ML20083P020
| ML20083P020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1984 |
| From: | Leddick R LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083P024 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404190358 | |
| Download: ML20083P020 (152) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:% s l_QUISIANA ,4,oe - O~oeerneer . m eox eooe POWER & L1GHT New OALEANS LOUISIANA 70174-e008 . (504)368-2345 UTILITIES SYSTEM April 16, 1984 ROTH S. LEDDICK Senbr Vice President Nuclear Operations
. U3K84-0974 3-A1.01.04 Mr. Harold Denton Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ' Docket No. 50-382 Construction Adequacy of WSES-3 Basemat
Dear Sir:
On Thursday, March 22, 1984, your staff informally requested that LP&L be prepared to respond to a list of thirty-twd questions at a neeting in Bethesda, Maryland on March 26, 1984. Extensive efforts, of key project . personnel resulted in the preparation of draft responses,to the questions, which.were handed out at the March 26, 1984 meeting. However fas was indicated by our representatives at the meeting, due to the extent of,the questions and the volume of our response, coupled with the extremely short response tiec (four . days, inciluding the weekend), we were not able to subject the r'esponses to a thorough review prior
~
to the meeting. Attached are our responses to the questions. There are only minor changes, mostly of an editorial nature or in response to comments from the NRC staff.
. r Your3 ve truly,
/
/ /
R. . eddick Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations o RSL/KWC/ cab 3 '
. Attachment y I cc: E.L. Blake, W.M. Stevenson, J.T." Collins, D.M. Crutc$ field, J. Wilson, G. L'. Constable ,
, o gool t
8404190358 840416 ' PDR ADOCK 05000382 I l
.A. PDR i
\ 1
% 9
-1. a) How many nonconformance reports were issued on the basemat? b) How many relate to poor concrete placement practices? c) What were corrective actions taken? d) Provide justification to substantiate your position that these practices could not have lead to the development of cracks or localized porous zones which may be the cause of water intrusion.
Response: Ebasco la) NCR's - 106 (See Attachment "A") DN's - 46 (See Attachment "B") DR's - 42 (See Attachment "C") Response: Ebasco Ib) NCR's - 7 (Placement Practices) DN's - 42 (1 on Placing Practice)(4 on Cracks)(37 on Concrete Trucks etc.) DR's - 22 (Voids) NCR (See Attachment "A") DN's (See Attachment "B") DR's (See Attachment "C") Response: Ebasco Ic)
-NCR's - See Attachment "A" DN's - See Attachment "B" DR's -
See Attachment "C" _ Response: Ebasco Id) These practices could not have led to the development of cr'acks or localized porous zones which may be path of water intrusion because the deficiencies discovered ~were repaired and the practices which led to the deficiencies were corrected. e
.a'um ' *rr v - - '
. Response: Ebasco la, b, e ATTACHMENT "A" NCR's Written Against Common Foundation Mat Placement No, NCR#
2 10 Curing temps lov i day - Accept as is per cylinder breaks and concrete type only requires 3 days of cure
-7A 14 Nelson stud broken off plate - plate rejected and replaced 4 15 Nelson stud broken off plate - plate rejected and replaced 7A 16 #11 bars too long - accept as is 10A 17 Rebar bent - replaced 7A 18 Rebar bent during construction - replaced 4 19 Insufficient concrete cover - area excavated as required SB 26 Portion of forms removed early - compressive strength and curing acceptable as is 8A 43 Rebar does not have proper projection - replaced SA, 9A 45 #9 dowels misplaced - replaced or bent to design location 5A 49 8 #11 bars bent - replaced 7A, 13A 51 2 #11 bars bent - replaced 10B, 11B 52 Rebar misplaced - replaced 10B 61 (Minor cut) Waterstop - bulb not affected - accept as is 10B 63 1 #6 bar misplaced - replaced .
11B 64 Bolt bent (minor) - accept as is 11B 65 Bolt' bent - replaced 14A, 12A 66 Rebar misplaced - accept as is 10B 69 (Minor) Nicks in rebar - accept as is 8B 74 2 bars ' missing',-bent - replaced Ring Wall 76 Resteel clearance to form face - change configuration i 11B 78 2 Bars mk #A201 misplaced - moved to correct area 13B 79 l'#8 Rebar 45* out of plumb - replaced
-138- 80 1 #9 Rebar 45' out of plumb - replaced 11B- 81 1 #9 Dowel missing - replaced 11B. 82 1 #8 Rebar misplaced 5" - accept as is 1 11B 83 1 #9 Rebar misplaced 6" - accept as is-7B 84 Rebar bent - cut off and cadweld'back .
11A- 85 Rebar bent - cut-off and cadweld back 11B 87 Rebar - inadvertently cut offf- cadweld back 5 c-- v = , ,, ,W - % y w - ,,f,-
Response: Ebasco la, b, e ATTACHMENT "A" (cc,at'd) 12A 89 Rebar - linear indications - effective area insignificant - use as is 19 92 Grout deposited - concrete placed on top and consolidated - use as is - the grout has same 28 day strength 19 93 (SCD #1) (DN-C-62) Poor placement practices - concrete removed - area repaired 1 95 Surface allowed to dry for short period of time - accept as is - visual inspection performed. 3 96 Cure temps low 4th and 5th day - minor use as is 1,2,3,4, 97 Cadweld sampling not followed - engineer evaluated - test SA&B,6,7A&B results accept as is 13A 98 11 cadwelds made af ter reject - engineer evaluated and QC visual inspection - use as is 19 102 Wrong bolts installed-bolts are same size, only longer-use as is 15 103 1 #10 dowel missing - replaced 10B 104 2 #11 bars cut - (minor) due to insignificant reduction in
, cross-sectional area - use as is 9B 106 Low air - engineer evaluated - average 4.5%, 28 day 5660 psi and placement method - accept as is 9B 107 1 test interval missed - engr evaluation - 28 day 5660 psi -
accept as is 7B 108 Low air - engineer evaluated - average 4.6%, 28 day 5601 psi and placing method - use as is 1 109 Low air - engineer evaluated - average 4.7% and 28 day 5748 psi - accept as is 1 110 Mixing revs. concrete tests not performed at required intervals - engineer evaluated 28 day 5748 psi and placing method - use as is 7A 111 DN-C high slump, DN-C-130 - concrete test not performed at requf.ad intervals - engineer evaluated - accept as is (28 day 3335 psi slump average 3.6) SB 113 High air w/ average of 4.5% - accept as is . SB 114 (DN-C-134) Test sample frequency. (DN-C-147) Additional mixing revs - 28 day strength of 5601 psi and placement method (accept as is) (DN-C47,48,49 and 52) SB 115 Truck discharged after 60 min. - FCR-CH acceptable 5B 116 (DN-C-46) high slump - evaluation performed by engr-accept as is 4 122 1) Concrete placed w/out required mixing revs.
- 2) Omission of test data - engineer evaluated - 28 day 5441 psi, average air 5.3%, and placement method DN-C-65,67,69,70,73,75,76,80,121 and 72 0
6
mi. -i.-i
l
. Response: Ebasco la, b, c 1 ATTACHMENT "A" (cont'd 1) 6 123 1) Conflicting test data
- 2) Omission of test data - engr evaluated - method of
,. placement and 28 day 6128 psi DN-C74,77, and 79 DN-C , accept as is 6 124 Exceeded mixing count - high slump - accept as is - 28 day 6128 psi and method of placement 6 125 1 hr time limit for concrete discharge - FCR 83 - covers this - compressive strength average.6128 psi 19 145 Nicks in resteel - minor use as is Void in mat - pour back 19 148 3 core holes repaired w/out proper documentation - QA/ engr eval, use as is - corrective action retraining and new procedure 12A 151 Resteel missing - replaced 15 166 Resteel #4 dowels missing - replaced 10B 178 Resteel nicked - accept as is N/A 181 1 #6 dovr.1 misplaced 8 inches - accept as is 15 187 #4 dowels missing - replaced 19 242 Resteel cut - replaced 19 491 Repair not done correctly - removed and replaced 3 112 Unit weight. test data omitted - strength high and replacement method acceptable - use as is , 12B 94 1.f6 dowel does not have minimum cover - OK use as is 1 -127 1) Test data omitted or not taken at right intervals
- 2) Low mixing intervals - engineering evaluated - 28 day i -5748 psi and placing method 1 128 High and low air content - average 4.6% - 28 day 5748 psi
! and placing methods - use as is 24 High air - engineering evaluation - average air was 5.0% this along with method of placement and consolidation would l assure durability requirements
- 25. High slump - engineering evaluation - accepted as w/c ratio, unit weight and strength would meet the specified
. requirements.
499 29 1 truck high air - enginee' ring evaluation - next truck was ! 6.4% 21 others taken were acceptable. l 2' 30 Concrete discharge 2 minutes after specified time - L. engineering evaluation , placement time did not' exceed the-( 1 hour overall time limit-i: l
l Response: Ebasco la, b, c ATTACHMENT "A" (cont'd 2) 3 32 Mixing rey count not recorded - engineering evaluation - visual observations and remarks on test record S02-2 33 2 tickets low air - engineering evaluation - average for placement 4.9% and method of placements and consolidation would assure acceptance 2 34 Discharge time not recorded - engineering evaluation - 72 min. batching circle would result in meeting 60 min. delivery time requirements S02-3 35 Low air (2 tickets) engr eval - average 4.7 this with the method of placement and consolidation assures durability requirements. S02-2 36 (2 tickets) low air - engineering evaluation - air average 4.9%. This with the method of placement and consolidation
- assures durability requirements 2 37 (1 ticket) high slump - engineering evaluation - use as is -
based on unit weight and strength data 10B 39 Rain in placement concrete placed improperly - engineering evaluation - repair, core sample and compressive strengths 10A 40 1 ticket high air - use as is - engineering evaluation - air 5.5% average in placement - method of placement and consolidation. 10A 41 Test frequency - use as is - engineering evaluation 7 day 4010 and 3530 psi and slump and air content 131 Test frequency - see #137 132 Batch information see #137 130 High slump see #137 138 Air and slump high - use as is, see #137 139 Test frequency - see #137 137f Testing frequency - engineering and QA evaluation use as is
~
- corrective action see memo from W. C. Griggs.
11B 141 High air and no tests or cylinder taken at the right intervals - use as is - corrective action memo from W. C. Griggs (, N/A 146 Specific gravity - fine aggregate engineering evaluation -- minor deviation and cylinder breaks use as is 11B 174 DN-C-113 High slump - engineering evaluation - 28 day 4870 l- psi isolated incident - accept asuis ALL 7154 Curing - engineering evaluation - use as is ALL 7150 QV inspectors certifications - QA eval - use as is ALL -7151 QV inspectors eye exams QA eval - use as is ALL- -7152 QV inspectors eye exams - QA eval - use as is ALL' 7153 Curing - engineering evaluation - use as is ALL 7149 QV inspector certification - QA evaluation of experience / training use as is- .
Response: la,b,c ATTACHMENT "A" (cont'd 3) ALL 7353 Mix designs - engineer evaluated (use as is, have FCR's) ALL 7353 Concrete mix design - engineer evaluated - use as is, have FCR's) ALL 7154 Missing cure dates - engineer evaluated - use as is ALL 7153 Missing cure dates - engineer evaluated - use as is, based on weather temperature. ALL 7152 No eye exam - engineer evaluated - use as is, based on previous certification ALL 7151 No eye exam - eng eval - use as is/all have eye exam in cert. package now ALL 7150 No inspection certification file - engineer evaluated - use as is based on experience. ALL 7149 Inspected prior to certs - engineer evaluated - use as is, based on prior experience / training and successful completion of training 7B 31 Air content of concrete - engineer evaluated - use as is, based on overall air content 4.7% Se2-4 12 One truck low mix rey count - engineer evaluated - use as is, letter on concrete drum revolution SO4-16 414 Concrete void engineer evaluated - chip out and replace S03-19 341 Concrete coating prior to placement of repair - engineer evaluated - remove and replace CFS~ 273 Resteel misplaced - engineer evaluated - add resteel BASE 6212 Concrete crac':s - engineer evaluated - use as is - based on MAT RAB there is no atability or corrosion problems ALL 6245 Cadwelds (authenticity of signatures or initials '!/A for cracking in CFM) ALL 6234 Cadwelding - N/A for cracking in CFM ALL 7481 Cadwelding - N/A for cracking in CFM S02-4 11 High slump - engineer evaluated - use-as-is - new test taken on truck, found acceptable people re-instructed a S w 4
- .-. ~. - - - - - - . - . _ _ . , _ - .. . _ _ - . -.- -_. . - -,.
r
}J i..:
Response: la,b,c ATTACHMENT "B" Ebasco Base Mat DN's Where an NCR was not Initiated Date DN# Placement # Description C.A. 11-19-75 C-5 499-S02-3 Rebar offset Moved to correct location 12-10-75 C-7 499-S02-6 Cracks & rockpockets Chipped out & in face repaired , 12-18-75 C-12 499-S02-1 Cracks in face Chipped out & repair 12-16-75 C-13 '499-S02-2 Cracks in face Chipped out & repair 01-08 C-27 499-S02-6 ' Cracks & rockpockets Chipped out & ' in face repair 02-03-76 C-55 499-S02-7B Water stop Repaired 02-10-76 C-61 499-S02-10B Misplaced batch tickets Accept-as-is and no records on concrete discharge
- 02-10-76 C-62 499-S02-108 -Excessive time on truck Accept-as-is l0-76. C-63 499-SO2-10B Excessive. time on truck Accept-as-is 02-10-76 C-65 499-S02-10B Excessive time on truck Accept-as-is .
02-10-76 C-72 499-S02-6 Low air - Accept-as-is f 02-10-76 C-78 499-S02-6 Excessive mixing Accept-as-is 03-09-76 C-92 499-Sb3-11B 011.on rebar Rebar cleaned 499-S03-135 53-22-76 C-105 499-S03-13B Testing time Use-as-is 22-76 C-106 499-503-13B Low air Accept-as-is 03-22-76 C-107 499-S03-135 Testing Frequency Accept-as-is 03-22-76 :C-108 499-803-115 Testing Frequency Accept-as-is 03-22-76 C-109 . 499-803-11B Low air Use-as-is 03-22-76 -C-114 499-802-5A. High air Use-as-is 03-22-76 C-115 499-502-5A Added water twice- Use-as-is. 03-22-76 C-116 -499-502-5A .Added. vater Use-as-is *
. 03-22-76. C-117 499-502-5A Recording error Use-as-is 03-22-76 C-118. 499-502-5A Recording error Use-as-is
__5 n d &-,,m w,
Response: la,b c ATTACHMENT "B" (cont'd) Date DN# Placement # Description C.A. 03-22-76 C-119 499-S02-5A Recording error Use-as-is 03-22-76 C-120 499-S02-5A Test-frequency Use-as-is 03-25-76 C-130 499-S02-7A' Test-frequency Use-as-is 03-25 C-133 499-S02-7B Excessive time on truck Use-as-is 03-25-76 C-145 499-S02-8A Excessive time on truck Use-as-is 03-29-76 C-147 499-502-5B Add water w/no revs on Use-as-is truck 04-20-76 C-152 499-S02-2 Test not taken Use-as-is 04-28-76 C-153 499-503-16 Layers excessive in Inspectors height. Layers sloped, Retrained excessive flow 04-28-76 C-154 499-S01-14A Spill over on steps & Inspectors excessive height Retrained 05-03-76 C-155 499-S01-13A Mix revs exceeded FCR-CH-117 03-26-76 C-158. 499-S02-8B Excessive time FCR-CH-83 05-01-76 C-166 499-S02-19 1st truck not tested Accept-as-is pumping problems 05-12-76 C-170 499-S02-5A Insufficient drum revs Use-as-is 05-31-76 C-176- 499-S03-18 Excessive Slump- Use-as-is 06-03-76 C-181 499-503-12A Correlation test not Use-as-is taken 06-04-76 C-182 499-503-12A Excessive slump Use-as-is 06-15-76 C-183 499-803-12A Test frequency exceeded Use-as-is 06-15-76 C-184 499-503-12A No discharge time on Use-as-is ticket 06-15-76 C-185 499-803-125 No pump discharge Use-as-is sample-06-17-76 C-187 499-802 Test frequency exceeded Use-as-is 06-17-76 -C-188 499-801-15 Excessive slump Accept-as-is Excessive slump Accept-as-is 06-18-76L C-189 499-503-135 06-24-76 C-190 499-501-14A- Cure box too hot Accept-as-is
l r Response: la,b,c ATTACHMENT "C" ] i
-J. A. Jones Base Mat DR's Where an NCR was Not Initiated '
Date DR# Placement # Description C.A. 04-08-76 5 499-503-12B (Gouge) Waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 04-12-76 6 499-501-12A (Gouge) Waterstop Repair EIR-200-7
- 04-14-76 7 499-S01-13A (Gouge) Waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 l
1 04-20-76 8 499-Su3-16 (Gouge) Pipe Trench Repair , Frame 04-22-76 10 499-S01-12A Defective concrete FCR-50 ' i . 04-23-76 D'efective concrete 11 499-S01-14A FCR-50
- 04-26-76 12 499-503-19 (Gouge) 9" P.V.C. Repair EIR-200-7 ,
waterstop ! ! 04-27-76 13 .499-801-15 " Void" under waterstop Repair FCR-50 04-27-76 14 499-801-15 " Void" under waterstop Repair FCR-50
- 04-27-76 15 499-801-15 " Void" under waterstop Repair FCR-50.
04-27-76 16- 499-501-15' (Gouge) waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 3 FCR-50 04-29-76 .17 499-801-15 (Gouge) waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 l- 04-30-76 19 499-501-15 (Gouge) waterstop Repair FCR-50 04-30-76 20 499-501-15 Void in concrete Repair FCR Dry pack 50 . 05-03-76 21 499-501-15 Void in concrete Repair FCR Dry pack 50 05-03-76 22 499-503-17. Bent stude on frame Bend back L ,
'05-04-76 25 499-503-17 Voids under waters *op Dry pack / i FCR-50 05-04-76 26 499-803-17 Voids under/over Dry pack /
< waterstop Repair FCR-50 05/06/76 29- '499-303-19 Void concrete Backfill with 499-803-17 05/06/76 '30 499-803-19 Void concrete Backfill with 499-803-17 t
Response: la,b,c ATTACHMENT "C" (cont'd) Data DRf Placement # Description C.A. 05-17-76 33 499-S03-17 Void under waterstop Pour with 499-S03-17 05-12-76 36 499-S03-19 Concrete Void Pour with 568-8 05-12-76 38 499-S03-18 Void under waterstop Dry pack FCR-CH-50 05-17-76 40 499-S03-18 Void above/below Dry pack FCR-CH-50 waterstop 05-17-76 42 499-S03-18 Void above/below Dry pack FCR-CH-50 waterstop 05-17-76 43 499-S03-18 Void above/below Dry pack FCR-CH-50 waterstop 05-17-76 44 499-S03-18 Serial No's Logged on embed sheet 05-18-76 45 499-S03-16, Hydraulic oil spill Remove 18.115,135 05-19-76 46 499-503-18 Voids in concrete Dry pack 05-19-76 47 499-S03-18 Voids in concrete Dry pack 05-20-76 48 499-S01 3FH & W Damaged waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 05-20-76 49 499-S03-16 Concrete Voids Dry pack 05-20-76 50 499-503-18 Clam shell not covered Cover with visquene by mud mat prior to placement 05-24-76 50 499-503-18 Gouges in waterstop Repair EIR-200-7 05-27-76 54 499-S03-19 Voids in concrete Dry pack FCR-152 .05-28-76 56 499-503-11B & Hydraulic oil spill Remove 499-S02-105 06-02-76 58 .499-801-12A Gouges in water stop Repair'EIR-200-7 06-04-76 59 499-503-18 Voids under elevator Repair FCR-152 pit 06-09-76 63 499-501-7FH & W Damaged waterstop Repair FCR-CH-110 EIR-300-120 06-09-76 64 499-502-10B Cadweld at wrong Use-as-is
- elevation 06-09-76 65 499-502-9A Cadweld at wrong Use-as-is >
elevation 06-28-77. 77 499-503 Gouge in waterstop Repair EIR-200
- 2. Where was water table when 1977 cracks were discoyered?
, /~' ' g,,,,,,,, At the time of discovery the ground water in the shall fill beneath the mat was at about elevation -20 f t. or about 15 feet above the top of the mat. (FSAR Figure 2.5-113: " Piezometer Heave Point and Extendometer Responses Sh. 3 of 5). ( t 4 e e 4
+
%.. /
, 3. Is there any evidence of convex curvature due, to_ ring wall loading?
( Response: Attached is a graph (Figure ES-3) reflecting the contours obtained from the maps generated on April 22, 1977, November 10, 1977, and October 9, 1979. Thess. curves reflect a before mat (ring wall) loading, after ring wall placement and a majority of concrete construction complete. These contours do reflect a convex mat with maximum differential of two inches (2").
~
0 e OO es
'R ,
J' . I [ i s (.' l [ e > .. . . - . . . .. . , .- -.
i .
- 9. RCB 4 WEST .
EAST 90 0.00
- g. .:;,.;.g..= . .
.50, 1.00" * *
- O*h,i lI i
1.50" 2.00 4 LEGEND
, 270' '
d
. ,' 10 79 ..... l
. . , 4 77 = . - f 11-10 -77
. Year. Es Asg. : 300 r
4 RCB *
\.
SOUTH NORTH 0* n:...........'**
.5O" **....
/.s* s.%.N 1.00" . :p , s:**... l
_ _ . _ . - . - . - . - . . % . ,,. , ~ * ~ ~ ~...... l.50" .. ** ***. *
**...s**
2.00"
,_,o .......... **.......
, 380' I
ES-3 I i e
- 4. Provide X-Section maps of mat flexure over time period zero to present.
Response: Ebasco 4 The following sketches reflect the mat by block and point settlement as monitored. Two full size copies were provided for NRC staff use at the March 26, 1984 meeting in Bethesda, Maryland. SK-1564-15.10-G-25.1 SK-1564-15.10-G-26.1 SK-1564-15.10-G-27.1 SK-1564-15.10-G-28.1 SK-1564-15.10-G-29.1 4 SK-1564-15.10-G-30.I j SK-1564-15.10-G-35.0 SK-1564-15.10-G-35.1 J (
-v i
t L 9 J e o __..E_.__.__m ._._....____._.___.m'_ _ _ ' _ _ . _
- 5. a) Frovide complete documentation of groundwater control and foundation heave from the start of dewatering until the present time. b) Include,the history of soil excavation and backfill beneath the mat.
Response: Sa) Groundwater control and foundation heave from the start of dewatering until recent time era exhibited in FSAR Fig. 2.5-113 (sheets 1/5 to 5/5). Response: Sb) The history of excavation and backfill is provided in FSAR Figures 2.5-102 and 2.5-103. , ) et ee O O O 9 0 9 4 e e 4 e ** +4 wee esem pe e 3 > e ay e ee ee e e erub ee e es e e e,, e.. __ ,- .,- - - - - - s -- -
O 94 6 , e s . -
- ( c -< -ass /1
- .! 9.
t: 2 51
*b l5 !!! *
! EJ, ili!
3 ai ::: i-i w'h . WWE I I I I I I iO 4 tH U l VMH I ! H i si U I ~5 li bel l l l
' 'I D I Altll I b 114M41 l l l I I I i l >0)! M I ~
m
!!%M i i l I i I l Ali luilK I j mu e i i i !- i ir unw I g b] IW I I l I I I illill !(i I _$,
'i i
' jim I _.i l H ulu I _g l 1:
1 l , 1 1 e 1 I i W t
!s t.
i Ji/ i lI i -1 II 9)T @ i l i l I g 4W 2ir ':! ! _B 1).M&p- ' l l JI H1A I a i s i . 1l 3 in u 7 i Md !! 0 .\ '3 h I kMsi I ill . ft I <iin E
- $ Mlt.M -
6 4R I _! l . 'd WW N 7 91W I J
%% < N l 91 !.
WTO - ;.. I WI "_ 1 - 'w a u K NM l li'1 .. i l VThi .30- ue -wi ' 18 @N i f \ '1 Cf 1 1RW939!?.CAI yJJ li GING _ g ; . m_ ' '"" am (((g7I ll5l t , i m 'c = io
.au e gd I i m@ l7 I i va i nKI n yr l u i i c
! i wy .
- l. . EU l 1 I il l l l t i i i i l l l 1 , ! il, s a '**#
.n. ~m.a n
# 4
- vs i ! !
j i l h .- -.- _ . . _ . . . . . . . , _. _
- d I, .
un r. n
> . . , . . . . _ - __ - _. . _ _ . _ . . . . . -_- . - 52w d!
ei g:; * <
. jK E
*! cLe
. .i. s.e..
g i ui ;= s
=
i
$J 53 1:
!lIl -
t 23 ::: I 3 8J a 1
, , ,. < . .. , .......3 _
4 1, "IT.2in .i I r I .di) ! --UN IIFfJlilii l i
;q .l i i i i ) l ':. Irp- lei % / p;FM @ l 1
- 9. ww i q.g.
t .f. 1 ei
=
-o,===, .' m. .~ p rg I :- ..l : .1 l ; ,,
,M y l; l~~.~.:;"MW*15<f lC l 6.* l t * '_ ~) . 0 ft'. l .](ll7 j' y ,5 l ["["'f #h, k ib .n 1' MM.h? !l1I /
Tl l l l L. -- t t ) 4 IM i\N} Il M !l E W Pl aiia 25mHt!? ) 1 TN U y Fb VN ,L l!;4[ 1_ }l
. ikk- isGF4ff8f;" .3 / ' I ? 7 13 Rdd f Wi l' i 7 - 1 9 l 1 !- n % 5 V 7 J _
':: m:=1 <T4 I ' PK@
lWlI b WV J,...L
' !A! J lW l - M-?M I d f' I I Lii i 11 b: l-)P .'d '.[
. W TNfWf I-'I L W - ; q ' 1 5 d. 't i i j
) 1 4 m-i I sK I 1 sAi a ! :i 6M 1 lE 4 n="~~ l NC I A#M.i <
h N\ % t I
! I 1 , n==EAm. u '
M WN l1 N W1. , 2 ; b W
.V _~."d._ \ '
1@N.h FL d
- i. L_ F WTA W N '4M\ i j$
s I,L>3h
. it _T.a_, .
- rC% IN I( WM 1 5 W*2 W - Aur A _
W I 'k._ J- - T AW h+s j H f40,._! 5.. =" l @ M ) V? 4 4' WY': l 9 1 ...t.. t i . ' -wn , '7b t t ; -p.t.pyl 3
'=
ld !w >c .I I i 1 ~** - (St il 8 _]
> l /10/,5 l I -
ill 9 4
) @Y MI5i h ) l 3 I ,
I l i u e / _au
- 8. i i : 1i u wk p 'c n gt up is.t. I l
\ I 1
, t men .
. . . . . . . . . i i i i , ,=
- = ..
-t
= w q c -
d1
, .i. l*2 N
d g a f C '5 e 3
#9 iI3 *
. 5 =3n :
I fi !i:s:i a =ga s s E1 g' s 5i ~3 l as a E I lN l i . .* f . I - i 1.l l l l! I , I ' l '; i ll l :, _ 1 l ' :t 4 % l
, l l\ \ l .n I l1 ' l -
l 'n
's i P { h. i l i I 4\l i : I- ibl E i i 4! i %b ' I L,\ .I lii i :: I i l I f4I J i f h.fi
. ,4
\l \ GI I !! I .-I n I 'ij
,i i I L 6.p . I I I ;\ ' i
)
i ; et i'. i..if gi _
. , sI i i R.* / J.A4m i ik \
!!j!
i i f I.'i.) I i : i i . a -+=. rF 1 1%
- ! I- I l._'i _
j In 1 1 ( Gi .J. . " xFiWri
. i l ti), I i.y :
i i ! *l i F -i
'4
, I i i f'Y;r l l .
ih I i i: 1 I "I i W 9 'n i l li l 1- .' c.- '. i -
,A W, , ti iI loi m,#W.w gg ! i\\ 4 I
, .m -
a t.. .*T._- L L_t l: 4 l I: ,: L i W~ 'i NMYe ' k 3: 4 -i: m d ' E JM'-i is . . +'t. I' .
) I. N ' 'l AL l'.? .. ::et t -a: ' :s' . Is r :5 . I ,- it'!5
> 'l lMo M,$- l MP JI %. l'- ' ld5 [. . ie l .l. 4 i We F"i .ss.4 G h.- 5 .I '.WMr- I .3 - 1l e, .l.i1 I I li_J
'4Pd 0-4 sci 2h N
, V - l '6: 6W . .U . I
) l l #2ki ' N3bM@ t . l "I, 'I'[ ,E J.It'- l l N .~+ W Fsiil N H5Nfs--dedJ 4.Ii i 9'#' T A - , 1 . sn ': -r~ m ns Iwe :
N l! ./'.M 1kM 'l M Y Ib. M l- # [NM. jP M :; L LL'? ' $W,. . #,.p. _>_^ S ' !A Mr I ,- 8d '
- - mye %\ . ?"*.5md .. fj- '! b '
W :- I k P- MW I t1J.Sa, I l- I ? Thx% i jg l T ri N 'N N sfi15 %, ,..'i !M it Y : :,,r--2 W : u -
. Z , , 4W,.! F si il ' . It .
. . ,' j,h'. :. : ,.s, .
i.I.. I I n pg ,
, -".'an.'
. . . ' . , , , v.s : 'q l
; --4 -.-t-e--it . , . . . .
e e
r r - ,- f g , b* r - . . . . . . . - . . . . . -
$1 s 1
s.3
- i*la
- yI
=
a s<=t a.c =. 1:::': 4
! E5 $$5s i s 5,1 u-5 $3 1 8s a
i 1 -
,n,,, ,1 li 1 i l I I I i i 4 Lli l l l l I lil I i 't I l i-I i i
- I , i l l l l l l Hl i i i i I 'l I 1. I '
I I lr I l ld ; ; I! I I I i tf f i i i l I i I i i ! lii iB ili i i i ! i l-o lili i i i ! i t i i i ! 'r E 1,!: i i i i I Itw.ja:l'l i i i I il I, I l 14 1 l I!: 1 '; . I I l lui llti//, ll l 1 I I ! l4i !')!P ! . Is i I ! I i f.ii '#/'I t it i i i i 'l Il l !.l i l
.411/lll l il It i l' i:
d I l l i
$jS I '
I i i l i
. d I! i 11 .tiO(I l i lii i i :l li ! l i I I l ,'
1 1;4!t lI ila I:b ja ! ! I I I MG' .I ii ! i i j1 lls Ii ii ' i I ll_LN. I I I I L l it' .I :/1 l 1 l
~
4 ' I t l I (pt y l l l l it j l l li l ,i lj rl l s 6 i ! l l l $ 1; . n ' I I i li i 1. II:j i . d I i i i tikWti 8 l . i . .; 16 ' il i l d i l l 1M nu .. I i 'I': '
, li li cj i i i i l l R.%N i, I
t ll It. D l d i I !! I t '.g .'s l : ll 1 p 1( a i i i _ A_. l.\ t 4*= l i ' I! ! , - E
- is i i :" I hMSN I fr il lV Y d r"* l i. I l'.)E I L ! ! ! 4b t l
t l t i l i i! p/R. 1 i t l 'i It IDJ .I g i : I 8 I i ' I I/Pbl i 11 'l I! I ilihi l' i I N (i t i I , I ,il il I! I N 14i 1. !l lI 4I j 1 F 1 ririh! ;\l si il R Ei il gd ; I I l'-+ ; Ti lAl i , q
'l ! l t/' i?! II i l id ! i i ! i UM. ll N I I l i
!,! (i <
l d4 ( l C ii : : a i a-
. : a i ,
i i i y _m l 0
- s I
_c ~ f '.. , e 3 v 5
-1 ,:$ e<
. h *; 22 EO e
- 5J d.-
I 3 :e:
! 8! ;.;:! =
n J ::a s s
'i3 fi '
e3 ;:5 j as 4 us 1 L; e ! ! l ! +! ! 'I l I- 1 I i Il 1, I
- i- r l 'l I l . , I l p
; . t . : .
i l I. ' l l l l l 1.i i l l I I I !@ l:5 ' i
! I, I I i l I il i I ! I 'l i ll
[1
' t i i; I i! li l' l l l l l l ! l P !
!3 !
i!'ii i .! l I I I , I - il jii ~ t ! il l l l i i l l I Eg til I I l. I '. J' l I I I
, 91 I i l l ni t I i ,; i Niiii nt \ li p! i ;
j ! I I I s.! \; I , Ii l i l ll l j it I I i I , rl il I ; I1 ! W i l ! II I F In l \ i i 'L 11 5 .
,1_ i i I li rix t -
i
- I ,
; - ' s i i i i l iil i 1 I l l I lt l'1 i ll I l l :-l l !
4 1 dl s i t; I \ i;l W Ll J i i i i I l l1 !: qi! ! , ! i'1 l I : ? I ! t i g i i l iIl .i .n
,j
< i l I I l ia/3 '
k h I I f5 ' Ll? i I i i i i it. l .. I!E l
! i l
;i 3. .
l l1
- 7. ,,
[ M y, . -- 9
.)
l 8L
- 1100*
GW7 sL +4.0e' l
*w - \ ! [ '
0 - v ,, , 4 ",,,,,,,
-3 = Ii
*=.,**,.,,,,.,p.--._---.
iI
.eg ,.
s -- -- J 4_ EL 47.00* VERTICAL LPPECTIVE STRESS QUE TO OVERSURDEN TOP OF PMISTOCEPft
- 13 K3P EL 40.00*
INITIAL C0se0IT10N m.e 3es'.s 30' o g .13,oe' em .
\-
-------...---_--3.
_ ,~~,,__. _ TOPOPPuSTOC.,-- __-__ -- EL -47.00* VERTICAL STRESS
- O KSF GWT EXCAVATION PMASSS I THACUGH IV COMPLETED Y %
1I EL
- 91M EL + 4100'
\ i' SL
- 2.00*
e IL
- 21.0e'
+N .
0 - sacariu.. - M"" ' -a == -
*g = * = * =='.sasse m.asspou. ;4. . , sasseps-- ,=*y ns$ ***
-88 .
-l- - . i.,.~% ; . . - _ _ . . ,sm.-,,,,,. .-.-
- . =
EL 47.05' VERTICAL EPPtCTIVt STRESS
- AS NSF TOP OP PLSISTOC8NG EL .4100*
INT 5mesE04 ATE STAGS - C0se87RUCT SulLDINGS
- TO LSVELS SMowed SACEPtLL WITH COMPACTSO SANO (' .
8 TO EL *W (APMt0XJ OGGIN -SATURATION r i meActon
- eveLouee PueL 0.
- 17.00t owT sk
- ase' ,,,,,,,. gog.g, AUX. SueLDeess . 8L8'O.
'N - _ . _ _ _ _
,,_ ,,7 y _ wais un sura mmmre.rwarar as as as w , , , , , , , . ,_ _ - -
- _% =e, essus amespew3 Isasseenesesk/h,,**.
.8 . .
% ... .. w..y ,,-
=' .
d .-
.ae . i - .r...,1 . _ _ . _ .i BL.47.00' VERTICAL BPPECTIVE STM688
- 11 K3P TOP OF PL8st70Ctk(
C00sPL8780 C0fece710se = ALLOW Gwf TO R006 TO OmeesNAL L8v8L SL M SV RELAASIfe8 OEWATERHe6 4 SAfunATING SACMPILL COMPLETE CONSTRUCf10N OP $7muCTUREA GACEPtLL TO PtosAL 4AAct LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO* b " DE31GN CCNCEPT CUTT.!NE Weterford Steam .' 2.5 -102 meMe Stele, g a
- 'i'
. i l-e 1 e,
sie rl:IE b l" 5T8 1 PE E .
$E-CU CONSTRUCTION STAGES q573$ y> .
1 2 3 .s, s , 7 , s , Q p' ~
- f PHASE I EXCAVATION l r EXCAVATION PHASES II. lli AND IV .
4 CONSTRUCTION CEASED a u l, 1- I GROSS l m" ' NARING
> *s PRESSURE y 2 y e
- i o 4 3 '. s
- fiii 1
4
, ~
e m m
= 6s . ji /
C: x :
* // l' ti ll 1 E
= 9* ,
Illi ! I 5 es
= f .
/
/
11 f./ I
/
$ ls '
ll
$ z ROUVANCY PRESSURE h
2 2
~
, IVER AGE PIE 20METRI'c !
l a *. N -t . LEVEL IN SOIL COLuttN
, .g g -
I
-4 1
, , SOUYANCE PRESSURE l
. p IN SilELL FILTER l j BLANKET - e ll J l. i i il I i i ,l. i i i i i
- 8 4 a 12 ' ' M M 34 M 42 M M M M $2 M 70 74 78 -
l TIA4E - it40NTHS) MARCil 1978 i I fff DNDICATES EFFECTIVE MARING 11I PRESSURE AT EL-47 FT. *
;1 *
~
ea i ~
. l
- 6. Provide the foundation loading history under each block during construction of the mat and walls. This should include the distribution of pressure under each block. Include the location and history of loads due to backfilling adjacent to foundation blocks.
Response: Ebasco A computer program was developed and maintained weekly to monitor the placements made. Accumulative soil stresses were identified and maximum / minimum total stresses were noted. These figures and the differential stresses were reviewed. Differential stress did not exceed the maximum allowable of 1.0 KSF. As can be noted on the Composite Foundation Mat Settlement (Figure 2.5-117 in the FSAR), recharging of the water table began in late 1977 and was gradually charged until completion in late 1979. Recharging commenced based on total stresses achieving the 4.5 KSF criteria. The initiation of recharging the mat was approximately week no. 85 of construction. Distribution of pressure under each block was not maintained since the mat was considered as a single mat. Backfilling and concrete construction was established through drawing no. LOU-1564-G-490, " General Nuclear Plant Island Structure Construction Sequence". This drawing provided the evaluation criteria for top of concrete as related to top of fill. Generally, construction was sequenced to place concrete (walls / floors, etc.) uniformally by constructing the buildings with minimal differentiation in loading. Consequently, backfilling operations followed suit and maintained a uniformity of placement as well. l l l i d i e 4 i m
\
R S K SE G C EN N
- 2 O
L S GA A0 RC D I A 1-C . i A E .EE E T . 4 8 3 4 HP VH R H s G N 9 1 TR ET I T N I L . O I
. 7 8
f1 $ET E TT38 I O SA M & .. AN F 6 SH A EC S N 1 1 R o DEO eM s 2 GA T E . 1 I E uE E
, AE NEK RmETO Ei M AC Ed TL
$e m OW. . OLT a
TE fTE R U 4 P
, VH E5 Ai Th LTB KC L 2 8 s EfH is$ Gl 4
EMTEH R C 0N tO n, A 41 A 4 5 O r f
. 3 Ai$ SEE EMA s S tE l
it u o 5N 1 E CUf AI KR u . C o ss I m 0M 1E L PL SE OSO A sl uA i MN VM oN I m 0 w L 2 ET E HE IOP i llfO 4 I DR m IT N E TS l 2 1 i 8 _ ; s t f 0 ' N 4
}*- 3 9
7 9 . 1 2 l' 8 hm s 0' s e P s l 4
'<Q a
i s e 2 3 4 6
- l k%
I 1 4 - ' - S I A S S I A 4 9 7 8 l 8 - A 8 A 4 S 9 3 . 2 - . A 5 N 0 N 8 4 A S S S 1 A 2 I i i K A l' t e t C O 3 2 J 8 7 5 A I u sa L A 8 l . 8 t S 8 S 6 l I i t i v N s s O _ i . _ a 0 4 ,i m
)% N E
G E -
.
- t l
i i 4
] _
k-1 0 h _. l _ re b e . 2 t s O* u A A. I .N a H a l 5 1 A f 3 t a t i e 8 2 8 3 i
\ g eM pA j
t
'l 3 8 l l
f e u S N g%- 3 n tt S 8 5 0 8 g
} =
e x gisa f _ 7 c 9 s 1 g .Xsg'O3 e e 3 I 8 3
- A I
iA l g'.%, a 4 8 A E A S I A *
.N F
d 3 ( - 4 4 3 4 4 2 1 g A 3 1
^
I gg t
.. , f l r *2 , ., "I I
-g g
$5!*GE3 ,5 e
3
~
e. ( ( I - ,.e i8
- ee j[,.I:II!
- 7. Provide complete settlement history for each block from initial pouring until the present time.
Response: Ebasco The settlement drawings listed in response to question four (4) provide the settlement picture by block placement until 1981. At this time, the number of settlement points was reduced to eight (8). 4 5 5 0 a ( -. ax. . . . . - . . . - - _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . .
- 8. Analyze and discuss the relationship of the above variables (Qs 5-7 above) on the history of all observed mat cracks and leaks.
Response: Ebasco The initial detection of mat cracks was made in mid 1977 when the concrete surface beneath the, reactor containment was cleaned up and prepared for concrete fill placement. These cracks were identified by the minor water seepage caused by the temporary high groundwater level beneath the mat. This high groundwater level was shortly thereafter lowered by increasing the capacity of the dewatering system. No other cracks were detected at that time and no organized search was made for such. In 1983, a series of cracks was detected and mapped. These cracks, along with those found in 1977, show a pattern generally following the pattern of mat differential settlement. The width of the cracks and the spacing of them shows a very low state of stress. The cracks were found to be not measurable in width and could be identified in some cases only by moist concrete and in some cases only by a line of old leachato now dry. This shows that the cracks were created at some time previous to 1983 since it taken considerable time for leachate to form a measurable residue when the moisture flow carrying it li .*ery low. The entire process which resulted in mac differential settlements, namely stressing the underlying soils labove a level which they originally had been exposed to, was completed in mid 1979 and no further significant net or differential settlements have occurr'ed since and are not expected in the future. S
/
J< e* 4 e p' e s W m I p / s
- 9. What basis is there for accepting the adequacy of construction of the first 3 blocks?
Response: LP&L Waterford 3 Quality Standard Prior to Placement 6, on December 2,1975, the Waterford 3 Project underwent extensive development and gained significant construction QA experience during the extcaded qualification programs for the concrete batch plant, the concrete materials (cement, aggregates and admixtures) and the design mixes. During this period prior to Placement 6, the project also gained experience in the development and conduct of quality programs for soils, reinforcing steel and cadwelding. LP&L takes credit for establishing a high quality standard for the whole project during the pre-placement period, which carried over into the placement of the basemat. This high quality standard has been established and maintained throughout the project history. Observation of Placement 6 Since basemat Placement 6 was the first Class I placement, there was much interest in LP&L, Ebasco, and the concrete contractor to assure that the placement was carried out in a quality manner. Preplacement inspections were extremely detailed and received input from many project personnel beside those inspectors *who actually signed the inspection reports. In addition to the official Quality Control efforts of both Ebasco and the concrete contractor (which, alone, represents considerably more than minimum Quality control coverage), the placement was observed by several LP&L QA employees, LP&L project employees, Ebasco QA employees, 1 management personnel of Ebasco and the concrete contractor and two NRC inspectors. It is not typical to document such participation, but many of these observers can attest to their presence during the placement. During the conduct of Placement 6, several problems were encountered. The problems were formally documented by Ebasco (JG-75-12-2, dated 12-2-75) and LP&L (W3S-75-64S, dated 12-2-75). It is noteworthy that, despite the deficiencies which were documented, neither author made any direct statements or recommendations that the quality of the placement itself should be investigated. On the contrary, both authors (and others) attest to the fact that in-process corrective action was taken, thus preventing the placement itself from being suspect. Consistent with the project quality standards, however, neither the - 4 author of the two reports, nor their superiors, desired the continued necessity for the type of intense in-process corrective action . required during placement 6. The purposes of the reports, as attested by their authors, were to cause generic and programmatic corrective action by the concret: contractor, so as to assure that future placements would be cond2cted with better control. To bArther assure mutual understanding of the deficiencies and to expedite their resolution, a meeting was held on December 5, 1975
i l Response: LP&L (9 Continued) which included representation from LP&L, Ebasco and the concrete contractor. Resolution of the documented deficiencies were adequate to allow the concrete contractor to proceed with the next placement. Basemat Placement 1 Basemat Placement 1 occurred on December 8, 1975. Corrective action on the deficiencies recorded during Placement 6, was obviously effective. No QA deficiency reports were issued. The improvement in concrete contractor performance was, therefore, adequate to allow the concrete contractor to proceed with the placement sequence. Basemat Placement 2 Basemat Placement 2 occurred on December 11, 1975. The corrective action effected during Placement 1, although present to some extent during Placement 2, obviously did not meet the quality standard of LP&L. An LP&L QA surveillance report (W3S-75-63S, dated 12-11-75) was issued, listing deficiencies detected during the-conduct of Place-
- j. -
ment 2. Since the concrete contractor apparently could not sustain ^ the quality standards expected during the conduct of concrete placements on the basis of QA audit reports, surveillance reports, and meetings,.LP&L QA decided to issue Stop' Work Order Number 1 (SWO-1) in order to assure both Ebasco and the concrete contractor
; that LP&L was serious about project quality , standards. Again, it is noteworthy that neither the LP&L QA surveillance report nor '
the Stop Work Order itself, make mention of any need for investi-gation into the quality of Placement 2. Participants attest to the fact that the placement itself was accomplished satisfactorily, albeit with considerable effort. Follow-on concrete placements
- Following the issuance of SWO-1, a high. level meeting was called ~ .
to discuss and resolve the'SWO-1 issues. Following implementation , of programmatic ' corrective action to _ the ' satisfaction _of- LP&L, : the Stop Work Order was lifted _and placement of the basemat proceeded without significant incident, with the exception of placements 10B and 19.
. During the conduct of placements-105 and 19, the' concrete contractor
- encountered problems which were unique to those placements. It is noteworthy that these two placements were subjected to' substantial
. investigation and repair, including a combined total of-302 core borings. The purpose in pointing out these intensive efforts
- (including an independent evaluation in the case-of' Placement 10B) isLto emphasize that LP&L has not-been bashful in demanding '
assurance of the quality of Waterford--3 construction. Had the actual _ quality;of Placements 6, 1, an'd 2 been' suspect,-LP&L and/or-Ebasco would most. assuredly _have demanded investigative' measures.
~
s b p *=9&.y -* -y- - r - 6=y i - - -
. - - - . - _ - = - _ . . - _ .
[5 Response: (Continued) Phearson memorandum On December 15, 1975, four days after Basemat Placement 2, a hand-written "Afteraction Report" was written by a Mr. F. L. Phearson, an Ebasco Quality Assurance Engineer who participated in Placement 2, to Mr. W. C. Griggs, then Ebasco Senior Quality Control Supervisor. The Phearson memorandum lists deficiencies in the conduct of Placement 2 which are equivalent to some of the deficiencies listed in the previously discussed LP&L and Ebasco QA reports of December 2 and 11, 1975. Mr. Griggs does not recall seeing the memorandum at the time, and LP&L first became aware of it in mid 1983. LP&L wishes to make one speculative and two factual points regarding the Phearson memorandum. .
- 1. Factual - The deficiencies listed in the Phearson memorandum had already been identified in LP&L and Ebasco QA reports, along with other deficiencies not mentioned in the Phearson meno.
- 2. Speculative - On the hypothetical assumption that Mr. Griggs actually saw the memorandum (he does not i recall seeing it), it is reasonable to assume that he would consider it moot, since he already had in
_ (~) his_ possession the LP&L QA surveillance report, which included the same deficiencies and more.
- 3. Factual'- The Phearson memorandum does not speci-3 .fically state that Placement 2 is suspect, nor_does it recommend or imply the need for investigation of the placement. Phearson did not leave the Waterford 3 project until aid April, 1976.
Considering the recommendation in his memorandum, it is reasonable to conclude that Phearson's motives in writing the memorandum were similar to those of others who reported deficiencies in the conduct of Placements 2 and 6 - that is, to effect programmatic improvements in the conduct of future concrete placements.- I r
Conclusion:
1-Based on this information, the actual performance of the mat to date, the internal review and evaluation, the independent review-and evaluation and the extreme conservatism in the mat design,
~
7. LP&L'has adequate confidence that the basemat will perform satis- ~ ifactorily in service.. __--.....;- J.--. , , . - , , , - _ _ ._ v. , . m,. . ., ,
- 10. If engineering judgement was involved in accepting those blocks, what was
. . _ - the basis for that judgement? Where is it documented?
Response
Placements 6, 1, and 2 were conforming placements. As such, no engineering evaluations nor engineering judgements were required to support their adequacy. See also the responses to Questions 9, 11, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. l l t s G [ I l l i l. i - i { <l. [ Q
~
I c _
- 11. What corrective actions were necessary for the first 3 blocks? What corrective actions were taken, and provide specifics for each pour? Where are these actions documented?
Response: LP&L Two types of corrective action were effected with respect to basemat Placements 6, 1, and 2, the first three basemat placements. The following discussions characterize both. A. In-process corrective action During the conduct of basemat placements 6 and 2, and to a smaller extent, placement 1, corrective action was taken as deficiencies were detected. These corrective measures resulted from the fact that there were so many " inspectors", including the official Ebasco and concrete contractor inspectors (who would actually sign the inspection documents), Ebasco and LP&L QA personnel, and others. Although these placements occurred in excess of eight years ago, the significance of these placements (essentially the first j substantial permanent safety related work at Waterford 3) and review of site records have refreshed the memories of key personnel. Attachment A represents the recollection of in-process corrective actions taken during each of the three placements. B. Programmatic Corrective Action Because of the recurrence of some operational problems requiring in-process correction, LP&L issued Stop Work Order #1. The Stop Work Order was not issued becaus'e there was concern about the integrity of the work completed or in progress, but to stress the urgency of eliminating the recurrence of problems. Stop Work Order #1 was_ based on the findings in three QA audit reports:
- 1. Ebasco Audit Report JG-75-12-2 written on Placement 6 on December 2, 1975.
- 2. LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-64S written on Placement i 6 on December 2, 1975.
- 3. LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-63S written on Placement
- 2 on December 11, 1975. -
Attachment B presents each of the audit findings, the contractor responses, and the final LP&L resolution for each item. Attachment B
- addresses the first and third placements (Placement 6 and 2). The second placement (Placement 1) was quite uneventful and no QA audit ,
report was generated. l l
I Response: (11 Continued) ATTACHMENT A Audit Report No. JG-75-12-2 (Placement 499S02-6) ITEM 4: "Not enough vibrators were provided for adequate vibration or to make provisions for breakdown of equipment." i This finding directs attention to the fact that the auditor was unable to i locate (within the immediate area of the placement) extra vibrators for backup in the event of malfunction of vibrators in use. However, no
- malfunction of vibrators was actually detected. The corrective action response from the contractor to Ebasco Q.A. states that..."During the actual pour, a total of. twelve (12) vibrators were in operation with ten (10) more as back-up directly adjacent to the pour area." Therefore, the auditor concluded that the contractor's personnel contacted for
, verification of this item were not aware of the location of the back-up + vibrators. Subsequent to this pour, the contractor instituted pre-pour meetings attended by cognizant supervisory personnel to assure a complete understanding of the contents of applicable work procedures and the applicable pour plan. ITEM 5: " Workmen deviated from placing procedure; it was apparent that workmen were not. cognizant with placing procedure." Concrete placement inspection report. dated.12-2-75 indicates that at 9:00 a.m. the contractor was not placing the concrete using the stepping procedure as outlined in their placement diagram. It further states that-steps were taken to correct this condition by building up the north side at a faster rate. ITEM 12: "It was observed that improper use of. vibrators and insufficient vibration _resulted in honeycomb." 1This statement relates to an exterior surface area of the plac'ement examined'once forms were removed. The condition observed is documented on Econcrete pour plan form dated December 8, 1985.- The_ extent of honeycombing was relatively minor and was. concentrated around the horizontal waterstop
- located toward the top edge of the placement. Repairs were satisfactorily L accomplished as was noted on the concrete pour
- plan form.
L e Ol
- -. . .a . . - ,, - , ,, .,_. , - .
1 Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A i ITEH 13: "At times height of drop exceeded the 5 foot limit." While in certain isolated instances the height of drop for the concrete exceeded the 5 foot limit, no actual separation / segregation was detected. These occurrences were brought to the attention of the contractor's supervisory personnel who in turn verbally issued corrective action . directives. 4 ITEM 16: "It was observed that for some loads that as much as 15 minutes elapsed before the discharge time was recorded; consequently, an incorrect time was recorded." The auditor monitored the actions of the inspectors checking the incoming concrete mixers and on a couple of instances noticed that the time elapsed between the start of discharge of concrete and recording by Q.C. was approximately 15 minutes. These occurrences were brought to the attention of the Q.C. supervisor present. Action taken was to assign an additional inspector to monitor this facet of the operation. Additionally, a check of the batch tickets revealed that all trucks were discharged within the one hour time limit.-
, ~
ITEM 21: " Improper handling of cylinders resulted in uncircular specimens, also , Hi-Lo thermometers were not provided until late evening." m
- The observations.were made that one. set of concrete cylinders were somewhat
out-of-round at the top'and'that thermometers were not readily available to monitor the curing of test cylinders. These occurrences were isolated. 4 events and corrective action-included re-instruction of personnel and an adequate supply of thermometers at the point of need, prior to initiation of concreting operations. L
; ITEM 24: " Skip pan was observed to' stand onLtop of the mat'for several minutes prior _to testing of the concrete which was in.the skip-pan."
~
LThe concern expressed was that the skip. pan which contained the1 concrete to-
'be used_for_ testing was' observed to-remain on the mat.for an extended period
~
p
- of time prior'to testing. This condition was an isolated' occurrence which:
r resulted;from an insufficient number of cranes available for use in handling the sampling of_ concrete.- Action taken_was to provide equipment-t,o.be_ assigned solely for the' sampling of concrete. ? e j w w- yw *1.---- -- .ais s -.9---r,i 1 g- ip e p-.g-- te wg9m"'- g a g + - - g
-- .~ . - - -- -- . . - . - . . - .. . .
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A d ITEM 25: " Workmen were observed to shovel concrete from the ground into the pumps, thus contaminating the concrete with shell." A workman was observed shoveling concrete, which had spilled on to the ground from the pump hopper, back into the hopper. The corner edge of the
. shovel caught some shell which in turn was dumped into the hopper. The ! amount of shell was insignificant but the practice of picking up concrete from the ground was discouraged. This was an isolated occurrence which was corrected on the spot by the contractor's Superintendent. On subseq ant placements, plywood was placed under the pumps to keep spilled concrece off the ground.
4
-ITEM 26: " Documentation of tests and checklists were obs e rved to be in error and omissions of data and signatures exists."
A~ review of concrete placement records subsequent to completion of the placement revealed certain irregularities. Q.C. personnel were , reinstructed, and information was retrieved which permitted correction of the irregularities. It should be noted that this finding was limited to i documentation deficiencies, i , ' e i J
.)
t s 1
-- , r' s e w t e * -4
--w yg {a y
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A Audit Report No. W3S 75-64S (Placement 499S02-6) ITEM 1: " Contrary to Section I Paragraph 10,9, concrete was placed even though it exceeded specification requirements." This observation resulted from a difference in understanding between LP&L and Ebasco. Ebasco Engineering stated in a November 24, 1975, nemorandum that the slump could range between 1 and 5 inches. Since only one batch exceeded the requirement (5 3/4 inch slump), this was a non-problem. This one case of out-of-specification slump was documented and resolved on D.N.
#C-77.
ITEM 2. " Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 5.2, concrete received disturbing shocks and vibrations from reinforcing steel which was set in motion by concrete pump discharges." This problem was noted early in the placement. It was quickly corrected by J. A. Jones long before the concrete had set. The purpose of the finding was to formally notify J. A. Jones and Ebasco concerning this observation so that it could be prevented on future placements. ITEM 3. " Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 4.13, concrete was inadequately vibrated." 2 There were some instances during the placement where minor deviation from the correct vibrating procedure was noted. These deviations occurred when the operator exceeded the required spacing between vibrating operations, or did.not insert the vibrator in a perfectly vertical manner. These
' deviations were minor in nature and were corrected by J. A. Jones on the spot.
1
. ITEM 4. " Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 5.1, curing water was not continuously maintained on-all exposed surfaces."
The word."all" is important here.. .There were a few instances where standing water was not kept on a few localized surface areas of the placement. These areas were kept damp. This was not a major problem as-
'J. A. Jones was generally conscientious in maintaining adequate curing.
,during the placements. J. A. Jones took immediate action to assure that all areas of the placement were continuously covered.
t b n ---- - - --
. _ - . _ = . - . . .
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A ITEM 5. " Contrary to ACI 318 - Rebar was improperly spaced in some areas of the placement." This was a practical problem caused by bulkheads, interferences with embedded items, and clearance for concrete pumping equipment. The deviations from drawings were minor in nature. These problems were corrected by J. A. Jones on the spot. ITEM 6. " Personnel involved in placement activities were not aware of or failed to follow J. A. Jones Co., ' Concrete Pour Plan'." ~ This comment centered around difficulty in keeping with the " stair stepping procedure" for concrete placement. An example of this difficulty, and on-the-spot corrective action can be found in the Ebasco Concrete Placement Inspection record (form no. 6C1P 7-1, 11-30-75) for placement no. 499 S02-6 (12-2-75). See 0900 hours entry in the record. , i ITEM-7. "Several Ebasco concrete test records (form no. QC18-7-2, 11-30-75) were not completely filled out." 4
' Problems with the records noted during the placement were minor in nature and were usually corrected on the spot. Considering that this was the first placement, the inspection documentation was, in fact, very good.
e 4 n I e e y
- 1 1
_ Response: -(11 Continued) Attachment A j Surveillance Report W3S-75-63S (Placement No. 499S02-2) ITEM 1: " Rejected concrete being used." ITEM 2: "Ebasco inspector's rejection of concrete overridden by Ebasco QC Supervisor." This statement related to Batch No. 001441, so action would be taken, correcting any doubt about the concrete in question. The Ebasco response to Surveillance Report No. W3S-75-63S, states in part: " instructed all Ebasco Q.C. personnel this date to have verification test made on questionable items prior to release for use." ITEM 3: " Concrete allowed to be placed that could not be vibrated under rebar. This concrete was removed from the placement immediately, after notification by LP&L Q.A. The concrete in question was being removed from a plugged pump line. After this incident, a container was used to catch out-of-specification concrete. ITEM 4: " Concrete being vibrated in order to flow from truck chute." A laborer used a vibrator to assist the flow of concrete to the pump-hopper. This procedure was stopped immediately by LP&L Q.A. The finding was written to assure programmatic corrective action. ITEM 5: " Continuous use of low slump out of specification concrete after being warned by LP&L. -(Hed to have QA Corporation _at Placement correct)."' This finding was written because a period of successive low, but in-specification, could cause pumping problems and delays in placement. ITEM 5: " Concrete being controlled before pump hoppers by J. A. Jones." , J. A. Jones was responsible for concrate placement. The quality of the concrete which J.A. Jones received for placement was the responsibility of QA Corporation. This finding _was written to assure that J.A. Jones had no control of the concrete quality prior'to their receiving it.
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A ITEM 7: " Dry. concrete being removed from discharge hose and being permitted to drop in placement area. (Was made to remove by LP&L)." See Item 3 above. The action desired by this finding was for J. A. Jones to train their employees in the use of a catch pan. Also, the J. A. Jones response to W3S-75-63S, states in part: "when a transport line becomes plugged, the area underneath the cleaning operations on the top mat will be covered to prevent the concrete dropping through the top mat into the pour area." ITEM 8: " Improper placement of concrete." Corrections were on the spot. The finding was written so that J. A. Jones would be aware problems and make necessary corrections in the following areas.
- 1. Improper use of vibrators - not inserting the vibrator in the proper vertical position.
t
- 2. Improper height of drop-at times the drop exceeded the 5 foot limit.
- 3. Allowing the concrete tremie to swing while pumping concrete.
ITEM 9: " Inadequate supervision by J. A. Jones." This finding was written to cause J. A. Jones to increase their supervision at placement areas. 2 ITEM 10: " Inadequate supervision by Ebasco." This finding was written to cause Ebasco to increase their supervision at placement area. ITEM 1_1_: " Corrective action not taken by some of Ebasco personnel after being brought to their attention by LP&L." When correcitve action was not as expeditious as desired by LP&L,. corrective action was taken by LP&L QA. (Corrective action . amounted . to giving directions in problem areas as needed, but this item was also designed to make Ebasco aware that additional training was.needed by their personnel.) e - 4 w e w
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment A ITEM 12: " Complete failure by most to meet requirements of procedures and specifications."
"The finding was not in intended to imply that personnel were not qualified to perform their duties. It was intended to indicate that there were some personnel which indeed needed additional training in such areas as:
- 1. The limit of acceptable drop of concrete from the end of tremie or hose.
- 2. The proper thickness of placement layers-not exceeding the 20 inches.
- 3. Proper use of vibrators.
ITEM 13: "No evaluation of crack growth in west wall of pour #6 until brought to the attention of supervisors by LP&L." The finding was written to make Ebasco evaluate the crack and take necessary action on the matter. See Ebasco response to this observation dated December 17, 1975, F-4614 4.0.
Response: (11 Continued) ATTACHMENT B STOP WORK ORDER #1 (Ref. 1, 2) This attachment presents quotations of: a) Each unsatisfactory finding as stated in: i) Ebasco Audit Report JG-75-12-2, ii) LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-64S, and iii) LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-63S. NOTE: These three reports constitute the basis for Stop Work Order #1. b) The written response from the appropriate contractor, (J.A. Jones Construction Company), Ebasco Services, Inc. or both; and The LP&L evaluation and resolution of the contractor's reply to c) each item. Generally, LP&L either accepted the reply and closed the item, or provided direction for additional action. These evaluations _and resolutions are documented in meeting minutes
-(LP&L and Ebasco, 1-2-76, Ref. 6) written by Ebasco.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS (Ref. 6) These observations were made by LP&L to Ebasco at the end of the meeting. i- 1.. "All J. A.' Jones responses and corrective action to non-conformances
-are'to be accepted by Ebasco." - (Clarification: This means that LP&L will not accept a response from J.- A.; Jones or Ebasco unless
'the response and corrective action are also acceptable to Ebasco QA.)
'2. "Ebasco will be required to have site management conduct audits to see that programs developed for the corrective action are being
' implemented and adhered to."
I. -EBASCO AUDIT REPORT JG-75-12-2 ON PLACEMENT 6 (Ref. 3', 4)- ITEN'4:; "Not enough vibrators were provided for adequate vibration or to make provisions for breakdown of equipment." J. A. Jones Response _ (Ref. 5):
~
"The approved Concrete Pour Plan dated November.26,.1985 specified that' six-(6) Electrical and three (3) Air-Driven Vibrators were planned for_ ~
use on Pour #6. Just prior to pour,-twelve.(12)-Electrical-and-ten (10)-~ Air-Driven Vibrators were verified for. frequency of vibration and. certified for_use'on subject pour.- During the actual pour, a total of'
; cwelve (12)' Vibrators .were in operation with ten -(10) more as back-up .
directlyL adjacent to the pour area. J. A. Jones considers the allegation as' stated unfound.ed."
. - . - - . - - - .. ~ . . . . _ . - - . _ .. . . - -
Ebasco Response (Ref. 15):
"It has been verified by this department that 23 vibrators are available for subsequent placements and that the lack of vibrators would be highly unlikely in the event of equipment failure."
J LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"LP&L considered the response controversial."
No LP&L direction was provided and no additional correspondence or discussion followed. Therefore, it is presumed that the J.A. Jones and Ebasco responses to this item were ultimately accepted. ITEM 5: " Workmen deviated from placing procedure; it was apparent that workmen were not cognizant with placing procedure." J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 5):
" Subsequent to this pour, J. 4. Jones instituted pre-pour meetings attended by all cognizant supervisory personnel to assure a com-
'lete understanding of the contents of J. A. Jones Work Procedure p
W-WP-7 and the applicable pour plan. J. A. Jones will continue these meetings and will place even greater emphasis on the contents of the placing procedures." Resolution (Ref. 6)
"LP&L observed that the response appeared to be acceptable."
s
-ITEM 12: It was observed that improper use of vibrators and insufficient' l - vibration resulted in honeycomb..
Ebasco Response (Ref. 5)i .
"A formal training class was presented on December 16, 1975 by J. A. Jones Quality Engineering covering proper t'echniques for vibrator operators. This class, which presented the reasons for and the required method of vibrator operation, was attended-
- - by all operator personnel assigned to Pour #3 and those Con-struction Supervisors responsible
- for placement: operations.
Course contents, graphic illustrations and attendance has'been documented and is:available.on request.- It is our intention to 1 conduct this-training for any new-vibrator operators assigned to subsequent concrete placement operations." LP&L' Resolution (Ref.L6): . g ="LP&L' observed.that-the response appeared'to be' acceptable." e-s*, - - e e g V +y % ,e 9 , ,y- c' - n-, - --+- y y3 >-wiyvw yw g+.-- --g myY q , w- ww w
Response: .(11 Continued) Attachment B
. ITEM 13: "At times height of drop exceeded the 5 foot limit."
J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 5):
" Cognizant Construction Supervisory personnel have been coun-ciled subsequent to this pour and fully understand that the dropping of concrete from a height of more than five (5) feet onto exposed reinforcing steel can cause separation of the aggregate. They have been further instructed that in the future it is mandatory that_the approved procedural direction must be followed at all times."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"J. A. Jones response must be in the form of written instruc-tions similar to that described in Item 1 on Report W3S-75-63S.
Objective evident of implementation is required. J. A. Jones complied via Ref. 14 which directed personnel to read and understand a) Ebasco Specification LOU-1564.472, Section II, Jb) J. A. Jones Concrete Pour Plan, and c) Concrete Placement and consolidation-training session and class notes." i ITEM 16: "It was observed that for some loads that as much as 15 minutes elapsed before the discharge time.was recorded; consequently an incorrect time was recorded."
~Ebasco Response (Ref. 7):
"The time that is stamped on the batch ticket at the point of discharge is the discharge completion time."
"The driver will not leave until he has the-ticket returned to him.
A check of the batch tickets did not reveal any discrepancies. All trucks were discharged within the one hour time limit." ! LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6): l l "LP&L observed.that the response' appeared to be acceptable. .Ebasco
.QA has verbally accepted the response."'[Ebasco QA verbally accepted the Ebasco -response 1Ln the LP&L - Ebasco meeting (1-2-76, Ref. 6), thereby_.
satisfying LP&L?s condition per GENERAL OBSERVATIONS No.-1.]. b ITEN 21: " Improper' handling of_ cylinders resulted in uncircular specimens, also Hi-Lo' thermometers were.not_provided until late. evening." . Ebasco Response (Ref. 7): it "All Inspection and Testing Personnel-haveLbeen instructed 1as to I the proper method of handling' concrete test cylinders." -
I l i Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B r
"The Hi-Lo thermometers have been mounted in the concrete cylinder curing boxes."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"LP&L observed that the response appeared to be acceptable.
Ebasco QA has verbally accepted the response." ITEM 24: " Skip pan was observed to stand on top of the mat for several minutes prior to testing of the concrete which was in the skip pan." Ebasco Response (Ref. 7):
"The skip pan was moved to the testing area as quickly as it was possible. There were a few times that the crane was being used for another operation and could not be used immediately but was released for the testing as soon as possible."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"LP&L observed that the response appeared to be acceptable.
Ebasco QA has verbally accepted the response." ITEM 25: " Workmen were observed to shovel concrete from the ground into the pumps, thus contaminating the concrete with shell." 1 Ebasco Response (Ref. 7):
. "Ebasco's Q.C. notified J.A. Jones during the placement that this was not permitted. J.A. Jones Superintendent instructed their personnel as to the requirements."
Ebasco Response (Ref. 15):
"It should be recognized that workmanship does have an effect on the quality of. concrete..therefore, caution must be exer-cised to eliminate any possibilities of' contamination.. On subsequent placement the use of plywood should be utilized on the ground by the pumps."
- LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"LP&L-observed that the response appeared to'be acceptable.
~
~Ebasco QA has verbally accepted the response."
- - - , m .m-- . .-, - , ,-
. _ _ - . - - -. - _ _ _ . _ =-- - . .- .
I Response:- (11 Continued)
- l Attachment B
{
)
ITEM 26: " Documentation of tests and checklists were observed to be in error and omissions of data and signatures exists." Ebasco Response (Ref. 7):
" Concrete testing and inspection personnel have been re-instructed in the proper use of forms. Subsequent placement reveals much improved documentation." [" Subsequent placements" refers to place-ments completed af ter audit report JG-75-12-2 was written. ]
ITEM 26: LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"LP&L' observed that the response appeared to be acceptable.
Ebasco QA has verbally accepted the response." t
\
O O r b U
., , -me - =
9
I p Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B . I 4 II. LP&L-QA SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT W3S-75-64S OBSERVATIONS (Ref. 2, 8) i-
! ITEM 1: " Contrary to Section I Paragraph 10.9, concrete was placed even though it exceeded specification requirements."
Ebasco Response (Ref. 9): l "Section I, Article 10.9, of the Concrete Masonry Specification
, . LOU 1564.'472 gives a range of slumps for various types of , construction. Our Concrete-Hydraulic Engineering Department interpreted this paragraph regarding slumps for the common mat '
foundation and provided the site with direction in memorandum
- from R. Vine /A. Wern to J.O. B.ooth dated November 24, 1984 i (Ref. 6). This memorandum stated that slumps could range j between 5 inches and 1 inch. This is consistent with the first paragraph of Section I, Article 10.9, which states that. concrete
, shall_be of a consistency and workability suitable for the ' conditions of the job. A review of the concrete Test Records, Form No. QCIP-7-2, show that only one batch of concrete (5-3/4 inch slump) was used for Block No. 499S02-6 that exceeded the specified requirements concerning slumps."
- - Ebasco Response (Ref. 12)
"Please refer to the supplemental response to Item 5 of Site Surveillance Report No. W3S-75-63S."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6) e
" Memorandums of interpretation of specifications are to be on '
controlled distribution as discussed under Item 5 of the preceding report (i.e., W3S-75-63S)." 1 ITEN 2: -" Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 5.9, concrete received I disturbing shocks and vibrations from reinforcing steel which was set in motion by concrete pump discharges." J. A.' Jones Response (Ref. 10):
' "The discrepancy was observed at the start of the pumping i operation'and was corrected prior to placing second lift ,
of concrete which was vibrated into a homogeneous six eliminating any detrimental effect on the placement." - l r e ,p ,..E, 3 y -.---s--,, .- m- w-- p-y . . -, - - ,4 y . ,- ,,. =y y.
-. . - . . - _ _ . -- _ _. __ - .- . .__ =-. = _ . . .--- -- - . -
i Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ITEM 2: - 4 "In the future, transport lines and conveying equipment
} will be properly supported and restrained to eliminate transporting shock to forms and embedded items in the placement. We have ordered additional concrete pipe fittings to install a shock absorber on the pump lines to help minimize this shock effect. (J. A. Jones purchase order No. 75-317/po311)"
ITEM 3: " Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 4.13, Concrete was inadequately vibrated." J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 10):
" Adequate equipment for proper vibration of the concrete was on
- j. hand and the craft has been instructed in the proper use of the equipment with written instructions of required spacing between vibrating operations and depth of vibrations, copy attached (Ref. 17). The craft had inadequate experience in the use of the equipment resulting in some instances in inadequate vibration."
"We feel adequate instructions have since been presented to the . craftsmen and that they have now gained more experience and a j better understanding of why concrete is vibrated."
I "We have experienced better workmanship on.the subsequent pours and. consequently, efficiency will increase throughout the life of the project." LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):'
" Response acceptable."
l ITEM 4: " Contrary to Section II, Paragraph 5.1, Curing water was not contin-
.uously. maintained on all exposed surfaces."
1 J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 10):
"A crew of personnel have been assigned the sole task of. con-tinuous placement of water on all exposed concrete surfaces for the required period of seven'(7) days."
"More areas will be covered with burlap in the future to aid in holding the moisture."
.-- ~w r w- o - .,r* -
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B 4
"We feel that these corrective actions are sufficient to eliminate the problem completely. Additional personnel will be added as required." '
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
" Response acceptable."
ITEM 5: " Contrary to ACI 318 - Rebar was improperly spaced in some areas of the placement." J.~A. Jones Response (Ref. 10): 6 "This deficiency was corrected at the time of placing concrete over the top mat except where resteel went through the bulkheads and interferences of embedded items and strongbacks would not allow us to reposition the bars." ! "On subsequent pours, this is being watched more closely so that bars can be repositioned at the top of the bar and be within tolerances." ITEM 6: " Personnel ic~alved in placement activities were not aware of or
- failed to fo' 4 f., Jones Co., ' Concrete Pour Plan'." -
J. A. Jones Rescu la (def. 10):
"Due to poor communications on the first placement, all personnel were not supplied a copy of the Concrete Pour Plan, consequently, causing interpretation conflicts between the -general work procedure for placing- concrete and the specific Concrete Pour Plan for the specific pour." . -
"The concrete was placed over the entire area, however, by modifying lift depth, the concrete was kept alive and resulted in a slower pour rate but produced a satisfactory placement. This problem has been resolved by assuring that all personnel associated with the
. placement has a copy and understands'the approved pour plan."
"WE feel'through training and work experience obtained through subsequent pours that the discrepancies have been greatly reduced and will. continue to be improved as tha work progresses."'
'LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):' ,
" Response acceptable."
. ._.~, ., _ _ . -
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ITEM 7: "Several Ebasco concrete test records (Form No. QCIP-7-2, 11-30-75) were not completely filled out." Ebasco Response (Ref. 9):
" Concrete Test Records for Block No. 499S02-6 have been reviewed by the Quality Control Civil Supervisor. Incomplete information was retrieved, where possible, and recorded. This was the first permanent plant concrete for this project, and prior to the next placement, our Quality Control personnel were instructed and are required to record all data on the forms as the work is being performed. A review of our records for subsequent Blocks No. 499S02-1 and 499S02-2 indicates that this is being accomplished. As further assurance that concrete is satisfactory, 27 of 30 test cylindere broke in excess of 4,000 psi with the lowest of the remainder being 3,530 psi."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
" Response acceptable."
i e o Y
m- . _ ._ __ __.. _ . _ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ___._ _ r L I l Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B
- III. LP&L-QA SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT W3S-75-63S OBSERVATION (Ref. 2,11) !
ITEM 1: " Rejected concrete being used." p ITEM 2:- "Ebasco inspector's rejection of concrete overridden by Ebasco [ QC Supervisor." ' l i Ebasco Response (Ref. 9):
" Items 1 & 2 No rejected concrete was used in Block No. 499S02-2.
Our understanding of these two items is that LP&L is concerned about one truck load of concrete which was initially rejected by our Quality Control Inspector and later allowed to be used. This incident occurred once with Batch No. 001441. Upon arrival at the site, a. visual inspection of this load indicated that it probably had aLhigh slump; consequently, a slump. test was performed. The , results were 7-3/4 inches and the Quality Control Inspector i . rejected the load for placement at that time. The truck stood
'terning its drum at agitating speed. After a period of time,_
which did not exceed the one hour limit, the Quality Centrol Civil .
, Supervisor visually examined this load of concrete and judged the slump to be less than 5 inches and the concrete acceptable for ,
I placement. The_ load was subsequently used in the placement." .,
"It is the_ responsibility of the Quality Control.Superviscr to i
review the evaluations /decisionslof inspectors under his super- '
-vision._ In this regard, we feel that his decision to override the. Inspector was correct. We have. instructed all Ebasco'Q.C.
personnel this date to have verification. tests made on question-able items prior to release forl use."
- Supplemental Ebasco Response (Ref. 12): -
- "The Sr. Quality Control Supervisor via written memorandum dated
- December 18, 1975, has instrugted the Quality Control Engineers, l ' Supervisors, and Inspectors to perform verification tests on-
[ suspect materials prior'to release.for use."
~
LP&L Resolution- (Ref. 6):
"The Ebasco position is acceptable provided the instructionsIto Ebasco QC Personnel are in writing indicating the date that the instructions are to be implemented and executed by the responsible individual in Ebasco for implementation."
P s w-m. . - -p-
1 Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ! ITEM 3: " Concrete allowed to be placed that could not be vibrated under rebar. J. A. Jones Response (Ref.13):
" Concrete found to be too stiff for proper placing, at the point of placement, was rejected and the concrete already delivered and placed in the form was mixed with higher slump mixed concrete and vibrated to place properly around the reinforcing steel."
"In the future, concrete entering our conveying equipment will be more closely observed and concrete of a consistency too thick for proper placement will be rejected and not placed in the form."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"J. A. Jones is to issue written instructions similar to those defined in Items 1 and 2 for implementation. Also change "will" to "shall" in the response."
ITEM 4: " Concrete being vibrated in order to flow from truck chute." J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 13):
"J. A. Jones' Supervisor rejected the truck as soon as it was observed that the concrete did not flow from the truck chute. Instructed dump man not to dump concrete into conveying equipment that will not l readily flow from truck chute. Vibrators should not be used to assist concrete to flow down truck chutes."
l Ebasco Response. (Ref. 9):
"This item has been reviewed with the Ebasco QC personnel, and although l inspectors were deployed in accordance with placement plan, no,one from l Ebasco observed the use of ~a vibrator to assist the flow of concrete from
[ a truck chute. However, instructions have been issued to Ebasco QC l personnel that this practice is not allowed." Supplemental Ebasco Response (Ref. 12):
"In the same memorandum as referenced above, the Sr. Quality Control
-Supervisor has instructed the Quality Control personnel that the.
use of a vibrator to assist the flow of concrete from a truck chute is not allowed at this project." b , L I
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B i ITEM 5: " Continuous use of low slump out of specification concrete after being warned by LP&L. (Had to have QA Corporation at Placement to correct)." Ebasco Response (Ref. 9): 4 i "A review of the Concrete Test Records for Block No. 2 does not
- reveal a continuous use of low slump, out-of-specification concrete. Of 41 slump tests that were performed, our records indicate that only three (3) batches of concrete exhibited unusually low
, slumps.' Batch 001444 had a slump of 1-1/4 inches; Batch 001536, l 1 inch; and Batch 001550, 1-1/2 inches. Although these slumps are low, they are within the ranges given in Concrete Masonry
. Specification LOU 1564.472, Section I, Paragraph 10.9 as interpreted by the Ebasco Concrete-Hydraulics Department in R. Vine /A. Wern's memorandum dated November 24, 1975, attached hereto."
- Supplemental Ebasco Response (Ref. 12)
"As agreed, Ebasco shall initiate a program to control memorandums which contain an interpretation of'an engineering document. The i procedure for this shall be described in a revision-to ASP-III-2,
" Site Document Control". The date of full compliance for this I
commitment is February 2, 1976." - LP&L Resolution (Ref.~6):
" Response is OK. A procedure will be' developed for controlled distribution of interpretations of specifications.. The appropriate QC procedure 'for document control.must 1HL tevised."
1 ITEM 6: " Concrete being controlled before. pump hoppers'by J.A. Jones."
~
Ebasco Response '(Ref. 9)
"Our Quality Control Inspectors were controlling the acceptance or-
. rejection of concrete. :J. A. Jones personnel were' observing the delivered' concrete'for workability, and they were requesting through.Ebasco Q.C.: Inspectors the addition of water as necessary Water was added to approximately'35 percent.
~
to obtain workability. of~ truck loads'used in this placement. . One addition of. water to {the concrete is permitted by the specifications. This addition .;
- of water is controlled within'the limits.of the w/c-ratio '
established'for Concrete Mix No. 14A6 which is'being used for the common mat foundation." i gr , r - , , , , . - , , -s ,m-,. ., u ,-,,,,r,,s ,.n-. :--, +~, .. --.
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ITEM 6: LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
" Response accepted. Ebasco will discuss this matter in detail with QA Corporation."
ITEM 7: " Dry Concrete being removed from discharge hose and being permitted to drop in placement area. (Was made to remove by LP&L)." J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 13):
" Concrete of a consistency too stiff to be conveyed by the pump was discharged into the conveying equipment consequently plugging the line. During the operation of breaking down and clearing the plugged line, concrete was allowed to drop through the top mat.
This concrete was removed prior to placing concrete in the immediate area."
"In the future, when a transport line becomes plugged, the area underneath the cleaning operation'on the top mat will be covered to prevent the concrete dropping through the top mat into the i pour area. The concrete will be removed from the protective cover and discarded."
l LP&L' Resolution (Ref. 6): t i ~ j "J. A. Jones must write a procedure governing the response to be acceptable." ITEM 8: " Improper Placement of Concrete." - - J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 13):
'" Concrete was generally placed in accordance.with our approved pour plan. The discrepancies noted were corrected on the spot-resulting in a concrete placement in a workmanship-like manner.
~
We are continuing to teach our people the proper pouring and placing techniques which will continue throughout the life of the proj ect." LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
"The response should make reference to the Training Course to be acceptable."
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ITEM 9: " Inadequate supervision by J. A. Jones." J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 13):
"During this initial training phase and observation of craft capabilities, J.A. Jones had increased top line supervision to expedite the training cycle."
"Through this effort, we anticipate added assurance that pro-cedures will be followed. Labor unions have been contacted and requested to supply craftsmen with capabilities more in line with the task to be performed. We have their assurance that this request will be granted in all cases possible."
LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6):
" Response acceptable."
ITEM 10: " Inadequate supervision by Ebasco." ITEM 11: " Corrective action not taken by some of Ebasco personnel after being brought to their attention by LP&L." Ebasco Response (Ref. 9): Items 10 & 11 "One Construction Supervisor, one Q.C. Civil Supervisor and nine Q. C. Civil Inspectors were assigned to each shift for this place-ment.- The number of personnel assigned to Block No. 2 was consis-tent with our plans for project staffing. _All Ebasco personnel are ! qualified by experience and education for work assigned to them and are receiving Q.C. training at the site to improve proficiency." LP&L Resolution .(Ref. 6):
" ITEM 10 " Response acceptable."
" ITEM 11 " Response acceptable."
W *d f Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B
.m ITEM 12: " Complete failure by mos,t, to meet requirements of procedures and specifications." - ,-
Ebasco Response (Ref. 13):, ,;. , "The general intent of the procedures and specifications were , followed as close as work area and equipment would allow. The requirements of the procedures ,and specifications were known by the supervision directing the work'and incidents of non-cenfor-
- mance by the inexperience _d craftsmen were corrected as they occurred throughout the placement."
, J. A. Jones Response (Ref. 9):
"The deviations that occurred during Cob 2r'ete Block No. i'were typical of the problems e'ncountered with concrete work, particularly in the early stages. These' dev'iations were ' addressed as they occurred and the necessary action was taken by~Q.C. personnel to have the problems corrected and bring the deviation back tnto compliance. The records for Block No. 2 show that the Q.d. Program is functioning effectively, and the.s'tatumene of " Complete failure
...to meet requirements of procedures andsspecifications" is'~
not an accurate assessment. However,1 it is our intent to continue training with our personnel to furtner improve the effectiveness of the Q.A. Program at Waterford 3.". LP&L Resolution (Ref. 6): '
'" Response acceptable..."
ITD( 13: "No evaluation of crack growth in west wall of pour #6 untiI brought ' to the attention of supervisors by LP&L." ' ' Ebasco Response (Ref. 9):
" Cracks which were observed by our Quality Control Inspectors were mapped, and a discrepancy notice was prepared.N-sThese cracks were evaluated with New York Engineeringland determined to be surface
. cracks. Disposition was provided by the Senio'r Resident Engineer ,
'to remove the cracks by chipping and this was completed and rein-spected the day before placing concreto; It is' our understanding that a crack was detected by LP&L on the' morning'6f the-placement. ~
This crack was also temoved immediatefyfA ter discovery prior to placing concrete." .
..- ,/ .
- s. -/
.. 7-
, . */ , s
'h s
..A >
c A 5 e f s - U
,- .~. .
~j d . <
, , , _,. . , "~#., [
_ Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B ITEM 13: Ebasco Response (Ref. 12):
"As a follow-up to this item, the Sr. Quality Control Supervisor via written memorandum dated December 18, 1975, has instructed the Ebasco Quality Control placing inspector to inspect, just prior -
to start of a concrete placement, existing concrete surfaces for cracks." LP&L Resolution (Ref 6):
"The Ebasco check sheet used by QC Inspectors is to be revised to include a check for shrinkage cracks in the pre-placement inspection."
e e 0 0 I b W 4 m..
_ . . _ .- . _ _ . . .- = . _ . Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B REFERENCES l 1.- SWO #1, issued to Booth (Ebasco Services, Inc.) by LP&L. December 16, 1975. 2.- SWO #1, transmittal letter LP&L-4503 to R. K. Stampley from R. J. Meyer. December 17, 1975.
- 3. Ebasco QA Engineering Audit Report JG-75-12-2 on Placement 6.
December 2, 1975.
- 4. Ebasco letter W3QA-230 transmitting Ref. 3 to J. A. Jones.
- December 9, 1975.
- 5. J,. A. Jones reply to Ref. 4 Greathouse to Hussain.
. December 17, 1975. .
6 '. Meeting minutes on SWO #1. January 2, 1976.
- 7. Ebasco memoranda (unnumbered) Booth /Griggs to.Hartnett. ,
December 15, 1975.
- 8. LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-64S by Gerrets.
! December 2, 1975. 9.. Ebasco letter F-4614, Booth to Meyer (LP&L).
- December 17, 1975
- 10. .1A1 letter 75-317(J)A&G #59, Leonard to Booth (Ebasco).
I December 17, 1975.
- 11. LP&L QA Site Surveillance Report W3S-75-63S, by.B.P. Brown.
December 11, 1975.
- 12. : Ebasco letter F-4618, Booth to. Meyer (LP&L) . I December 18,c1975.
n
- 13. .J. A. Jones l'atter 75-317(J)A&E #58', Leonard to Booth (Ebasco).
December 17, 1975.
- 14. J. A.l Jones Directive from Leonard to all personnel involved in.the placement of: concrete.
~
31 -December 18, 1975. 4 - N f f ( 3' ve n , -- -,n ,e-, , , e- -- -, ,.e-+-.,---n,
Response: (11 Continued) Attachment B
- REFERENCES (Continued)
- 15. Ebasco Materials Engineering and Quality Compliance Report No. W3QA-241.
, December 18, 1975.
- 16. Ebasco memorandum Vine /Wern to Booth.
November 24, 1975.
- 17. Concrete Placement and Consolidation Training Session Class Notes.
e l l 9 l. l e
l
- 12. a) Were any cracks discovered in 1977 outside of the ringwall? Provide documentation. b' If none were discovered outside ringwall why not infer that these three blocks were poorly constructed?
Response: Ebasco 12a) No, the only NCRs generated against " cracking" are as follows:
- 1. NCR #W3-535 supplement 1-3 was initiated 7/28/77. This NCR deals with cracking inside RCB only. (see attached)
- 2. NCR #W3-6212 was initiated 5/11/83. This NCR deals with cracking in the RAB. (see attached)
Also see answer to Question #8 4 Response: Ebasco 12b) t i The implementation of the Quality Program in the construction of the base mat assures that all blocks are properly ccustructed. Procedural deficiencies identified during the placement of the first 3 blocks were corrected at the time at the direction of Quality Program personnel. It is the applicant's position that the mat is properly constructed, that hairline cracks which may be penetrated by moisture are normal and not an indicator of any deficient condition, and that the mat is fully capable of
- performing satisfactorily for the life of the plant.
5 l l p e V
~_ . - - - - -
el* . . . ~ - [lp32-TS GCASCo SEfWlCES INCoTPof!ATED R.
, Oltfr,buti.n:
e, f /. p Qu ALITY ASSURANCE t' hire . POAE .e Site QA Su,orviser "zPc"' "* n, HONCONFORMANCE' REPORT **#**'* '* *"'***"""*"d'"' m si.'..".ti i , RSTRUCTIONS: (See back of form) #'" ""''" CUEMT on peoJECT tal omaning No./ SPEC No. tal Waterford SES Unit #3 Su .u E.. coNST=vcTioN oc on coNTnAcToa i., a.o. No. o, PSAR Section 5.2.2.10 Construction D ESCJt t p Tio M OF COMPONENT, P ART oR SYSTEMIG. Cotanon Foundation Mat
- 1. DESCRIPTION OF H HCONFORMANCE "' (Irem3 Involved, specification, Code or Standard to which items Do Not Comply, Submit Sketch if ApplicablS)
The too of the mat beneath the containment structure contains a' number of cracks which were discovered to be weeping watar. The rate of weeping is generally enough to show-the crack and to moisten the surrounding concrete. T* e r: th:; Lucae mJ;.21 ::::ks 2.:; 4. ::::'- *ha e- we 252;; --bok *b 2 ~teri:1 h2: .w;d he :.s diff zer.ticL 22:;.'.muGf}l f)f ,~7] u- r
' '7
. / i -
N,
% iGyTupyow EnSoM mEnonfiNG NoNeoN o=MANcE .. tit LE DATE .S. - . . /#2h/# R. A. Hartnott O. A. Site Supervisor 7-28-77
- 11. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION " (Submit 54tch if Applicable)
Of2 4 ^7'7"A CHE h SH& 2 '7~. V ' i. l *
, ; ^ VT _ $22' P C~de, 8 x '
_. 11 F ~l REPORTABLE Ws ND/ Oc x 10CFR50.55W C [71,
^ ~~
. o 10CFR21 .. O N' NLM 1 AND SIGN ATURE oF PERSON RECOMMENDING DiSpoSITtoM Olt TITLE
"* * *DF W M Qst DATE t 33
. W. . $RIGG5' WO. SM5_d V23. $A/G 'E. ~$/GL 2 1/%1l11 Ill. EVAL.UATION OF DISPOSITION BMASCO, REASON FOR DISPOSITION ns) '
OkutL' A M 7W s,eA J k % dem % M J J a.
'e6 t :drJ k a >> 4 a z D a LM & en /A Isk,,.
FkO&A _ 0. daf n?!]n.,A a.waJ, A AN LM Ni A s1 W._ Ae ,<.a M. a d ., 71. x _ J - e J .L U *
\
o e n-u x,.,,.,.,
@ ENGINEEalNG O Our'iry AssuaAucE - 6cCasraucriON-N AME (Sl4N ATU El. N AME (SIGN A TUR E)
OOTHEa ^urweaizEDeEascune' M AME L3iGN ATURE) N AME (StGN ATURE)
? '
DATE Q Q DATE DATE T-29-7*r DATE
. O AcesPTro CacercTeo O AccrPTEo Oa JacTro / O AcesPTro O arJEcTEo O acetPTro Q atJacTuo \--] ACCEPTED WITH CCMMENTS C ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS f""I ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS i
C ACCEPTED Wf 7M COMMENTS IV VERIFICATION OF' DISPOSITION oulmED C Nor REQUIRED Hat e AM = h Tiri.8 d/ 8 8 -54 ia -
- ..,:3::w v .o..Tua b S
N77 - gg / 4
- o47- .
~~A _ _- _ _ _ . _ _ . - - _ m - _ _+ r _
.....-........-_--.....c --
, .O
- 19
- /
DISPOSITION FOR
-NONCONFORMANCE W3-535 In order to establish a method of repair, perform the following operations and resubmit the nonconformance with results. .
^~~
A. Drill and grout in place three 1/8" pipe nipples to a depth of
'two-three~ inches. The above to be performed cracks. Pipe nipples to be approximately 8" -2" gn at c.c.least two B. Seal the surface of the crack using a quick setting epoxy ~. A
_ window may be provided between selected nipples in order.to monitor the flow of epoxy which is to be injected ~as follows. C. Pressure inject Concrassive 1380 epoxy as manufactured by Adhesive Engineering into the middle pipe nipple. Grouting pressure to be increased gradually as required to make the epoxy flow. Maximum
~
^
pressure to be used is 180 PSI. New York Engineering (ESSE) to
, witness the grouting operation and provide final disposition of nonconformance..
N O . 3
-J O
N C i
'~
. .. ._. ' ... i i
h' , o+.. L. -
~
- -~ l
. o
{
' . -[ .
f] )
.- r - ,
'q . -
flg4 l . l
. SUPPLEMENT TO NCR 3-535 .
S VAs.u 4 7 10 M Augusc 3, 1977 After an unsuccessfull attempt at pressure injecting epoxy grout into the cracks, the following procedure should be used to effectively centrol the leakage or weeping of water through the cracks. 1 - Chip a 1" deep trench along the length of the crack.
. 2 - Roughen (by sandblasting or bush hammer) and clean the surface thoroughly along the crack as well as a 1 ft.
scrip on either side of the crack. _ 3 - Fill the 1" deep trench with SIKA Hi-Mod-LV epoxy which
'n*
- may be used as a seal coat in the dry, damp or vet area in accordance with nanufacturer instructions and i surface preparation.
N -- - . 4 - Af*** the epoxy is tack free, apply a brush coat of .the O chi-Mod-LD the roughened and clean surface 2 ft wide along the crack length. .
#_ 5 - Monitor the repairs for 1 day to visually inspect that leakage has ceased to penetrate the erschs. At this e(. .
r ti.e. th. - ete ,1 ace.ent. .ay c.ncin.e. .
?% . .
gg '~
~
Y
$ W-tilcow/kad Myr 2(kv ,
. e- m.
* , s VW :v
,, .c .' -
hs OQ.~ { i
- 2. pit w/ - ,. d'_ A. c, .
't- . /. ,. .
;ii , . , ,
n,. - - 3
. . . . - . . . ,...e ..,....- 4 -. . _
- - - - - . - . . u-...--. . . . . , . .
_.._.: -t. ,: .- 0 v . W3-535 The attached evaluation sheet for epoxy grout repaira does not affect the original disposition of this - i nonconfor: nance report. m M
's e hkk ~
%mer 6
h .hN P J emur O r
- e. .
- Sep O
e p t
\, *
= es ..
la- , , c) As
\
SUPPLEMENT #2 TO NCR W3-535 August 5, 1977 All cracks in placement 502-6 have been inspected and found satisfactorily repaired according to the outlined procedure in supplement #1 of NCR W3-535. There is no indication of water
,,' weeping since the application of the SIKA Hi-Mod epoxy. All subsequent cracks detailed on the attached mat drawing should be e repaired in an identical manner.
N Placement 502-6 may proceed after Quality Control performs normal pre-placement inspection. A C E. J. Gallagher Civil Site Support Engineer N O
.c -
e
- k. ,
9
=
P e .
- ecos.11/12 7s
- ECASCO sEnytCES INCORPORATED / Dig,,,3,,,,,,,
Ou ALITY ASSURANCE "' * " ^'"#'"'*#
~
cE , oar ,o,n> W3-535 - Supp #3 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT Y'"**- C5*"'"*""*****"d'"' disposerien adSTRUCTIONS: (See boek of formi CLIENr om PRoJECr til oR & WING No./ SPEC No. Isl l Waterford SES - Unit No 3 i sun uan, coNornucrioM oc oa coNva.croa ... . .o . N o . . . PSAR Sectica 5.2.2.10 Construction ocacmarioM or coupoNaNr. pant on sysrau .. Cocunon Foundation Mat Within the RCB Wall l.. DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE "' iltems involved. Specification, Code or Standard to which Items Do Not Comply. Submit Sker' c h if Applicable) This supplement provides additional information on the crack pattern and documents the l crack patterns on the attached Field Sketch No 1564-4.1-G-28. REPflRTaRt # vs:e siro 10CFR54.55(e6 N Nl
-- ,ocr e f 1 rvi Revened W ggp6 ff2 / *? Nau s aN o ssGN aru ns o r e N on%o NyrcoNronwaNes ise rirLs ones e R A Hartnett WM Q A Site Supervisor 8-25 77 l I. RECOMMENDED Ol$ POSITION '** iSubmit Sketch if Applicable)
- 24* C9 Yo C A)Q o J?. CVid Is>4Tcok 4 ouA be s $* *1oIo'c*Q
.e N
O C RECowuSNotNG oes mossysom ta g s virLE oArE 1948 N#.MNo siGNMATURE oFO _ h4 R%ac sa. Oc.&A s'/z4/77 t i l. EVALUATION OF DISP 058 TION BY ESASCO, REASON FOR DISPOSITION uss J na a *k An ows _dE 3 AJ02 16 3- $33 L j=L.L \; - f O suaineraiao O Ou A'iry AssuaAuce C coastaucrioa Corusa AuTuoaizzoasasCaust N I ru N AME istGN AruRED NAME lilGNaruRES N AME isIGN ArWPED 1 pra oars oars oars
" ACCEPTED C REJECTED C ACCEPTED Q a=><cTro O Acca"Tro O a*><cTro Q Acesarco O ar><creo
( .. ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS ] ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS C ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS C AC"CEPTED WITH COMMErNTS iv . veRIPICATION OF DISP 3SITION R ulRED C NOT REQUIRED 184s
. , , .T L e 2 r.an.n ~y r
a x ,,, r Ec 4v m s/m .A,.
-??
, ,--- e
.-^' ~_ ...^ .-- .. . .T^. - :T ^ _.....-._.-.:..__.. ~
~^
r-;) . pu, ,. ;' < *
- y .e ,
j - NONCON70EMANCE REPORT 4 / CLOSURE VERIFICATION , ( - .
.?.
NCR No. W 3 - T3 [
& S u.ee ' l se.
REINSPECTION: b Required Not Required *$.
~
l Repair or rework to be witnessed by Ebasco's Q.C. Inspector @es C No
- Corrective Action Taken (Use sketch if necessarv) i .. .
~ ~'
14 s+ i L A -en A d. M seL L n's AJM as w_ at l' S tr n ca c!n N s cb%) aa., tom WLA
~ At L n ala + zaLA '[ **
d4_/m " Ad LtL d . ' I Q G I 40 I i (' @ Z' t4 t$ L i M 1 -d-<<. /+
= 4 w.fU - sx1& ' dd,
( { / / { \= al k-. AL/AJ & +.L 6/,, m : L & z LL.4 A d.kw l W iL 1.Ja t aca <n, ~ rla 4[$ub . 9/13}n EA a, l l i 1- 0 C . l
~ - ' Contractor's Q.C. Inspector -
~ '
A- Data - - - - - - l C Accept , l' . 'E5asco,'s Q.C. Inspector . Data
- - O medect.
1- -- 7 Form so. 'Asy'-III-7-6 (3-16-76) '
. - . . . . , ..,---....,,,-..,----.,-..,.--.-,-,,-..-,-.-----.-._-,,:,,--,.,.,..,.-..--.-.--,,_,-,-,+._,--
ll , "
.Q
_,9
~
s EVALUATION OF DISPOSITION TO NCR SUPPL. #3 u.)3- 53.5 The newly entified cracks which are indicated by th dashed line on the __. .. attached sketch, are to be sealed and repaired according to the Supplement . -
#2 attached to NCR W3-535. All such cracks beneath a specific concrete
_. placement. must be sealed and dry prior to concrete placement. These cracks, , af ter being repaired, will not cause any further effect on the structural capabilities of the foundation mat. If any of the construction joints
.c indicate leakage, the entire construction joint is to be sealed until all leakage ceases.
.3
,' Quality Control should carefully inspect the cracks prior to placement to verify that no cracks have been missed due to surface dust or placement
~
, equipment and that the cracks that have been repaired are not continuing to leak, h) cL a E. allagher 8-26-77 N Site Concrete-Hydraulics Engineer c
C i
. m.==
( .
\.< ' . ,
a 4 .n , . . - -
- er IMS A Supendsk QU AI.lTY ASSURANCE i
CEvonT no.'2 g) h-dg/c1 NDNCONFORMANCE REPORT 5 Y'"**-C*"'""'*"**"'""d'"' disposition I 1 IN tt."CTIONS: fSee beck of fonai TPND TREND CODE: 2.N oo,G 9 SUSA 99 C. l ! ZsnT on eaosseT ias omawiwo so./spre no. <ss ) trnECRD SES (MIT :D. 3 5'. S . A.R. - , I vs.wi.isa. consTauction oc oR CoNTR CTom (48 P.o. No. Ist J.A. JONES CDNSTRUCl' ION 00. N3-Irl-4 casemipTion or CoMPoMsNT, PaRT oR SYSTsM (68
- 8. DESCRIFTioH OF NONCONFORMANCE (Irems Involved, Specification, Code or Stonderd to Which Items Do Not Comply, Submit Sketch If Applicable)
Tr. era are cercrete cracks in the base mat of the Peactor Auxilim'1 NiMing. 'Ihis is evidence bv the cercolation of water in small amounts, uo through these cracks. These cracks are located in the Gas Surge Tank Poem, Waste Gas Tank Roczn, and Waste
- Gas Ccr
- cressor "B" Roan, all at elevation -35.00. See attached ?.S.A.R. recuirements
[ for suoplemental inforration. NOI'E: '&ase are examples of where cracks were found . C., J /s// 4' "" ' l ITEM i : V3 i I., oat. i.,
- Tit i.s ec ou na av
= aux ano sieu Tuary, osasou as.conTiu. noncouronwance
, S. Earton wW l's-e4.% Q.A. Surv. Engr./Zbasco 5-11-83 [ 11. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION (Submit Sketch if Applicable) ! A. . c e 9 0 7, As t s, REPORTABLE vre un l m, - 10CFR50.554) L~~1 F7_.1 M e c==- A h. htWO r W. 10CM1 , M I' 1
~; ud QV*th. Date:7/j:/g3 l
l ? I i i maus aus sienatuna or pensoN AsCoMMsNDiMe oiSP BTtoM tiil TIT E.s /C oMP a N Y oats tial M.M s. Eth Nhi_ ww, C no (D A - aAsce % 25 -8 3 : lit. ' EVAL.U ATION OF DISPOSITION BY Eho, REASON FOR DISPOSITION H88 l c N C Required @ Niet Required h IV. CORRECTIVE ACTION"d8 IL a42dC V.' @ ENGfM EERING O 00Ai.irv assuamace O coasTaucTioa Dora<a j nam ituaTuns' maus y ggm mau s isionatuast NaMa (SIGNaTu4s' f$ k i fo**'4=== caft ' oaf oats oats
-k,c~.PTED 0 as><ctuo Pce< Prs'a O assacTuo O Aces *Tuo O a=><cTro O *ccr*Tso O a*><cTro O ACCEPTED WITH cot 00 DENTS C .CCEPTED WITH COMe4ENTS - O ACCEPTED WITM Oneh4EN T.3 i] ACCEPTEo WITH CouneENTS i
Vis VERIPICATION OF DISPOSITION C REculmEn % R 8 itT - S,...ru.- ' 1,1 E ..T.
,,,e l.e....iti..
t..
,.----y. ,,,y,, ,._,.-..,.-4 ,,% we.,, . ,. ,...-%%.,,__,,..,m.,.-,.. .., ,d. - .. ,, .,, ,,,_ _.....,,__.-,.__-.. .. .,. ,.,.., _., - e... - -. - . _ _ . _ , -
Attachmnt #1 NCR V 1212 Page 1 of 2 - WSES-FSAR-UNIT-3 __ __ _ 3. 4_ WATER LEVEL (FLOOD) DESIGN 3.4.1 FLOOD PROTECTION All seismic Category I structures, safety-related systems, and components 2 necessary for safe shutdown are located within the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS), which is designed against high water levels and wave
- _- - -run-up., associated with probable maximum flood (PMF) to elevation +30.0 ft. MSL. The NPIS is a reinforced concrete box structure with solid ex-terior walls with few doors and penetrations. All exterior doors in st ;i o
- a related e gipment and pene-
$ tes ? 5 The1ifnt grade - -
tr k >3 3 e l is
~
ar 5 j e ( roca e w tc )n ' north side 7.d[ f.h;J0 .. j ori3 + ; cts E ;h j to 3 Qk __ Al seismic. P g j
-i i j i I I ; s h
_ tegcry brictbr d , I r ate 5teit,Ea components l2 are protected agaihst PMF by the following: _ _a)..._ .The NPIS is the common structure of Reactor Building, Reactor Aux- ' iliary Building, Fuel Handling Building and Component Cooling Water l
-System Structure. It is a rectangular box-like reinforced concrete structure 380 ft. long, 267 ft. vide and extending 64.5 ft. below grade._ The eeneral structural layout is shown in Figure 3.8-1_. 2
'Itsh common foundation mat and exterior wall system are designed tol withstand all loadings of postulated floods as well as to crovide i a watertighe barrier. -
J N - l [ The common foundation mat is 12 ft. minimum in thickness and provided
~
with double layers of nine inch PVC waterotop at all construction joints. The walls subjected to floods are waterproofed up to plant grade. In addition, vertical construction joints of the walls be-i tween plant grade and elevation +30.00 ft. MSL are provided with ~ minimum six inch PVC waterstops (Figure 3.4-1). Uplift forces created by the PMF to elevation +30.0 ft. MSL are accounted for in the design as described in Subsections 3.8.4.3.1 and 3.8.4.3.2. b) Housing within another structure (NPIS) designed to protect against . flooding. The Reactor Building is enclosed within the NPIS and is
. , ,, __ .. thus protected against PMF.
Table 3'.2-1~ lists the flood protection criteria applied to plant structures, systess and components. The a or b designation in the table refers to item a or b above. . Figure 3.4'-1 shows detaiIs of penetration, waterproofing and waterstops for 'the exterior walls of seismic Category I structures.
~
All exterior doors of the NPIS at plant grade or below the PMF elevation. l which house and protect safety related equipment, are designed to withstand l the hydros _tatic pressures due to PMF and are watertight. The doors, which l are located in the Reactor Auxiliary Building, are swing type (single or L ' double) for protection against tornado missiles and PMF. The doors are made l ., watertight by continuous neoprene gasket on the inner face and sealed by the ,
)
4 l \ 3.4-1 l EsE11 fndment No. 2, (3/79)
Attachment #1
.,,,. NCF 7-6212
' Page 2 of 2 -
. WSES-FSAR-UNIT-3 uco of eight quarter-turn latch and dog devices placed around the perimeter O f the door as shown in Figure 3.4-2.
~'}
Thsre are a total of eight watertight access doors below elevation +30.0 ft. hSL. *In the Reactor Auxiliary Building there are three of the flood dcors located in the east exterior wall, and two located in the west ex-tarior wall above elevation +21.0 ft. MSL (Figure 1.2-9). In the Component Coaling Water System area there is one flood door located in the west ex-terior wall above elevation +21.0 f t. MSL (Figure 1.2-24). In the Fuel Building area there is one removable watertight gate located by the spent fuel cast decontainmination area above elevation +20.0 f t. MSL (Figures bei W PaE i
.[ J a:Te ' ui wtr drawngsd'0. 4 ,/
SO( h
! t$ tw 9 ja .N They en$tdida$g$in @
. a wl.b Co5 be ol. em S' eN sit tuits:Et ithiant M in. Sections A-A, 3-3 and E-E of Drawings G-499SC4 to S06. Those in the i cxterior walls of Reactor Auxiliary Buildings are shown in Sections A-A, 2 B-3 and F-F of Drawings G-565 to 567. Those in the walls subjected to ficod in Fuel Handling Building are shown in Sections B-B, C-C, F-F and Y-Y of Drawings G-593501 to S03. Some of the penetrations are located in the temporary blockout as indicated in the drawings. All the temporary blockouts are provided with keyways and continuous PVC vaterstop.to assure watertightness and they are placed and filled with concrete after pipe installation. A typical detail of waterproofing membrane at pipe penetra-tion is shown in FSAR Figure 3.4-1 and Drawing LOU 1564 G-499505 A vings
. cubmitted under separate cover).J"'lTe ari fis designed to withstand J l .ydros tatm: Icadings due to postulated floods, and water leakage because
) ct cracks 3.n exterior structures, Mg waterju:.o; Land /orAgd wAyjtv ection is not expected. fin the NPIS is also provided with floor drainage system capabTi ot disposing the accumulated water through the waste manage-ment system (Refer to Section 11.2). ~ ~ As discussed in Subsection 2.4.14, additional specific provisions for . flood protection include administrative procedures to assure that all watertight I doors below elevation +30.0 ft. hSL will be locked closed in the event cf a flood warning. l 3.4.2 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
.. ~ ~
Tha animum water level in front of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure l following a collapse 'of the Mississippi River levet in the immediate vicinity of the plant concurrent with the PMF and from windwaves super-imposed on the overland PMH surge through Barataria Bay has been . cctablished in Section 2.4. It is calculated that the effective maximum 1
, water including dynamic head on the exterior wall is at elevation +27.6 ft. l 17 MSL. The-NPIS is designed to. withstand a static water level at elevation
+30.0 ft. MSL, thus providing an adequate safety margin. in addifilon, th3 subject structure is designed to withstand a static water level at .
cicvation +21.5 f t. MSL plus an additional uniform dynamic loading equiv-cient to 300 lb per sq. ft. of exposure below elevation +21.5 ft. MSL.
~'n the design of walls and foundation slab of NPIS, the loads under flood -
- eondition are considered using the following load c.ombination equation. I
\)
}
3.4-2 Amendment No.17, (4/81) i a*a N
L* Aetae:mnem. Nca m -6212 page1ong
- x I
5--}z;4 2-2. h bD emie=u _; _ _ e-%.,_M- w a
. w3y52w - -2iT6kNI m a_= .
mm g-sy-- -x-H -5.1 -
-/y ryM_ - _ ..
_ qq - - 7% _
~
. . a= = w ;3m j-
~
&ua -
f^ . Wa:;d W::_ur E '
*~ =
y%-wW5_L
;4 ~ 2 - -- -
I _p+, ~
^
f. J M' .y-
, - .m~- -.
= _ .
4);,.,. l
~
r.
.%. e my.tx.'A n~ a rn mg-G _ . r-
-4 p't;. -
l - . . - . - a & e. p .w ~'-: . ..,;-. c g.M.me Wy . p &== p. -..w u n-g--) .. e:m risg = gmcc& qQ,.y?d
,y.,...,..
y- - w-a.=W+ m.. . _ = -7 x-y .. ~ . .t-u. wg 5-i 9;T. -.-
.x _w
=gEtw r= :'rX Q Q gg .
2 N75;,gJK
.g- _
w< ~. . p _.-- :- 1 z= x ,- .x - -:-:sw, e.~25?ct
. _. u g ,
;g..~s= ~ m --m g _L u s . wg. p_m;7 6P5 $UME TANK. . zw+y gggg --
g.g{ --
.u mg -
~
~~
rR .w
~ I-
.. ~
-N[ hIM 2
. k.k;-e t
.s w .- . . .
e
*.;g, _pg , ..,;.3 ,, .
,. _ . - .y.
.+
a
"}g a-~.tx f-m' v .:%w .-
r! :=> ?%
. ~~g %~,
,.~ .. u ; 9 ' - .
be. . , . . ' - , .
- E** iu = -# ~
; ~ w. m s&s-r.. _
q g'W.?.}
, -y _
4;5'."- gg ., _ . n u n c m WASTE GA5 TAA d
.. ~ - n . . ~ . .. . . . . = . .._._: .=:_=. =:
. - ?
QQ Q S-. Q Z \ Z Mc\ I ATTACHMENT IE The effect of postulated widespread hairline cracking of the basemat has been investigated by Civil Engineering for stability of the Containment Vessel against flotation and overturning under buoyant conditions caused by postulated groundwater intrusion and by Corrosion Engineering for groundwater induced corrosion of reinforcing steel and Containment Vessel bottom head. D ee we c p Pcuariaw Odcad? **'"
- c oe% vte w = m T*c in n s rig.m e n. @" *e.r s -w es
. Based on their findings that there are no stability or corrosion problems it is concluded that no corrective action is required.
See attached memorandums:
- 1. Memorandum COR-LW3-77-55M from A.W. Peabody /M.D. Oliveira to P. Grossman,
, dated August 5, 1977.
- 2. Memorandum from P.C. Liu to B. Grant dated May 24, 1983.
- f ;-l % k s-z-r-s 3 4
e O b If s e ;,
-+ w- -m--i% e - - - * . 9
-7
)
d.[h$[,Q [M'
- l': .
R c_.R LO'i, - 6 2. t z. l
&c 2-
' August 5, 1977 COR-LW3-77-55M.- .
To: P Grosscan 7 / From: lf*tla A W Peabody /M D Oliveira s% &:) h*M
Subject:
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT 3 - i CORROSION OF REINFORCING STEEL AND STEEL CONIAI!OENT VESSEL PLATES IN CO . TACT WITH WATER. In accordance with your telephone request, we have analysed a possible , situation in the common mac where supposedly ground water weeping from co'acrete cracks found on the surface of the mat could corrode the reinforcing steel and the outside bottom plates of the Steel Contaio-ment Vessel. , It is a proven fact that concrete by its alkaline natura passivates carbon steel embedded in it. '- It is also known that water in contact with concrete becomes alkalice and consequently its corrosivity to steel decreases conriderably. 9 . 6 In addition to these factors, assuming that ground water is left inside the crack network to a certain extent, this water will be near stagnant and without replenishment.of oxygen. Consequently, the race of corrosion
, under the above ' circumstances, if any, will be negli31bla. This applies
~
to the reinforcing rebars as.well as to the outside of the vessel bottom plates, in case the repairs presently being conducted do not fully prevent the water from reaching the vessel. MD0/hn - es R E Stampley , , J.0 Booth /B D Fovier *
.D N Galligan * . . .
L Skoblar - , W F Gundaker .
,. y .
1 t.
. . .\
4 w
'?<t@gti$ Miti Aes .
r.. ' ( 4 C ( ?N O ff %. s.GJ - cat x27] . ~4 %.P& L. w Interoffice Correspondence ECCO DA73 May 24 1983 FILE RIP. Files 6-s-20-- CPFICE LOCATION Weterford Site 10 B Grant 1 07 WTO 0FPICE Location pe*4, P C Lih' T '; / suaJact IAUISIANA POWER 6 LIG8T COMPANY WATERFORD SBS UNIT NO. 3 BTREL COWfADesNT STABILITY This is to confirm our conversation that ofpha 1 30 ft. The results the steel c in-tainment would sum eet to subsurface water up to SL . revieu have concluded'that under such 'a condition the sesbility . ment will not be compromised. . t lems II, FSAR Design Input - 6W12-FEAR-002. g e e
,/
l l PCLtd3 . (..as C A Emmaharts 5 8 Essaleks e 6 f
? O Liu S$$ ING
- 1 h5 h .
. _ . - - .-. ._ ..e_.._.___.........__..__2_..--... . . . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _.-__.. .
- 13. a) Did Kominsky recopy illegible cadvcid records? b) Under whose direction? c) Why? d) What happened to the original records?
Response
a) Kaminski did recopy illegible cadweld records. b) It is not apparent that he received any specific direction to recopy the records. c) He has stated that while he was Supervisor of Inspection for J. A. Jones that " work sheets" were used during tha actual inspection of cadwelds. Some of the records became dirty or wet. At the and of each shift or day, the information on the " work sheet" was transferred to a clean report by himself or another inspector. d) One inspector has stated that the originals were attached to recopied reports. However, LP&L has been unable to locate the originals of the inspection reports.
]
9 l
\_1 '
l
. 1 l
- 14. a) Provide summary of actions taken following Hill's presentation of QA deficiencies. b) Provide detailed report on document review undertaken and all results.
Response: 14 (a) Deficiencies discovered by Hill were being aggressively addressed even before he left the Waterford 3 site.
- 1. On June 8, 1983, Hill's supervisor forwarded his June 6, 1983 memorandum to the Ebasco Site QA Program Manager and recommended that the scope of the concrete records review be expanded.
- 2. In a meeting of July 7, 1983, Hill recommended that all concrete placement packages and soil packages be reviewed.
- 3. On July 11, 1983, project management decided to review a 10% sample of the concrete placement packages, and LP&L directed Ebasco to begin the review. (NOTE: Hill left
'the site on July 31, 1983).
- 4. In August 1983, the review of concrete placement packages was begun. In September, 1983, the review program was expanded to include 100% of the concrete placement packages.
The review is now complete and 33 new NCRs were written as a ' {' result of this review, none of which identified significant physical deficiencies and all of which have been properly dispositioned.
- 5. Soils and backfill records were previously subjected to a comprehensive review by Ebasco. All records were reviewed for existance of required records, their completeness, and for proper organization by elevation and fill number.
Approximately 50% of the records were re-reviewed for technical adequacy. No additional' soils non-conformances
, were identified.
- 6. To gain an even greater level of confidence, LP&L personnel, j in accordance with standard procedures, are currently j
performing addittonal reviews of concrete placement and backfill records.. Certain types of civil records are being 100% reviewed by LP&L during this review process. k w
,,%y 4 wvg4 -wa -+y--,-- gy..,9p. ,, c. . ye p .e-, ._y.-% ,. -.,.e,..y- ._, . . ..-, . , - ..g. - - , , , y , ,-,w,, y
4 Response: LP&L 14b) f-In August of 1983, four (4) Ebasco Sr. QA specialists were requested i to report to Waterford III. The scope of this request was to take a 10% sampling of J.A. Jones Concrete Placement packages and to do an unbiased cursory review (based on the individuals past background of other jobsites civil documentation) to establish an understanding of the general condition of the packages with respect to records accuracy, completeness, i- legibility and adequacy of record availability. Following a brief orientation period, the 10% review and summary was conducted. The sampling included 100% of the base mat placement packages and a selection frcm the Fuel Handling Bldg., Reactor Auxiliary Bldg, Shield, Dome, Ringwall and the Reactor Containment Bldg. The recommendation proposed to Ebasco/LP&L top management after the review, b, sed on the general concerns noted, was that a 100% review should be performed prior to these packages being turned over to the client. A brief synopsis of the concerns noted in this initial review is as follows:
- 1. Some packages had embed logs which, at the time, were not obtainable in the package.
- 2. Some packages had cadweld maps which, at the time, were not obtainable in the package.
- 3. Some packages had missing concrete test records which at the time were i not obtainable in the package.
- 4. Some pac! ages had curing records which were inadequate.
- 5. Some packages had concrete mix designs which were indicated as being used but which had no apparent engineering approvals.
l ! - 6. Some packages had no traceability as to which concrete mix design was i used. l' - 7. Some packages'had batch tickets which, at the time, were not obtainable in the package.
- 8. Some packages had problems with respect to the timely certification of
{ inspectors. , Following this 10% sampling review, Ebasco and LP&L management agreed that a 100% review of these records was essential. A new review group was formed -in September 1983, (which consisted of two (2) of the original reviewers and'four (4) other participants). This group, for a two (2) week . period, scanned applicable procedures, specifications, and standards , in order to establish a review procedure which would assure a uniform and '
,--4 g - -~-e--., - ,,- ,, , - - , , -y -.-.,, - - . .- e m - -. ,r ,- -- e .
, + w
. . . -. _ _. - . .- . - . . - - _ - - ~ . , _ -
k
- l 4 Response: LP&L (14b Continued) 3 acceptable method for the review of packages involved. This procedure (QA-9 Supplement 48-3), which formed the basis for the review, also established acceptance criteria for the review. The following are examples of the minimum records which were required.
- 1. Preplacement checklist
- 2. Placement checklist
- 3. Field Test Records '
- 4. Lab Reports
- 5. Repair Documents Items within the scope of these records which required review, as a minimum, were items such as:
- 1. . Personnel certifications
- 2. Curing Adequacy
- 3. DNs, DRs, and NCRs which were initiated and closed where applicable
- 4. Concrete placed was approved for use
. 5. Testing and results were acceptable
- 6. Documentation was legible and complete NOTE:- Also taken into consideration was. The fact that, during the mat l placements, Ebasco performed independent Quality Control functions, t When J.A. Jones records were not available, Ebasco duplicate inspections were substituted per Ebasco Procedure QAI-9 Rev. O Para.
6.1.4 which states, "In case of illegible or missing Jones documentation, the parallel Ebasco QC Inspection can be utilized as supporting documentation . . ." During the 10% review,:this duplication was not taken into consideration. During the 10% sample review, many items appeared to be discrepant. The 100% review resolved many of these apparent discrepancies. Some examples are as follows:
- 1. Missing records were retrieved from applicable contractors records.
- 2. Missing records were retrieved from other placement packages .
(misfiled)..
- 3. Missing records were retrieved due to misfiling in the vault.
- 4. Since some placements were conducted at the same time as others,
-missing records were' retrieved from other packages. (i.e.) If placement No. 10 and 11 were placed together the-records generated would reference both placement numbers. The inspector would maka (1) -
one copy'of each record and compile (2) two packages. (1) one package would'be No. 10 and (1) one No.11. The placement number pertaining to each unique package would be circled or in some cases highlighted to show which set of records went to which package. While during the review, if the package had, for instance, a preplacement record ,
-missing for placement No. 10, he would look at another record that was obtainable in package No. 10 to determine if another placement occurred at the same time. If, for instance, he looked at a postplacement record in No. 10 and saw that No. 11 was'also entered on 1 this document, the reviewerivould go to package No. 11, pull the-
. missing preplacement record, copy, and place this document into' package No 10-thus making a completed package.
i Response: LP&L (14b Continued)
; 4. Finally at the conclusion of this reorganization and review of these
+ Civil Records, 33 Nonconformance Reports were generated, which adequately documented discrepancies outstanding. The following are the discrepancies which were documented as a result of the review. + Some of these areas were covered under other reviews in the past, , however, since this review was a 100% re-review, new documentation was initiated. Although every placement has been documented in this manner, the i following listing only deals with the Basemat. Discrepancies not
- noted within the following seven (7) NCRs generated against the basemat were either satisfactorily corrected prior to the conclusion
, of this review (or) were satisfactorily identified on previous NCRs. , 4 (See the response to Question 1). NCR #W3-7152 (Eye Exams) , Description (4) Jones Inspectors performed inspectidn prior to having eye exam on file (10) common foundation structures. 4
- Disposition Two of the four inspectors were certified on 11-24-75 and j 11-26-75 apparently eye exams lost. Other two inspectors listed 1 on NCRfW3-7150. -
d NCR #W3-7153 (Cold Weather Cure) - - Description Surface temp. of concrete dropped bel'ow 50* on (6) occasions and ambient below 45* on (19) occasions without notifying engineering or an NCR written. Disposition ACI require concrete to be maintained to a min oof 40' for Class I structure 72" thick lowest temp. recorded was 42*.- Test j results on 28 days exceeded 5000 psi therefore cnt (6) occasions l this did not affect the 4000 psi required strength. NCR #W3-7154 (Cure Records) 1
-Description On (19) nineteen placements records of curing are not complete Disposition Method of curing is on Jones Inspection Reports and on Pour Plans. No average temperature occurred to prevent hydration.
Cure records shown that moisture was sufficient for proper curing. !
\
NCR #W3-7353 (Mix Design) .
. Description Mix designs were used without engineering approval- .
Mix designs were approved by engineering. Mix design number was
~
Disposition
- -apparently misprinted batch tickets give quantities.
r, - . _ , ,w_- 7 . , , , . , ,y. g-_,.-# , _ . ,,,,_y - .,.cw.- ,,..m# v. e,-.- ,,w.. . . . . . . . - .
4 Response: LP&L (14b Continued) NCR #W3-7150 (No Certification on File) I Description (2) Jones Inspectors performed inspection without certification on file Disposition Resumes and Dual Inspections by Ebasco rendered work as being acceptable. NCR #W3-7149 (Inspectors Certifications) Description Six inspectors performed inspections prior to certification Disposition Use-as-is based on prior experience / training and currently have records of completing certification NCR #W3-7151 (Eye Exams) Description (9) Jones inspectors performed inspections prior to eye exams Disposition (9) Jones inspectors have exam after the fact. Eye sight usually gets worse rather than better without corrective means After the review of packages was concluded, but prior to turnover, additional steps were taken to aid in future handling of subject packages. All concrete placement package numbers as well as all DNs, DRs and NCRs were entered into the Waterford III Site computer program. Printouts were developed to aid in package retrievability as well as traceability to discrepancies per package and total placement accountability. Other steps taken were to compile various back-up record traceability through means of various record matrixes (see response to Question 20) to aid in the retrieval of applicable documents which are related although not generally found within the concrete placement package itself. In January, 1984, records were turned over to the QA Records Vault as being
. completed for review and closure of corrective action.
. . . . . ......_...-...-.a-.... - -. - -. .. . -.- _ - . . .. . . - . - . . - - . . . . . - . .
-( 15. Provide O &L's evaluation of adequacy of Harstead's third report. Does LP&L assert that it represents their views as well?
Response
LP&L contracted with Harstead Engineering Associates (HEA) to perform a review of the records associated with the Basemat. Their review was independently performed and copies of the report (HEA 8304-3) were distributed in parallel to LP&L and the NRC. LP&L has reviewed this report and concludes that the technical review of the records necessary to assure the adequacy of the Basemat was indeed performed by HEA. Further, LP&L strongly endorses the conclusions reached in HEA 8304-3, Harstead's third report.
) ~
O R 4 s
._......_;..__.-- _. ____.. _.. . _. ._._.____.. _....__. . . ..__.____.. ... _____ _ -. .. _ . _ . . _ - - i
- 16. Provide specific basis for Harstead's conclusion that the documentation problems do not affect their prior conclusion as to basemat's strength.
What documents did Harstead review? What did he look at? Did he see the Phearson-Brigg memo? Hill's NCR's? Other NCR's?
Response
HEA Report No. 8304-3, dated 01/09/84, summarizes the results of ' the review of construction documentation performed on behalf of Louisiana Power and Light Company. The following items were reviewed: a) Concrete pour packages b) Cadwelding activities including testing c) Clam shell filter blanket under the basemat d) Waterstop splicing and testing There are 28 concrete pour packages that make up the basemat: e 499S02-1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, SB, 6, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B; 499S01-11A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15; 499S03-11B, 12B, 13B, 14B, 16, 17, 18, 19. Each concrete pour package contains the following documents.
- f. 1) Concrete pre-placement checklist record (J.A. Jones)
C/ 2) Concrete pre-placement checklist record (Ebasco)
- 3) Daily concrete inspection (Ebasco)
- 4) Concrete placement inspection (Ebasco)
- 5) Concrete curing log (J.A. Jones)
- 6) Concrete curing record (Ebasco)
- 7) Concrete test record (Ebasco)
- 8) Concrete physical tests (Ebasco)
- 9) Concrete pour plan (J. A. Jones)
- 10) Embed map log (J. A. Jones)
- 11) Cadwelded locations (as-built)
- 12) Requisition on warehouse
- 13) Concrete mix delivery tickets These documents were reviewed in their entirety.
The following documents were totally or partially reviewed for the basemat cadwalds.
- 1) Daily cadweld inspection reports (J. A. Jones)
- 2) Cadweld daily inspection-visual (Ebasco)
- 3) Reports of tensile tests-cadwald splices (Ebasco)
- 4) Weekly cadweld or rebar test reports (J. A. Jones) .
Emphasis was placed on a review of the tensile test reports and daily inspection reports. Sections 4 and 5 of-the referenced HEA report detail the review . performed for items (c) and (d), the clan shall filter blanket and waterstop splicing.
Response: LP&L (16 Continu'ed) The Phearson - Griggs memo was'not reviewed by HEA. It is not a formal document and was not contained either in Stop Work Order No. 1 or concrete touri package 499302-2. However, a review of the Phearson memo was conducted by HEA at the Waterford site on March 24 ( '1984. A comparison was made between the issues raised in the Phearson men.o (dated 12/15/75) and Stop Work Order No. 1 (dat6d 12/16/75). HEA concludes that the issues raised in the Phearson memo are adequately addressed by Stop Work Order No. 1. s
\
+
0
's r
9 DE %
' -h e ,
9 E
.a
j. t { Response: LP&L (16 Continued) i { Following is the list of NCR's that were reviewed by HEA. j NCR NO. Title Comment i I l W3-10 Concrete Placement ' ) W3-24 Pour 499S02-7A-Air Content ! 4 l W3-25 Pour 499S02-7A-Slump
- W3-26 Removal of Formwork ,
t
; W3-27 Placement 499S02-8A-Embedded Elephant Trunk Foundation Mat-Air Content W3-29 i W3-31 Common Mat-Air Content t i W3-32 Cotamon Mat-Number of Revolutions !
W3-33 Cc,mmon Mac-Air Content W3-39 Common Mac-Strip #3, Section 10B r . W3-93 Common Mat-Placement No. 499S03-19 W3-5563 FHB Bridge Crane-Connection Tusts N.A.* 'l W3-5564 FHB Stairs-Welding and Bolting Inspection N.A.* j of Seismic Class 1 Stairs I W3-5565 FNB Bridge Crane N.A.* f W3-5598 Tubing N.A.* l W3-5973 FHB Tornado Door Frame N.A.* W2-5997 Clas Shell Filter Blanket Under the Nuclear Plant Island - W3-5998 Production Cadwelding [ T L 1 , W3-6234 Cadwelding W3-6245 Daily Cadweld Inspection Reports
; W3-7149 . Concrete Placement Packages-Common Foundation W3-7150 Concrete Placement Packages W3-7151 Concrete-Placement Packages-Common Foundation W3-7152 Concrete Placement Packages-Common Foundation I
. W3-7154 Concrete Placement Packages -
W3-7353 Concrete Placement Packages i W3-7481 Cadweld Tensile Test Beports , i 4 1
- Not applicable or related to Basemat D,
- 17. Provide differential settlement contours for 6 month periods, starting from early 1977~to present.
Response
Attachments are provided which present differential settlement contours as available. , These attachments represent a period between April 1977, and August 1979. 8
*^
4
't f.
g,. Y. r . t , g l
- I Oe- e
~
~
EBifCrf'TE5 VICES ~ or (SE(3 CATE IT, INCCRPCRATED sMEET ND. CF . cuo.sy DATE "Y E. O. M O. Olv. ~ ee,,,any Louisiana Power and Light Comoany PROJECT Ilaterford Unit 83 l sueJEc7 Mac Settle =ent - A P R.tL s W 1 1 l N N O - T: b l 5 i-(c w d '.
. O iMER.ENTI AL S E TLE.t> E R 7 Z dC Mo.- T-h.! S44ka.:. ' '?
. . c.o W Tou. s C:O SPD Ho.- Z d S s h -t
. l.Z9 1.Z 9 i.90- l
/ \ \
llA ISA 15 \ 12A 14A 4-1-76 / 7 6 3-4-76 i 4-13 -7 6 4-2 3-76 .
+
.4zs
+ + .s,n +
.Aal .ua. =%tu l.2.9 # 5, 15 p # 4.81 -4.45 -6.3o - 4.99'
- _u i. m i.33 .ce m .1 N ,,,o 1.co #.lOAE 2-3-76 7A T A\ y 29-76 TA 9A N g 1.Z9 ,
W J-13-7 j-Zo-76
+.485 6
(._
~
.19 -
. 50 -
- e.
.431
.,w t+ [ -s.ss- .54 A Mfrb _
. soy s
. t1,. -
,+
- s.e v 2.
+.4 51 % s.co
- 59,
.= i -
T 'E 6 ~.25 l i 3\ ' 12-Z2-75 I l-7'y 12-2-73 n::.- a- 12-10-79
, -- I CC
.29 Y Y i
Y
-f ~ f
- 4e7'I
. J
.4a3 is s .54:
90 '#
% -s.g - 5.g -6f8 ~p # ' '**
.10B 7S 65 ' SBf 9S
.79 %g-5-76 QG/_l-3 0-76 I-2 7-76 2-L[-76
+ ,
+
+1. 4 31 +.495
- 5:#\%
.411 .4 61
~
'llB ~ ISS
' %'i ~
/':E / - Mi l48 3-3 0-76 [l28 ~
- 3-17.7G 4-9-76 3-19-7 6
. +
.ssc
+ + '
+
l .es .w .4w t
- 4. ) -
- A,. # l'NO -
16 Q j ' 18 17 19 - l 4 7 6 5-25-76 9-11 76 T 4-2 -76
+ +'
+ hi 4
-.394 .t:a -
. .F.
- 4.13) - 5.?5 - 3.e1 :. ci
'- l i.z, /
t.e. ti\\ f. % .5
. _ m
\
\/ ,
I ..
. ;_,-~
.r- -
. 1
.. 3. ...:._.,._ .
- i. EBASCO SERYlCES oATe-1jEjN bM ov # ~ ~~~~
, INCCRPCRATED sHcc7 wo.' ' ~)
e cx xo. a v --- care eenrany --Louisians_ Power and Lizh: C = o.tn.-
-- c.o, no, @d$ r o,y, M - .Dwger- Vaterford. Uni: 03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 f I.-..w,ger. - Mah. Sat tle=en: - d AM L1 ARN t 3)7 3 - -- -
-----.---i kY No-ioTAL SETTLE. MENT (,'7)
D\FFEREt4'T \ 4.L za No. TOTAL -SETREMENT-(tr4')r-
.. ..b.N$.d N N. . .. .'6RD go,- og ppgggg7ggg___.
_. . -C.98T90R.6 -- SETTLEma.9T (IN.) . 2.0 _.__.._ 1 0 -._
'llA ' .13A ~.19 12A 14A /
J-i- 76 2-i5-74 3-4-76 4-13 -7/o 4-23-76
^+ eas< +.144/+.m 4, et g.40 8.Alg 6. to B.93 8.co
\ * 'G
- 1.0 '***
R 3-
, . . . ^t *
- f "2-3-76 1-13-76 -2 9-76 1- 76 % 2-9-76 0.5
+ 4.GS5 g
.141 4 y
.781
+ 1M 1 .7tc 8.17. S 90' 9.'61 [ 8.61 8.G4
- t. W Ca.' :
- o. 4 e. h e. <A c.%
, J E 6 I '3 '
12-22-73 . 12-11-73 12-2-73 12-5-7 3 1210-73
+14Z.
+.13s + + 119 Ig 8io a,9 6.M S.5W h.3]/ n.1
% o. n o ,' - -
-e o.89
.10B 2-3-76 N 1-22-775 L55 55 l-27-7 ,9 8 [16 -
l-y0-76 2 ! l
+ lot, + 13 iy
,71o r 1W
/
. . . +187
' ~ '8 4t. 854 1 9.4 *> .13 *14 4 i.n / 2. .o 1 i. tt/t. o, . i.s7
( -- - - -\ . 0 llBM 12.5 . 12EF '14B . [ 3.17. .7/a 3-30-7 4-9-% ~3-19-76
+ 081 2 + l.
2.o
- 3. M '
.R5 B.lo -
118 +14./ 8.rt s.e3
/i.it i . G1_ i71 i.31 .
1.6 T6 - IS/ II 19 4-21-7/. 3-29-76 3:11-76 J-28-76 i
+ l'41 .
/ + 4"l1 .
+ le4 .
+ 751 5.71 8.t t. s.41 9.ot
- i.ao 1.% 2.to 2.4t
~._. '-
9,, g
r- =--
-- -- - -- -- - ~
~ "~
EBA5Cd 5ERVICES INCdRPOR ATED~~~ ~ ~ cv M6 care 6 20, 18 NEMN
~
shu.T ! CF '!
~~~
or, wo. 429.45.T ~~ *5."' 55I l cuo. sv exri
~~
cucur!I.Orilg.!f.N.s. roi,/gp 8 UGWT CO.MP..' ?f(
~ - - - - ~
~
i { ~ ~~~~~~~,,o;ecr V *.M O T !_Es.7 0 susaccr '@ ~f"T EM.CMT - p g r6 Rub.OV IOM 6
~~ -~
} " -~ ~l
~
~~ ~DiFFEREMTmL SM. I tI Ro.- ioTAL 5ETTLEME.MT (FTh C o t4'T ot.1RS 2@ Ro.-TOTAL SETTLEMENT llO 1.5 3to go. - ein. se7TutstaT orb ,
115 .71z + . 5%. + .761 + .733 +
+ 8.66 8.s4 8.33 9.13 8.80 10 .- !J.8 . i.4o i.1s i.99 1.e7 i,5
~ ~
1I A. 13A 15 12 A~ 1% ~ ~ ~ ~ o.5 Q 4-15-7G 5-4-10 #4-13'1G 4-23-76
's$!
o.35 h)(i,'39 ) o;447+g 5 h.g,
+
9A 2- 9-76 _ toA 1A / '8A 163,s. .143 2-3 -76 1-13-16 1-29-16 ',Id \ Sgg g 4 _l ,157 6 1 3 -
!2-22-75 9.cs 12-2-7 *5 I2 10-73 .
- b. , -
~
.7 57
+ -
- 2. ( o,og 12-6
. sos 9.64 !
75]+- r
.33 y 1.0
- 9.os ,.
o 4 fg,9y 1 5 O.14 12-11-7 5 '/ ,0.01 10 5 75#t cis5 ~55 'lBI 2p-76[l-22-76 l-30 76 .
.'7,'31/( og
.114 d'C44 5B . sos 6-{
, / ISS !25
- 1. I 3 1-11-1G 9.1
'gY 20 .
# '4 S t.o + -
11 B _. 3.gy.3 3-30 76 4-9-76 3-19.-76 _ 1 .102 739 + 731 . .783 + l g.4t 8 61 . s.e4 9.40 i.iz t 55 i.es t.os l 15 16 [ 4-21 76 18 5 25 h % 17
- -l1-76
'9 4-28-76
[ j .
+ .me .72.6 .112
, .748 8.34 t 2,zs B.11 9.tG -
+ g,gs i,si + t.15 t.ss +
- . . - . _ _ _ . _ - - 2.0 -
......m..., .
. _ ;.c _...;_....- ,7. , ,,. ..
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED oy GFG -- e,re 4 17 78 NEW YORK . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . ,
,,g7 l ,, )
f cuo. .y oars . or .,= 42 9 A 541 - . 5 " 551
-cu r LOUISf.AN.A FGWE0 e llGWT COMP.aNY
-- Aoiler-VATERFORD UNIT *S --- -- - - - . -
; iv.,ser fAAT SCT!'_EMENT - M arc.4 , tej76 -
~
' [71FFER'EUTl4L.. . l tT tio .T oT A t s a u tsw eat O s GETTLEME.LJT '
2."9 t4o.- O TEEL. se.m.twasT (1t. I.9 . . . -
+ 8.69 8.54 + I + +. 9. H 8.84 + .
t .43 1.42, s.zs 1.96 -- t .93 . l.o -
% =
18 11A I3A 15 --- 12 r aA _ _ . . . 4-1-% 4-15-% 5-4 ~L 4 1 6 4-23-16 08 1,0 ~
, 9.z.t d.6 '
_34 9A ._ 54 i,
+ 2- 9-76
.. _. 10 A. 1A BA '
9% 8.88
.. 2-3 -76 1-is-16 t.-29-76 '#\ *, ,h 57 l 4 _l 9 .13 6 1 4 3 O.. -
12-22-75 o 12-2.-7 '5 12.-8-7 3 - ,12:10-7f
~ ~
+ -
o>.st j,,,o I,o I'Il 0
/[/j'g I 39 2. k 1. ')
iz-n,15 7Ei
+y*>e.e 65 9*/ +.
IOS[ 25- I-2.2-76
- l' l-3 0-76 b'N 95
-g-0*
s.l, , 2gp to
.58 I
g ; g,/TSS [ t. t 4 12 S
,1-11-1G j4S 1.
/
+ f 3.gq.3 3-30-7' 3-!9-76 4-Y- Ao i
,'o ,,,,8.16 + S.90 + 8.BE 43 +
l._. .B5 1W l.64 j2..to
/ ~ ~
I6 18 17 ,19 . p21 6 '5-25-76
+
W 4-28-76.
~
l '- 9.C4 B.54 z'.gf 9.ts
+ . l .j66.
t.z9 z.38
+ +
2.0 . . - _ . . . ... . . . . l rr~cxunaw . _ - _ . :___-.______
p....__.__..._ . . _
,,,, ., , _ , , , , _ , , , . , , . , . . y, l
EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED gy /,,c-4 _. e,y .
.h 44 NE*3YC3 ggg7 l ,,
l' cw =. v-- -- car . ors . 4294 59[18" 551
- - - cuoy Loll!S!.ANA F0W C $ UG9T COMP.ANY . - - . _ . _ - .. . .
-...mn c VATEPFOCD f .l.N "T " S
,u.ner 'e AT Pc"'.E.YM r. T OtFFEREMTIAL SETTLEMENT 'r2 No.-Tcnw_ n n.ei.# l C.,ob4TodRS f 9 No.- Dt F. 6ETT'0/.O'.Tl t .m ee- e .,.p
~
+ 9.32 ,,,,J.i o : + + '. . c 4 1,93 t" .2 3 +* * * ' - -
1.5 ; .37- ,,42, g,- ; .33
'13
\.5
~30 lli 13A 15 IZ A MA 4-1'IG 4-15-% 5-4-% 4 1 6 4-23-16 I .0 h 3d 0. >. #m sA-5.% N . r., 9A c.41 c.50 -
' 01 1-20g16 29-76 .
/ %
Bk-
- 10k /
- 3. . 73 ' \~. . - 9.. . ..%
1-29-% '.. r! 2-3 -76 1-13 -16 t. 4 6 i 3
/ 9.sG 12-8-73 +-
(~~. 12-22-75 -c.os 12-2.-7 -5 I2 10-72 Ia
+ .
\o.\o j y 10.44 c.44
- 2. ( t.s 0.1 = e. 4 j fayr-12-11-1 5 .
ys Q,,76 t~ o K .. C:yj~5a o- l-30-76 s
% s'--
( . 2 l-22-76 95
+ s ^
2-!8-76 z0 9.\1. 56 z o,;g,* 4 :.t.;G7 I0 y 1 13 6 12 S ' l ,j.1-1G
;4 B ,
/g,33 _ _
ne 3-30 7 4-9,76 3-19<76
+ 3_t3 3
+
! L5 /
!$ 9 41 l"
9.44 l / 9.96
~ - Il 16 !8N 17 19 -
4-217b 5-25-76 5 i!-76 4-28-76
+ 2.5 l
2.53 MG m.tn s.c>l
~
' - - as l
2.0 r
+ 2.05 + ?..M i .56 +
'2 I -~~ -- - f 5_ . _ _ ._.
. - - . .. F_eans se nsy,for, _ , , ,
w - y, - - ,y - - - - e. - 9e. - , . . - -- --
. .._.1._.
ys. . b . . - EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED
, 'A ,,,- G FG "'"***
.ar -
o-9-19 ar I- or I en _. nar r, ors eso. (M4_541 ~me.**W5l y .y G
~
LOUlsfANA 90Wep t UGNT COMPANY
~ ~~
i/ u..t ( i
~
1D ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
,,,,. , VATERFORD UMT 'S
,,,,,, MAT SETT' 5 MENT - AUGu'5T, te1e /
~
- r - ~ ~ ' '--
- - " T T AJ ' i U L E M E M T D .E
- 7."No.- OtF6 .)ET.Tt.EEEM_4th __ ,
i.g o _ _ _ . + to.to 9.8& + _ . - 9.56 .. . _. . -h.10. 37_ _ 10.06 -t- ._. 1.+2. t.tr. . i.st _ _ _i.74 _- _ 1. r.1 1 , i,6 0_. . . . -
~"~
l , __ 'G o nn ._. d
._ . . _ 15 . 2A _ _ _. MA
~ ~ ~~
l 4-1-W _ 4-15-% . -- 4 4-23-7(o . .. i , s. . f.
... ; __ _ y-I i
I
.,_ . 50 -
+ io.or, J '_g./
.to.go -
g t.14
*l
.g
'+
wb-- 29-76 i.co - - - -
' 104 i
_ _ . . LOA _. % ._ / .. _8A ,+, io,c,3 . .
~
I _ L_ . _ 2-5-% t-13-7 s 1-29-% .
'* 2 . - _. .
l... _. t ._ Y. lD 4 _J so-loy ... 6 12-22-75 t (* .- .111-75 __ _ (2-8-7.5.ItM4 H:10-72 s
+
?.o !
. I.co
.'. \ c.1 6' - - - - - - - -- - - - - ---- - - -
_,10.85 i ___ . __:_ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - A S. br,o .
. s.o . 12 1 . .e4 /7 . _ . _ _
10 8 7B 1 80 88 't i .
/
*8 t
_..__ _ 2-5.-76 l-22-76 . 1 30-76 _. ',. _. 98._ . . _ . . 1.00
. io. o _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ,
q _ __y . _ 2-B-76 s..o 9 It.o g. . _ _. ., .... .. . . . N. - 12V
- -~
I i 14 B -- :- ~ ~ g
+
3-30-76 4-9-7_ _ . , 3-19 -7 l- T._ _S-t1-7t. . _ _ ,_ I +
~
._ go . _ _. . . _ _ . _. . _ . + s.o st. . _ __ _ __ .
.o_.e z, + _. . .. _. ...
s 110 1.o9 f . ._ . . . ..
-"~ ~ ~ - ~ -
4-217ti 5-25-76 5ll% _ . . ._ 4-28 76 .. . .
. . .. . _ . . _. 4. __. . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _.
^
, . 9 10.2 .. .. .. _ . .t o.. o l' .. . t 0 11. . . ..
3,3a._ . .
+ **U . I
.'O "4*l 1.35 + .
j . .- . . . . . .. l Ptees est agy 9.pt
- 18. According to the settlement contours shown in figure 2.5.118 the curvature is concave downward in both directions. This implies cracks on the top surface in both directions which would not penetrate all the way through.
In view of the above why did the water seep thru? Why doesn't the crack pattern match the given differential settlement? i Is it possible that there are localized convex surfaces on the mat which are not shown in the figure (the grid is quite rough)? Response: Ebasco The crack pattern does follow generally the pattern of mat differential settlement. The contours of differential settlement show a pronounced greater convexity in the north-south direction than in the east-west. The general crack pattern lies east-west reflecting the pronounced north-south convexity. The minor water seepage showing at some hairline cracks in the surface of the mat has been identified as originating at flexural cracks at the bottom of the mat and following embedded items which intersect these cracks, such as structural steel rebar support structures and conduit, horizontally and vertically through the mat to an intersection with hairline racks at the top of the mat. Localized reversal of curvature (convex surface) may occur in the immediate vicinity of heavy loads. These may be undetected by the settlement monitoring program, b i i i , e 4
,p , ,e-.- , ,+ -4 anay
- 19. Please provide all soil properties (re, results of soil tests, reports
- confirmed compressior. test results, boring records, shear modulus, etc).
Response: Ebasco Soil properties, boring logs, test reports and results are provided in FSAR Chapter 2.5 and Appendices. 4 T f 4 4 I J
.-- < 2 4
b ,, , .g- ,_ - .ry --w,- ,,- ,,-- - . , m , -,e-. ,- % e -- p.m--- _ e.
i l l l l l
- 20. Provide all concrete property data, rebar data, placement data, (i.e.,
also detailed as built drawings of mats). Response: LP&L Attachment "A" consists of a listing of documentation which typically exists in the Waterford 3 concrete placement packages. This docu-mentation is available for review at the Waterford 3 site. Attachment "B" provides a list of associated quality records generated (not filed in the placement packages) which can be found in other QA record vault locations. i e e
l l i Response: 20 Continued Attachment "A" ATTACHMENT "A" CONCRETE PACKAGE CONTENTS I Required Documents A. Preplacement Checklist Records.
- 1. Concrete A. Sandblast B. Greencut C. Treatment
- 2. Forms A. Dimensions B. Line and Grade C. Clean D. Tight E. Braced F. Coating G. Chamfer Strips H. Key Ways I. Block Outs J. Whalers and Strongbacks K. Waterstops L. Release Agent
- 3. Reinforcing A. 'Bar Quantity B.- Spacing C. Elevation D. Cadweld Mapping
- 4. Embeds I
l A. Quantity. l B. Line and Grade C. Elevation D. Identification
- 5. General A. Cleanliness ~
B. Instrumentation C. Weather Protection
- v
. ~. - ._.
l l Response: 20 Continued Attachment "A" ATTACHMENT "A" (Continued) B. Daily Concrete Inspection Report
- 1. Q.V. Inspector A. Placement Area / Location
- 3. Area / Location Released by Engineer C. Concrete Delivery Acceptable D. Concrete Placement Acceptable E. Consolidation Acceptable F. Finishing Acceptable G. Curing Acceptable C. Concrete Curing Log
- 1. Q.V. Inspector A. Date B. Time C. Current' Temperature D. High Temp. -
E. Low Temp. F. Continuous Moisture G. Maintain log for seven-(7) days for Items A thru F .; D. Concrete Physical Test Records Many Concrete Packages contain test records, but not all. A complete file of test records can be found in the vault arranged by placement dates. E. Repair Documents 1This documentation could be for such items as: repair of bent rebar, addition of stub-ups, or a possible weld repair. on an embed plate. If there is any damage.by whatever means, these items were documented. II Support Documents A. Concrete Pour Plan B. Embed Map Log C. Cadweld Maps and Map Logs , Requisitions-on Warehouse D. E. Batch Tickets
._,g- -
, y
- ......-...-... . . - . . . . . ...'.- _1..... . - . ... . . . ..
1 ATTACHMENT "B" I Inspector Certifications A. J.A. Jones
- 1. Cadwelds
- 2. Concrete Placement B. Ebasco
. 1. Batch Plant
- 2. Concrete Test Station
, 3. Placement
- 4. Backfill C. Barrow-Agee/ Peabody /GEO
- 1. Concrete Lab
- 2. Concrete Field Testing
- 3. Concrete Batch Plant Insp. and Mix Design
- 4. Soils Lab and Field Testing
- 5. Rebar Tensile Testing
({) II Concrete Materials A. MTLs Receiving Docs / Carts i
- 1. Admixtures
- 2. Cement Types I & II - Midlothian & Artesia
- 3. Aggregate B. Materials Acceptance Tests
- 1. Calibration of Test Equipment
- 2. Test Reports on'
- a. water quality
- b. sand - daily, weekly, monthly, bi-annually
- c. - daily, weekly, monthly,-_bi-annually
- d. 1" - daily, weekly, monthly, bi-annually
- e. rebar pull tests (tensile)
- 3. Offsite test Reports
- a. cement
.b. water
- c. ice
- 4. Cadweld tensile tests C. Miscellaneous-
- 1. DNs
- 2. DRs
- 3. NCRs
. - . . _ -. , . ~ , - -
- 21. Provide any revised calculations that include settlement effects.
Response: .Ebasco No revised calculations were made. The original calculations included provisions for differential settlement effects utilizing variable spring constants to provide sufficient conservatism in the strength of the mat to accommodate differential settlements. i c e
- 22. Is the Phearson memo accurate? What kind of actions has LP&L taken to respond to and resolve his allegations?
Response: LP&L It is improper to characterize the content of the Phearson memorandum as
" allegations." The LP&L and Ebasco QA Reports for basemat placements 6 and 2 include " findings" which are, in technical content, identical to the items listed in the Phearson memorandum, and other findings not included in the Phearsen memorandum. To that extent, the Phearson memorandum may be characterized as " accurate," although the proper method of reporting these findings, the formal QA reporting process, was not followed by Phearson.
Since findings essentially identical to the Phearson findings were included in the official QA reports and since the QA reports required formal closure, the Phearson findings were effectively addressed through the formal QA process. These actions were taken regardless of the fact that LP&L was not even aware of the Phearson memorandum at the time corrective action was being carried out. It is reasonable to conclude that Phearson himself was satisfied that adequate corrective action was taken since, to the best of LP&L and Ebasco knowledge, he did not ever formally report dissatisfaction with the corrective action, or recommend investigation of the quality of placements 6, 1, or 2 during the remainder of his tenure on the Waterford 3 project. Phearson left the project in mid April, 1976, some 4 months after issuance of Stop Work Order 1. O e
l
- 23. Memos of inspectors Hill and Davis, as reported in GAMBIT, stated that they found a broad range of deficiencies in virtually every record package examined and the situation demanded a complete review of all civil /
structural records. What is your response to this allegation? l
Response
, Messrs. Hill and Davis were. document reviewers. Their assigned duty 4 was to review construction records and to identify records deficien-cies. Their memoranda identified records deficiencies. The deficiencies documented in their memoranda were appropriately entered into the programmatic process required by the Waterford 3 Quality Assurance Program to assure the proper dispositioning of such , deficiencies. As a result of the memoranda, the records review program evolved to include a complete review of all civil / structural records. Corrective action on deficiencies, identified during the expanded '
- records review program, are now essentially complete. Little c i physical corrective action has been required. Also, see Response to Question 28.
6 1 9 i O ~ 3 9
.g - I
.-.___;. . ,- .- ._ --m-,,. ..m..e e - --w....
t
- 24. GAMBIT reported that there was falsification on cadweld splices of reinforcing bars. What is LP&L's response to this allegation?
Response: LP&L See attached Affadavit of Thomas F. Gerrets, dated January 12, 1984. i. J a 4- + i L
- _=__:_____
4
- 25. What were the problems in the seven NCR's on QA deficiencies in concrete, as mentioned in the last column on page 28 of GAMBIT, and how were they
- disposed of? 1 Note: GAMBIT (p.28) quotes Hill's memo as follows: "These NCR's are each broad in scope and identify multiple deficiencies." Response: Ebasco , Hill's memo to Czyrko dated June 6, 1983 (
Subject:
Review of Seismic Class I Concrete Records) references NCR W3-5563: Fuel Handling Building Bridge Crane NCR W3-5564: Fuel Handling Building Stairs i NCR W3-5565: Fuel Handling Building Bridge Crane i NCR-W3-5973: Fuel Handling Building Tornado Door NCR-W3-6245: Daily Cadweld Inspection Reports NCR-W3-5997: Clam Shell Filter Blanket NCR-WE-5998: Sample Splice Failure Rates and describes these NCRs as examples of deficiencies discovered during a j " Review of Seismic Class I Concrete Records". l The problems and disposition of these NCRs are as follows: NCR W3-5563 (Fuel Handling Building Bridge Crane) This NCR'was written against Jana Oges (trainee who was inspecting bolts
- cnt the FHB Bridge Crane on 11/6/79) and states that a trainee cannot-
- implement, evaluate, or report inspections and test results. The dis-position called for Ebasco QC to reinspect the questioned areas Ebasco Engineering evaluated the recommended disposition and revised it to the following
- J. Portuit was to cosign applicable inspections by Ogea.
Portuit was her Level II Supervisor. As a result of this NCR, Portuit submitted signed testimony dated 7/11/83 stating that he was present and supervised inspections by Oges and this NCR was closed. Note that this NCR has nothing to do with concrete or the common mat. It
-is not broad in scope and does not involve multiple deficiencies, i-NCR W-3-5564 (Fuel Handling Building Stairs)
This NCR states that no welding or bolting inspection reports existed for the FHB' stairs. The disposition instructs reinspection of bolting and welding. This reinspection was performed by Ebasco QC (Roger West). I and was accepted. (Report # C-0032 dated 11/7/83) Note _that this NCR has nothing to do with concrete or the common mat. It is not. broad in scope and does' not involve multiple deficiencies. . y l
. k 8
l Response: (25 Continued) NCR-W3-5565 (Fuel Handling Building Bridge Crane) This NCR is very similar to NCR U3-5563 in that it was written against Jane ) Ogea because her supervisor, J. Pertuit, neglected to cosign her inspection reports. As a result of this NCR, Pertuit submitted signed testimony dated
-7/11/83 that he was present and supervised inspections by Ogea. On that basis, this NCR was closed. The inspections were on the crane reaving on 8/15/79 to 8/22/79.
Note that this NCR has nothing to do with concrete or the common mat. It is not broad in scope and does not involve multiple deficiencies. . NCR W3-5973 (Fuel Handling Building Tornado Door) l This NCR states that 1) inspector D. Noss was not a certified weld inspector, and 2) two welds on the door frame were first rejected and ' subsequently accepted without additional inspection reports. The NCR was closed on the basis that both welds had previously passed RT and MT examinations and visual inspection was not necessary. It should be noted that D. Noss was technically qualified, by experience , , and education, at the time the-inspections were performed, and was
-subsequently formally certified on 8/24/77.
Note that this NCR has nothing to do with concrete or the common mat. It is not broad in scope and does not involve multiple deficiencies.
- NCR W3-6245 (Daily Cadweld Inspection Reports) ~
i This NCR states that certain Daily Cadweld Inspection Reports have five i (5) inspectors' signatures or initials with noticeable differences which l renders _their. authenticity indeterminate. l. l - The NCR was initially closed,'on the basis that documentation was found l' which'showed thatlthe cadwelds were previously inspected and accepted. This closure accepted the cadwelds "As-Is" with no further corrective .. action.- I
~
Subsequently, the NCR was reopened and attachments 9, 10, 11, and 12-
~
j were added to the NCR package. These attachments included signed state- , ments by Sam Horton, H.-' Don Ernst, Nicholas M. Donlick, and Leonard Kaminski giving explanations for the appearance of' irregular signatures and confirming'their authenticity. (Original documents were soiled in the-field and_ ware re-written.) See also the response to Question 13. 1
.NCR W3-5997 (Clam Shell Filter Blanket) r p _This NCR is'very lengthy (aboutl200 pages) and the NCR addresses 64 l individual findings detailed in Attachment 1 to the_NCR (copy. attached).
f.
Response: (25 Continued) The NCR was closed after evaluation and satisfactory conclusions by the Site Soils Engineer. The bases for closure are detailed in Attachment IV of the NCR (copy attached). It should be noted that the purpose of the clam shell filter was to ensure a uniform water pressure under the mat during recharge. Settlement data shows that settlement of the mat has stabilized with acceptable ; differential settling. Thus, it is concluded that the clam shell filter successfully fulfilled its primary purpose. NCR-W3-5998 (Sample Splice Failure Tests) This NCR finds that
- 1) the failure rate in one group of sample splices exceeded the
} specification limit of 1 failure in 15 consecutive samples.
- 2) splicing was not terminated as required by the specification.
- 3) the cadwelder was not recertified as required by the specification.
- 4) additional samples were not obtained and tested as required by the specification when the failure rate exceeds the specified limit.
The recommended disposition stated that the author ~of the NCR (G. Hill / H. Savage) erred (miscounted) and in fact the failure was only 1 in 15 not 2 in 15 as stated. Consequently, it was not necessary to terminate
- the splicing, re-certify the cadwelder, or take additional samples.
l The engineering. evaluation agreed withlthe recommended disposition, but: 1 required some additional evaluation (Attachment 5'of NCR-W3-5998) of the test data based on AEC clarification of Reg. Guide 1.10 in AEC memo l' dated May 15, 1973. (Attachment 6 of NCR-W3-5998) Although we believe the required evaluation.was done, it was not properly documented. At the
- suggestion.of Mr. William Crossman (USNRC), this NCR was reopened on 3/14/84 and the evaluation per Attachment 5 of the NCR was. performed. . We expect the NCR to be expeditiously closed.
, . Note that this NCR is hardly " broad-in scope, involving multiple (' ~ deficiencies" and the failed sample splices did not come from the common mat. Of four failed sample splices addressed by this NCR, two came from the Fuel Handling Building,'one came from a pressurizer wall, and one-came from the primary shield wall. O b p
,m- w- y -ig Wy -ww vww- -
w,p , w- ,w -e e, w ywwp w w- g r,, 5 y y -gn--
~
!j g/ l ') d / .53 2 esp 0M.5d-.'2f
(; Page 1 of 9 ATT. I to NCR-W3-!'A9'l 9 Attachment I - Detailed Description of Nonconformance W3-Item I: Compliance of Clam'Shell Filter Blanket construction with the Test Fill. A) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2, para. 6, The Test Fill Report (Att. III) does not provide specific criteria required by Q.C. in order to verify compliance with requirements of Spec. LOU.1564.482, para. 6.2h or Spec. LOU.1564.482, Attachment entitled' Clam Shell Filter Blanket Placement and Compacticn Procedures,.page_i_4, _. . ... top paragraph.
- 1) This c6adition renders:
a) the acceptability of the source of the material actually used during construction indeterminate and b) the acceptability of the compactive equipment actually used during construction indcterminate.
- 2) The absence of quantitative acceptance criteria renders
{# the acceptability of the in-place density test results, for the in-place clam shell, indeterminate. Affects all work. (.Y ' B) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2, para. 6 and Spec. 1564.482 and Attachment entitled Clam Shell Filter Blanket Placement and Compaction Procedure, . the construction work performed on the Filter Blanket uses techniques not provided for during the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Fill. These violations, by strip, are as follow: Nh I a) Report dated 10/24/75' indicates clam shell was not in place and Gunite was placed on entire horizontal surface of Strip 1. - Ther test fill program made no provis' ion for L clam shell compaction, and effect of compaction on shell, on-large gunite surfaces. (See Att. II, page 1) b) Lift thicktiess for placement dated 10/28/75 is indicated as 15 " . Lift thickness for placement dated 10/29/75 is indicated as 15". A. lift thickness of 14 %" maximum is required. Site Soils Engineer review and approval of , this modification is not documented on an Ebasco NCR, FCR, or DCN. (See Act. II, pages.-5 and 17) ,T ! L ls. -
- y- - - --- r . . .v ~ , , -,e
. - . _. --.a . ..
. - . . . -. .. _ . - a : . . . . . : . -
'- -~
OO/ } ') i) / 3$ Page 2 of 9 ATT. I to NCR-W3 S*AL 4
- 2) Strip 2 a) Report dated 2/23/76 does not indicate authority for replacement of gunite with 3 ft. thick concrete wall.
There are no concrete inspection records for the concrete as required by Ebasco Procedures QCIP-6 and QCIP-7 and J.A. Jones Procedure W'SITP-7. Site Soils Engineer teview and approval of this modification is not documented
. on an Ebasco NCR, FCR, or DCN. (See Act. II, page 30) b) Report dated 12/13/75 indicates shell placement in standing water. Site Soils Engineer review and approval for this modification is not documented on an Ebasco NCR, FCR, or i DCN. (See Att. II, page 42) c) Report dated 12/15/75 indicates pan vibrator used on en-tire surface of strip. Site Soils Engineer authorized use on " soft spot" only. Test Fill does not provide for use of hand compactors except for restricted areas.
(See Att. II, page 53)
- 3) Strip 5 h"y a) Report 3, dated 2/10/76 does not indicate authority for
, replacement of gunite with 3 ft. thick concrete wall.
tu There are no concrete inspection records for the concrete , as required by Ebasco Procedures QCIP-6 and QCIP-7 and i J.A. Jones Procedure W-SITP-7. Site Soils Engineer . l review and approval of this modification is not documented c on an Ebasco NCR, FCR, or DCN. (See Att. II, page 97) l l V b) Test fill requires 10 passes of a vibratory roller on the ! clam shell. The Test Fill Report analyses the effect l of up to 14 passae o.2 the gradation and permeability characteristics of the clam shell. The inspection records indicate 40 passes of the vibratory roller were applied [ to this strip. The effect, on the gradation and permeability characteristics, of this overcompaction are indeterminate. Site Soils Engineer review and approval of this modification
- is not documented on an Ebasco NCR, FCR, or DCN. (See Att. II, l
pages 98, 103, 105, 108, and 110a) i Item II. Traceability / Location Deficiencies l A) Description of Nonconformance-
~
[~ . l Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2, para. 18 and ANSI-N-45.2.9, para. 3.2.1,.
- records for the Clam Shell Filter Blanket dd not provide suf-ficient data to accurately locate the individual placement
(,, strips by co-ordinates. Therefore, the square foctage of a the' strips (individually) cannot be determined. Testing frequencies are. based on square footage .of the placement. This renders compliance, with the required testing frequency, indeterminate.- (This affects all atrips)
- :_2 . . .. ....._..._-.c._.. . . .-
01/ l ! 0737 b' ' Page 3 of 9 ATI. I to NCR-W354l1 B) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2, para.18, report dated 2/13/76 adds as area to strip 5, the location of which is indeterminate. (See Att. II, page 111) Item III: Engineer's approval prior to shell placement A) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to QCIP-1, para. 6.1, the following placements of shell proceeded without the prior (or subsequent) approval of the Site Soils Engineer documented on Ebasco Form QC-132,
- 1) Strip 1 a) Placement on 10/24/75, 10/27/75, 10/28/75 or 10/29/75
- 2) Strip 4 a) Placement. on 2/13/76 or 2/14/76 ,
q 3) Strip 5 a) Placement on 2/5/76, 2/9/76, 2/10/76 or 2/13/76 d' 4) Strip 6
. a) Placement on 3/10/76 Item IV: Certification of Personnel
~
A) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2.6, the following individuals performed inspection without certification to a level and/or to activity.
- 1) Strip 1 L a) . Inspector Kaminski (Jones) r (See Act. II, pages 1, 2, - 7) b) Inspector. Phillips (Ebasco) l (See Att. ' II, pages 4,16) .
4
- c) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) -
(See Act. II, pages 20, 22, 23, 24, 26) 7 .
- 2) Strip 2 L
a) Inspector Frick (Jones) (See Act. II, pages 37, 36, 50, 53) L .
~
, ... . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _.___.m.. .._.-.__-s., .
0a/i , 1 j 733 o (, Page 4 of 9
. ATT. I to NCR-W3 MG Item IV: A) 2) (cont.)
b) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) (See Att. II, pages 58, 60)
- 3) Strip 3 a) Inspector Kaminski (Jones)
(See Att. II, page 70) , 4 b) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) (See Act. II, pages 81, 83) c) Inspector Eiff (Jones) (See Att. II, page 70)
- 4) Strip 4 a) Inspector Frick (Jones)
(See Att. II, page 85) s b) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) ft (See Att. II, page 92) Qj:, g 5) Strip 5 a) Inspector Frick (Jones)
'(See Att. II, page 98) b) Inspector Horton (Jones)
(See Att. II, page 111)
~
c) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) (See Att. II, pages 117, 118, 119,-120, 121)
- 6) Strip 6 l a) Inspector Frick (Jones) l -
(See Att. II, page 126) b) Technician T. Hazel (Site Test Lab) (See Act. II, pages 132,133)- Ite.a V: Testing
, A) Description of Nonconformance. -
Contrary to ASTM-D-2167 '66, in place density test holes do not meet minimum 0.1 ft3 required test hole size, per Table 2. U-In addition moisture determination used*in coq utation of' in-place density was'not performed in accordance with para. 4.4 Instances are as_ follow: ,, , .,
^
. . . ~ - . . . .. - . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
0 ') 7 1 1 .) 7i9 (N Page 5 of 9 t ATT. I to NCR-W3 5991 Item V: A) (cont.)
- 1) Strip 1 (See Att. II, pages 20, 22, 23, 24, 26)
- 2) Strip 2 (See Act. II, pages 58, 60)
- 3) Strip 3 (See Att. II, page 81) -
- 4) Strip 4 (See Att. II, page 92)
- 5) Strip 5 (See Ate.. II, pages 117, 118, 119, 120, 121)
- 6) - Strip 6 (See Att. II, page 132)
B) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to Spec. LOU-1564.469, para. 5.2 and Spec. LOU-1564.482, page 14, Attachment, which give testing frequencies in terms of square footage of placement for the foundation and filter blanket, the inspection records do not provide suf-ficient data to determine the square footage of the areas inspected. The compliance of the testing program with the testing frequency is indeterminate. (All strips are affected) 3' C) Description of Nonconformance O'#" i Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2, para.18 and ANSI-N-45.2.9, para. 3.2.1, the location of all in-place density tests on the foundation and the Clam Shell Filter Blanket are indeter-minate. The tests were performed in a three dimensional medium, but were located in only two dimansions. (All tests for all strips are affected) NCrl'E: Tests for Strip 1 do not fall anywhere within the Nuclear Plant Island as per co-ordinates given compared with , co-ordinate grid attached to test report (See Att. II, pages l 26, 27) (Test f453, #454, #455) D) Description of Nonconformance Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2.9, para. 3.2.I, the in-place density tests on the foundation material cannot be traced to the cor- - responding LaboraCory Moisture-Density Relation Test Report used in conjunction with per-centage of compaction determina-tion. (All foundation tests are affected. See QC-83 Forms containing foundation tests, located in Att. II) , E) Description of Nonconformance , Contrary to ANSI-N-45.2.9, para. 3.2.6, the following test
-(" reports (by scrip) contain improper changes by unknown perscu-nel. These. alterations change test locations or test readings.
As' determined from the original, at the Site Test Lab, the original entry had been noted on the report contained in Act. II.
- ) -) / i i d ? i 0
/T Fage 6 of 9
\ /' ATI. I to NCR-W3 SWI Item V: E) (cont.)
- 1) Strip 1 a) Form QC-83 for tests 452 thru 461 exists in two distinct versions. The two versions give different hole volumes for Test #452. Percentage compaction is
! indeterminate. Other differences have been indicated on the reports. (See Act. II, pages 24, 26) These Xerox ccpies have ink entries by unknown. b) Form QC-83 for tests 486 thru 495 exists in two dis-tinct versions. One is dated 10/28/75, the other is dated 10/29/75. Both are Xerox copies containing ink entries by unkucwn personnel. (See Att. II, pages 20, 22)
- 2) Strip 5 a) Forms QC-83 contain improper changes made by unknown
- i '
personnel. The changes consist of erasum of original
. data and entry of new data. The original records, completed in pencil, were reviewed at the Site Test Lab, and, where possible, the original data had been
' Q*' noted on the report contained in Att. II. (See Att. II, (3 pages 117, 118, 119, 120) (This is for dispositioning purposes only.)
- 3) Strip 6 l
a) Forms QC-83 contain improper changes made by unknown personnel. The changes consist of erasure of original , data and entry of new data. The original records, j completed in pencil, were reviewed at the Site Test l Lab, and where possible, the original data had been l noted on the report contained in Att. II. (See-l Act. II, page 133) - F) Description of Nonconformance l
~
Contrary to the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Fill Report, _ . . . . l Att. III,' the required value of 102 lbs./fti was not used j . to compute the pecentage of compaction of in-place clam shell. L
- 1) Test 800 used 105.0 lbs./ft.3 (See Att. II, page 119)
~
- 2) Tests 833 thru 837.used 102.7'1bs./ft.3 (See Att. H. pg.132).
I Item VI: Documented Deficiencies without Documented Corrective Action A) ~ Description of Nonconformance . Contrary to A::31-N-45.2, para.18, the records do not indicate corrective action for the following document.ed deficiencies.
___ _ 1 .. n: __...___1 a _ _. . . . . . _ . ._ ...-
'~
00/ 1 ) 07a I Page 7 of 9 ATT. I to NCR-W3 Sam Item VI: A) (cont.) s
- 1) Strip 1 a) Report dated 10/27/75 does nic indicate status of, in-pact on, or re-compaction of, in-place clam shell when gunite previously applied, was replaced. (See Att. II, Page 2) ,
- 2) Strip;2 a) Report dated 12/10/75 indicates unacceptable trim of gunite and unacceptable removal of surplus material and overspray. Remarks section indicates the wooden stakes were not removed. No corrective action'is indicated.. (See Act. II, pages 28, 29) b) Report dated 12/12/75 does not indicate adequate corrective action for the 4", compacted lift thickness, clam shell. (See Att. II, pages 26, 42) -
c) Report dated 12/13/75, first shift, indicates water standing in West half of strip. Contractor allowed to place shell. Site Soils Engineer review and approval of this modification is not documenced on an Ebasco (,Q NCR,~ FCR, or DCN. See note by M. Teachin at botters h of page 37 of Att. II. (See Att. II, page 42) d) Report' dated 12/12/75 indicates 5 temporary sumps were dug. ,There is no indication of subsequent placement and compaction of clam shell in these sumps. .(See - Att. II. page 33)
- a) ' Report dated 12/15/75 indicates " West." area was cut and l part of'" East" area was filled. This diaturbed the sur-face. .Only one pass was applied with a pan vibrator.
(See Att. II, pages 51, 52)
-NOTE: Refer to Item IE2c for use of pan' vibrator on large, non-restricted area. -
l 3) -Strip 3 , a) Report dated 12/19/75 indicates "... drainage ditch dug on both sides of Strip 3 ... lined with Mirafi cloth and y filled with shell ..." The area identified is indeter-i minate. Verification of the foundation material ex-l posed is not documented. (The Test Fill makes no
~
l provision for compaction of the 2 ft. lift thickness used for this work.) (See Att. II, page 68) r b) Report dated 12/19/75 indicates . . . temp. drainage r _ k./ ditch dug on North side of Strip 3. App. 2 ft. deep and 3 ft. wide. . Covered with Mirafi paper and loose clam shell ..._No compaction." The area identified is l indeterminate. There is no documented evidence of sub-~ sequent compaction. (See Att. II, page 69)
d0/ I } -
.) 7 ) 'l s Page 8 of 9 ATr. I to NCR-W35%7 Item VI: A) (cont.)
- 4) Strip 4 a) Report dated 2/11/76 indicates unacceptable. trim of gunite. This entry has been changed to acceptable by unknown personnel. The acceptability of corrective action is not documented or verifiable. The current status of this work is inde*:erminate. (See Att. II, .
page 84) ' b) There is no record of slope protection for the east two-thirds of the North Wall or on an indeterminate length of the north portion of the East Wall. Length of exposure time of the foundation material to the elements is indeterminate. (Ref. Spec. LOU.1564.482, Attachment, page 12, 2nd. para.)
- 5) Strip 5 a) Reports 1 and 2 dated 2/5/76 indicates unacceptable trim of gunite and unacceptable removal of surplus material and overspray. No quantitative description of these deficiencies is given. No corrective action hp .
is indicated. (See Act. II, pages 95,- 96) O~' b) Report 2 dated 2/5/76 indicates "some" contamination of the clam shell due to overspray. No corrective action is indicated. (See Att. II, page 96) c) Report dated 2/13/76 indicates alternate methods of ' compaction used are unacceptable (per the Site Soils Engineer). No corrective action is indicated. (See
. Att. II, page 111)
- 6) . Strip 6 a) Reports 1 and 2 dated 3/9/76 indicates unacceptable tria of gunite and unacceptable removal of surplus j_ material and overspray. No quantitative description j of these deficiencies is given.- No corrective action j is indicated. (See Act. II, pages 124,.125) i _ b) There is no record of slope protection-for the West
' Wall or for approximately 177 ft. of the South, start-ing from junction.with West Wall and moving eastward.
Length of exposure time of the foundation material to l - - the elements is indeterminate. (Ref. Spec. LOU.1564.
- j. 482, Attachment,.page 12, para. 2) l l
\., ,/ '
l 9
, - e ,e, s. -
ees - a+ ,-n- - -
- ~ - - w <
007 i ! J / 53 I Page 9 of 9 ATT. I to NCR-W35%1 Item VI: A) (cont.)
- 7) Strip 2 a) Report dated 12/12/75 indicates the clam shell filter blanket was penetrated by a " mud spurt" of approximately 120 ft.2 There is no indication of corrective action, particularly placing Mirafi over area and subsequent replacement and compaction of clam shell. (Ref. The Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Fill Reoort, para. 4.2,____ _. __
page 5 (Att. III to the NCR) ) (See Att. II, pages 35, 36) Based on the deficiencies noted above the acceptability of the Clam Shell !!'ilter Blanket is indeterminate.
.-n. .
G O e e A e
.g
+ '
\
g l 4 .
. ;- -.1 . . . .
[ .
) i) / l :) d -) / ~3 {2espor!Se : 2[
.w ATTACEMENT IV ENGINEERING DISPOSITION OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORT W3-5997 ITEM I: Compliance of Clam Shell Filter Blanket. Construction With Test Fill:
I-A-1-a - Use As Is: _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ , The test fill for the Clam Shell Filter Blanket was performed on September 10, 1975. The Clam Shell used was supplied by Brothers Construction Inc. (A Giambelluca Construction, Inc.) who was supplying Clam Shell to the site since August, 1974 under temporary purchase order W3-848 (Pg. 133). The purchase specification for P.O. W3-848 required that all clam shell caterial come from Lake Ponchartrain as shown in the typical supplement #5 to PO W3-848 presented as page 134. On September 10, 1975, Brothers Construction company was. delivering 672 yd3 of clam shell for general surfacing repair of roads, and laylown yards (pg. 135). Several trucks of shell were taken from this delivery .rder to build the test fill. All subsequent clam shell used for the construction of the filter blanket was delivered by Brothers Construction, Inc. taken from Lake Ponchartrain as shown in the typical material received report attached as page 136 and on each Ebasco Inspection Report Form QC-93 typically shown on page 4. P3 Therefore, the material used during construction is found to be from the same 4 / source as the test fill.
-I-A-1-b - Use As Is: ,,
Compaction of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Section was performed by a rubber tire, self propelled, smooth drum vibratory roller imparting a minimum of 10 tons of energy in accordance with the test fill construction procedure CP-203, Section 6.3.4 (Attachment III, Page 3 of 8) and as shown in Clam Shell Filter Test Fill Report, November, 1975 (Attachment III, Photo No. 8). The compaction of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket itself was performed-by an identical rubber tire, self propelled, smooth drum vibratory roller as ndocumented on the Ebasco Inspection Reports (QC-93) typically shown in Attachment II, Pages 5, 33,'72, etc. and in the Waterford Record Photograph #648 dated 3-16-76 showing the roller on the side of strip #6 (pg.137). _ Specification requirements in LOU 1564.482, Section 6.2h requiring compatibility of test-fill and production compaction equipment type or model refer to generic type or model, such as smooth drum vibratory versus' static Jeandom wedgefoot roller and were compiled with.. eW
~ . . , , e
. _ _ w .. .. . . .:. . : . L -
0 0/ 1 1 a) / 9 m I _.
- I-A Use As Is: . . - . _ . - -
The Clam Shell Filter Blaaket was installed in accordance with an attachment to technical specification LOU-1564.482. This attachment was a direct result of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Report (Attachment III) and is a method specification. It requires a roller type and a number of passes on suitable clam shell. Compliance with this method specification is documented on the Ebasco Inspection Report Forms QC-93 typically shown in Attachment II Pages . 5, 33, 72, etc. In place density tests were run for information to be provided to the Site Soils Engineer for review and technical evaluation. I-B-1A - Use As Is: The Gunite installed on the west wall of Strip #1 and on the adjacent 3 foot horizontal berm at el -40 Attachment II, page 1 was authorized by the Site Soils Engineer. prior to the placement of Clam Shell at this area. This was done to
- comply with specification requirements stated in the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Attachment to the technical specification LOU-1564-482 (Attachment III) requiring slope protection of the, exposed vertical faces of the final phase IV
excavation within 8 hours of excavation. Delays in Clam Shell placement prevented the placement of the shell prior to the guniting; therefore, to g,; g protect exposed faces, guniting was approvad out of sequence by the Site Soils _ p{[ Engineer. The horizontal surface mentioned was on the EL -40 been at the top of Q^ the vertical face and not in Strip #1 as indicated in the NCR. No effects were realized on the Clam Shell Blanket. l I-B-lb - Use As Is:
-The thickness requirements.of 10-inch minimum and 141s inch maximum for the Clam Shell Blanket as defined in the Attachment to technical specification LOU-1564.482 Page 13. " Placement" (Attachment III) were ' designed for the following reasons:
1.- The 10-inch minimum thickness was specified to provide the required permeability of the filter blankat..
-2.. The~14 inch =mvien= thickness was specified so as not to allow
'an overchick clam shell layer which could conceivably: encroach into the base mat above elevation -47 and effect the concrete -
cover thickness under the bottom rows of rebar.' Practical experience gained during the actual Phase IV excavation indicated that excavation usually exceeded the elevation -48.25 goal. Over thick shell' areas (plus 1-2 inches) were therefore found:co be below the' elevation of the
~ bottom'of the. mud mat and not into the sarea of the structural mat. 'In cases
- where. thick'shell areas were measured, the shell was either shaved or the mud In all~ cases
- bowever, the bottom of the Class I
[ M , mat-thickness was adjusted. foundation mat,was kept to El~-47. 4
-,c, J, :. - ,, -+.- + . , . , - . .
- ^
- .. _. . .a . : - :~.-. . : - .. -
,' 1 .) / j i 0 -) 10 4
,- -3 .
~
The recorded thickness of 15 " on 10-28-75 (Attachment 2, page 5) and 15" on 10-29-75 (Attachment 2, page 17) are therefore found to be acceptable as is. I-B-2A - Use As Is: , . _ _ _ _ _ _ , In localized areas where the permanent vertical faces of the Phase IV excavations caved in, and the gunite slope procaction was destroyed, lean concrete backfill was used to reconstruct the vertical face and gunite layer. Since these areas were very localized, and since the lean concrete always provided the strength of the pleistocene clay it replaced and offersd a vertical face to form the structural mat against, this backfill procedure was approved and used as necessary throughout the Phase IV excavation operation. The case described in 2-23-76 (Attachment II Page 30) is a typical example where concrete backfill was' used for repair without influencing the design of the structural mat. Ebasco procedures QCIP-6 and 7 and J. A. Jones procedure W-STIP-7 covers structural concerate only.- Therefore, no FCR or DCN was required for the use of lean concrete as a substitute for soil. I-B-2b - Use As Is: (f'4 A review of the referenced inspection report (Attschment II, Page 42)
.l indicates the possibility of placement of clan shell into standing water
"_ however, it is not clearly defined. The record further states that a meeting was held between construction (K. Flanigan) and Engineering (B. Watt) and the
- Site Soils Engineer (M. Teachin) allowing placement of shell. A review of the technical specification LOU-1564.482, Attachment on clam shell, shows that the only moisture content requirement is after compaction. In-place density tests on this Strip [ Attachment II Page 58, Tests 2-3 (670) and 2-4 (671)] indicate -
moisture contents of 5.5 and 5.7% respectively. Therefore, the after compaction moisture content tests show the shall fill to be acceptable. L I-B-2c - Use As Is: . _ _ _ __ Note: Refer to page 51 for problem statement, in addition to page 53. The inspection report referenced in Attachment II, Page 31 is explained in greater detail on page 53. From page 51, it is noted that no new shell was placed, only that 15calized areas of thick shell on the west half of Strip #2
~
were bladed to thin sections on'the east half of Scrip #2. These localized areas were then recompacted by the pan (plate)1 vibrator. Page 53 clearly L indicates that the entire Scrip #2 was properly compacted with a large roller. l jrhe exception of the localized repair areas which were ; properly compacted with . the pan vibrator to the Site' Soils Engineers satisfaction is in accordance with the specification requirements. ' ~ pm QJ . e
- .- i.. . :: .. ....:....--. . - . . . .
~
0 ,J / l J t) 9 1 1 13 I-B-3A - Use As Is: _ , . _ This is an identical case as described in Section I-B-2a of this NCR. Please see that disposition, which applies in this case as well. I-B-3b - Use As Is: , _ _ _ , _ , __ Ia a review of the number of passes placed on Strip #5 clam shell the following understandings were developed:
- 1. Shell placed and compacted 9-76 day (Pg. 102-103)
- 2. Thickness checked 9-76 night (Pg. 104-105) Notation of 6 passes given in previous shift is in error. Should have read 10 passes
- 3. Shell recompacted with.10 passes 10-76 day (Pg. 107-109)
- 4. Survey error in width of Strip #5 lead to the addition excavation of a narrow strip of soil on the south end of Strip #5'(. , proximately 8' wide). Clam shell was placed and properly compacted on this narrow strip on 2-13-76 (Pages 110-113).
,'. [ 5. Site Soils Engineering approval of the original '(narrow scrip) was
.g ' given on 2-11-76 (Pg.109) prior to the discovery of the survey error.
v>.
- 6. Approval was given for the narrow strip on 2-13-76 by the Site Soils Engineer (Pg. 111).
In conclusion, it appears that 20' passes were given to the originally cut
- Strip #5 which is contrary to the method specification stated in the attachment to LOU-1564.482, requiring 10 passes.
The effects of this overcompaction of the clam shell are found to have a i negligible effect on the quality of the final clam shall blanket for the l .following reasons: ! 1. An extrapolation of the Settlement vs number of passes curve from the Clan Shell Filter Blanket Test Report (Attachment III) presented as page 138, Attachment IV indicates that less than 4" of addition settlement is realized by the application of the addition 10 passes of compaction equipment.. [. 2. .An extrapolation of the"% compaction vs. number of passes curve from the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Report (Attachment III) presented l as page 139-indicates that approximately'1% additional compaction wf.11 . be realized by the additional 10 passes of compaction equipment. I f .f'.
- ( ,1 i'
l l-
l l
, O i) / I 1 ') -) j 1!
l l l
- 3. An Extrapolation of the gradation vs. number of passes curve from the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Test Report (Attachment III) presented as page 140 indicates that although the surface of the clam shell may undergo some slight additional breakdown from the 3/4" to #16 size screens, no additional - #200 particles will be created which could effect the permeability of the shell blanket.
In conclusion, the overcompaction of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket in Strip i
#5 created a less compressible, slightly denser blanket without effecting the permeability of the filter which is therefore found to be acceptable.
ITEM II - Traceability / Location Deficiencies II-A - Use As Is: The docum'ented sizes of each of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket strips is presented in the geologic mapping report dated February,1977 Figure No. I attached as page 141 in Attachment IV. The square footage of each of the strips is thus calculated to be:
, Number of Tests
^ 00 Strip No. Surface Area ft 2 Required..
.}" Actual
- 1 267(97.5) = 26,032 6 6 2 267(58.5) = 15,619 4 4 3 267(70) = 18,690 4 5 4 267(48.5) = 12,976 ft.. 3 4 5 267(58.5) = 15,619 4: 5 6 -
267(47.0) = 12,549 3 5 267(380) 24: 29 Review of the above table' indicates that each of the'six strips had at leastfthe required number of casts and in fact, five (5) additional tests were performed in total'. 9 O
^
Q) n n + w -e r-
- y u- ya m , w - w
a} . i
~
1 II-B - Use As Is: . _ As previously described in the response to NCR Item I-B-3B, due to a survey error, Strip #5 was cut 8 feet too narrow in the North-South direction. The addition strip excavated on 2-13-76 is documented to be on the South side of Strip #5 (pg.110) and is documented to be called the "Deyo Strip", and is 8
. foot wide (pg. 112).
Item III - Engineer's Approval Prior To Shell Placement III-A-(1-4) - Use As Is: In all of the strip placements listed except Strip #1, the J. k. Jones Clam Shell Filter Blanket Inspection Report Form W-SITP-2 was signed by the Site Soils Engineer on the line entitled " Release for Installation and Compaction Obtained Yes X No ." _ - It is true that the Ebasco Site Soils Engineer Release Form QC-132 From QCLP-1 cannot be found. However, the existing signatures on the J. A. Jones Documentation and the Release on Scrip #1 indicate that the engineers approval __ was given. Refer to the following Site Soils Engineer Releases: C:.Q ' Strip #1 Page 6 & 7-2 31, 37 & 38 3 64 & 70 4 85 , 5 98 6 . 126 c Items IV - Certification of Personnel - Use As Is Certification of the personnel referenced in this section of the NCR has-been reviewed by Ebasco QA, GEO QA, and the . Site Soils Engineer. In their responses to this issue, attached in Attachment IV, pages 154 - jfg[__, it is stated that all of the personnel listed in this NCR were qualified to perform the inspection they did,-at the time they did them..although Employer Certification did not exist. Therefore, the inspection by these personnel, based on their qualification, is acceptable. . n,
. .~. - -
007i 1 09 1 'l
, c'3 Item V - Testing V-A-1 Use As Is: , , _ _ , _ _
An analysis of the gradation of the compacted Clam Shell After 10 passes indicates that over 90% of the shell is smaller than 3/4 of an inch (page 140) and over 60% of the material is smaller than h of an inch. In accordance with tha. Site Soils Engineer's interpretation of the intent i of Table 2 of ASTM D-2167-67 it is our understanding that a minigum test hole volume ranging from .050 ( " material) to 0.075 (1" material) ft would be acceptable (page 142) using this interpretation all of the 29 clam shell density tests are found to be valid. The variance in the use of minor reduced volume in the size of the density hole has a negligible effect on the test result in this Case. V-B - Use As Is: , ,, As stated in the response to NCR Section II-A, the Clam Shell Filter Blanket. Testing frequencies were compgled with using the requirements for density testing of 1 test per 5000 f t for the foundation materials, 24 tests were required and 27 tests were performed as shown in foundation material (ft , property table presented in Attachment IV on page 141. V-C - Use As Is: Based u'pon the geometry of the phase IV excavation, as shown on design drawing LOU 1564-G-489, Section A-A, the elevations of the foundation and clam shall tests are known as follows: i Bottom of Plant Island Material: -47.00 2-3" Mud Mat _ (Avg. 3") -47.252 l 10-14'Shell Blanket (Avg. 12") -48.25t.
~
Using this information, elevations recorded on each Ebasco Inspection Report (QC-93) typically shown on pages 32,'65, etc., and the North-South and East-West coordinates on the density tests forms typically shown on pages 81, .
-132, eter, the three dimensional location of all foundation tests-(El -48.25)
.and clam shell tests (El~-47.25) is found. .
Relative .to the note on the location of clam shall density tests 453-455, these ' tests were located properly but plotted on the wrong grid (pg. 27) . A . second grid was used for the foundation and clam shall testing program locations as typically shown on pages 61, 82 etc. 'Replotting the density tests 453-455 on this grid, as shown.on Attachment IV,-page 143 shows these tests to fall
-(j randomly within Strip #1 as indicated on page 27.
s_
- ' .- . . . .. . . - -l . . .
...7 - - . . - . . . - . - . . _ . . . - ..
OO/ l ) 3 9 I 3 ('
- V-D - Use As Is: . . . _ .
In accordance with page 9 of the geologic mapping report dated February, 1977, and enclosed in Attachment IV, Page 144, each foundation density test had a proctor test run on the density hole mat.arial and surrounding material (50# sample) to determine the exact percent compaccion. The results of the in-place density tests and their corresponding proctor tests are presented on the final geologic map presented in Attachment IV, page 141 along with the minus 200 data and the exact location of the test within the appropriate strip. Final acceptance of foundation density tests was made in NCR-W3-193 copy attached as pages 145-149. V-E - Use.As Is: . . _ A general review of all of th~e changes discussed in this sectio'n of the NCR are the result of a review of by testing results performed by the laboratory itself. Although the changes were improperly entered on the cast records, it is believed that these changes were performed in the interest of correcting errors ! detected during quality reviews within the testing laboratory itself and are therefore acceptable. *
'l, V-E-1-a - Use As Is The following discussion may explain the discrepancy in the volume recorded i in test 452 On the M eial density record recorded in the H eld p 83 Pg. N a volume of .0736 ft 3 was recorded yielding a density of 85.0 #ft . Upon review in the lab, on the same day, the inspector noted that the volume of this hole was larger than'the two following holes he dug which he may have felt was not true I
dugtohismapryofthesituation. He therefore adjusted the volume to .0636 ft , a .01 ft adjustment which he believed could have been a reading error on
'the sight tube on the densometer (pg. 26). This is a possible explanation of the change'and if it is accepted or not, this' test 452 can be voided without 4 influencing the quality of the shall since it was taken after only 6 passes, and
- - not
- included in the-permanent record of required tests taken after 10 passes.
V-E-1-b - Use'As Is: _ _ __,_,
^
The Density Test Record on page 20 is a field' copy-dated 10-28-75. Due to a significant number of changes and noted recorded in the field, the form was rewritten for clarity on:the following day (gage 22 10-29-75) and a recording error in density test 495 in volume (8.01 ft ) was corrected. . In addition, - foundation proctor valves vere inserted in the proper boxes and' percent
- compactions were calculated. The form shown on page 22'a corrected record and superceded the form on page 20 and is acceptable as is.
?>
V i
- - - u -- - 4 ,.w--r~ ,,, . , , e --v-w- - - - - - - %,~,--. r,.m,+-v - ,--.,,,n--,, -
, , , - - - , e-.---
0 J .) / i 1 0 ) 16 () _9_ V-E-2a, 3A - Use As Is: _ _ _ _ _ . __ , _ _ _ , A review of these records indicates that in several places, data was erased and changed. In all cases, corrected data appears to be consistent with other data recorded in this strip. It can only be concluded that these changes were made on the spot by the inspector for the purpose of correcting errors in recording the data. Example; page 118 test number 751 changed to 752; Test 748 location E6-84N changed to 74N. Although these changes were documented improperly the corrected data is consistent with the valves of unaltered test data on the same strip and is, therefore considered to be acceptable. V-F-1 & 2 - Use As Is: _ _ . , _ On page 119 of Attachment II the note at the bottom of the page indicates that in the inspectors opinion (due to a local compaction operation by the hand operated place compactor) the clam shell was broken to a greater extent than normal. In this case the increase in Lab Standard Density from 102 to 105#/Ft 3 was more severe on the % compaction calculation and is considered to be conservative and acceptable. .
.f} Inasimilarmanner,theugeofaclamshellmaximumproctorvalveof 3
k7dp/' 102.77/Ft instead of 102.0#/ft on page 132 could only yield a slightly lower % compaction and is therefore considered acceptable. Item VI - Documented Deficiencias Without Corrected Action VI-A-la - Use As Is: As per the NCR response to Section I-B-la and I-B-2a, the replacement of gunite is outside of the neat line of the Class I excavation and above the shell blanket. This type of operation'was performed so as not effect the quality of the in-place shell blanket. Even if minor effect were realized on the surface of the shell blanket, this area (10' wide) is so localized that effects on the permeability of the shell will be negiglibic. VI-A-2a - Use As Ist . _ _ . The wooden stakes referred to in inspection reports for gunite in Strip #2 page 29 and 29 are in the 3 foot horizontal gunite berm at E1 -40 at the top of the Class I vertical face. They are outside of the Class I area and although it was preferable to remove these stakes after guniting, in some cases they were . left in place to support the gunite facing without any effect on the quality of the slope protection. g s *
-....-~ ---.-.. - - .
c. 3 .) / 1 ) a) 17 i' i .
- i l VI-A-2B - Use As Is: _ _ _ , _ _ _
r ! The defective shell thickness shown on page 36 (12-12-75) of Attachment II ! was corrected as stated on page 42 (by blading shall from the west half of the strip). The final thickness of 9 inches is docuitanced on the inspection report
- attached as page 41 with the statement "OK bn 12-12-75". The East half of Strip j
#2 was reviewed by the Site Soils Engineer the following day on 12-13-75 and found acceptable for mud mat placement as documanced on page 45 of Attachment i II.
- VI-A-2c - Use As Is
- _ , _ _ __
! As per the inspector's notes on page 42 of Attachment II, in a decision between the Site Soils Engineer and the Construction Superintendent, clam shell ' was placed in standing water (in order to preserve the condition of the foundation materials which would continue to swell and then dry and crack if ; , left uncovered). In place density tests performed on the West half of Strip #2
, numbered 670 and 671 (pg. 58) indicate that at the time of final compaction the 1
standing water had drained away and moisture contents of 5.5 and 5.7% were realized compared to a maximum allowable moisture content of 20%. O, VI-A-2d - Use As Is: _ . . . . i .:. '
-N A review of the documentation from Attachment II pages 32 through 53 indicate that in two locations on the South half of the East half of Strip #2
- j. contained saturated localized spots of foundation silts. Upon compaction of the
! Clam Shell Blanket, water from these sile foundation materials was vibrated to j; the surface of the shell rendering the shell compacciou unacceptable. Five shall drainage sumps were excavated and pumped to remove excess water. Upon j further compaction, foundation siles pumped up through the shell causing a small localized " MUD" pocket. The sumps were backfilled with shall and recompacted with a plate vibrator (pg. 37) and the mud pocket was allowed to relieve .ics hydrostatic pressures for a day (pg. 36). Similar'liquification problems of the foundation siles were noted and treated (pg. 46) on the West half of Strip'#2.
- Final approval of the entire strip was given by the Site Soils Engineer on ,
- 12-15-75 as stated'on page 45 & 53 noting hand compaction of mud pocket areas
._ and'that the sumps adequately compacted and approved. ,
VI-A-2e Use As Is: _ ,,, _,_, ,_ The understanding of the cut and fill operation documented on pg. 51 of Attachment II is as follows: ,
- j. .
4 [ # '
/
4 k e
., m.-,_... ._ -. _ _ . _ _ _ _ , - , - _ . - . - - , _ . . , _ . . , , , . , . _ , - _ _ . . _ , _ , . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _
~~' ^
. _' ... . .: .- ^ ^
. ... 1 . . . '. . . . . . ...-...-----..__..x.. . . - - .
g .) / l } J 9 13 -
)
l C.' 12-13 day Cut & Fill +2 passes Pg. 42 l 12-13 Night 4 passes Pg. 43 Total So Far 6 passes As Per Pg. 46 12-14 Day Remainder of 6 passes Pg. 47, 48 This documentation indicates that the original Clam Shell Filter Blanket was compacted with twelve passes prior to the cut and fill operation documented i' on page 51. The inspection report on page 51 indicates that only one inch of material was moved and that the plate compaccion of this one inch of loose material was found acceptable by the Site Soils Engineer as documented on page 53 approving the entire Strip #2. VI-A-3a, 3b - Use As Is: Based upon the problems documented in Strip #2 concerning liquification of the foundation siles during compaccion, drainage ditches were cut along the i North and South lengths of Strip #3. This is partially documented on page 69 of. Attachment II. The drainage ditches were 2 foot deep and 3 foot wide, covered with Miraff; Filter cloth and filled with shell.- The normal Clam Shell Filter
'. Blanket was then placed on top of these ditches (acting as foundation material) 4 c:/
and due to their narrow size needed no special compaction since compaction to a reasonable density would be achieved during Clam Shell Filter Blanket Compaction Operations. This same drainage scheme was used in Scrip #5 and is adequately documented as to location and geometry on page 100 of Attachment II which is typical for Strip #3 as well. VI-A-4a - Use As Is: , No special knowledge is known of how this change was made. Documentation l available indicates that gunite placement on the West third of the North Wall of . Strip #4 originally need to be trimmed. Later during the shift, the gunite was ! trimmed and the original fora entry.was changed by J. S. G. or D. S. G. or l MR "1" (unknown). Since the gunite was later' inspected and accepted by the Site Soils Engineer prior to clan shall placement (page 85, Attachment II) on 2-13-76 and since~the guaite is not a Class I material and is documented to be structurally thick enough the guaite, as placed should be considered to be trimmed.back in an acceptable manor. .
. , ./ ;
.w. -- ~ y , -. r_y ,-- .- y%, y, -, -e.-.- --.. - ~e. --,-, -,,-%,y
.---. u ..: .- . . : . .
x [" !) t} / l d .) ) j 9 es k"' ' VI-A-4b - Use As Is: Although missing docume'ncation is indicated in the placement of gunite on Strip #4, the Strip #4 was released for clam shell placement by the Site Soils Engineer on 2-13-83. Completed gunite slope protection is indicated in Ebasco Record Photographs #607 (West Face And West Half of the North Face), #620 (Entire East Face) and #624 which indicates a portion of the East half of the __ North face of Strip #4. Copies of the photo's are attached as page 150 of Attachment IV and originals are available from the site photographer. VI-A-Sa - Use As Is: - Review of the inspection reports on the gunite placement of both faces of Scrip #5 dated 2-5-76 (pages 95 & 96, Attachment II) indicates that the overspray gunite was not crimmed off. The same day, the Site Soils Engineer and-Field Engineer approved the strip for clam shall placement (pg. 98). This indicates that either the overtrim was removed or it was located in a spot (example the outer edge of the 3' horizontal berm on E1 -40) that would not affect the Class I clam shell blanket or structural foundation mat. Therefore, the overspray is found to be acceptable without removal. IV-A-5B - Use As Is: (}} . _. _. . L' 4 As in the discussion above, without the adequate documentation, it can only ha assumed that the gunite contamination of the clam shell along the West wall of Strip #5 was on the small amount of shell exposed on the Southwest Corner Scrip #3 under the mud mat. This is believed to be the case since Clam Shell Placement in Strip #5-itself did not start until 2-9 4 days after the placement of the gunite slope protection *(pages'102-108, Attachment II). In all strips excavated, clam shell in the common excavation face (in this case, the
- l. South edge of Strip #3 is the North edge of Strip #5) was cut back to key the i
new shall into the existing shell blanket if the filter cloth was not present. Although not documented for Scrip #5,'this was a required construction operation, documented on the QC-93 form under the heading " KEYING" on page 1 of the form. Review of this item on pages 102, 104 and 107, indicates that the localized nature of this . contamination (3' from the West wall in the Northwest corner) by the documented entry "None". Keying was not required for this strip when the filter blanket.itself was placed. Therefore, it is believed that the-small
. quantities of contaminated clas;shell were removed and replaced and found
. acceptable by the Site Soils Engineer on 2-11-76 (pg.109, Attachment II).
- I, 4
-m.r- ne --, , - , - , -
..,..r---..,,. e ., .r , - ,
- - . .-- .. : L-. L.-~ .-. .- .: - - . - . . . - - - - - . ,[ O il / l 3 ) ) ) 9 l ( ,
s
- l VI-A-Sc - Use As Is
- ___ . __ __ l l
' A review of the Clam Shell Filter Blanket Inspection Report for the "DEYO" strip added to the South side of Strip #5 (pg.111, Attachment II) indicates that the Site Soils Engineer approved the compaction of this Strip (Line 8) and indicated that' alternate methods of compaction were not used (Line #9). The , "DEYO" strip was cut af ter most of Strip #5 was already finished due to a survey t error. The original planned size of Strip #5 ( 55') was originally cut to 50'
, wide and then expanded by 8' to a total width of 58'. The 3' oversize (58' i compared to 55') was specified so as to allow for normal compaction of this
! strip by the 12 con rubber tire, vibratory smooth drum roller which is 8' wide. The "No" on Line 9 is a statement that alternate methods were not used. This strip is therefore found acceptable. VI-A-6-a - Use As Is: _ _ _ , _ , _ As stated previously in responses to similar portions of this NCR the In this case (pg. 124-125 Attachment 4 gunite is not a safety related material. II) the Class I Clam Shell was not in place when the gunite was placed. The
; tria and overspray indicated are primarily associated with gunite placement at l _
the top of the vertical face on the E1 -40 berm. Therefore, no impacts on the
.; . Clan Shell Blanket or Structural Foundation Mac can be realized by the lack of
- Q{ , trimming activities on the gunite slope protection. Signatures by the Site O Soils Engineer and the Field Engineer (pg.126, Attachment II) indicate that the , minor trimming activities documented on 2-9-76 were indeed performed and approved prior to the placement of Clam Shell the following day. ,
.VI-A-6b - Use As Is: _. ,
Record photographs #648 (3-16-76), #650 ('3-18-76), #662 (4-2-76) and #666 (4-2-76) located on the strip key plan (Attachment IV Pg.151) and shown on i pages 152 and 153 show the presence of the gunite slope protection in question. Although there exists at the present date, no documentation on its placement, it is known to exist and Clan Shell Filta'r Blanket Placement against it was found to be acceptable and approved by the Site Soils Engineer on 3-12-76 (pg.130, Attachment II). VI-A Use As Is: _ _ .__, As per the discussion presented in this response to the NCR for section VI-A-2d. -The corrective action for the " Mud Spurt" was found to be acceptable i: by the site Soils Engineer and approved on 12-15-75. - k.:./
-- - , -- - - , , , --a c -,~....,w. . , , - . - , + - - - - , - - - - , ww . -ar--- . . . .- , - - + --y,--. v- - . - + --- e-,- .*
..~.. . . .. .--.:..-. - - . . .-.--.: .-.. :-.-. - -- -- : -. .
( '
- 26. What were the problems of soils, waterstops, cadweld splices, and the placement of concrete, as mentioned in the third column on page 22 of GAMBIT, and how were they resolved?
Response
The GAMBIT article did not identify the specific " records packages" which contained the alleged deficiencies. However, it is known that Hill generated the NCRs addressed in Question 25 which pertain to these subj ects. The " soils documents" referred to by GAMBIT are probably those addressed . by NCR-W3-5997 (about 200 pages pertaining to the clam shell filter blanket). Each of the 64 findings are detailed in Attachment I to NCR-W3-5997 and are summarized in the response to Question 25. Each of the 64 findings were resolved by the Site Soils Engineer in Attachment IV of NCR-W3-5997 . The cadwalding problems referred to are probably those documented in ; NCR-W3-5998 also addressed in Question 25. The waterstop problems were generally gouges or nicks which were repaired. Waterstops are not Class I items; their function is to prevent inleakage of groundwater thereby minimizing the amount of water r .ted through the Waste i Management System. (dd The concrete placement problems were addressed in Question 9. 4 t i
- 27. Do the allegations described in Phearson's memo and the Gambit article reflect generally what happened during the construction of the mat? If yes, how would these non-conformance of QA/QC requirements affect the structural integrity of the mat? If not, identify those allegation which are unfounded and the basis thereof.
Response: LP&L See response to Questions 9, 11, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 28. G.--_.
. ... ... - .. -.. .... - - - --- :.a .-- -..- = . . . . - - - . . . . . . - - . . .
.l
- 28. In light of the allegations, documented NCRs, and QA/QC deficiencies, what has LP&L done or what does LP&L intend to do in order to resolve the allegations and deficiencies?
Response
LP&L letter W3K84-0629, copy attached, provides a summary LP&L response to allegations regarding Waterford 3 quality. The general LP&L con-clusions included in W3K84-0629 are as follows:
- 1. The allegations did not uncover any significant new information regarding Waterford 3 quality.
- 2. Deficiencies in the physical and records quality of Waterford 3 have been and are being addressed under the programmatic require-ments of the Waterford 3 Quality Assurance Program.
- 3. LP&L has exerted extraordinary efforts in the resolution of deficiencies.
- 4. The general tone of the allegations, and the insinuations that LP&L motives are questionable, are totally. erroneous.
- 5. Continuing Waterford 3 activities in the Quality Assurance areas are designed to redouble LP&L confidence in Waterford 3 quality.
( , e
- t. .}}