the White Book were also explained.
The company's contribution to the nuclear industry was dis-e.
cussed including current and projected activities.
3.
Results Management acknowledged the NRC presentation as being understood by them, and provided the inspector with the following information concernin[, ne company's activities and products.
Tho HI is part of an international company (Hilti) with a.
approximately 8,000 employees, that manufactures and sells fasteners and fastener installation tools.
The corporate office is in Liechtenstein, the research and development center is in Munich, Germany and sales offices and manufacturing facilities are located in 25 countries.
Hilti entered the U. S.
market in 1965 with their powder actuated fasteners and fastener installation tools.
In 1970 Hilti purchased McCulloch Industries, Inc., (MII) Minneapolis, Minnesota, who owned the patent and manufactured and marketed the Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchor.
The sales and marketing of Hilti products including MII products were handled by Hilti Fastening Systems (HFS) Stamford, Connecticut.
In 1979, Hilti moved MII to the present facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and changed the organization name to Hilti Industries Inc. (HII).
In 1980 HFS was moved to Tulsa and their name changed to Hilti, Inc.
(HI).
Hilti Engineering - North America formed in 1980 as an extension of the hip. Group's Central Development Headquarters in Europe, and has been assigned the responsi-bility of controlling product design and specifications for production in North America.
The HI Tuls! office is the Hilti sales and marketing headquarters for North, Central and South America.
The testing of products and training of personnel in the use of the fastener installation tools and the proper installation of their line of fasteners b conducted in their Tulsa Testing and Training Center.
HII has a buildinc of approximately 300,000 square feet for the assembly of fastener installation tools, the manufacture of a limited number of
3 4
their parts, the manufacture of the Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors and the HDI Drop In (Flush) Anchors.
b.
Approximately three percent of HI sales are to the electric power industry, with one tenth (1/10) of one percent of the sales for mechanical expansion anchors requiring certified mill test reports and traceability of material.
C.
Quality Assurance Program Review 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertan, whether the QA program has been documented in writing, and if properly implemented, will ensure that the specified quality of completed compor, ants has been achieved in compliance with NRC rules and regulat ions, code and contractual requirements.
Also, ascertain whether the program provides for the following:
a.
Management's policy statements concerning QA.
b.
Delineates how the QA organization is structured, to achieve appropriate independence from scheduling and costs, the freedom and independence to identify quality problems, initiate appropri-ate resolutions, and verify corrective action.
c.
Whether the duties and authority of the QA staff are clearly delineated in writing, and that they have access to a level of management that can ensure effective implementation of the QA program elements, and to enforce positive and timely cor-rective action.
d.
Detailed written procedures are properly reviewed, approved, released, and issued to control quality activities, as appropriate.
e.
A training and indoctrination program to improve or maintain the proficiency of personnel performing quality activities, and personnel verifying that quality activities have been correctly performed.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM 101), revised April 1981, to verify compliance with Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.
l
5 b.
Review of appropriate organization charts.
i Review of the documents concerning the authority duties, c.
independence and freedom of the Quality Assurance staff.
d.
Review of Statement of Authority, Revision date April 1, 1981, signed by H. Burleigh - President and S. Ray 1 - Director / Quality Assurance.
Review of documents listed in paragraph D.3.0. to verify that e.
they had been reviewed and approved by authorized personnel.
f.
Review of the training and indoctrination program requirements and documentation.
g.
Interviews with cognizant personnel.
h.
Observation of the manufacturing, inspection and assembly of the Kwik-Bolt anchors.
3.
Findings a.
Within this area of the inspection, no nonconformances or unresolved items were identified.
b.
The evidence demonstrates that the QA program has been documented in writing and clearly defines the duties, authority, and organi-zational independence and freedom of the QA staff.
Detailed written implementing documents are appropriately reviewed, approved, released, and issued by authorized personnel.
The QA staff has access to a level of management to ensure effective implementation of the program and timely and positive corrective action of enforcement items.
A viable training and indoctrination program has been provided for upcrading, and maintaining, the proficiencies of personnel involved in quality activities.
D.
Hilti, Inc. Reported 10 CFR Part 21 D#;iiciency Concerning One Inch Kwik-Bolt Mechanical Exoansi;o Anchors
===1.
Background===
Hilti, Inc, (HI) notified Headquarters of the Nuclear Regulatory Co.nmi - f2- 04RC), Office of Inspection and Enforcement by letters dated September 11, 12, and 17, 1980, that as a result of in-house testing of one inch diameter Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors the average ultimate tensile load was found to be lower than the average ultimate tensile load orovided by HI to their customers and architect-engineering firms in tneir catalog.
On October 27, 1980, HI notified
t 6
their customers and architect-engineering firms of their finding.
Subsequent to receiving this notification, Houston Power and Light Company (HL&P), notified Region IV of the NRC by telephone on Decamber 12, 1980, that they had been notified by HI that the one inch Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors received at their South Texas Project Unit 1 and 2 may not achieve the average ultimate tensile load stated in their catalog.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether HI had determined the cause of the average tensile load of their one inch Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors tested "in-house" being lower than the values published in their catalog, and whether the reported deficiency had been evaluated, and reported in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of HI letters of September 11, 13, and 17, 1980, to ve;'#y that HI had evaluated the lower average tensile load of the one inch Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchor and notified NRC in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21.
b.
Review of HI letter of October 29, 1980, to Headquarters of NRC-Office of Inspection and Enforcement to verify they had informed NRC of the architect-engineering firms and cu',tomers they had notified of the lower average tensile load icentified in their 10 CFR Part 21 Report.
c.
Review of the customer accepted Quality Assurance Manual (QAM-101) revised April 1,1981, to verify that it met the requirements of paragraph NCA-3800 of Section III to the ASME Codi, Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and ANSI N45.2.
d.
Review of NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-02, Revision 2, " Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts," to verify that:
(1) The minimum factor of safety acceptable to NRC between the wedge type concrete anchor bolt design load and the ultimate capacity determined from static load tests is four.
(2) The use of reduced factors of safety in the factored load approach of ACI 349-76 had not been accepted by the NRC.
l.
7 (3) The licensee is required to provide a 95 percent confidence level that less than 5 percent defective anchors are installed in any one seismic Category I system.
(4) Bolts which are found during the testing program not to be preloaded to a load equal to or greater than bolt design load must be proper!y preloaded or it must be shown that the lack of preloading is not cetrimental to cyclic loading capability.
e.
Review of Code Case N-71-7 (1644-7) to verify that carbon steei of nominal composition AISI 1141 and AISI 1144 (ASTM Specification A108-73), are acceptable materials for component supports used in nuclear plants.
f.
Review of the design of the Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchor to determine if there had been any change in the product since the qualification tests were performed in 1973.
g.
Review of the results of the tests performed at various nuclear plant construction sites, to determine if the low average tensile load was restricted to the one inch diameter Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchor.
h.
Review of the test report entitled " Kwik-Bolt Testing Program" dated September 7, 1973, by Abbot A. Hanks Testing Laboratories, San Francisco, California, to determine that the qualification tests were conducted in accordance with a controlled procedure.
i.
Review of the on line and receiving inspection of Kwik-Bolts material and parts to verify that they conformed to the drawings and purchase specifications.
l j.
Review of architect engineers specifications and purchase orders, and HI Field Orders for eight purchase orders for Kwik-Bolts delivered to five nuclear plant sites.
l k.
Observation of the roving inspector performing parts inspection and verification that the inspector's finding were documented in accordance with the Anchor Inspection Procedure.
1.
Review of the receiving inspection of purchased parts and verification that the parts were inspected for conformance with approved drawings, in accordance with the sampling plan invoked by the Anchor Inspection Procedure, Review of the Computer printout of Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion m.
ani hor purchasers to verify that the architect-engineering
E 8
firms and customers involved in nuclear plant construction were identified.
n.
Review of the ultimate tensile load test data for the 5/8 inch through 1 1/4 inch Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors performed at Houston Power and Light Company, South Texas Project, to verify that the average ultimate tension loads exceeded the average ultimate tension loads published in the HI catalog.
o.
Review of the list of nuclear plants where Kwik-Bolt mechanical expansion anchors had been tested and examination of the following selected test reports:
(1) Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (2) Public Service of New Hampshire, Seabrook Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, and (3) Pennsylvania Power and Light Company - Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, p.
Inspection of the HII test facilities to verify that the type and size of concrete test blocks, test equipment and recording and instrumentation used in performing the ultimate tension load test were in accordance with requirements'of the test procedure.
q.
Review of the training film used for training MP&LC, Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, construction personnel to verify that it provided proper indoctrination.
Inspection of the bulletin board to verify that 10 CFR Part 21 r.
iiad been posted and available to all employees.
s.
Interviews with cognizant personnel concerning the low ulti-mate tensile loads to verify its reportability in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
4.
Findinas a.
Within this area of the inspection, no nonconformances or unresolved items were identified.
b.
The Bechtel Power Corp. (BPC) Gaithersburg, Maryland initiated a test of concrete expansion anchor bolts delivered to the Mississippi Power and Light Company, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2.
.~
9 The purpcse of the test program was to provide information on the effect of abandoned fastener holes on the ultimate tensile load " pull out" capacity of wedge type concrete mechanical expansion anchor bolts.
The abandoned holes are a result of striking reinforcing steel or other obstructions when drilling holes for the field installation of the anchors.
The test program consisted of a total of 98 " ultimate tensile load" tests of HII 5/8 inch, 3/4 inch, and 1 inch Kwik-Bolt wedge type concrete mechanical expansion (Kwik-Bolt) anchors.
The configurations of abandoned holes used for the tests were:
g (a) two holes, 135 apart,oneangonehalfboltdiametersaway from the bolt; (b) four holes, 90 apagt,twoboltdiameters away from the bolt; (c) four holes, 90 apart,threegolt diameters away from the bolt; and (d) eight holes, 45 apart, three bolt diameters away from the bolt.
The tests included the leaving of the unused holes empty, leaving a cut-off bolt in the unused holes, and filling the unused holes with dry pack mortar.
The testing of the Kwik-Bolt anchors was conducted in 1980 at the Testing Facilities of the University of Tennessee (UT), Department of Civil Engineering, under the direction of Dr. E. G. Burdette.
The summary of the Interim Report states "... the results of the pull-out test on 5/8 inch diameter bolts are remarkably consistent.
. The results for 3/4 inch diameter bolts are, except for one low value in Series C, reasonably consistent.
However, the results for the 1 inch diameter bolts show two extremely low values (A3 ar.d C1),
and in fact all of the pull-out loads for the 1 inch anchors seem to be :omewhat low in comparison with the results for the 3/4 inch anchors...."
Peragraph 3.5 " Discussion" of the " Final Report - Tests on Hilti Kwik-Bolts," dated June 16, 1980, states, "It is unreasonable to expect that results of pull-out test on wedge bolts will not exhibit significant scatter; the wedging device bearing against the sides of a hole in nonhomogeneous concrete could not be expected to lead to perfectly consistent results...."
A meeting was held at the HI Testing and Training Center at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on September 3 and 4,1980, with representatives of BPC, UT, and HI to finalize and agree to the test procedure (Hilti Kwik-Bolt Test Procedure) used to test the one inch Kwik-Bolt anchors (Catalog No. 5500134).
A total of 25 one inch dianeter by nine inch long and three one inch diameter by 12 inch long Kwik-Bolt anchors were tested
10 in accordance w?th the igreed test procedure.
The concrete test block in which the Kwik-Bolt anchors were installed was made using a limestone aggregate with a test cylinder 28 day strength of 4837 psi.
The Kwik-Polt anchors were installed with pretorques of 300, 200, 150 and 0 foot pounds.
The ultimate te.sion loads recorded were in the range of 20,680 to 27,025 pounds with an average ultimate tensile load of 23,441 pounds for 24 anchors ' embedded seven and one half (7 ) inches.
This is lower than the published value of 27,500 pounds in their catalog.
As a result of the low ultimate tensile load values, HI, UT, and BPC agreed that cores should be obtained from the test concrete block, tested and correlated to obtain an accurate concrete strength value.
Six four inch diameter by eight inch long cores were taken from the test concrete block and tested by an independent testing laboratory, which reported an average test value of 3800 psi.
HI convened their Material Review Board in accordance with Section P of their Quality Assurance Manual (QAM-101), and advised the responsible officer that low average ultimate tensile load for the one inch Kwik-Bolt anchor was a reportable defect as defined in 10 CFR Part 21.
HI notified Headquarters of NRC of the defect by letters dated September 11 and 12, 1980, and the responsible officer supplemented the information in these letters, by complying more specifically with the format outlined in 10 CFR Part 21 in his letter of September 17, 1980.
The director / technical services developed a computer,rintout that identified all the purchasers of the Kwik-Bolt anchors.
He then selected all architect-engineering firms and owners of nuclear and fossil power plants and notified these customers by letter dated October 27, 1980, of the low averace ultimate tensile load (23,441 pounds).
Customers were also advised to revise their HI catalog by replacing the existing one inch Kwik-Bolt anchor data with the correction sheet attached to his letter.
HI informed Headquarters of NRC by letter dated October 29, 1980, of the architect-engineering firms and customers to whom they had sent their letter of October 27, 1980.
c.
During the period from April to August of 1973, Abbot A. Hanks Testing Laboratories (AAHTL), conducted the qualification test of the Kwik-Bolt expansion anchors installed in concrete blocks test designed for compressive strengths of 2000, 4000, and 6000 psi in accordance with Hilti Fastening Systems, Inc.
(HFS) Stamford, Connecticuut, " Kwik-Bolt Test Program" i
~
r 11 dated March 8, 1973.
ASTM Standard E-488, " Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors ir. Concrete and Masonry Elements," requirec a minimum of three tensile tests per anchor in obtaining the average ultimate load.
Five anchors, however, were testet, by AAHTL to obtain the average ultimate tensile load values contained in their Report No. 8783, dated June 29, 1974, and published in the HI catalog.
The ASTM Sts.adard was revised in 1976 and AAHTL issued a summary Report No. 8783R dated March 24, 1977 which states, "The testing program substantially meets the static test criteria for tests in concrete described in ASTM E-488-76..."
d.
HI has recognized that there are certain variables that affect the average ultimate tensile load of the Kwik-Bolt expansion anchors; these are (1) hole size, (2) depth of installed Kwik-Bolt (3) training of site craftmen, (4) concrete compressive strength, (5) type of aggregate, (6) fastener spacing, (7) edge distance, (8) air entrainment and/or lightweight concrete.
However, they have been unable to ascertain the reason for the difference in the results between the AAHTL data and the UT and HI data for the one inch Kwik-Bolt anchor.
Attempts to obtain archival samples from AAHTL for evaluation were unsuccessful.
HI is continuing their investigation to determine the cause of the low average ultimate tensile load for the one inch Kwik Bolt ancnor.
5.
Evaluation of Reportability The NRC inspector determined from the do::uments reviewed, that the reported deficiency had been processed, evaluated, and reported by HI in a manner that was consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and had issued a correction sheet for insertion in their catalog to all their customers and architect / engineering firms that had purchased and/
or ordered one inch Kwik-Bolt evoansion anchor for installation in nuclear plants.
E.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on April 30, 1981, the inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them as to the results of the inspection.
During this meeting management was informed no nonconforraance or unresolved items were identified.
The company's management acknowledged the inspector's statement and had no additional comments.
,