ML20094J960
| ML20094J960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1984 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX16-054, CON-BX16-54, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408140513 | |
| Download: ML20094J960 (4) | |
Text
.N_L-
.. - --.~ J A.-
Y
-- - - - - A Sf /3(p b % n \\ n q 14,4.y N J. ^ 8 - 0
- h
) b N \\
b S
Woodused-Clyde Consultants L. Campbell, Project Manager 2.
Purpose of Inspection N inspection was conducted to verify the quality assurance program for the soil borings being conducted by Consumers Power Company, h borings vere performed in response to a request by the Corps of Engineers for additional soil information in their review of the 50.54(f) answers.
3.
Review of Drillina Procedures h inspector reviewed the Woodward-Clyde Quality Assurance Procedures Manual dated March 23, 1981, for completeness, consistency with industry standards and NRC guidelines during the initial visit on March 25-27, 1981.
From the review the following concerns were identified and discussed with the licosee:
a.
No procedures existed regarding shipment of the soil samples to the laboratory.
e b.
No procedures existed regarding various field testing instruments to be used.
No procedures existed for anchoring the boring rig to the ground c.
during hydraulic push of the soil samplers.
d.
No procedur2 existed' covering the use of rusty Osterburg tubes.
No procedure existed for controlling the sealing wax temperature.
a.
f.
h procedure is not clear on how much bentonite will be used in the grouting fluid.
g.
No procedure existed to certify the inspection personnel to ANSI N45.2.6.
h.
h procedure manual was signed and dated in the reviewed and approved spaces, but no preparer's signature existed.
i.
No controlled document existed to specify boring locations, sample depths and types.
j.
N hydraulic pressure gases on the boring rigs were not calibrated.
k.
No procedure existed for instructions on what to do if obstructions were encountered during boring operations.
hU&I3840718 RECEB4-<r6 PDR i l
- ~ ~ -
~ - - - - -
1.
No instructions existed to specify what precautions are being taken to reduce the chance of hydraulically fracturing the dike.
No criteria was established to specify which soil samples would be
.m.
chosen for testing.
n.
Laboratory testing procedures have not been submitted or reviewed by CPCo.
o.
No indoctrination and training of drillers to site procedure requirements was conducted.
N licensee agreed that no work would proceed until all items were resolved. Subsequently the inspector visited the site on April 7-9, 1981, to verify corrective action of the previously mentioned concerns.
Pursuant to this task, the revised Woodward-Clyde Project Procedures Manual dated March 30, 1981 was reviewed.
Soil sample shipment instructions are given in Geotechnical a.
Procedure GP-8.
b.
Field testing instrument procedures are given in GP-7.
c.
Boring rig anchoring procedures are given in GP-4.
d.
h uss of new Osterburg tubes is given in GP-5.
e.
Wax temperature is given in GP-5.
f.
Minimum percentage of bentonite is given in GP-11.
3 Certification of inspection personnel is given in GP-1.
h.
h new manual is signed and dated.
i.
Boring location drawing C1145(Q), Rev. 7, dated March 27, 1981, was reviewed.
J.
Pressure sages were calibrated.
l k.
Boring obstruction instructions are given in GP-4.
l l
1.
Thickness of the drilling mud is described in GP-4.
m.
N sample selection committee has decided how test samples will be chosen. As of this date, the Corps of Engineers has not received the criteria for review.
I CPCo is planning to audit the soil laboratory next week to review n.
their Quality Assurance Program. -
A training session for the drill operators was held on April 1, o.
1981, and attended by all concerned parties.
These corrective actions satisfactorily resolved all previous NRC concerns on drilling operations.
4.
Review of Contract Documents The inspector reviewed the contract documents for the soil boring work and identified that the approvs1 of Woodward-Clyde as a principal supplier of services was not complete prior to commencing soil boring activities as required by CPCo @ Program Policy Number 7 and CPCo @
Program Procedure Number 7-1.
This failure to accomplish activities affecting quality in accordance with documented instructions and procedures is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as described in Appendix A of the report
. transmittal leeter.
(329/81-09-01; 330/81-09-01) 5.
Exit Interviews The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives at the conclusica of the two inspections on March 27, 1981 and April 9, 1981 and summarized the inspection scope and findings. The licensee acknowledged the inspection results.
i l
I' l
k l L --
_a
.. - -. ~.-.
I
. < ~
\\
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Exit Meetina Attendees on March 27, 1981 Consumers Power Coseeny W. Bird, QA Manager, Midland Project R. Hirzel, QA Engineer N. Ramenujam, Staff Engineer T. Cooke, Site Project Superintandant D. Turnbull, Site QA Superintendent Bechtel Power Company J. Milanden, Manager of QA M. Deitrich, Project QA Engineer C. Parledes, QC Engineer K. Kleinhardt, On-Site Geotechnical Engineer Woodward-Clyde Consultants D. Hendren, Project Manager R. Ladd, Laboratory Manager, New Jersey L. Campbell, QA Engineer Corps of Ensineers i
R. Erickson, Staff Engineer NRC R. Cook, Resident Inspector 3
Exit Meetina Attendees on April 9, 1981 Consumers Power Company W. Bird, QA Hanager, Midland Project R. Hirzel, QA Engineer D. Sibbald, Projects T. Cooke, Project Superintendent Bechtel Power Compang M. Deitrich, Project QA Engineer l,
i l
2-
.-ep,.
-%s
~*--
- - W"M &
v'
't hh69-S T
M g
'22
- M "NN"O N
,e e,
.e-,--,--
~w wn------~-
'w--=-~v-~--v--'
' ' ' ' " " ' ' " ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '
O.
, COST OP bb\\.AbD REMELDIM., Wott.
n,,
o
~
Q(.,,
~ ~.- -
,',' h CC;10"Q3fS n-
+
8 am e ses 0's*ISI (g k, is.'m~, ~~,.'
g c
Ccmpany t,3ut 0 S 1981 *
~ ^ " - "
-w ao a ney E neems geja o.a.,. oeta : 212 w : wenw A au J
- a. m 4e2oi. is oseo' Q?.
- ' " ' ' " * ~ "
' N,,
- Pxs,
,. \\
J E Sasma.,
Co dj L.m., o.-.d j a-oman o o.-
am w on.e,
July 1, 1981
- "" ',og" A PGeses.e 6C ~.I 2 7 Cn.,',e,,n,,".m"".n, 6
w.yn. A Kisiste um.n o se.c.n David A AAtmes.
Ms. Barbara Stamiris
- =m a u.a.
77 7
5795 North River Road Route 3 Gesgo,, A s. nee Freeland, MI 48623 a.=o s===.
w.m., s s A T udev.
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
- y"'"* !'*L"*
Aueroep Attached is a copy of a document reflecting the latest available cost data associated with soils remedial actionr from Bechtel's cost trending program.
Information regarding the cost data supplied has been provided in the footnotes to the document.
Very truly yours, m
1 Au $<Q w s./
James E. Brunner 3
950 s
II i
Y q
o 0004 %
'O.
6
'18.':?
.p.
.IUL' 6198f. Q hC.
T %:~s y
\\ s..
/AR.
'<Q w p N1-PDR ADOCK 05000329 Q
PDR }- IV
.=
nw DOOKIT!!UfA3Ct ta=== o u fROD.& UTIL FAC.h.h.
N.'.ss,-.ca.-#
- s,
.o.a s I
m 4
./
M.-
e o e
,aM -
Sra., Aas eye o
oeen xix w.n uunw 4 J
ui 4emos. <sm tes.osso p
- m. X "_r J s 3.u r
tas.y eas.s
~
June 25,1981
==*= o o-==,
w.,
o m o Es e P ouesy A P C t.et AB.-d L M G
- g. 8 Ms.use Lassa.e M pe em.y Ms. Barbara Stamiris
"".*E 5795 North River Road
,,=,",d,^ O*""
- = = * * = = = = = =
Rouce 3 a-a n s Freeland, Michigan 48623 o na o
,4s J t o on.m
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
yys o e 6 win-u Attached hereto are copies of 10 CFR 50.55e Reports
""M"* *
(
respecting soils matters or matters at issue in the Soils Case, and which were previously provided to other Intervenors. To the best of my knowledge, copies of all 10 CFR 50.55e Reports are forwarded by the NRC Staff to the Midland Public Library. Hence, these reports have i
always been publicly available.
Further, Consumers Power Company is under no legal obligation to submic copies of 10 CFR 50.55e Reports to Intervenors (cf. 10 CFR 50.55e). However, I have instructed the persons in charge o."
the service list for 10 CFR 50.55e Reports to place yout name on an equal footing with those o' the other Intervenors as respects soils secclement ma'.ers.
I trust these documents will not " overwhelm" your resources in preparing for the hearing.
Very truly yours,
.sP't jpf24 L OliA James E. Brunner CC: CM/CI. List i
g I
- s/
coCxtrun 2
L'SNRC
. t
.1UL1 6.198l e- [-4,
'~
C:'ics of t':e Screa.ry
'3 C:ckC!U C Suvice g
g
..u.
'IZO l
N i
' ' ' ' '~
.. i,. -..
~
=
e..
_,e The fo11'owing reflect;s Bechtel's most recent estimates o{ the cost of -
remedial actions associated with foundation soil issues:
',~
664,000 Material Cost Labor cost 2,664,000 Subcontract Cost 4,391,000 7,719,000 Direct Field Cost Subcotal 2,737,000 Distributable Field Cost T tal Field 10,456,000 Engineering' 5,025,000 2,090,000 Other Home office Contingency and Rounding 69,000 Total Cost 2 17,640,000 1 osts reflect the latest available data from Bechtel's cost-trending C
program. Data for cost trend projections of bin wail underpinning scheme for service water pump structure are not yet available. Hence, data reflects the driven pile underpinning scheme for the service water structure. Cost assumptions for the auxiliary building underpinning scheme include caisson underpinning at electrical penetration areas and full concrete 'enderpir.ning I
of service water valve pits.
2This cost is the totsi Bechtel cost of carrying out remedial actions presently proposed, excluding cost increment of bin wall design over
~
' the driven pile design for the service water pump structure.
N e
l I
t c
e
**1 4
"'".*"4 y =g w +
-,,p
' * - **--+
_