ML20127H325
| ML20127H325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1984 |
| From: | Vorse J, William Ward, Williamson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127H278 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-398 2-83-009, 2-83-9, NUDOCS 9301220289 | |
| Download: ML20127H325 (42) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-
, p ' N y v e. s iIt siails /
4 f.
/* . NUCll AR Rf GULA10RY COMMISSION
-' < , i
, ( l oe rici os i.,vi suc Atioss niio or nct as c'cs si 3 g "y'4,,
b#g [t ses v Amiin 5,ai 1 s uit aix
...../ AT L A s1 A 6(ok CI A LE)
DATE: J A', 2 C U PEPORT Of !_NVESTIGATION TITLE: MI55155]PP! POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY GLASD GULF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FAILURE 10 REPORT CONSTRUCTION DEflClENCIES AhD P0551BLE FAL51FICAll0N Of REQUIRED CONSTEUCTION - DOCUMENTATION SUF PL LMLNik Dh: 50 - 41 f) CASE NJ" EEL: 2 P3 009 (ChTLO. OFFICE: 01:k:} STAILS: CLOSED RE i C; ~ ;',; ' c r : g . g;;;;; PE R IOD C r l'a E 5116tsT 10',: August 4. - Oc'oter 11, 19e3
- j. ,
~
F E rc . ' ,5 l', 51 t GliO; - , ecv 6 E. L . Williansor:, lovestigatcr Of fice of Investigations field Of fice, Region 11 P ARi l( ! P A* ! NS F! s 50',',[ L : L. L. Robinson, }rsestigatcr Of fice of Iraestigations field Of fice, Region !! REVIEWED SY: _ _, Nun 4_ _ _ __ Jarses Y. Vorse, Director Of fice of Irnestigations field Of fice, Region !!
. g a w
ia x :':l: . , c . o . J n d d r ulic:2
> ,. t, e :;\ 31%
.. f.$.0 - --
b'"s e- /u# 4 OI A _. - q/ m 9301220289 920903 PDR FOIA SCHLEIF92-398 PDR gg
,f
[/
_> _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _. .~ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . -. _ _ _ _ -
' ' JAN 0 01554 ,
l
?
s e
- c.,
,v # -- } l
$ tuk .' f2td
. r '
-- l 1..w Willian . Ward, Director /
Divisinn of Field Operations Of3.ngnve s
# ts t4.fw Roger for y , Deputy Directo I
Office 4 nvestiga*' ns
/ , -
APPRNED BY: _, [- --__f' . . -.-. . . .. _. F,A . Hayes, Directo Office of Investigat ons , t (
s TAFLE OF CCSTENTS PAGE NO, 1 Sumary
]
Purpose of Investigation 2
Background
Feview of NRC Regulations, licensee Requirec.ents. Operating 5 Instructions and Technical Specifications 7 Description of Stardby Service Water Cooling Tc er Basin g Review of Regicn il !;ecial Inspection Pcvie,< of Periment Logs 3rd R o r<15
}]
!,tervicw of I,fff L.,
)4
. 16 Intervice of Jack A. TAfLOR 13 Interv'cw of Willia
- Ed.nrd FA ns
?0 Interrew of Te rry Elgin YlLLER
- r 21 Interview of ' : rge L. MCCL AIN 73
' n t e . d c ., : ( .*'i'tr. J. :CtLE 25 Irter<iew of M ert A. LANG r
26 Interview of re ir.eth (L LRK
;o Intervb of Stea tri K!ErtR 3C Conter.t ith techtel Persenre1 Office 3} ,
Inten'cw of Parlan L. LGS 33 QMact with !enf or Resident 165pector 34 Status of tr.m tigation 35 fabibits (p , 7 C f? n W
mWW es i t 4 e 1 4 s l' SUPJiARY n ' . . .
.__-.___.m -._.___. __ ____m -_.- ,_
1 l I I 1 i Surrar" On June 28, 1983, an alleger reported to tre Pegion !!, U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Corcission (hRC) Investigation / Allegation Coordination Staff, that in the , surtter of 1976, while working in the Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basin (SSWB), more comonly kncwn as the " heat sink", at Mississippi Pcwer and light Ccepany's (MP&L) Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, Port Gibson, Mississippi, for the ^ Bechtel Power Corporation, he discovered and reported to his supervisor that additional horizontal reinforcing steel (rebar) was missing from a section of an esterior wall, at the intersection of the interior and exterior wall, prior to the placement of concrete. The alleger was interviewed by Eegion 11 Thysical Security and Civil Engineering personnel and provided detailed inforration regarding the incident as well as - verifyirg the areas of concern through availatie blueprints and dr3wirgs. The alleger provided the oire of his tupervisor, an er'gineer and a Co-worker that had kncwledge of the incident. The alleger stated that the rebar in Chestion was sutisequently added to the wall prior to the cercrete placerent, but his supervisor, when questioned by the alleger, indicated that this additional retsar was not placed in any of the previcus wall pours at the interior exterior wall intersections, but agreed that it was present on the coristructicn drawing. ! A iechnical-revie< of the incident was conducted by Regicn 11 Civil Engineering rersonnel, inis -included a-review of all pertinent designs, records, construc-tion drawings, Slueprints and quality assurance /contrci procdures. The engineering review and analysis concluded that if the additional hori:cntal number 10, rebar was not in the junction of the interior and exterior walls the structural integrity of the 5%9 cooling tewer was r.aintained since _all stresses l were within (ode allow ible values.
- On July 29. 1983, representatives of MP&L and Bechtel disclosed to'the Region.
II, hRC staff that both destructive and nordestructive testing bad been conducted i
- on the upper walls of the two $$WB cc-ling towers in order to verify rebar 3 location. Nondestructive testing determined that the subject rebar was only found at one interior-exterior wall junction as stated by the alleger.
L r Im
. . .......e- __.___,---.m . , _ _ _ . - , . . . - _ _ , -
,-.,,-,,-_-.,,,.,,-..,_,.,,,,-,w_,. . .,_...+.,__.%__,., w w - re. . , . . ,w., ,w....-,..,W,-...
, t 2
i Destructive testing, which was physical chiWng of the concrete, verified that ' the subject reber was not in one of the other upper exterior walls of One of . the tasins. 1 4 A review of the concrete placerent records revealed that prior to the final placement of concrete the required rebar is subjected to three inspections by j 4 Engineering, Construction and OC Personnel, signifying that the required rebar , is in place. All of these individuals were interviewed and acknowledged that
- they did inspect the rebar and sign off on the card prior to the placenent of conc rete but all denied k new1cdge o' any rebar missing from the fom.
The construction supervisor, who, according to the alleger, was informed of the { missing ret ar and participated in a conversation with the alleger and an engi- i neer at out th's missing steel, denied krewledge of the tr.issing rebar. The supervisor ad"itted that he could Fave teen teld but could not recall any specific I conversatien regarding missing rebar. A cc.. celer of the alleger sckrewledged that be was rade aware of the missirg rebar by the alleger at the tire it aas disccsered and stated that he thcught the Bechtel Construction Area Superintendent was cade aware of this incident. The Bechtel Area Superintendent denied ary kncwledge of the missing subject retar. Eased on the record review and extensive itterviews of Bechtel emplejeese working in this SS.B cooling tower area it appears that the infonsation about the missing i rebar went only as high as the Sechtel Shif t Supervisor who, for unkncwn reasons, i did rot reveal this infonvtion to higher authorities. It appears the subject ! rebar was ined<crtently overloc6ed during ar cirly concrete placement land was - missed in subsequent place ents. t l
. . _ , - _ - _ _ . _ . . . , _ . - - . _ , . . . - _ _ _ _ . .._. - _. . .. _ . - . . - , , . . . . . - . _ . , _ ._,m._.___ 4~_. - . _ . .
,e O 8 L
4 r P b t f l r 4 , 6 1 i t I L i i DETAILS I i 1 J D b i
- 's 4 F
h 5 4 4 b Y t 9
-f s
4.s 4 L r 9
--'V' $75-- y wgy me-m'eM' .y e, ,-p-.* , y- 9p .s a g mpheemrr---p.-wwgnygm-v,ww-se--ap---r,yw4 rew , -w-ee w was o wweryw w mg-t aw- . eg n-a- he eM" m' %
- 1 Pgrlose of Investication The purpose of this inve< tigation ' ass to attempt to determine and docu"ent the events and circumstance s surrounding the allegation that design additiCnal horizontal reinforcing steel had been left out of the intersecting walls of tre Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basin (SSWB) at Mississippi Power and Light Ccepany's (MP&L) Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant. The a11eger stated he provided this infomation to his supervisor and other Bechtel engineers when it was discovered.
According to available documentation (drawings) the additional horizontal- rebar was shcwn to be in the intersecting interior and exterior walls, and inspection ef forts by Bechtel Ic er Corporation and MP&L disclosed that the additional horitental was in one wall, as reported by the alleger but not in the other walls j esamined, l l h I
+
[ F
~ ~ - - - - . - , ~ . . , , _ _ _ _ _
(' .
}
j 2 f, hckj rc und On July 6, 1983, Bruno URYC, Physical Security Specialist, Region 11 and [ Donald QUICK, Section Chief. Division of Projects and Resident Prograrrs, U.S. i Nuclear Regulatory Cor:rnission (NRC), Atlanta, Georgia, advised E. L. Williamson, i Acting Director, Of fice of Investigations field Office, Region !! (01: Ril),that l an allegation had been received on June 28, 1983 by the Investigation / Allegation- 1 Coordination Staff, wherein the alleger reported that in the surtner of 1976, 1 additional horizontal reinforcing steel (rebar) had been lef t out of the Standby .f service Water Cooling Tower Basin (SSWB) at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant. According to URYC, the alleger related that during one of the final concrete pours in the 55WB, also knonn as the " heat sink," he discovered that nanber 10 rebar 18 feet long which was on the detail diawings had been left out of the formi at the intersecting interior and exterior walls. The alleger stated that when he ; Confronted his supervisor with the inforfration, he (the supervisor) indicated i that the rsbar had not been placed in the previous pours of the walls and, according to the alleger, did not seem to be concerned about the incident. QWCK advised that he had several conversations with MPtl and Bechtel of ficials a t-u t the allegation. He said on engineering analysis and NDE were teing perforr.ed to determine if the absence of this additioral rebar would affect the structural integrity of the walls. He said MP&L and Bechtel personnel were looking for photographs that might shcw the additionalLhorizontal rebar in the i forms or walls. According to QUICK, if the alleged p nblem could not be resolved with photographs, then excavation and/or other inspection methods would have to be used to determine if the additional horizontal ret er was in. the intersecting walls of the ha t sink. l The Regional Administrator, Director, Division of Project and Resident Frograms l l and other pertinent staf f members were briefed by URYC and QUICK and the Regional-Administrator requested that the 01 interview the alleger and-determine the scope of the allegation _and the prcblem. The reporting investigator related that more information was needed and evidence of wrongdoing should be apparent before O! would consider an invettigation. During a subsequent- briefing on July 7,1983, 1 I
, .... , -._ , ,..-.- . .,1.,__._~--.,.~-_ m----- ,.- _ . . , -,a_---,-.- . .- - m.- ~-,m,- . - - -
(E i 3 l the tegional Administrator requested the Investigation / Allegation Coordination Sta'f to interview the a11eger and other available for er employees to determine t facts and circuristances surrounding the allegation. On July 11, 1983, URYC and Joseph LENAHAN, Construction Inspector, Region !! , interviewed the alleger, who reiterated that during a final pour in the south , wall of the heat sink he discovered that number 10 additional rebar,18 feet long was missing from the fonn. This was reported to a Bechtel Construction i Supervisor who indicated that particular rebar was not placed in any of the previous wall pours, as well as did a Bechtel Quality Asssurance Engineer who was. in the area. The alleger said he was directed to put the appropriate additional i horizontal rebar in the form before the concrete pour was made. An-additional interview of the named Bechtel Construction Superintendent disclosed that he had i no knCaledge of suCh an incident. INVEST!GATW S NOTE: The last wall pour made in the " heat sink" was the g:er north wall of Basin A in Septemter 1976 vice the south wall as , rescr ted by the alleger. Addit!crally, appropriate Bechtel Pcwer Corporation Concrete Work Plants (Pour Cards), for the period March 1976 - Septerber 1976, were obtained and reviewed as , well as Bechtel ard Bethlehem Steel Drawings used during the construction of the [ heat sink. Pauiries were made by URYC to atter.pt to identify and. provide current location of all personnel involved in the construction of the heat sink, with limited success. On July 29, 1983, a .vanagement Meeting with 'MPAL and Bechtel Icwer Corporaticn i of ficials was held in the Regien 11 Atlanta, Georgia office at the request of the licensee to discuss the results of their findings with regard to the alleged , missing additional horizontal rebar in the heat sink area. The licensee revealed that they had conducted nondestructive examination, using a radar rebar locator and detected the subject additional horizontal rebar in the upper north exterior "B" consisted , wall.of basin "A." Examination of the upper exterior wall on basin of chipping away sections of the wall which revealed that subject. additional .g f
, . , . . - . . ~ . ~ , . , , . - ~ . . - - . - . - . - , . _ . , . _,----...,m- ~_
. - . - . ~ - - - - - . _ - _
. - - - . . - . - . - - - - - . . . - - ~
4 hori2c,ntal rebar was not installed. The licensee ackncwledged that the additional rebar in cuestion was not installed; heae.er, the SShB structural integrity, without the additional reba r , had been subjected to numerous ; engineering analyses. and had been independently reviewed by NRC Region !! Civil engineers at the Bechtel Power Corporation office in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and was found to be acceptable. On August 2,1983 Jones P. O'RE!LLY, Regional Administrator, Region II, NRC, requested that 01 conduct an investigation into the events and circunstances surrounding the allegation that additional horizontal reinforcing steel was omitted from the SSWB. Specifically, the requestor wanted to determine who knew the rebar was missing, and why it _was not reported as a Nonconfonning Condition Report (NCR1 or a Construction Deficiency Report (CDR); and if any construction records were falsified to cover the missing rebar. A copy of the rec;est for investigative assistance is EXHIBli (1). . 5
- I h
b V
. , , . , ' ---w,,,,,.-.,--,,m,y,
,w-.-y. + - . , . -,m,-- --,-m-, -.--re.---,-.m+--.. .,-y..,..n - .-,---.v- g_ -. w,
i
=
Oeview of- NEC #egulations, licensee Requirer <ents, Oteratinc Instructions _and _ Technical Sftecifications A review of NRC regulations, licensee reouf rements and final Safety Analysis Report was conducted during the course of the investigation. A review of t' en Mississippi Power and Light Company's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant final Safety Analysis Report for Units 1 and 2 disclosed that in Section 3.8 entitled " Design and Safety Related Reautrements," subsection 3.8.4.1.1.4 entitled " Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basins (SSWB)" describes the function of the SSWB as follows: ,
- a. A make-up storage basin consisting of s base slab, exterior walls, interior walls, colunns to support the cooling tower, a cover slab, a purphnuse, and a valve room,
- b. A pumphouse supported en the basin roof slab houses the SSWS and HPCS pumps and related equipment and piping. It consists of a concrete operating floor slab and enterior walls and roof to protect the seismic -
Category I equipment from tornado winds and nissiles. The pipe and ohe room consisting of a reinforced concrete e':f osure c. structure above the basin cover slab to protect the seismic Category I piping and valves -from tornado winds and cissiles..
- d. The mechanical draf t SSWB cooling towers supported by the t3 sins columns and interior walls and consisting of concrete exterice walls, interior walls, colunns and beams, a roof slab, and four concrete fan' '
stacks with steel grating over each fan _ stack top to protect the fans from toinada entrained debris. The stacks are designed to provide full-horizontal missile protection for the fans. f S 9 , - - . , . - y- y g,,,-,.,w..- ,--y - y n wym m -y-,,_m.,- -.7.-e,., ,,--m..,tn3.-,__.nm,m.--,y, -o,.,-..w, .,-,,,.--~w,, ,,,,,..-m.-. wi-,.,,*m-,-,,s-
4
- 6 FSAR 3.8.4.1.1.4 further states in part:
"The entire structure is bull't of reinforced corcrete, designed to withstand the loads and load combinations, using the ultimate strength design method for reinforced concrete and working stress design for miscellaneous structural steel ."
A review of 10 CFR 50.5$e. Conditions of Construction remits, section (e) states:
"The holder of a nuclear construction permit shall notify the comission of-each deficiency found in design and construction, which were it- to have rensined uncorrected could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear pcwer plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents a significant brealdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted in accerdance with the requirements ~
of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50." e I i t 7 i 3
'" ~n,-----, , . . - _ , . , . , , _ _
w 3 l-
,, y Descrl_Etion'of the Standby Service Water Coolino ic er Basins The Standby service Water Cooling Tcwer Basiris "A" and "B" are the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station " ultimate heat sinks" and are Seismic Category 1 structures falling under the requirerents of the site Quility Assurance Program. The basinsL are two redundant and essentially identical structures. Each structure is a aa'er-filled, underground reinforced concrete cistern, square in plan view
'150' x 150') and extending appropriately 50 feet belew plant grade. Bracing the exterior walls is a set of interior cross-walls which divide the structure into four (qually sized cells. At the joint bctsecn tre interior cross walls and the exterior walls, additional number 10 horizontal reinforcing steel,18 feet long is supposed to be placea on the outside face of the exterior wall alternating w th the continuous exterior wall putside face horizontal reinforcing bars. This i
reinforcing steel pattern is the same for each of four typical cross wall / exterior wall intersection joints in each basin for the full height of the walls to plant grade. Each exterior wall is four feet thick belcw elevation 112 and three feet thick above e!evation 112. The exterior walls of each basin required eight concrate piacements for a total of 16 wall placements ir both structures. The interior walls were constructed af ter the exterior walls were completed. The exterior walls of Basin A were constructed between April 1975 aad September 1976; Basin B exterior walls were constructed between March 1976 ard July 1976. The last ; concrece placeme r t in the SSWS was th: ;3per north wall of Basin A. A sketch of the SSWB is ,illu>trated in EXHlBli . . l _A
s :
' J 8 _
Review of Pertinent ' Loos and Records A review cf- pertinent Bechtel Work Plans and Inspection Records that included Materials List,. Concrete Wall Plans, Calculation Sheets Concrete Preplacement inspection Checklist, Concrete Placement Inspection Checklist, Pour Cards, Bechtel Drawings 0C-1731-1734 and Bethlehem Steel Corporation' Orawings S931-OF604, was conducted and a copy of each was obtained for investigative use. i The Bechtel Work Plan and Inspec+.icn Record Package were reviewed to determine , the exact dates of each of the wall pours in the Standby Service Water Basin ' According to these records, a total of sixteen concrete placement pours (SSWB). were made in the SSWB, eight in Basin A and eight in Basin 8. The dates and the exact sections by basins are as follows: Basin " A" Pours Basin "B" Pours Lcwer North Wall 4/23/76 L>er East Wall 3/18/76 Lower East Wall S/18/76 Lcwer North Wall 4/6/76 Lower South Wall 5/27/76 Lcwer West Wall 4/16/76 Lower West Wall 6/11/76 Lcwer South Wall S/5/76 Upper West Wall 8/4/76 Upper East Wall 6/30/76 Upper South Wall _8/16/76 Upper South Wall 7/14/76 L Upper East Wall 8/26/76 Upper North Wall 6/18/76 Upper North Wall 9/24/76 Upper West Wall 7/27/76 These concrete placements were made between March 18, 1976 and September 24, 1976 by second shif t Bechtel personnel who were responsible for the majority of the. cc,ncrete placement in the SSWB. All of the pour cards for the SSW8 from the first pour in March 1976 to the last pour in Septerber 1976, were reviewediwith'. special emphasis being placed on the seqion entitled "rebar," which requires a - date and an initial of the person checking the preplacement area prior. to the actual concrete placement. On the pour cards there are 15 areas that are subjected to . inspection at' one t!me or another during various construction l phases, that require concrete. A total of eight Bechtel civil' engineers and QC l j , l
_ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - __ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _. ~ _
.q '
- g
( 4: engir.eers (inspectors) signed off on the pour cards (rebar section) at varicus-tires f rom Ma rch-September 1976. The pour cards were signed of f _ at first by
" construction installation," which would have been a Bechtel Construction Shif t Superintendent and a quality control inspector, in August 1976, a new pour card .
was introduced that required the inspection and - concurrence of engineerf rg , inspection and construction installation supervision as well as QC :nspection. Throughout the construction of the SSWB the individual pours were subjected to at , least two independent formal inspections initially and later (August 1976) at least three independent formal inspections. All of- the individuals that signed off on all of the pour cards from March-September 1976 - that-were available or
- could be located have been interviewed, the results of which will follow. -Coofes of the Bechtel concrete placement records are EXHIBITS (3) through (18).
Additionally, copies of the Bechtel Construction Drawings (L-1733, Revision 10) Units 1 and 2 SSWB Cooling Tcwer Reinforced Cancrete (wall sections and details) wcre reviewed and depicted in Sections F and G, the subject number 10 additional h;rizontal rebar. Also noted on bo'h Sections F and G was the annotation " add'l
- 10 @ 12" x 18'0" ALT w/ Cont Hor Reinf." According to NRC engineering perscnnel this is cc ron engineering ,ernacular which for this dr3 wing means " additional number 10 reinforcing steel on 12 inch centers,18 feet long, alternating with the continuous horizontal reinforcing steel." The Bechtel construction drawing-ru rber C-1733, clearly shows the additional horizontal steel in botn detail Sections F and G as well as the annotation, supra.
Also, the Bethle$ em Steel reinforcing steel detail drawing number 5931-DF604, Revision 1, entitled " Shear-Ties, SSWB Cooling Tower
- Basin "B " dated November 20, 1975 was reviewed. Tnis detailed drawing contains both Sections F -
and G which also clearly shcws the number 10 additional horizontal rebar.- On detail "F" in addition to visually depicting the rebar the notat' ion "29 No.10 x-18-0 @ 12/ ALT w/ Cont. Horiz," is clearly visible. On detail "G" the subject-rebar is clearly shown as well as the " notation 18 t 10 x 18-0 012/ ALT w/ cont Horiz." These notations. - according to engineering personnel, represent the required number of rebar (29 or 18). number 10 in size (diameter), the length The - (18-0) on 12 inch centers, alternating with the continuous horizontal. 1 w a,w ,.
,. ~
-l 10 1
detail sections also contain the notation "4 Req'd (required)" meaning this is _a 1 typical section and is repeated four times on this structure (Basin B), _the Basin "A" Bethlehem Drawings are identical, with _ the -same notations as the - Basin "B" Drawings. Copies of the pertinent Sections "F" and "G" have been made - f rom both~ the Bechtel and Bethlehem Steel Drawings and are EXHIBITS (19)- through. (20) to this report. INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: The licensee and Bechtel_have pointed out an omission . between the Bechtel drawings and the Bethlehem drawings. The Bethlehem wall . elevation drawing omitted a referral to the reinforcing detail sections- in three of the four wall elevations. The detail-sections were only referred to on the North Wall elevation. The lower East Wall . of Basin "B" was the first concrete placement made and no reference was made to the detail - section. r s 4 i 3
-n- , ,- , ,
- . _ - . - .- .-.--~.-_ - - . - - . . _ . - . _ - .-- -- .. . - _ .
41 yg Review of Spe_cial Inspection Report A review of Region !! Inspection Report No. 50 416/83 41 revealed that J, J. LE'AHAN, Civil Engineer, Engineering Programs Branch, Division. of Engineering and Operational programs, Region II, conducted a special technical inspection concerning the missing number 10 additional horizontal rebar at both-the MP&L Grand Gulf site and Bechtel Design Engineering Office, Gaithersburg, Maryland. The inspection effort consisted of a review of the site QA/QC Controls-pertaining to the placement of reinforcing _ steel and an evaluation of the impact of the missing reinforcement steel on the structural integrity of the SSWB -_ _The special inspection also attempted to determine whether the missing rebar was a-generic problem which indicated that reinforcing steel was omitted from other-structures at the site. According to his inspection report LENAHAN's review included:
- 1. Review of licensee's investigation into the_ allegation.
- 2. Review of appropriate do ings, specification and QC procedures which ,
controlled rebar placement.
- 3. Review of quality records, documenting QC inspection of reinforcing steel.
4 Review of Nonconformance Reports dealing with reinforcing steel
- 5. Evaluation of the structural integrity of the SSWB cooling tower.
- 6. Review of the Licensee's final Report concerning the allegation.
According to LENAHAN, the licensee ccnducted ex tensive systematic review of all . available and relevant QA/QC and design documents. Concurrent with = document review the licensee ' conducted inspections of the upper exterior walls of ~the SSWB cooling tower. The inspections involved nondestructive examinations-(NDE) of the exterior walls using various types of reinforcing bar locators. The rebar locators indicated that the subject number 10 additional horizontal rebar had f
]
4 .g '
,-v -m .,
( 37 been installed in the upper north wall of Basin A cnly and had not-been-installed in the other upper walls of Basins A and B. The NDE data also indicated that the number 10 additional horizontal rebar that was found in the upper north wall of Basin A was installed cn the inside of the vertical rebar. In order to verify that the NDE results were accurate, the concrete in one of the walls of Basin B was partially removed by chipping. This chipping confirmed that the additional-18 feet, number 10 additional horizontal rebar had not been installed as required by the construction drawings. INVEST! GATOR'S NOTE: The upper sections of the walls of the SSWB were the _ only walls inspected. The other sections of the walls were under water, since the basins are full of water due to preoperational testing. LENAHAN said he discussed the results of the licensee investigation findings with the licensee and Bechtel engineers and examined rebar location maps which were dr3.n using data from the rebar detectors and photographs shcwing concrete
- hipping.
The inspector reviewed docurents which centrol the placement of reinforcing steel and confirmed that the licensee QA/QC controls for reinforcing steel meet the NRC requirerrnt and the licensee corritment specified in the FSAR'Section 3.8. Also, a review of quality ccotrol inspection records for reinforcing steel in the- _ SSWB cooling tcwer was cond;cted with regard to the 16 exterior wall placerents-of SSWB cooling towers A and B. The Work Plan and inspection. Records, supra, were reviewed and are available in the 01:RI! office, if required. Additionally, LEihivi reviewed the Bethlehem Steel Company records pertaining to fabrication of the number 10 additional horizontal rebar. According to LENAHAN, these records indicated that the subject rebar had been detailed. . fabricated -and delivered to' the job site by Bethlehem Steel Company. LENAHAN stated he- also reviewed the Bechtel rebar withdrawal requests, which indicated .that the 18. f eet- _long, number 10 additional horizontal rebar designated for placement as additional. reinforcement in the exterior walls of the SSWB had been withdrawn from the reinforcing steel laydown area and ' delivered to the SSWB cooling - tcwer construction area.
13 LENAHAN also irdicated that he looked at all NCR's pertaining to rebar place ~ent and found that they all had been properly evaluated and dispositioned, including NCR 1230 written to document an iden'ified problem of the omission of number 9 horizontal dcwels at the joint between the interior and exterior walls of the SSWB. According to LENAHAN, this problem was discovered and properly reported to the licensee on Octcber 18, 1976. This problem was subsequently reviewed and the analysis of fered was acceptable to NRR structural engineers. LENAHAN pointed cut in his inspection report that Bechtel design engineers perfor ed a reevaluation of the SSWB to determine to what degree the basin's _ structural integrity was affected by the missing nu rber 10 sdditional horizontal rebar. The reevaluation, according to LENAHA'1, was corducted using the methods specified in the FSAR. The reevaluotion r'as performed using the redistribution of re ents per Section 8.6 of ACI-318-71. This method was included by reference in the FSAR, but conservatively not employed in the original design. LENAHAN also said Fe re',$ aed dynamic ear th pressure computations; verified input for the corputer progran IST2DL) and revicaed Bechtel Drawing c -bers Src 241, 242 and 2a3 55WB Cooling T:aer Finite Element Model . LENAFAN reported that as a result of the review ;rocess, he felt that the structural integrity of the $$WB cooling tc.er is r.aintair,ed since all stresses aere within code allow 3ble values. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - --- _ _ . _ _ _ - _ __ ________-____.__m. ____________--______.___________.__.-_______________._____._______________..______________..___._______m._
- 14 ny
'.ntereitaof.kd[h.1yy(-.g p:
y am-
,/
r, ,~ m
.A ,
On August 4, 1983, . M,e ' n, m.T.. i? f cc e r iro orier fore an, iechtel m
'\ :.zus f Corstruction Corporition, at Mississippi Pcwer and Light Company's (MP&L) Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, Port Gibson, Mississippi was interviened by In.estigators jM4 E.L. Willi mson and L.L.
Robinson, at - h~[r e5,as,_[.[w% M %9hi y,,,,9 C1/ d / Lpj stated that he was employed by Bechtel as an trorworker foreman for apprcximately five r.onths, from May thrcugh Septerber 1976. He said that nest of his work was confired to the construction of the elevator shaf t in the centrol building, but added he noried seseral days on the heat sink basin, also -_ ircwn as the Standby Service Water Basin (S!WB).
-n *g di
,J stated that in late A4st cr early Septeber 1976 he .3s wcrkirg in the L.andte3t sir 3 area for Jack TMLCO, a h :htel Cer struc tion 'oreman, and as told to irs;ect the rebsr (rein'orcir; steel) in the fem en a ;ortion of the s?uth wall, f ry telc grcand le'.el, up to grcund le.el, prior to a scheduled ccmrete pcur.
* :t : r c 9; t: u. pJ . d,y ar ter i r ' : e c t i r g
- h e f c n" , he +n'. to the blueprint shack and e
a e.deaed tre drawings th+t ;"taired to that section of *he wall. He said that
$e - * :e d ;n 'he fewi ;
"* 3t tt+ iec esact,cn c' "e e n % rice a-: ir+erior w311s, 3dditieral retar, v ier 10, lj feet ' cog, a3s sa;;osed to be in the (cm in a Nrizcntal ccnfigrati n. y I j.g said he nent to J3ck TAYLCR and told him
'gr, but was cn the
**3t the 31tt r r3 te (idcit W 3'T rabar w3s rot in the t' s;rint, He said TafLCO - ! s s u ; r i t e d - d i r d i c 3 t rj ym 3 t a k.. a.
i M,I ruid not - te r i ut t Ou t
- he re' a c. Ac s ur.irg ' Q a
} T Ai L M tc ' d h im, t" 3 t t e f h3d ' ten 4: rkirg en the walls in the & s3t sink for two yea rs 3*d r 3d not Men p ,tting th3t pe t ic ,' 3r <
- c 21 in 'he w3s. Fe said hc s': ed TW M the dra,ir;s , and as t' cy ,:ce discussing the d u 1"gs , a E. htel engira 2r cc - s;ec tc r, -3 : : *tE (VI), walk ed by a^d T AILC' cc nf r0nted hi. wi th **e ir.'ntien at :ut
- te . ebar.
aid thet ah antly D'LE a;* ted tha , the dra,Ugs s50wed the ret ir sSculd be in the walls, but acir:eic i:cd that r+:bar hM r.et becn put in ar.y of tha .311s at the peint in questic1 f; Q; 5js?.id that he did not disc 955 the reb 3r Snymcre , .t N ". o w ith any:ne.
!/
j kh $ ?'0
15 rarr ( S stated that later that same evening TAYLO t Id him to atte*Dt to put the w'a?dhlternate (additional) steel in the fores and g( said that he, with difficulty, got the ,ebar in the fonts befGre it was poured, He adfed that he is sure the steel en the last pour on the south w311 is in place, with the alternate (additicnal) rebar on the inside of the verticals, but he does not believg ga ' the other _ walls in the heat sink have the alternate (additional) rebar. n related that when he first started working at Grard Gulf, he worked a fe,y days the heat sink on the interior walls near the floor and he did not install nor did be sce any alterrate (additional) steel in the walls. He added that after this incident 1e heard from another fronworker, William FARKS, that the alternate (additional) rebar was not in the walls. ((fA installed by the day g stated that most of the steel in the heat sick w35 shif t, ard the cvening shif t did est of the concrete Xuring. He said the d3y shif t swervisor was a Pechtei engineer named Terry PitLER, and he should have s; e firsthand infomation atost +he placement of all of the rebar in tFe walls.
.. y h
y-l c ycluded by stating t*3t he :culd not rrrter a y of the mes of his b#d 3ff-= eses c e
' . r c- r cc.,, rkers, 3rd did act 1.e 3 y specific arj of resp
;c ^fi e. He said t'at he th:1;ht that dt, ring his tec.re at Grand Gulf all the e ;1cjccs did cc ad work and dces not thirk the alter ste (additic al) rebar was ,
id dicrally lef t eut of t'e heat sirk w211s, [eQ ns'.; red, s,crn state ent is y [G 3IT (??). I
,,7c &
16 S t e .r___. , : ,, o f ;ui A. _T ail OR-~ On August 5, 1983, Jack A. TMLOR, fcr er Construction Superintendent Bechtel (costructic,n Ccrpcration, at ML's Grv d Gulf Nuclear Plant, was rwinter',c.-~Sed by . In<estigatcrs E. L. Willianson and L.L. Robinson at t(eIA n/4a N(< fMM M N/@ M .v: ]" s.
' pmweg
'am'h g .tu g M ~4=-> n:, ] %.
--m~ tTr . Em.,v; e.-c.g'FD6mYr7{~A"s ,+ c.a - TAYLOR stated that he d
. ~ w."~ . u . . . u. -
worked for Bechtel as a Construction Superintendent for appro(trately two years, fr;n the Fall of 1974 until Nc e-5er 1976. He s a id t h a t rr.os t of h i s ,vork a t Gr3nd Li f a 3s on the hea t s ir.k Lasin, also incan as the 5$WB, He said he supervind the helt sink b3 sin f rom the " ground up" and Ms very f amiliar with the b!v ;><ints and dr;nings for the structure, at
- ~
)
I AfLOP said that he could not recall 3 'cr r ircrxrier foremn r:-ef' - . .w w ,
*alling - - vf.n n g a t:c ;t r ein' crc im s teel ~jss i n \(F,e he. t w ing f rc~ 3 wall ..
~
d si 6 statej v ae.er, tha t he did i c d. r w
. y scire,,ledgirg tha i .L..A a s Wi. C 0 e xplained that he c'nuld 3 .d, rsc c- t ' as ud ir :w' !F ,ab'e , 3 ,, crier.
,,,3-l ] /p:ut - < < r g ret 3 r; F:a .er, ' e t a i d '* t F a t
. , ,, 3, 11 fj _ r..rsat-ssica 'en e r e a u m s s i g r e t. 3 r , "
i
'DLCR 4
-[ :l rc'.,-
, ,',.re as, ni't icg m
.'3r, I t ,, *'e c;rstex t r t ;er,:s;r v j 3' 3 ta s grafics* c.ent o :arred it wi d tc -tate: in that log. Fe 3 f,i s e d tha t he u m ro '3 p ere the it / cei -i;> + :. te loca ted or if it is still in exis-
.<s.
u n :; 4 13 . ! ' . ; i, ., red a . ,cmatico Je re in te ' 15 discussing aith
. :ne ' F ! ) ' e e x i s t e : e v f a s ' : :i, c3 retar that als in s tars;e t*at sMuld i, '- n t: -3 115 cf 'e'.si s -i 'ut he w ts f e'e to o 31' ary
'cs. O said tF,-t to did ro* r< ter r;tting v j 3d:' tic 31 e :r in the ealls c' '5 tr3t ;i-k. He 3 .i tt ed +3t if tF' rebar was not in the 1-3st ;7,r fe the s..th wall, then ht U = ; ht t ,.Nid be ta'e to say 'ha t the r eLa r 3 s ret n any of the ..3115.
lArLO 3 ;,vled;+ J that the initials cr
- he Bech' el pco r rtcc rds , da*.ed Ene 6, INS ed July 27, 1976 v.ce his, mJ Pe rid sigred of f, signifying !! at all the prc ; e r retar was in tre fem as indicited on the print and on the pour record.
/1 ( f/b 4
17 Fe said that if the rebar in testion 'ais stcan on tre prints he .3s reading Fe aould have recognized it. TAYLC said that all of this alie3ed activity was scry vague to him and if sor.ething unusual had happened he aculd have aritten a Ncn. Ocnfor ance Report (NCR) and reported it, but he does not rene-ber writing an NCR or anything about missing " alternate" rebar, . TAYLOR concluded by stating that he did not remember any of the namej of his and cc-work ers that could add anything to this investigation other than Bob LANG, his irrediate super <isor. He said that if the alternate rebar is in fact missing from the alls, it was an accident and ttere was no collusion or ~ cover-up on the part of Eechtel or P.P&L with reg ards to this ins dent. TAYLOR's sige.ed, :aor n state.ient is EXHIBIT (23), 4i 7c -n ir. s _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ .
l 18 irter.iew of William Edaard PA45 09 August 30, 1933, William Esard PARKS, fccrer ircr.orker, Bechtel Corstructicn Corp:-3 tion at ML's Grand Gulf 'iuclear Plant, Port Gibson, Mississippi, 3s Robinson at his present intervie e4 by Irciestig3 tors E. L. Willi 3rscn and L. (.. wcrk site i h (((([ [ h h 'h, h[f].Q.:{ Q Ed Q PARK $ said he worked for Eechtel at Grand Gulf for approxir.ately one year, from April 1976 through April 1977, and worked e=clusively as an irceworker'. m y mn g,: , n gy khg3 . 4tpjf s , M.~cT,eM 9 LCfLW46,% ggg, Npy{m .ggg -{
^;y 9 y py r ma J' $" ' <<
PARKS stated that he initially worked in the construction
! [ . n $a of the Padiation Waste (Padw3ste) area at Grand Gulf but was rioved to the SSWB, also iccwn 3s the heat sink area , in June 1976.
TURS stated tMt in fugust 1976 while he w3s w:rifrg in the heat sink pre;aring cre cf the 'ast t0 concrete f curs en t* e s,ou th w 311 of the "A" basin, his
- 4 g x, i told him that beh. . f g;t t ;Et s;ne reinforcing steel 3 ner'.'
mc. :_ . u - - (rciar) as mssing f r:m the fer m. PAU S s aid 'F at t*e cccc r= te pcur inciuted a y ction cf 3n interi;r ind ex terior .,3115. erec31'edt"2*bV . .i s sh n.e4 bim t'., *c t'
'5 3 t 3 r t ' c u l a r s ec t i c r: cf e -3 3": ; r tted :at a criat :n that c 31h d for 3 iterate steel rcber 10 retar, 13 feet icng on 12 foot centers to be p',ced in the juncticos of the two 211s. FA KS said he h3d acekej in the t3: s i t, "f rr 'he gresnd up" a r.d did -t ;n arj alte r . te steel in the j/
- i co 3 r e 3 s c' r.y o f th e w 311 s i n t e N i t s i d ,
i' Y[
EU'S said ' h3*g y told h im he w3s goirg to i ';m ?!ck IAYLOR, the Fecntel Cc'st oct4;- sbiit fcre vn, dr.d his s t;crvis c r 3':ut : !*e r9 sing r 53r. FA:ch as improper rebar, ties, retar clearances or Sr3cing.
F W S edded th3t he personally feels'the rebar w35 ir3d.ertently lef t cut because of ; ce P ag " ant at the superinterde"t le <ci ,
He said .3ck TAYLOR was "too nice" 3rd attentico to det ail, both in cctstruction and the blueprints was not what it 9 : 'i hi.e tcen. He s 3id the r(i e a3s rc* ;ut in the f f rct p:gr cf +5e w3115 and subsecently not put in any 3dditicral p%rs. He said that he felt the missing retar was an inadsertent mista're f rom t'e beginning of construction in tre heit sirk and w3s not an irtenticnal ocissico ty :echtel to cut corners or save ; rey. AMS si;r.ec , s ecrn s t a te-.ent is DNS!T (241 j D { l.fM
/
20 Interview of Terry Elgin MILLER On August 31, 1983, Terry Elgin MILLER, fcmer Shif t Su;ervisor, Bechtel Pcwer Corporation at MPR's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, was interviewed in his office by Investigators E. L. Williamson and L. L. Robinson. . MILLER stated that he wasgraduate [f of the University of Missouri with a B.S. in Civil Engineering - He said he first began work with Bechtel in 1972 and held various construction positions at different locations until 1975. He returned to Bechtel in 1975 and worked at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant until November 1976. MitLER said te first began work in the SWB, or heat sink in June 1976, as the day shif t constructicn supervisor. He esplained that he was responsible for production, craft discipline and overall quality in the He said there was also a night shift that was construction of t h e * >: a t s i c k . supervind by Licyc EOMS, ard later Jack TAYLOR.
*!LLER said he was rct 3eace of any nu-ber 10 3dditic-al *cri :ntal retar rissing
'r0m the junctice. of the intericr 3nd enterice walls o' t'e heat sick. MILLER
- d off :.n 3r rus ; gr c 3 rfs , a'i;h s ;n:' :d tF 3:
i 3 kn:.'ef ged t* a t he k 3: s all tr e re ;uf red ret 3r ~35 in pl 3ce, i . as f ar as he krew all the regired rebar w35 in the heat sink. 5
"!LLER concl Jed by stating ' tat an unc i ficial ic;t::k w35 iept by t e c;rstryc. _
tion :u;e rvisors, whch -3s ;3ssed ' rom shii to shift. He said tnis 1-:.; bock annot+ted an., problers en::u 'tered by the cne shif t for the oncczing shi't. Fe said 'e did cct r3ke any entries in the ic;b::k 3%t Hssing addit i ;ral hari:;ntal rebar nce w3s he e.er told t y asf; m P at the alle:;M ris s' 'g neber 10 additicn31 hori:Ontal rebar. P suits of ' n t e v i e w- aith MILLER is E m!sli (25).
/ YO
4 21 Interv_iew of George C. MCCLAIN On September 13, 1983, George C. MCCLAIN, lead Civil field Engineer, Bechtet . Power Corporation at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, Port Gibson, Mississippi, was interviewed in the Resident Inspector's office by Investigators E. L. Williamson and L. L. Robinson and provided the follcwing information in substance: MCCLAIN stated that he had been employed by Bechtel at Grand Gulf since June 1975-and initially worked as an assistant field engineer in the Area Group during early construction phases. He said he worked in the Control Building, SSWB (also kncwn as the heat sink), Structural back-fill and Tie-back wall areas. He explained that his responsibilities included providing materials for support, conducting field inspections and coordinating the resolution of various problems as they arose. MCCLAIN stated that in July or August 1983, Bechtel engir.eering-personnel asked him to attend a meeting with MPol Quality Assurance (CA) personnel to discuss some alleged croblems with reinforcing steel (rebar) in the heat sink. He related that during this meeting a conference call was made with NRC and Bechtel l Design offices in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He said the purpose of the call w3s to discuss an allegation that number 10 additional horizontal rebar was lef t out of the heat sink. He added that this was the first time he had heard of this issue. Fe said that because of the interest generated he and other engineers locked at old photographs and tried to identify the rebar, but were unable to find any photos depicting the additional rebar. He said that a rebar detector was used to determine if the additional rebar was in the junction of the exterior and interior walls and discovered that the rebar was not in the upper pour of- the south wa'l l of Basin A, but was in the upper north wall of Basin A. He' added that the radar detector determined rebar was ' not ~ in the north and west wall of L Basin B. He stated that the east and west walls of basta A were not ins;ected, i l l . I
22 MCCLAIN stated that he worked in the heat sink area from the " ground up" and was involved in most of the engineering inspections, which involved physically crawling into the steel curtain or m'at while in the plywood form and check the rebar for spacing, sizing, lap splices, embedment links, shear-ties and conduct other inspections as r.ecessary. He added that only when the job was correct would he sign of f on the pcur card, adding that the rebar at tha t tirr.e was not being counted in a pour but later (October 1976) it was counted because some dewels were f^und to have been left out. Mert. AIN stated that during the ccostruction of the heat sink the Bethlehem drawings were normally used because they provided more detail than the Bechtel drawings which were also available in the print shacr. He said he frequently locked at the Bethlehem drawings and was very f amiliar with rebar placement. He siid that he did not rer; ember putting any a fditional rebar in the basin walls nor did he remember leaving any of the rebar out or arycre mentioning rebar being left out, MCCL AIN stated that when he learned the rebar was rrissing and saw that the Bethlehem and Bechtel draaings depicted the additiceal rebar in the detail sections and also annotated the size, length and placement of the additional rebar he realized that he, alon] with other engineers, made an oversight on reading the drawings. He said the only explanation he could of fer was that the rebar was nitsed on the first wall p ur and the drwiegs might not have been _ checked as closely and were not as clear as they s"uld have been. MCCLAIN said other people reWwed the drawings as well as inspected the rebar a r.d foms before allcwing areas to te poured. He said in his opinion the drawings were not very clear but he could not eiplain the oversight. MCRAIN concluded by stating that he was not aw3re of any effort on anyone's part
'.o obscure f acts or to deceive the NRC with regard to missing rebar. He said he felt th3t Bechtel people were competent, conscientious and professional in their construction ef forts at Grand Gulf. MCCLAIN's sworn statement is EXHIBIT (26) to this report.
23 ht3Ie10.fWilli3.1.Ja.DM E num ~x' ern _ ere n;G'
-~ .
yR.WQ. ,,-, q Cn 5 tember 14, 1983, Wil l i aftm.mJ . D0Yaauu- L E ,p%%6.xw-M22S-@c _ w- g 7 aas intervicaed at h's place of business by investigators E. L. Williamson M and L. L. Dobinson. D0YLE provided the folicwing information in substance: from the University of D0YLE s'ated t, hat af t r receiving his engineering degre
.. r. v he became employed by Bechtel at MPAL's Grand Gulf Nuclear Maryland <n - s4 a
Pcaer Plant. ,e advised that he worked at Grand Gulf fron June 'o October 1976. D0YLE sJated that he alsc w3s an ngineer for Stone and Webster at Beaver Valley, 2m .rc7 - a i v --
$sW
'PA for; fa lV .u a:m:aAm..a W .
D0fLE stated that while at Grand Gulf, his title was that of project er.gineer and 00YLE advised that he spent his er$ 'neering su;c.rvisor was Ne HIVaELBUPGER. E-90 pe ent of his tW at 0 - d Gulf wcriing en the construction of the C:ntrol raildhg, tut that he also aceked on the Standby Service Water Basins, or "93ts-6s." 9e advised that te a:ried on the night shirt, 3ni recalied the r';ht shif t cnstruction s;;er, scr cn the heat sinks, Jack TAYLO?. 00nE stated t te alsc rr .;<ed erg'rcor! 1. r g e * : C L A '. 'i e d E C'S '. Wi , C0YLE stated that cost, if not all, of the pcuring of cercre te in the ccnstruc. tion of the 'est siH<s a3s d' e at night, en his shif t, so the sin 15f ogs he did pricr to a toncrate pcur acr e to ccordirate with the day shif t in crfer to ensure
' hat all the ite's on their "pu'c1 list aere d;r.e or c0'ected, 3rd also to oil the foms that acre to c:ntain 'he poured con.: rete.
- )YLE stated th3t te did not r ec311 any ocidcnt cr p ctie? invc i, ; a q.,es t e gn
;f additicnal ret ar at the ott rse: lion of the 'i. side and outside at'Is of the Nat sink s, .QiLE advised that he did ot recall J!ck TAROR terirg to hin ,ith a print fcr his, DCME's, cpinicn as tc w9ther or rot there ste;ld te editional atersection. 00YLE s tated that , romally, rebar in this ir. side to outside w311 a unstructico supcrvisor would not core to him with a questfon like that because the ccnstruction supcrvisor is productien-oriented, and he would re31ize that a 00VLE said question like that could stop construction until it was resolved.
.. W
- f
/
1 - e a il.... *. % , _4' = h b.- -1+e .+ E4A*m h
- 4 -
J-.~e=.i.. -.. ep. 4 24 that if TAyt0R culd have come to him with a question on additional rebar just prior to a pour, he would have called HIMPELBURGER, his supervisor, to the site even in the middle of the night, $nd have HIMMELBURGER resolve the questien before any pouring would be dcre. 00VLE was shown Bethlehem Steel Drawing No. 5931-Pf 604, entitled Shear-Ties, SSW Cooling Tower-Basin "B", and Bechtel Drawings Nos. C-1733 and C-1734, which shew the reinforced concrete wall sections and details of Units 1 and 2 SSWB cooling tower. He said that, as best as he could recall, he would use Bethlehem drawings to assecble and check rebar because they were more descriptive of the steel to be used, but that he seemed to recall using some Bechtel drawing, which were not 3mong those displayed to him, that showed the rebar in a " plan" view, rather than in a " detail" view as shown on the Bethlehem drawing displayed. 00YLE stated that he was capable of reading these drawings or " prints," and had even memorized a couple of them while at Grand Gulf. He also stated that he thought that there were inventory sheets used to keep track of steel needed and steel used. 00YLE stated that the Bechtel Quality Control man, Stu KIRKER, was very thorcugh in his inspections, and that Dase HIMMELBURGER and George MCCLAIN were very competent engineers. 00VLE advised that in his opinion, Bechtel was very conscientious with e egard to public health and . safety, and that neither he nor any Bechtel employee that he kncw was ever a party to a deception of MP&L or NRC regarding any c.aterial omitted from the construction at Grand Gulf.
a 25 Interview of Robert A. LANG
- On September 20, 1983, Robert A. LANG, Project Superintendent, Bechtel Civil and Mineral _inc. at the McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Project, Tampa, Florida was interviewed by Investigators E. L. Williamson and L. L. Robinson in his Tampa .
office and provided the following information in substance: , LANG stated that he has worked for Bechtel Corporation, Inc. for over 15 years and worked at Mississippi Pcwer and Light Company's (MP&L) Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant from May 1974 until May -1977. He said that from March 1976 until Septer.ber 1976 he was the Area Superintendent on the night shift for the construction of the Control Building, SSWB and the yard area inside the tie back wall. He said he was responsible for the work on the night shif t and participated in most of-the pouring of the concrete for the best sink walls. LANG stated that during his . tenure as . area superintendent, he did. not recall ceing told by anyone it the Grand Gulf site about any problems with additional rebar in the intersection of the interior and exterior walls. He said had he been told, he would have taken whatever-action was necessary to fully identify i and correct the problem. He saf d there were some issues. that he specifically recalled, one on the interpretation of drawirgs and one on the placement of dowels in the corners of the heat sink. He related that these problems were addressed and satisfactorily resolved. LANG stated that he_ had no plausible explanation for t_he rebar not being placet in the walls. He said an inspection systen was-in place to preclude such-events. - Af te' locking _ at the Bechtel and Bethlehem drawings he said that the additional rebar ap; eared to be obvious and should have been caught by any engineer using the drawings to check the rebar. He said it was possible for the rebar tot be missed on the first pour and not expected to be seen _on subsequent pours. LANG- reiterated that he had absolutely no knowledge. of the missing' additional a rebar until he wasi questioned by Bechtel personnel at Grand Gulf in July _ or August 1983. LANG's sworn statement is EXHIBIT (27) to this report. l
, . . . . -, -m... , , ,,_.4
pg Interview 3f Kenneth CLARK On Septenber 22, 1983, Kenneth CLARK, fonter Civil Quality C' ~ rol (QC) Engineer for Bechtel Construction Company at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, Port Gibson, Mississippi, as interviewed telephonically by Investigator E. L. Williamson, fat his residence
/
CLARX stated that he had worked at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant from May 1976 until April 1977 as a QC Inspector in the area of concrete placement. He said that prior to his Bechtel enployment he worked for Ebasco at Florida Pc.er and Light Company's (FP&L) St. Lucie Nuclear Plant as a ccnstruction inspector from December 1972 through 1975. CLARK stated that while at Grand Gulf he worked in various areas including the SSW3 rnore commonly known as the " heat sink." He said he worked exclusively on concrete placement and the inspection of many of the concrete pours in the heat sink area. He related that his respcnsibilities included inspection of concrete preplacement, proper rebar, rebar spacing, proper form construction, embed ent plates, splices of rebar, placement of concrete and proper curing of the concrete, He said he routinely checked the forms before the concrete pours with the pertinent prints, usually the Bethlehem steel drawings (detailed) and this included but was not limited to a visual inspection of the area before the pour was made. CLARK advised that in August 1983 he was telephonically contacted by Dudley WOOD, Bechtel Site Manager regarding his (CLARK) recollection of any missing rebar in , the < alls of the heat sink. CLARK stated that -in October 1976 there was a problem of rebar dewels being lef t out of corner pours in the hcat sink but explained that this was identified and an engineering analysis made to address the issue. He said that as a result of this dowel issue, all cebar in every pour l was physically counted by all inspectors and verified by other inspectors. He said that Bechtel went to " great pains" to make sure that all subsequent rebar was in place. l l 2 l
'l
, + +
27 CLARK said that since talking to Dudley WOOD, he see ed to rerember scre rebar ten to twelve feet long being placed between the horizontal bars on the outside:
-of the vertical eat at the junction of the interior and exterior walls, CLARK said that to the best of his knowledge, the requisite additional horizontal .
rebars are in the walls. He said that no one ever mentioned to him or indicated in any way that any rebar (other than the dowels, supra) were not in the walls of the heat sink. He added that he felt that the other engineers on the site were competent and conscientious and that the proper training had been attained that would preclude errors such as missing rebar. He said he personally felt the inspections were adequate and quality was stressed by all involved. CLARK acknowledged that when he signed the pour concrete cards he was signifying that the form was-ready to be poured; according to the existing work order, and the applicable specification had been complied with and satisfied, CLARK concluded by statiaq that ~ if the additional rebar is not in the walls,:it was obviously a mistake he could not explain, He said that if the Sechtel and Bethlehem prints were different, that could explain the oversight. He said it was possible if the additional rebar aas missed on the initial pours it could j have been missed on subsequent pours because they were b3sically constructed the 3 same way. CLARK could not provide any additional information pertinent to this investigation. 4 a
4 28 Interview of Stewart K!RVER On September 28, 1983, Stewart K!RKER, Quality Control (QC) Engineer, _Be htel Power Corporation, Midland, Michigan was telephonically interviewed at his residence by investigator E. t.. Williamson and he provided the following infomatinn in substance: KlRKER stated he had been employed by Bechtel since May 1975, when he began work at Mississippi Power and Light Company's (MP&L) Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, Port Gibson. MS as a QC inspector, tlRKER explained that Grand Gulf was his first job in construction as a QC inspector, but he felt that he was properly trained by Bechtel personnel in his duties and responsibilities. He related that while at Grand Gulf he worked primarily on the second shift (evening), and worked extensively in preplacement and placement of concrete in the 55WB, also kncwn as the heat sink , contaire.ent building, control building, auxiliary building and in the construction yard. K!RKER stated that as a QC inspector, his routine duties included physically checking the areas (fonr.s) designated for concrete pours. This included inspecting the fom during f abrication, physically clirrbing into foms to inspect rehar placenent, splicing, spacing, and other areas required prior to any concrete placecent. He said that he routinely used the construction drawings used on the site tu ccnduct his inspections. He- recalled that the Bethlehem Steel drawings aere used rnostly because they were' the detailed drawings and he-felt that he had a working knowledge of these drawings. KIRrER was advised of the allegation that additional horizontal rebar was missing from the junction of the interior and citerior walls of the heat sink and that as _1 a QC inspector he had signed off on several pour cards, signifying that all the t required rebar was in the form prior to concrete placement. He acknowledged that I he was aware of the allegations, adding that he'had been quotioned by Bechtel personnel f rom Grand Gulf, approximately two incnths earlier. He said that to the best of his knowledge all the. required rebar is in the appropriate locations. He acknowledged that the concrete pour cards were used on every concrete' placement
. rf ff
i r
,=<
and his- signature meant that all the recuired rebar was in place land the ares - prepared for concrete was ready to be poured. He said, if in fact the subject rebar is not where it is supposed to be he could not explain how it was missed. .; unless it was not on a main drawing, or properly referenced from one drawing to another. He said 'that it.was not until the recent contact by Bechtel did he know.that. any rebar was missing. He said he lef t Grand. Gulf in' September 1976 and he was.never told by anyone that any additional horizontal rebar was missing from the walls of the heat sink. He said he felt that even a rumor of such an incident ~ would have been widely circulated and more than 1ikely generated a nonconformance report (NCR)bysomeone, KIRKER reiterated that he was not aware of any missing rebar at _ Grand Gulf and - added that he thought the construction persMoel at Grand Gulf were very good, with compctent supervision and an emphasis on cuality. 4
+
4', 9
, w rmny e- i y . -%, s - w e, -t =w . - 4 ,. tuw -n , ,
. . -. - . . . . . ~ - - - . . . . - - - . . - . - . - . ~ . - . - - - . - - . . . _ - _ . . -
30 Contact with Bechtel Personnel Office On' September 27, 1983, contact was made with Robert BILLS, Director. Personnel Operation, Bechtel Power Corporation at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in an t effort to fully identify and locate three fomer Bechtel employees- that- had [ worked in the SSWB area and signed off on the concrete placement pour cards. BILLS was provided with the names of H. L. B0GGS, S. K. CHANDHARY a'nd ' C. R. SIMMONS, which were taken from the pour cards. BILLS stated that he would review the Bechtel Grand Gulf records and contact the Bechtel Headquarters' office in San Francisco, California in an effort to obtain complete identifying-infor-mation as well as last known addresses. On October 6,1983, BILLS wcs recontacted and provided the following information on the former Bechtel employees: Last Date of Bechtel Employment Harlan L. B0GGS- July 23, 1983 Clarence SIMMONS September 28, 1979 PM .
;.4 y j, 3
- $4'.
;; Q m...~
- s. . .
-i Suresh K. CHANDHARY May 7, 1976 I
Grand Gulf /Bechtel f P. 0.-Box 41 i. Port Gibson. MS L B0GGS was located through the ) telephone I'nfomatiordnd-l j l was interviewed infra , i
- Ef forts' to located C. R. SIMit0NS and S. K. CHANDriARY through Bechtel records and-
! using last'known addresses were unproductive, l. ( ) L j; W 0 -2 a
t ' o,..- e 31 Interview of f[arlan L, BOGGS-On October 7,1983, Harlan L. B0GGS, former Assistant Construction .Superinten-- dent, Bechtel Power _ Corporation at MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant was interviewed telephonically by E. L. Williamson and he provided the_ following-information in substance: B0GGS stated that he had worked for Bechtel since 1965 in various capacities, the rest recent being an area superintendent in Indonesia. He related that he had worked for Bechtel at Grand Gulf from March 1975 until- August 1976 and was in charge of the constraction of the radwaste, turbine building and the SSWB, also known as the heat sink. He said that he had started the initial construction of the heat sink areas including the base mats (floor) exterior walls and the-interior columns. He said he worked on the day shif t for Bob LANG, the' Bechtel Project Superintendent, through June 1976 and was eventually assigned to the carpenters shop, B0GGS recalled that during the construction of the heat sink the walls were-constructed outside the heat sink _and lowered down into the area prior to being formed up and poured with concrete. He said all the steel was segregated between the heat sink area and supervisors shack- and the steel was inventoried as it came to the site and as it was used, B0GGS stated that he was familiar with the drawing, by Sechtel and Bethlehem- . Steel used =in the construction of the heat sink. However, he said he could not. specifically recall the subject additional horizontal rebar in the.-junction ofl
. the exterior and interior walls. He stated that he,-as construction supervisor, had the responsibility on occasions of- inspecting the: rebar and . formed areas - ~
prior to the. concrete placements. He added that this final inspection required a signature which reant -that everything required had been done and was properly in place as per drawings, procedures and specifications, t i 9 d y e r -e,, , , -. . - , - - , , - . - e-- + -,. -. ..ae,.- , .- -,
A% As M d' i Vl;? np. IMAGE EVAL.U ATION f Rh(O f4
,q
\g *' TEST TARGET (MT-3)
< (p
"[ f ,g,j,/
4 n 6l s gfut
\x#g#)')> % /g%p*
4 41_. -; 7 8 : 2.5 1.0 11 4- 'O i;22 g g, m j,j E a EA3 li! 1.8 ki== l.25 i.6
.a = !!!
T =1.4 !!i=== 4__---- 150mm
- 6"
- 4 _ . - -
. 4 ,*x Fvw*s& 4%' : y t[g/,)/>p 7.
, m 4, 4,,,[4 o,[,
; we p ,
'M
.s :
3
,. . , ,- 0)
< b3 p, + 0 e .e t s 9, Nu g \g 'O': '.*^ '
- V IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)
((3 j , d-f @/f,, N pf ~ g, ,s v w;,Qf 0, w. 4
,'= r'*ts j s-
's ff 4 dr <>
l.0 F"*m =
,u
*(
1' j,l u m_ llj"lj l.8 li!il!Es:
'l.25 1.4 T i.6
=== === :. me
- w. - 150mm
- 6"
- w --
gy "f y, py 4,g
- h,h,y__- ?'s fb i
qem_ g , se sp - j 'l
s / sj / do
'?f<v A. %\\ e4 4.
IMAGE EVAL.U ATION sN9/
> ?A TEST TARGET (MT-3) f' f'[? % \ / '
p 'I$? g y *%$ ' ,g y p ,q g
#4 1.0 :. - ,, .
m : to g2.0
"""=
1.1 : l 1.8
@l!!m m =
T 1.25 g I ig i.6 l -u m.4 ; umme 3 30mm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . . _ - _ - _ - - - - 6" >
$b #
c+
$&ph,(yj,,
EL
/y fO<!!>h g ,qqr ..
fg\'% . 4 '! /j ,
~ ~ '
,y 4 ' b,
\
.~ ,' m# .,
' @,' 7~ . ,
O"_g gs g/[j v(U+ d40
/ sp 5 a
4 s i 30GGS stated that he was not aware of any additional horizontal rebar missing from the heat sink but later heard that some dcwels acre missing from one of the walls. He said he was never informed nor did he have any personal ktcwledge of any missing additional horizontal rebar in the heat sink. He said if the rebar was missing it was either not on the drawings or overlooked, but regardless, he felt that it was an inadvertent error. He said that he was ultimately responsible for the construction, but he was never aware that the rebar might be missing and if he had been he would have irrediately brought it to the attention of the engineers on site. He concluded by stating that he thought that both the construction and quality control at Grand Gulf was good.
I i l 3
' 'g_ , l a 33~
Contact with Senior Resident inspector.
-On September 26,1983,-~Al WAGNER, NRC's Senior Resident inspector at Grand Gulf l
Nuclear Plant was con acted and asked to make inquiries at the Grand Gulf site. l in an effort to locate the "unof ficial" constructio_n logbook _ reportedly used by . the various construction supervisors during the construction of the heat sink. WAGNER agreed to make appropriate inquiries to attempt to locate the logbooks. On September 27, 1983, WAGNER advised that ~.a had been unable to find the logbook. He said they were not i t, the records vault and apparently not considered a pemanent record, He said all inquiries regarding the logbook were unproductive. 2 s t t t - . 2 e .- ., , , , . - ,- ,.n.., , .,
. .c. .. . _.-., . - . . _ . . . -. ~. - . --- . -
. . q ; e- p
@ptus'ofInve5tigation- _
in the absence of additional _ logical investigative leads . no further investi-
~
gative effort is warranted or requested. This investigation is submitted as - CLOSED. E.. s 1 I l t I i l 1 __ r. 9
, , ,,- > . - . . , ,_, n . . . + . -,--'
s c
.,,,ba-35 Exhibits _
(1) Eequest for Investigative Assistance,~ dated- August 2,1983 (2) -Sketch Standby Service-Water Cooling Tower Basin (3) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated March--18,_'1976 ' (4) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated April 6,1976 (5) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated April 16,.1976 (6) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated April 23, 1976 _ (7) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated May 5,1976 (8) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated May 18, 1976 (9) Bechtel Work Plan and Inspection Record, dated May 27, 1976 i (10) Bechtel Work Plan ind Inspection Record, dated June 11, 1976 (11) Ecchtel Work Plan :nd Inspection Record, dated June _18,1976 (12) Fechtel Vork rian and Insrection Record, dated June 30, 1976 (13) Bechtel Work Plan 3rd Inspection Record, dated July 14, 1976 (14) Bechtel Work Plan 3.d Inspocticn Record, dated July 27, 1976 (15) Bechtel Work Plan a 3 Inspection Record, dated Augus: 4, 1976 (16) Eechtel Work Plco and inspection Pecord, dated August 16, 1976 l17' E- Pael 4:ri ?:a ic) :ns:*:ti cn O':ced, dite: eu gust 26, 1976-(18) B4:htel Wark Plan a^d !nspecticn Record, dated Se;te-ber 24, 1976
$ (19) Bechtel Craaing No. C-1733 Sections F and G (20) Sethleher Cra ing No. 5931 - 07604 Section (21) Beth'ete- E-3 dr; 'i:. 5 931 - 0F624 r-Section G 2
'- -a d3ted i.;ust 4, 1983 D
;I (22) SwcrnStitcentof(..- . = .
(23) Sworn Sta te:.ent of Dack A. T AYLOR, dated August 5,1983 (24) Sw:,rn Sta'e .nt cf William Ed,ard PARKS, dated Asgust: 30, 1983 (25) tesults of :nter',':a with Terry Elgin MILLER, Jated a gust e 31, 1983 (26) Swat n Statene^t of C;srge C. M:111N, da.ted Ju'y 13, 1083 _ (27) Swain Statete it of F tert A. L ANG, dated Septe ier 20, 1983 1
)
a E l-94 4 1/ _ =. . _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _}}