ML20137K127
Text
~
~
FEB 2 51985 Cl3%
MEMORANDUM FOR: Vince Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Technical Review Team FROM:
L. C. Shao, Group Leader Civil /Hechanical Groups Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F DESIGN QA DRAFT 1 l
We have reviewed the subject draft and feel that this discussion has little impact on our TRT review since most of our review concerned fabrication and not design.
We have the following comments:
l Page 6 - Item 13:
We think support manufacturer should be changed to support designer since PSE would also be in this cycle.
Page 11 - Second paragraph, second sentence:
The TSDRs are not " controlled" like a CMC but they are logged and tracked by the technical services organization.
Therefore, the TSDR is tracked and until it is resolved the CMC (which is controlled) cannot be closed out.
(Ref. January 15 transcript, pp. 55-56.)
Page 15 - We do not see the difference between a snubber attached to the floor or ceiling under a dynamic load.
If you have a concern with one you will have a concern for both. We understand the concern that may exist for a strut attached to the floor which will be resisting dead weight and thermal in l
addition to the seismic loads. What is being described here can be construed i
to be that there is a stability concern for all pin ended supports that undergo a compressive loading. These concerns would apply to all supports and restraints regardless of orientation that use clamps in conjunction with snubbers and I
struts.
l l
Page 14 - We do not understand what the concerns are for the trapeze type restraints.
Are the concerns just that they are different, or they are inadequate, or both?
Original Signed by L C.Shas pgj ogg3 e5110!'
L. C. Shao, Group Leader CARDEO D-59 Pim Civil / Mechanical Groups Comanche Peak Technical Review Team cc:
D. Eisenhut J. Fair Masterson R. Bosnak B. Saffell n
S. Hou P. Chen TR TR
.h R
V. Ferrarini D. Terao V.Ferrarini S.
ou L.
ao DISTRIBUTION CP TRT READ L. Shao D. Jeng R. Minogue D. R p /85 2 M /85 2g5
- ~- -
9 l '_
PR!
\\
t Mt EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING L FlKAR VICEPHESl0ENT/
PGM-CPSES J. GEORGE PROCUREMENT; ENGINEERING 8 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE NUCLEAR i
OPGM BCONTROL SERVICES GEI STAFF SUPERVISOR MANAGER B.0EATliERAGE M. H ALL H.SCHMIDT '
g,g, l
M4 BUILDING PROJECT ENGINEERING PMCS PROJ. SUPPORT AS MANAGER MANAGE.t MANAGER SUPERVISOR SERVICES MANAGER p~
B8R M. M B AY H. DEEM R. G EN TRY C
C253
- 0. MURR AY D.FRANKUM G.C AN NUCLEAR GBH C.P. PROJECT ENGINEERING ENGINEERING g
- y*
MANAGER M ANAGER R. B ALL ARD L.PO PPLEWELL (721)
R. C ALDER J. NORMAN @ (685) 1 ENGINEERING-OF CP
~
l z
.--.7
.~
\\
m
plOENT G C O.
l l SPEt4CE _ :l VICE PRESIDENT l
NUCLEAR I
OPERATIONS 6 CLEMENTS
\\
START-UP MANAGER M AN AGER is!STANT NUCLEAR TUGCO ROJECT OPERATIONS O/A ERAL MGR.
D.CHAPM AN J.KUYKENDALL BRITT,Jr (101) a O l
'llGEMENT START-UP SUPT.
MANAGER QE SITE O A DALLAS
~
BlSTANCE MANAGER CPERATIONS PLANT SUPERVISOR MANAGER QA O PERATIONS A.VEGA h
L.8tELFELDT R. C AM P T. JENKINs
$309)
R.uGNES NCEP.SOM b
b b
,g APERTUREI CARD IAlso Avanable On YAperture Card
%1hr--69Q BfWj ERATIONS INTERFACE SES 85120:101.23 - O\\
f l
4 EXECt VICE P@
ENGIN?
L. Fi VICE PR:
PGM-C J. G Et 1
MAN /
J.NERF i
1.
I OPGM NUCLEAR EMINISTRATIVE PROJ. SUPPORT
~ '
MANAL SERVICES ASSif EXECUTIVE SERVICES SCONTROL MANAGER I D.AN@
A SSISTANT MANAGER SUPERVISOR B.DE ATHER AGE H. SCHMIOT M. H A1.L
__ R. GENTRY (639)
ENGINEERING LICEN S ING FIN ANCI AL /
~
PRO J. CONTROL CO ORDIN ATOR SUPERVISOR ADMIN. SERVICES
~
P. MILAM J.M ARSH ALL R. JOHNSTON H.HUTCHINSON 5
SENIOR ACCOUNTS GROUP SUPERVISOR fNGl4ER PAYABLE B. NELSON D. W A D E L.TIB E RI A h
SECRETARY NUCL. FUEL SURPLUS OPGM SUPERVISOR EQUIPMENT ROD CONTROL P.WILLEY R.JANNE L RE A
& WAREHOUSING K.THORNTO N g
(4 93)
BSR Accounting W. AR M B R U STER D
MANAGEMENT Gf CPSES
(
e'
- -=%
i E
5
i
' TiV E ESIDENT 5 RING (AR fSIDENT/
'PSES RGE TANT CT ER bb i
I I
I I
BUILDING F.N GINEERIN G (EMNT P ROJ. MANAGER PMCS MANAGER
,ANCE 8SR SUPERVISOR M AN AGER T
M.PM BAY B.MURRAY H. DEEM
[RSONS D. FR ANKUM F. POW ERS g43 G.' CRANE BIS NUCLEAR G&H C.P. P OJECT ENGINEERING ENGIN EERlNG N. Y.
MANAGER '-
MANAGER R.CALDER R.S ALL AR D L.POPPLEWELL SU P V. ENG* R.
PROJ. ELECT.
l NUCL.S MECH. -
ENGINEER (601)
F. M ADDEN (136)
LV0GELSANG
/
PROJ. 1 & C rpf
.SUPV. E NG'R.
ENGINEER AL (80l}
G. CREAMER ggg ELECI / I a C __
MECH ANIC AL CARD ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR SUPV "
(2 71)
C. MOEHLM AN g gg 0R P ROJ. Civ IL
'dpWfute Card h
M. STRANGE ENGINEER (4 2l)
R. H O O TO N SU P V. E N G' R.
Civit '
3 R. KISStNG ER P. P. SUP PORT ENGINEER Q2p J.FINNERAN
%OUP PAGE_
of
/
8512030123'01 I
i
~-- -
\\
PROJEC SER MA R. D.
PROJECT CONTROL MANAGER H HUTCHINSON h I
COST /EST.
PROCUREMENT SUPERVISOR OCC S SUSCONTRACTS J. BURNS h
SUPEhVISOR J. YOUNG 8LOOD h C. BOYO t
PROJECT CONTRO'LaPRi CP t
'sp _
m i
kSUPPORT flea l
EENTRY h STAFF e
/
SUPI PROD. CONI 8 WAREHOUSl?xi K.T HORNTO N h i
k t
~
APERTURFI l
CARD (h
E erture c.
P s
's
( ' s.
bC REMENT GROUP g
we or SES
=.i.
Al F
h J. T. ?
BUILDING BUILDING B
MANAGER M AN AG ER M<
R EACTOR SLDG.
UNITI SAF UNIT I
'U
.(253)
(243)
F POWERS B.MURRAY G.B B. WARD D.SNYDER N. !
46 e.
BUILDING M/
C P!
~
T l
A 3
R 1
4 SISTANT ROJECT ANAGER
! ERR ITT, Jr. ((
9 LDING PROJECT NAGER M AN AGER
,EGUARCS B&R nit I CRANE ( 818 )
D. FR AN KU M ; 224 MiTH (805)
TI APERTURE CARD b Availahre on Aperture C,-
,NAGEMENT ~
h PAGE of ee a e+
g
El Q E
~~
~~
SUPERVISOR L. BIELFELOT h STAFF 8.C. S C OTT g QC S&
SUPERVISOR h
]
J0. HICKS STAFF K.C O LLI N S AUXILIARY E/C Swl-TURB.
SAFEGUARDS R E ACTO R O C SU PV.
O C SUPV.
h h
h MG. KRISHEP h
M. W ELCH J.EL LEUT WYLER R$NOW F
q SITE
(
~*
,e
(.
I f
r, e,
[E Q O
'AGEO M
'vEGA @
O A SECRETARY h
f E LANCASTER I
QA CLERK Q
L. JONES 1
I a
r 3 A 88R SITE ERVIS00 Q A MANAGER h
G.R. PURDY I
OPRV / CLERIC AL DCV VERIF AS BUILT UNIT 2 S U P ER VISOR COORDINATOR COO R DIN ATOR SUPERVISOR h
h 8.CPOMEANS C. CORE lN G HUGGINS 4.OST ER M AN I
t r
,rgi APERTURE CABO also Available on
' Apertur.
A PPROVED
?CATE
) A / QC SHEET 1 of 8 i
-ae em em*6
,.8 512 0 3 01 2 3,-o$
{
m
7 I
1 5
T COMPLETIONS /
I S/U SUPPORT G. SMITH S PECI AL BOP HVAC MTG PROJECTS S.FRAN KS &
A. LILLY @
P. OLSON Q R.RUSSOM g STAF l
l
'bP9d i
8 i
1
\\
\\.
I m
i i
JGCO START-UP MANAGER R. C A M P g
,EAD START-UP
! ENGINEER l T. MILLER SECTION LEADER K. LU KEN g
ELECTRICAL NSSS-AUX.
I8C NSSS BUILDING ACCEPTANCE GROUP D. LONDON 9
J. COLLINS g C. PU FFER g L PORTER 9 R.VANDER GRIFT @
APERTURE CARD T-UP GROUP C P S ES Icil"."""'"
'd n
i i
i M/
NUCI J. C.
i
~
b e
N OPERATIONS SUPT.
ADMINISTR ATIV E 3
SUPT.
R.B.S EID E L R.R. W lSTR AND SECURITY OPERATIONS OPERATION S MECHANICAL SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUP E.RVISOR SUPERVISOR ENGINEER MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS P. SMITH J.R U MS EY L.B ARN ES J. ALLEN I
E.JERGINS J.BR ACKNEY b
b b
D D
g NOTEi ALL PHONE EXTENSION NUMBERS ARE ON OPERATIO l
THE OPERATIONS TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
(
CP' 897-4856
e bHACER EAR OPERATIONS (UYKENDALL CORPOR AT E PLANT SITE MANAGER r NT OPERATIONS R. A. JONES i
)
I e
ENGINEERING kiNTENANCE
- SUPT, SU PT.
/
DW.B R ASWELL R. BLEVINS ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE 18C RESULTS CHEMISTRY a RACIATION OPERATIONS Q/A ENGINEER ENGINEER ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION CAINTENANCE ENGINEER ENGINEER B. TAYLOR E.AL ARCON B.LANCASTER D. DEV IN EY 8.0ELANO C. SCOTT D. D AVIS O
421@
O n
APERTURE 4
CARD' Also Available o,
" Aperture on.
NS GROUP 8 5in c ap 123 -o1
/
~
SES
c' NRC TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAft 700=to CmurAc3g CortANCHE PEAK TEAM
'Proiect Manager John Merritt (101)
'ONTACTS C
't.
'QA/QC Tony Vega (321)
Bob Scott (859) 2.
E'lectrical and.I&C Larry Popplewell (721)
Charlie Britt (171)
R. B. Kelley (276) 3~.
Preop, Starting & Testing Dick Camp (711)
Tom 11111er (255) 4~.
Protective Coating Ron Tolson (705) 5.
Civil-Mechanical Claude Moehlman (271)
Billy Ward (726)
George Tanley (262)
DCC Heyward Hutchinson (257)
Y.
Engineering Procedures Richard Baker (573)
, 8.
' Operations DickJones(897-4856,#3202)
FACILITIES, ARRANGEMENTS, MISC.
Bob Deatherage (695)
John Dittmar (816)
Jack Redding (451)
James Calicutt (430 P. M. Milam (713)
Don Anderson (103) 8111 Nelson (862)
David Wade (252)
JoeNhnson(518)
Fu tA.-BrM D'
t c, 360
,m, wa...-.
e-.-,....----
GENERAL INFORMATION
^
COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT)
' TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
TRT TRAILERS OUTSIDE LINE B&R SITE EXT.
- 1 817-897-3167 871
- 2 817-897-3166 854
- 3
.817-897-4683 812 '
NRC Res. Insp. Const.
817-897-2201 299 i
.NRC Res. Insp. Ops 817-897-4873 TUGC0 SITE EXT. 3216 FTS 354-3279 FAX 817-897-2203 MILING ADDRESS:
% RESIDENT INSPECTOR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P. O. BOX 38 GLEN ROSE,TX 76043 RITS CODE:
X90060 COMANCHE PEAK-1, TASK FORCE-ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP INVESTIGATION 6
(
i O
j
(
g.'
A J
Comments from J.'Scinto, OELD General 1.
Writeups are disjointed. Often only['plore allegation is described is the first section " characterization" from M m on the nature of the problem isn't mentioned. Often not even the allegation number is not mentioned in the Assessment or not until near the end of-the Assessment discussion.
2.
The breakup makes the discussion disjointed. The Assessment sounds like we are concluding there is no problem. Without thoroughly considering. the problem and we use language like no safety significant but later we find that there-is more work needed.
3.
There are a number of places where these SSERs claim lack of specifics but no that.anyone attempted to contact the alleger.
Did you try to contact the allegers for more specifics? If so, this should be mentioned.
If not, you need some explanation.
c]$
1
,,n-
- 1, p. 1 - The addition of a boiler plate sentence up front on " safety signifi-cance" doesn't help.
" Safety significance" must be the result of your assess-ment and your assessment must be adequate to make the safety significance clear.
- 1, p. 3, bottom - Conclusion that they did not violate specs is premature.
Allegation is that it slumped 4 inches. You say procedures says 4 is okay if you follow procedures. Did they follow the procedure required by the Spec?
If not, then could be a violation of the spec.
- 1, p. 4, middle - There is a very positive conclusion that "any which was added was within stipulated limits." That's far too positive a statement based on what you seem to have done. All you can say is something like "The only irdication of water addition found by TRT was...."
- 1, p. 4, middle - QA/QC sentence you call the problem an " isolated instance."
I don't see how you can call it an " isolated instance" with all 1 problems you find in the Civil Structure SSER's. q]h M ug f Q,h t
w.
- 1, p. 4, bottom - Conclusion that circulating water intake is not safety related should be part of discussion not conclusion.
But are you really sure?
I would be surprised if the intake structure for the ultimate heat sink water supply was not " safety related."
THItJK THG4 6 A C.orJ FUG,tcmJ GETWEEAl M
O R.C v M TI M 6;
' W/PTEE. MTAKE WHtc4 16 dC*d 5,4r-eTf-fELFiqiiD hhj D T M iii scewca kee Iavas w w is s m ry-ee u m 2
N,-
- 2, p. 1, middle - What's the the reference to ruling?
Is it just to say you have no specifics for the allegation.
Then just say no.
Did you try to contact alleger for some specifics?
2, p. 2, bottom - You indicate that 2 or 3 yds of concrete had been placed before the slump tests were done and the concrete failed.
Is this normal practice to start to concrete before the slump tests are done?
Is this consistent with applicable procedures? You seem to say on p. 3 that this is f
normal practice.
Do you mean that or do you mean that this is a ccmmon p-oblem?
What ever happened to the 2 or 3 yds of concrete?
Y) (U)& h) stw-fA (CM<50-O an a,,
s e &m 1 m *I"
~
s Ad " ~ ~e e L. n n s?f,. ).i'aYu & d'"" "#
4 g
z i
jn 4.s v " ~ "
e b
G s
E
- %, To sTAie rwr 12 Auseinmod 0F "% %7g.
4 "w'1" pmaar w comra n o seea rouw,rc ce b D6M f:GF<*'E *111 sir
- A6LF3, m
3
\\'
- 3, p. 4, top - Why is lack of-reporting for 7 days make the concrete
~
acceptable? Where the hammer readings supposed to be the same for the concrete or for other concrete?
- 3, p. 8, top - What's the point? Did they just rely on hammer tests to conclude the concrete was okay or did they do something else? What did they do to satisfy the code for the critical elements? Does the code really say
" forget abeut critical elements?"
- 3, p. 8 - The conclusion is a significant overstatement. As I see it from this writeup - as to QA/QC -
(1) Some concrete placed without 0A/0C.
(2) Safeguards Basemat 2 of 15 cylinders failed test - what happened?
(3) There is an unresolved dispute between TUEC inspector and B&R or surface temperatures.
(4) Field cylinders failed test we don't mention what TUEC did to show it was okay.
O e
4
=-
t
\\>
- 4, p. 3, bottom - Are we satisfied with NCR disposition? Did B&R generic problem? Conclusion? Basis? \\/E6 COM40/J C9//C4676 SGCv/I/MME OT/itlf)/it'D CotK/MTG /2GMPC /tM T'2
- 4, p. 3, middle - Do we know source of.small crede? Shrinkage? If no'. isn't it an overstatement to now conclude that a hairline crode cannot be an indication of impaired structural capacity?
- ?, p. 5, middle - Does the BNL people working on the summary disposition agree - this doesn't change stiffness of wall?
- 4, p. 5, bottom - What's the point of to B&R Report? Do we agree that E&E assessed correctly?
If we haven't reached our own judgment.
How can you reach conclusion on p. 6 that is okay,
- 4, p. 6 - Badly organized to say everythings okay except a.
But then you note that c was true but is now repaired. But on next page you point out QA/QC problem on Probably should start out saying no safety significance to b, d, e, f.
Item a has safety significance but is being repaired, Item b was substantiated but has been repaired. However, problem demonstrated by a and c show QA/QC problem (table from p. 7).
But note you need to decide on c whether you agree that B&R properly assessed whether it was generic and you agree it wasn't. But you seem to think that it may well be generic.
So did B&R fail to assess whether it was generic or do you think B&R's assessment was wrong?
5
l
- 5, p.1,- bottom - D;d you look at any paper in connection with this? It appears that you did not.
If that is not true, this should be clarified.
i 4
L
- #5, p. 2, bottom - What did you find? All you say is no _
from procedure? Why? Were they all straight? Or were they all crooked but with bend washers? What did you find? How far off straight were they?
- 5, p. 3 - Did you table to the alleger? Why not? What makes you think l
the allegation refers to concrete poured the day of the party?
It may refer to trash left in from on 2, 3 or 4 and left for a week or more without cleanout. Were forms lef t up for a week or so w/o pouring? What makes you think it was a " big party"? Suppose it was a couple of group with a six or 2? What effect would that have? This should be discussed rather than l
to jump to the same conclusion as Reg. IV that it can't be true because the only concrete on that day was up in the air and you can't have a very large party up in the air. Mainpoint is how come this is so unclear, why wasn't t
alleger contacted.
e 6
,4
. =
- 6, p. 4, middle - Why did we look at Unit I? Did you talk to alleger again?
Did you disagree with Rev. IV? Why?
[
- 6, p.10, top - Discussion of #5's and #8's is unclear. Were #8
{
eventually in fact used? That's what p. 12 says but this is unclear here?
l Did you take to the alleger about
_?
When are key to figuring out what allegation is are you sure are right? Did you confirm with alleger? Why not?
- 6, p. 10, - How do you reach conclusion that was ok? You say you can't tell whether QC may have okayed it after use? If they did not follow procedure what makes it okay for you now to on OC okay which did not follow OC procedures? (Or that you don't know whether they in fact followed' procedures?)
)
- 6, p. 11 - I dont understand why you looked at all 33 pours for Unit I but only assumed you knew the-location if it was in Unit 27 Did you talk to alleger?
- 6, p. 12 - You have lots of QC defects in this discussion. Don't limit this conclusion to the one QC procedure question.
7
- 7, p. 1, bottom - Are you sure you have the right support? Are you sure alleger was wrong about the building? Did you talk to alleger?
- 7, p. 2, top - The capacity of the has not been irroaired? Do you mean no reduction at all in strength? Or do you mean its still adecuate?
If there has been some reduction in strength but its still adequate say that.
I 8
4
/
- 8, p.1 - First, did you check this out with O! falsification people? Do they agcee that NRC can't find indications of falsification?
If they don't agree then soften this.
- 8, problem runs through whole writing until you get to page 9.
Problem is you confirm that slump and air tests are probably okay because compression tests were consistent - but you conclude compression tests were not false because slump and air tests are consistent. On the bottom cf p. 9 you finally seem to reorganize the problem.
- 3, p. 3, bottom - Unclear how did you identify pours of 10 yds or less by looking at NCR's - would call pours of 10 yds or less be by an NCR?
Why?
- 8, p. 4, middle - Does this allegation relate to a particular inspector? If so did you check with alleger to make sure we got the same or identification right? Did you have feedback with alleger?
If it was not an inspector identified by name or if there is more than one level II inspector then how come Reg. IV limited review to one __,7
- 8, p. 5 - Was alleger working for Texas or Hunt? This is not clear from writeup. Also, aren't you splitting hairs by saying II wasn't in "any management position" - when you say he "was in charge of the work" - If he is in charoe how do you distinguish this from management?
- 8, p. 7, middle - You never seem to come to grips with question of whether it was feasible for 1 inspector to do 28 inspections in 1 day? And even if it was physically possible - what were the circumstances? Was it reasonable to believe he actually did 28 tests in one day? Why? The discussion of the 21 doesn't come to any point. What are you at?
- 3. p. 7, bottcm - Which 2 allegations are confirmed I car't tell from reading the preceding pages.
9
r l
- 8, p. 5, top - How do you know guy who did the work was qualified? Also, was j
it really a pretesting problem that unqualified people generally signed off test reports? Do you fix this by a DDR?
- B, p. 9, middle - Can't reach conclusion of "no safety significance" to any of the above when you acknowledge just 2 paragraphs that you argument that depends on questioned tests. Conclusion of no safety significance is premature until evidence requested at bottom of page is received.
10
- 9, p. 1, middle -
negated the minimum requirement? What do you mean? Unclear?
- 9, p. 2, top - Unclear.
- 9, p. 2, middle - Was there any NRC investigation in 77, don't mention it here.
- 9, p. 2, miodle - Unclear.
Is the allegation that after NRC inspection they changed procedure to open book test? Or that they gave open book tests when they were supposed to give closed book?
F9. p. 3. n'ddle - Whole point about timing is unclear.
- 9, p. 3, bottom - Since I can't understand assessment I can't understand basis for the conclusion. Bottom who accredited work of individuals? B&R?
Do we agree B&R was right?
- 9, p.'4 - What did TRT do? Looks like we just read Reg. IV report? Did we take to alleger? Was Reg. IV report thorough enough for TRT a
e conclusion without any itself?
Il
- 11, - This one is clear that you tried to find alleger and couldn't get hold of him (this is okay).
- 11, p. 2 - Discussion of what the problem was is unclear. Are we saying said its okay for to be in though not on drawings? But paragraph on bottom of page says B&R procedure would assure there was an air gap? Unclear was there supposed to be an air gap or filed gap? Next page is out again.
l l
l i
f l
l l
12
t
- 13, p. 2, middle - What is the point of this discussion. You say crode is in the middle of a deep beam.
If it came from flex croding of top or bottom it it must have been a very large flex crode at top (or bottom) surface to penetrate to center of a " deep beam."
If it was a large crode which is not closed (because of
) - doesn't that need more discussions to explain why its okay.
- 13, p. 3 - Don't understand how you can say he was wrong about the description of the allegation on p. I gives only a general location.
9 e
13
- 15, p. 3, middle - Are really talking about 25 cuts of I rebar?
must have looked like swiss cheese? Why woisld someone cut I rebar 25 times?
1
=
14
- 14, - Should be carefully reviewed by CALVO to make sure it is consistent with same discussion in electrical.
Looks like its consistent but the discussions are different and 50 it may not be that there is an Have CALVO carefully check.
e b
15
1 1
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-19 Deficiency
Description:
Unauthorized quantities of water were added to concrete without QC approval during the Unit 1 basemat pour.
This occurred 7 times.
l Reference Documents:
C/S Category 1 Inadequate. Materials Used in Concrete.
Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size: 268 batch tickets Sample Bias: All batch tickets in pour package 101-2781-001 (basemat pour)
Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: None, the addition of water did not adversely affect the quality of the concrete produced.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor: _ Brown and Root Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
7-17-75 Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
DescribeQA/QCRelatedCause(s): Failure of Brown & Root to inform testing labora-tory of the addition of water to concrete.
DescribeCorrectiveAction(s):
Specific:
None Broad (QA/QC Related):
None
~
chV2-
=
. =
e o
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-24 Deficiency
Description:
Concrete was placed in the dnmo of Unit I without cuality control approval.
Reference Documents:
C/S Categorv 3 Poor Waather Cnndi ti nne Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: None, the dome was proved sound both by ultrasonic testing and structural integrity testing Area of Work:
Concrete Work X
Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown and Root Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred: 1-18-79 Month and Year Deficiency Discover'ed by NRC:
DescribeQA/QCRelatedCause(s):
Construction placed concrete without QA/QC knowledge or approval.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None Broad (QA/QC Related):
This deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/0C Group as cart of the overall'orngrammatie vouf ow concerning nrneedurot under Category 6 "QC inspection."
1
'S DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-52 Deficiency
Description:
Retests of concrete by the Schmidt hanner were not carried out.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 3 Poor weather conditions Number of Similh, Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/ A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: None, the concrete showed adequate field-cured strength for the type of structure in question.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown and Root Estimate Month and Year Defic'iency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
1 Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None Broad (QA/QC Related):
This deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Cateoory 6 "0C Inspection."
e DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-25 Breakdown in the quality control overseeing the Deficiency
Description:
consolidation of concrete.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 4 Concrete Voids / Cracking / Crumbling Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size: Reviewed several NCRs Sample Bias:
NCRs' dealing with honeycombed concrete Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
None the areas in question were adequately repaired.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement X
Welding Inspection and Testing Materials used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown & Root
- Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
DescribeQA/QCRelatedCause(s):
Inadequate QA/0C inspection of consolidation of concrete.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
None.
Specific:
This deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC Broad (QA/QC Related):
group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-26 Equipment may nave Deen set =on groutea piates oef ore Deficiency
Description:
it had properly gained strength through curing.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 5 Miscellaneous Concrete Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
'N/A Sample Bias:
All the grouted plates at the 860 and 862 ft. elevations in Unit 2.
Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
None, the grouted pads survived the initial loading without damage.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown & Root-Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate inspection by QA/QC personnel Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
Broad (QA/QC Related):
- None, l
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-12 and AC-37 Deficiency
Description:
Reinforcina steel may have been used orior to oroner QC receipt inspection.
Reference Documents:
C/S Cateaorv 6 Rebar Imoronerly Installed or Omitted Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A N/A Sample Bias:
Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
None. the reinforcing steel was subsequently inspected and approved by QC.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement X
Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible' Contractor:
Brown & Root 1975 Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC inspection.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None.
Broad (QA/QC Related): This potential deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall progransnatic review concerning procedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-38, AC-39 Deficiency
Description:
Omitted reinforcing steel was not detected prior to concrete placement.
Reference Documents:
c/S category 6 Rebar ImDr0Derly Installed or Omitted Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
6 Documented instances of omitted reinforcing steel.
Sample Bias:
Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
In one instance the ability of the Unit 1 Reactor Cavity Wall to carry the design ioads in i.he us-iauiii. uundii.ivu will have i.e Le verified.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar B'ocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement X
Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions
-QA Training & Oru nization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown & Root Estimate Month and Year Deficienci Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC inspection.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
TUEC shall perfonn an analysis of the as-built condition of the Specific:
Unit 1 reactor cavity that verifies the adequacy of the reinforcing steel between the 812-foot and 819-foot 1/2 inch elevations.
This deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC Broad (QA/QC Related):
group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET J
Allegation No.:
AC-10 Deficiency
Description:
Uncontrolled and undocumented repair of a hole resulting from the removal of a Hilti bolt.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 7 Uncontrolled Repair Number of Similar. Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability"o'f Component or System to Perform Function:
None, slab in question is still capable of carrying the design loads.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion ~ Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Labor Qualifications Materials Used
~
Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown and Root Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
April 1982 Month and Year Deficiency Discover'ed by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC inspection Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None Broad (QA/QC Related): This deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection"
,,,.---.m...
4 DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-1, AQC-2, AQC-3, AQC-7, AQC-46 and AQC-51 Deficiency
Description:
Concrete test lab reports may have been ' falsified.
In two cases AOC-1 and AnE_3 the allegations were substantiated.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 8 False / Wrong Documents Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
The reported strength of the concrete in some areas will need to be verified to assure that-the structures in question are capable of carrying the design loads.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
R. W., Hunt Co.
Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Jan.1976 through Feb.1977 Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
April 1979 Describe QA/0C Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/0C controls in the testina laboratory.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
TUEC shall determine areas where safety related concrete was placed between January 1976 and February 1977 and establish a program to assure acceptable concrete strength.
Broad (QA/QC Related): This potential deficiency will be assessed by TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 3 " Records."
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-9 Deficiency
Description:
Recertification tests may have been given "open book" which would indicate an ineffective QC control of the inspector certification program.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 9 Recertification Testing Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: None, the work of the inspector in question had been previously audited and found to be acceptable. Also a number of inspectors contributed to the test results which showed to concrete to be AreaoEWod.:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness TestiTig Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used g gggplifications X
Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
R. W. Hunt Co.
Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
March 1977 Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
April 1979 Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC control over inspector certification process.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None.
Broad (QA/QC Related): This potential deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 4 " Training and Qualification of Personnel,"
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-8 Deficiency
Description:
Concrete compression tests may have been run at a rate faster than allowed.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 10 Improper Testing Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size: N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: None, the fastest possible loading rate would have increased the indicated strength by no more than 6.5% and would have no affect on the acceptability of the concrete.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training f Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
R.,W. Hunt Co.
Estimate Month and Year Deficiencf Occurred:
1976-1977 Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
April 1979 Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC Controls in the testing laboratory.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None.
Broad (QA/QC Related): This potential deficiency will be assessed by the TRT
, QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning proccdures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
.~.__..._.__._-_._.z._,.__.,._..
.rv DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-ll Deficiency
Description:
Extra ennerata toet ry14 n a m.g r gm acceptable olacements may have been switched to other placements.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 10 Improper Testina Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample _ Size: N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function: Unless this was a widespread practice, the safety significance would be minimal because of the relatively few batches affected.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
R. W., Hunt Co.
Estimate Month and Year Deficiency, Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC controls in the testino laboratory.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific:
None.
Broad (QA/QC Related):This potential deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concernina orocedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET A
Allegation No.:
AC-41 Deficiency
Description:
Inadequate inspections were performed to verify the removal of rotofoam.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 11, Poor Workmanship Regarding the Use of Rotofoam.
Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size:
N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
The presence of rotofoam could affect the seismic response and dynamic response characteristics of.the Category I structures during a seismic event.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing
-Expansion
. bints X
U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown & Root Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
DescribeQA/QCRelatedCause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC inspections and documentation of non-conforming conditions.
Descr'ibe Corrective Action (s):
Specific: TUEC shall (a) perform an inspection to confirm that adequate separation exists between all Category I structures, and (b) provide the results of an analysis which demonstrates that the presence of rotofoam and other debris between all concrete structures does not result in any MMd&llM4&l(%llidd)(X significant increase in seismic response or alter the dynamic response characteristics of the Category I structures, components, and piping when compared to the results of the original analysis.
==e
- w
- 9m te.em q mee, + mmeha-e9-,.gs-m.n,,e
.aesw..
..p
1 i
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET AE-17 Allegation No.:
Deficiency
Description:
QC did not ensure that applicable provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 were fully met.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 14 Control Room Area Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size: N/A i
Sample Bias:~
N/A l
Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
The control room ceiling may not function adequately during a seismic event.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing l
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Design Control Responsible Contractor:
Brown & Root Estimate Month an.d Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
l Inadequate QA/QC control of the design process.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific: TUEC shall provide (1) the results of seismic analysis which demonstrates that the nonseismic items in the control room (other than the sloping drywall ceiling) satisfy the provisions of Reg. Guide 1,29 and FSAR Section 3.78.2.8, (2) an evaluation of seismic design adequacy of support systems for the WWOIM lighting fixtures and the suspended drywall ceiling which accounts for pertinent floor response characteristics of the systems, (3).
verification that those items in the control room ceiling not installed in j
j.
accordance with the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.29 satisfy applicable design
)
requirements, (4) the results of an analysis that justify the adequacy of the l
nonsafety-related conduit support system in the control room for conduits whose diameter is 2 inches or less and (5) the results of an analysis which demonstrates that the foregoing problems are not applicable to other Category II and nonseismic
^
structures, systems and components elsewhere in the plant,
~.._._....-.__._.._......_;.....-.,...._.._......_._.-..........._....~.._-.,_
DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AC-13, AC-14, AC-15, AC-18, AC-40 Deficiency
Description:
There may have been no effective QC program to oversee the issuance and use of diamond core drill bits.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 15 Rebar Improperly Drilled Sample Size:
N/A Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
Reinforcing steel cut without authorization could adversely effect the ability of the affected structures to carry the design loads.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Reinforcing Steel Brown & Root
. Responsible Contractor:
Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC program for the issuance of diamond core drill bits.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Specific: TUEC shall provide the followina information concernino the drilling of holes throuah rebar durina the installation of the trolley Drocess aisle rails in the Fuel Handlina Buildina:
(a) information to demonstrate that only the No.18 rebar on the first layer was cut, or (b) calculations to BrtXWXXS$X$CXRN15%RW))X demonstrate that structural intearity is maintained if the No.18 rebanon both the first and third layers are cut.
4 m
,e=~...m m...
..-new.
- = = -
-+-ew-e--
+ -
o DEFICIENCY DATA SHEET Allegation No.:
AQC-45 Deficiency
Description:
If the scales at the batch plant were tampered with as alleged. TUEC may not have had adequate QC control at the batch plant.
Reference Documents:
C/S Category 17 Concrete Sampling Number of Similar Deficiencies:
None Sample Size: N/A Sample Bias:
N/A Effect Upon Ability of Component or System to Perform Function:
None, if tampering did occur, it was confined to scales where tampering would have no effect at all or a beneficial effect on the concrete produced.
Area of Work:
Concrete Work Mortar Blocks Steel Fracture Toughness Testing Expansion Joints U-2 Vessel Placement Welding Inspection and Testing X
Materials Used Labor Qualifications Working Conditions QA Training & Organization Specify Other Areas:
Responsible Contractor:
Brown &, Root Estimate Month and Year Deficiency Occurred:
Month and Year Deficiency Discovered by NRC:
Describe QA/QC Related Cause(s):
Inadequate QA/QC controls at the batch plant.
Describe Corrective Action (s):
Soecific:
None.
Broad (QA/QC Related):This potential deficiency will be assessed by the TRT QA/QC group as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures under Category 6 "QC Inspection."
4 Suggested Areas for Contention V Panel Site Visit in Civil / Structural Discipline 1.
Control Room Ceilings Reason:
One of the five TUEC action items relates to Control Room Ceiling design deficiencies.
2.
Reactor Cavity wall at Elev. 812' to 819'.
E Reason:
Rebar placement deficiencs at Elev. 812' to 819' 3.
Schmidt Hammer Test Observation in Auxility Building.
Reason:
Schmidt Hammer tests are used to generate relative "as-built" concrete strength data in resolution of the allegation pertaining to concrete strength test data falsification issue.
4.
ObservationofTVprobeandmonitoringof"as'$uilt"seismicspace between buildings.
Reason: Use of TV probe and monitoring of as-built seismic spaces between buildings is required to resolve the allegation pertaining improper installation of roto-form material.
5.
Trolleyprocesp le of Fuel H.an? 'ng Buildio Reason': #18 ba s may ave been ut i properl and may affect tructural i rity.
j
[FuelPoolandSteelPoolLiner Reason: The QA/QC deficiencies associated with the installation of fuel pool liner may be of interest to the panel.
hDocumentControlCenterandRecordVaults Reason:
To understand the operation of information handling systems utilized by TRT staff Js resolving allegations.
in 8.
C ncrete Batchi g Plant
~q Reason:
veral all_egations in the Civil / Structural areas are related to batching plant quality control.and op rations (e.g., unauthorized addition of water, tampqriptj of weighigg machines etc.) V v'
v ih M3
W e4 9m4,,,g,,,j,,,p g
Wi 1:
2il i
O J l i y~
~
si h
s m
1 7 1
A 4
t X
0
- d.,1 s
{.
t g jg q
mu-A s >
g su 4
W I
1 L
3 st l [j~,
II 54 gt 4
t I
h 4
's
.