ML20094P752
Text
,
I
.-4 N I '-
MC J 1 $vs.Ehl,i-
- f0 ~ t 3 i'
J
~
Stan -Solb5 _
tedr$ p.As
/
ga
- pr,<e ore 7
eck 9 -
Wf wg 1
8 p/sr
/b far,3 z} s" ciasen
- 5) wee /rly medig.5
+) stref s lefweg w/zgv/f-i r) e rac4 merfar,xy g
y
'$o-S7 revo w b r y en <> % F 7
0MdiOV of b'N 'h S
a)Sho wark on F<A m c*rfer$rk htSo:
.h-Fe F's y nuda <v af },mdgysv&l.ffy'.c 0V6 7vFV SsA"Fois7""#"
RICE 94-96 PDR 4
4W Obse whb1 s hyt c n synk r
In t afbdog sgh biase net
- - x:.
o 4
}fwt 5F-L5 Osabriu sups -0ce 0//
3 d+ k sM h,dn e m4 ~y ** b f M-3 2 ccricrsk fruck h rar,,
/racedn c Aag" 64 bI h s,,,, s 4,,, s em mu n-i o y Swps - tin o crn sv.r5 ercicer,xnw DAah 4 de n
luila,)
J 5 ~)
~7 Q fre b qf ma *sr (bo, Iblin ce c/
cn
{ <7,d 82-2 yyeef,- Pi>(
ll f
/t g Q15 4
il 3 ht (, b Nh l)Ma<y wel$5 - nch drya$ua l uIds m,h a r A p d nt) y b
VGw ytw7 1
. Vi' ' t.
0 p b* A W
~
w e -
/
L
,h b
(Y
~
f k h V o n ikny c.,
ge()
t%rd
-t
9
[ _ PRifjCIPAL STAFF VA li% DPRP G~CORSum8FS fVRA
~
/%
oruss power v4
"^
"" ' o-"'-
?_A0 J~
5CS /
4' 9" M*"*s" CompaRY m
me -
w
^
u~ ~xa s
' NF 7
,Flle fnv Mdand Project: Po Boa 1963, Mdand. MI 4864o (517) 631865o November 4, 1983 Mr J J Harrison Midland Project Section U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III' 799 Roosevelt Road e
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GWO 7020 SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE LOAD TRANSFER File: 0485.16.2 UFI: 42*05*22*04 Serial:
CSC-6978 The following item is not addressed in the Midland Safety Evaluation Report (including Supplements 1 and 2) concerning the service water pump structure load transfer (Section 3.8.3.2).
Before excavating pier pits 7 and 7A, piers 1 through 6 and 1A through 6A will be loaded to 125 percent of the Stage I loads (unless otherwise directed by the resident structural engineer).
This will be done to maintain structure elevation during the excavation of pier pits 7 and 7A.
These loads will be decreased as the jacking of piers 7 and 7A progresses so that when piers 7 and 7A are jacked above the Stage i
I loads, the temporary increase will be eliminated and piers 1 through 6 and 1A through 6A will again be at 1007. of the Stage I loads.
This will not adversely affect the structure because it simply redistributes the loads in the vicinity of the excavation to the other piers until piers 7 and 7A can be jacked. Other conditions more critical than this have already been analyzed.
If you have any concerns or comments regarding this subject, please contact this office.
l( X)an&x. move L
DLQ/ DES /klm
-m h O ll 9 "l 0
W y6 &
NOV 1 e ggg3
r v
.i on g..-,
Q Y (S'
~
t n-J.O.No. 14358 m.
N
~
N EVALUATION OF CHANGE AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING MIDLAND PLANT.-. UNITS 1 AND 2 s
N
-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OCTOBER 1983
.V Y
/1 r] Y Cel Y ye of S
^M
,) w'{!
D
\\
(
Prepared By STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.
~
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
=
my,,
v - t/ O f0 ? '/d a
- f.
- 4. *4.b :.,. '
- ,.5 4%,...
.I,'
o
"..
- a *. g *
...'..=. r 3;,...
p*,
- h'
,a
=1
' !,,..f.
- 6. n
.: :w.
[
. * : ?',r: :
- . ~..,
.. *
- 4. :
- N ;r
..:. : > c s,,
,,.. yg-. -
.. y :.'....
.. r' jGib 9
^
. m..
INDEX PAGE
.cg g.g
,19:
.:.....rit :,:
wC INTRODUCTION 1
.I'* w-
' * !/ -
EXECUTIVE SLH4ARY 1
RIN s
r METHODOLOGY 3
d DRGANIZATIONAL STRUCRIRES 3
i%
REVIEW OF PROCEDURES 5
L IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL CHANGE' 6
?
AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS-J h
ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS 7
y.y3 1
.m$
%*ig -
EVALUATION OF FIELD CHANGE REQUESTS (FCR) 8 7
,,q
$f EVALUATION.OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS (NCR) 10
{ 4.%..4 j,
pl.4
. % $lf APPENDIX M,s... r.5.%..i
,'~-Q.Ik.
Trip Notes - August 24 Through August 26, 1983 Trip Notes - August 30 Thr'ough September 2,1983
,y.g.,;
i.. %g'6...
?.
w.
, '7
':.5
- . % D I I. *,
-. c ','.,n',.
4.. g y.;
o.v
... [. 3. n.rgw.,
... iif,fr.6,..
. yI.
t
..,e i.....;. :.'3..,/.,
I,g":.-'. '
y-t l
l BX214358.01-12 l
g O
'8 4
+
g INTRODUCTION The evaluation of the change and n' nconformance documents and their impact on o
the progress of the underpinning work was initiated as a result of concerns discussed in the Independent Assessment of Underpinning Weekly Reports.
Report No. 40, dated June 27, 1983, indicated the Assessment Team's concein.
to limit the exposure time of the structures to unsupported conditions.
It was demonstrated that piers could be constructed and loaded in about 25 to;'
30 days.
However,' this target is not being regularly achieved.
Report No. 43, dated July 20, 1983, expressed the Assessment Team's concern that load transfer onto completed piers should be able to be accomplished in a much shorter time period. Report No. 46, dated August 10,1983, indicates that the Assessment Team believes that the Engineering, Quality Control, and Construction organizations must initiate an evaluation of performance to date in an effort to identify actions that could reduce the completion time without compromising quality.
The report also indicated that it was the opinion of the Assessment Team that such a goal is obtainable.
?,=
At the request of Consisners Power Company, an independent evaluation was per-formed on the influence that the various change and nonconformance documents had on ~. accomplishing.the. underpinning work and to determine if specific recem-
.mendations can be made in this area to reduce the snount of time the building -
is exposed in an unsupported condition.
The circumstances at the Midland Plant and the type of structure
- involved are considerably different from the type of structure that has classically employed this method of remedial work to solve foundation problems.
The major difference is that, typically, structures which are underpinned are of much lighter construction, designed for less severe conditions, and may be near impending collapse.
The structures being underpinned at the Midland Plant are not f acing impending structural failure.
The basic thrust of this evaluation'is directed at the critical path activi-ties associated with the underpinning work for the Auxiliary Building.
The remedial soils work for the Diesel Generator Building has been completed. The corrective work associated with the Borated Water Storage Tanks is underway and should be completed by the first of the year.
The underpinning work associated with the Service Water Pump Structure is just beginning, but this structure has better. access for the performance of the work and is smaller in size.
Trip notes covering the periods of August 24 through August 26 and August 30 through September 2, 1983, are attached to provide additional background information on the evaluation and subsequent recommendations.
' ^ EXECUTIVE.
SUMMARY
This evaluation of the change and nonconformance documents and their influence on the quality and progress of the work has identified four basic areas where additional applied effort could result in f aster completion of the underpinning effort and a reduction in the risk associated with the unsupported portions of th9 building during construction. These recommenda-tions are listed in order of importance and a reference is given to the G
. I S322'3s8.01 2
1
&@J()/yfl4h,
section of the report which provides more detailed discussion in support of the reconnendation. The recomendations are as follows:
' 1.
-The program which was recently implemented to review both existing "
and new Construction Procedures, Project Quality Control Instructions (PQCI), and Project Specifications should receive a high priority effort in order to. define the important quality attributes cons,istent with the intent of the specifications. This will result in a clear definition of the quality requirements and the utilization of technical resources in achieving these quality goals. This effort will require considerable technical support by Bechtel's Ann Arbor Power Division (AAPD) Project Engineering Group.
For additional discussion refer to the section entitled
" Attendance at Meetings."
2.
The completion 6f the design work associated with the underpinning should be expedited so that the design calculations and drawings may be transmitted to the jobsite along.with necessary technical support.
This will expand the ability of the Resident Engineer to-approve the change and nonconfomance documents in the shortest time possible.
The problems encountered in the conduct of the underpinning work and the very nature of this type of work make it preferable to have maximum engineering support at the jobsite. For additional discussion refer to the section entitled " Organizational Structures."
- 3.
The Field Change Request (FCR) should receive final approval by the Project Engineer shortly af ter interim approval has been granted.
h This wilLrequirtBechtel to revise its procedures.
Updating of r
9 A,89 (), O[ final approval occurs. This will permit more rapid updating of the lirawings.for the changes indicated onTCR_s cannot7ake place until o
y design drawings for FCRs and will make the application of the recent
'Yg, revised procedure for' updating drawings after five FCRsihave been issued more meaningful.
For additional discussion Rfer to the -
- d '6 sectionentitled"EvaluationofFieldChangeRequests(FCR)."
Wf 4.
The Nonconformance Reports (NCR) should have trend analysis perfomed which relates the number of NCRMFEe7 vel of l
construction effort. Also the NCRs should be classified by subject and this distribution reviewed to assist in providing an indicator to problem areas.
For additional discussion refer to section I
entitled " Evaluation of Nonconfomance Reports (NCR)."
r 5.
It is important that Bechtel continues to strive to reduce the response time on critical NCRs that could delay the work.
For additional discussion refer to the section entitled " Evaluation of i
Nonconformance Reports."
The intent of the first two recomendations is currently being implemented at the jobsite or is part of current plans for the underpinning work.
A
r s.....-
s.
METHODOLOGY Thw approach used in the Evaluation of-Change and Nonconformance Documents was performed using a structured methodology.
The initial concern was with the.
. influence of these documents on the progress of the underpinning work, but as the evaluation evolved, peripheral issues developed which expanded the initial scope.
The methodology used was broad enough to allow for orderly expansion of the evaluation if findings warranted such br.oadening.
The -
initial meth'odology used. for the ev'aluation follows:
- 1. ' Establish the scope and complexity of the remedial soils work by review of design drawings and visits to the various work areas o,n the site.
2.
Attend all regularly held meetings related to the underpinning work.
l 3.
. Establish the spectrum of engineering and quality assurance change anc nonconformance documents that could impact the progress of the work.
4.
Evaluate the documents established by Step 3, for sub,iect matter, approvals, and response times.
Initial subject classifications are:
i a.
Tolerances b.
Materials j
c.
Welding d.
Construction' i
i e.
Testing i
f.
Fabrication 5.
Review any existing trend analysis that has been performed for the change and nonconformance documents.
6.
Review the existing procedures covering the various change and non-conformance documents.
7.
Determine the organizational structure of the responsible' engineering / construction organization, and determine its influence on change and nonconformance documents.
This programed approach proved to be adequate for. the task, but the attendanc.e at meetings (Item 2), review of existing trend analysis (Item 5),
and review of organizational structures (Item 7) resulted in identifying peripheral issues that form the basis of the recommendations' contained in this report.
ORGANIZATIONAL STR'UCTURES The organization selected for evaluation was Bechtel Power Corporation since i
it has the basic responsibility for the engineering and construction manage-e I
ment of the underpinning work.
The engineering consultants and contractors l
BX214358.01-12 3
5.' -
for. the underpinning work under Bechtel's overall direction are covered, by and contractors may or'ginate various types of change and,ng consultants Bechtel's Quality Assurance Plan.
Even though the engineeri nonconformance documents, it is the Bechtel organization that tracks, processes, and resolves all such documents. The purpose of this evalution is.to determine if i
these documents are 5'eing adequately processed from an organizational standpoint.
For purposes of additional reference, copies of the following organizational
. charts have been attached to the trip notes for August 24, 1983, and are as follows:
Project Soils Organization Project Engineering Organization Resident Engineering Soils Organization Field soils Organization (F50)
The overall Bechtel organization, both engineering and construction, is very large and complex and typical of organizations associated with large nui: lear.
power plant projects.
Two key organizations are the Project Engineering Organization with its. separate group for the remedial soils work and the Field i
Soils Organization. - Both of these groups must interrelate to the larger Bechtel organization for proper overall coordination and integration.
The important subgroup's in this structure are the Resident Engineering Soils I
Organization which is on site and an extension of the Ann Arbor Power Division (AAPD) Project Engineering and the Field Engineering Group of the F50.
Both Field Change Requests (FCR) and Nonconformance Reports. (NCR) p of these groups are actively involved in the gene' ration and These two organizations have clearly defined written responsibilities which are well understood 'by the Resident Assistant Project Engineer (Resident Enginger,
Mr. E. Cviki and the As'sistant Project Field Engineer (Field Engineer.
Mr. M. M. Blendy. There is a distinct separation of responsibilities between engineering and construction.
Currently, the ability of these two groups to resolve change and non-
.conformance docu ents on site is very limited.
Due to the ongoing design effort by the AAPD Project Engineering, the scope of responsibility of the Resident Engineer can only be expanded 'when the design calculations and drawings are completed and delivered to the jobsite. Currently, the Re'sident Engineer can only approve changes and resolve nonconfonnances that'do not involve design calculations.
It is expected that calculations coverin Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) and the Service Water Pump Struc SWPS) i will be transmitted to the jobsite about October 1,1983.
The relationship between the Resident.61scipline Engineer and the Resident Engineer was also reviewed. For example, the on-site delegatjen of responsi-i bility to' the Resident Structural Engineer covers the ability to approve FCRs for such items as minor changes to reinforcing steel, embedments, tack welds, f abrication, minor weld details, drif t sets, vendor f abHeation, construction l
procedures, and instrumentation drawings.
Any change request which aff ects the detail design and involves review or alteration of existing calculations must be approved by AAPD. Conversely, the Resident Engineer is authorized to approve all NCRs and FCRs which the Resident Discipline Engineer has prepared dispositions for.
4 8x21 css.01,12
/
'O e
s s
The relationship 'of the Underpinnng Contractor Manager to both the Field Engineering Group and the Resident Engineering Group was examined.
It.was suggested that certain decisions could have contract cost implications and, therefore,'the resolution of items such as acceptability of material based on
- decisions to scrap or rework an item might involve contract management in the decision-making process.
The Resident Engineering Group indicated that the Field Engineering Group makes the decision on whether or not the resolution of a problem is through.the scrapping, refebrication, or reworking of a given. '
item until it is acceptable. Sukh iteias could be covered, either by an FCR or
.an NCR.
~
While the relationship of the Resident Discipline Engineer to the Resident Engineer and their respective relationships to; their counterparts in AAPD Project Engineering is complex, the organization functions effectively in the l
administration of the change and nonconfomance documents and, therefore, no recommendations age made concerning' changes to the organizational structure.
The major recomendation.with regards to the organizational structure is to provide,' in the shortest time possible, the design calculations 'and drawings to the jdbsite complete with the necessary technical support so thht the role and responsibility of the Resident Engineer can be erpanded to handle more of 3
' the resolution of the 4hange and no,iconformance documents at the jobsite.
This step will minimize the amount of delay that can occur. due to the
~
processing of these documents. ;It is also important that adequate technical resources be assigned to the' jdbsite to support the ongoing technical effort.
The engineering consultants must participate in the on-site' technical effort.
Bechtel has advised that Hanson Engineering, Inc., Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc., and Mueser, Rutledge, Johnston and DeSimone will provide technical support at thi jobsite.
REVIEW OF PROCEDURES y
The following Bechtel pr$cedures were reviewed as part of the determination to identify the significant change and non:enfomance documents that.could influence the work and to assist in an understanding of the responsible organization structure and the various responsibilities of key participants:
o FPD-2.000,.Rev. 9, J61y 15, 1983 -
Field Change Request / Field Change Notice Procedure 7220-G-34(Q),Rev.16,Februaryh,1583-o General Specifiestions fci Field C5ange. Notice l
MED 4.62-0, Rev. No. 21, Ndde$ber 3,1982 -
c Field Change Requett/ Field! bange Notice-I o
EDP-4.62, Rev. No'. 3, December /'1,1976 -
Field Change Request / Field Char.ge Notice l
MED 4.47-0, Rev. No. 23, Apr)1 13, 198? -
o Drawing Change Notice o
PEP No. 4.47.2,, Rev. No. 2, June 20,1983 -
DrawingChangeItotices(DCNs) 1 l
l j
}BX214358.01-12[. ;4 5
1 t-I o
AADP/ PSP G-3.2, Rev. 7, Jun's 1,1981 -
Control of Nonconforming Items o
MED 4.61-0, Rev. No. g, October 8, 1982 -
Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) o PEP No. 2.14.1, Rev. No. 0, October 22, 1982 -
Resident Engineer for Midland IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL CHANGE AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS Based on Bechtel procedures and conversation with the Field Soils Organiza-tion (F50). staff, the following change and nonconformance documents were j
identified:
o Field Change Request (FCR) o FieldChangeNotice(FCN)
ChangeNotice(DCN)
Drawinfcation Change Notice (SCN) o Specif o
o Nonconformance Report (NCR)
The FCR and the NCR are the documents that can most influence the progress of the work on a day-to-day basis., The FCR frequently identifies previously unknown existing field conditions and addresses day-to-day problems related to materials, welding, fchrication, and construction.. The NCR often limits continued construction by placing holds on materials and completed construction until the nonconformance is corrected or technically resolved.
For these reasons, these two documents were selected'for evaluation, using the most currently issued documents. The sample size was large enough to provide simple statistical validity to the evaluation for the period covered by the documents evaluated.
' ' ~
The FCN is a seldom-used document and is very limited in scope and applica-j tion. The purpose of the FCN is to document changes that Project Engineering has designated and authorized the Project Field Engineer to approve for change '
implementation.
The application of FCNs'is described in Specification 7220-G-34(Q), Revision 16, dated February 9,1983, entitled " General Specification for Field Change Notice." The categories where FCNs are approved for use are described in Section 3.0.
The DCN is a document which is initiated by the AAPO.
A DCN is used'to make and document changes to drawings without imediately issuing a revision to the drawings. A DCN is used to in'tiate or release a hold on a drawing; and it can be used by Project Engineering to supersede, void, or correct an approved FCR or FCN written against the drawing. The SCN is a similar document relating to specifications and is issued by AAPD.
It would be impossible to trace the l
influence of DCN and SCNs on the progress of the work since there is no recording procedure that would provide this type of information. The only way j
that this information could be collected is through personal recollection of l
i the people directly involved with the work.
It is impo'rtant to note that the l
design of the underpinning operation is still in. progress'and that the design i
l changet, using the DCN system, are being received at the jobsite.
l 8x214358.01-12 6
/
ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS The Independent Assessment Team meets daily, with Bechtel to review the progress of the work and to discuss the Assessment Team's evaluation and concerns.
These' structured meetings, including the documentation of the daily meetings, are part of the Assessment Team's formal program for its activities.
These meetings are typically attended by representatives from the following organizations:
Consumers Power Company Bechtel Power Corporation Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD)
Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Michigan,.Inc.
The meetings are conducted-by the Bechtel Contract Manager for underpinning.
The full spectra of subjects re. lated to this work are discussed, covering such topics.as engineering, purchasing, schedu aing,; quality problems, construction,
progress, priority NCRs and FCRs, and future considerations for continued improved quality and progress. These. meetings are beneficial.
During this evaluation, participation in these meetings provided insights into the Assessment Team's concerns as expressed in the weekly reports about -
limiting the building exposure due to unsupported conditions. As discussed in-
~
the Trip Notes, the problems associated with Pier Kc10 are, representative of the Assess aent Team's concerns. The unexpected existing conditions that are encountered during construction, such as the concrete fill which had to be excavated for the construction of Pier Kc3, cause frequent delays.
Also another factor identified at these meetings is the imposition of Q quality standards applied to all aspects of the work, including temporary construction materials and procedures, which increases the level
.of.
inspections, and affects the progress accordingly.
The weekly Engineering - Construction meeting provides a working bas.is for coordination between Bechtel's AAPD Project Engineering group and the -FSO organization, including the Resident and Field Engineering groups.
These meetings also include representatives from Consumers Power Company groups such as MPQAD, and the Site Management Office (SMO), and the Independent Assessment Team (Stone & Webster).
The subjects covered by these meetings include the review F critical FCRs and NCRs, status of critical vendor submittals, discussion of objectives of quality assurance plans, and review
' of the Action Item List. The. Action Item List covers a broad spectrum of subjects, such as cutting in-place reinforcing steel, coordination with consultants, tolerances, Hilti bolts, and revised construction approaches to expedite progress. These meetings demonstrate that Bechtel is endeavoring to benefit and improve quality through better definition of the procedures for construction and required inspections to provide the quality needed to meet the intent of the specifications. The subject of construction procedures and inspection plans warrants high priority.
The construction of one pier 'has required 450 signoffs.
Bechtel plans to prepare an evaluation of the lessons learned on the design, f abrication, 'and installation of the grillage beams.
It is planned that this I
evaluation will be presented during the week of September 5, 1983.
BX214358.01-12 7
There has been a continuing dialogue between Bechtel's Field Engineering.and i.
Project Engineering groups to establish a method to review specifications, contract work procedures, and Project Quality Control Instruction (PQCI) to better determine what inspections are required for the work.
An. earlier review, performed by two independent groups within Bechtel, resultad in a i
similar conclusion 'concerning what were the important quality attributes of an existing work pr'ocedure.
It has been agreed that the FSO will proceed to develop a plan for the implementation of this activity and submit it to Consumers Power Company for consideration.
Such an effort may require r.evisions to the specifications and considerable technical support from the AAPD Project Engin'eering group.
This effort deserves the highest priority since it will result in better-defined quality requirements and consequently should expedite the completion of the work.
The following are two typically si,milar observations made at the construction site where quality inspectibns were either inappropriate or excessive because of lack of definition concerning the important quality attributes:
beam A concrete mud mat has been placed around the existing ring'e was.
~
1.
for the BWST.
This concrete was unreinforced and its 'purpos simply to provide.a working surf ace for the construction of the
- fonns and the placement of the additional concrete for these foundations. An NCR had been issued for the cracks in,the unreinforced concrete mud. mat. The' cracking was perfectly normal, and there was no technical reason to reinforce this temporary con-struction work surf ace.
2.
Considerable effort is being expended in inspecting the structural welds which are being performed in accorda'nce with AWS D1.1. On the metal lagging used for temporary construction of the temporary jacking piers, welds which were used to attach some structural nuts for the purposes of simply holding them in place and welds associated with cover plates, neither of which had any structural requirements, had been inspected.
Specifications and related PQCIs should have defined the necessary inspections.
Considerable benefit can be obtained by properly defining the quality l
requirements, resulting in the conservation of technical resources, and improved productivity without any compromise to the overall quality required for the work.
[
x LUATIO'N OF FIELD CHANGE REQUEST (FCR The primary purpose of theho document construction-generated / project engineering approved changes identified by the project as necessary prior'to the start of work on the affected items (s). FCRs can also be used to disposi-tion Nonconformance Reports (NCR) and with timely applicat' ion effectively minimize the number of NCRs by solving problems prior to the start of the work.
However, FCRs may not be used in l'ieu of NCRs. '
A group of the most recently issued Oh, were evaluated. The subject classi-ficat. ions used for this analysis follows:
i f
BX214358.01 :12 8
.. _ _ ~. _ -
Construction - Includes such items 'as as-built conditions, clearances, work access for assembly, and changes to improve construction.
Welding - Includes materials, size, construction problems, warping, l
f abricatierry.and procedures.
Tolerances - Includes materials,'abrication, and field construction.
f Fabrication - Includes both shop and field work.
Materials - Includes availability and substitution problec:s.
Hilti Bolts - Includes documentation, testing, and procedures.
Testino - Includes ail on-site testing problems.
Percent of FCRs in each subject classification is as follows:
~7 Construction:
34 percent Materials:
18 percent Tolerances:
16 percent Welding:
15 percent Fabrication:
11 Percent Testing:
3 percent Hilti Bolts:
3 percent Total 156 percent Eighty-three percent of all FCRs are covered by construction, materirls, tolerances, and welding problems.
The response time for an FCR is the duration from the date of initiation to the date of interim approval.
' An FCR is released for c'onstruction when interim approval is obtained.
The overall mean response time is 2.1 days.
However, if three of the FCRs with the longest response times are excluded, the mean response time becomes 1.5 days.
About 3 percent of all FCRs are rejected.
All FCRs were properly approved through the interim stage, but only 17 percent had final approval by the Project Engineer or his designee. The age of an FCR does not seem to relate to whether or not it contains final approval by the Project Engineer.
The FCR is being used effectively.
The subject classifications are typical for nuclear work, and problems such as tolerances and. welding are always present and deserving of special attention.
The rejection rate is very low, indicating proper application of the document. The mean response time is very low and indicates that adequate technical support is available to process the FCRs through the interim approval stage,.and this portion of -the activity is being weIl-managed, j
The fact that abo
'83 rcent of the FCRs did not include final approval by I
I the Project Enginee matter of some concern. PFD No. 4.6.2.1, Rev. No. O, dated November 15, 1982, indicates in Section I '.1 that incorporation of FCRs cannot occur until final approval by the Project Engineer. This document 1
.A 9
BX214358.01-12
- * ~
does not specify the elapsed time froin either initiation or interim approval to final approval by the Project Engineer.
However, this document does state somellengthy timeLf4P-iecorporation of FCRs into the affected design documents (30'to 45 days). Bechtel indicates that it intends to incorporate change documents when a total of five have been posted individual drawing and that the drawing will be revised within 60 days.
/
(
. number of the drawings have an extensive number-of-change documents attached ;
to them.
In order 'to properly understand the content of the drawing, it is (
necessary to look at both the drawing and all of the change documents attached <
in order to determine the correct information necessary for construction.
Timely updating is very important in terms of maintaining drawing legibility for construction. Since an FCR contains both provisions for interim approyal and final approval, there is an implication of a certain degree of incomplete-ness associated with two stages of approval.
It is therefore important that the Project Engineer's approval of FCRs be timely so that incorporation. can more timely requirements for final approval of FCRs by the Project. Engin take place promptly.
The Bech'tel procedures should be revised to' establish and updating of drawings.
~_
Af.UATION OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS (NC)R) x The primary purpDMonconformancerReport is to document a deficiency in characteristic, documentation, or procedure which renders the quality of an item unacceptable or indeterminate.
Examples of a nonconforman'ce include physical defects, test f ailure, incorrect or inadequate documentation, or deviation from prescribed processing, inspection, or test procedures.
NCRs may be originated by the Bechtel organization, subcontractors, suppliers, client organizations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other regula, tory agencies.
~
A group of the most recently issued NCRs were evaluated. The subject classi-fications used for this analysis follow:
Construction
. Includes such items as work not conforming to the drawings or specifications.
Weldino -
Includes both field and shop welding, including non-conf onnances to the drawings, specifications, or procedures.
Fabrication - Includes both shop and field work.
Testino - Includes all on and offsite testing related problems.
' Concrete - Includes surf ace preparation; grouting, concrete placement, bonding, reinforcement, and demolition.
Procedures - Includes til noncompliances that relate to project pro-cedures and basically concerns the administrative ' aspects of the procedures.
o BX214358.01-12 10
7.
Hilti Bolts - Includes all problems associated with expansion type anchors.
The percent of NCRs in ea'ch subject classification ~ is as follows:
Welding 22 percent Concrete 19 percent Test.ing 18 percent Procedures 13 percent Fabrication 13 percent Con:,truction 10 percent
. Hilti Bolts 5 percent Total 100 percent Ab,out 60 percent of all NCRs are covered by problems associated with welding, concrete, and testing; and this is reflected in the additional effort that has been made at the jobsite in the areas of these activities.
Two mean response times were calculated for the' NCRs. The first response time is the duration from the date of the report to the date of disposition. If two dispositions were indicated on the NCR form, the one which gave the longest duration was used. The second response time is the' duration from the sdate of the report to closure acceptance by MPQAD. The mean response time to the date of disposition is 5.6 days, and, the mean response time to the date of MPQAD closure acceptance is 8.1 days.
All of,the NCRs were properly approved. There is no indication on the older NCR form of the priority requirements, but the new NCR form does have'a place to designate a priority code.
The Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) prepared quality trend graphs for the remedial soils work and updates these on a monthly basis. The-most recent update of' the quality trend graphs revised the occurrence rate
~
from the number of NCRs issued monthly to the number of items affected. The quality trend graphs also segregate the NCRs into a group of subject headings quite similar to those used in the above analysis.
A study was also performed by MPQAD to evaluate the mean clostre time for NCRs; and for the period from May 13 to June 13, 1983, the average number of days was 24 for ' reject / rework, items and 30.3 days for repair /use as-is items.
j For the period from June 13 to July 13, 1983, the mean number of days was 8.7 l
l for reject / rework and 8.8 days for repair /use as-is.
l l
Based on experience from other nuclear projects, the mean response times of 5.6 days from the date of the report to the date of disposition and the mean response time of 8.1 days from the date of the report to the date of closure i
acceptance by MPQAD are considered to be very good on an overall basis'.
However, this conclusion can'be misleading because this document can have a very direct impact on the day-to-day progress.
There have been instances where NCRs have resulted in no work for more than one shift.
Observations at the jobsite indicate that a variety of techniques have been developed by Bechtel to expedite the critical NCRs sc as to minimiz,e delays in the progress of the work.
This is done through direct coordination with Bechtel's Field and Resident Engineering Groups, through the weekly Construction-Engineering BX214358.01-12 11
\\
meetings, and through coordination with MPQAD.
It is important that Bechtel cQntinues to strive to reduce the response time on critical NCRe. that codld.
delay the work.
There does not seem to be any system currently in effect whi,ch attempts to measure, on an overall basis, trends-related to the quality of the work as reflected by. NCRs which is based on the level of effort.
As the level of effort expands, so typically do the number of NCRs. However, if the number of NCRs issued is not some way related to the number of construction manhours being expended or some other equivalent measuremant, there is no way to ascertain if there is a trend concerning the quality of the work. It becomes dif.ficult to try to associate construction manhours to the subject classifi-cation, but the distribution of the NCRs by subject classification does pro-vide an indicator to areas that might require special attention. Observations -
at the jobsite have indicated that the onsite organizations have responded, to the. problems associated with welding procedures and concrete.
It is recom-mended that some method of evaluating the NCRs against the, level of effort be developed so that meaningful trend analysis can be developed.
1*
3 G
G O
e 1
e 9
9 e
9 e
12 BX214358.01-12
m
~
- 7..:. :,.
2
- - : Vs:.
'.A %r, ; *i~~y
,3
>. :.;+
3.
.. y g;m.
n<s... L. '....M..W.
APPENDIX..
r....
. ig.. y.4.:., :. --
.a.'
. ~...
.,' 4 h ' -
s.
v
. ~.
-f*..*..,.=...
s
- +.,..,gi.v -
., +.
.=u e.e.,..
t4*
i-
- I,...*
- k..
s
- $ g
.g 4
$.... s.,s s - e
.2
&,.*i'..;. : -~'. 6 : g%
.*%ges'
..g r...'.M -
.. 7y'f;.<:e..~ ;.w,e T,
,. s +. y o-s m:
s
@ ',{g ; w: c..w s.,
'.g.es.y~:
%.n
-- ;5:4.
m**-
f. f. rfse.
e t
s.
.Y
=
.<m wo-a m -- r Q:v.'rt:;mG.;- n #C. :
- 7.,.e..t.r.@
- &
... %..... w :
><.n<. 2.:
.;a.
e&&
~.
L*D,5 YM, 7'I a-Q.
N'=**
1.
F9&"*:
& c. & >Sc7-Q
.E hW=c u.
g st?
6.w.
-+ r FA s
t
~
@ sM
~
. s..
~
.ee T
$. 'i:**
7 e
..g.y t-f@g.en i
F $ 9 U.,a.& +'tg%.%:* *
~.62 f*?'*.~.":l.*'$..,%.5*)?G
,_.an *1;:
~%. '
li.*.'"?.:.-:# wr Q.'&'
f
.. " Q*..r$f,ET".-:
R. -
..,1-
.... '.... * =
- $.....,.e..==;..
Y.-
a.. m..,
- +*'s.**.*
- t
.'6.
- W
...r... s.
i
.' f~..
.t - R.,:4*
t-y u %: '.
2.
.a..
..< 7; A. 7p,
... a s
c, h.
- h.N
..e y.s.s.
s.~u. p.. -
- .s-c
..p
, - g.7.r.
>4
- Q'm.m.,13.:..
- J
%,. *. Q*. " y l-" n.p=:C'
..e
.a.W_r.6 4t.
r e
.v... v.s <
c;v p..,r<ww. :
g.c, p.a 'p**:"~ c0':/O V*-
..-s. r.3.,.x,wp,m..,
.. s
.s.,..
- s..
s eng:..
r 13
-12 1
Sspt. 16, 1983
~
TRIP NOTES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT POR UNDERPINNING MIDLAND PLANTS 1 & 2 i
CONSUMER POWER COMPANT
~
Aurust 24, 1983 Ir'ived at the jobsite at 11:00 a. m.
and proceeded to discuss with r
W. E. Kilker, Project Engineer, the proposed plan of activities associated with the Midland Plant.
The weekly reports, the 90-Day Report, and the Summary of Soils-Related Issues concerning the underpinning work were reviewed.
It was agreed that my activities vill be limited to a review of the effects of the documents associated with the underpinning operation and
~
their possible influence on the progress of the work.
The following is the proposed course of action:
~
1.
Determine the organizational s tructure of the Bechtel' Power Corporation for the underpinning operation.
2.
Identify all the. ' documents associated with change and nonconformance activities that would influence the work.
3.
Review the procedures that have been established for change and nonconformance documents.
4.
Establish the organizational relationship between. the Bechtel Ann Arbor Power Division and the resident engineering group at the plant site.
- 5.. Review a selected number of the change and nonconformance documents identified by Item 3 to determine the response time required for each type of document and to attempt to. categorize the documents in terms of the following group of problems:
a.
Materials b.
Welding e.
Tolerances d.
Construction i
e.
Information objective of t$be initial part, of the program is to determine if there l
The are organizational problems that are inhibiting the orderly progress of th'e underpinnitig effort.
The second part of the program consisting of the review of the documents is to provide a statistical analysis', to determine the response time, and to classify by problem identification.
This will assist in identifying whether or not the processing-of the change and nonconformance documents are influencing the progress of the work.
It was. agreed that Mr.
W.
E.
Kilker would introduce me t o' the various organizations associated with the underpinning effort.
=
,,,-,,y-.v,---.--v.,
--,.-.--,,--..m.
.a,~,-
-,,,.,~,-.r.,-.,.w---$.r
,e -
7 Szpt. 16, 1983 2.
I,.took the short 10 minute course required for a temporary access to confined spaces.
Mr. P. Barry provided an orientation tour of the planc site after which we attended the daily meeting which was held at 3:00.pd.
The following personnel were in attendance at the meeting:
J. Fischer Bechtel J. Gaydos E. Cviki Stone & Webster -
W. I. Kilker A. Scott J. Springer P. Barry W. C. Craig Parsons Brinckerhoff F. Balsamo Consumer Power Corporation -
D. Puhalla The basic purpose of the meeting is to inform the assessment team of current activities and to answer team questions about the underpinning effort.
None of the outstanding activities on the list were resolved.
A copy of the Independent Assessment Meeting dated August 23, 1983 is attached te these notes,.
After the meeting, Mr.
J.
Fisher introduced me to P. Vanderveer who is responsible for the Nonconformance Reports (NCR),
J.
Kelleher who is responsible for the Field Change Request (FCR) and M. Elendy who ' vill assist with information regarding procedures. I was also introduced to R.
Sevo of Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) and was advised that D. Horn of MPQAD had performed some trend analysis of NCRs.
1 Af ter the meeting, P. Barry conducted a tour into the east and vest shafts along the interface between the turbine building and the auxiliary building.
I was able to observe the underpinning operation in terms of the number of piers that have been completed to date, the setting of large grillage beams and excavation of Pier Kc-10.
The work is proceeding in a
, perfectly sym:netrical fashion from both the east and, vest ends of the auxiliary building.
The effort is largely being performed.by manual labor-and is currently operating on a 2-shif t basis.
We also toured th*e area of the tank farm containing the Berated Water Storage Tanks (BWST) where the addition of a reinforced concrete to the l
f existing ring' beams is in progress.
A mud mat had been placed and the majority of the Eilti bolts had been grouted into the existing ring beam.
1 BIl-1435801-18/63 4
Sapt.' 16, 1983 J-3, MPQAD had issued. an NCE for the cracks in the unreinforced nud mat and for small Hilti bolts that were used to attach supports for holding the larger bolts in place while they were being grouted.
' August 25, 1983 Reviewed a number of Be~chtel drawings relating to the design of the underpinning for the auxiliary building.
Attached to a number of these drawings were two d'ocuments, Field
- Change Request (FCR) and Drawing Change Notice (DCN).
The DCN originates out of the Ann Arbor Power Division.
(AAPD) while the FCRs originate at the jobsite in the Field
- Soils' Organization (FSO) office.'
The final design of the permanent vall system to support the auxiliary building and control tower is still in progress and this is tpfied by_ tho_rmeentAsne ofAawings and__ the large number of DCNs.
5'everal'~~ drawings. had so many DCNs and FCRs attachedle-4he back hat it m"ade it extremely difficult to effectively interpret the drawings.
g-obtained permanent photo badge from the Security Operations 3uilding.
~
Attended the daily 9:30 meeting and ~again reviewed the same list %f ' items that had been previously reviewed on August 24.
During the second and third shifts, the bell for Pier Ic-10 had been completed and it. was expected that during either the second or third shif t on August 25, that concrete placement would begin since the hold on concrete mixes. would be resolved.
Mr. A. Scott of Stone & Webster requested that the notes reflect that a vent must be added to the shear key above the grillage / beams as was
. suggested on August 24.
No significant progress was made concerning the other items on the agenda.
Visited the underpinning ' contractors velding shop and examined the cause for rejection of a number of structural velds performed in accordance with AWS' D1.1.
The practice is to inspect a lot of material and if any portion of the material has a hold tag placed on it, the entire lot is held until the NCR is resolved.
The welding viewed 'was the highest quality structural velding that I have ever seen and the cause for rejection was such things as the veld length being 1/16 of an inch too short, slightly undersized fillet velds, a crater in the surface of the fillet veld that was barely 1/64 of an inch in diameter and weld cracking at the root.
These inspections were performed by MPQAD.
These materials, which were inspected and rejected, were part of the temporary construction materials used to i
case the excavations for the construction of the temporary jacking piers that are used to support the turbine building and auxiliary buildi'ng during the construction of the underpinning permanent valls.
I toured the site area looking at the work being perfo med in association with the Service Water Pumphouse noting the posttensioning devices that have been installed at each corner of the building..
This operation is perhaps the most straightforward of the underpinning being performed at the site.
I also visited the tank farm and again looked at the concrete.
cracking' in the mud mat, the installation of the shear connectors, and the sandblasting of the existing concrete ring beam that supports the BWST.
BX1-1435801-18 /63 a
w- - -
p--
.--w
,y-,
v
.,-.w,.
,-,,,,--w-.,.---y----,---,a w-,,,,,-,e,,aw-s-v-==w-N--p* * - --
Sspt.'16, 1983 4
>l'.
I.'again entered the excavation area, both from the east and vest side of the underpinning operation for the auxiliary build'ing and examined in mor,e l
detail the work associated with the ' firs; set of grillage beams that will support the turbine and auxiliar)M'. building by bearing on piers placed just below the edge of the turbine building and which also rests on the edge of the containment mat.
I also entered the utilities access tunnel that is to be used to start the. Construction of the drif t for the underpinning of the.-
control tever.
This work' span is very confined and very limited.
The in-place steel pipe that forms,the shaft has. been reinforced with ring stiffeners in preparation of cutting away the' plate.
There is some reason to believe that the area behind this circular steel pipe may,' contain fill concrete making the exesvation extremely slow and costly.
~
The' NRC is on site to review the allegations of structural ' defects associated with the Diesel ~ Generator Building.
Visited th'e FSO and collecte'd organization charts and written procedures which define the responsibilities for the processing of FCBs and NCRs and
, define the responsibility of various organizational groups. -
Bechtel provided the following organization charts, copies of which are attached)
Project Engineering Organization Resident Engineering Soils Organization Project Soils Organization Field Soils Organization Copies of the following written procedures were provided:
Field Change Request / Field TPD-2.0 - Rev. 9, July 15,1983 Change Notice Procedure 7220-C Rev. 16, February 9,1983 - General Specification for Field Change Notice AADP/ PSP G-3.2-- Rev. 7, June 1, 1981 - Project Special Provision to Supersede G-3 of the Thermal Pover Organization Field Inspection Manual for the Midland Plant entitled
" Control o'f Nonconforming Items" MED-4.62 Rev. 21, November 3,1983 - Field Change Notice / Field Change Request Nonconformance Reports (NCRs)
MED-4.61 Rev. 9, October 8,1982 Bechtel provided copies of the last 100 NCRs and FCRs.
Mr. Kelleher agreed with my assessment that the Field Change Notice (FCN) is not a significant change document.
I also met with the Assistant Resident Project Engineer, Mr. E. Cviki and requested copies of written procedures that define his responsibilites and
'BIl-1,435801-18 /63
Szpt. 16, 1983 s.
re'lationship to the AAPD.
Mr. Cviki indicated that he did not believe the Specification Change Notice (SCN), a document which is issued by the AAPD and the Drawing Change Notice (DCN) were change documents that had influenced progress.
He did indicate that procedural cha6ges have been made that now require Bechtel to update each drawing after five DCNs or a drawing.
A meeting was scheduled for FCRs have been issued against August 26 to discuss the relationship between the Resident Project Engineer and AAPD and to discuss a number of related items with Mr. J. Darby who is th's Rasident Structural Engineer.
' he end of the day,. it was determined that 3echtel would be unable to At t
place concrete for Pier Ic-10 due to unresolved quality problems.
w hiGal observatWsbased on a day and a half at the jobsite is that the operating organization and the number of change documents associated
'Ms work, is extremely comple Nis-vorkMp~eno be about indic W 6 gge senTaisle eveW'tTe currhel network "tG the project is on schedule.
The work of underpinning the auxiliary building is very time-consuming and labor intensive.
There appears'to be a constant array of quality problems that impede the orderly progress of the work.
The schedule and sequencing of the performance of.the work is such that Step C cannot be started until Step B is completed, if this is the way in which the work was sequenced.
The imposition of Q Category to all
. complicates this
. temporary construction work and sequencing f Auer problem.
It is very easy to be overly judgmental of he unTehii~nning work b'eing performed at Midland without. totally appreciating the enormous importance of quality
- control, schedule commitments, and capital investments that are involved with the execution of this work.
Aurust 26, 1983 Met with E. Cviki of Bechtel to discuss the DCN system and to obtain copies of vricten procedures that define the relationship of the PSO Resident Engineer to Project Engineering at AAPD.. Mr. Cviki provided copies of the following documents:
PEP 2.14. 9, Rev. 1 Resident Structural Engineer for Remedial Soils Activity I
PEP 2.14.1 -
Resident Engineer for Midland Discussed with Mr.. Cviki the significance of the DCN to the progress of the work.
As indicated on August 25, this document is originated by AAPD and to, dace has had very little impact. on, the progress of the work.
It would be impossible to trace such an influence since there is no ' recording procedure - that would provide this type of information.
The" only way that this information could be collected is through personal recollection of the people directly involved with the work.
It is imp ort' ant to note that the design of ttt underpinning, operation is still in progress and that the design changes, using the DCN system, is. being received at the, jobsite.
The organization chart for project engineering was reviewed and 'Mr Cvikl provided some clarification of the various reporting responsibilities.
I BIl-1435801-18/63 o
~
Sspt. *16; 1983
.6.
Mz'. J. Darby reports technically to Mr.
- 3. Dhar an'd adminis tratively to Mr. Cvikl.
Mr. Cviki reports directly to Mr. N. Svanberg.
Mr. Svanberg is the Project-Engineer for the Project Soils Organization and reports to the overall project engineer for the plant.
Mr. Cvikl. also indicated that the FSO must interface with the Resident Engineering Organization, ubich is across the site, and hand 1'es all of the.
- balance of plant work.'
It can, therefore, be concluded that the engineering operation is extremely complex involving the AAPD, the total plant
- project, the Project Soils Organization,"
the.Tield Soils Organization, two resident engineering organizations, and two field engineering organizations.
This does not include the other engineering subcontractors.
Mr. Cviki also indicated that the FSO is influenced by the actions of the.
general construction organization at the jobsite and depends on this inspection, testing, detection of rebar, organization for. such things as support with regard to welding in,spection and other unique support services.
In effect, they nesst be scheduled and/or compete with other project construction needs.
r My schedule for the ' continuation of this work with the independent assersment team is as follows:
1.
Escurn to the Midland Plant site on August 30, 1983 and remain through to September 2.
2.
Meet with MPQAD to ' collect information concerning the NCR trendi q; studies 'that may have been performed.
3.
Evaluate, classify, and determine response times for 100 of the most recent FCRs and NCRs.
4..
Prepare a preliminary assessment for review by the. Project Manager.
5.
During the week of September 11, determine if additional evaluation and further site visits are required prior to preparing the final report.
W. C. Craig t
Senior Structural Engineer
(
I BX1-1435801-18 /63 i
t
.Indapandant Ass 2csosnt of @bserpanningl
~
- *Hidland Plant Units 1 &* 2
- Conhumara Pewar Coop ny Help'at Midland Site Location Midland. Michigan August 23, 1983 Present Tor:
Consumers Power Bechtel MPOAD Stone & Webster G.
Murray J'.
Fisher R.
Sevo A.
Scott J.
Gaydos W.
Kilker J.. Schaub E.
Cviki B.
Helsinger J.
Springer Parsons T.
Balsamo Purpose Tais meeting is held each day to discuss items regarding the Independent Soils Assessment at the Midland Plant. Units 1 & 2.
Discussion Item 49 Impact of. Welding enconformance on E/VS Grillage Installation..
J.
Fisher reported that on the drop pit column cap beam a non-qualified weld
~
had been installed. The Contractor is coordinsting the issuance.of a Conditional Release with CPCo to allow the work to proceed while the velding issue is resolved.
G.
Murray said CPCo will approve the use of the Conditional Release only in situations where no procedural changes are anticipated.
J.
Fisher replied that this case will not invoke procedural changes. J.
Sc'haub recommended FSO evaluate if similiar situations exist for other weld sizes.
(
O. PEN ITEM
)
Item '49 Grillage Stabilizer Plate Hole Tolerances.
A.
Scott questioned if the stabilizer plates were unique fro = the other J.
Tisher will respond.
grillage levelin's plates in ter=s'of hole tolerances.
( OPEN ITEM )
Ite= 49 QC Coverage of Proposed Grouting Activity.
A.
Scott questioned if QC would be able to support the grouting activity proposed for the west access shaft waler pit.
R.
Sevo explained that the inspection of this grouting could be covered under the existing PQCI but c
inspection of CT pier grouting required retraining to a revised PQCI. (CLOSED i
ITEM )
E/VS Grillage Lower Bearing Plates / Cap 3eae Fit-up.
Item 89-11 Scott noted that the bearing plates resting on the cap beams do not bear A.
unifor=1y.. E.
Cvikl will review the requirement..( OPEN ITEM )
i I
I t
1
,~~
-.e El 1.
li'
- g 6 vsl,5s(s l11
.Ef g 5
{
H [g e t {3 o 5te q,
[.
Y g, gA hI 3
i t T
L"
~
lw I
5V Q 42
.y F
iT wJ,:<4.;.I.2.
E s i o P _s.__l,=Ei.c. ::sa 3 s s
kg a vi n v n!
la 5
rs e s.
=
- i.
5 l-.t P._* L d +*
- :: 2 r
i.
__________________A
._____a lg 1-I d'
5
.i d5 i.l G.
g
.g l
'i l
.1 d
i 8
23 g lT ri P-r-
l P5 Id5a..g,,]{y2{~
a 1'i E-L::
.a u.
i
-!.!! + 3 f
9I U
.i s '.fIlLi jiib!a.j!l13l t
u
- s. I m.
M
'8
[
b 5
I S f
h--
s,.s (aa g
"i i.aEmLE 3
i
- h 0.)l;i -
i 3
[D I,1 j E - b
'g E i
i r"
e I. _. _ _i
- u
_____..__.__ ___ w f:
l i. ! 5.
v:
,E el *i 55 g
s.s E.
h.2 !2 3
e 2
1
- .r s.=
- ! c.
- f. j 1
Li u : --... _
l'E"
' 'h w
- E"
_ r,l"_ q g*
gg 69p-" r 5
r - -@ E:
I;:
[
7-r--
v T
I 5:
i p*
,b kl.
5 e a r
1, l '
E I.i.,1 F E.
1r 4 i
IL
-l u
^. -3.;
Ni-',lr{,r.T Eg:r E
(
' i t I ;;g E :t ;
. :._-[2 5 15.7 r
rr T i
r g-e 5 at (
i i
a
=
'.5 i s
i t s.
F.Wr 1 n.
c a!.
s 8
m 7 ;'
r :-
p* I.
Ot '* *t
' M" !
5(
fI
' =t
'. ti gg i
t t
ii r M'h E.5-g d !!.. $ I. E i.
m.
c r:. f
, 2 b,- [s
+
' 1'E T
$5 1: O d
- s.5
!t
.~T.d.
1 c
a e
%f m.
EJE.
Ei E.
w' I 4
d r"".""
$...l:. i r p'il Z
f-"
g
+
k.i,eulil?j:j-)Mg,.4:.2.i!t.rJE!.i.l's!1bi!
--g m
g
- a Lt.
_8 h
o
.--,-.-----_----s-.---.-,,-,.-..-
.-.,-,,,.------I
},-
3!
dI !
I,tl{} ll { ll l l-l ' ~ ,I'!j.'Il, I d i i 'l 1 L- ,l.: a i .II fi l l[ : {[ ] jHl {r i [ e j' !,,li : l~}, ; { { i 1 jf1..i lI ,1 il - 1 gk I..j l i tI. ! L 1.l l l I t !!lg.lI{llldtd,i;Ilt'.. ..l! {li 1 i illl I"- ;I[l} -!! !-il i 15 1 I, h[
- [i !
3: I' I' II i1 11 - '11~ "1 I*. :- H-15I ~ 11 HI Q. d 1 jili i ! Li-i i.-i.- i =s - Il-] ,,t sg j 1 } [2I d.g.1 Y -] !,I (( ': 1 pl . ggg I!
- i i
li [ l I1 !i i-1.l p[l I"tI t,! r g.e i_ I* ' 1 ( IQ s j 3 I I 6 il i 11! 5l.[ 11I li i i ti. 53 i fi - ;i - t. a-I" - I;u I .i,t} 11 - g; - Li. }l. 'l i: ir I Ii i .,..}II-.___i!, l*L.' 1 I. 1{: t}: i l-l- si 1 j} * =i: s i 1. 11!--1*1 .l-'I. 1 I.g. :-
- I r I!
T1 1 ) 5
- l r
i.Il,LJr!l.i! - l : 11 In 11. l1;,
- it!
11 !{ il. IL !)l}!.lilli 11 't,!I i':u w! L
f'.. . g.%. 3 g a p. 3 a l 4'48 11,1 id l I i =g=i- -l ' o , al r;[ 1 h t 253'9g - i o x t: g 5 } = f j - 4e -h % s l <lj ,;11] 1: i t a I,P -]
- l-f
.= 1.., A< .r - !!; ] , Ig. I!n}e i GN j 111 ".- g w
- lii,
~ = c c g,- I j .~
- r i
j 3 { g 3 3 i, I ~, k l h' h }l n- !g.jilj I ~ 3, j - % lg ! f'[ J 71 @1 ** I, }n$ ' i J l 1 :" ' g:.I 1 'l "- 2 [ i < ', '..I {,, { 1 s il e, E j~ 11 'l i .I ,o I .. '!). ?? I I h ~ = c QE l1 'l I d
- 13 L--g I,
i 1 F gmi}alil>-i j u 55 l"li g' a g{, h, i 3:{3 ilf h:' "'s,["F' E i I II 4 I i l g!121<1.tfla,I. !! c ': 6 g-j e 5.- i-g c[ <. i i p ;s I i -l' ' ' ' j! m ?, f ll 1- - ri i i =u t=*g1 n,.; 1;.: I s. i i i= i g .i 1 I. ss g-g i
- !:p-1 1111 1
- 3 I
i i!! gsg,!! c, I I i D! iik lil! Mh i pi.! i i
- et1l 11._!
g g: .it 51.; i- ;-
.'X; [l. et : s_ _ 5 g a 8 3 e., si g8 5e a S I !E ,5 8
- t 55 u
= un y f g g_ E e es mz at g i =. i c,a.,s, I f .t C. I g-s si se og 3 r u E .l -B-a l s.I
- a. s.
g s!. g l 8_a_. ~ 8_- s. i .n .B" 1 ~ E.. B B mI s a .E. ,s..i !gsE .: r mar I. oy e.a 1.. C 8 r 1-lg i l. e ~
- ,.... a s = s n 5..
s ! e I s., E "6 5 ag_3_.sgr.lElssm-.e..s.55. s nl.s -mu s as s -8s
- =s e
=. =_ l a_ I I,",l
- E d
d !!5 ; 4 /J 4 4.i d.i d.: 4 4 t E. E l 2 I M,R_ S_ EI -l a l .E E : >E l 55 [. J E-D. El I x s_E._ E "i 5 ijb 1 f s E E N U E S II R .EE. E 5 s Dg.ugrias. i. e s = ss ,:g a g ow u. g g d'.: 4 4 d d d d. J pgy E ggg a 3 USE 4 WE5 -w 1 5? L j tt I ~ e r. z h a g .E Eb , "E _g -= 1 M" tt B 1 5j E. E. a 5 t R E t', E . WEB 5g: sk g-ga. 1 M 5,. -t . E.. t.i 8 15 4 ) w. t"!c EI "f 5 E -t ( 25 ? c 9 e e l l -, .-- - ~,__. m
a r-TRIP NOTES J.O. No. 14358 l INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT TOR UNDERPINNING Septembe r 26, 19'83 NIDLAND PLANT - UNns 1 AND 2 CONSIMERS POWER COMPANY August 30, 1983 ' Attended,the daily meeting on the underpinning ef fort. The concrete for pier.. j Kc10 had not been place'd. The bell had been excavated and shored. The mud mat
- I had been placed and reinforcing steel installation was complete.
" Af ter the daily. meeting we reviewed the design of the grillage beams and discussed the problem of a scratch on the spherical bearings This 'problan was being reviewed with the bearing vendo.r 'and the final resolution was to i, ac. cept the bearings as satis factory. ~ Centismed die eussion with Messrs. E. Cviki and J. Darby concerning the Resi, dent Engineering organization and its relationship to Ann Arbor Power Divi-sion.(AAPD).. Bechtel indicated that the resident dis cipline engineering. group which is an onsite extension of the AAPD Project Engineering Group can only approve items that do not affect ' design calculations. Aftei the design for thewnderpinning has been finalized, the calculations vill be ' transmitted to the ~)obsite and additional onsite resident engineering personnel vill be added to provide support to the. ongoing construction effort. It is expected that the first of these calculations covering the Borsted Water S torage Tank (BUST) and the Service Water Pump' S tructure (SWPS) vill be ' transmitted to the jobsite'. about October 1, 1983. We also discussed the relationship of the underpinning Contract Manager to both the Field Engineering group and the Resident Engineering group. It was suggested that certain decisions could have contract cost implications and therefore the resol 6tions of items. such as acceptability of materials or' decisions to scrap or rework an item might involve contract management in the decision ' making process. The Resident Engineering group indicated that the Field Engineering makes the decision on whether or not the resolution of a problem is through the scraping and refabrication of an item or reworking a given item until it is acceptable. Such items could. be covered both by a-Tield Change Request (TCR) or a Nonconformance Report (N CR). Completed the review and editing of the trip notes for August 24, through Augu st 27, 1983. August 31, 1983 Began the review of the package of the latest FCRs obtained from the Field Soils Organization. The response time for an FCR is de fined as the duration from the date of initiation to the date of interim approval 'since this is the point at which the FCR is released for im plem en ta tion. The. classification ' i system vill be developed as the FCRs are ' reviewed, but in general the initial concept is to consider the following broad categories: 1. C on s t ru c tion-whi ch will include a broad s pec trum of problems relating to existing site cond itions and their in fluenc e on th e work. i EX214358.06-11 I j _a
0 f_,s*- l e. 2. Weldi'nt-as it pertains both to fabricatica and construction l activities. V. e 3. Tolerances-as. it, pertains both to fabrication and construction activities. 4. Materials-as it re late's to substitutions, availability, or other cond itions. 5. Hilti Bolts-as "it relates to size, location, and installation. i l 6. Testing-as it relates to both shop and field work. 7. Fabrication-as it relates to shop vo'rk. The evaluation vill determine the percentage of FCRs in each of the above categories and the mean response time vill be computed. Attended the Engineering-Construction meeting at 10:00 a.m. This meeting is 4 attended by AAPD Project Engineering, Resident En'gineering, Field Engineering, MPQAD, and the Site Management Of fice. This meeting consists of a reviev 'of a list of action items, review of critical 'FCRs, teview of critical NCRs, a review of the status of vendor submittals and a review of QAP Task Force items. A discussion was held concerning the holds on the Hanson Engineering drawings for piers C -3 and C -10. These drawings were ' submitted as part of.a work t t package to Consumer Power for review and had to be withdrawn when the holds Many of the j ackst' nds still have' holds on them and Field were discovered. a Engineering requested that every,ef fort be made to release. these holds. It was ind'icated that an evaluation of the lessons learned on the installation of the grillage beams and their design for future work is in progress. This evaluation vill be presented during the week of September 5,1983. There was a discussion between Field Engineering and Projec't Engineering to ~ establish a method to review specifications and/or associated work procedures to bett'er determine what m'us t be ins pec ted. An earlier review which was performed by two independent groups within.Bechtel basically resulted in the same conclusions concerning the preparation of work procedures. It was agreed that the TSO vould proceed to develop a plan for the implementation of this activity and submit it to Consumer Power for consideration. It was pointed out that this review would require the participation of Project Engineering. The f ollowing firms are also providing designs and drawings for the underpinn-ing effort: Hanson Engineering, Inc. ~ Spencer White & Prentis. Inc. Mueser, Rutledge, Johnston and des imone Dis cussed with both the Tield Engineering and Resident Engineering why so many' of the FCRs which I had obtained f or review purposes did not 'contain final approval signature of the Project Engineer. I was assured that I had the l g 2 3X214358. 06-11 =.~ -.--
/ to.* s r' e > currcat cud valid copies cf the FCRs..'I centinuad my evaluatien of ths FCRs and completed about 50 percent of the review of these documents. i l Toured the site looking at the progress of the underpinning effort for t,he SWPS, the repairs to the, ring beams on the BWST and the completed concrete work on pier Kc10 under the turbine building. I also looked at the work associated with, replacing the grillage beams between the containment mat and pier E8., September 1, 1983 Completed the review of 62 FCRs. The overall' mean response time is 2.1 days. However, if three of the FCRs with the longest response times, mainly 16,13, and 12 days are not included in the calculated mean, the mean response time th.en becomes 1.5-days. This indicates that the document is being processed efficiently and the review indicates also that the document is being used in a meaningful manner. Out of the ~ 62 FCRs reviewed only two were not accepted., only 8 of,the 62 FCRs contained final approval, of the Project Engineer. - Attended the daiiy meeting and was advised that pier Kc10 had been poured and . that an NCR had been filed against the last portion of the pour'around the anchor bolts because the slump of the concrete prior to the addition of the~ ~ plasticizer was less than 3 inches plus or minus 1 inch.. 4,. This pour continued because of the criticality of not having a cold joint close to the bottom of the anchor bolt embedment. Raquested copies of the documenta' tion from AAPD which defines the responsi-bilities of the FSO Resident Project Engineer and the Resident Structural Engine r. I was advised that this information is contained on Bechtel inter-i office memorandums and it is company policy not to release information in t'his form. However, I was permitted to review the documents. For the Resid'ent
- Structural Engineer authority to approve to FCRs covers such items as minor changes to reinforcing steel,.embedments, tackwelds, fabrication, minor veld
- details, driftsets, vender fabrication, construction procedures and instrumentation dravings.
Any change requests which affect the det~ ailed design and involve review or alteration of existing calculations or.the prepa-ration of new calculations must be approved by AAPO. i The Resident Project Engineer is authorized to approve all NCRs and,FCRs which. the resident discipline engineering group has prepared dispositions for. I again requested an explanation as to why so many of the FCRs were not signed in the final approval block by the Project Engineer or his designee. I was advised that the signature hadinot been included in the TCRs because they had not been s'ubmittid_fo i ature. -v x I was also advised that in confirming my previous understanding, TCRs would b'ex incorporated onto the design drawings when more than five had accumulated I against an individ6a1 drawing. However, no written procedure has been issued to confirm _this action. N y x_ v While I was assured that the Project Engineer's signature was not important since the work could proceed on an interim approval basis', I consider it BX214358.06-11 3
~ g - p i. * 't ' s important - from. a quality sta ndpoint that the TCRs contain the Project Engineers signature and that this review be completed as promptly as possible following the interim review. I consider it important that the f ollowing events occur: 1. All FCRs promptly receive the review and approval by the Project Engineer or his onsite designet. 2. That the design drawings be updated for the criteriaMJive or more ~ TCRs against a single drawing. The matter of drawing legibility is su important qualit@at C Reviewed a Constsner Power Company letter dated July 19, 1983, concerning a quality assurance trend analysis for NCRs and a document ~ undated entitled "5catus Remedial S oils Ins pec tion" which provided an assessment of "the closure time for NCRs. These documents may assist in, the review of the ~ response time for the most recently issued NCE. As a result of my two visits to the Midlaind Plant site, there are two major activities that should be implemented and will improve the overall quality of the work by reducing the time it takes to complete the construction of the piers and apply the jacking loads. These conclusions.are as follows: i 1. To the extent possible maxistan engineering support should be provided at the jobsite. The design calculation's, including ' those prepared by the consultants, should be transferred to the jobsite with appropria te engineering and desi,gn support as soon as possible. 2. Existing construction procedures and all future procedures which vill be developed should define the necessary levels of inspection consistent with the re quirements of the s pecifications. Unnecessary levels of inspection do not improve the quality of th work but do impede progress. An. example of such an unnecessary inspection is the inspection performed on the tack welding which attaches nuts to the inside of the steel tube valers used for I lagging of pier shaft excava ti ons. Welds which are impor tan t to l strength should be ins pec ted. - Those which have no principal ] s trength requirements should not be inspected. This effort vill have to include the participation of AAPD Project Engineering and may, f or cons istency purposes, require revisions to the existin s pecifi ca tions. September 2. 1983 Ac t'e nd ed the daily meeting at 8:00 am. Pier Kc3 had been excavated and it is expected the concrete vill be plac ed on September 3. - MPQAD a nd th e i ind epend ent assessment team were advised that the super plasticizer concrete i mix would not be u s ed. The problem regarding this mix has to do with the i minimum sitznp limit bo th a t the cruck and at the point of-delivery. Until these technical issues with t'he mix are resch ed,'a regular concrete mix vill I be used and 3 days will be re quired 'be f ore the pier obtains. suf ficient i strength for the application of the jacking loads. 4 o BX214358.06-11 4
... =. r* 16. i c Two NCRs were issued on the concrete, placement for Ke10. The first NCR was. f9r a faulty thermometer to measure concrete temperatures being used by US
- *Tes ting.
The second NCR was written against the concrete concerning the minimum slump at the point of delivery to the concrete pump. Both of these. NCRs are expected to be successfully resolved. i Met with Mr. S.. DiPillo of MPQAD to discuss what information is egrrently available relative to trend and analysis of NCRs. I was given by MPQAD the Phase III Quality Trend, Graph for ' Remedial Soils Charts R, R1 through R8
- updated through June 1983. MPQAD advised that th'ey have no permanent tracking system that either ' relates NCRs to manhour of' work or some other equally on a regular basis is made acceptable yard stick and that no analysis concerning the response time for NCRs. They indicated that they are not aware of any formal priority system, but are advised by Bechtel on a case-by-case basis which NCRs are criti' cal in terms of the review of the responses. MPQ&D indicated that a one time analysis for response times to NCRs had been prepared, and I acknowledged that I had a copy of this particular study along.
with the Phase III Quality Trend Graphs for. Charts R through 17 updated through May 1983. Mr. DiPillo advised that the occurrence rates that show on the ' quality trend graphs are not the number of NCRs issued but thq number of L. ' parts, pieces or items.that are affected by the NCRs issued. r-The quality trend graph provides both information concerning the total number of deficiencies, as well as individual graphs for the following classifica-tions: 1 - Total Number of Deficiencies R.1 - Incomplete R2 - Tolerances Exceeded 13 - Not per Drsving/ Specification R4 - Workmanship R5 - Procedural Problems R7 - Purchased Equipment R8 - Miscellaneous The grillage beams are being placed into their final location. This is the first set of grillage beams which run from pier E8 to th,e containment mat and irill support both a portion of the turbine building and two support points under the Auxiliary Building. Af ter the daily meeting 1 met with Mr. E.,Cviki and reques ted.th&c he confirm my understanding.during the Engineering-Construction meeting that the 5 3x214358.06-11
3 s:. ; e v;ricus subcontrceting enginsering firms performing' dssign vsrk en ths e.. ,,upderpinning vill deliver their computations to the jobsits and provide the ~ necessary engineering support during the construction phase. ~ W. C. Craig b Senior Structural Engineer. I i o 6 3X214358.06 21 ~ my ,,..--..v.,-.-...-..c.-
Consumers Power Co YanY Executive Atmager Midimd Project Office Generet offices: 1945 West Parr.all Road, Jackson, MI 49201 e (517) 788-0774 ffpJ r.C IP/ L ';T/-FF ).llG'10$l V?W([ October 24, 1983 VH/s Q._ 1, _C_ L. ;__.L I V 0 Mr J J Harrison U Midland Project Section I1 ~ .C le 4:QW U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission i I Region III R M dukf @5 799 Roosevelt Road avd gi Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Midland Energy Center CWO7020 Auxiliary Building Underpinning NRC Audit of September 14-15, 1983 and Subsequent Discussions File: 0485.16 UFI: 42*05*22*04 Serial: CSC-6960 12*32 This letter summarizes the discussions during the subject audit. It also includes the applicants' responses to the open items resulting from the subject audit and the subsequent discussions. Audit During the NRC audit of September 14-15, 1983, the capacity of the Auxiliary Building for a soil modulus of 1500 ksf and differential settlement of one-half inch was reviewed and it was concluded that the building is structurally adequate. g g (~ During this audit, presentations were made and exhibits provided to the NRC. These exhibits are included as Attachment 1. Also, updated settlement plots of the Diesel Generator Building were provided and are included as. The NRC also reviewed the design and details of the slab fix at Elevativu 659 feet. Consumers will provide the final drawings of this fix as a work package to NRC Region III prior to implementation of this work. Included in the audit were four additional points of discussion. These points and their responses are listed below. 1. Building stresses after lock-off of the permanent wall with regard to residual stresses and upward building movements during underpinning. Response: Attachment 3 provides response and concludes that the i assumptions made, regarding existing stress, in the analytical models are justified and the calculated stresses resulting from these models are reasonable. Shm ,NOV 4 983
1 .s Mr J J Harrison October 24, 1983 Page 2 12. Request for an alteration to the soil consolidation acceptance criteria 'for the permanent underpinning wall included in our letter of June 9, 1983. Response: This request is withdrawn, the criteria will be as referenced in SSER Section 3.8.3.1, Pages 3-9. 1 i 3. Results of a local stress analysis of the EPA / Control Tower connection at Elevation 704. Response: The connection at Elevation 704 is being reviewed. The results of this review will be submitted to the NRC before removal of the temporary prestressing strands in the EPA. l 4. Long term settlement values as defined in the previously submitted Technical Specifications. Response: These values are being reviewed and if necessary revised values will be submitted to the NRC by revision to the Technical Sp,ecifications. Subsequent Discussion 1. Approximately how much upward movement of the existing structure (EPA and ] Control Tower) will be allowed during jacking operations? 2. How was the value (and conditions related to value) in Answer No. 1 determined? Response to Questions 1 and 2 is provided in Attachment 4 wherein it is concluded that the structure will be allowed to move upward as necessary to accommodate the d'esign jacking w rdGYin'g Iemporary'~ underpinning for ~ EPA and the initial support piers for the Control Tower. 3. In what sequence will the remaining underpinning and associated jacking work be performed? Response: The sequence for jacking (temporary and permanent) is consistent with the SSER (Appendix I) except that during the initial jacking of Control Tower piers, CT 3/10 will be completed prior to CT 2/11. This information was provided to the NRC in the March 7-8, 1983, telephone conversation regarding access from the UAT. 4. When initial jacking of an independent pier or pier / grillage system is performed, what evaluations are made if AUM occurs? Response: Attachment 5 provides this response and shows that an adequate evaluation of the structure is performed prior to proceeding with further q ggg k To y U") . _. _ _. _ - - ~ _. _.,
y ( , d.. j/. y g,b>, ( - y' -- g[, 3 .g
- .t (j-c q(
g ...) - Mr J J Harrison N, '/ > ! 9 -- October 24, 1983 ( ' ( y,' i g h{ j - Page 3 i -) -t
- 5. ' Provide an explanation for jacking 160% oY the' specified load into the grillage at 8, as the reserve capacity load.
. l~ Response: Sometime after jacking. grillage at Pier 8, excavation for the grillage at/ Pier 5 will bl9 performed. 1Tne loss of building support due to thie excruition can result in additional load being transferred passively .to the drillage at 8. This additional load can cause additional building movement due'to pier settlement, grillage deflection, etc..In order to minimize this building moviw,pt, a reserve capacity load (RCL) in 1 incredent's of 5% ditide jacked,into 'the, grillage at 8 prior to excavation for grillage at 5. ?Ihe load which is based on estimated loss of building support at 5 has been calculated to result'in an increase in the load of 50% of the specified load (S.L.) at grillage 8. The S.L.' is the design .forcedefinedinParagraph6.3.4bhfSpecification7220-C-195. The building has ! en checked for, and found to be adequate, for 160% S.L. l1.e., the total lead in grillage at 8 when the grillage 5 area is undermined. '\\' - 7t i y's q x Similarly a RCL will be jacked into t h grillage at 5 before excavation for the grillagetat 2. At this time tha load at the grillage 8 will be maintained at 160% S.L'. Whilel1oading'the grillage at 2, the loads at grillages 5 and 8 are reduced 'o the S.L. t 6. For grillage jacking et Tier 8, why was the 24 hour acceptance criteria l changed to 125% of'specified load instead of 110% of specified load. l 1 + i Response: Since it is planned to go to RCL', which is higher than 110% l S.L.. it was considere' d more con.rervative and prudent to satisfy the 24 hour acceptance criteria at 125% S.L., instead of reducing the load to i 110% S.L. T'io 24 hotir, criteria will be again met when the RCL is jacked, s, +s i 1 g ' r ) >\\ 1 I /jiiA TA Mooney i Executive Manager Midland Project Office 4 y \\ JAM /nj hI i p ~' / ( ( g .l l 'd' ) MEC/D r q' x y ; es,, m r g, t ;e i T. l " '. h~ !S, 2. .T e., ,j L ..h h t $s ] ?'
O 0' h ATTAONENT #1 AUDIT EXHIBITS i F l 1 i ) 3 h i.
SUM 9JY T SOILS IRTA FOR AUKILIAIN HJILDIN3 LNIERPIMEIG ANMXSES EPA CINFIOL 'KMER WLIN AUX. After Unit After Unit After . Unit 'Ibtal 'ockoff soil Total Inckoff Soil Icckoff-Soil E Settl. Settl. Spring E Settl. Settl. Spring Settl.. Case (KSF) (IN) (IN) (ICF) (KSF) (IN) (IN) (ICF) (IN) ' Spring (ICF) h nts I 3000 0.6 0.2 410 3000 0.9 0.3 350 0.1 1160 Based on Bechtel Testimony II 1333 1.35 0.45 180 2000 1.35 0.45 240 0.2: 580 NRC III 857 2.1 0.7 128 1286 2.1 0.7 175 r.2 580 0.5 inch differential a I 8 P, l3 .}}