ML20094H603
| ML20094H603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1979 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX16-004, CON-BX16-4, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408140055 | |
| Download: ML20094H603 (35) | |
Text
.
3 3
5 79 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DISCUSSION OF NRC INSPECTION FACTS RESULTING FROM THE NRC. INVESTIGATION OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SETTLEMENT i
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 8408140055 840718 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR
- ~
NRC InspectiIon Facts 2..
Identification and Reporting of Diesel Generator Building Settlement-3.
Review of PSAR/FSAR Commitments 4.
Effect of Groundwater on Plant Area Fill 5.
Compaction Requirements for Plant Area Fill 6.
Moisture Control Requirements for Plant Area Fill 7.
Subgrade Preparation of Plant Area Fil.
8.
Nonconformance Reports Identified 9.
Settlement Calculations for Plant Area Fill 10.
Settlement of Administration Building Footings 11.
Interface Between Diesel Generator Building and Electrical Duct Banks 12.
Soils Placement and Inspection Activities 13.
Inspection Procedures for Plant Fill i
s a
~_
.c NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 2 2.
. Identification and Reporting of Diesel Generator Building Settlement Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts Settlement data for the' diesel generator building was first recorded on July 32', 1978.
This was the first of the 60-day interval-readings taken under the foundation settlement data survey program contained in Bechtel c
Specification 7220-C-76.
Bechtel surveyors, in' processing this data, noticed the larger than expected settlement.
.The processed survey, data was transmitted to project engineering on July 26, 1978, and the survey frequency was increasedf@pOn August 21, construction survey data indicated a. settlement approaching the maximum value in FSAR Figure 2.5-48.
A Bechtel' nonconformance report was issued (NCR 1482).
About August 21, 1978, CPCo advised.the NRC Resident Inspector of the settlement condition.
An exploratory soil boring program was begun on August 25, 1978.
An evaluation by project engineering of preliminary boring data made on September 6, 1978, indicated that the settlement condition was reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
On September 7, CPCo made an oral 10 CFR 50.55(e) report to the NRC.
CPCo submitted written 10 CFR 50.55(e) interim reports to the NRC on September 29, 1978; November 7, 1978; December 21, 1978; January 5, 1979; and February 23, 1979.
The next interim report is due to be submitted by April 30, 1979.
.J, it c.L, a m... v :ec c u%.
)
\\
' "" " ' ~ '
7, g,e 3 s 2. a. - A A g r.,
i 5
l l
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 3 l
3.
Review of PSAR/FSAR Commitments Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts
,ls
'3
, p v v - n
- r-e. s t.
FSAR Tables.2.5-!I and 2.5-149 EoVide rhinimum compaction criteria and a summary of contact stresses and ultimate bearing capacities.
Table 2.5-14 shows the Dames and Moore calculated ultimate bearing capacities as given in the PSAR.
For Zone 2 material the calculation is conservatively based on the principal constituent being cohesive soil, although the random fill is the design basis, thus providing greater conservatism.,v:
The purpose of these tables is not to stipulate the foundation material to be actually used.
FSAR Table 2.5-10 identifies the gradation ranges for fill material and stipulates the foundation materials 'to be used.
These materials were used consistent with the recommendations contained in the Dames and Moore report included in the PSAR.
l l
l FSAR Tables 2.5-9 and 2.5-14 have been revised to reflect the design basis contained in the PSAR as translated into the actual design.
The structural acceptance criteria presented in FSAR Subsection 3.8.5.5 for a shallow spread footing foundation as discussed in the Dames and Moore report dated March 15, 1969, Pages 20 and 21 (attached to the PSAR), is not applicable for the diesel generator building.
The diesel generator building foundation is a spread footing type foundation with walls of the four cells supported by continuous footings.
Generator foundations located within the building foundation limits are mat type foundations that cover most of the area within the building not occupied by the spread footings (FSAR Figure 3.8-55).
/,,d,
,A's ',
O
?f f.
1 V f*'
~ ^
Q c.,/
,s e,x
_ ~~
sf l
W
p.
f6,.
?
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 4 4.-
Effect of Groundwater on Plant Area Fill Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts The increase in the plant area groundwater level allowed by elimination of the planned drainage system was included in the design bases.
Dames and Moore's consideration of this design change is presented in their report dated March 15, 1969, which is included in the Midland PSAR.
Evaluations by Bechtel involving the increased groundwater level are discussed in FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.10.3, and the supporting settlement calculations are-available in the Bechtel Ann Arbor office.
Dr. Peck's discussion on_the effects of changes in moisturecontentonsoilreferstohishypothesis$ hat <-
F soils beneath the diesel generator building had been compacted too dry of optimum 5 to 6%),.and changes in moisture after placement' Tau'A(d them to settle significantly.
Soils placed within +2% of optimum moisture, as specified, would not cause this effect.
1 4
7..
4
=4 9
4
,,-,---.-,.----4
s
,V'.j l.)
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 6 O#
~-
x 6.
Moisture Control Requirements for Plant Area Fill Discu,ssion of NRC Inspection Facts Specification 7220-C-210, Section 12.6.1, states in part:
" Insofar as practicable... material which require moisture control, shall be moisture-conditioned in the borrow areas....
The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage points above or below the optimum moisture content.
...after placing of loose material on the embankment fill, the moisture content shall be further adjusted as necessary to bring such material within the moisture content limits required for compaction."
On July'22, 1977, Bechtel QA identified in QAR SD-40 that, 3"the field does (did) not take moisture control EYdEs prior to and during placement of the backfill, but rather rely (relied) on the moisture results taken from the in-place (after compaction) soil density tests" to control moisture.
As shown in Attachment 1, prior to August 1,
- 1977, there were no moisture measurements made at the borrow area or when the loose fill was placed prior to or during compaction. Moisture measurements were made after compaction, as were density tests, and the results of both served as the acceptance criteria.
From August 1, 1977, to the cessation of fill operation with the onset of the winter 1977-1978 season, there was a change.
During this time, moisture measurements were made at the borrow area, but the measurements were not compared to laboratory standards.
Again, no moisture measurements were made when the loose fill was placed prior to or during compaction.
Moisture measure-ments were made after compaction and the results were used to facilitate the density tests, the results of which served as the acceptance criteria.
For this period, the results of the moisture measurements made after compaction, in conjunction with the corresponding density tests, have been reviewed again and three 14 1 of 2
individual moisture measurements were found to be beyond 1,21.of optimum.
For 1978, moisture measurements were made either in the borrow area or when the loose fill was placed prior to compaction, or both, but not during compaction.
These measurements were compared to laboratory standards.
Also during this period, moisture measurements were made after compaction and the results were used to facilitate the density tests, the results of which served as acceptance criteria.
Subsequently, moisture measurements made after compaction were reviewed again for this period and-the cases for which the post-compaction moisture data indicate measurements beyond 1,2% of optimum have been identified.
Moisture measurements for the three periods are now considered not to meet the intent of the specification regarding the location and time of the measurements.
Prior to commencing fill operations for.the 1979 season, this requirement will be redefined.
9 e
2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 1 CONTROL OF MOISTURE MEASUREMENT Moisture Measurements to Aid Compaction Control for Final Acceptance Loose Fill As Practical Prior to During Time in the Compaction Compaction Period Borrow Area (12%)
(12%)
Moisture Density w ms Vre *~ 5 Prior to No tee 4s taken No teste taken No tests taken Tests taken Tests taken August 1, (moisture (density 1977 controlled controlled here) here)
August 1, Tests taken but No beets taken No tests taken Tests taken Tests taken 1977 to No comparison to (density winter laboratory controlled of 1977-standard here) 1979 1978 Tests were taken and controlled No tests taken Tests taken Tests taken in at least one of these areas (density controlled here) 6 1
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 7
.'l" (ca
.?-
7.
Subgrade Protection of Plant Area Fill /'
M j
a Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts For frost protection-for foundations in natural.s'ils, o
below the original grade,.the Dames and Moore report-dated March 15, 1969, at Page.14 recommends that,
...for foundations left open during the winter...at least three and one-half feet of natural soil or
.similar cover remain in place..."
(emphasis added).
These instructions.were transmitted in Sketch SK-C-271, Winter Protection for Foundations, and approved and released by Project Engineering on November 16, 1970, as an official design document..This document was implemented by project engineering direction contained in a memo to construction dated November 16, 1970.
The direction was implemented by the use of temporary enclosures and/or straw cover for freeze protection as provided by Bechtel when construction was suspended.in 1970.
For freeze protection for compacted _ soils, Dames and Moore report dated March 15, 1969, at Page 15. states,
"...If filling and backfilling operations are discontinued during periods of cold weather, it is recommended that all frozen soils be removed or recompacted prior the the resumption of operations."
These recommendations are included as follows in Specification 7220-C-210.
t a.
Section 12.5.1 b.
Section 12.10 delineating the requirements for winter protection of embankment c.
Section 10.1 regarding removal of soil and recon-ditioning after each spring thaw d.
Section 11 setting forth the requirements for reconditioning, removing, and recompacting the 4
fills and excavations that were left open during the winter periods of 1970 through 1973 i
To satisfy these requirements, the top layer of soil was removed until the underlying layer was determined by visual inspection and/or in situ soil tests to be acceptable.
The placement of materials was performed on the acceptable foundation soil after reconditioning.
NRC ' PRELIMINARY FINDING 8
~
8.
Nonconformance Reports Identified Discussion of.NRC Inspection Facts The nonconformances identified by the NRC represent 10 CPCo NCRs and 2 audit finding reports.
Additionally, Bechtel. identified one independent NCR (NCR 421) and three other NCRs that were also identified by CPCo (NCRs 686, 698, and 1005).
The 13 different NCRs are summarized in Attachment 1 with regard to the type of problem identified, the Engineering disposition, the use-as-is justific' tion, a
whether or not the problem was included in the Bechtel Quality Trend Program, and problem causes.
During the period from October 1974 through October 1977,'the repetitiveness of each problem was as follows:
Moisture control 6 cases Compaction test 4 cases Lift thickness 1 case Soils inspection 1 case Inspection planning 1 case Structural backfill inspection 1 case Gradation requirement 4 cases Test frequency 1 case 1
When relating the type of problems to the problem causes over the same period, the repetitiveness is as follows:
Missed inspection 2 cases Failing moisture 2 cases
~
Incorrect test data 4 cases Misinterpretation of specification 1 case Failing tests not identified 2 cases Other 2 cases There were 9 use-as-is dispositions of the 13 nonconfor-mances.
The duplicated NCRs (686, 698, and 1005) were also dispositioned use-as-is.
Each nonconformance condition is reviewed by Project Engineering and researched for facts before Engineering professional judgment dispositioning is given to:
1 of 2
e o
Degree of variation from established standards e
Impact on quality and performance e
Location of tests that failed e
Analysis with justification of the variation Each disposition is evaluated by CPCo to ensure that the dispositioning is consistent with quality assurance program requirements. provides examples of use-as-is justification for the referenced nonconformances.
Corrective actions taken for the nonconformances referenced are described in Attachment 2.
In 1977 the structural backfill subcontractor's performance was trended and resulted in 3 of the 13 nonconformances (NCRs QF 147, 172, and 174).
The nonconformances were in the areas of testing methods, test criteria, and moisture content.
Although the discrepancies had occurred earlier, it was not until review of the turnover packages that the nonconformances were detected..
Corrective actions taken included; Additional surveillance of the testing lab' oratory e
by Bechtel QC e
Replacement of the U.S. Testing Laboratory Chief e
Training session on Specification 7220-C-211 on the control of backfill sand e
Instructions to Procurement to Q-list the purchase order A subsequent audit by Bechtel QA of the subcontractor's QA program found it effectively controlled.
2 of 2
l!
e p.
1 se n
?
e w
e m.
G N
N O
H I
OI f
D T
D T
E A
E A
A l
C I
C D
l F
l E
T S
fl R
C N
E D
E C
l E
i fl T
D D
l fl I
i T
S N
D O
E l
E i
P le A
U E
E R
P l
E i
E f
f A
S 0
i U
T S
E S
A 0
s T
4 U
1 N
N F
D C
E F
T T
AI A
A N
D O
E E
O M
0 T
e N
0 T
TT 0
E N
A 0
l 4
E 1
A 1
R DN E
AO l
O t
N E
O T
I 0
R 8
O R
C T
l T
D T
A I
T O
T O
IT 0
T U
U A
T U
N S
N W
EU S
5 L
R C
T R
T C
T E
A E
T T
E E
S T
T T
5 U"
N T
P E
1 T
N P
S S
t S
S S
R P
o E
T E
P 0
IE S
O R
h M
T C
T N
CR N
M C
E I
E t
G G
G A
C E
R RG I
G R
T 0
N I
R N
N M
RN D
N R
4 t
S IL I
O L
OL 5
L S
I L
I E
I N
E E
I O
N i
M T
f R
F F
IF R
CI s
I C
A s
C I
O NA O
A M
F I
N N
M I
A A
N i
A N
/
l L
t 5
EOAG TNR S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S S
S S
MY 0
E E
E E
E E
E E
HEG O
E E
E E
E U
Y Y
Y Y
Y t
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
CRO N
N ETR B
PI E
S R
D L
0 A
s s
D N
N I
A A
D f SA E
E R
EI SK LRED E
R R
N EA T
E E
A AEEETT 8
HMCS D
A N
N A
EV AEE M
N N
E 2
T.YLTR E
2 E
L L
A A
R RNTP E
A L
M M
A EH 5OI D W HS N
1I M$N TRAAT V
A.
E E
E T
O T
L L
N M
5 A
E E
H' O
EAOL 8
B I
S 0
I TDFAIE T
R L
E I
TS TD TD.
C LF S
A.
A A
AO T
ANRL C
AG TMTR O
PE. *
- PE PE JE.
E A
A UEP5I R
I E
C A AB EN E
F RHLAASO P
EC CA C
EP L
CR CL L
fA A
E L
N I
MCIMSTE A
C C0 A
A E
T O
A0 NR NR P
7 A
I d
/E 5
KLLS S
E 9R T
T 5E C
S.
Y D5 AY. AY TC U
J 6ROTMOG El 2I P
A NOHN1 Tl B
NE NT INT LC
/U E
L MI S
1OT 0
UM IE E
UA 6
C O EDT$
YI D
Q S
I 7FSMNTS i
EM M4 M4 hR ER A V N
A EA EE 0E C
I L
OA DF DF S
N E
lTAEANMI TT E
E S
0ST IC Fs E
I C
A 5I R
i W
AE T
0 o H
HIRE SA f
E SMTUEME NP R
RO RN RN T
YI 0H N N 1
A L
YEQSEH EM E
ER OO 0O S
J E
1 S
L V,
WF FN fN E1 T
W C'
S T
DO 0
U ANT LPP LC L
T1 3S RS Rs i
0 N
M EI Ei Ff 6T F
IR LPU L
D NO N0L IU fY EE PA PA OL OE D
1 l0 R
A18O 7INW E
KN E
N 0
i
$E fR V
I
=
- NE NE NT I
O LUAI0O OO O
kl L
t A
K F
A8 ST A
TT E
N IROA T
II M
Cl L
M TC Ss T
i T
U PA U
E T1RCIS lPEO CA E0 CT cT A
EI u
C E
R Q
O 51PfKMT AF L
AC AC U
RR I
R L
S C
ll0%aCl PS P
E I
P P
Ls T
E E
A 1
D uT M
MR MS MS As S
T T
C N
A
- 7. CEOi T
A E
E E
5 N
oA A
AE OU OU VU E
O T3 9PTt S19SSIA CS R
SW C$
CS E$
TM R D R
N F
O S
X OP
g
I S
R l
T O
A R
M GN
[
R
>MEgu E
8 U
V
)
N U$5S=
R 0
U EUO E_
T l
Ft
$C E.
(
E R
N i
N d5W" c I
V R
E U,
0 1
D E
I R
uS" D
U EU$a I
h T
M U
i i
(
N t
Ua_
f B
56$.
M I
R O
u P
s R
E t
D g.5s f
o N
O R
U t
P J
EP i
Y g
i M
T Ie E
L
=EDn l
o
,E R
P 7
4 5
8 7
7 7
n E
7 7
7 7
n n
6
/
6 R
8
/
7 7
7 7
7 3
T 2
/ /
7 5
2
/
2
/
/
4 7
7 7
n 7
A 1
/
1
/
1 1
5 4
2 5 0 3
B 1
/
/
2
/
D s
0
/
/ / /
0
/
/
/
1 1
5 6
1 c
0
/ /
0 8
1 6
9 1
2 7
7 1
1 N
1 O.
4 s
4 6
5 4
4 6
s 0
e 9
6 G G 0
0 1
3
$ s 1
t 1
0 N
NI l
9 2
3 e
0 o 0
I D
0 1
D 1
R R
4 R R
R R R R NI NI CR O
C C
0 C C
C C
C C S
N N
$ N N N N N N F
F N
L A
12 T
R l
2 4
24 8
7 3
4 5
0 34C I,
3,
{
2 4
4 R
1N 1
1 7
71 91 3
4 3
C 8
2 0
L 7
3
- 2. N 3
7 N
7 7
C FO F
7 F
F 7
70E 7
7 J
0 0
0 N
0N Q
0 O
O 0
0hR F
F e
m x
e w
1 N-
- 7~~ ~ v v"
~
p F
1
(
ATTACHMENT 2 I
NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETATIS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-29 Structural backfill material was delivercJ Bechtel NCR 198 was initiated. Twenty-six A memorandum from EEFelton directing that on 10 J.ays in August and September 1974.
additional samples were taken f rom the stock-QC be notified of all incoming shipsients of Only 11 days had t he au terial been inspected pile.
Bechtel Project Engineering's dispost-structural backfill material was issued on and tested.
Of the ll, only one of the re-tion was to use-as-is based on the results October 29, 1974.
i ports was in the QC file.
of conditional samples. Ten of the eleven f
reports were found and placed in the QC file, j
4 QF-52 Soil test MD-202 for plant area fill located NCR 324 written. Was evaluated ana accepted U.S. Testing and Bechtel Quality Control 14 feet east of 8.7 line aad 36 feet north the in-place material with low moisture con-had each had training sessions re-emphasir-of A line at eleva t icxi 594.5 had a moisture tent based on a satisfactory compaction test ing the acceptance criteria for soil tests.
content 2.9 below optimum moisture content.
result.
Q F-68 The compaction test MD-142 taken in the west A complete review of Bechtel Modified Proctors U.S. Testing Jewised a system for checking plant dike had been calculated using the and field work sheets useJ by U.S. Testing was tests against a master proctor list and a wrong maximum laboratory dry density for performed by U.S. Testing. Three additional suster log book.
I Bechtel Mrmlified Proctor resulting in a 96%
discrepancies were found during this review.
t compaction which is passing. Using the A total of 12 field tests were affected by the l
correct maximum laboratory dry density re-discrepancies. Revised reparts were submitted sults in 92% compaction which is failing, for the 12 field tests.
Failing test HD-142 had been cleared by passing test HD-160.
None of the 12 field tests were found falling after corrections had been made, therefore, a Project Engineering evaluation was not necessary, f
QF-120 1.
Soil was placed between manhole No 5 and The material was removed down to the required This problem was a result of insuf ficient 6 above the sanitary sewer in the west lift thicknesses anJ compacted prior to con-monitoring of the placing crews and the plant dike in an uncompacted lif t thick-tinued work in this area.
work was done in accordance to the Note on ness varying between 9 and 14 inches.
Detail 6 of Drawing C-130 Rev 3 which is in 2.
In an area not accessible to roller conflict with Specification C-210.
A trainr equipment, soil was placed between man-ing session was given w the W m hole No 4 and No 5 above the uanitary
- "'"E "E*
"E sewer in the west plant dike in uncom-eacted lift thicknesses of 6 inches.
~
f Drawing C-130 Rev 3 and Specification C-210.
This should also be noted that this was in a non-Q area.
i
e E
E
(
E Be F
E=
s 2
NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-130 Quality Control Engineers have observed the All c losed C-210-4 Field Inspec tion Plans were Cause of the nonconformance was misinter-material placed in approximately 12 inch reviewed and stallar situations as described in pretation of specification requirements, uncompacted lifts where roller equipment was QF-130 existed.
Bechtel QC discussed the To preclude repetition,OCI C-1.02 will be not used to compact material, greater than 4 inch Itit thickness with both used to inspect compacted backfill and a Field Engineering and Project Engineering. It training / discussion session was held on I
was felt that since the lift thickness ncver 2/22/77.
l exceeded 12 inches and thit the in-place density tests all met the specified compaction require-ments,which is the reaaon for N ering the lift thickness from 12 inches to 4 inches, that the material in-place is acceptable.
QF-147 Stractural backfill delivered on December 1 Shipments of structural backfill delivered in Starting February 4, 1977 incoming struc-1976. December 14, 1976 and January 11, 1977 Octobe'r and November 1976 were reviewed for tural backfill was controlled in accord-l was not tested for gradation requirements or similar problems. NCR's 686 and 698 were ance with the Quality Control Receipt inspected.
writun identifying the lack of testing for Inspection Program, in addition, a train-the dates aboie and ones noted in the review ing se ;aon was held on February 10, 1977 of Oc tc.br and November 1976. Project Engineer-on the control of Q-list backfill sand to l
ing dispositioned the materials use-as-is, preclude repetition. In attendance were:
NCR 698 was written against the following dates:
FCTeague, Lead Civil Field Engincet October 26, October 29. N vember 12. of 1976-BCheek, Lead QC Civil Engineer January ll, and January 12, 1977. Project HBoline, Bechtel QC Engineer Engineering's disposation stated, " Tests con-DAPerkins, Superintendcat, Civil i
ducted on samples prior to and af ter the days JDean, Field Engineer, Civil missed were found acceptable. In addition, one Gary Coaster, Field Engineer, Civil test was conducted on January 12, 1977 and RFish, BCrubich, and 1.APepton, Superinten-f our.d sa t i s f ac t or y.
Therefore, Project Engineer
. dent.
ing concurs with the Field Engineer recommended The following approach to control the disposition to use-as-is".
It should be noted structural backfill was discussed and j
that the test run January 12, 1977 used the agreed upon by all present. The first wrong sieve sizes. This data was from graphic truck delivering backfill sand each day interpolation. NCR 686 was written against will not be allowed in the gatr without December 1, 1976 and December 14, 1976 for which release from field receiving department.
apuroximately 495 tons and $5 tons respectively The backfill vender has been instructed by were delivered. Project Engir.eering's dispost-Procurement to have this first loaJ stopped Lion.
The samples were taken on days November by U.S. Testing for test samples and Receiv-9 through November 30. December 3-13 and Decem-ing will assut e that this requirement is her 30 were found acceptable. Furthermore, all complied with. A Bechtel craftsman working the materials were obtained from same source.
In the sand stockpile area and field Therefore, Engineering concurs with Field Fngineering a disposfrion to use-as-is.
receiving will assure that sampled load and
-mm-~-
uc g - - -
va 1
f 3
NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION 4F-147 (Contd)
(Contd)
Also, NCR QF-147 stated that this same problem all subsequent loads are dumped in a dif-had recurred. It stated in Recommended Correc-ferent hold pile each day.
QC will be tive Action 3. This same problem of structural notified in writing by U.S. Testing of test i
backfill material lacking gradation tests was results for each pile. QC will notify Field 4
tJentified in CPCo NCR QF-29 issued October 14, Receiving if a hold pile is acceptable.
1974. The corrective action to preclude Field Receiving will, in turn, verbally repetition for this NCR was a memorandum from notify supervision and physically remove the the Project Superintendent directing that hold on the acceptable pile with a release Quality Control be notified of all incoming signed. Supervision will instruct the shipments of structural backfill material was craf tsmen working in the stockpile area not e
issued. Recently, Bechtel QA identified this to move hold piles until they are marked same problem in QADR SD-6 issued October 21, released. When the hold piles are marked l
1976. The corrective action to preclude repeti-released the craftsmen will move them into tion for this QADR was to use the following the main stockpile which is rpropriately system:
marked. Field Engineering will assure enng materia is in the main stoc h ile to a.
Each day's delivery of structural backfill 6u Port construction requirements. ?a is stockpiled separately.
addition, BCrubich of Receiving agrs ed ta b.
On the following daf the responsible Field give Field Engineering writ ten nottitcation Engineer verifies that the material was that a hold pile has been released by QC cested and is acceptable.
including the date of release and descrip-ti n the release pile.
c.
If the materit.1 wasn't tested, a test will be taken at this time or if the material is acceptable, it will be placed in the acceptable pile.
It is evident that the corrective action taken for NCR QF-29 and QADR SD-6 is not adequate.
I Determine the underlying cause/causes and propose further corrective action to preclude repetitlon.
l QF-172 1.
Teat Report MD-359 taken May 30, 1974 Project Engineering stated, "A review of the No Process Corrective Action was determined for the northeast Jike station 29 + 00 failed density test report PD-359 reveals that necessary because this problem happened 5 feet right centerline zone 2 at the soll represented by this test failed to three years hence. Also, these problems elevation 622 had moisture content of meet the moisture content requirements uhile were in the dike section and we no longer
[
2.8% below optimum moisture content.
meeting the compaction criteria". It is also had dike sections to be completed.
This test had been marked P for pass noticed that test MD-359 autstitutes for test 3
7
.~.
.o.
p F
4 10 NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-172 (Contd)
(Contd)
I.
when actually the t e st failed.
ItD-351. Test MD-307, MD-286 and MD-308 taken in the vicinity of test HD-359 around station 2.
Test Reports for the northeast dike 29 + 00 for the northeast dike have me: the i
MI)-342 which was tal.a May 25, 1974 at station 30 + 00 centerline zone 2 at density and moisture content requirements.
elevation 622 had 94.5% compaction.
Considering the test results in the neighboring areas and the amount of compaction achieved, MD-354 taken May 28, 1974 at station 31 + 00 100 feet right of centerline a moisture content 2.8% below the optimu:n in sand drain zone 2 at elevation 622 had lieu of 2.0% for test MD-359 will have insig-nificant effect on the material placed. Sint.e 93.7% compaction and HD-356 taken May test ':D-359 is located away f rom the Q-listed 28, 1974 at station 29 + 00 100 feet backfill areas and no safety related structures right of centerline of sand drain zone will be located in thiu area, the test MD-359 2 at elevation 622 haJ 92.2% compaction.
g Test MD-342 had been marked P for pass be accepted as is.
Also, the test report MD-342 was incorrect and has been revised to indicate when actually the test failed. Test the correct result. The correct percent com-HD-354 and 356 had been marked F for paction is 97.5 instead of 94.5.
For HD-354 and fail and accepted by four roller passes.
MD-356 the following was stated, "If MD-354 Four ro!!er passes are not the acceptance and MD-356 are indeed west of the dike center-criteria in this area.
line, these tests will be in the plant fill area No safety related strm iure or system will be located in this area. Therefore, the four passe:,
of the roller can be accepted as adequate".
QF-174 Contrary to the requirement that zone 1 MD-II5 is 50 feet left or west of the dike No Process Corrective Action was determined impervious f!!! should have not less than centerline at station 5 + 00.
Section T, necessary because this prbblem happened 20% passing the 200 sieve, tests 115 in the Drawing C-Il9 and Section K. Drawing C-117 are three years her.ce.
Also, these problems north plant dike and MD-359 and HD-358 in identical on the plant side (i.e., west side) were in the dike section and we no longer the northeast dike had soil classification of the fall. Therefore, test MD-Il5 is shown had dike sections to be completed.
f l
zone 1 (BMP-Il4) which has 5.2% passing in a zone 2 area based on either Section T.
No 200 sieve. Test MD-830 in the northeast Drawing C-Il9 or Section K Drawing C-117.
I dike had soll classification zone 1 (BMP-139)
It is agreed that there are discrepancies in l
which has 3.4% passing No 200 sieve.
It the soils test reports, wherein the test loca-f should be noted test 115 was taken May 28, tion and soil types listed in the reports are 19741 test MD-358 and MD-359 were taken May not always consistent with the design drawing i
30, 1974 and test MD-830 was taken August 8 dike cross-sections (e.g., zone 2 material i
1974.
listed as material used where zone I material should have been used). Ilowever, we have reviewed reports l'or adjacent :ests in the
_a same vicinity of test HD-358, 359, and 440; e
e
m.
w
~
- y-g.,e.....
9 l
5 NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-l?4 (Contd) again we conclude tnat the zone 2 material in a zone I area should be considered an anomaly, while it is unlikely that the dikes would be acceptable if there were conclusfve evidence that zone 2 material had becu widely used in lieu of the specified impervious material, the test reports in total do not support this pos i t ion. The reports from adjacent test in the vicinity of HD-358, 359 and 440 do not support the theorem that a zone 2 material is at the locations as describe.1 in the test report Therefore, the request for a Project Engineering evaluation to " determine the acceptability of the dike..." based on speculation about errors in recorded data is not appropriate, nor do we believe warranted in this case. Any Project Eng;ncering evaluation would be based on the same test report information which already has been questioned as anishalous by Consumersi the conclusions would only be as good as the facts used as the basis of the evaluation. Although recognizing that documentation errors will infrequently occur, it is not recommended that each document discrepancy be evaluated as though it were fact. Our office is satisfied that appropriate quality control programs, including Geotech surveillance, should provide adequate confidence in the dike construction and its
?
acceptability.
To reiterate our earlier evaluation, we recommens 1
acceptance of test reports MD-159 and 440, based I
on the soll classification aa a zone 2 material, f
albeit in a location other than as described in I
the test report.
. p.- - -, -,
m--
1 l
~
6 NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AffD SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECT!vE ACTION QF-199 Part I Bechtel NCR 1004 was written on the density A training session was held on 12-14-77 for Contrary to these requirements, the following problems and Bechtel NCR 1005 was written on U.S. Testing personnel. In conjunction with tests had been passed using incorrect testing the moisture content problems. NCR 1005 was this training session, a list of all applic-data.
Using the correct testing data, the disposit ioned use-as-is; 1004 remains open.
able proctors were developed to niJ the tests fall.
Inspector in obtaining correct values for North Pl. int Dike
""' I '" " * "'"* ' "**
I" HD-290 (sampled 7-16-74) shows optimum moisture content 11.6.
It should have been Problem with density tests MD-142 and HD-14) 9.5.
Using the correct optimum moisture in which failing tests were mas ked passing content of 9. 5%. the actual moisture content since it ccurred only in May of 1974 and is 2.2% above optisma roisture content.
has not been a recurring problem. Corree-tive actimi had been taken at the last part HD-360 (sampled 7-31-74) shows ootimum of July 1977 by Bechtel QC and U.S. Testing moisture content as 21.4.
It should have to more adequately clear failing tests.
been 15.2.
This also shows m ximmm lab dry Therefore, the corrective action to treclude density as 103.2.
It should have been 115.1.
repetition for not clearing failing tests Using the correct optimum moisture content of need not be addressed.
15.2% the actual moisture content is 5.4%
above optimum moisture content. Also using the correct maximum lab dry density of !!5.1 the correct percent of maximum density is 86.2 %.
H4-377 (sampled 8-6-74) shows optimum moisture content as 18.0.
It should have been 15.2.
Using the correct optimum moisture content of 15.2%. the actual moisture content is 4.5%
l above optimum moisture content.
St ructural Back f ill MDR 621 (sampled 10-14-76) shows minimum dry lab density as 94.2.
It shou 1J have been 112.2.
Using the correct mininom dry lab density of 112.2. the correct percent of relative density is 41.5.
t l
Part 2 f
Also contrary to these requirements, the following tests had falling results and did not indicate being cleared by passing tests i
or had been marked passing.
__-n---.
,-...o-.
m
.n p
E 1
i 7
NCR NO
!!CR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-19's (Contd)
Nort h Pl. int Dike l
HD-142 (mampicJ 5-30-74) shows opt imum moisture content 8.0. moisture content 10.3.
This test failed but it is shown as passing.
HD-14 3 (sampled 5-30-74) simws optimum moisture content 13.8, moisture content 11.4.
This failed but it is shown as passing.
West Plant Dike FD-227 (sampicit 10-6-75) failed moisture but has not been clearcJ.
Plant Area Fill Holsture Test No Date sampled Compactton Actual Ort imum run 1311 5-13-77 61.6% of Relative Density 1326 5-10-77 18.5%
15.2%
1328 5-10-77 12.2%
15.2%
'l412 6- )?-77 10.4%
15.2%
St ructural Back fill HDR 621 10- l4-76 78.0% of Relative Density 671 11-62-76 74.8% of Relative Density 672 11-13-76 75.4% of Relative Density 685 11-14-76 56.2% of kelative Density 686 Il-J4-76 70.9% of Relative Density 691 Il-M4-76 62.0% of Relative Density f
I f
e l
1 l
1 1
. n
=-.
E 1
(i 8
NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAlt.S PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-20)
Part A Part A 8, B
Part A&B QCIR No. R-1.00-1560 for Zone 4A Fine Backfil:
NCR 1094 was written to identify the noncon-The underlying cause of these conditions references User's Test Report No. 0630 and forming material in Part A.
Project Engineer-was improper review of the test reports by the acceptance criteria as:
ing dispositioned this material "Use-As-Is" Quality Control. To prevent this condition Steve Size
% Passing NCR 1055 was written to identify the noncon-from recurring, a training session was held g= ~
100 forming material in Part 5.
Field Engineering with cognizant individuals in attendance.
3/4"90-100 has dispositioned this marersal " Reject For Q-Part C I/2" 75-90 Use" This material was caly used in Non-Q 3/8" 60-85 areas.
ihe underlying cause of this condition was f200 7-15 that't h Civil @ Engine n NentiM ed the Part C dif t'erent gradation requirements on the Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No.
Based on response given in Part A of letter QCIR and failed to bring it to the atten-0630 references 75-100% passing as the 0-1621 from J. Newgen to C. Richardson, it was tion of the QC Receiving Engineer. To acceptance criteria for the 1/2" sieve, con-necessary for Field Engineering to justify the preclude repetition, the cognizant QC sequently 94% passed the 1/2" sieve and it mere stringent requirements and the use of this engineers in both disciplines were reminded was accepted when actually it failed.
materi.a1 when it did not meet these requirements that close interfacing is a necessity.
Part B The justification was given by Field Engineer-ing as for specifying a 12-20% range of QCIR No. RJ1.00-2105 for Zone 4A Fine aggregate passing through a #200 sieve when Backft!! references "ser's Test Report No*
specification C-210 Rev 5 allows a range of 1036 and the accept *,e criteria as:
7-20 was strictly for commercial reasons. The Steve size
% Passing vendor said he had a supply of 12-20% material.
1" 100 When this material actually turned out to be 11%
3/4a 90-100 it was still acceptible for use in accordance 1/2" 75-90 with our specification. The only error was in 3/8" 60-85 the dispositioning NCR QF-201 by revising the g200 7_g5 FMR ratl.er t han noting to use-as-is.
Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No.
1036 indicated 81% passing the 1/2" sieve and accepted, this should have indicated 91% passing the 1/2" sieve and failed.
Part C g
QCIR No. R-1.00-1836 for Zone 4A Fine i
Backfill references User's Test Report No.
I 0836 and the acceptance criteria as:
...,y
....w.,,.-...
E 1
f 9
NCR NG NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CoitRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION QF-20)
(Contd)
Steve S i n; Z Passing
\\
1" 100 f
3/4"90-100 1/2" 75-90 3/8" 60-85
- 200 12-20 P
-}
Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No.
0836 had 11% passing the #200 sieve and it was acceptcJ.
i i
Finding do 1 Backfill was placed on a lif t which was A retest was taken in the area and the retest Bechtel QC informed the Foreman Jirecting to Audit determined to be greater than 2% below passed (plant backfill test !!.14 ).
the soils work of the required moisture l
Report optimum moisture content (plant backfill content Ilmits and what to do if a failing F-77-21 test No 1152 optimum 15.2%, actual 12.8%).
test occurs.
l When questioned, the Foreman directing the soils work stated that he would continue backfilling since satisfactory compaction haJ been obtained.
Finding No 2 During the audit, it was discovered that the Bechtel QC made an evaluation concerning the,
Bechtel QC informed the Foreman directing to Audit Foreman directing the soils work bellesed frequency of testing in the affected area.
It the soils work of the correct test frequency Report that the required f requency for testing of was determined that between 5-13-77 and 6-17-77, requirements.
l F-77-21 field, density, and moisture content was 1 18,200 cubic yards of r.'ndum backfill was placed test per 1000 cubic yards of fill.
south and east of the Turbine Building. Fifty-seven tests were taken on this material which results in an overall test frequency of 320 cubl<
l yards per test. The majority of this 18,200 cubic yards was placed in a non-Q area.
l 4
i j
i
{
i
.a--m----
w 1
p. -.. -... _ __
l t
10 NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORTINC DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION Finding No 1 The audit was performed on soil reports North The tent results were recalculated and correc-tr. Audit Plant Dike MD 72 (5-23-74) through MD 514 tions made.
The above errors did not change the Report (9-21-74), West Plant Dike to 25 (9-12-74) acceptance of these tests even though they did F-77-32 through HD 107 (9-27-76), Structural Backfill change the test results.
Fum 611 (10-7-76; through MDR 1121 (8-11-77),
Plant Area Fill MD 1122 (10-7-76) through tD 1854 (8-12-77) and gradation reports for structural backfill material received Februar3 4, 1977 through August 31, 1977 to assure fall-ing tests have been cleared by passing tests; correct optimum moisture contents, maximum and minimum dry lab densities have been used; the test results were properly evaluated for acceptance; and test. reports could be 1(cated in the Quality Control Documentation Vault.
Finding I West Plant Dike MD-2 76 and 2 77 (sampicJ 9-15-76), 278 (sampled 9-16-76), and 285 (sampled 9-17-76) have NA in the optimum moisture content columi
~ ~ '
North Plant Dike in-92 (sampled 5-25-74) shows maximum dry lab density 110.6.
It should have been 103.4.
to-93 (sampled 5-25-74) shows auximum dry lab
}
density 110.6.
It should have been 103.4, I
HD-109 (sampled 5-23-74) shows maximum dry lat Jensity 103.4.
It should have been 115.1.
to-119 (sampled 5-28-74) shows auximum dry lati density 127.2 It should have been 128.0.
HD-155 (tampicJ 6-4-74) shows optimum moistiro content 18.8.
It should have been 18.4.
HD-195 (sampled 6-24-74) shows optimum mois-ture content 11.0.
It should have been 11.6.
PD-223 (sampled 6-25-74) shows optimum mots-ture content 10.3.
It should have been 11.6.
.- w. %- _
_s
~ ' r -p.-6 W o ee, d o e
- W E
1 g
11 i
NCR NO NCRDESCRIPTIONANDSlhJRTINGDETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION Finding No 1 (Contd)
' ^" I" f"yy]'y HD-224 (tampled 6-25-74) shows optimum mots-ture content 13.5.
It should have I,ern 13.0.
)
MD-257 (sampled 7-11-74) shows optimum mois-ture content 9.8.
It should have been 10.4.
This also shows nuxiumm dry lab density 126.8.
It should have been 127.4.
HD-269 (scampled 7-12-74) shows maximum dry lat density !!6.2.
It should have been 116.3.
68)-290 (sanspled 7-16-74) shows maximum dry lab density 125.2.
It should have been 128.3.
t'D-118 (sampled 7-19-74) shows optimum mois-ture content 13.0.
It should have been 13.3.
HD-336 (sampled 7-20-74) shows optimum moistur e content 20.5 It should have been 20.0.
HD-341 (saipled 7-25-74) shows optimum moistur e content 17. '
It should have been 15.5.
1D-377 (sampled 8-6-74) shows maximum lab dry density 109.
It should lave been 112.9.
ND-476 (sampled 8-19-74) shows optimum moistur a i
content 17.0.
It should have been 17.1.
MD-512 (sampled 8-28-74) shows maximum lah dry density 109.4.
This should have been 109.0.
Structural Backfill Area HDR-919 (sampled 5-25-77) shows maxinmm dry lal, density of 109.3.
It should have been 125.3.
It also shows minimum dry lab density as 90.3.
It should tuve been 109.3.
i Plant Area Fill y
HD-1262 (sampled 4-8-77) gives maximum dry lab l
density of 117.0.
It should have been 117.1.
(
MD-1300 (sampled 5-2-77) gives optimum mots-l ture content of 11.1.
It should tuve been 10. '.
+
p.
,m.gm-,
u 9
p 1
1 12 i
NCR NO KCR 01: SCRIPT 10N AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION Finding No 1 (Contd) to AuM t HD-1385 (sampled 6-2-77) gives optis.um moss-
[h{[3y ture con tent of 13. 5.
It should lave been 13.4.
HD-1420 (sampled 6-8-17) gives optimum scis-turo content of 9.8.
It should have been 8.6.
It also gives maximum dry lab density of 127.1 It should have been 132.9.
MD-1521 (sampled 6-17-77) gives maximum dry lab density of 117.0.
It should have been 117.1.
Finding No 2 The fo!!otwng tests had failing results and Test reports Plan Area Fill HD 1317-1320; North to Audit did not indicate being cleared by passing Plant oike MD 418; and Structural Backfill HDR Report tests.
620, 629, 632, 637, 673, 679, 700, 701, 757, F-77-32 J_6 7, 768 and 770 have been cleared by passing Plant Area Fill Moistui t
, tests and Structural Backfill represented Test No Date sa33t[gd Compaccinn Actual og_t. imu" by MDR 854, 861 and 862 was removed.
MD 1153 10- ! !- 76 61.6% of Relative Density l
- 1155 10- ti-76 73.5% of Relative Density Test reports Plant Area Fill MD 1153, 1155, 1191 11 7 6 76.6% of Relative D(nsity ligt, 1194, 1321, 1337, 1388, 1393, 1398, 1404, 1
'2-76 75.4% of Relative Density.
1415, 1498, 1509 and Structural Backfill PtDR
!!94 Il-J 1317 5-19-77 18.0%
15.2%
625, 663, 664, 667, 680, 682, 688, 721, 1318 5- )9-77 11.5%
15.2%
734* 736-741, 744, 746, 757, 768, 770, 785, 1319 5- )9-77 11.7%
15.2%
799, 826, 843, 845, 889, 914, 922, 925, 13?O 5-39-77 12.2%
15.2%
938, 940, 993 and 993 are in a "Non-Q" 1321 5-09-77 94.0% of tuximum Density area an.1 13 ave been given to CPCo Project 1332 5- !7-77 12.4%
15.2%
Management organization tField) for i
1338 6-02-77 9.8%
15.2%
resolutinn in letter 186FQA77.
1393 6-13-77 11.1%
11.4%
1398 6-03-77 11.2%
11.4%
1404 6- 03-77 10.2%
11.4%
1415 6-07-77 9.9%
11.4%
i 1498 6-.5-77 88.2% of Maximum Density 14.5%
10.0%
1509 6-6-77 12.9%
15.2%
North Plant Dike MD 418 8-4-74 17.2%
20.0%
, s
, n-w
=- g ar... m e m m.
,.~
--y E
1 1
13
'i NCR NO KCR DL5CRIPTION AND SUPPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS LORRECTIVE ACTION Finding No 2 (Contd)
St ruc t u r.s i M.ic k f i l l F-77-32
,Ho l s t ui,e Test No Date inmpled Comp.w t i m Actucal gt t raum HDH 620 10-13-76 72.3% of Relative Density 625 10-12-76 51.5% of Relative Dcnsity 629 10-?O-76 19.2% of Relative Density 632 la-2D-76 73.5% of Relative Density 637 10-21-76 76.3% of Relative Density l
663 11-ll-76 53.0% of Relative Density 664 11-ll-76 72.3% of Relative Density 667 Il-ll-76 67.5% of Relative Density 673 11-f3-76 33.9% of Relative Density 679 11- !3-76 71.8% of Relative Eensity 680 11- !3-76 50.0% of Relative Density 682 11- !4-76 10.6% of Relative Density 688 11- !4-76 17.1% of Relative Density 700 1-l3-77 75.0% of Relativ e Density 701 1-l3-77 68.1% of Relative Density 721 3-14-77 60.0% of Relative Density 734 3-l7 77 34.0% of Relative Density 736 3-l8-77 79.0% of Relative Density 737 3- :8-77 41.9% of Relative Density 738 3-,8-77 72.4% of Relative Density 739 3-8-77 70.6% of Relative Density 740 3-8-77 f.9.3% of Relative Density 741 3-11-77 77.8% of Relative Density 744 3- !!-77 56.2% of Relative Density 746 3.!!-77 54.9% of Relative Density 757 3-13-77 68.7% of Relative Density 767 3-19-77 54.3% of Relative Density 763 3-l0-77 66.9% of Relative Density 770 3-60-77 65.0% of Relative Density id5 4-07-77 69.3% of Relative Density 199 4-2-77 78.8% of Relat ive Density
[
826 4-9-77 70.4% ef Relative Density 843 4.'8-77 66.P* of-Relative Density 845 4-:'9-77 70.44 of Relative Density 854 5-09-77 67.4% or' Relative Density l
1
1 f
a 14 NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION AND SL'PPORTING DETAILS PART CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION i
Finding No 2 (Contd) to Audit Report Structur.nl Hackf.iB (Contd)
~
Moi s t uie Test No Date sampled Compaction Actu11 Op r imum MDR 861 5-10-17 76.3% of Relative Density 862 5-l0-77 74.'1% of Relative Density 889
$- 13-77 65.5% of Rel.ni.tve Dens'.f 914 5- !4-77 9.0%
- 11. 8 %
922 5- !6-77 75.7% of Relative Density 925 5- !7-77 11.4%
15.2%
938 6-18-77 56.5% of Relative Density 940 6 7 7 78.6% of Relative Density 993 6- !5-77 60.2% of Relative Denrity 998 6- !5-77 77.4% of Relative Density Corrective Action Requested: Determine if there are passing tests in the same area to clear these failing tests.
Finding No 3 Relative Density Reports 59 and 61 were miss-Copies have been obtained and placed in the QC to Audit ing from the QC Vault.
Document Vault.
Report F-7 7-32 Open Findings Refer to NCR QF-199.
1 & 2 to Audit Report F-77-32 Open Finding To preclude repetition to NCR QF-152 (the These findings have licen identified on Bechtel 3 to same deficiency as this),it.S. Testing NCR 1006.
Audit Report developed a new gradation form that has 4
NCR QF-195 has been writ ten to resolve the cor-l F-77-32 check points that include documenting that g,, g3g the 200 gram material limit on any individual 8 inch sieve has not been exceeded. In l
addition, a training session was held on l
February 21, 1977 L
1
.o m
d-A 1
1 15 NCR NO NCR DESCRIPTION At:D SUPPORTING DETAit.S PART CORRECTIVE ACTION I
PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION Open Finding (Contd) 3 to Audit Report "ru j ec t Saa li t y ntrol Instructi n No.
F-7 7 - 3'.,
SC-l.05 "Haterial Testing Services and Conc re te Prmluc t ion" Rev. 3 Section 2.7.2 Reports, item A states, " Perform a daily review of the subcontractor's jobsite inspection and test reports for acceptability, completeness, and the laboratory chief's signature for concrete, steel, and so!!s.
Sign and date on the report verifying the acceptable status".
Contrary to these requirements:
Structural Backfill Date Sampled Amount Reta ined I.og Numby C-270 1-13-77
- 40 Steve - 225.2g 0364 4-27-77
- 10 Steve -
217.lg 0417 5-11-77
- 10 Steve - 221.4g 0431 5-It-77
- 10 Steve -
260.lg 0451 5-18-17
- 10 Steve - 211.7s 0505 6-02-77
- 200 Steve - 228.0g 0704 7-18-77
- 10 Steve - 249.5g Corrective Action Requested:
(1) Present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering and obtain engineering rationale from Bechtel Project En g inee r-ing as to the acceptability of the material these tests represent.
(2) Evidently the corrective action taken in NCR-152 was not adequate. Determine the underlying cause(s) and take further corrective action to preclude repetition.
'NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 9 9.
Settlement Calculations for Plant Area Fill
- Discussion of -NRC Inspection Facts Bechtel settlement calculations for the diese11 generator building were based on designs involving a mat-foundation having an applied soil pressure of 3,000 psf.
The founda. tion design was subsequently' changed to. spread
- footings with four independent generator pedestals having applied soil pressures of 4,000 and 1,750 psf, respectively (FSAR Subsection 3. 8. 4.1).
Settlement i.
calculations were~not made for the final design conditions.
Recent comparisons show the settlement estimated.for the spread footing foundation condition was a maximum G
-of 8% larger-than that for the mat foundation.
FSAR Figure 2.5-48 displays the calculated ~ settlements, not f(r r the design basis.
The design basis provided in FSAR fvj,., ~
-Subsection 3.8.4.1.2 was. translated ~in detail design A'
i drawings and implemented in the actual construction.
The borated' water storage tanks are supported in part 4
by a ring type spread footing, but most of the load is applied across the tank bottom, which is supported on fill- (FSAR Figure 3. 8-60).
Settlement calculations-discussed'in FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.10.3 for the borated water storage tanks, conservatively used a uniform equivalent circular mat foundation having an applied soil pressure of 2,500 psf (FSAR Figure 2. 5-47).
The j
ring type spread footing pressure is 2,500 psf and the tank-applied pressure within the ring foundation is 2,000 psf.
Because the actual pressure is 2,000 psf over.most of the foundation area, this settlement estimate is conservative.
Settlement calculations assumed a compressibility parameter of 0.001 whereas FSAR Table 2.5-16 gives a compressibility parameter of 0.003.
In this calculation the difference in parameters would result in a maximum increased settlement of 0.3 inch for the diesel generator building.
For the borated water storage tanks the difference would be less.
Differences in estimated settlements resulting from fcundation and soil conditions cited are small and within the accuracy limits of the analyses.
f 4
^
O t
.s 1
1 n->
,--,4n
,, m -.,_-e.g,,
,.-,,,,.g.nmme,---,
,,.w-w--
m,,ea-,,,
,,n..,m y
I l
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 10 4
- 10.. Settlement of Administration Building Footings Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts The investigation of localized failure under the adminis-tration_ building was initiated in September 1977.
The results of the testing are summarized below:
Type of Investigation Resul'ts Unconfine.d compression test Very soft to medium #
(11 samples) stiff clays Two borings-One boring showed soft to medium stiff clay directly under the footing an4 stiff to hard clay at lteer elevations.
The other boring was satisfactory.
Five tests on percent Percent compaction below compaction.
Proctor curve acceptable limits for four run on sample representing tests
,j these tests The results of the investigation initiated in September
~
1977 in areas outside the failure area are summarized below:
Area Type of Investigation Results Power block Observations and construc No evidence of structures tion survey data settlement Strip Load tests Settlements within footings in acceptable ranges administration building east of failure area Sixty feet Soil boring Soils south of acceptable -
diesel very stiff
. generator to hard building Footing for Soil boring Soils the evapora acceptable -
tor building very stiff to hard 1 of 2
+
'^
Based on'the abovc' investigations, the administration
(> v- '.4 rS 'T grade beam failure was'feit to be a local' soil failure'.
A followup meeting was held in September 1977 between
.the Chief Soil Lab Representative,-Bechtel Lead Civil Field Engineer, and lead Civil QC Engineer to reiterate the requirements of the proper proctor selection for
- fill' placement tests.
U.S. Testing was notified by c.
letter of the requirement to select the proper proctor.
~
CPCo site personnel acknowledged awareness of the administration building soil failure on August 25, 1977.
The CPCo Project Manager learned of the administration ouilding grade beam problem shortly after its occurrence LAugust 1977).
The CPCo Project Engineer did not recall hearing of the administration building grade beam problem prior to diesel generator building settlement discussions. This was not urusual because the field normally would resolve their own problems and request assistance only when necessary.
4 1
1 i
2 of 2
.--e r-y
+.
m-e
,e,,w e
e~-mw ww e -,
an.~-~--*-=~
r-s *
~
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 11 l
11.
Interface Between Diesel Generator. Building.and Electrical Duct Banks Discussion of'NRC Inspection Facts Four vertical electrical duct banks restricted settlement of the diesel generator building.- This condition was caused by two items.
First, the ducts-banks passing through the building footings were stepped (enlarged cross-sectional area) below the openings provided in the footing. - In some cases the mudmat filled the area between the footing and the-larger duct bank, thereby providing support for the building-at that location.
Second, the duct banks passed through the backfill layer and were bedded in a-stiff natural soil layer below.
A,1-inch' separation gap was provided between the duct i
bank and the diesel generator building footings to allow for differential. settlement between the duct bank and building foundation.
The detail was shown in Drawings C-1001 and C-1002..It was not anticipated in i.
the design that the duct bank would be constructed larger below the footing than at the point of penetration of the footing.
t The design requirements of the duct banks where they penetrate the foundation and make the vertical turn are shown in Electrical Drawing E-502.
These details'were
- modified to facilitate construction without recognition of the impact on the civil design requirements providing
_ clearance for free movement of the building foundation.
Moreover, the mudmat filled the space between the larger section and the footing.
Drawings and specification permit the use of Zone 2 random fill material in plant area fill.
Structural backfill was placed in local excavations in accordance with Specification 7220-C-211.
tean concrete was used to replace structural backfill in confined areas as permitted by Specification 7220-C-211, Section 5.1.3 which states, "In absence of structural backfill materials described above... lean concrete, as specified 3
in Specification 7220-C-230 may be used."
Use of lean concrete in restricted areas is a normal construction practice and was controlled by the field engineer's approval after inspection of subgrade.
Correspondence (BEBC-668 dated December 27, 1974) addresses the use of i
lean concrete as an acceptable replacement for Zone 1 and 2 materials only in areas of the dike disturbed due
-l j.
to trenches or temporary excavations.
A NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 12 12.
Soils Placement and Inspection Activities Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts The Bechtel Geotechnical Group has provided owershi technical support for soils placement on the Midland project.
Placement of soils by Canonie represents the major portion of soils placed on the jobsite.
For Q-listed work, inspection has been performed by a Quality.
Control Engineer with soils engineering placement experience in excess of 10 years.
Additional overview of Canonie's work has been provided by Bechtel Civil Field Engineers and Quality Control Engineers.
For the Bechtel scope of work, soils have been placed under the direction of Civil Field Engineering personnel.
These individuals are either Graduate Civil Engineers or persons with appropriate-dn'd? extensive on-the-job training.
The Civil Field Engineers discussed work plans, problems, and solutions with craft personnel and witnessed sensitive operations as the work situation required, although they were not physically present at all places and times while wqrk was being performed.
They were on call at all times as the situation required.
Bechtel Cf il Quality Control Engineers (QCE) have inspected, witnessed, or surveilled Bechtel placement of Q-listed soils.
These QCEs were certified in accordance
~
with ANSI N45.2.6 and trained in the requirements of QC inspection plans.
QCEs were in soils placement areas as evidenced by quality documentation including Inspection, Nonconformance, and Discrepancy Reports.
The following tabulation provides approximate numbers of each type of report prepared by QCEs.
Field Soil Inspecting Plans and Active Inspec-Noncon-Discrep-Record Time tion formance ancy Designation Period Reports Reports Reports C-210 8/73-11/76 65 6
ns
. " ~ '
C-211 8/74-10/76 21 3
r-e C-1.02 10/76-Present 109 8
31 S/C-1.10 6/77-Present 13 S/C-1.05 7/76-Present 93 2
Total 301 19 31 1 of 2
= z-: -
.The requirements for field densities and moisture
~
content are found in Specification 7220-C-208, Table 9-1, "One per every 500 cubic yards of fill."
This is the
~
-complete requirement.
The test must be taken within the frequency envelope, but there is no additional requirement as. to the accuracy of the test location.
In the event of a test failure, the envelope volume was reworked.
One instance was reported where moisture was added to a non-Q area without reworking.. Review indicates this was an isolated instance.
When moisture was added to the soil for. purpose of compaction, the soil was recon-ditioned in accordance with Specification 7220-C-210.
4 o
O 2 of 2
NRC PRELIMINARY FINDING 835 13.
Inspection Procedures For Plant Fill Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts 7' During the summer 1976 the Bechtel QC program underwen$
a format change from Field Inspection Plans (FIP) to Quality Control Instruction (QCI) and Inspection Records (IR).
At that time an analysis of FIPs C-210 and C-216 addi QCI C-1.02 indicated that no adverse trends were apparent in the soils work.
This indicated that a change was justified to a surveillance mode from the initial inspect and witness mode which had been used from the beginning of construction.
The modes are defined in Section 3.3.3 of 7220 SF/ PSP 6.1, as follows:
Inspect (I) - Visual examination or measure-ment to verify the conformance of an item or construction work operation to predetermined quality requirements.
Witr.ess (W) - To watch over, observe or visually examine a specific work operation, examination or test which is performed by others.
Surveillance (S) - To progressively monitor by randomly witnessing and inspection, items and work operations before, during or after in-process construction.
This inspectioh activity requires that the QCE physically verify the work operations described in the Quality Control Instruction to assure they are performed in accordance with inspection criteria requirements.
These verifications shall be performed as often and for as long a time period as is necessary to effectively monitor th1 designated Activity / Task.
The design docurent characteristics subject to QC, whether by the I, W, or S mode, remained the same for all plans.
They included:
a.
Material free of organics b.
Material meisture conditioned c.
Material not frozen d.
Material compacted to density e.
Lift thickness required f.
Work area clear of trash, debris, and unsuitable material 1 of 2
~ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.a_
+-
g.
. Backfill material not placed upon frozen surfaces h.
Backfill material conformance to drawing requirements
. w n.n:.. I unn. ~~
v Inspections required by these plans were performen as v
evidenced by i'nspection, nonconformance, and discrepancy reports.
.I i
e 1
t 2 of 2
-