ML20083J631

Forwards third-party Assessment 831208 Meeting Minutes. Meeting Covered Remedial Soils & Const Completion Programs

ML20083J631
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/15/1983
From:	Lucks A STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
To:	Harrison J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20083J610	List: ML20083J631 ML20083J639 ML20083J650 ML20083J653 ML20083J682 ML20083J688
References
J.O.-14509, NUDOCS 8401100224
Download: ML20083J631 (28)

Text

.

- STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.

P.O. Box 2325 Boston. M AssAcHusETTs 02107 Mr. J. J. Harrison December 15, 1983 Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. O. No. 14509 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Re: DOCKET N0. 50-329/330 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT MONTHLY THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENT MEETING The protocol governing comunications for the Remedial Soils and Construction ,

Completion Programs at the Midl6nd Plant, specifies a monthly meeting to discuss third party assessment activities and assigns preparation of the minutes of those meetings to Stone & Webster.

Enclosed are minutes of the meeting held on December 8, 1983.

t M A. S. Lucks W [0" A. P. Amoruso Project Manager Project Manager CIO Underpinning and Remedial Soils Enclosures cc: JWCook, CPCo DLQuamme. CPCo RAWells, CPCo t

8401100224 840106 '

3 i

gDRADOCK 05000329 PDR R

%Y

. . ~ . . .. . . .. ---. --- .

4.

MINUTES OF THE EETING OF DECDEER 8,1983 STATUS OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING AND RENEDIAL SOIL WORK Purpose This was a Public meeting to discuss the Third Party Overview activities of Stone & Webster (S&W) and observations encountem d regarding underpinning and remedial soils work.

Sumary A.S. Lucks opened the Assessment Team's presentation by stating it would consist of three parts: first, A.S. Lucks would address two of three action items assigned at the previous Public meeting; second.W.E. Kilker would cover the Assessment Team's activities for the month; and third.W.C. Craig would add m ss the third action item with a presentation on his report concerning the change and nonconformance documents.

A.S. Lucks began the'first part of the presentation adiiressing the first of J

two action items. This First item concerned a question by the NRC as to whether two NCRs written against a concmte pour wem mlated to problems -

with U.S. Testing. A.S. Imeks stated that the governing specification for the comrete cylinders in question requimd that the forms be removed between 12 and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after placement or after 7 days. QC had not verified compliance with the requirement so MPQAD issued two NCRs against QC. This problem was not related to U.S. Testing. ,

The second action item concerned the status of the Stop Work Order review of change documents pertaining to soils. A.S. Incks presented the status as of December 6, 1983. The breakdown is as follow:

i

+

~ , -e,,--- ,--e ,,-w -..,w.w... , we,- ,,--,,r- --e, wey,- , - - , ,e-,wm, -,n,,,,-,-w.,-, wgn,wwy -m-m,-,-----re ,_-,w,-r- --,--mr,,r-e

+

2

-2 o .

e Total civil FCRs/FCNs related to soils - 856 9 Phase I review of fCRs/FCNs indicating potential problems - 410

$ Phase 2 review of the 410 Phase I doceents that contain problems

- 208 A.S. Lucks indicated that the most significant result as of December 6th, was that no NCRs have been issued for the soils area fra either Phase 1 or Phase 2 I

reviews. The Assessment Team along with the CIO Team are reviewing the Phase 1 product. This review has not been completed and there are no Assessment Team conclusions to date. Mr. Wells confirmed the soils figures and added that 8 NCRs*had been written so far for the total effort. These relate to questions of generic implementation.

W.E. Kilker opened his presentation by indicating that, due to the Stop Work Order no construction progress had been accomplished on the underpinning. A l

, \

stunmary of the Assessment Team activities during the period November 5 through December E.1983, follows :

9 A review of crack monitoring procedures and activities of the a

subcontractor Wiss,Janney & Elstner (WJE) was the major

, , Assessment Team effort during this time. The review results ,

indicated:

1. Minor data recording problems.

2) A prt>cedural violation where the subcontract used a , ,

p u edure with a hold indicated on it. The related specification did not have a corresponding' hold on it.

NIR 16 was issued.

h Incomplete entry of crack monitoring data for a particular wall. NIR 18 was issued.

S h 4

g

. - , . ,e 9-.-- --.--,.._,,,_La-.. , - - - . . - . . _ . - _ . . _ , , . . . , , - , , - , . , . , , - , - _ , . , , , . . , , - . , . . - . - - - . - . ,

. . . 3--

4. Prior to the Assessment Team review,NCRs and QARs ,

had been issued against WJE for pr.ocedural violations. , An Assessment Team observation stated that not enough attenti6n was given by Consumers Power Comoany (CPCo) '

in perfoming the crack maoping.

5. More attention should be paid to coordinating procedure changes with specification changes and vice versa.

/

' 6.) The MPQAD group follow-up for closing out inspection reports A. ,

should be more prompt. No PIPRs had been issued for the crack monitoring. NIR 19 was issued.

In sumary, three NIRs (16,18,19) and numerous NCRs and QARs have been written concerning data on this subject. They require resolution prior to continuing construction upon release of the Stop Work Order. The data itself is basically sound and should.not be

. voided. Problems were mainly procedural, for example, attention to minor details and timeliness for closecut. Mr. Harrison stated that

- the NRC has issued a document to Mr. Qua m e dated December 6, 1983,

, placing a noid on soils work until this issue is resolved.

O An overview of FSO prepared Werk Activity Packages (WAPs) by the Assessment Team continued. 'No overviews were conducted, s

one on Piers 2/W5 and grillages and the other on anchor bolt installation in the Service Wate Pump Structure. Mr. . Landsman asked that in the fbture weekly reports, the subject of the WAP be identified along with the WAP niunber. W.E. Kilker agreed.

" a e

,-- , --e, , , , + - , , , , , . . , - . _ _ - , , , , , , . , , , . - , _ , , - - , , , ,

e,,, , _ _ , , , , _ _ _ _ , _ _ ,- . , , , _ , ,_ ,, ,, _ ____,, , _ , _ _ _ .

4 9 he Assessment Team comitment to review past weekly reports for open items with closures that may not have been fully documented, has been completed. All open items identified as requiring verification of closure have now been closed.

O he las,t activity was sumarized by A.S. Lucks concerning the S&W review of FCR/FCN resolution.

he status of NIRs is as follows:

G NIR 14 is in the process of being closed on the basis of a response that has been prepared by MPQAD. h is NIR indicated that the receipt inspection did not properly identify a certain grade of nut to be used with particular bolts on the grillages at Pier 8.

A programmatic investigation produced a revision to the receipt inspection procedure that now requires a ,100 percent inspection where before it was done on a sampling basis. PQCI will verify that the nuts actually installed are those specified on the drawirg.

. On this basis the NIR will be closed.

9 NIRs 16, 18, and 19 have been previously addressed in the discussion of crack monitoring.

O !IIR 17 addressed the Phase 1 review of the change document that is being conducted as a result of the. Stop Work Order. ,later dialogue indicated that the MPQAD review was preliminary and did not match the Assessment Team interpretation of the applicable procedure. h e procedure was changed to clarify this point. he affected FCRs were disposed of in accordance with the Assessment Team interpretation and the NIR was closed.

a h

- 5-

. s W.C. Craig opened the simary of the Assessment Team report " Evaluation of Change /Nonconfermance Doctanents" by explaining that the report was initiated ude to Assessment Team's concerns expressed in Weekly Reports 40, 43, and 46, about the time it was taking to construct piers.

A familiarization process was conducted where Mr. Craig took the following actions:

G # review of design drawings G ' Visits to the site and work areas .

$ Attendance-at' appropriate meetings e An evaluatien of change and nonconfonnance documents to establish trends g Review of governing procedures g An evaluation of the organizational structure for processing the change and nonconformnce documents.

o

, The results indicated that the effect of FCRs and FCNs on construction warranted Ibrther investigation.

4 An analysis of changa/nonconformance response times was perfonned using a large sample of the documents. They were classified to show impact by subject matter. The results indicated that although response times,in general, looked good on a day to day brais, the unique importance of sequencing to underpinning efforts magnified the effect on'the construction schedule.

The reccamendations that resulted from this study were then presented.

Reccanendation No.1

, A prugram implemented to review both existing and new construction procedures, s

,.-J.-

,,-.,,,___,,,.,..,,__.-,-..,.,__,.,---w3yy, , , , . . , ,_,-----.%,_,,,_,_,e_. ,,,,-.m-,. - , _ , -, - - - -a*r-----r-*1 --=r+-e-r---w----- - - - - - - - ~ '

~6

,' s prbject quality control instructions, and project specifications should receive a high priority. This effort should:

4 define poor qualdty attributes, g ensure that activities are more consistent with the 9 intent of, the specifications, e clarify quality requirements G definc better utilization of technical resources in achieving quality goals.

Response to Recommendation No. 1 the Bechtel Field Soils Organization (FSO) presented a proposal for the QAP review program to CPCo. management. Tne generic concept of the QAP review program was accepted by CPCo management. CPCo's management assigned the lead responsiblity of this activity to MPQAD and established a Task Force approach involving a full comittee and subconmitte.

The Task Force committee ' established guidelines as follows:

a. Select subject for a pilot review program

b. Develop guidelines for the subccamittee

c. Identify sabecomittee representatives' '

d. Schedule activities

e. Review subcommittee reccamendations

f. Make reconnendations to management *.

The subcomnittee reviewed installation of Hilti Expansion Anchors and covered the PQCI, Construction Procedure, and the specification and made recommendations to the Task Force committee regarding proposed revisions to these domanents.

i e

p

--- _--,_,__ _ ,, -_-,_,__,__.,_._-,-l..,...-

O

'A second procedure covering structural steel was selected for review.

After the review of the second procedure is completed, the subcannittee will make further recomendations to full ccamittee.

She final extent of this effort and the decision to review other procedures is contingent upon the recomendations that will be made to CPCo's management by the Task Force committee after the completion of the review of the second

. procedure.

t Recomendation No. 2 Expedite the underpinning design work so that the associated design calculations and drawings may be transmitted to the job site along with necessary technical support. This will expand the ability of the Resident Ehgineer to approve the change or non-conformance documents in the shortest time possible. Maximum engineering support at the jobsite would assist with problems encountered with this type of work.

Response to Recomendation No. 2 d

The design calculations for the Borated Water Storage.. Tank'were delivered j to the site as of November 2, 1983.

. The design calculations for the Service Water. Pump Structure will be delivered to the site in two phases. An initial review of the proposed delivery dates coincides appropriately with the construction activities.

The design calculations for the Auxiliary Building, with the exception of caputer calculations or extremely complex calculations,,will be delivered l to the site in three phases. An initial review of the delivery schedules indicates that they coincide appropriately with the construction activities.

4 _

These calculations will also be supported with additional design personnel

- - . . . ., . __-,~__,...,m. - _ , _ _ . . , . . . . . - - . . . . - - . . _ - _ . , _ - . . . - . , _ - . . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . , _ . - _ - _ _ . . _ . - ,

' assigned to the jobsite.

The Besident Ehgineering Soils Organization has been reorganized and an additional Group Lead dedicatpd to the handling of FCRs, FtNs and design-related NCAs and vendor drawings has been assigned. Seven additional designers have been assigned to this organization.

Bechtel has issued a memorandum covering the reorganization of the Resident Structural Ehgineering Soils Group, assignments of increased responsibility at the jobsite, rad the goal of having the capability for 80 percent final approval of change doctroents at the jobsite.

Technical support is currently onsite for the engineering consultants of .

Hanson Engineering Inc. and Maeser, Rutledge, Johnston and Desi.mone.

J

, Reccamendation No. 3 .

s i FCRs should receive final approval by the Project Engineer shortly after

. interim approval has,been granted. ,

! ' Response to Recommendation No 3 s

Bechtel procedure entitled " Field Change Request / Field Change Notices, PEP No.k.62.1.Rev.1.datedDecember2,1983hasestablishedtimeintervalsfrom interim to final approval of FCRs and FCNs. An expected approval time, a maximum approval time,and an overall approval time for initiation to final approval have been stipulated. .

This procedure also establishes gu.idelines for the updating of drawings and covers this in tems of all change documents and specifies a maximinn time for updating drawings from the issuance of the first document and a maximum time

=

after the issuance of a fifth document, t

t 4

.. -9

. p -

The msponse time will be improved with the delivery of the calculations to the jobsite, increase in the staff of the Resident Structural Engineering Soils Group and its morganization as described in the Responses to Recommendations No. 2. .

s Bechtel has also instituted a review for drafting completeness on the change documents in order to expedite the turnaround time on drawing update.

CPCo. proposes to phase out the use of int,erim approval on the FCRs and FCNs and expects to implement this in the first quarter of 1984.

Recom.endation No. 4 NCRs should have trend analysis perfomed which relate the number of NCRs to the level of construction effort. Also, the NCRs should be classified by subject, and this should be issued and reviewed to assist in providing an indicator to problem areas.

Response to Recommendation No. 4 Bechtel perfomed a one-time study of NCRs that relates the NCR to the construct-ion effort in terms of man-hours. This study indicated a direct correlation between ,the number of NCRs issued and the level of effort in terms of man-hours that was being expended. However, no trending of quality can be made fra this study.

Bechtel has entered all of the NCRs in a computerized logging system that permits the NCRs to be sorted by date, subject matter, response time, and other I

attrAbutes.

The FSO has developed and is using an NCR evaluation form which will review j i

each NCR issued and determine if there is a need to take corrective action h

t 9

i t'

f

7 _

,on the methods used to accomplish the work. The FSO is also perfonning a detailed evaluation of all NCRs related to welding.

MPQAD is developing a trend' analysis system to be applied plantwide that will evaluate the total number of attributes against a number of unsatisfactory attributes versus time for each activity and attribute. It is expected that this new trend analysis will be implemented in the first quarter of 1984.

/

Reconnendation No. 5.

It is important that Bechtel continues to strive to reduce the response time on critical NCRs that could delay the work.

Response to Reconsnendation No. 5 The FSO will continue to identify and' status critical NCRs at the weekly Engineering / Construction meetings which are attended by AAPD Project Engineering, Resident Engineering, Field Engineering, MPQAD, SMO, and the Independent Assessment Team.

The Resident Engineering Soils Organization has been expanded with additional personnel onsite who have specific responsibility and authority to disposition design-related NCRs. This should reduce the current response time and minimize the response time on priority NCRs which could impact the progress of the work.

Bechtel will continue to give priority to the NCRs being reviewed by MPQAD.

Mr. J. Mooney and Mr. R. Wells then provided the following responses to the

. f.ive items requiring CPCo action from the November public meeting.

1. Compare the findings of the MPQAD audit of U.S. Testing with results of Field Engineering's evaluation.

e

_ , . , _ . . . . , . . . , . . . . _ . - . . - _ , . . - _ , _ , , , _ , _ , , _ , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . - . , , . _ _ , _ , _, . _ , _ , , , . , , _ _ , j , ,_ _ ._

- .~ - -

'Ihe primary purpose of the Field Engineering evaluation of U.S.

Testing was conducted with the goal of assessing management, staffing, and ability to meet project demands. It was not an audit directed at identifying non-confoming programatic QA requirements. However, CPCo compand the msults of the Field Engineering evaluation with the MPQAD and confimed that the Field Engineering evaluation observations had not identified non-confoming items that had been' missed by the MPQAD audit. U.S. Testing has continued to make progress in improving their operation and a new manager, Mr. Lawrence Snetana is on. site.

2. Evaluation of the concrete work truck mixer drum rotation problem.

Several discussions have been held between the NRC Region III Staff since the November public meeting. CPCo now understands what is required to resolve the problem. CPCo will provide a response on this item to Region III within the next several days.

3 Transfer of the lessons learned from the. Auxiliary Building underoinning to the Service, Water Pump Structure. underpinning- -

' A task force has been fomed to review the auxiliary building underpinning activities. 'Ihe task force is compiling a matrix of lessons learned s

which will be used to review the underpinning for the Service Water Pump Structure. The matrix is scheduled for completion by December 16, 1983 and the review has a targeted completion day of January 30, 1984.

4. QC inspection of non-structural welding on Q materials Based upon review of the QC inspections of non-structutal welds, it was detemined that when the QC inspectors were verifying the welding engineer's sign-off on non-strutural welds, they have been reinspecting the welds for possible damage to base Q &aterials t

S

\ .

- _ _ _ , , - . - . . . . . . . - - _ - - . - . ~ . .--

s even though this was not required by the PQCI. This was verified by 100 percent interview of the QC inspectors. Howeyer, there was one exception, the tack welding of jackstand guides to pier baseplates was not inspected by MPQAD. In this case, reinspection has found that the welds are satisfactory. The PQCI will be modified to require that this aspect be documented in fbtum.

5. Crack mapping problems An extensive review of the crack mapping program has been undertaken.

Problems were identified with respect to procedural attributes, specifications, and timeliness of reporting and review. Several NCRs and QARs were issue'd.. On November 30, 1983 a status report was provided to Region III and the specific corrective actions were documented in a letter to Mr. Harrison dated December 2, 1983. All corrective action will be acceplished before work restnes.

Mr. Iandsman asked whether the revised procedures would be under

. level 3 approval.CPCo replied that they would be I.avel 1. Mr. Landsman and }t'. Harrison also expressed concem that the QA overview had not

'been perfomed for an activity that had been ongoing for some 2 years.

CPCo pointed out that the overview requirements had only been in e:istence for some 10 months, but they realized that this fbnction had been missed.. Snecorrectiveactionwillbetakentoprevent recurmnce.

This concluded the presentations at which point Mr. Harrison stated that the status of the required actions frem the November meeting are:

G S&W actions.-all items closed

_ D e ,

. . - -...- .. . - r-. ----a,

-..i,.- ,.----,,:-

i

. O CPCo actions - Items 1 and 4 closed, with the cther items remaining open Questions and Answers i Mr. J. Harrison and Dr. R. I.andsman asked several questions concerning items included in Assessment Team Weekly Reports Nos. 59 through 62:

1. Could Stone & Webster elaborate on Item 59-18 that refers to a hold on a crack monitoring procedure? The part of the Wiss , Janney and Elstner crack mapping procedure dealing with crack monitoring after the loading of the E/W8 grillages was designated as being on hold. h e crack mer.itoring ns performed using this procedure. he specification did not indicate that there should have been a hold. The crack monitoring was completed at the appropriate time but the hold was still indicated in the procedure. NIR No.16 was issued because of this.

2. On page 2cor Weekly Report No. 59 it is mentioned that the review of Weekly Reports No. 30 through 59 identified 8 items that required verification oreclosure. Were these included in the open item list'? Yes. The correct number was 5 items.

3. Item 59-5 indicates that the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> time requirement for reporting two new 10 mil cracks at the SWPS was exceeded by a large amount (18 days). h e NRC stated that action must be taken to avoid such delays in the fttture. he initial report was made some 2 days after the cracks were noted but the data sheets were illegible and this resulted in the long delay in noting the alert level.

~~

9 e

e

4. Item 59-13 repcrts that the Assessment Team received strength test results for the plasticized concrete mix design. Did a the Assessment Team state whetherthey were satisfactory? No, the results wem requested for infonnation only.

5. Itan 59-16 indicates that the SWO was revised to allow the procSssing of interim approved FCRs and the completion of the I

SWPS/CWPS seals. Why was this action taken? The interim approved FCRs had to be processed so that they could be included in the SWO corrective action. The work on the SWPS/

CWPS seals was a maintenance type item.

6. Item 59-17 mentions two NCRs on Carlson meter concrete curing at Pier W8. Was Pier W8 loaded with open NCRs? The NCRs were written based upon a QA Overview of Inspection Reports. Pier 8 was completed during the suurner and the QA overview of old Inspection Reports was conducted during November. Berefore ,

these NCRs were not issued when the pier was loaded. CPCo will respond to this item at the January public meeting.

7. Item 59-6Q identifies a welding consultants report that was given to the Assessment Team. What were the contents of the report? The welding consultant was mtained by MPQAD to review the welding inspection because there. had been a number of NCRs issued in this ama. We consultant Mr. Svekric of Welding Consultants, reviewed the welding prot.sdures and the inspections.

De consultant concluded that the number of NCRs were related to the type of welds being perfonned and that the level 5f inspection was appropriate. ,

e

,_ _ . . . - . . _ . ..~ _ _ __ . _ , . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ __

. - ~ - - -M l

8. Item 60-3 indicates that crack mappir.g ws included in the SWO. Was that the case? Yes, initially the crack mapping was stopped. Two days later it was exempted from the SWO.

9. Item 60-3Q identifies a mechanism for identifying Quality concems. Could CPCo elaborate on this item? MPQAD has A new procedure to obtain infomation or clarifications is now used to replace the old QAR procedure. 'Ihe new procedure is entitled " Reauest for Infomation/ Action."

10. What does the last sentence of Item 60-4Q mean? The inspection of structural welds is not accomplished by the same procedure as nonstructural welds. In the case of structural welds. QC does all of the inspection.

11. On page 1,of Weekly Report No. 61. the Assessment. Team reviewed a sample of the classification of change documents

being reviewed a part of Phase 1 of the SWO corrective actirm and found one-third did not meet the procedural mquirements. Could this be elaborated upon? The batch of change documents supplied to the Assessment Team had not been sub.iected to the comolete review process thus,resulting in the .

high percentage of problems. ~ ']

12. Is the Assessment Team finding that the Wob Activity Packages (WAPs) submitted for review are in better shape than they were.

_ 1

, say, a year ago? What is the turn around time? Yes,1,here l has been improvement. The turn around time is about a week. but,.

S

-.-D --

,..--.-----... _ - ;- ? - l-_.,..:-a .. .o- ? _ . n; _ .- - . - , _ . ,,_-__.____S.m. ,-,- - - _- - ----. _ ...-,-...- ,-

t.' l I

i

. there are reviews that take longer. )

13 Weekly Report No. 61 indicates that Assessment Team questions on WAP-53 are still open. This WAP has been authorized by the

, NRC. Why are Assessnent Team questions still open? Originally, the Assessinent, Team did not have any consnents on it. After i i

the work was authorized, the Assessment Team did sutxnf t questions.

l Additional infonnation on this item should be presented at the January public meeting. '

14. Item 61-3 deals with the wedging of the E/W8 bulkhead lagging.

Could this be explained? The Assessment Team had previously

~

discussed the need for full bearing of the lagging on the soldier pile flanges. FSO had agreed to make an addition to the drawings to address this concern. However, thi's was'one of the items identified from the review of previous.# cpen items, as still requiring action. Thc Assessment Team had. originally inspected the lagging and had found it to be properly wedged.

15. Item 61-9 states that there is not a settlement criterion for the rejacking and lock-off for the E/W8 grillages. Should there be an acceptance criteria for settlement? There is an acceptance criteria for settlement when rejacking is required due,to rel:.tive movement between a pier and the building. The rejacking discussed in 61-9 was required by an alert level in the~ steel column that transfers the load from one end of the grillage beams down into the containment building mat. Under this condition there is not a criteria for settlement. The Assessment Te[m has not evaluated this requirement but will,do so and will be prepared e

_ . , _ - - - y .., 5 , - _.._,_.,_v. _ - . . _ _ - _ . ._,.m_, , ,. ,,_,.,,_,_,.y.- - . . _ , -_.c..

- ~

l j

t.-  ;

to discuss it at the January public meeting.

i 1,6. Item 61-11 mentions that Bechtel issued a memorandum giving instructions relative to the rotation of concrete truck drums.

The NRC restated their concern with respect to the past use of memoranda to correct problems. It was pointed out that in this case there had not been any procedural violations that mquired correction.

17. Item 61-15 deals with the control of the consistency of bentonite slurry. Does the Assessment Team believe that requimments with respect to slurry consistency should be included in the procedure?

Work covered by this procedure has been completed (removal of 36 inch diameter casings). In the case of the use of slurry for soldier pile installation, the procedural requirements are adequate. The NRC stated that if in the future additional slurry operations are mquired, consistency requirements should be included in the necessary procedures.

a

18. Is Item 62-2 dealing with the response time with mspect to the review of crack mapping data still open? Is Bechtel's issuance of a memorandum the only action being taken? Yes, it is still open. Procedural changes are also being required to address this problem. The NRC again expressed concern with. respect to the possible over-reliance en memoranda.

19. With reference to the Management Peview Team's trip reoort that, is attached to Weekly Report Nr 2, is CPCo planninF to address a

their connent.

S S

_e.---,

s -

- , . , e--p--, . . - - - -,--w.- .ve. .v, r,, ,- E e e --9.,-+v y-t' e -v * '49 9+"t' "*

F **"

In particular what efforts are being undertaken to reduce the time for which areas of the building remain unsupported during underpinning, construction? The following sters have been taken:

more road map rneetings are being held prior to major activities so that everyone understands what is necessary; the availability of required materials is being reviewed prior to the start of construction operations. ;It is CPCo's goal to make progrsss in this area.

Required Action The following actions are mquired'by the Assessment Team:

1. In fbture Weekly Reports, Work Activity Package titles will be included along with the Work Activity Package number.

2. The Assessment Team will evaluate the need for a settlement criterion when mjacking of the E/W8 grillages is required by alert strain levels on the steel columns that bear on the containment mats.

3 At the January puMic meeting, explain why them are still Assessment Team questions open on Work Activity Package rio. 59 (Refer to Item 13)-

The following actions are required by CPCo:

1. Actionmustbetakentoavoiddelahsinreportingalertlevel cracks (Refer to Item 3).

2. At the January public meeting, provide infonnation on timing of two NCRs on Carlson meter concrete form removal [ Refer to Item 13). .

4

ne following items remain open from the November meeting. CPCo required action.

3. Evaluation of' Concrete Mixer Drum Rotation

4. Transfer of Lessons Learned in Auxiliary Building dnderpinning to SWPS underpinning.

5. Crack Mapping Problems. -

S me 4

t b

1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 8, 1983 STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION , IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW (CIO) PROGRAM Purpose '

3 To discuss Third Party Overview activities of Stone & Webster (S&W) and problems encountered regarding the Construction Completion Program (CCP) during November 1983. ,

- Summary Mr. R. G. Burns, Assistant S&W Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, outlined the classification and tracking system for items identified by the CIO and Remedial Soils Programs. Key points follow:

• The system has two major categories - Tracked Items and Untracked Ittas.

Tracked Items are further divided into three subcategories - Action, Infomation, and Recommendation. -

• Tracked Items require the completion of appropriate steps b.efore the items are closed. Tracked Action Items will be closed when completed corrective measures are verified. Tracked Information and Recommendation Items will be closed when replies are received. Based on the importance *

, of the items and confidence established by the replies, items could be ,

closed at that time, kept open until corrective measures are verified, ,

or kept open until amplifying infomation is provided. Infomation and

, Recommendation Items that are closed before all steps are accomplished, will be reviewed periodically to ensure that commitments are met before the items are retired.

• Untracked Items are general in nature and not conductive to tracking.

These items will be documented in CIO weekly reports and reviewed periodically to monitor changes in status. Changes will also be included in weekly reports. ,

1

, . - . - .n... . - . .-- --, ,,n -..-n- --, ,., ----. ..- - -,-..w --. . - - . -, ,-, -- w.-. - , , - - . - , - . . . . , , , -. ,, , ,

Minutes cf Meeting PAGE 2

+

• Items identified to date will be reclassified in accordance with this new system.

Mr. A. P. Amoruso, Project' Manager for the CIO Program, presented a summary of Program activities for November 1983. Three main topics were covered:

• Assessment Activities The stop-work orders involving concerns about the control of design changes remained in effect durin'g November. Since these orders pm-vented starting the statusing and verification parts of the CCP, assessment efforts continued to be focused on monitoring management meetings. checking the progress of teams to be used in carrying out the statusing phase of the CCP, and evaluating training programs,.

Fifty-three management meetings were monitored. Management direction at these meetings appeared appropriate. Some 480 hours0.00556 days <br />0.133 hours <br />7.936508e-4 weeks <br />1.8264e-4 months <br /> were expended

~

monitoring the development of commodity lists for use in statusing and verifying conditions in the plant and monitoring training being given members of CCP. teams to standardize assessment teminology. Procedures I i used in developing the commodity lists proved adequate and the training designed to standardize teminology met objectives. Four training pre-

' sentations followed prescribed lesson plans and effectively conveyed key infomation.

In two of the three areas outside the CCP but within the scope of the CIO; namely, the Nuclear Steam Supply System and Heating, Ventilation, andAirConditioning(HVAC) programs,asshssmentopportunitiescontinued 1

.to be limited durjag November due to the lack of significant activity in l those programs. For the Spatial System Interaction Program (SSIP), the third area. the analyses of twelve interactions were witnessed and found to be in accordance with Program requirements.

j l

i l i

- = _ _ . _ . - . - . - - _ - . --. - , - . - - _ _ - -

.'. ; Minutes of Meeting

.., PAGE 3 CIO Items, Nonconfomances, and Hold Points Five CIO items were identified during November. Two of the items were discussed during the last meeting. Topics covered by the items follow:

• Administrative discrepancies in the training records of construction supporf, groups.

• Discrepancies in training levels of the Construction System T(am Training Matrix.

• Missing isolation spacers for galvanic protection of copper pipes in galvanized steel supports in the non-safety related Instrument Air System.

• Request for confimation that field change notices will,no longer be issued for safety items.

• Damage to cable jacket from protruding nails in boards lying in a cable tray; l

Checks for the document that specified isolation spacers for the Instrument

. Air System produced only an interoffice memorandum. Because memorandums may ,

have also been used to promulate work instructions for safety related systems, a new' item is being opened requesting that Consumers Power Company (CPCo)

. ascertain that this is not the case. This item will be discussed at the next l- - meeting. I One item was verified corrected and closed during November. That item addressed . <

discrepancies in the training records of quality' assurance, and quality control personnel.

l Three nonconformances identified by the CIO Program remained open. The three I

address administrative deficiencies in training records. .,

!. s i

i .

__ _ . _ _ _ . - i . _ - .____ _ ____

_1___ .____ .

Minutes of Meeting

, PAGE 4 Six hold points established by the CIO Program remained open. These included the following: ',

' Development of a Vendor Equipment Verification Program before the start of Phase II of the CCP.

• Evaluation of the Management Review of the results of Phase I activities before the start of Phase II of the CCP.

' Correction of Training Records for Construction CCP Teams before people involved are used in the statusing part of the CCP.

• Correction of Training Records for Construction Support Groups before people involved are used in the statusing part of the CCP.

• Upgrading the level of training in five elements of the Construction System Team Training Matrix before people involved are used in i

. the statusing part of the CCP. .'

-* Verification of Phase I and II evaluations of the FCR/FCN Review before Stop-Wo'rk Orders are lifted.

Highlights of November '

', Classification of CIO Items j The 37 f tems identified by the CIO Program through November have ,

been reclassified in accordance with thenew system described at

- the beginning of meeting by Mr. Burns. In the new system, seventeen items are in the Tracking Action category, sixteen are in the Tracking Infomation category, and four are in the Tracking Recommendation  ;

category.

Seven of the 37 items are open. Six of these are in the Tracking Action category and one is in the Tracking Infomation category.

. . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . , _ _ . - . , , . _ . , _ _ _ , . , _ .._,.,,,_,,,,J,.._._--

Minut0s of Meeting

,, PAGE 5

• Quality Assurance Department Training Reconfs Four CIO nonconfomances addressed adninistrative deficiencies in the training records of Quality Assurance Department personnel.

Corrective action was taken by the Department. The effectiveness of this action was-verified by the CIO, and the nonconfomances were closed.

l

• CIO Staff The CIO staff has increased to 29 in anticipation of the start of CCP statusing and verification. Additional people will be brought in and ,

the mix of disciplines varied as the actual verification load dictates.

Action Items from Last Meeting

• Mr. Burns, S&W, presented the new system for classifying and tracking l items at the beginning 'of the meeting. The summary of the re-

classification of CIO items in the new system'was presented under Highlights of November. l

• Mr.R.A.Well's,CPCo,discussedwheninaccessibleitemswouldbe

evaluated. The items will be evaluated during Phase I of the CCP.

Concern about when such items would be evaluated came from a statement made at a Verification and Status Assessment meeting that was included in a CIO weekly report. That discussion addressed procedures that might be used if Phase II was started before Phase I finished.

l Mr. Wells stated that CPCo understands their obligation to cbtain NRC approval if clarification or a change to the CCP is needed.

Mr. J. J. Harrison, NRC, stated that the CPCo staff had recently given a comprehensive presentation on their program for inaccessible items

~

which he thought was a good system.

I i

l

- Minutes of Meeting '

PAGE 6

. - Questions and Answers

• Mr. R. N. Gardner, NRC, asked if actions being taken to correct the specific training d6ficiencies identified by the CIO will be applied to all people who will be used in Phase I of the CCP.

Mr. D. L. Quamme CPCo, stated that training required for each person will be assured before that person starts work.

• Mr. J. J. Harrison, NRC, asked w' hat category in the new system would the issue concerning welding criteria in PQCI's fall into. The issue was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Amoruso, S&W, stated that the item was a Tracking Recommendation. i

• Mr. R. Cook, NRC, asked if discrepancies in the training program were all programmatic. Mr. Amoruso replied that the discrepancies were administrative. ,

• Mr. Harrison asked if the CIO had an opinion,as to whether the action taken by the Quality Assurance Department ccacerning disposition of the nonconfonnance' report on an arc strike on a fabrfcation produced at the  ;

Standish Fabrication Plant was proper. The item was contained in a -

- CIO weekly report. Mr. J. C. Thompson, S&W. stated that the action 3 I

was proper. The arc strike had occurred at the fabrication plant ,

j and was detected and reported by quality control personnel. Since the defect had been detected by quality control personnel, preventive l action was a construction responsibility., e

• Mr. Harrison asked if the discrepancies found in codes on the construction training matrix were similar to those that were  !

i discussed at a management review meeting in July. Mr. Wells stated that action believed appropriate in July was taken but now a different opinion is being given on the correctness of those decisions. -

\

_ _. _______.___E________.____ J

. Minutes of Meeting

( ,

PAGE 7 i Mr. H3rrison asked CPCo to check into the issue to see if the problem is recurring.

• Mr. Harrison asked if:the six interactions reviewed by the CIO and included I in a CIO weekly report were satisfactory. Mr. Amoruso stated that the interactions were satisfactory.

• Mr. Harrison asked about turnover packages between field engineers and test engineers. Mr. Quamme stated that the packages contain documentation and turnover exceptions that construction considers complete f,or test operations. Test engineers walk down the systems to verify that the i documentation agrees with existing conditions. Errors have appeared in some of these packages, and steps have been taken to correct the problem. One of the steps is to submit preliminary packages for review.

• Mr. Harrison asked if the relocation of 500 pipe hangers that will require reinspection was due to rework. Mr. Wells stated that the re-locations are due to rework.

• Mr. Harrison asked when the revision of the training matrix would be completed since an item in a CIO weekly report indicates that CCP team members will require additional training when that revision is promulgated. Mr. Quamme stated that the revision will be completed by I January 15th. Special instructions have been issued to cover people who j have to be put in the field before that date. l j

• Mr. Harrisori asked if a procedure covers the routing of nonconfomances when they are returned from Ann Arbor since an item In a CIO 4 , . weekly report states that the nonconfomances are being returned directly {

i to the initiator bypassing the fomal routing sequence. Mr. Wells stated that the comment in the CIO report referred to coordination-Iieeded in the routing process with CCP teams. A discussion on whether the routing pr.oblem was a nonconformance ensued, and the CIO was asked to resolve the issue.

N

._- _ _ -_. _ _ - _._.,__ _ _ _____,.m___- -

- Minutes of Meeti.ng -

s,, PAGE 8

/ <g-I .  :

• Mr. Gardner asked for clarification on why the CIO had delayed the review of field change documents that had been processed under the field change review' program. Mr. Amoruso stated that the CIO review had been originally scheduled before the verification by the Quality Assurance Department. The review was rescheduled after the verification.

This change was considered consistent with the CIO objective of ensuring that the Quality Assurance Department carries out their responsibilities properly.

• Mr. Harrison stated that a protocol infraction by the CIO had been outlined in a CIO weekly report. The infraction involved sending a copy of the transcript of the last meeting to CPCo and Bechtel but not to the NRC. Corrective action was considered appropriate.

• Mr. Harrison asked for clarification of a statement in a CIO weekly report that Groups I and II were not preparing for status assessment in the same way Group III was. Mr. S. W. Baranow, S&W, stated that

Group III had been undergoing .uockup training to' standardize assessment

, teminology. A later report mentions that Groups I and II have since conducted similar training.

Mr. Harrison asked what was going to be done with field control changes since an item in a CIO weekly report stated that field control notices would no longer be used for safety related work. Mr. Wells stated that initially after lifting stop-work. orders, there would be no field control notices for safety related work. Later, af ter the change process has been reviewed by project engineering, a new program will be developed.

This program will be more limited as to when a field change notice can be used and will only require approval of project field engineering.

f l .

Y

____a_____.____.s,-__ _. _

',1 Minutes of Meeting

. PAGE 9 i t

• Mr. Harrison asked about the walkdown of systems to identify low alloy quenched and. tempered steel (LAQTS) bolts. Mr. Wells stated that the effort to identify LAQTS bolts has been ongoing for over a year. The bolts have to be checked for hardness because of an industrial problem involving the control of hardness testing. Since all the LAQTS bolts in the plant may not have been located, statusing will be used to assist in that effort.

Action Items

• CIO resolve whether CCP teams are having a problem receiving the dispositions of nonconformances and, if a problem does exist, whether the cause is one of routing, coordination, or a procedural noncompliance.

• CPCo present at the January meeting the background on training level codes used in construction training matrices.

4 4

l e

I m_