ML20211A842

Final Rept of Earthwork Module C3-01 of Facility Const Assurance Program of Facility Readiness Review Program

ML20211A842
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	09/08/1986
From:	Blais N, Mccormick T, Teague F WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:
Shared Package
ML20211A821	List: ML20211A817 ML20211A842
References
NUDOCS 8610170044
Download: ML20211A842 (212)

Text

.. _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ ..

~

lO . \

t I

l l

l WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM DOCKET NO. 50-508 I

1 FINAL REPORT l

OF 1 EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 0F THE WNP-3 CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM 0F THE WNP-3 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM SEPTEMBER,1986 f

O ._.._._...-___.._.___..73 8610170044 860910 i PDR ADOCK 05000508. -.

. ... A _ _ _ P D R .J-m...'>

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-3 PROJECT O

FINAL REPORT EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 PREPARED BY:

W,k. k T. A. McComick, Ofl8f8(o DATE Review Team Leader k

a - -m 8 t $!S @ ,fo f

N. F. Blai s, DATE Principal Assurance Engineer O "*

f [lIsltc.

. G. Teague, DATE Civil Engineer APPROV D BY: REVIEWED BY:

[hiffN 2 O, 8'28fm R. L. Knawa, DAlt. D. R. Goody, ~DATE Manager, Construction Assurance Quality Assurance LT J./G&ffin, 1 f/who DATE

1. 8-m f.'P. Burn, MA f ,DATE Program Manager, Readiness Review / Director of Engineering A. D. Kohler, 9$M

/ /DATE R. B. Glasscock, N $~S'Sb DATE l Director of Projects Director, Licensing Assurance

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 FINAL REPORT s

TABLE OF C0NTENTS SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -1

1.1 Purpose and Scope

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -1 1.2 Impl eme nta ti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -2 1.3 Arrangement of the Report . . . . . . . . . ..... 1-2 2.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3.0 EAP

SUMMARY

REPORT ON EARTHWORK DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4.0 REVIEW PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 4-1 4.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Contract Applicabili ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.3 Program Content . . ................. 4-2 4.4 Related Projec t Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.5 Procedures and Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.6 Review Plans and Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

5.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 5-1 5.1 O rgani zati on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Internal Control s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.3 Management Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.4 N RC I n vol veme n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5. 5 Oversight Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 6.0 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Sampl i ng Rati onal e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Review and Inspection Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 6.3 Checkl i st Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 7.0 PROGRAM RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.1 General Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 7.2 Pl ac eme n t Area s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 7.3 Checklist Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 7.4 Evaluation of Contractor Performance. . . . . . . . . 7-25

7. 5 FSAR Commitments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-35 7.6 Other CAP Technical Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41 i

l if i

l

TABLE OF C0NTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

8.0 CONCLUSION

S'AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.1 Summa ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.2 Re s ul t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 8.3 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3 9.0 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 4.5-1, CAP Of fice Organization Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Fi g. 5.1 -1, CAP Fl ow Di agram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Fig. 6.1-1, Logic Diagram for Earthwork Review . . . . . . . . . 6-5 1 Fi g. 7. 2-1, Compl eted Ea rthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 Fig. 7.2-2, Uncompl eted Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 Fi g . 7. 2-3, Ea rthwork Sec ti o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Fig. 7.2-4, Earthwork Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Fig. 7.2-5, Earthwork Section. . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 Fig. 7.4-1, Percent Compaction, RAB Access Ramp. . . . . . . . . 7-27 Fig. 7.4-2, Percent Compaction, Diesel Storage Tank A. . . . . . 7-28 l Fig. 7.4-3, Percent Compaction, Dry Cooling Tower. ....... 7-29 Fig. 7.4-4, M-K Class Al Fill, Percent Compaction. . . . . . . . 7-30

Fig. 7.4-5, RAB Access Ramp, Density Distribution. . . . . . . . 7-31 l (Q) Fig. 7.4-6, Diesel Stg. Tank A, Density Distribution . . . . . . 7-32

{'

Fig. 7.4-7, Dry Cooling Tower, Density Distribution. . . . . . . 7-33 Fig. 7.4-8, M-K Fill Density Test Distribution . . . . . . . . . 7-34 Fig. 7.4-9, PKS Class Al Fill, Percent Compaction. . . . . . . . 7-36 Fig. 7.4-10, PKS Class Al Fill, Density Distribution . . . . . . 7-37 LIST OF TABLES Table 6.3-1, Attri bute Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Tabl e 7. 5-1, FSAR Commi tments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-38 APPENDICES 1 CAP Review Plan for Earthwork, Module C3-01, Rev. 2 2 Open Items List (OIL), dated 08/15/86 a

l' O

fii i

FINAL REPORT OF EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 SECTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Washington Public Power Supply System has implemented a program of review and inspection of safety-related design and construction activities completed to date at WNP-3. It is entitled " Readiness Review Prograin" and consists of the following three elements:

o The Preservation Program - addresses on-going maintenance and protective activities for plant components.

o The Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) - covers in-depth review of the design process and its implementation.

o The Construction Assurance Program (CAP) - provides for in-depth review of completed construction and for self-assessment of the Preservation Program.

O These elements are designed to provide a significant measure of confidence that safety-rel ated design and construction activities, completed to date, are acceptable for the eventual licensing of the plant. The Readiness Review Program is being conducted in accordance with applicable criteria of 10CFR50, Appendix B, and is fully described in a' Program Manual. The Program is accepted by and participated in by the NRC through periodic reviews and inspections. Program results are presented to the NRC in the final module reports, which are prepared by module review teams and approved by Supply System senior management.

This section of the Final Module Report identifies the overall purpose and scope of the Supply System's Construction Assurance Program (CAP) and, specifically, the review of earthwork construction activity; how and by whom it was implemented; and how it is reported.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of the Construction Assurance element of the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program is to furnish an additional measure of confidence, beyond that provided by the Project's approved Quality Assurance (QA) Program, that safety-related construction now complete is acceptable for the eventusi licensing of the plant. This is achieved for earthwork by review of requirements, procedures, and ectivity history of the work, and a technical review of quality records gener-ated as the work was accomplished at the site.

1-1

The scope of the Readiness Review of earthwork is all Quality Class I (QC-1) soils and soil-cement backfill operations, material s, inspec-

/7 tion, and testing that were completed prior to the construction delay h period which began May 23, 1983. This earthwork is all that could be considered safety-related, as it was placed under, over, and adjacent to safety-related structures, systems, and components. It was accom-plished by four supply, construction, and testing contractors. Each contractor is addressed in the CAP.

1.2 IMPLEf1ENTATION The CAP is a self-initiated program of readiness review, implemented by teams of qualified and experienced engineers, reviewers, and inspectors through program procedures and prescribed review plans designed spec-ifically to address the discipline or commodity for which each team is created. The procedures used in this review of earthwork are part of the Readiness Review Program Manual.

A Review Team of six technical personnel was assembled to investigate civil / structural construction at WNP-3, including this Earthwork Module, concrete, structural steel, and containment. The team has 146 years combined experience in design and construction, about 100 of which is associated with the nuclear industry. The team dedicated over 4000 manhours (two manyears) of research and investigation to the identification of project earthwork requirements and confirmation that these were scisfied. Another 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> or more were contributed by others in the research of project data and review of team effort.

f Supporting documentation for this report has been retained for the permanent plant file in accordance with the procedures established for the Readiness Review Program and the Construction Assurance Program.

1.3 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT This report provides, fi rst, an overview of the team investigation of earthwork and its results in an executive summary; then, a brief report of a concurrent design review by the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) element of Readiness Review; and next, the full detailed report of the CAP review of earthwork. The concluding parts of this detailed report deal with findings of the team, analysis of the results, the overall conclusions drawn, and recommendations to the project for future work after restart of the construction. An assessment of this entire revi.ew and its results by an independent Oversight Committee is provided at the end of the report.

O 1-2

2 SECTION 2.0 i l

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

t In May,1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System's nuclear power plant

. (WNP-3) at Satsop, Washington was approximately 75% complete when l construction was halted for economic reasons. The shutdown was accomplished

in a controlled manner with contractor records being gathered, reviewed, and i vaulted. Not-installed hardware was consolidated and protected and a i preservation program was fomalized and implemented. Preventive maintenance activities were reviewed and modified to assure no deleterious effect during i the extended construction del ay. Because earthwork was not finished, temporary backfill was placed over the completed work and the surfaces sloped to assure adequate drainage.

The Supply System initiated a Readiness Review Program for .the. facility in p 1985, designed to detemine the state of readiness of the project to advance i to the next stage of compl etion. It was intended to review the project i design and engineering work in an Engineering Assurance Program by sampling and examining the status and technical adequacy of the work completed to

' date, and to review the project construction in a Construction Assurance Program by critical inspection of a statistically significant sample of

hardware .and quality documentation that represent the safety-related i construction in place at the plant. After these programs and procedures were

established and the program was accepted by the NRC, the reviews commenced.

~ The ' first construction review is the Earthwork Module, which - began in March, j 1986, and concludes with this first report of the Readiness Review Program.

3 A Review Team of qualified, experienced professionals was convened to confirm that safety-related earthwork at WNP-3 is acceptable for the eventual licensing of the plant. The team sought to determine if there were any undetected generic quality problems 'with completed earthwork ' construction by a systematic sampling program to cri tically review technical and. quality records. A well-organized Review Plan was followed throughout the investigation, in which 21 checklists were used to examine over 20,000 attribute checkpoints on 1,009 documents that ranged from test and inspection i reports to audits and follow-up records. The reviewers recorded 44 types of

document abnomalities that resulted in three document deficiencies recorded i on Nonconfomance Reports that were reviewed and dispositioned by the AE and l evaluated and concurred with by the Review _ Team. No indication of poor earthwork quality was discovered in the review; the team concluded that the l work was executed by qualified contractors using up-to-date technology for i installing, compacting, testi ng , and inspecting soils and soil cement. The i in-depth examination of records shows that FSAR commitments and specification requirements were satisfied, and that NRC commitments were met for all l'

safety-related earthwork at the plant. There are no outstanding earthwork issues to be addressed after restart of constructien.

1 l Because infomation is available from a concurrent EAP design review of civil / structural engineering work, this report al so establishes that earthwork design and engineering was properly accomplished and that there are j no unresolved issues associated with earthwork. (See Section 3.0 for more i discussion of the EAP Report.)

f 2-1 i

i

.... . . , _ _ - _ . ~ . _ . _ . , . . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . .____.._-___,m.,_- , . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . - _ _ _ . , ._. -

h Corporate and project management closely monitored the review activities through periodic' meetings and monthly program reviews, and specific review and approval of CAP final reports is recorded on approval documents at the Os beginning of each report. An executive Oversight Committee was retained by the Supply System to monitor the Readiness Review Program activities. The Oversight Commi ttee reviewed and made assessments of the Readiness Review activities several times during the review process. Their evaluation is included in section 9.0 of this report.

O m

%- 4 A

s#

% 4 l

[' l 4

l.

• % a l

1

~

. l t

s 4

O 2-2 h

SECTION 3.0 '

i EARTHWORK DESIGN i This section is an excerpt from the Engineering Assurance Program's Civil /

! Structural tiodule E3-02. Since the infonnation on earthwork design review became available concurrently with the Construction Report, it is included l here for completeness and may be used to correlate findings of the two review i programs. While such infonnation will not always be available in this timely fashion, similiar design revieht data will be included with CAP reports when -

practical to do so. EAP reports are prepared separately at the conclusion of discipline reviews and system reviews.

5 I

O l

l O 3-1

O ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM MODULE E3-02 CIVIL / STRUCTURAL i

. ENGINEERING / DESIGN REVIEW REPORT OF WNP-3 PROJECT EARTHWORK O (This report is a portion of the Civil / Structural Module E3-02, for use in con-junction with the Construction Assurance Program, Module C3 Earthwork.)

Prepared By:

Team Leader Date Approved By: -

. 6c' - Y b' '

Manager, Engineering Assurance Program Date Prograril M er, Readiness Review Date 9-3-?b O

- - - - - - . . _ , ,--y,- - _ . . _ . _ _ , , , . - . .

-r_ , c, , , _ _ , . _,,,y--,.,.y , , , . , . _ - _ _ _ . _ . , , _ _ _ - , _ _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ , _ _ _ ,

A f

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Page i

4 I. PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. REVIEW PROCESS ....... .....-._,,.... 1 IV. REVIEW RESULTS ..................... 2 f- V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPENDICES A. Earthwork Checklists ................ 1 of 11 thru 11 of 11 1

B. FSAR Commitment Matrix ............... 1 of 3 i

thru .

3 of 3 i

e r 6 i

4

't

ENGINEERING /DESIGH REVIEW REPORT (3

(__/ OF WNP-3 PROJECT EARTHWORK I. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to describe the engineering / design review of the WNP-3 earthwork, and to document the results of the review. The review was conducted to assess the adequacy of design of the WNP-3 earthwork, and to confirm that the design complies with the project licensing commitments and represents good engineering practice.

II. SCOPE This report is a portion of the overall Civil / Structural design review module being performed under the auspices of the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP). Those portions of the Civil / Structural design review module that are applicable to the construction aspects of earthwork have been extracted and consolidated in this report. The review of the design criteria, selection of material properties, and methods for static and dynamic analyses of safety-related structures with respect to bearing capacity, displacement, and lateral pressures will be ad-dressed in the Seismic Analysis section of the Civil / Structural module.

The scope of this review includes:

O O

o Earthwork including excavation, backfill, and drainage.

o Subsurface investigation including geological mapping of excavated surfaces.

III. REVIEW PROCESS The review process began with the appointment of a senior civil engi-neer as Lead Reviewer who had had no previous involvement with the WNP-3 Project.

Appropriate sections of the FSAR (through Revision 6) were reviewed for significant commitments related to the design requirements for earth-work construction activities; that is, commitments that require implementation.

Checklists that included significant design-related FSAR and licensing commitments and requirements were developed and approved in accordance with procedural requirements. Design documents, including drawings, specifications, calculations and reports, were then reviewed against the checklists. The completed checklists are provided in Appendix A.

FSAR commitments are listed in Appendix B, including a reference to the corresponding checklist item number.

O O

IV. REVIEW RESULTS t

b} The review results are indicated in the checklist against each review item. The following lists the definition of the categories that were used for reporting the review status of each item.

A - Acceptable U - Unresolved Item could have an impact on the Engineering / Design of the plant and needs response / clarification from the AE before a final determination can be made.

0 - Observation Minor discrepancy that has no impact on the Engineer-ing/ Design of the plant.

NA or NR - Not Applicable or Not Reviewed No unresolved issues remained at the completion of the review. All items have acceptable technical disposition. However, some items require update of technical documents (such as drawings and FSAR) to incorporate approved changes. Because design document updating is an ongoing process, the fact that the FSAR and other design documents have.

not yet been fomally revised to incorporate approved and documented changes is not considered a deficiency. The review team verified that these items have been approved, and have been entered into the normal project action tracking system for routine processing, before the team judged the item " Acceptable."

V. CONCLUSIONS The design of the safety-related earthwork at WNP-3 is adequate and meets project commitments and is in confomance to standard industry practice. However, some of the as-installed conditions have not yet been incorporated into the design documents, although the changes have been approved and recorded for future incorporation.

On the basis of this review, WHP-3 earthwork design is adequate and meets all applicable regulatory requirements and project commitments.

O

(\ 0 V

C' h

APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 1 of 11 I I I

, 1 Source l Review l 1

Criteria / Commitment l Document l Results l Remarks l I l

. 1. Backfill important to safety of l 10 CFR Part l l safety-related structures and compo- l 50, Appendix l l nents shall be designed, constructed, l . A; general l l and tested to Quality Class 1 l design cri- l l requirements. I terion 1 - l l l quality l l

a. Are all backfill areas important I standards l l

, to safety of safety-related I records. l I structures and components 1denti- l l l

, fled in: l l l

~

1 I l' o FSAR and Design Specifications?! l A l FSAR Section 2.5.4 and Specification l l l WPPSS 3240-466, Revision 2, identify l l l safety-related backfill areas at 1) l l l RAD construction access ramp, and 2) l l l buried safety piping. However, back-l l fill at other locations such as over l l l excavated areas, adjacent to and below l l l safety-related structures and at Class l 1 l 1E Ductbanks have not yet been ident-l l l ified as Quality Class 1 in the FSAR.

l l l A SAR Change Notice had been issued l l l to update the FSAR.

l l 1 .

o Design Drawings? l l A l The following Design Drawings show l l l backfill adjacent to safety-related i l l l structures:

! I I l

! l l lo WPPSS 3240 G 2007, Revision 2 l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 2260, Revision 2 l l lo WPPSS 3240 G 2280, Revision 2 l l lo WPPSS 3240 G 2289, Revision 3 l l l t

APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 2 of 11 I I I l Source l Review I Criteria / Commitment i Document l Results l Remarks i I I I l' l Io WPPSS 3240 G 2240, Revision 6 l l lo WPPSS 3240 G 2248, Revision 0 l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 5143, Revision 3 l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 1108, Revision 7 l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 1109, Revision 7

, I l lo WPPSS 3240 G 1110, Revision 6 l l Io WPPSS 3240 G lill, Revision 7 l l lo WPPSS 3240 G 1112, Revision 6 I I l 2,

b. Are appropriate records of I l NA l See Construction Assurance Program safety-related backfill con- l l l Module C3-01 for a detail review and struction and testing maintained?l l l evaluation of construction / quality l l l records of backfill work.

J l l I

I I I i 2. Are the requirements for backfill l Appendix A l A l Specification WPPSS 3240-466, Revi-using soil cement in accordance with l to 10 CFR l l sion 2, lists the requirements, for Standard Industry practice (Soil- l Part 100 l l backfill using soil cement. The re-Cement Construction Handbook - l l l quirements listed are in general more i Portland Cement Association)? l l l stringent than Standard Industry l l l l practice.

Ma terial s l l l l l l A laboratory testing program was per-Soil - Graded sandy and gravelly l l l formed to determine the proportions materials, free from organic l l I of the design mix which would closely matter, and particles larger l l l resemble the static and dynamic prop-than 2 inches. l l l erties of fresh sandstone.

I I I Cement - Portland Cement - ASTM C150, I l l See FSAR Section 2.5.4.2.5 and

Type II l l. I Woodward-Clyde Report No. 78C575 I I I I l l l l l

O O

D-4 j APPENDIX A Page 3 of 11 EARTHWORK CHECKLIST 1

I I I l Source' I Review Criteria / Commitment i Document l Results l Remarks l l l l Water - Free from hamful amounts of , i A l l alkalies, acids, or organic l l l l matter. Water fit to drink l l l i is satisfactory. I l 1-

! I I i i Mix Design l l A I i l l l Percentage of cement in the mix and l l l optimum moisture content detemined l l l

, by Laboratory Testing (ASTM D558) to l l l (See Page 2.)

obtain minimum 95 percent of maximun l l l standard density. l l l

.! I I I Mixing l l A l ,

• l I I I Batch type central mixing plant. l l l l Mixing time to be such that uniform l l l

) mixture of soil, cement, and water is .I l l j obtained (30 seconds minimum). l l l j i l I '

j Transportation l A l I I Haul trucks equipped with protective l l l 1 covers. Total elapsed time between l l l j mixing and placing not more than 60 l l l minutes. 1 l l l l 1 I I I l l 1 i I -

i 1 i l l I I I l 3

2

O O O i

) APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 4 of 11

]

I I I i l Source l Review l i Criteria / Commitment l Document l Results l Remarks I I I I i Placing and Compaction  ! I A l (See Page 2.)

l l 1 l Soil cement mix to be spread and com- l l l

pacted level in lift thickness not to l l l l exceed 12 inches, using vibratory l l 1 j roll ers. Impact type hand compactors l l l to be used adjacent to walls. l l l

'. l l l l l l l 3

3. Are the requirements for backfill I. Appendix A l A l Specifications WPPSS 3240-466, Revi-using Class Al structural fill in I to 10 CFR l l sion 2, lists the requirements for

! accordance with Standard Industry l Part 100 l l hackfill using Class Al structural practice (Earth Manual - U.S. Depart- l l l fill. The requirements for materials, j ment of the Interior, Water, and l l l placing, and compaction are in general Power Resources Service)? l l l more stringent than Standard Industry i l l I practice.

1 l l l l l l l Vere qualification tests performed to l ANSI N45.2.5 l l The requirement for perfonning qual-

~

4. A qualify the basic material source / l I i ification tests is not included in manufacturer of (a) sand, (b) cement, I l l Specification WPPSS 3240-466, Revi-and (c) water used for soil-cement l l l sion 2, for soil-cement backfill.

backfill? l l l However, Specification 466 states l l l materials for soil-cement backfill l l I are to be similar as for concrete.

l l l l I l l l Design Specification WPPSS 3240-415, I l l l Revision 8, for concrete materials l l l requires qualification testing be

l l l performed for concrete materials.

J l l l Refer to CAP Nodule C3-02 for review J l l l and evaluation of qualification test l l l records for concrete.

j l l l

O O O APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 5 of 11 I I I l Source l Review l Criteria / Commitment l Document l Results l Remarks l I I

5. Was the compaction equipment and'com- l Appendix A l A l Specification WPPSS 3240-466, Revi-i paction process qualified in a test I to.10CFR l l sion 2, specifies Contractor's com-l paction procedures (compaction roller fill? Were the work procedures de- I Part 100 l i veloped from the results of the test l l l selection and methods) must be devel-

. fill? l l l oped from the results of the test

! l l l fill section.

l l l l l l See Construction Assurance Program i

l l l Module C3-01 for a listing of applic-l l l able Contractors' work procedures.

I I l l l l i 6 Are the sources and quantities of l Regulatory l A l The sources and quantities of back-4 backfill and borrow identified and l Guides 1.132 l l fill and borrow materials are ident-l are they shown to have been ade- l and 1.138 l l ified in construction records.

quately investigated by borings, I l l Required qualification testing has j pits, and laboratory property and l l been specified (see Criteria / Commit-strength testing (dynamic and  ! l l ment, Item 4).

sta tic)? l l l l l l l l l .

7. Are the extent (horizontally and ver- l Appendix A l A l The following primary drawings show tically) of excavations, fills, and I to 10 CFR l l details of excavations, fills, and slopes clearly shown on plans and l Part 100 l l slopes:

profiles? l l l l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 2003, Revision 8 Io WPPSS 3240 G 2007, Revision ?

l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 2011, Revision 5 l

o WPPSS 3240 G 2015, Revision 8 l l l0 WPPSS 3240 G 2016, Revision 11 I i l l l l l l l

O O O APPENDIX A l

EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 6 of 11 I I I '

I Source l Review l ,

Criteria / Commitment I Document i Results i Remarks i I I

8. Are the testing and acceptance cri- l Appendix A I A I The testing and acceptance criteria teria for safety-related backfill in I to 10 CFR l l for backfill are listed.in Speciff-compliance with the state-of-the-art l' Part 100 l I cation WPPSS 3240-466, Revision 2.

l conservative standards? l l l These backfill criteria are accept-l l l able for bearing pressures on found-4 (Soil-Cement Construction liandbook - l l l ations and buried pipe and are suit-1 - Portland Cement Association and Earth l l l able and conservative for both static

. Manual - U.S. Department of the In- 1 l I and dynamic conditions.

1 terior, Water, and Power Resources l l l

Services) l l l I I I I l I

9. Was the control of groundwater during l Appendix A I A l FSAR Section 2.5.4.6 describes the excavation adequate to preclude de- l to 10 CFR l I drainage system used during construc-gradation of foundation materials? l Part 100 l l tion of the common foundation mat.

l l l l Construction details are shown in De-j l l l sign Drawing WPPSS-3240 G 2003, Revi-l l l sion 8. The layout of the non-safety-l I I related permanent dewatering system l l l consisting of the collector system, l l l the drain system and the discharge I i l system is in general compliance with l l l Branch Technical Position HGEB-1.

l l l

I I l I I I i l I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I J

l l' I i

O O O i

j . APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST . Page 7 of 11

1 I I I Source l Review I Criteria / Commitment l Document l Results l Remarks

! I i . I

10. Are geologic maps of the excavations l Regulatory l A l Geologic maps of the excavation of for the facilities of the nuclear l Guide 1.132 l I the Reactor Auxiliary Building are power plant showing detailed data on l l l shown in Figures 2.5-55 and 2.5-56 of the stratigraphy included in the FSAR?! l l the FSAR. However, geologic maps of I l l the excavation of all other safety-i l l l related structures such as the Dry l l l Cooling Tower structure and the Diesel

l l l Oil Storage Tank structures are not j i l l yet included in the FSAR. A SAR l l l Change Notice has been issued to up-

I l l date the FSAR.

l l l l

! I I l 4 11. Are site topographic maps of good l Appendix A l A- l Site topographic maps are shown in quality and of sufficient scale to I to 10 CFR l l Figures 2.4-2 and 2.4-3 of the FSAR.

indicate pre and post construction l Part 100 l l Design drawings WPPSS 3240 G 2015, drainage patterns? l l l Revision 8, and WPPSS 3240 G 2016, l l l Revision 11, show general site grad--

l I I ing and drainage details.

l l l 3 l l l l 12. Are plans prepared showing location l Regulatory l A l FSAR Figure 2.5-64 shows the location i of all site explorations, such as l Guides 1.132 l l of all site explorations with the

] borings, trenches, seismic lines, I and 1.138 l l location of safety-related facilities 4 piezameters, geologic profiles, and l l l superimposed thereon. '

! excavations with the location of l l l 1

safety-related facilities super- l l l j imposed thereon? l l l l l l l l l 1

1 I I i l ~l I l l l I

O O O APPENDIX A i EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 8 of 11 i'

I I I l Source i Review I Criteria / Commitment l Document i Results l Remarks

I I I

) 13. Are profiles prepared illustrating l Regulatory I A l Geologic profiles showing relation-detailed relationship of the found- I Guides 1.132 l l ship of foundations of safety-related 4 ations of all Seismic Category 1 and I and 1.138 I I structures to the subsurface mate-i other safety-related facilities to l I I rials are shown in Figures 2.5-72,

? - the subsurface materials? l l l 2.5-75, and 2.5-76 of the FSAR.

I I I i

l 1 I j 14. Are settlement and differential set- l Appendix A l A I Settlement monitoring of the plant i tiement of safety-related facilities I to 10 CFR I l

structures was not perfomed. How-i measured? l Part 100 l l ever, safety-related structures are 1 I I founded on sandstone which has an i I i ultimate bearing capacity of 274 l l l l K/ft2 . As such, the settlement of 1 l l l the structures would be minimal.

l I l Theoretical calculations (FSAR l l l 2.5.4.11.8) indicate post-construction l l l settlement to be 0.42 inches, and the l i l differential settlement even smaller.

I I I

} '

l l I I I 1 l I I 1 1 I I I I I

! I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

. I I I 1 I I l l 1 I I I I i

5 i

O O O APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 9 of 11 1 I I l Source l Review l Criteria / Commitment i Document i Results l Remarks i' l I I

15. Is the liquefaction potential of l Appendix A l A l Liquefaction potential of Class Al

. Class Al structural fill evaluated? l to 10 CFR l l structural fill has not been addres-I Part 100 l I sed in the FSAR. Cyclic triaxial i l l l test data has not been obtained from l l l samples taken from the Class Al

) l l l structural fill. However, Class Al I i l fill material is well graded and com-l l l pacted to 95 percent modified Proctor

! I l l density, and is placed in confined

I l l areas, adjacent to pipes (FSAR Figure

, I l l 2.5-124) and the ground water has been i

l l l permanently depressed along the ex-i l l l terior face of the RAB by a drainage l l l system. Therefore, Class Al fill l l l material is not susceptible to l l l liquefaction. A SAR Change Notice

, I l l has been issued to clarify the FSAR.

l l l l l l

16. Are all required in-process tests on i ANSI N45.2.5 l A l The requirement for performing in-

1) cement, 2) sand, and 3) water used 1 l l process tests is not included in for soil-cement backfill performed? l l l Specification WPPSS 3240-466, Revi-l l l sion 2, for soil-cement backfill.

l l l However, Specification 466 states l l l materials for soil cement backfill l I I are to be similar to concrete. Spec-l l l ification WPPSS 3240-415, Revision 8, l l l requires in-process testing to be per-l l l fomed for concrete materials. Refer l l l to CAP Module C3-02 for review and l l l evaluation of in-process test records

I l l for concrete.

l l l

O O O d

l APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 10 of 11 l l l l Source i Review I Criteria / Commitment i Document l Results l Remark s l I I

17. Are appropriate ASTM Standards for i Appendix A l A 1 ASTM D-2167, ASTM D-1556, and ASTM determining in-place density of I to 10 CFR l l D-2922 listed in Specification earthwork referenced in the design l Part 100 l l WPPSS 3240-466, Revision 2, are specification? l l l acceptable methods 'for determining l l l in-place density.

I I I i l i

18. Was optimum moisture content of soil I ANSI N45.2.5 i A l FSAR Section 2.5.4.5.3 incorrectly I cement based on results of laboratory l l l indicates optimum moisture content to tests (ASTM-D558)? l l l be 10.3 percent. Results of labora-

l. l l tory testing (FSAR Table 2.5-26) in-l l l dicate optimum moisture content to be l l l 10.4 percent. A SAR Change Notice l l l has been issued to update the FSAR.

I I I i l l

19. Was the required amount of cement in l Appendix A l A l ASTM D-559 (wet / dry) and ASTM D-560 the soil cement mix determined by I to 10CFR l l (freeze / thaw) tests were not per-laboratory wet / dry and freeze / thaw l Part 100 l l fonned. However, as the climate at tests? l l l WNP-3 is typical of a west coast l l l marine type environment, there would l l l be minimal impact from any wet / dry or l l l freeze / thaw effects.

I I I I l l

20. Do the figures in the FSAR related to l Appendix A l A l FSAR Figure 2.5-120 does not agree excavation / backfill confonn to the I to 10CFR I l with the details shown in Design as-installed details shown in the l Part 100 l l Drawing WPPSS 3240 G 2007, Revision design drawings? l I l 2. A SAR Change Notice has been l l l issued to update the FSAR.

I I I I I l l l l

a O O O.

l APPENDIX A EARTHWORK CHECKLIST Page 11 of 11 I I I I l l Source l Review l i

Criteria / Commitment l Document i Results l Remarks  :

1 1 I l Do the subsurface investigations l Appendix A A l The subsurface investigation program

c.. I provide adequate coverage of the I to 10CFR I l at the site consisted of drilling and t l site area in sufficient detail to l Part 100 l I trenching (FSAR Section 2.5.4.3.2).

I define the specific subsurface l I l A total of 95 borings were drilled at i conditions with a high degree of l I l the site and soil and rock samples .

confidence? l I I were recovered. Adequate coverage of I I l the site area was attained.

I I I I I .

22. Are the material selection, placing,1 Appendix A I A Section 2A of Specification 3240-263, ,

compaction, and inspection require- I to 10CFR I I Revision 13, includes requirements j ments for safety-related backfill l Part 100 l l for material selection, placing, com-

! included in the construction speci- l l l paction, and inspection of safety-I fications in accordance with project l l l related backfill in accordance with t commitments. l l l project commitments. '!

I I I I I j l I ,

! I I l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I l I 'l I ,

I i 1 i i i I

I I I 4

I I I I I I

- 1 I I

{ l l I i l i I I -1 I

APPEN' DIX B Page 1 of 3 FSAR COMMITMENT MATRIX

, Appendix B lists significant FSAR commitments related to the design of earth-t work at WNP-3. The camnitments are paraphased for brevity, with the third column on the matrix indicating the checklist item that addressed the related commi tment.

All significant commitments were satisfactorily implemented in the design of earthwork at WNP-3.

The commitments related to design criteria, selection of material properties, and methods for static and dynamic analyses of safety-related structures with respect to bearing capacity, displacement, and laterial pressures will be listed and addressed in the Seismic Analysis Section of the overall Civil /

Structural review module.

1 L) j O

O O O APPENDIX B FSAR COMMITMENT MATRIX - Page 2 of 3 I I l l Review Check FSAR Section l Commitment l List Item I I 2.5.0 1 Comprehensive investigations were conducted to acquire data required for 1 21 l the evaluation of subsurface conditions. 1 .

1 -l l I 2.5.4.2.5.1 l Soil cement was used for safety-related fill to backfill the access ramps l la 2.5.4.5.3 I leading into the Reactor Auxiliary Building excavations. I i I l  !

I I 2.5.4.2.5.1 l A laboratory testing program was perfomed to design a soil-cement mix l 2,18, 6 l

l which would closely resemble the fresh sandstone. I i t i I i l 1 2.5.4.2.6.1 l Class Al .tructural fill was used to backfill beneath, around, and above I la

, 2.5.4.5.3 i Seismic Category 1 buried pipe. I

I I I I 2.5.4.2.6.2 I In-place density tests on Class Al structural fill was perfomed in acc~or- l 17, 8 i dance with ASTM D1556-64, ASTM D2167-66, or ASTM D2922-81. I I I I I 2.5.4.2.6 l Class Al structural fill consists of.well-graded sand and gravel having a l3 I maximum size of six inches and a maximum of 15 percent passing No. 200 l l sieve and compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor density. l l 1 I I 2.5.4.2.5.4 l The material specifications, testing requirements, and quality control l 4,16, lb I measures fom part of the overall Quality Assurance Program. I I I I I 2.5.4.3.2 i A subsurface investigation program was undertaken to define the site geo- l 21 l logy and to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site. I I I I I

O O O APPENDIX B FSAR COMMITMENT MATRIX Page 3 of 3 i

i l l l Review Check

FSAR Section l Commitment l List Item

I I J

2.5.4.5.2 l A field map was prepared to document geologic features at the excavation I 10 I for safety-related structures. l I I l 1 i

! 2.5.4.5.3 l Backfill was not required beneath safety-related structures. I la I I

I I 2.5.4.6.3 l Ground water flows were handled with a drainage system within the common l9 l mat excavation during construction. I i l l I I

2. 5. 4. 3.1 l A plot plan was prepared to show the location of subsurface investigations l 12 I I at the plant site. l I l

. I l 1 2. 5. 3.1 I Figures show the position (in cross-section) of the minor faults with re- l 13 I spect to plant structures. I j i I

I I

1 I

I I I I j

i l I i 1 I I

i l I

I I I I

, I I

! I I 4

I I

! I I I l

SECTION 4.0 g REVIEW PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The basic program to accomplish the review of completed safety-related earthwork construction at WNP-3 is described in this section. This description includes an overview of the tasks of the CAP, and the procedures and instructions used by the Review Team in its investigation of earthwork.

4.1 SCOPE This review provides assurance that there are no undetected generic quality problems connected with the QC-I earthwork associated with safety-related systems, structures, and components at WNP-3. The review was planned, accomplished, and reported in accordance with the provisions of the Supply System's Readiness Review Program Manual'. It covers all supply, construction, testing, and inspection activities by sample review of quality records maintained at the plant. Provisions for subsurface investigation of potential deficiencies were included in plans for this review, however, the need for such physical sampling did not arise.

4.2 CONTRACT APPLICABILITY The contracts reviewed in this module are all those connected with the supply, placement, inspection, and testing of QC-I backfill materials at the site. These contracts include the following:

o Contract 3240-204, Inspection and Testing Services, Pittsburgh Tes ti ng Laboratory (PTL). This contract was independent f rom the supply and placing contractors. The test lab established by PTL perfomed on-site testing for all soil, cement, and earthwork, as well as concrete work, for the project.

o Contract 3240-209, Supply and Delivery of Concrete, Associated Sand and Gravel Company (AS&G). This contract was for the supply and delivery of concrete, and included QC-I sof1 cement used as backfill.

o Contract 3240-263, Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) General Construc tion, Morri son-Knudsen Company, Inc. (M-K). This contract included placing, compacti ng , curi ng , and inspecting soil-cement backfill and Class Al structural fill, o Contract 3240-251, Installation of Piping Systems, RAB and FHB, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. (PKS). This contract originally included structural backfill for buried safety-related piping, but the work  !

was transferred to M-K's scope af ter a small amount of work was  ;

performed by PKS without approved procedures. The PKS work was ,

accepted as adequate based upon a review which was documented on l NCR's. This subject is more fully covered in paragraphs 7.3.1.8 l and 7.4.4.

4-1

l i

1 4.3 PROGRAM CONTENT The review program is' fully described in Section~ 3.0 of the Readiness O' Review Program Manual. Procedures established to control .the repetitive activities associated with the CAP reviews are provided in Section 6.0  !

of the Manual, and described briefly in paragraph 4.5, below.

Af ter . preparation .of the CAP Program Description, meetings and l discussions were held with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from NRC Headquarters and from Region V, including a public meeting held at Elma, Washington on October 29, 1985. Further clarifications and details were provided in response to questions that arose from the NRC's inspection, and the review program commenced with NRC acceptance in February 1986.

Review Team members were recrui ted to perform the first series of module reviews in the civil / structural discipline. The team members' functional responsibilities 'are addressed in Procedure CAP-6.1.

Qualifications of the personnel selected for the team are covered in the Review Plan for Earthwork, Module C3-01, addressed in Paragraph 4.6. The Review Plan is included as Appendix 1 to this report.

The Review Plan for this module is a detailed description of specific activities to investigate the quality of earthwork completed to date, and includes:

o Identification of construction requirements o Preparation of checklists to verify that requirements were satisfied o Identification of safety-related work completed at the project o Identification of contractors who perfomed the work o Identification of potential problems that may have existed o Statistical sampling of records .for material s, ac civi ties , and personnel qualifications o Review of quality records generated during construction o Collection and analysis of the results of review o Reporting the activities of the Review Team

-Statistical methods were developed for sampling construction work, and a sampling program was established wherein the results of examining a number of itemsl would be expected to characterize the quality of the entire amount (population) of those items, with a high degree of confidence.

This Earthwork Module is not a superficial document review. The Review Team selected important attributes on quality records that documented critical material characteristics and construction activities in the perfomance of earthwork at the project, and made a comparative review of them for technical content. Results were recorded on checklists as I An " item" may be a hardware component, a document, an activity, or other construction product, test, or inspection.

O 4-2

observations of contractor confomance with respect to specific project requirements. Negative observations were collected on a CAP Open Items (3 List (0IL), and investigated further for potential deficiency or

() resolution. The OIL is included in this report as Appendix 2.

All identified discrepancies and deficiencies were resol ved and the issues were closed, or =were detemined to be not-in-compliance with project requi rements. Nonconfomances were recorded in accordance with WNP-3 procedures for disposition by the project's technical authority, the Architect / Engineer (AE).

The collection of all results were analyzed to detemine their overall importance to the construction process and its products, and are reported herein.

4.4 RELATED PROJECT REVIEWS Evaluation by the Review Team of two previous project reviews of issues related to WNP-3 earthwork are also included in this report:

o NRC Item of Noncompliance dealing with the falsification of records by the testing contractor, o NRC Circular IE 81-08 concerning industry problems with control of installed backfill, and specifications for foundation material s.

The Team's evaluations are addressed in paragraphs 7.6.3 and 7.6.4 of the report.

4.5 PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS The procedures governing activities in the CAP are contained in the Readiness Review Program Manual, Section 6. They are described briefly below.

1

4. 5.1 CAP-6.1, Organization and Functional Responsibilities.

This procedure describes the organization to implement the review program and the functional responsibilities of the participants for fulfilling the program requi rements. The organization is illustrated in Figure 4.5-1.

4.5.2 CAP-6.2, Accountability.

This procedure establishes WNP-3 Project and Supply System organizational responsibility for the activities necessary to implement the CAP. It is used to identify the scope of participating organizations and the interfaces among them.

O V 4-3

1 C

READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MANAGER I

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY - - --- OVERSIGHT COMITTEE ASSURANCE 1

1 1

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE I y

O V

REVIEW TEAM REVIEW TEAM REVIEW TEAM LEADER, LEADER, LEADER, ELECTRICAL TASKS ECHANICAL TASKS CIVIL TASKS l

l i

ENGINEERS ENGINEERS  !

ENGINEERS REVIEWERS REVIEWERS {

REVIEWERS INSPECTORS INSPECTORS INSPECTORS

- DOC REVIEW - DOC REVIEW - DOC REVIEW

- HDWR INSPECT - HDWR INSPECT

- HDW INSPECT

- SYS WALKDOWN - SYS WALKDOWN

- SYS WALKDOWN

- RESULTS ANALYS - RESULTS ANALYS - RESULTS ANALYS

- REPORT WITING - REPORT WRITING - REPORT WRITING Figure 4.5-1 ,

i CAP OFFICE ORGANIZATION CHART l

l l 4-4 l

. - - - ' - - - - - - - - -- --.-, -_-ym- - , , - - _.---,.-.--e. ,,9.,,,. -. ,._ _ - - - - - - . , , - . . , . - . - - , .m m ,mm- .- , -

- .~

41p-4.5.3 CAP-6.3, Reviewer / Inspector Selection Process.

p/ This procedure establishes a method for selecting qualified y team leaders, engineers, reviewers, and inspectors who are independent from organizations that performed the work being reviewed.

4.5.4 CAP-6.4, Indoctrination and Training.

This procedure ensures t' hat the knowledge and proficiency of Review Team personnel is enhanced and maintained through classroom traini ng, reading assignments, and plant orientation in order to proficiently implement the CAP.

4.5.5 CAP-6.5, Review Team Planning.

This procedure describes the method for identifying the sc]pe of work in each review module and for planning review activities. Planning of the review is further characterized in paragraph 4.6 of this report.

4.5.6 CAP-6.6, Preparation and Use of Checklists.

This procedure establishes the guidelines for checklists used to direct reviews of hardware and documents by CAP Review Team members and to document their results.

4.5.7 CAP-6.7, Review Process.

This procedure describes the method and ac tivi ties for perfonning CAP reviews, including sampling, review, inspection, observation, analysis, and reporting results.

4.5.8 CAP-6.8, Deficiency Report.ing.

This procedure establishes the method for reporting and resolving open issues discovered during the CAP review process.

4.5.9 CAP-6.9, Reports.

This procedure establishes the requirements for reporting CAP

, activities and guidelines for preparing reports.

4.5.10 CAP-6.10, Documentation Control.

This procedure establishes the control system for records generated by the CAP office.

O 4-5

- - -- m , ,,- --,,a--.,, .-m, , - - - - - - , -

4.6 REVIEW PLANS AND CHECKLISTS

( ')

(_,/

A Review Plan for Earthwork was prepared by the Team Leader in accordance with the requirements of the Program Manual, Procedure CAP-6.5, to verify the adequacy of completed earthwork construction by a review of selected recreatable attributes judged to be important in assuring the quality of the finished product. This plan contains 21 detailed checklists of such key attributes for technical review of quality records. Specific instructions for the examination of each attribute are included with each checklist. The Review Plan contains specific technical details for carrying out the earthwork review, and is included in this report as Appendix 1.

A list of the checklists used in the earthwork review is provided below:

Number Rev. Title CAP-D-C-01 -01 0 Soil' Cement - In-Place Density / Moisture Test CAP-D-C-01 -02 0 Cement - Compressive Strength CAP-D-C-01 -03 0 Soil Cement - Cement Content 1

C AP-D-C-01 -O t 1 Soil / Soil Cement Personnel Qualifications -

Testing C AP-D-C-01 -05 2 Soil Cement / Soils - Equipment Calibration i

CAP-D-C-01 -06 0 Soil Cement Density Test Frequency

}

CAP-D-C-01 -07 i Soil Cement / Soils - Curing & Lift Thickness CAP-D-C-01 -08 1 Soil Cement Water Quality CAP-D-C-01 -09 0 Soil / Soil Cement Personnel Qualifications -

1 Batch Plant 4

CAP-D-C-01 -10 1 Soil Cement / Batch Plant Equipment Calibration CAP-D-C-01 -l l 0 Soil Cement / Soils - Personnel Qualifi-cations, Placing Inspection C AP-D-GC-01 -12 0 QA Audits C AP-D-GC-01 -13 1 Site Surveillance (Sample Procedure)

C AP -D-C-01 -14 0 Proctor Tests / Sieve Analysis - Class Al Fill C AP-D-C-01 -15 1 Class Al Fill - In-Place Density Tests C AP-D-GC-01 -16 1 Site QC Surveillance 4-6 1

, Number Rev. Title C AP-D-C-01 -17 0 Class Al Fill Density Test Frequency

, CAP-D-C-01 -18 0 NCR Fill, Proctor Tests and Steve Analysis I

C AP-D-C-01 -19 0 NCR Fill, In-Place Density Tests

CAP-D-C-01 -20 0 NCR Fill, Density Test Frequency i CAP-D-GC-01 -21 1 Ebasco Quality Control Inspector j Qualification i

i h

l l

1 i

)

l 4

,f j

i t

) 4-7 l.

--an---,----gm,,,,,ww-ev~p- y ww -~v n ew, , me. ,emw --w.w., s m, . . .. _ .w w-w v,

SECTION 5.0 O PROGRAM MANAGEMENT b

This section describes the organization and management activities that control the CAP, and the methods by which close coordination and control were achieved.

5.1 ORGANIZATION The CAP is perfomed by the Supply System using personnel in each review module who were not directly involved in the construction reviewed in that module. Each review team is staffed by personnel from within the Supply System, Ebasco, or outside consultant organizations.

The Supply System's Manager, Construction Assurance, is responsible for the overall implementation of the program, and reports to the Program Manager, Readiness Review. Figure 5.1 -1 is a functional flow chart that illustrates the activities and responsibili ties of CAP participants. The program structure is identified in paragraph 4.5 and Figure 4.5-1.

5.2 Internal Controls The review activities that comprise this CAP Earthwork Module were perfomed by a highly qualified team of engineering and inspection personnel. Individual qualifications and experience are outlined in v the Review Plan, Appendix 1.

Numerous daily interfaces between the CAP Manager and members of the CAP office staff occurred throughout the development and implementation of the review, especially with the Review Team Leader. The Team leader was in constant contact with team members in the perfomance of the review, from classroom-style training in the use and philosophy of checklists to close scrutiny of completed work.

During the period of technical review of records, weekly CAP Office staff meetings were held in the manager's office to focus attention on status, progress, resul ts, problems, and plans for continuing the work. Some of these staff meetings were attended by the QA Manager or his representative. His participation was oriented to ensuring that the review confomed with applicable criteria of 10CFR50, Appendix B, and that the Review Team maintained its independence from the project.

Written communications were established to present questions to project Construction Management (CM) and Quality Assurance (QA) organizations for further research of project files for infomation.

5-1

mm.- -

- -c

.i i. -- -

J v J SELECT TEAM

, o Team Leader 3' OtsIAIN NRC IMPLEMENT PROGRAM  ! "" "" I DEVELOP DEVELO* PROGRAM o Engineers o Description ACCEPTANCE o Procedures a M00tfLE OUTLINE /

k Instructions uma o Reviewers i o Budget o Presentations """"" o Ident Contractors o Det&ffed Plans (CAP Manager) o Schedale o Discussions 4 Schedules o Ident Each Scona

~

, o Puhlic Meetings _TRAIM TEAM o Estahl Sequence (CAP Manager) (CAP Manager) o Reviews ==== o Team Leader .mmm- o Prepare Scharble (RRP Manager, a Teia Mamber (Team Leader, CAP Manager) (Team Leader, CAP Manager)

CAP Manager)

P2EPARE IN!!!AL FEEDBACK RECONCILE REVIEW R_ECORDS DEirELOP ttGDrit.E MM E RE PORI o Project ilARDWARE A RECORDS o Comp 1 Checklist REVIEW PLAN

" ==

o Compare Results, - o Adequacy n Detaruina o Participants o Eng Assurance  !

w Program Close Open Items Requirements 8

o Review Plans " o Preservstion N o Atlust Cap Review o Findings o Illstnrical Record a Checklists Resolution o Findings

= o Prepare Sam 1f nq o Results (CAP Mana9er) o Analyze Results (Review Team) R*tlaa81*

o Secomenditions o Iskntify Trends, o Prepare ChrNk1tsts Safety Signiffc. INSPECT HARDWA'tE l n Select Simola of (Team Leader, (Review Team, a Caaol Ch*ctilst li<fwr*

• R*corris Discipline Engr's) Proj. A/E) . . 44,.quac, .i, o onta,,ca,nar I

Anorov g1 l

o Preservation l (Team Leader, l

• Id I""

Discipline Engr's)

(Review Team)

MANAGEMENT REVIEW 08TAIN NRC ' RETAIN RECORDS o Otr Licensing (a) o Assenible Records ACCEPTANCE CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM o WP-3 Prog Dir (R) -

o ,,,, ,.,,, nn , f ,3 o o<erview a Tran mit to Pe m. FLOW DIAGRAM l N

o Dir Projects (A) ,g Figure 5.1-1 (CAP Manager)

$'o rsisAt Co.EtteY' s Reports (CAP Manager) (RRP Manager, CAP Manager)

The CAP Manager maintai daily contact with the Readiness Review Program Manager on progr,nedammatic issues, and submitted monthly reports a that identified accomplishments, current activities, problems, and V anticipated near-tem events.

5.3 MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT WNP-3 Project management was kept informed of review progress and findings through periodic senior staff meetings attended by the CAP Manager. Monthly program reviews provided information on Readiness Review activity to Supply System senior management.

Monitoring of programmatic activi ty to ensure conformance with applicable criteria of 10CFR50, Appendix B, and formal QA review of CAP documents (including checklists, procedures, plans, etc.) was perfomed by the QA Manager.

Specific review and approval of final CAP reports by Supply System senior management is recorded on approval documents at the beginning of each report.

5.4 NRC INVOLVEMENT Representativets of the NRC, from headquarters as well as the Region V offices, were kept informed of Readiness Review activities by a variety of means:

o Periodic presentations and meetings were conducted from the inception of the program to inform the NRC about the development

(( and implementation of the review program. Detailed infomation was provided to assure mutual understanding of programmatic issues.

A public meeting with the NRC was held at Elma, Washington. The public was invited to provide comments on all aspects of the Readiness Review Program.

o Program descriptions and other supporting infomation were submitted to the Administrator, Region V, for review and acceptance by the NRC. Correspondence recording the detailed questions and l Supply System responses is a part of the permanent program file, o Region V inspectors visited the CAP Office several times during the

l. period when Review Plans and procedures were developed, when the team was selected and assembled, and when the reviews were accompli shed. . Detailed inspections were made of all elements of the module, including' plans, checklists, team qualifications, review activities and results.

o A six-month rolling schedule of review module activities and periodic updates were provided to the NRC to apprise the Region of near tem plans so that coordinated inspections could be made.

5-3

5.5 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

. m An executive Oversight Comittee is retained by the Supply System to l

monitor the Readiness Review Program, including the activities of the

[v)- CAP. Comittee members were chosen from the business, academic and technical comunities based on their independence from the organizations under review and for their extensive experience and j qualifications to assess the program's integrity and effectiveness.

The Oversight Comittee evaluates the overall program (including all three elements -- EAP, Preservation, and CAP) and provides I recomendations for improvements to Supply System management. Periodic meetings are held with the' Oversight Comittee to discuss details of l

the reviews and to make observations of program implementation. The l Comittee is required by its charter to provide written assessments of the program and its ongoing implementation. The Comittee's assessment of the earthwork review is provided as Section 9.0 of the report, 4

i 0

0 l

l J .. 5-4

SECTION 6.0

,q METHODOLOGY (O

This section addresses the rationale applied to sampling and the techniques used to select items for inspection. It covers the philosophy applied to reviews and inspections in this program and the methods used to perform them.

6.1 SAMPLING RATIONALE The statistical sampling philosophy applied to the CAP is also known as assurance sampling. Assurance (or "di scove ry") sampling comprises those activi ties intended to provi de additional confidence regarding previously inspected items, re-verification of results or conclusions, or serve as the basis for resolving programmatic or hardware defi-ciencies. It is the basic scientific apprcAch to problem sol vi ng, utilizing sampling techniques to test stated hypotheses.

6.1.1 Sample Sizes The sampling rationale is based on the binomial probability distribution theory. In this theory it is assumed that there is a constant probabili ty of the random selection of a defective item.

Using this theory , a minimum of 60 items of a homogeneous O population are selected as the sample to be verified for V conformance to the FSAR, technical specifications, and contract requi rements, thus ensuring a 95% confidence in the resul ts.

If no deficiencies are found in such a sample, it would indi-cate that only 5% or less of the total population of work could contain deficiencies. If the population was less. than 60, all items were reviewed. To ensure that the sample adequately repressnts all the work perfonned, the samples were reviewed and it was confirmed that all time periods for the various earthwork placements were included.

This sampling methodology has been used on other construction review programs, such as the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program conducted by Commonwealth Edison Co. , and found to be acceptable by the NRC.

6.1.2 Basis for Sample Size The following provides the theoretical basis that a sample size of 60, with no design-significant defects found, is sufficient to support a conclusion with 95% confidence that the population is a minimum of 95% free of design-significant defects.

O

( ,I 6-1

The application under discussion is " attribute evaluation" of items. An attribute is defined as a characteristic of an m iten. A defect is an i tem judged unsatisfactory upon evaluation of the attribute (s) applied. Further definition of these tenus can . be found in a number of standard quality control tests and in MIL-STD-105D, "Sampli ng Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes."

The basis for MIL-STD-105D and further discussion herein is the binomial distribution, which predicts the probability of an event (in this case the random selection of a defective item) when the probability of occurrence can be assumed constant.

This is also referred to as a series of Bernoulli trials, i.e.,

repeated independent trials with only two possible outcomes and a constant probability of success or failure.

The general term of. the binomial expansion is as follows:

P(x, n, p) = nCx px(1.p)n-x cr

= n! px (1-p)n-x x; (n-x)

Where n = sample size x = number of successes / failures pd p = probability of occurrence of a failure / success N = total population size P = overall probability or confidence level It should be noted that the population size (N) is not included in the expression since there is an assumption of constant

~

probability of occurrence. When the probability of an event changes, for example, in sampling without replacement from a small population, the hypergeometric distribution, which is influenced by N, is appropriate. The binomial, however, wiTT yield probabilities which are more conservative, i.e., less favorable when applied to smaller populations.

To determine the sample size required to achieve the desired confidence level of 95% (to assure that the defect proportion is 5% or less using an accept number of 0 (no defects found),

the binomial expression is solved as follows:

P(0, n, .05) = n (.05)0 (.95)n-0 0; (n-0)l and since n-0 = n and 01, as well as any number raised to the zero power =1, P(0, n, .05) = .95n O

V 6-2

The desired confidence level (95%) that the- unexamined balance is 95% or more defect-free is commonly called the " consumer's pi ri sk" and is referred to as " limiting quality level" in

,d MIL-STD-105D. This means that, if one or more defects are found, the lot will be rejected, allowing a 5% (or less) chance of none occurring. Using this value for P:

.05 = .95n or n = Log .05 = -1.301 = 58.4 log .95 -0.022 Which is conservatively rounded -up to 60.

This number can be easily verified by examination of binomial probability tables.

Since the binomial is based on a large population, this number is adequate for any size lot and yields additionally conserv-ative results when the lots (populations) are smaller. When the lot size is 60 or less, all are examined.

6.1. 3 Sampling Method Illustration At the conclusion of the earthwork review, the sampling rationale was revisited to illustrate that CAP random samples (m of 60 i tems would characterize entire populations. This i exercise was undertaken not to reprove the methodology, because it has been well-established and accepted; but to assist in visualizing the CAP sampling process. An examination of Review Team findings was made for cases in which entire populations were reviewed. These cases were examined to check whether or not the defects identified in the 100% review woul d have surfaced in a sample review. There were three such cases:

o . Checklist 01 , In-Place Density Tests, population 153 test reports. Ca cell l'. c ,.) cts the horizontal location of the test was observed to be missing or vaguely referenced. It is easily seen that review of a random sample of 60 test reports would have identified the same problem.

o Checklist 06, Soil Cement Density Test Frequency, population 112 lifts. The accept / reject criteria for one attribute was one densi ty test for each 2000 sq. ft. of soil cement placed. Twenty-eight lifts were identified where more than 2000 sq. ft, was placed per density test. With one out of four tests identified in the review as being deficient in this respect, it is easily determined on inspection that a random sample of 60 lifts would yield at least some negative observations; probably as many as 15. This would have caused (by CAP procedure) the entire population of lifts to be examined for this particular attribute.

O G

6-3

0 Checklist 15, Class Al Fill In-Place Density Tests, population 80 test reports. Two deficiencies were observed (N, on all 80 reports; namely, lack . of weather data on the V reports, and not specifically identifying the horizontal location of the tests. Obviously, a random sample of 60 would have identified these problems.

It is not surprising that the significant fact exposed in this exercise is that generic problems will surface in a statistical sample review. Further confidence in the rationale may be provided for the layman by the progammatic requi rement to elevate the scope of review when any defect is identified in the sample.

6.2 REVIEW AND INSPECTION PHILOSOPHY The primary method of determining that earthwork met specified require-ments was by review of key quality documentation prepared at the time the work was in progress. Key quality records are those that provide systematic affimation of the results of important tests and inspec-tions, those that show the personnel who perfomed them were qual-ified, and those that show the equipment used was properly calibrated.

The Review Plan was developed to verify the adequacy of the completed earthwork construction by review of selected recreatablel attributes judged by the Team Leader to be important in assuring the quality of the finished p roduc t. These attributes were identified on a random sample of contractor-generated documents, such as test and inspection reports, and examined for confomance with the FSAR, technical specifications, and contract requirements.

Test and inspection reports were provided in accordance with contract requirements by three separate contractors for the supply and placement of QC-I safety-related soil-cement backfill and Class Al structural backfill. Additional test reports were provided for non QC-I bedding and backfill used for buried safety-rel ated piping that was sub-sequently upgraded to QC-I on the basis of AE acceptance of Nonconfomance Reports (NCRs). These, too, were examined in the Readiness Review.

In-place density testing is considered to be a critical attribute that would indicate the adequacy of the work process. A review methodology was developed whereby other key attributes related to density testing could be verified in a systematic way for confomance with the spec-ified requirements. The logic of this review methodology is fully explained in the Review Plan for Module C3-01, and the logic diagram is repeated for convenient reference in Figure 6.1-1.

I Recreatable by verification from quality control records.

i O 6-4

1 O O O NOTES: 3 so IVEL 8me.St dVt, 9 - Review Plan paragraph number  %${,7,"@

that describes the activity. ,

e z o. s.

C/L - Checklist suffix serial number review nan

! for the activity. Checklists cosc uns for this review are numbered l CAP-D-C . g,'

PEteFCKH l REVIEWS I

1 1

{

i l J 414 t l 44t2 W 4ll 94s4 9485 4484 M . ard- F-LAcd caugNT FYs Fuent f00afbif tir GA Ti$flNo "gfg'y (M(4)iffr4tefS GU4laricATunes c ALtE R4ff 0e# (WO4 RAM FR eetl6 tic 1 i cam,14 es.it.13 cA.of,os C/L 04 .o 9. 88.11 cA es,so cA 12.el, eG (A 0 4. 0 7. t o i m  !

' " 8 "# "

• oceonie aoare " Ardeo rWQd4tW Apf604fE l l l l ~1 T $/ Apghab '  !  ?

t 34i., e4ea e4i7 isas 9es ses ses ses .

WAstR R8 40'E EMe*5 e ATeaseta o, civ.,s v PLAjeuse<f cim.iNo ves @ h h h h ig os cA os cA or N0 /\

A UE404It t>E6:1Alf 4D64041E

'{  ? 1

• • 5 "**

s (el 24-

g_ e.in ASSENttE 9 8.L" m4 s QB @v .

v terveranie ecutis _ ettcom- _._, ri:14L u o '

nanWe no rot usep i,cus gener mA i FisentReitti I , rarent

,es I I e 4 6-

• 4.8 to

== - e= Angtig$iS llCP/

1 Figure 6.1-1 LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR EARTHWORK REVIEW MODULE C3-01

6.3 CHECKLIST DEVELOPMENT -

77 Twenty-one checklists and instructions were develcped by the Review V Team for use in this review, and were made a part of the Review Plan, Appendix. 1. In the following paragraphs, details are provided to record the basis for establishing the list of quality records to be examined and the selected specific attributes that were considered important.

6.3.1 Selection of Attributes Specific requirements established in the project FSAR and the contract specifications governing this work were researched for identification of important attributes and associated accep-tance c riteri a. These requirements were tabulated and, from examination of contractor test and inspection reports, it was determined by conservative engineering judgment which were important and which were recreatable. Those judged to be important were established as attributes on checklists, and checklist instructions were prepared to include specific accept / reject limits for inspection and review personnel to use in the implementation of thi s program. The tabulation of

. possible attributes used in this exercise is shown in Table 6.3-1, Attribute Summary.

The following rationale is provided for excluding certain attributes on the table from the checklists:

6.3.1.1 Sand Type / Gradation (Table 6.3-1, Item 1,18, 24a)

Specification 3240-466, R2, requi red that sand used for soil cement be "similar to that used for concrete." Sand gradation analyses perfomed and reported by PTL were examined by the Review Team, for the time periods of soil cement manufacture, and found to be consistent with the technical specification (Specification 3240-411, for Concrete Material s) requirements for fine aggregates.

The requirement that sand be " free of mud and organics" is not recreatable for either soil cement or Class Al backfill.

6. 3.1. 2 Batch Control (Item 3a)

Mix time was controlled and reported by automated plant  !

equipment (concrete baten plant). The verification of this attribute was conside: red not to be design-significant, especially in consideration of such a sophisticated method used at the project versus other less thorough mixing methods usually employed for soil cement (hand-mixing, truck batching, etc. ).

6-6

- , , . , . _ . . , . . , , . _ , _ . _ _ . ~ _ . - . . _ . . ._

f% ~% g i i l l l Acceptance Crtteria/ l lictreatable .

I I Item Requirements l Spec. I Sect. l Test Method Attribute Checklist Coauner.t s l T  ! I 1 I) Soil Cement-Sand Type 1 466 1 3.01 l Similar to Concrete sand; No 1 --

1 I

,l l 1 3.02 l essentially f ree of mud 4 organics l' l l l l l l l l l l 2) I datchwater Chemistry 466 1 3.04 i Chemical Limits as folicws: I Yes 08 l l 1

i 1 1 11 l Chlorida ior. content 100 ppe,.nas. I l l l l l l Selfate content 1000 ppe, san.  !' l l l l Total oissolved l l l 1 l 1 solids 1000 pps,tsaa. l l l

, l i l Suspended Matter 20uu ppe, max. ,

l l l 1

l l, l l l pH 6 -8  ; l l l l 3) l Batch Control l l ll l l 2 I l a) His Time 1 466 4.01 . I mir. ate minimum i Yes I --

l l l l bl His Proportions l Per spec. 414 Ves 03 l l l t i I I I l 4) l Cener.t Quality l 466 i 3.01 l A$iM C150 Requirements l  !

! l a) Chtmics) Requireasents l l Limits per ASTM CISU 1 Yes --

l l 1 I b) Mortar Air Content i Less than I21 , Ves --

l l l 1 c) fineness l l Limits per ASTM L150 I Yes --

1 I I l d) Autocltve Espansion ll l 0.6' Yes --

l l l l el Co4pressive Strength ,

l I I l 3 day ' 1500 psi Yes 02 l l Os l l 7 day I I 2500 psi Yes 02 l I g I l f) Time of Setting (Vicat) l l

Initial 45 min. Ves --

1 N  : Fir.il 8 hrs. Yes -- l i

! l l l 5) Delivery Time 466 1 . 4.02 Total elapsed time between mining l Yes .

03 l l l l and discharge shall not exceed l l l l 1 45 minates I i l i I I

] l 6) i HaistJre fontent of Satch 466 4.03 As required for in-place moisture Yes --

I j i i Sand Stock Pile I content i i t

i l I i f 7) l Compction Equipmer.t 466 5.01 . Sand type used in test fill No 1 -- ll l l l .l F l I ei) l Rx k sub-base Surface 466 5.02 ' Broom er Air Cleaned , No -- il l l 1 Preparation i . l .

1 I I l l 91 l Rock Sun-base Backfill 466 5.02 ' Backfill low spots and over '-

No --

l l l escavated areas in 12* lifts l l l l l l l l IJ) l Anblent Air Tenperature 466 5.02 Equal to or greater than 40V for Ves 03 l l l l i each batch '

l l l l l 1 - l l l 11) l Lift Thickness i 466 l 5.u2 i Each lif t equal to or less than l Yes 01 l l l l l 5.03 612* af ter comyiction 1 I i l i I  ; I l l l 123 l Changes in Coinpaction 1 466 5.05 Requires Engineer approval of change l No I --

1 I i i Ewipment i i l l l l l l t I l l 1 1 13) I cnnpaction te vense i 466 I 5.06 i Cemaction to tegin at wall No 1 --

1 i i 1 l 1 I l l l 1 i l i l i TABLE 6.3-la ATTRIBUTE

SUMMARY

.-. _ ~ . - _ .

m p

{m fd f u

i il accreatable i i i

~'

i 1 I I i Accepts,ce criterte/

1, It- 1 Ra d ements_ l Spec. Sect. I Test Metnad Attribute l Cnectlist I coewnts l l I, I I I i I i 14) 1 Moisture Cor. tent / frequency of 466 1 4.03 i e 21 of optimuu for each 20JO sq. , tes i ul l i l l Test i ft. pieced I l i i l I L ,

I l l l-1 15) l Convectiom Time 1 460 1 5.us i Equal to or less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for No 1 --

l 1 I l L 1 l eacn batch I i 8 l

4 i  ! l I I l i 141 i in-Place Der.sity/ frequency 466 I 6.02 l > 9n of Msiteum Danitty with los Yes I ut i i I of tests > sus, for each 2oJo sq.

i l of Test i 06 , I I f 1 I ft. placeI i i l i l  ! I l i 17) ! 5tsadsrd Prr< tor Test 1 466 6.02 l rer A3T.4 0 S5d and Woodward-Clyde fes 01 ,! See Woodward-Clyde Consul- l l l l Report L tants Report, Sall-Cement i l  ! , . Engineered Backfill, Designl l ll l l l Min fest vrogram, eurcrase I 1 il i l i Contract No. E-lJ/o3, natedt i  ! l i i i 25 Marcn, Ivel l I i i i l 1 i 18) i Sand $leve Analysis 46d 1 3.02 Sinfliar to concrete sand, for each fes --

l Will be reviewed under i l i 1 6000 tons delivered l Concrete suJule 1 i I l i l 19) I rrotection ,1 466 1 5.02 Broom cipan, snil cement not to be No ' -- l l l l l- i placed on fro:en ground or ice i 11 l l l l l Ch I 20) l Curing 466 .

7.01 ;I Water cure for 7 days Yes 07 l l

, i 1 ll l l l 211 1 Persr.nnel training 8 I 86JW l 3.2.3 AN5l N45.2.6/ Approved Procedures Yes 11 l 4 i Co l l Certification I i 1

l 4) Catching (20')) 1 09 ,

i j i i b) Testing (204) 1 04 l l l l c) Placing (263) I il l l l l 1 1 I d) I pitching Equip ~ent relibration  : ANSI N45.2-11/ Approved Procedures l' Yes 10 ,1 I l l o Scale Certification I l l l o / tant CertificJtion l l I 1 l I i i i 23) 1 5'il cc-anc/:;olls-Equipment I ANSI N45.2-7t/ Approved Procedures Yes US l l l l Calibration 'l ll l l l 1 l o Testina Fqnpnent  ! I .

1 I l l o Testing Etnutent Standards I i l i i i

t i l o Calibridor. Frequency I i

• l l' l

! I I i '

I I I

I 24) I Class Al Structural fill l l l l l l l l ttaterial Qualitications  ! I I I i l l l l a) selected samt 1 466 l 8.01 ll Free of muddy 4 organic material I No 1 -- i I .

l- l b) Wall GraJed L 466 i 8.01 i Max. Size < 6 in., < 15% passing l Yes. l. 14 l l l l . #200 sieve'~ l l l l l c) Ploe fledding Haterial 466 8 8.01 Nas. Size < 3/4 in.

- l Yes .i 14 I I i l l  ! 1 I i i 25) 1 Class Al Structural Fill, 1 1 1 i Flactnq l I l a) Lif t Thickness Contrcl 466 a.03 < 15 in, af ter compaction Yes , 07 l l 13raooth drum vibratory roller impact-2 l l bl Compactior. Equipment ,

466 l 8.01 No I --

l l 1 l l l l ing a min. dyna:atc force of 40,000f I l l I I I I I i i I l l 1 1 1 l

TABLE 6.3-lb i ATTRIBUTE

SUMMARY

[J.

\

.)

g i i i i acceprance criteria / I secNaT311Tb : s  !

l Itm i Requirements Spec. Sect. Test Method Attribute Checklist _ Comments I l l iI l 26) l Class Al Structural Fill, i i  : Compaction '

l l al in-Place Density Tests 466 d.05 > 95% of saa. density from fes 15 l l l iiiodified #roctor lest. ASfM 0155/-18. I 1 l l l l 10% of tests may be > 905 of man.

H I l l l l l I density ,

1 ,1 1

l l . I l l l l bl Proctor Frequency 466 8.02 l Ratio of in-place density Yes 17 I l l l 1 l to Laboratory Proctors shall De i i

l I . I approx. 10:1 1 1 l l l l l l l 27) , iteport Data 1 i i i a) Test Location 1 204 1 2.0 l location of test shall be identified . Ves 1, 15, 19 . I-

i al4 l l by horizontal grid lines or other l l 1 I readily identifiaole horizontal 1 1 1 I references and vertical locations i l i l l i identified oy clevation where testing i l i l' I was perforu d i l i i li .

1 i . I I 28) l QC-I Buried Piping bedding I $51 1 7.6.4 l l ' QC-G dedding 4 dacafill. I

! l & Backffll i l l i Upgraded to QC-I Dy NRC l l l al Proctor Tests 406 l 14.1.2 ll Per ASTM 1551-18 Metnod D Ves i 18 l 140eJ & NCR 34013 1 1 I .

ll 14.2.2 1 i i l i b) Fines Analysis 1 I 14.I.1 ' Class A Material, 151 maa. passing '

fes l 18 l l Os l l 11 1 14.2.l e200 sieve l l 1 i l l 1 Class 8 Material,101 ass. passing ;i l 8

i i '

i #200 sieve i 1 m i i es Steve Analysis I 14.1.1 1 Class A Material. 3/4 in. man. size, Ves 18 I I I '

I4.2.1 i 15s mas, passing #200 sieve i l i l I , Class B Material, 6 in, san. size, I l l , min of 90t passing 3 in. sieve, 101 I l l l  :

man, passing e/00 sieve i l i l .. i l l 1 .il In-Place Density  ; 406 14.1.5 ' Class A Matertal. 95% of eaa. Der.sity fes , 19 I i l  : 14.2.5 i Class d Ifaterial. E of rax. Densityl I l l I i 103 of tests ma, fall 541,eloe spec- l l l l ,, lif ed conpaction l ,

1 i 1 e} Freq sency of Proctor Tests 406 I 13.1 A min. of one vrewror each type 1 Ves n 20 l l l l l of material used i 1 l i flFesques.cy of In-Place 1 406 14.1.4 i Class A Material - One test in each I. Yes to 1 I Density Tests ,

i litt, for every 100 f t. or fraction i i l tnereof installed i i i 14.2.4 Class 8 Material - One test in each Ves 20 l l l l 1 lif t, for every N.000 sq. f t. l 1 l l i ' conoacted. Ono test for each area , .I l l l 1 I .I l less tr.an 20,uuo sq. ft. paced in l i 1 1 I i l l one day I I l l  ! I i i l l 1 1 29) Ehesco QA Audits 14A! 18-1 i M.et Requirements of QAl-181 Ves 12 i l l l l l 11 l l 30) Site Survelliance (Sample IN/A  ;

N/A i Ves. 13 l l Procedurel l .

1 I H ll ,

1 i l 1 1 1 I i i 1  ! l TABLE 6.3-1c ATTRIBUTE

SUMMARY

i i

h

- - e . .- - .- ._ - -- ---

1 =

4 4

h w

s

+ I 3

u 4

- , - - . - - __= -- --. ---- _

es er n *.

.a. N s

v i = _ .- _ _ __ :- __ _ _..i..-

m e

-o **

1 4 E. ,E. . .

48 b 4 t is.e w.o b .ed.

=

- . - - - - - _ _ __- -- . - - --= -- _ _-- -- -

i m

s e

-e. w 6 .e.m es

.o*or

< e-cr )

i. e.e *  % m cc .

$ 2 u .g o o %.%. .e o 'O (

o

• a.o .n a o. oa e

! Eeo+ c -

n. so m E

w me D

• i *n. ev f 9 j

.es w s I ti g i e C 6 a z as e u

u a

. y s d e c, .y-. <

q eA Cg e y F-3 M 4 J 3 ea

%% *G.' .'J.

68 e em a

, .o <

g 2A s

8 -49 85 in W 7b a&j wL vo s O.. u e to 69 ed e .6a d.5 &

M's.4. f.nd *."

n n-u. em. - .n. e ee ema. - .a. e. .m. an - -- - ,---.m...,em.. -

__ es. .m. - .sm, .mme . em. ,,, e .,

s -

. es c. N e.e d"5 485 1

ui.-e.ee.e.es.m..u-am.e-.--ee-u.s..m.-.m.-.m.-ee---s.-.m.==me.m..--meom.%

e j 6 - 10 1

i i

e i

. . . - - . , - - - . - - , - , , . - - , , - , , , , - - - - - , , - w, ,,,_nn- -..,,.n...n._.anw, , , , , - ,_.,,m,n,,,,-- ,, , , _. . . , ---en . . . . .n_

6.3.1.3 Cement Quality (Item 4)

(] Certified mill test reports were sampled and reviewed for y verification of compressive strength requirements (Checklist 02). For soil-cement backfill, other cement

. testing requirements were considered secondary and, although reviewed for conformance, they were not formally sampled and verified by the checklist process.

6.3.1.4 Moisture Content of Batch Sand (Item 6)

Moisture testing of sand was done prior to batching of soil cement in order to adjust batch proportions. These prior-to-batching tests were considered not to be design-significant since Specification 3240-466, R2, required control limits on in-place moisture content of soil cement which were veri fied by the Review Team (Checklist 01).

6.3.1.5. Compaction Equipment, Time and Sequence (Items 7,12,13, 15 and 25b).

These attributes are not recreatable for existing test or inspection reports for either Class Al backfill or soil cement. Placement inspection reports, however, demon-strate that placement, compaction, and curing activities were witnessed. These were veri fied by the team on Checklist 07.

d 6.3.1.6 Rock Sub-Base Surface Preparation & Protection (Items 8 &

19).

The verification of adequate brooming and cleaning are not recreatable from existing tests or inspection reports.

Certification of the concrete batch plant used to mix soil cement was not reviewed under this module. It will be covered under the Concrete Module C3-02.

6.3.2 Checklist Preparation Because all earthwork installations are below fini shed grade elevation and inaccessible for visual or other physical quality verification, the primary method for determining that earthwork meets specified requirements was areview of the quality doc-umentation prepared at the time of installation. The Review Plan for this module includes provisions for possible subsur-face investigation or other sampling and testing upon discovery of earthwork which either does not meet or cannot be confimed to meet the quality requi rements. However, no such deficient material was indicated by the review.

O 6 - 11

- ,-. ~,

m A selection of design-significant attributes was made and verified on documents in the following gineral categories:

O o In-Place Density Testing O o Proctor Tests / Sieve Analysis o Frequency of In-Place Density and Proctor Tests 3 o Soil Cement Batching o Personnel Qualifications o Equipment Calibrations o Installation Quality Control o Quality Assurance Program Control Each of these categories of documents was reviewed for the most critical elements, as discussed in the following pa rag raphs.

The specific infomation verified in the review is detailed on checklist instructions in the Review Plan, Appendix 1.

6.3.2.1 In-Place Density Test Reports In-place density testing is the primary method of measur-ing the quality of completed backfill, and provides insight into the quality of earthwork activities. Earth-work compaction by all site contractors was verified by in-place density tests perfomed by PTL.

The checklist acceptance c ri teria' for compaction was based on the applicable maximum dry density established by moisture-density (Proctor) testing in accordance with the appropriate ASTM standards.

In the case of the RAB ramp, for example, the maximum dry density and moisture content for the soil cement mixture was established by testing perfomed by consultants (Woodward Clyde) to the designer (Ebasco). In other areas of soil cement placement and Class Al fill, these maximum densities were established on the basis of field laboratory testi ng by PTL of samples of the earthwork material s. In addition to verification of the specified compaction and moisture content, the CAP checklist required that the calculations of moisture and density values in the test report be checked for proper arithme-tic. The report data was also confimed to contain complete test location, weather, and other pertinent information.

The density records for s' oil cement and Class Al fill were considered separate populations due to the different test procedures and methods involved. Backfill placed by M-K was also considered separately from fill placed by PKS because the PKS fill was accepted on the basis of NCRs and because each contractor used different procedures. In all, there were 153 tests on soil cement 6 - 12

- -- . _ _. - . ~ - _ - _ .

placed by M-K, 80 tests on Class Al fill placed by it-K and 50. tests. on Class Al fill placed by PKS. Because the populations were relatively small and because of the (o-) relative importance of this testing, all density test reports were reviewed.

6.3.2.2 Proctor Tests / Sieve Analysis The acceptance of the in-place density values is based on PTL laboratory Proctor testsi- Confonnance of the Class Al material to specification was verified by sampling, sieve analysis and other on-site . testing perfonned by PTL. CAP checklists were developed to veri fy the accuracy of the calculations and the acceptability of the results of tests.

For similar reasons as for field density tests, Proctor and sieve tests for each p10cing contractor were considered as separate populations. Due to the small sizes (less than 60), the review samples included the total populations of these test results.

6.3.2.3 Frequency of In-Place and Proctor Tests The acceptability and reliability of backfill compaction depends to a great degree on the frequency of testing performed throughout the fill. The design drawings and specifications were . researched to detennine the extent of n each location that required fill. The daily placing e

) inspection records, lift ske tches, inspection reports, and NCR dispositions (if applicable), provide the lift thicknesses and details of the actual extent of the lifts. These lift areas and elevations were compared to the corresponding PTL in-place density reports to assure all required reports exist. The number of i n-pl ace density reports was specified based on the lift surface area. Each lift placed was checked to verify the correct number of acceptable tests taken. Documentation that indicates failing test results or the use of unsuitable material was checked to verify that an acceptable retest was made or that unsuitable material was replaced.

Proctor-test frequency for Class Al fill was verified 1 A Proctor compaction test is a laboratory test that establishes a moisture-density relationship (compaction curve) for a given sample of graded soil with a standard compactive effort. The soil sample must be represent-ative of the actual material placed in the fill and may be taken from the supply pit, a stockpile of material used in the backfill placement, or directly from the backfill placement i tsel f. The maximum density obtained from the compaction curve establishes the standard of comparison by which in-pl ace (field) densi ty tests are measured, e.g., 95% or 90% of maximum

, density.

6 - 13

based on the number of in-place density tests performed.

This accounting of tests served not only to verify that an adequate amount of field testing was performed, but O' al so provided an independent cross-check corresponding records produced by the placing contractor between and the testing contractor.

The populations in this category included 112 lifts of soil cement, 80 lifts of Al fill placed by M-K, and 50 lifts of Al fill placed by PXS. Because the populations were relatively small and the cri tical nature of this veri fication, the review sample included the total population of lifts.

6.3.2.4 Soil Cement Batching The soil-cement mix was designed to approximate the strength and other physical characteristics of the site sandstone. The design was based on a soil consultant's testing of various mix proportions which identified the cement percentage as a critical factor. Cement strength and water quality are also considered to be important attributes.

All soil cement was produced in the automated batch plant by AS&G. Batch delivery tickets were automatically printed by the plant which recorded the weight of mate-rial s, time of mixing, delivery and discharge, temper-p ature, and other data. Checklist criteria were developed

( to verify that the sand and cement proportions given on delivery tickets were within tolerances specified. The elapsed time between batching and discharge, and the placing tempera ture, were also veri fied to comply with specification requirements.

Because there wac 2 single site producer of soil cement,

-- one population of 1263 delivery tickets was considered.

i A sample of 60 tickets was randomly selected by computer for this review. The sample was checked to assure that placement locations and time periods were adequately represented.

It was determined that the cement used for soil cement j was the same as for concrete. Each shipment of cement i required certification by the supplier of the chemical l and physical tests on the material . A checklist was i developed to veri fy adequate strength test resul ts for this cement.

6 - 14

The cement certifications show that one supplier, Ideal ,

Cement, was used for this proj ect. The dates of cert-p ification and frequency of delivery were scru tinized.

( / The 4340 certifications represent multiple deliveries of cement each week or so during the entire time of QC-I

, concrete production, except for two monthly periods of low use. This review provides independent verification that the cement records accurately represent the cement shipments. A sample of 60 certifications was randomly selected by computer for review. The sample was checked to assure that the enti re time period of soil cement production was represented.

The quality of water used at the AS&G batch plant was tested by PTL. The CAP review checklist criteria reflected the specified water chemistry limits which were verified to meet specification.

One population of water tests was considered, because one team of supply and testing contractors was involved in this work. The review sample includes all 35 water tests perfomed.

6.3.2.5 Personnel Qualifications The quality of earthwork ma terial s' supply, placement, compaction, and testing ultimately depends on 'the ability of key personnel to perform to quality standards, p

b Site contracts require records of training and personnel qualification in accordance with Al4SI N45.2.6 and CM-approved procedures. Checklist cri teria were established for training, experience, and certification levels based on procedure requirements appropriate to the discipline and the responsibility level of employees.

Each contractor's employees were considered as separate populations due to the different procedures involved.

Employees who generated inspection records were identi fied. For example, PTL inspectors were identified from signatures on in-place densi ty, Proctor, and other test reports. The populations in this category include 21 PTL testing employees, nine AS&G batch-plant employees and 10 M-K placing inspectors. The review sample included all the personnel qualification records in each of these populations. This review confirms the validity of the inspection and test records by establishing whether or not the personnel who produced them were qualified.

l 1

6 - 15

6.3.2.6 Equipment Calibration o The accuracy of test or inspection results derived from

/1 the use of calibrated instruments depends on an effective V equipment calibration program.

Checklist cri teria for calibration methods and frequencies were based on the appropriate contractor implementing procedure requirements for the specific types of equipment.

As with personnel qualifications, each contrac tor's equipment calibration records were considered separate populations. Calibrated equipment was identified during review of installation or test records. The population in this category includes 26 sets of PTL test-equipuent records and four sets of calibrations for the batch plant scales. The review sample included all calibration records in each population. This review confirms the validity of the testing or batching / delivery records by establishing whether or not the test equipment was properly maintained and calibrated.

6.3.2.7 Installation Quality Control Ef fective compaction and uniform densi ty and moisture content throughout the backfill depends on the control of lift thickness within the specified limits.

/%

Q Morri son-Knudsen Company, Inc.,

separate inspection report for each lift of soil cement procedures requi re a and a daily report for Class Al structural fill. These reports include information which documents proper soil cement placing and cu ri ng , and records proper impl e-mentation of the contractor's procedures. Checklist cri teria based on the specification requirements were developed to verify lift thickness for both Class Al fill and soil cement. This checklist al so verified that appropriate curing times, methods, and conditions were correctly documented for soil cement.

1 Because there was one contractor's placement records con-sidered in this portion of the review, with similar procedures for both soils and soil cement quality verification, the inspection records were judged to be a single homogeneous population. A random sample of 60 records was selected by computer from the total popu-lation of 138. These were cross-checked with corres-ponding fiel d compaction test reports and the design drawings to provide independent assurance that all required inspection records actually exist. The sample selected was checked to ensure each major earthwork placement area and time period of perfonnance was represented.

O 6 - 16

6.3.2.8 QA Program Control g3 All contractors who perfomed QC-I work were required to (d

implement a QA Program complying with the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B, and applicable Codes and Standards.

Contractors' quality-af fecti ng procedures were reviewed and approved by the Ebasco Chi organization (QA Depart-ment and Field Engineering) prior to perfomance of QC-I work. Three key quality elements of the Ebasco QA Program surveillances, audits, and personnel qualifi-cations were selected and reviewed by the CAP Review Team to detemine overall project compliance with NRC quality comi twents.

In addition to the contractor's surveillance of nis own activities, WNP-3 QC surveillance of all QC-I jobsite contractors was the responsibility of the Ebasco Quality Control (QC) organization, who used the same surveillance procedure for all contractor activities. One group of certified Ebasco inspectors, directed by Ebasco QC supervisors and trained to the applicable Ebasco procedures, was responsibl e for performing the surveillance func tions. Therefore, this surveillance of WNP-3 QC-I activities was determined to be the homogeneous population to be sampled.

There were 7,346 QC-I surveillances in all. A stratified random sample of 60 was chosen by computer from that (N total to ensure the inclusion of activities of each QC-I

() contrac tor. Individual checklists were completed for surveillance in the sampl e.

each Each surveillance report was reviewed for clarity in expressing the open issues, for appropriate corrective action to resolve the issues addressed, and for review and approval by Ebasco supervision.

The total population of Ebasco QA audits of contracts 3240-204, -209, and -263 was in each case less than 60, therefore, sampling was not appropriate and not pemitted by CAP procedures. A review of all completed QA audits was perfomed for the following attributes:

o Qualifications of the Auditors o Findings Identified as Quality Finding Reports (QFRs) o Completion and Acceptance of Contractor Corrective Action o Formal Closure of the Audit 6 - 17

l The effectiveness of any QA Program is dependent upon the l qualifications and ability of the individuals performing _

/q the work. It is known that there is a valid industry

'Q concern regarding this subject and, therefore, attention was focused in this area. An NRC Item of Noncompliance, PTL Records Falsification, resul ted from allegations by former PTL inspectors and is discussed in paragraph 7.6.3 of this report.

Several methods of confirming the qualifications and experience backgrounds of QA personnel were considered, including telephoning previous employers, which was at'tcmpted without success because of the time lapse since shutdown of' the construction project. Other difficulties were encountered in this background investigation.

Personnel could not be located to acquire a release for the investigation. Employers had their ol d records in inactive archives, and some were no longer in business.

It should be noted that this sort of documented back-ground investigation was not a nonnal requirement of projects during tne period in which this work was performed. In the majority of cases, contractors stated that they did verify background information but did not document it.

Ebasco had a program in place ~ for confirming background infonnation for its own QA personnel. Verification of the implementation of that program was considered by the t,J Review Team to be the most practical method of G determining the validi ty of resume infonnation because, while the majority of individuals had been reassigned to other projects or were no longer employed by Ebasco, the jobsite personnel files for all 60 randomly-selected individuals were available for review by the team. About a third of these files contained a copy of an " education and work-related experience" form with verification noted by an investigator. No adverse comments appeared in these files. There were instances in which past employers did not provide comments even though the employee had consented to it, because these companies had policies against the disclosure of such information.

Since a third of the employees selected at random were determined to have been checked and to have accurately stated their qualifications, the Ebasco verification program was judged to be acceptable for this purpose.

The remaining two-thi rds of the employee records are archived at the corporate office (inactive warehousing) and not available without economic burden. However, further investigation is not considered necessary, on the strength of all the other infonnation in this report establishing confidence that all personnel involved in earthwork activities were qualified.

O V

6 - 18

Contractor personnel files are not available and were not required to be transmitted to the project as pemanent records. However, contractors were committed to ANSI O' N45.2.6-78 and to Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1, with certain exceptions. Ebasco reviewed and approved the contractors ' qualification procedures, and perfomed surveillances and audits of contractor qualification and certification activities in a planned and systematic manner with documented resul ts. The Review Team's investigation of Ebasco audits and surveillances described above, and the review of personnel qualifi-cations addressed in paragraph 7.3 of this report satisfactorily establish- that contractor personnel employed for inspection, examination, and testing at WNP-3 were qualified in accordance with the project requirements, and further investigation is not considered to be necessary. Also, with the exception of a ' 1978 matter of falsification of records by PTL (this issue was resolved prior to the beginning of any QC-I earthwork and is addressed in paragraph 7.5), there were no allegations of unqualified personnel performing this type of work at the project.

? D O

i l

i i

6 - 19 i

i f

SECTION 7.0 PROGRAM RESULTS

{])

(

This section presents the quantitative and qualitative results of CAP reviews of earthwork. In general, " findings" are presented as negative infomation, al though the Review Team has attempted to characterize the resul ts of individual investigative activities in a complete assessment style, providing both positive and negative infomation.

To aid the reader in understanding thi s presentation, the following definitions are provided to identify how these tems are used in the report.

Observation - An apparent difference in quality of an attribute from that defined as acceptable by the applicable checklist, instructions, or drawings, that is observed while vei f fying the acceptability of that attri bute.

Deficiency - An observation or discrepancy which has been reviewed by the technical authori ty (project AE) and the CAP Review Team against the design drawings and specifications, lists of existing project di screpancies, and construction status reports , to ensure that the observation is not merely incomplete work, the subject of a design change, or a duplication of an al ready-documented condi tion. A deficiency is a confimed difference in an attribute between the project requirements and the condition observed during inspection of hardware or review of documentation. A deficiency requi res the t/ generation of a nonconfomance report (NCR).

Design-Significant Deficiency - A deficiency in an item, which if uncorrected could impai r the item's abili ty to perform its safety-related function under design conditions.

Open Item - An observation made by a Review Team member that has not been resolved or reconciled. Open items are tracked on a CAP Open Items List for each module review.

Document Deficiency Notice (DDN) - A fomal project report that documents nonconforming conditions related to documentation only.

Examples of discrepancies for which DDN's are used are typographic j errors or entry errors on documents that do not result in deficient or indeterminate conditions of fabricated or installed hardware. ,

i Nonconfomance Report (NCR) - A formal project report that documents nonconforming or indeterminate conditions related to hardware fabrication or installation, . includi ng document deficiencies that caused such nonconfoming conditions.

All items on the earthwork Open Items List, Appendix 2, were closed at the conclusion of the review effort.

7-1

7.1 GENERAL FINDINGS gD The review program involved 21 checklists that were used to examine V over 20,000 attribute checkpoints on 1,009 documents that ranged from test and inspection reports to audits and follow-up records. The reviewers recorded 44 observations (document abnomalities) that resulted in three deficiencies (NCRs). No indication of poor earthwork quality was' discovered in the review; the NCRs were minor in nature because the missing infomation was available in other project records, and were dispositioned accep t-as-i s with recommendations to revise specifications and training procedures upon restart of work.

The checklist findinos indicate that the work reviewed was of high quality, providing an overall high level of confidence in the adequacy of the earthwork construction. The 44 observations were listed on an Open Items List, Appendix 2. A large number were resolved and closed out by generating Document Deficiency Notices (DDNs). The remaining were closed out by Review Team analyses, FSAR Change Notices (SCNs), or by transmittal to the EAP for further consideration.

FSAR commitments were addressed and a matrix was prepared to identify them along with the implementing construction specification and the confimatory CAP checklists. -

Other CAP technical assessments examined or verified the following:

o An excavation pemit process was in effect that ensured that any excavation or disturbance to a QC-I earthwork placement was p properly identified for restoration with proper material s and methods.

o An investigation was made to ensure that soil used in soil-cement manufacture was, as specified, similiar to that used for concrete.

o Early in the project (prior to 11/78), allegations surfaced l concerning records falsification problems with the PTL personnel certification / qualification program. The Review Team detemined that corrective actions and resolutions were completed prior to installation of any QC-I earthwork. l o NRC Circular No. I EC-81 -08, Foundation Material, dated May, 1981, identified earthwork and compaction problems at a number of nuclear sites. The Review Team detemined that none of those generic types of problems existed at WNP-3.

O Construction Management activities were reviewed and it was concluded that the Construction Manager, Ebasco, perfomed to a high degree of competence in controlling the work processes, thus ensuring the requisite quality of completed earthwork.

I i

V 7-2 1

l

o As part of- the CAP verification of the WNP-3 Preservation Program, a stom-water drainage system walkdown of the site was performed.

s The walkdown determined that surface runoff is properly disposed (d 1 from the site. Further review is to be conducted during a rainstom, as no appropriate opportunity arose during the summer.

This report will be revised if conclusions are changed.

o An identification of incomplete earthwork was made to provide the Supply System with independent information about the work to be completed after construction restart.

o A summary examination of NCR's written against QC-I activities was prepared. It illustrates the general nature of minor problems encountered during earthwork installation.

o A review of the original laboratory testing for soil cement was made to verify the establishment of the soil-cement mix design.

o An evaluation of the construction contractors' overall perfomance determined that the four contractors involved performed their functions to a high degree of competence.

7.2 PLACEMENT AREAS The completed earthwork reviewed in accordance wi th the CAP is identified below and in Figures 7. 2-1 through 7.2-5. The work remaining to complete WNP-3 earthwork is identified in paragraph 7.4.7 of this report. The Review Plan, Appendix 1, contains additional infomation related to placement areas.

7.2.1 _S_ oil Cement Soil-cement backfill is installed at the following locations:

o RAB Construction Access Ramp The ramp backfill in the southwest corner of the RAB is complete to elevation 386'.

o Dry Cooling Tower, Electrical Vaul t, and Electrical Ductbanks The ductbanks and fill under the Dry Cooling Tower vaul t area and south edge near Diesel Tank B is complete to elevation 386'.

o Diesel Storage Tank A The fill under Diesel Storage Tank A is complete to elevation 386' .

O V 7-3

l !fll 9O m q7 >

p/ _

O

/ ,,

2 m"g< '

" $,+i"O Q8 _

2 _

a- "

o Dm OsO2 >CX O

• cI y %n o m <-

s e OoOr .

Q$ ~ p

, H q-D mb Pi z ,

A 8 cCk

+ m 8 '

t e y m sy

~

e S mb t

sys m C Sep t e C i s HP y O C i, AI.

B S >a F

A t l

+

pc-A b

~

'f

/,

s s x e A '/// '

c k' Q;yNN C-c J

A  ?:;1 f m A, j Ar,DU

/- -

B ,

/(, ( ( o m" #

A f/

R _o

. s he59* ~O g*

1 y* c* > o 3 c. H?

Md Y

I- a 3~

Mo >

n

- & yh ne? mO m  ?

l!

O 4s y

(S j EG Syst Pipe F h Di esel Tk A fill Elev 384't /

to 390' (Typ) j I/

I A

..  ; Dl h .'4 D -

REACTOR AUX 8 L D G A -'.

$ C L s TURB I a O eS BLDG E N U%

=m 4

i E

e _. .

uJ ,.,=a 5

s E I c

E w_ g B"  :

~ 8 (N .a U

g > Y 3 L- }

T1 T1 ts $17of

' M fc EG Syst Pipe l A [/^ ' s

('rg7d

, / fill Elev 384't o  :,'} to 390' (Typ) g f

<E

~? $ &

cD$

f, ,

i* x e, Q \ Diesel Tk B C Is g Ref uel & Cond Stg Tks Elect Duct N - - Cement Sito

, s oi I cement fill Elev :

8 fill Elev386t to 388t 385 to390 clas s A-1 fill Figure 7.2-2 UNCOMPLETED EARTHWORK 7-5

1 ry

(%

Tank F nd, RAB Wall ipe Bends-90 0 7

-P-- -

Overburden Installed (A-1) -

Overburden Not [  ;

• '.. Installed (A-1) . t, ,'

[ Top of Class A-I Fill El. 390' d *

. ,2j-l I i

Ccncrete Pipe Enc. El. 385'9"- (Existing)

Y ..

. * ; Existing Pipe Bedding El. 383'9" 7

. t: . ' . ~ . ',,

. . ~ @//811/ ///ANNW// .'

• 3 ' '

__(_= Bedding per NCR #14469 l

I Bedding --*h,..

per NCR #14660 l l CH System Pipe Fill Section B-B EL.389: E L. 390.0*: 3 CLASS 6 BACKFILL q .qEL 385.5',

,S 5.0 TO

] , , . .>

,q EL. 33 .0' M E L. M3.5 }. .

Future Soil Cement 'N Rain'P EXC AVATION SOll #

in Sandstone [ existing 1 1*l CEr.1ENT 2' 4 E L.344.0's <g

?l7 E L.341.0'.t N ~ f NOT TO SCALE [

j * , ,a RAB ACCESS RAM P PROFILE [ 20': 115': 4_

Section A-A M6 Figure 7.2-3 EARTHWORK SECTIONS I

v 7-6

A-Dry Cooling t

El. 390' , __

• • [

Class A-1 Fill

- - - - - .2-

^

'... Pipe Encasement '-

.,' f; L

\

'; 7/F

. Top of Pipe Bedding El. 380't JWW Future

_} A .

Existing Work Accept. Per NCR 414615 Work a

40' RAB Wall CC System Pipe Section D - D

- ~

sl

/' Top of Missile Slab El . 389.5' . .

I " * ~ . * . * - t_

Class A-1 Fill [

. t" El. 387.42' ] .

,. (Future) 3 ' "

y $

~

. - 2 4 MISSILE PROTECTION l 3 i .

CONCRETE - 2 Existing .

- - I

- . Pipe .'o a

. j' ., '. ..'. ' - Encasement t

, C, v . .

a N _

.5I Top of Pipe Bedding / --

Tank El. 384'-4"i Accept. per NCR e14660 ~ RAB Wall Found.

Wall - AF System Pipe Note: Class A-1 fill Sect. ion C -C also required 3'-4" min.

each side of missile prot. slab.

Dimensions Approx.

Figure 7.2-4 p' EARTHWORK SECTIONS NJ 7-7

Future Class B i

Future Class B Future Class Al Fill Fill

, d Fill (Typ) 7

_ _.E1. 390' l

//gN g -

[

H j - El. 389' l

= --Future Soil Cement Future Soil jg .l, f ,; '

/

Existing Class A-1 Cement in Ramp 'I

~

gggg /

j kASMEPipe(Exist 5 El. 383'* '  ; ' El. 383'-9" *

\l __ ,,

f --

/ Ramp Soil Cement Existing RAB Existing Pipe Bedding Future Elec. Duct (Class A-A Per NCR)

Section F-F

, Dry Cooling Twr Slab -

El. 390' ._ t _. _ _ _

7

..p i

-' Elect.

't ,_ Ducts Top of Soil Cement -e j g El. 386'

• El. 386' ,, , . . . , ,

j

. -w

. Mud Slb

,', y l

.. { Soil Cement l; Elect. Vault of Dry Cooling Tower I

El. 380'

• J- Soil Cement El. 376'

• All Installations Complete Section E-E f

Figure 7.2-5 EARTHWORK SECTIONS Cf 7-8

7.2.2 Class Al Structural Backfill

-g o ASME Pipe on South Side of RAB l I V All the bedding and part of the overburden for the ASME piping is complete as shown in Figure 7.2-1 and associated sections. Thi s is primarily the Chemical and Volume Control (CH) system in the southwest corner of the RAB and the Auxiliary Feedwater (AF) system pipe in the southeast corner of the RAB.

o ASME Pipe on East Side of RAB l

The bedding and overburden for the completed portion of the Component Cooling (CC) and Emergency Generator (EG) system piping running from the east side of the RAB to the Dry Cooling Tower is installed.

7.3 CHECKLIST FINDINGS The following paragraphs analyze the detailed findings and provi de resolution of any deficiencies found in the review. This analysis is provided for each of the 21 checklists developed for earthwork quality .

verification.

7.3.1 In-Place Density And Moisture Tests For Soil Cement I

A i I CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-01, IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST REPORTS FOR SOIL CEfENT CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS l

r 3240-204 153 153 5 Observations l Test Reports Test Reports (1 Deficiency) l l All in-place density test . reports were found to exceed the i

specified compaction requirements and the moisture content was within specified limits. The calculations for these resul ts were also verified to be correct.

There were five observations by the Review Team. Three invol ved incorrect, incomplete or obscure data on the test reports , and were resolved by generating Document Deficiency Notice DDN-86-190. All were minor in nature and were deter-mined to have no impact on the quality of the completed work.

Another observation invol ved the acceptance by Ebasco fiel d engineers of in-place moisture contents of soil samples falling outside specified requirements. This ratter was resolved by 7-9

l 4

detemining from other records that for this specific instance the AE authorized acceptance of out-of-specification conditions by field engineering personnel.

The last observation is a deficiency: failure to provide the requi red infomation on the test report. The specification requires that ". . . the location of in-place density tests shall be identified by horizontal grid lines or other readily identifiable horizontal re fere nc es. . . " . It was observed on all 153 test reports that this information was not recorded as specifically requi red, and NCR No. 20000 was generated to resolve the issue.

The NCR was dispositioned "use as is" based on an analysis of the overall earthwork inspection documentation by the Review Team, and the disposition was accepted by the AE. Acceptance was based on the Review Team's correlation of documents generated by the testing and placing contractors which indicated an adequate number of tests were taken. The relatively small volume of backfill in the lifts facilitated this correlation.

The original specification of test location was too rigid and was relaxed early in the construction program to the existing, somewhat non-specific, requi rements. Detailed analysis of the existing installation documents verified the adequacy of the testing program, however, the team's consensus is that test location data should be more specific in the future.

p) s Corrective action for this NCR, therefore, requires revision of the specification to call for specific horizontal location with enough tolerance to be readily achievable in the field. Future testing of contractor procedures will reflect these strengthened requirements.

7.3.2 Compressive Strength For Cement CHECKLIST N0. CAP-D-C-01-02, COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR CEMENT CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-209 4340 60 0 Observations Cement Certs. Cement Certs.

All cement mill test reports reviewed in the sample were found to be in order and the resul ts reported met specified requirements for compressive strength. There were no negative findings resulting from this review.

'rT C 7 - 10

7.3.3 Cement Content For Soil Cement U CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-03, CEMENT CONTENT FOR S0IL CEMENT CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-209 1263 60 2 Observations Delivery Delivery -

Tickets Tickets The review of sand, water and cerrent batch weights reported on batch delivery tickets verified that the soil-cement mix proportions met specification requi rements. The ambient air temperature was also veri fied to meet specification requi rements.

Two minor observations were made by the Review Team. Both involved the recording of transport time on test reports. On one, the time of batching was indicated to be later than the time of discharge, and the other was an error made while correcting a di scharge-time entry. Both are minor and were resolved by generating Document Deficiency Notice DDN-86-171.

g 7.3.4 Soil / Soil Cement Personnel Qualifications-Testing CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-04, S0IL/S0ll CEMENT PERSUHNEL ~

QUALIFICATIONS-TESTING CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDIl'GS 3240-204 21 21 0 Observations Inspector Inspector Qual. Records Qual. Records Records of training and applicable experience for all testing technicians and supervisors were found to be in order. The certification of each employee's qualifications was current at the time the work was performed.

There were no negative findings resul ting from this review.

More infomation on qualifications of personnel is provided in paragraph 7.3.21.

t,_) 7 - 11  :

i l

)

7.3.5 Testing Equipment Calibration For Soil Cement / Soils O

CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-05, TESTING EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION FOR Soll CEMENT /S0ILS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-209 26 26 2 Observations Cal. Records Cal. Records The sample includes all 26 pieces of test equipment, such as scales, and density and moisture testers.

Calibration records for the equipment used were found to be appropriate and calibrations were perfomed at the correct frequencies.

.Two observations were made by the Review Team. One observation invol ved i ncorrect identification of three separate pieces of equipment used in tests. This is a minor discrepancy and was resol ved by generating Document Deficiency Notice DDN-86-194.

In the second observation, the reviewer was unable to verify through documented reports that weekly correlations were perfomed for the nuclear density gauge as required. The item

( was resolved by detemining that a weekly verification log was maintained by the test lab. The Review Team was able to verify from the log that correlations were perforced weekly.

7.3.6 Soil Cement Density Test Frequency CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-06, S0IL CEMENT DENSITY TEST FREQUENCY CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-204 112 112 2 Observations (1 Deficiency) 3240-263 Lifts Lifts The population includes all of the in-place densi ty test locations as determined by a review of appropriate area design drawings (Ebasco G-2000 series) and lift rketches filed with the placing docureants. For each lift identified, a review was O

V 7 - 12

z conducted to verify that a minimum. of one test was taken in each lift, and that, as a minimum, one test was taken for each 2000 square feet of material placed in a lift.

V .Two observations were made by the Review Team. One was the uncertainty about whether the specification requires' one test for each 2000 sq. f t. , or one test for each 2000 sq. ft. or portion the reof , of material placed in a lift. This concern about the clarity of the specification was transmitted to the Manager, EAP for further consideration. However, the Review Team detemined that the contractor's procedure for this work required a test to be taken for each 2000 sq. ft. or portion thereof. There were 28 lifts identified which were not tested as required by procedures, therefore, considered to be deficient. NCR No. 20002 was generated to resolve this issue.

Tne NCR was dispositioned "use as is" based on an analysis of

, the test frequency perfomed by the CAP Office. The maximum testing frequency observed is one test per 5750 sq. ft. which is much better than industry standards for earthwork testi ng, such as ANSI N4 5'. 2. 5-78, which requi res field density tests every 10,000 sq. ft. The contractor also tested more often than required by procedure for many of the early lifts, indicating extra control during initial lifts to establish suitability of the compacti.on methods an.d equipment. Testing was relaxed to the condition described above only at higher elevations as confidence in placing methods increased. The AE concurred with the recommended disposition of this NCR.

The remaining observation involved minor concerns by the Review Team about correlation of tests between PTL test report fom SC-1 and M-K inspection report form QC-19. Backfill was sloped to drain away from the RAB structure. Due to the sloped surface it was difficult to identify the exact lift elevation at which the tests were taken. Correlation between test and inspection reports was perfomed by the CAP Office using a computer analysis that identified the lift elevations at which tests were determined to have been taken, and the issue was satisfactorily r6 solved.

7.3.7 Curing And Lift Thickness For Soil Cement and Soils CHECKLIST NO. CAP-b-C-01-07, CURING AND LIFT THICANESS FOR S0IL CEMENT AND SOILS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-263 138 60 1 Observation Inspection Inspection Reports Reports 7 - 13

Morri son-Knudsen's inspection reports indicated that placement lifts did not exceed the specified inaximum thickness. ~Each a lift that was not immediately covered by another lift was

) identified on a curing record that documented appropriate curing requirements were satisfied.

The Review Team made only one observation, which consisted of a PTL compaction test for which no M-K inspection report, form QC-19, could be found. As a resul t of this observation, all PTL compaction tests were reviewed and all other corresponding M-K inspection reports were identified.

This isolated case of one missing M-K document was resolved by generating Document Deficiency Notice DDN-86-191. The PTL test report for the same lift establishes that the quality of soil cement in-place is acceptable.

7.3.8 Soil Cement Water Quality CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-08, SOIL CEMENT WATER QUALITY CONTRACT POPULATION SAf1PLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-204 35 35 1 Observation p Water Tests Water Tests G

Reports of batch plant water analyses were found to reflect the specified water chemistry and an adequate number of tests were taken.

The ' Review Team made one observation on these reports. A Project NCR generated during the course of the work recorded the acceptance of low pH values of 5.9, 5.2, and 5.4 for soil cement batch water (requirement is pH 6 to 8). Another low pH value of E.d discovered by the team was not included on the NCR, howeve r, pH 5.5 is within the range accepted on the NCR

~

and within the time frame of the other low pH values. This additional case would have no impact on the quality of the compacted soil cement.

O 4

v 7 - 14

7.3.9 Batch Plant Personnel Qualifications For Soil Cement Production

/~~N

\ ) CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-09, BATCH PLANT PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS FOR S0IL CEMENT PRODUCTION CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-209 9 9 1 Observation Inspector Inspector

. Qual. Records Qual. Records Records of training and applicable experience for batch plant personnel were found to be in accordance with procedure requirements. Certification of each employee's qualifications was found to be up-to-date and appropriate for the work being perfomed.

Although not an item listed in the instructions for review of this sample, the CAP reviewer observed that the second page of the two-page evaluation fom for batch plant operators was not uniquely identified to the appropriate first page. Since the second page contains the approval signature but not the name of the person being approved, an opportunity for error would be created by separating the unnumbered pages.

This discrepancy was resolved by the fact that the signatures, dates and infomation on all three of the second pages of the evaluation fom are identical and acceptable, therefore, they are, in thi s case, interchangeable. The Contract 3240-209 procedure did not require numbering of this form. Revision of contractor's procedure was not initiated because this contract has expired.

7.3.10 Soil Cement Batch Plant Equipment Calibration CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-10, SOIL CEMENT BATCH PLANT EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS J

3240-209 4 4 0 Observations Cal. Certs. Cal. Certs.

7 - 15

1 i

Four scales, one each for the weighing of sand, cement, water l and ice were- identified as requiring calibration. All I calibration certificates were found to be in order.

(q%) 7.3.11 Soils Placing Contractor's Personnel Qualifications ,

l CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-ll, S0ILS PLACING CONTRACTOR'S PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-263 10 10 1 Observation Inspector Inspector Qual. Records Qual. Records Records of training and applicable experience for M-K placing inspection personnel and the associated certifications were found to be in accordance with the applicable procedure requirements.

The Review Team observed that five of a total of nine inspectors. who signed curing records were not certified for soils or soil cement inspections. This observation was resolved by the fact that these inspectors were certified for concrete curing, which is technically the same as soil cement (qj c u ri ng , except that concrete temperature monitoring is more stringent. Records also show that most of the inspectors in

question received specific training in soil cement curing, as required for certi fication, even though the procedure for personnel qualification did not require certification in soil cement curing at that time. Soil cement certification requirements have since been added to the procedure. From these facts, it was concluded by the Review Team that the quality of the soil cement was acceptably verified by qualified inspectors.

7 - 16 k

7.3.12 Ebasco Quality Assurance Audits CHECKLIST N0. CAP-D-C-01-12, EBASCO QUALITY ASSURANCE b AUDITS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-204 28 Audits 28 Audits 10 Observations 3240-209 18 Audits 18 Audits 1 Observation 3240-263 19 Audits 19 Audits 2 Observations Reviews of the audit files indicated active participation by CH and contractor management personnel in the control of WNP-3 activi ties. The aggressive give-and-take indicated by cor-respondence and responses to QFR's showed healthy differences of opinion and demonstrated the ability and control of the Ebasco QA organization in obtaining satisfactory resolutions to observed deficiencies.

Observations by the Review Team indicated a possibility of 11 instances where fomal certification for lead auditors was lacking, and two instances where required documentation could not be located. Further investigation of the certification

^

issue for 11 lead auditors revealed that standards in effect at

( the time the audits were perfomed did not require fomal lead

, auditor certification. Ebasco's procedures were in compliance with codes then in effect and auditors were qualified to those requirements, therefore, no discrepancies existed.

By research of the records, the Review Team was able to resolve the two cases of technical information thought to be missing from the files. In the first case, an audit was scheduled but not perfomed because auditable work had not yet commenced. In the second case, an audit was perfomed by an individual who apparently did not use a prescribed checklist. The auditor's activities were all documented, however, and each observation by him resul ted in a Quality Finding Report (QFR). His activities appear to contain the elements of a thorough review, even though the absence of a checklist is an isolated case of audit procedure violation.

l 7 - 17 l

1 l

l

, . - - - - - - - . ,c . - - ---

- . . - ,.--- . _ _ . - - - - ~ - - - . . . - , ,_ _ . - - _ , . - , . - .

. 7.3.13 Sample Selection for Review of Documentation of Ebasco. Site Surveillance Process O

CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-13, SAlIPLE SELECTION FOR REVIEW OF REVIEW 0F DOCUMENTATION OF EBASCO SITE SURVEILLANCE PROCESS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-02 60 1 N/A, Checklist used for ident-3240-204 530 4 ifying randan

. sample.

3240-209 292 2 2

3240-213 321 3 3240-216 120 1

, 3240-218 21 8 2 1 3240-219 96 1

3240-221 84 1 3240-224 554 5 3240-225/ 455 4 253 3240-231 22 1 3240-232 442 4

. 3240-233 0 0 3240-235 127 1 3240-251/ 1517 11 226 3240-256 102 1

, 3240-263 1725 12 3240-265 681 6 1

I '- 7 - 18 1

---,<,w ,-,r,r--- --- , va,mm.-er --w m-,<,----,,m-,n,,-,w-,-.-w,,m-m,--mv--,ne-,4 rw-,,wn,, ,w e. vw ,eww-,.,v- a--o,wn_,-e-,w ...w-w--------n -~~n-,,--,,r-

Quality Control surveillance of all QC-I contractor installation activities was performed by Ebasco Quality Control p using one set of procedures and one group of personnel. In d view of the above, it was detennined that the total number of surveillances for all QC-I contractors would be considered as the population and a stratified sample selected from the number to ensure that all contractors were included. The total surveillances is 7,346. Sequential numbers were assigned to each contractor based on number of surveillances performed. A stratified random sample of 60 was selected by computer from the total population.

7.3.14 Class Al Fill Moisture-Density Relationship (Proctor) Tests and Sieve Analyses CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-15, Al FILL MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR) TESTS AND SIEVE ANALYSES CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-263 13 13 2 Observations Sets of Test Sets of Test Reports Reports p Sand gradation test resul ts were found to comply with d specification requi rements. Calculations for all but one Proctor test were verified to be arithmetically correct.

The Review Team observed that the form used to record the calculations for most of the values for moisture and density did not include a record of the weight of the sample container (tare), and some of the subsequent values which would involve the tare were also absent.

A check of the calculations by the Review Team and examination of other records available at the site resul ted in the conclusion that a zero-tare scale was used; i.e., the sample container was built into the scale.

A subtraction error was found in the computations recorded on a Proctor test. The error was minor (.04%) and has no impact on the significant figures expressed in the results. Upon request by the CAP Office, Ebasco initiated Document Deficiency Notice DDN-86-195 to resolve thi s iteia.

O U 7 - 19

7.3.15 Class Al Fill In-Place Density Tests '

(O CHECKLIST NO. C#.P-D-C-01-15, CLASS Al FILL IN-PLACE TESTS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-204 80 80 3 Observations Test Reports Test Reports (2 Deficiencies)

All in-place density test- resul ts exceeded the specified compaction requirements, demonstrating the effectiveness of the contractor's earthwork program.

There were three observations by the Review Team in these test reports, all of which invol ved a failure to provide the required infomation on the reports. First, the horizontal location of 78 tests was not provided as specified. This deficiency is covered by , and included in, NCR No. 20000, described in paragraph 7.3.1.

Second, weather data required by contract specification 3240-204 was neither required by , nor entered upon, the test report form. NCR No. 20001 was generated to resolve the p/

n deficiency.

The NCR was dispositioned "use as is" based on the fact that all tests with missing weather data were nuclear-device test reports. The contractor apparently considered weather data to be immaterial because the nuclear density tester was not operated during periods of rain. The Review Team verified, by spot check of the project's Weather Data Master Log, that these tests were not perfomed on rainy days. Based on the above, the Review Team agnres with the disposition.

Because the contract with PTL is closed, the NCR does not address the past conflict between PTL procedures and the specification, however, the NCR does address future work by revision of the specification to exclude the weather data requirements for nuclear methods tests. The AE concurred with the recommended disposition of this NCR.

The third observation involves minor calculation errors which were identified on 32 test reports. The errors are all on the order of less that 0.1% and have no impact of the acceptability of the results. It is possible that these values were obtained directly from a built-in calculator on a nuclear-type density gauge. The reviewers have experienced that these devices do not always round off the values as standard convention would 7 - 20

4 indicate (i.e., lower than five round down, five or larger round up). However, it was not detennined if this was the

_- m actual cause of the insignificant errors. In response to a CAP Office ~ request, this item was resolved by DUN-86-195 and DDN-86-208 which documented the minor nature of the errors.

7.3.16 EBASCO SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-16, EBASCO SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT i REVIEW CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-02 60 1 0 Observations 3240-204 530 4 0 Observations 3240-209 292 2 0 Observations 3240-213 321 3 0 Observations 3240-216 120 1 0 Observations I 3240-218 21 8 2 0 Observations 5 3240-219 96 1 0 Observations 3240-221 84 1 0 Observations 3240-224 554 5 1 Observations 3240-225/ 455 4 1 Observations 253 3240-231 22 1 0 Observations 3240-232 442 4 0 Observations 3240-233 0 0 0 Observations

! 3240-235 127 1 1 Observations 3240-251/ 1517 11 1 Observations 226 3240-256 102 1 0 Observations 3240-263 1725 12 0 Observations 3240-265 681 6 2 Observations

!O

] 7 - 21 4

No deficiencies or discrepancies were noted as a result of the reviews conducted. The population and the stratified random p sample utilized with this checklist was determined by the

'Q Review Team and documentated on checklist CAP-D-GC-01-13. Six surveillance reports contained apparent open items with incomplete resolutions, but the completed reports were misfiled, and the issue was resolved by proper assembly of the documents.

7.3.17 CLASS Al FILL -

FREQUENCY OF M0ISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR) AND IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-17, CLASS Al FILL - FREQUEkCY OF M0ISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR) AND IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-204 80 80 1 Observation 3240-263 Lifts Lifts Conservative earthwork practices were evident in this review.

The Review Team observed that some of the Proctor tests had been re ferenced on more than 10 in-place density tests, C] contrary to the specification requirement that the ratio of Proctors to in-pl ace tests be approximately 1:10. Further investigation revealed that densi ty test reports cited only half the Proctor tests actually performed in order to use infomation that woul d yield the most conservative results (documentation was available). It was determined that the proper ratio of Proctors to in-place density tests was maintained and further, that more tests were taken than required.

7.3.18 Moi sture-Densi ty Relationship (Proctor) Tests And Steve Analyses On PKS Pipe Bedding CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-18, M0ISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR) TESTS AND SIEVE ANALYSES ON PKS PIPE BEDDING CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-251 5 5 1 Observation Sets of Test Sets of Test Reports Reports O 7 22

The calculations for the Proctors were verified to be correct and the gradation results of the sieve analyses of Class A fill placed by PKS were ~ verified to be in accordance with

[]

v specification requirements.

The Review Team observed that the sieve analysis reports identify pipe-bedding material tested as Class AA material ,

which is 1/2" max. size, yet the gradation report shows 3/4" max. size (Class A) material was tested. The Review Team determined that 3/4" maximum (Class A) was the proper material size specified and used.

Further, the pipe-bedding material and its installation by PKS was the subject of a project NCR at the time of installation because procedures for QC-I work were not employed. This entire sttuation was investigated by the AE, including the use of 3/4" material, and determined to be acceptable. Subsequent installation of QC-I pipe bedding was transferred from the PKS contract to M-K. The Review Team was able to trace this i nformation, including acceptable compaction resul ts, through the construction records available.

7.3.19 In-Place Density Tests In PKS Backfill CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-19, IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS IN PKS BACKFILL CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-251 50 50 4 Observations Test Reports Test Reports (2 Deficiencies)

The Reviets Team detemined that PTL perfomed all testing of backfill installed by PKS for underground piping. All in-place density tcst results were found to exceed the specified minimum compaction requi rements. One deficiency identified in thi s review is failure to identi fy weather conditions on test reports, which is the same finding addressed in paragraph 7.3.15.

Another observation involved 12 instances of minor calculation errors on test reports. See paragraph 7.3.15 for a discussion 4

that applies to this finding. This item was resolved by generation of DDN-86-193 at the request of the CAP Office.

7 - 23

Seventeen test reports erroneously reference the incorrect ASME pipe class in identifying the location of the test. This is a s minor data-entry error that does not affect the quality of the pipe or pipe bedding. The item was resol ved by generating DDN-86-203.

Horizontal locations given on the reports for five in-place density tests did not identify the test locations. These cases are further examples of the condition described in paragraph 7.3.1.

7.3.20 Frequency of Moisture-Density Relationship (Proctor) And In-Place Density Tests In PKS Backfill CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-20, FREQUENCY OF M0ISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR) AND IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS IN PKS BACKFILL CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS 3240-251 50 50 0 Observations 3240-204 Lifts Lifts n There were no negative findings in thi s review. The Q appropriate number of tests were perfonned to assure that trenches were properly compacted and that the data was reliable.

7.3.21 Ebasco QC Inspector Qualifications CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-21, EBASCO QC INSPECTOR 4

QUALIFICATIONS CONTRACT POPULATION SAMPLE SIZE FINDINGS Ebasco 132 60 0 Observations Inspector Inspector Qual. Records Qual. Records O 7 - 24

There were no negative findings in this review. QC Inspectors appear to be qualified and properly certified through Ebasco's m Quality Program. The Review Team was able to confirm from

,") . records available at the site that a third of the Review Team's sample of inspectors had their education and experience back-grounds verified by Ebasco's program. Because the team was not able to obtain records that show background veri fication for all the inspectors, a firm conclusion cannot be drawn with respect to background checks for all inspectors. However, there is no indication from this review or any others covered in this report that inspectors may not have been qualified.

Attempts were also made by the Review Team to. similarly verify backgrounds of contractor QC inspectors. They were all found to be qualified and the records show their qualifications were i reviewed by the Ebasco Quali ty Program, but little tangible infomation resulted from our background check. For the most part, employees who were involved in this five-year-old work are no longer available to acquire pemission for contacting earlier former employers. Fomer employers were reluctant or unable to furnish such infomation in some cases. This part of the review, initiated to respond to a perceived industry-wide concern about false resume information, was not considered to

, be conclusive because of the team's inability to verify out-dated resumes. Still, no questions were raised to implicate any contractor QC inspector, now or in the past.

7.4 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE 7.4.1 Contract 3240-204, Inspection and Testing Services, PTL All on-site soils testing was performed by PTL, including the material qualification tests and batch mix-water tests for all supply and installation contractors. Although a serious i.ssue of records falsification was identified early in this contract, the CAP review focused on this issue revealed that the problem received timely attention and was corrected. This issue is discussed in paragraph 7.6.3. The contractor's procedures were followed explicitly in the performance of tests and inspec-tions, but there were deficiencies in recording related infor-mation, such as weather data and specific horizontal test locations on report foms. These deficiencies were analyzed by the Review Team and found to have no effect on the quality of the installed earthwork. The AE concurred. Records of personnel training and test equipment calibration were kept current and provide assurance that test results are accurate.

The overall testing program implemented by PTL provides i

credible verification of earthwork quality.

7 - 25

,-- ,-- .-,-, . - , , . - n_ , . - - . , - . , , , - - - , . . . . . , , - - - , , . - - - - , , . , , , - - - . - - - - , . , ,

7.4.2 Contract 3240-209, Supply and Delivery of Concrete, AS&G The soil cement used in this project was produced and delivered (o) by AS&G. Testing and production records . indicate uniformly high-quality materials were used and the automated batch and

, delivery process was effective in providing a consistently high quality finished product.

7.4.3 Contract 3240-263, Reactor Auxiliary Building General Construction, M-K Preparation of the subgrade sandstone and placement of soil-cement and Class Al backfill was perfomed by M-K, including generation of placing inspection records and detailed lift sketches. These documents provided an excellent record of the

)lacement activities, and proved indispensible in complementing the PTL in-place density test reports. The lack of detailed horizontal test locations on PTL test reports was resolved in part by the completeness of the M-K inspection reports.

To provide an overview of compaction performance and the overall earthwork installation quality, a computer analysis of all test results was perfomed by the CAP Review Team. This was a sta ti stical , graphical analysis providing averages, frequency distribution and standard deviation. Graphs of the percent compaction (in-place density compared to the maximum dry density value specified for the material tested) for soil cement and Class Al fill are shown in Figures 7.4-1 thru 7.4-4.

O v Specifications allowed 10% of the field tests to fall between 90% and 95% of the specified density. All the density tests on M-K compacted fill exceed 93.8% of the specified density, and only 2.5% of the tests fall below 95% of that specified.

Graphs of the compaction test frequency distribution (i.e., the number of in-place density tests at each percentage compac tion) , are shown in Figures 7.4-5 thru 7.4-8. Those resul ts show that a high average compaction was achieved and the range of results indicate that effective compaction methods and equipment were used, with overall excellent performance by M-K.

~ 7.4.4 Contract 3240-251/226, Installation of Piping Systems and Equipment, PKS Peter Kiewi t Sons prepared the subgrade sandstone and placed pipe bedding material for underground ASME piping in several areas (see Figure 7.2-1). These bedding installations were originally designated as QC-G and installed in accordance with specification 3240-406. During the June 7-11, 1982, Regional NRC inspection, the inspector questioned the design specifi-cation of QC-G for bedding of some QC-1 pipe being installed.

Subsequent AE reviews identified both QC-I pipe and electrical ductbank bedding which was incorrectly designated on the design drawi ng. The specifications and drawings were changed to QC-I 7 - 26 1

g ,

N.J '%,I 1

PERCENT COMPACTION RAB ACCESS RAMP TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS =97 1.2% < 95%

114 113 n 112 111 u 110 9 O @

b 109 ^

O v .1 'll

\

\

l O O - C U "

0 106 -J -

105 - "' *O "

O 104 y 5 103 '

J @

8

$ 102 h " --

0 0 " U '

U 101 5 'a o ll [k di y g j d 99 0 fJ 7

98 0 6

97

• L 96 0 95 g 94 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, SOIL CEMENT If t-PLACE DENSITY TESTS O TEST IN ORDER TAKEN Figure 7.4-1

_ - . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ . .

O hO b) is ,V PERCENT COMPACTION DIESEL STG' TNK A TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS =23 4.3% < 95%

111 110

),' 109 /\

$ 108 1\

107 0 ' ' / \ m m

g os / \ /\ m A

,04 / \ /\ /\ l\ a d V \ /\ l\ 'N I '"' ~

F 102 \/a

\l \ Ik

' ~ v ' '

\l \ , \

@8 e

100 \l \ ' l \p l F "

99 i 5

• • i m

/\ /

s Q- 97 N_ ,'

l 95 h/

N

94 i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i l SOIL- CEMENT IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS O TEST IN ORDER TAKEN

].

l Figure 7.4-2

.-- _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ .~ __ - . _ _ _.__ ..

PERCENT COMPACTION DRY COOLING TVVR TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS =32 3.1 % < 95%

106 i

l 105 i L

, p 104 ll

. b .

3 103 l

' 102 il n a 7

! t '" \\/\ N' \ si'" i

\  ;! \\t \ l \ / /\ r

=1 '" \ \l \ l %1 / \l

I \l \l .\ l - si V j

i a_ 96 l' \/ \l /V -

t ,.

95 i 94 iiiiiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiii iiiii SOIL CEMENT IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS .

,O TEST IN ORDER TAKEN Figure 7.4-3

___..__._.._.___....-..________.._.___~_.._7-__.._-_.-._ _ - . . _ . .

o .

o o -

M-K CL A-1 FILL PERCENT COMPACTION TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS =80 2.5%<95%  ;

100 n g kl.

99 '

d 98 -

9 3 f

a 1 p U Q 9 o 97 t; y n

)

y I I

" J y I v _~

U "

t- t

. u '

F-Z 95 u L L g e

it' 94 k 93 iiii,,iisisisisisis,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M-K CL A-1 FILL IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS O TEST IN ORDER TAKEN Figure 7.4-4

O .

O O RAB ACCESS RAMP DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AVG SOIL CEMENT COMP =104.2 STD DEV=3.3%

12 7 ,

/

/, / /, /

11 / / '/ /

/ / / /l 10 ,

8 / / '/ ,,/

" 9 E

/

/

/ / / '/

~/ / / ~/

g

? / / / / / / /

8 7 / / / / / /I /

u / / / / / / /

o b " / / / /. / / /

/ / / / / /. /. /.

~

t s / //// /, / /,

1 / / /. / / / /. /

5 4 / /

/ / /. /. / / / / /

3 # #

1 / / / / / / / / / /. /

/

/ / / / '/ / / 7 /

'/

'/

// '/

~/ / / / '/ / / / / '/

/// / / / / /l / / / / / / / / '

/ /'

O , i i i i i i i i i- i i i i i , i i i i i i 94 95 96 97 98' 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 PERCENT COMPACTION OF SOIL CEMENT Figure 7.4-5

o 7 7f 0

, 1 1

N ,0 9

O 1 8

7/,

I T

U 9 0 1

' 7 BI

/, 9/9' 7/( 0 1

R 6

T1 S= V 4 9 7// 0 1

5 T 7/(

4 I

DED 9 0 1

E E

t M

D 4 C YST 7 '/// ' , ///, 9 9 7/7 0 1 L T:

• 3 I

O S

9 7/7 I

0 S 5 o

1 1 F 6 O -

N0 1 ' 2 4 E= P /, 9/9 '/// 0 1

1 t

O 7

e DMO I

T r 1 C u g

C

, 0 A 1 P i F

T M AJ E '

0 O 9 9 7/7

'/ 7// ///,

t 0 C M f 1 T

KE C 9 E N

NL I

, 9 C R

TOS '

E

/4 GVA G ' '/ '///- ///,

9/9 '

8 9

P T /, '9/9 ' 7/7 7 9

S .

E L 9* '//( 6 9

S E

9 7/( 5 9

I 4

D 9

5 3 5 2 5 3 5 ,

~

~

3' 0 0 2 'l a ~GQ m3{ I$3 l _

]

( .

i 0 8

1 7

, 0 1

N O

I T h ,0 6

1 U , 0 5

B I

1 R i 0 4

T4 2 1

S= V I

3 T

N DD E i 0 1

E M

E D C YT T

S f $yzk4h i0 2

L I

ud I

1 O

S S8 % 7 N8 9 E =P l/,

pz@4h ,0 1

1 F

O N

4 7

e

}( O r u

DMO szk4h 0 I T g

,0 C f i nd C 1 A F P

RT N M WEM TE C Nszk4h 9 9

O C

T N

L GI O Npzk4h i 8

9 E

C R

NS nNpzk5h E

P I

G ,7 LV A 9 O

O C szk4h ,9 6

R Y h ,9 5

D i 4

9

. , 2 , 0

( m

!ioE

I  !

j

O 3 1

2 b

l N

O I b 1

l T

U -

B / / b 0

I R1 / l L

L T1 I

=

/ / F SV E I

D DD & 9 9 1 A

K T

/ /

/ /

M //M TS 8 9 M S / ' F 8

4 E5 O 7

/ /

/& M //M T6 / N O YPM 9

= /

// .

7 9 O I

T C

A i

e r

u g

TO C /

P F

I

/ / M SL NI F E1 L

/ ll,/'/&

/ '/ M 7M

'/

6 9 O C

T N

D- A / / 5 9

E C

R G

/ E P

LV A l L

I

/ 4 F /

I 9

K 3 9

M 2

9 8 " "* ' '

8 2 2 2 O

!E s '

ne

prior to electrical duct installation. The QC-I pipe installed

- by PKS was identified on four NCRs because it was not installed to QC-1 procedures. On the basis of PTL testing of this I

(A) bedding and the site investigations conducted by geological engineering department, the PKS pipe-bedding instal-the AE lations were accepted. However, all other QC-1 earthwork was transferred from the PKS work scope to M-K from that point on.

To provide a similar overview of earthwork compaction, as was done for the M-K installations, the in-place compaction test results for PKS-placed fill are presented in Figures 7.4-9 and 7.4-10.

All of the tests of PKS backfill exceed 95% of the specified maximum dry density even though they were also allowed to have 10% of the tests in a range between 90% and 95%.

f The graph of the compaction test distribution illustrate the high average compaction achieved in ' the field. These resul ts j

indicate compaction methods and equipment are as effective as those used by M-K, providing similar quality results.

7.5 FSAR COMMITMENTS The WNP-3 FSAR was carefully reviewed by the team to identify com-mitments related to earthwork, as described in the module Review Plan.

This section illustrates how the CAP addressed the specific commitments I

stated in the FSAR.

7.5.1 Implementation of Requirements l Construction specifications and drawings were used by the project to implement the requirements and comitments of the FSAR. These documents were scrutinized to identi fy specific

{ construction activities required of the contractors that would be the subject of this Readiness Review. The specifications

~, were detennined to be in substantial agreement with FSAR earth-work comitments. In a few instances where the documents did not agree completely, the infomation was transmitted to the

Manager, EAP, for consideration in design reviews.

Table 7. 5-1 presents a tabulation of commitment statements paraphrased from the applicable sections of the FSAR.

Checklists used by the CAP to address the commitments are identified in the table.

1 The information presented in the table demonstrates that the fomal comitments of the FSAR were examined by this review program. There are more-detailed requirements derived from the specifications. Table 6.3-1 demonstrates that these were also examined by the program. Collectively, the resul ts of the examination demonstrate that all earthwork comitments were met by the project.

l O 7 - 35 s

v ~ - ,n - - , , - -n, e,-, . - . - , , , , , , , , - - ,,,,,,-...,,,,,,,,,n,,-,-,,--,,..w

,,,,.-,---,nn. , . . , . , , , - , , - - . , - - - , . , . - - - , , , , - , - - ,

~

o~ o 6

~

PKS CL A-1 FILL PERCENT COMPACTION TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS =50 0%<95%

102 101

-i l c )1 n 5 100

<  ; 1 d l 8 ,, , / / R-" ,

r I / 6 d" 'l 4 4 98 1 $ -

2 Z 97 5

~

96 -

p g 1

0 -

95 ,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PKS CL A-1 FILL IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS O TEST IN ORDER TAKEN Figure 7.4-9

O , 0 3

1 N /,//@ 2 0

O /, 1 I

T

! /, 5,@

U 5 1 0

B I

/ 1 R f y,y,@

T 7 S9 I

1

%M  !

0 0

1 L

L

%M ! y,//@

D= V

' I F

T DD ST S E

M 9 9 1 A

S E //, /, K

! /,/,@

8 9 P T F 0 1

7 O -

Y7 ".

%M /,/,y,@

/ N O T7 9 I

SP M= &MMM l 7

9 O

T I

C A

P 7

i e

r u

g NO EC L DL F MMM %M //,

! /, y,@ 6 9

M O

C T

F I

N E

L1 5 C

- , 9 R LA I

E P

G FV A 4

, 9 1

A , 9 3

S K , 2 P 9 3 ""e 7 6 " , I 1 ' '

O eE 8i z

O)

% h J

[v)

FSAR COMMITMEfJTS TABLE 7.5-1 I I I I l l l IMPLEMEfJTED BY l C0tFIRED BY l l

, l FSAR 1/C0t441TKtJT l C0tlSTRUC. SPEC. I CAP CIECKLIST l REMARKS I I I l I I I I I I I i 1) 2.5.4.2.5.4 The material 1 3240-204 l (All) l I I specs, testing requirements, l 3240-209 l l 1

, I and quality control measures l 3240-263 l l l l specified form a part of the l 3240-466 l l l l overall QA Program. l l l l

-1 I I l 1 l 2) 2.5.4.2.6.1 Class Al struc- l 3240-466 1 D-C-01-14 l l l tural fill shall be well- l 3240-263 l l l l graded sand and gravel having l 3240-204 l l l l a maximum size of 6 inches and l l l l 1 a maximum of 15% passing numberl l l l l 200 sieve, When used as pipe

• l l l l w I bedding, the maximum size is l l l l l 3/4 inch. l l l l u I I I l 1 l 3) 2.5.4.2.6.2 Class Al struc- l 3240-466 l D-C-01-15 I l l tural fill in-place density I 3240-263 I C-C-01-14 l l I tests in accordance with I 3240-204 l l l l ASTM D1556-64, ASTM D2167-66, I l l l l or ASTM D2922-81. Compaction l l l l l to be 95% of maximum density l l l l l as determined from the Modifiedl l l l l Proctor Density Test, ASTM l l l l j l D1557-78. Ten percent of I l l l l tests may fall 5% below spec- l l l l

1 ified compaction. l l l l l l l l l .

l 4) Sol'1 cement used as backfill l 3240-204 l -- l Sand used was same stockpile l 1 of construction-access ramps 1 3240-209 l l as concrete. Material to be l I adjacent to the RAB consisted l 3240-466- 1 l reviewed in Concrete Module l i of a blend of sand similar l l l (C3-02). l l to that used for concrete, I l l l l l l 1 l l 1 l l l l l l l 1

FSAR COMMITMEtJTS TABLE 7.5-1 I I I I l l l IMPLEMEtJTED BY l C0fFIRED BY l ,. l l FSAR 1/ COP 44ITWrJT l C0tJSTRUC. SPEC. l CAP CT CKLIST l REMARKS l l l l l l l 1 I I l l 5) mixed with 10% Type II l 324D-204 l D-C-01-03 l l l Portland cement and water, l 3240-209 l D-C-01-08 l l l l 3240-466 l l l l l l l l l 6) compacted to 95% of the' l 3240-204 l D-C-01-01 1 I l maximum density obtained l 3240-263 l l l l from Standard Proector Tests, I l l l l ASTM D558-57. I l l l l .

I l l l l 7) At an optimum moisture content l 3240-204 l D-C-01-01 l 10.3% should be 10.4%, FSAR l l of 10.3% + 2%.

l 3240-209 l l is in error. l I l l l l l 8) The soil-cement was spread in l 3240-204 I D-C-01-07 l l

" lifts not exceeding 12 inches l 3240-263 l l l l

' in depth.

l l l l l 0 l l l l l l 9) In-place density tests for l 3240-204 l D-C-01-01 l l l soil cement were performed l l l l l using the Rubber Balloon  ! l l l l method, ASTM D2167-66. l l l l l l l l l 110) Field moisture contents (of l 3240-204 l D-C-01-01 l l l the test samples) were deter- l l l l l mined in accord with AASHTn l l l l l T-217. l l l l l l .

l l l l11) Field test results showed l 3240-204 l D-C-01-01 I l l that tests met or exceeded the l l l l l the criteria. l l l l l l l l l 112) Exterior walls of the RAB were l 3240-216 l --

l tiot an earthwork feature & not l l cast directly against shot- l l l recreatable. Construction l l creted vertical rock surfaces. l l l photos verify this condition l l l l l exists. l l l l l l

f) v (3

C) Q v

FSAR C0t+1IThEtJTS TABLE 7.5-1 l l l 1 I l l IMPLEMEtJTED BY l C0tFIRMED BY l l l FSAR 1/COMMITFENT I C0tlSTRUC. SPEC. I CAP CFECKLIST I REMARKS l l l l l l l 1 1 I l 113) 2.5.4.5.4 Instrumentation l 3240-205 l --

l Installation not recreatable. l l was installed to monitor the l l l Construction photos verify l l stability of the vertical I l l this condition exists, instru- l I walls of the excavation during I l l ment data available. l I construction. l l l l 3

I I I I I l14) Piezometers were installed l 3240-205 l --

l tJot recreatable. Construction l l adjacent to the excavation to l l l photos verify installation. l l determine groundwater levels. l l l l 1 I I I i 115) 2.5.4.12 Category I structuresl 3240-205 1 --

l An exception was identified: l l were founded directly on fresh l l l for overexcavated spots, l I or weathered sandstone, I l l soil cement was used for 1 y I further improvement of found- l l l backfill. I

, I ing material was not required. l l l l

, 116) The RAB will be protected from l 3240-205 l --

I tJot an earthwork feature. I o I excessive hydrostatic pressure 1 3240-216 l l Installation to be reviewed l l by a drainage system of l 3240-263 l l in Concrete Module (C3-02). l l vertical drains, horizontal i l l l l headers, and drain tunnels. l l l l l l l 1 l 117) WPPSS shall implement an over- l ETR 1001 1 0-GC-01-12 i All activities examined in l l all Quality Assurance Program l 3240-860W l D-GC-01-16 l these checklists are not I l for the Design, Procurement, l l D-GC-01-21 l necessarily earthwork related. l l Construction and Operation of I l D-C-01-04 l In some instances all con- l l WilP-3 in accordance with the l l D-C-01-09 l struction contractors were l l requirements of 10CFR50, I l D-C-01-ll l addressed. I l Appendix B. l D-GC-01-13 l l l l .

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  ! l I I I I i l i l i I I l l l l l

1 7.6 OTHER CAP TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS 1 m 7.6.1 Excavation Pemit Review All earthwork excavatica and backfilling for building foundations and underground utilities are documented by the Construction Manager on excavation pemits regardless of which site contractor performs the work. Construction Assurance Program review of excavation permits was performed to verify that pemits were initiated for excavations in completed QC-I earthwork, and tha t those excavations that removed QC-I fill were subsequently backfilled using the proper material.

The CM's composite underground facilities drawings illustrate the location and number of excavation permits. The Review Team compared these composite drawings with the design drawings to assure that excavations (for both QC-I and QC-G installations) that could result in removal or disturbance of completed QC-I earthwork were properly identified.

Only one excavation of a completed section of QC-I backfill was identified in the review. An excavation pemit was prepared for the installation of fire protection piping in the northeast corner of the RAB which crosses over the safety-related component cooling system piping in this area (Figure 7.2-1).

Documentation of the' replacement fill for this excavation shows that Class Al fill was placed as required.

ps There were no other excavations in the completed Class Al fill, although two excavation pemits were initiated for areas that V-will have Class Al fill. One of these excavations occurred prior to the Class Al fill installation and the other has not yet started. As required by procedures, the pemit for the work not yet started clearly identifies that QC-I installations are located in the work area (a grounding cable to be placed over buried auxiliary feedwater piping). This procedural requirement further ensures that proper backfill is installed.

A well-coordinated excavation and backfill program is essential for the safety of construction personnel and to assure the integrity of existing earthwork installations. The system used on this project, requires that the excavation pemit numbers be i dentified on the underground facilities drawings (excavation drawings ) . This is a very effective method of controlling and coordinating the work process. Conformance with this control procedure was verified by this review.

7.6.2 Sand Sieve Analysis Review The soil used in soil-cement manufacture was specified to be sand similar to that used for concrete.

7 - 41

l Sand gradation analyses and other tests of fine ~ aggregates were perfomed by PTL .for every 6,000 tons of material installed. ,

p) These include tests .for gradation, specific gravity, clay lumps

(" and friable particles, and organic materials. The test results were examined by the Review Team and were found to be consistent with the technical specification requirements for concrete fine aggregates (ASMT C33-74).

7.6.3 NRC Item of Noncompliance (PTL Records Falsification)

A routine "NRC site inspection conducted from 10/24/78 to 10/27/78 revealed potential problems wi th the PTL personnel certification and qualification. program.

In early November, the NRC conducted an investigation into allegations made by fomer PTL employees concerning falsified records.

The Supply System immediately formed a team to investigate these allegations. All concerns disclosed during interviews wi th (then) current and former PTL site personnel were categorized into the following problem areas:

o False certification records o Perfomance of field tests prior to certifications o Equipment problems-0 Certification program problems o Field test report signatures o Field test report record problems Stop work orders were imposed. Immediate corrective actions were taken by PTL. A competent management team was brought in to implement corrective action. Test equipment was recalibrated, employees were re-certified and records management was brought into compliance with specified requirements.

The earthwork placements completed in the time period covered by the allegations included backfill for the Unit 3 Cooling Tower, and bedding for the circulating water pipeline (both QC-G work). No QC-I earthwork was invol ved al though the allegations also involved concrete and aggregate testing, which is not covered in this report but was addressed in the corrective action plans.

Ebasco devised an action plan to study the in-place density of the affected areas. The results of their evaluation concluded that all work met specification requirements. The final Stop '

Work Order was lifted on January 17, 1980. The first soil-cement structural backfill was installed and tested in June 1980, and the first Class Al structural backfill was placed in November 1982, well after corrective actions were taken to bring PTL into compliance.

f%

G 7 - 42

- g---, - , ,.m _,.- . - _ _ _ ,

In the CAP review of PTL records of QC-I earthwork, no indi-cations of these previous problems were discovered.

O g 7.6.4 NRC Circular No. IEC-81-08, Foundation Materials NRC circular IEC-81 -08 dated May, 1981, identified that insufficient compaction of backfill materials had resulted in excessive settlement of plant structures at a number of sites.

The Review Team contacted responsible personnel associated with five of those projects to detennine specific causes of the problems in more detail than presented in the circular. The primary construction-related causes can be summarized in the following general categories:

o Questionable Laboratory and Field Density Test Results o Inadequate Field Direction by a Qualified Geotechnical Engineer o Inadequate Placing Procedures o Settlement Monitoririg and Calculations Construction Assurance Program checklist criteria were designed to identify the types of problems that can be caused by the above deficiencies, and separate records reviews were conducted by the Review Team for each concern.

Although the NRC circular did not require a formal response to the NRC, correspondence from the AE to the Supply System documented Ebasco's review of the applicability of the circular p to WNP-3 and addressed WNP-3 soils designs and installations at d the time of the circular. Because the RAB ramp was the only earthwork completed at that time, the response was limited to that area. The action by the AE, as it related to construc-tion, is considered appropriate by the CAP Review Team.

The scope of the CAP reviews and an analysis of each concern related to this circular is presented in the following ,

paragraphs.

7.6.4.1 Questionable Laboratory and Field Densi ty Test Results <

As ultimate proof of the adequacy of the field com-paction methods, field density tests and supporting laboratory moisture-densi ty curves (Proc tors) are the most essential verification performed on backfill operations. Soils test deficiencies identified on other projects include the following:

o Infrequent Proctor Testing o Questionable Retests o Field Density-Moisture Plots Above the Zero-Air- Voids Curve o Inaccurate Test Equipment b4 v

7 - 43

Infrequent Proctor Testing As the standard by which the adequacy of field compaction n results are judged, adequate Proctor tests must be taken to represent the material used in the fill. Other (V) projects have identified the use of Proctors over two years old to represent pi t-run borrow material which varied significantly in different areas of the pit.

A review of the Proctors taken at WNP-3 for both soil cement and Class Al fill was perfomed by the CAP Review Team. Specific Proctor testing was done for each fill material just prior to the material placement. Even the soil-cement Proctor for the RAB ramp which was done by consultants to the AE (Woodward-Clyde) several months prior to the ramp pl acement was confirmed by site-infomation Proctors performed at the time of ramp placement. The Class Al fill material, which was taken from one borrow pit (Breckenridge Pit) for the entire project, was also tested repeatedly as the fill was installed. If a Proctor retest indicated higher maximum density value ( resul ting in higher required fiel d compaction), this test was used as the new standard. If the Proctor retest results indicated the field compaction could be slightly lower to achieve acceptable resul ts, the original Proctor test maximum density was still used for the standard, to achieve more conservative results.

This procedure could serve only to produce higher field compaction and better quality foundation conditions.

Q(3 Questionable Retests Field densi ty tests that fail to meet the standards dictated by the selected laboratory Proctor tests must be cleared either by removal of the unsuitable material or by retesting the area after corrective actions have been taken. Another project identified that retesting in some cases was done several lif ts above, or several hundred feet away from the non-conforming material. The poten-tial for this condition at WNP-3 was examined by the Review Team.

As identified in paragraph 7.3.1, WNP-3 horizontal test locations were not specific. However, none of the fills were extensive in surface area, the largest lift being about 115 feet by 50 feet (top of the RAB ramp). By review of the soil-cement delivery tickets, the teca detemined that minimal material was placed af ter failing tests and prior to acceptable retests. Without significant adoitional material being placed after a failing test, a retest could not have been taken at a higher elevation. All retests were therefore judged to have been taken in the same elevation (lift) as the failing test.

7 - 44

Some retests on other projects were cleared by using di fferent Proctors with lower maximum density values,

,3 than used for the original failing test, without a record (d 4 of material removal to support use of the less conserv-ative Proctors. All failing tests in WNP-3 earthwork were cleared by using the same Proctor value for the retest as for the failing test.

The Review Team discovered further evidence of the high quality standards in the WNP-3 density testing program.

There were numerous examples of Class Al fill material that tested at greater than 90% of the modified Proctor, but were reworked to exceed 95% of the modified Proctor, even though the specification allowed 10% of the tests to be in a range of 90% to 95%. Only two tests were accepted by the field personnel in this ra nge.

Considering how difficult the modified Proctor standard is to achieve in the fiel d, thi s is indicative of extremely rigid quality control of the field compaction efforts.

Field Densi ty-Moisture Test Results Plotting Above the Zero-Air-Voids Curve When field in-place density is plotted on a graph with its corresponding moisture content the resul t, theo-retically, must fall below a curve that represents 100%

saturation or "ze ro-a i r-voi ds" for t'ia material . This g- zero-voids curve ~ is based on the speci#ic gravity of the

( material . Values plotting above the zero-voids curve indicate erroneous test data; i.e. , ei ther the specific gravity or the Proctor selected is incorrect, or the in-place density or moisture results are incorrect.

For WNP-3, the CAP Review Team plotted each field density / moisture test value i'n relation to its Proctor curve. The specific gravities used to plot the zero-voids curves were ei ther estimated or determined from laboratory testing.

~

A few of the field test plots (about 1% of the total tests) fall above or on the zero voids curve. These conditions were evaluated by the AE and determined to be acceptable isolated cases, in view of the other resul ts. The CAP Review Team reviewed the AE's analysis.

The specific reason for these higher than expected test data was not detennined. These tests invol ve higher moisture coritent than other tests taken in the same time frame, which suggests isolated high-moisture readings.

Even with extremely rigid quality control, soils mate-rials will not be completely homogeneous; small changes in the material's specific gravity can be expected within a stockpile. Fluctuations in the material could account 7 - 45

for these resul ts. Whatever the cause, the small per-centage of these high resul ts is not an indication of unusual testing problems, and the conditions do not

[m) affect overall test resul ts. The CAP Review Team reviewed the AE's analysis.

Incomplete Test Data On projects with extensive soil fills used as critical foundations, it is important to know the specific locations where the soils tests were perfomed in order to assure sufficient testing is being perfomed. As discussed in paragraph 7.3.1, many of the soil tests at WNP-3 were not horizontally located within lifts.

However, the lifts were all of very small size and the lack of thi s data is not a cause for concern because tests were located through research of other data by the Review Team.

Inaccurate Test Equipment The field density test results obtained using a nuclear density device were questioned on another project due to variance in correlations with test results using more conventional methods, such as sand-cone or rubber-balloon methods. Although the results were not considered to be the cause of unacceptable or questionable testing on that project, a CAP review of the WNP-3 nuclear density device

, correlations was perfomed.

p An annual correction of the nuclear device was perfomed Q for each of the two years of use of the device on this projec t. The average variance between the nuclear and rubber-balloon test methods was required to be below 5 pcf. A total of 50 correlations were performed.

On the average, the nuclear device reads 1.0 pcf lower than the rubber-balloon test. This means that if the more conventional rubber-balloon test is assumed to be the standard, the in-place compaction would be an average of about 0.8% higher than the nuclear gauge results would indicate. The average compaction of the field density tests perfomed with the nuclear device could, therefore, be increased from the 97% to 97.8% of the specified compaction, indicating the fill was even more effectively compacted than the excellent results show.

The CAP Review Team also examined the correlation results statistically, to determine the effect of nuclear test device madings higher than the rubber balloon, which would lead to lower field compaction. Forty-two percent of the correlation tests are in this category with an average of 1.1% lower densi ty. Conservatively reducing all of the field density results by the 1.1% value still results in compaction values that comply with specification requirements for all tests.

7 - 46

This review confims the acceptability of the nuclear device to accurately measure the field density of p compacted earthwork.

7.6.4.2 Inadequate Field Direction by Qualified Geotechnical Engineers The NRC circular identified that soil selection, fill, and compaction activities on some projects were not accomplished under the direction of a qualified geotechnical engineer. The CAP Review Team contacted the responsible field engineering and design geological engineering personnel for WNP-3, to detemine the amount of field involvement for this project. Through these contacts and through documents initiated at the time of earthwork investigation or installation, the review team concluded that qualified geotechnical engineers were significantly involved in the direction of earthwork activities for each of the major installations. Specific examples of daily involvement by geotechnical engineers (knowled intent) ge of the actual site conditions and the design were found in the areas of fill material sel ection, Proctor test standard selection, soils test frequency supervision, compaction methods review, and inspection to assure the excavated rock surfaces were geologically acceptable.

The regular, qualified, on-site supervision and D engineering support that was provided to field personnel

( by the AE's geology department is further evidence that the quality of ea rthwork material s and installation reflected in the QA documentation faithfully represents the completed earthwork.

7.6.4.3 Inadequate Placing Procedures The NRC circular identifies that compaction equipment on other projects was not qualified to achieve the required compaction under the site conditions at other proj ects.

Al so, soil s inspections were not perfomed to verify placing controls. The checklist reviews of inspection and test documentation confirm that these conditions did not exist at WNP-3.

Compaction equipment used at WNP-3 was qualified through construction of a " te s t-fill " section. Approved equipment and compaction methods could not be changed by the contractor without specific AE approval.

v 7 - 47

7.6.4.4 Settlement Monitoring Procedures Settlement calculations were found to be outside the I-) limits of design bases at other proj ects.

circular also settlement The NRC recommended moni toring programs. Category I structures at WNP-3 were founded primarily on sandstone. Although a small portion of the Dry Cooling Tower and the diesel tanks attached to the tower are founded on soil cement, the soil cement was designed to approximate the sandstone strength properties. A settlement program for the earthwork on this project was not required and the CAP Review Team agrees -that it is not appropriate for these foundations.

7.6.5 Construction Management Activities Construction Management during installation of the QC-I soil and soil cement was perfonaed by Ebasco Services, Inc.,

al though for a short time in 1979, CM was performed by an integrated organization made up of Supply System and Ebasco personnel. The CM organization was responsible for overview of construction activities and coordination among site con-tractors. This invol ved the following activities related to earthwork:

o Preparation and administration of site contrac ts. The technical portions of each contract were prepared by CM and q approved by the AE's responsible design engineer. Contract Q modifications, including field technical changes and NCRs, were processed and approved by CM.

o Review and approval of contractors' work procedures, o Preparation and control of the proj ect's integrated con-struction and design schedule. Construction Management provided coordinaticn among all site contractors i ncl ud-ing the supplier and installers of soil cement and the testing contrac tor. Excavation permits were processed by CM.

o QA surveillance and audits of contractor activities and the initial QA training and indoctrination, o QA review of installation documentation and stcrage of completed rocords.

The influence that CM actiens have on the qJality of work comes into tocus upon examining some CM project responsibilities:

o Preparation of consistent construction contracts with state-of-the-art quality requirements, including modi fication when required by field conditions.

O c Selection of contractors among bidders who are qualified to

\ perfonn the work.

7 - 48

o Assurance that construction procedures contain specific di rection to control the work ef fectively, yet allow

,m flexibility where possible to utilize improved methods or equipment.

o Coordination among site contractors for orderly flow of the work process, and the proper tests and examinations to control i t. Preparation of properly justified NCR dispositions with corrective actions that preclude future di screpancies.

o Training and indoc trination of craft personnel to avoid construction discrepancies.

o Audi ts and field inspections of the important fiel d activities to identify discrepancies and provide timely and effective corrective actions.

o Timely review of completed documentation to identi fy deficiencies before significant amounts of installed work are affected.

Most CM activities.could not be evaluated directly because they are not recreatable from the documentation. However, Cf1 perfomance may be indirectly evaluated from construction results, especially in the areas described above.

The quality of the WNP-3 earthwork is attributable in part to A effective construction management. Surmarizing results covered Q more thoroughly in other sections of this report, the following examples are indicative of CM perfomance:

o Construction contractors properly reflected the technical requirements in the work process. Minor conflicts between the FSAR ano specifications were resolved as provided for in the specification. Al though some FSAR update work is indicated, the quali ty records indicate that construction was accomplished as the designer intended. There were no examples of work performed to out-of-date specifications, o There were no deficiencies that indicate failure of the basic QA Program or the soundness of the CM audit functions.

o The NCR review by the CAP Review Team detemined that dispositinns and corrective actions were appropriate, o Records were properly organized and appeared to be representative of high-quality completed earthwork.

)

l D

d 7 - 49 l 1

, . - . - ~ , , - . - - , . - , - , , , , . , - - - - . - --

e . - - - . - . ,,, ,

e - , - . -

Ul timately, the absence of design-significant deficiencies discovered during the CAP review of all the activities perfomed by several contractors over three years, and the V]

[ confimed high standard of quality exhibited by the carthwork test records, provide a clear indication of effective construction management.

7.6.6 Drainage System Walkdown A walkdown was perfomed to verify the adequacy of the existing stom water drainage system to maintain the completed QC-I earthwork and soil-cement in good condition. This inspection was perfomed by the CAP Engineer and Review Team Leader during the dry weather season.

The inspection included a visual check of site surface grading surrounding plant structures to confim that surface water would not collect near or flow toward safety-related structures

'and earthwork. No evidence of possible surface drainage problems was observed. The structures included in this area inspection were:

o RAB/Connon Foundation o Turbine Building o Dry Cooling Tower o Refueling and Condensate Tank Foundations o Natural Draf t Cooling Tower o Intake Structure A visual inspection of the installed condition of catch basins and stom drain lines running to and from catch basins (where visible) was made to confim that installations are as required by the design drawi ngs. This included examination of the outfall diffuser structure and open channel connecting to the equalization pond. Following a rainstom a reinspection will be 'made and if conditions are found to be other than observed, the report will be revised.

7.6.7 Indentification of Incomplete Work ~

The scope of WNP-3 Earthwork is described in section 2.3 of the Review Plan in Appendix 1. Figures 7.2-1 through 7.2-5 further illustrate existing and earthwork.

7.6.7.1 Uncompleted Soil Cement (Figure 7.2-2)

Soil cement placements will be completed after construction restart in two areas.

o RAB Construction Access Ramp The ramp in the southwest corner of the Reactor Auxiliary Building will be completed above the existing grade at 383' and 386' elevations to one O

G 7 - 50

1 foot below the finished grade level. Class B fill  ;

(non QC-1) will complete the installation to grade '

as shown on drawing G-2007, R2 and in Figure 7.2-3, Sections A and F.

o Cement Silo Foundations The cement silo foundation is located southeast of the Refuel and Condensate Tanks. Over-excavation of the sandstone on the north edge of this foundation will be completed as shown on drawing G-2248 and in Figure 7.2-2.

7.6.7.2 Uncompleted Class Al Fill (Figure 7.2-2)

Class Al backfill will be required a'fter construction resta rt to complete five pipe or electrical duct bank installations, o CH System Pipe Part of the overburden for ASME piping (CH system primarily) running from the southwest corner of the RAB to the Refuel and Condensate Tanks is to be completed as shown in Figure 7.2-3, Section B.

o Ductbank, SW RAB Near the ASME pipes southwest of the RAB, overburden for the electrical ductbank will be completed after these ducts are installed as shown on design drawing G-5143 and in Figure 7.2-5, Section F.

o AF System Pipe The overburden for ASME piping (AF system primarily) running from 'the southwest corner of the RAB to the Refuel and Condensate Tanks is not yet complete.

This will be installed after placement of the con-crete missile-protection slab over the existing pipe enc.asement shown in Figure 7.2-4, Section C.

o CC & EG System Pipes The bedding and overburden for part of the CC and EG System ASME piping that runs between the RAB and the Dry Cooling Tower will be completed a r, shown or Figure 7.2-2 and Figure 7.2-4, Secticn D.

7 - 51

o Ductbank - East RAB

,~s Between the two sections of ASME piping on the east side of the RAB, the overburden for two sections of (V) electrical ductbank will be installed as shown in Figure 7.2-2.

7.6.8 Summary of NCRs Written During Earthwork Operations A total of 13 NCRs were written on QC-I activities reviewed in this module. Three deal with sampling and testing of batch water for concrete and soil cement during the entire time of concrete production on site. Three were invalidated and confimed by the Review Team to identi fy confaming con-ditions. The seven remaining were valid earthwork NCRs; two identified soil-cement batch-ticket data-entry errors by PTL batch plant inspectors, one identified a small portion of M-K fill compacted wi thout QC witness, and four were written to identify the PKS pipe bedding placed without approved procedures (covered more fully in paragraph 7.3.18 and 7.4.4).

These NCRs do not indicate significant recurring or uncorrected problems. The NCRs generally described the problem conditions completely, and provided appropriate dispositions and cor-rective actions.

7.6.9 Soil Cement Laboratory Testing The soil-cement mix design was based on laboratory testing by a Q(S consultant (Woodward-Clyde) to the AE (Ebasco). This testing was the basis of the AE's selection of the cement content and type of aggregate mix intended to approximate the strength and stiffness properties previously measured for the site sand-stone. Tests were also perfomed to detemine the compaction characteri stics and the freeze / thaw, wet / dry characteri stics for the various trial mixes. The relationship between the unconfined compressive (UC) strength or the shear modulus (G max.), the compaction percentage, and moisture content were also determined. The results were summarized in a fccmal report issued March 25, 1981, by Woodward-Clyde.

The test results determined that G max. and UC strength for various combinations of cement and water content used with both concrete sand and with material from a stockpile of pulverized l sandstone from the project excavation. Ebasco selected a 10% l cement mixture with concrete sand as the final mix design. A CAP review of the report data indicates that a 10%-cement I mixture adequately approximates the strength and other physical properties of the site sandstone. The corresponding maximum 1 dry density and optimum moisture content as determined from the '

standard Proctor test (ASTM-0558-57) were established as the acceptance cri teria for the RAB access-ramp soil-cement placements.

7 - 52 l

4 i

. . , , . , _ _ -___~ ~ -

SECTION

8.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS The earthwork construction completed at WNP-3 to date has been reviewed by the Construction Assurance Program. On the basis of program findings, the Supply System concludes that the completed earthwork is acceptable for the eventual licensing and safe operation of the plant.

8.1

SUMMARY

The Supply System initiated a Readiness Review Program at WhP-3 to determine the state of readiness of the project to advance to the next stage of completion. The objectives of this program are to 1) preserve the status of existing construction at the plant, 2) review the project design and engineering work in an Engineering Assurance Program by sampling and examining the status and technical adequacy of the work completed to date, and 3) review the project construction in a Construction Assurance Program by critical inspection of statistical samples of hardware and quali ty documentation that represents the safety-related construction in place at the plant. These programs and attendant procedures were established by the Supply Sy stem, all elements of the Readiness Review Program were accepted by the NRC, and the reviews commenced. This first construction review, the Earthwork Module, began in March,1986.

p)

V A Review Team of qualified, experienced professionals determined there were no undetected generic quality problems with completed earthwork construction by a systematic sampling program of critical review of technical and quality reco rds. The team developed and followed a well-organized Review Plan throughout the investigation, in which 21 checklists were used to examine over 20,000 attribute checkpoints on 1,009 documents that ranged from test and inspection reports to audits and follow-up records. The reviewers recorded 44 types of document abnormalities that resul ted in only three document deficiencies. No -

indication of poor earthwork quality was discovered in the review; the team concluded that the work was executed by qualified contractors using up-to-date technology for installing, compac ting, testing, and inspecting soils and soil cement. The in-depth examination of records shows that FSAR commitments and specification requirements were satisfied, and that NRC commitments were met for all safety-rel ated earthwork at the plant.

The program was conducted by an organization with no direct invol ve-ment in the construction under review. The effectiveness of this independent group was periodically tested by an Oversight Committee to assure that the program objectives were met, and that priorities were maintained. NRC representatives also performed periodic inspections of Review Team activities and their results.

1 l

8-1

It is estimated that about 5000 manhours (2.4 manyears) of technical effort were invested to confim the quality of earthwork construction at WNP-3.

i b 8.2 RESULTS Four types of assessments were performed by the Review Team. The first and most exhaustive was a checklist review of quality records generated during performance of the work. It touched every aspect of earthwork includi ng material s, batchi ng, delivery , placement, inspection, and testing of the final product. Thi s review also investigated the calibration of equipment, qualifications of personnel, and the surveillance and audit process used to verify the management control systems used during construction. The Review Team discovered only three document-type deficiencies that do not reflect problems with the quali ty of the work, and detemined that the compaction of soils and soil cement was acceptable beyond specified requirements.

A second type of review involved an independent technical assessment of special project activi ties associated wi th earthwork, including the following:

o Control of Excavations Through Permits o Sand Sieve Analyses o Treatment of a Records Falsification Issue o ' Response to an NRC. Circular on Foundation Materials o Laboratory Testing to Establish Soil Cement Mix gi The Review Team found that the project sati sfactorily addmssed and documented these issues, leaving no outstanding questions to be resol ved. The team further examined the collection of nonconfomances (13) identified during construction, and found no trend of defects.

A third assessment was that of the overall performance of the Construction Manager and each contractor engaged in the proj ect's earthwork. This review involved examination of construction process activi ties, the collection of soils and excavation data from the proj ec t, and the overall' results of the program. No adverse trends or other information arose from this review. To the contrary, the only trend identified made clear that quali ty requirements, such as compaction and other test results, were usually exceeded.

The fourth type of revi-ew utilized checklist attribute information developed by the team to determine that FSAR commitments were sati sfied. Matrices presented in the report illustrate that all NRC commitments were met, as well as the more-detailed and specific commitments / requirements established by project specifications.

The Review Team also identified remaining earthwork to be completed after restart of construction. The infomation presented in the report '

may be useful to the project in its accounting of such remaining work.

3 8-2 J

l l

8.3 CONCLUSION

S On the basis of tne results of the Construction ' Assurance Program review, the earthwork performed to date at WNP-3 is of high quality and

.neets appropriate standards for safety-rel ated construction. There were no adverse findings by the Review Team related to the quality of earthwork. The only deficiencies identified were related to the recording of data on test reports, and these were resolved by obtaining the information from other project records.1 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Team recommends that this report provide the basis for acceptance of WNP-3 earthwork, with no outstanding quality issues 'to be

, addressed after restart of construction.

i 1

O I Minor correctionis to specifications or procedures that resul t from three NCR's written in this program have been entered in the project's NCR tracking process. No farther action is required to address findings of this review.

O 8-3 i

SECTION 9.0

, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT l

The executive Oversight Committee retained by the Supply System to monitor the Readiness Review Program consists of three members of the business, academic, and technical communities, independent of the WNP-3 Project and this program, who possess extensive experience and qualifications for assessing the program's integrity ana effectiveness.

The Committee met with Readiness Review personnel periodically during preparation of p rogram documents (such as procedures, desc riptions, review plans) and during performance of the work. Committee members visited the plant site to witness the state of preservation of the plant, and to interview personnel engaged in its preservation, as well as those perfonning these Readiness Reviews. Copies of Readiness Review documents and reports are routinely provided for Oversight Committee evaluation.

A review draft of this report was examined and commented upon by Conunittee members prior to its final approval by the Supply System. Members' remarks were accommodated by providing responsive infonnation in the report or by ag reement/ resol u ti on/cl a ri fica ti on outside the context of the report. A letter from the chai nnan provides the Committee's concluding remarks on Earthwork Module C3-01.

O o

0 9-1

/%

U Review & Synthesis Associates Spenmr H. Bush, P.E. e 630 Cedar / Richland, Washington 99352 September 10, 1986 Mr. L. J. Garvin Manager, Readiness Review Program Washington ~ Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Garvin:

Subject:

Review of " Final Report of Earthwork Module C3-01 of the WNP-3 Construction Assurance Program of the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program - September 1986."

The Oversight Committee has reviewed the final report of the Earthwork

(~)N

( Module of the WNP-3 Construction Assurance Program as well as reviewing and commenting on an earlier version of this report. Our previous ques-tions concerning the earlier draft have been resolved.

With regard to the final report, the Committee considers it to be very comprehensive and responsive to the bases established in the Readiness Review Program. In our opinion, this issue is resolved by the report which provides an excellent basis with regard to Earthwork for future reactivation of WNP-3.

Very truly yours, t w ./

Spencer H. Bush, PE

'7 Chairman, WNP-3 Oversight Committee SHB:sg cc: TW Bishop RV Laney Telephone: Business - (509) 375-2223 & 375-3749 / Home - (509) 943-0233 I

APPfNDIX 1 O EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 REVIEW PLAN The Review Plan for Earthwork Module C3-01 is a formal document that describes the plan for reviewing the construction work of this module, and includes the checklists used by the Review Team for . repetitive review and inspection activities. It was prepared after researching the FSAR, specifications, and drawings to identify construction requirements, and prior to commencing review activities. The Review Plan was updated periodically (as needs arose), the final version being reflected in Revision 2.

4 O

j

}

I l

O .

1

c I

I, 1

~

i 4

1 i

a.

J J

i WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM 2

J a

REVIEW PLAN l FOR l

\

j EARTHWORK 4

MODUI.E C3-01 i

REV. 2 l

4 a

h l

I i

i

. . - - - - . . , - _ . - . . . - . -_ . . - . . - - - , - - - - . . - . - . . - , . - - . , - . - - , - - - , , . - - , , ~ , . - -

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM f

WNP-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM (CAP)  !

1

EARTHWORK CAP MODULE C3-01 REVIEW PLAN May 15,1986 June 18,1986 - Rev.1 August 15,1986 - Rev. 2 l

l l

PREPARED BY: DATE:

O ( 4 M 8"'l-T. A. McCormick, Review Team Leader 81/5/8 '

REVIEWED BY:

4

%a D. R. Coody, WNP-3 Project QA Manager d,dn APPROVED BY:

T R. Li Knawa, ReaMinbss R~eview CAP Manager 9/ wha ~

i O

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE 1 2.0 SCOPE 1 2.1 Review Plan 1 2.2 Contractor Work Scope 3 2.3 Placement Areas 4 2.4 Important Class II Earthwork 5 2.5 Construction Management Activities 6-2.6 Preservation and Maintenance Activities 7

3.0 BACKGROUND

7 3.1 Construction Management Services 7 3.2 Industry Source-Document Review 8 4 3.3 Contractor Procedures 9 i 3.4 Review Team Personnel 9 4.0 METHODOLOGY 10 4.1 Review Process 10 4.2 Checklist Preparation 19 4.3 Review Documents 19 5.0 SCHEDULE 23 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 24 4

6.1 Cf ecklirts and Instructions 24 0

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM p

-h. REVIEW MODULE C3-01 REVIEW PLAN FOR EARTHWORK 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this review is to determine that Quality Class I (QC-I) earthwork operations at the WNP-3 Project were constructed, inspected, and accepted in accordance with approved requirements and criteria.

2.0 SCOPE 2.1 Review Plan 2.1.1 Introduction This review plan has been developed in accordance with the Readiness Review Program Manual, to verify the adequacy of the completed earthwork construction by a review of

,,T selected recreatable attributes which have been judged to (V be important in assuring the quality of the finished product. These attributes are identified on a random sample of contractor-supplied documents, such as test and inspection reports, and examined for conformance with the FSAR, technical specifications, and contract requirements.

Contractor test and inspection reports were provided in accordance with contract requirements by three independent contractors for the supply and placement of QC-I safety-related soil-cement backfill and class Al structural fill.

In-place density testing is considered to be a critical attribute of the work process. A review methodology was developed whereby other key attributes that support density testing would be verified in a systematic way, for conformance with the specified requirements.

Attributes to be verified are listed on checklists.

Checklist instructions identify specific contractors' test and inspection reports to be reviewed for the attributes and provide specific accept / reject criteria. Construc-tion inspectors will implement the checklist instructions by reviewing randomly selected contractor-supplied test and inspection reports. To ensure that the sample ade-quately represents all the work performed, review J

4 documents are selected such that all time periods for the

(~3 various placements are. included. A minimum of 60 samples V of each attribute will be vqrified, thus ensuring a 95%

confidence in the resul ts. ' If no deficiencies are found in such a sample, it would indicate that less than 5% of the total population of work could contain deft-ciencies. If the population is less than 60, all will be reviewed. All observations are reported on an Open Items List (0IL). Project Nonconformance Reports (NCRs), are used to record nonconforming work and are transmitted to the Architect / Engineer for resolution and analysis for design significance. All discrepancies will be analyzed and the results projected to the unexamined balance of the population.

2.1. 2 Accessibility of Earthwork Construction All QC-I earthwork and soil cement is below finished grade elevation and is inaccessible for visual or other test verification, unless the completed construction work were to be excavated and exposed. Therefore, the overall acceptability of the completed work will be established by review of random samples of construction and quali ty.

records. If no significant, problems or deviations are encountered, it is not expected that in-place sampling or testing of the compacted soils will be necessary. If the original work was adequately constructed, excavating to O perform additional tests would introduce the potential for V damage to installed underground systems. Therefore, unless there are strong indications of deficient earthwork identified in the document review, it would be impruaent to disturb the subsurface materi.al s associated with safety-related structures.

During construction there were a total of fourteen NCR's issued against the entire QC-I backfill activi ty.. Four additional NCR's were issued against batch water for concrete. Review of the descriptions of discrepancies and associated corrective actions on these NCR's indicates that the problems encountered were minor in nature, and all were satisfactorily resolved and closed out. This further reinforces our conclusion that review of quality documentation alone would be sufficient to assure the adequacy of the completed work.

I Based on the Binomial Probability Distribution, assuming no defects in

• the sample. Reference, Quality Centrol Handbook, Third Edition, J. M. Juron, editor-in-chief, page 22-19.

f a 2.2 Contractor Work Scope 2.2.1 General The contracts and contractors reviewed in this module include those involved in the supply, placement, and testing of QC-I backfill materials at the site.

2.2.2 Contract 3240-204, Inspection and Testing Services, was awarded to Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL),

February 19, 1976. The contract was administered by the site engineering department of Ebasco Services Inc. as representative for the Supply System. This contract was independent from the supply and placing contractors. The test lab established by PTL performed on-site testing for all soil cement and earthwork, as well as concrete work for the project.

The contract for these services was closed June 30, 1983, 2.2.3 Contract 3240-209, Supply and Delivery of Concrete, was awarded to Associated Sand and Gravel Company ( A5&G), and work initially began at the site February 14, 1978. This contract was for the supply and delivery of concrete, and included QC-I soil cement used as backfill.

The contract was allowed to expire on February 20, 1983.

r 2.2.4 Contract 3240-263, Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB)

General Construction, was awarded to Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. (M-K), and work initially began at the site January 25, 1979. This contract included placing, com-I pacting, curing, and inspection of soil cement and Class Al structural fill .  !

Class Al structural backfill for buried safety-rel ated j piping was originally included under contract 3240-251/226 1 with Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. (PKS) but was subsequently I transferred over to M-K's scope. Work completed by PKS l included placing compacted fill below Component Cooling, 1 Auxiliary Feedwater, Chemical Volume Control, and Safety i Injection systems piping. The work was performed without I approved backfill procedures and was previously reported as non-conforming. Subsequently, the work was accepted and the NCR's were dispositioned "use-as-is". Details of this investigation will be provided in the final report.

I The contract with M-K covering earthwork was suspended July 1,1984 due to the project's construction delay.

t O

2.3 Placement Areas O

V 2.3.1 Soil Cement Soil-cement structural backfill has been installed at the following locations:

.1 RAB Construction Access Ramp The ramp was located at the southwest corner of the Unit 3 RAB to provide access to the RAB construction excavation. Upon completion of the foundation mat and walls, the adjacent ramp area was backfilled with

. QC-1 soil cement. A fill of approximately 5700 c.y.

was placed between elev. 335 ft. and 386 ft.

The placement was completed during the month of June,1980 and is shown on Dwg G-2007, R2. l

.2 Dry Cooling Tower, Electrical Vault and Electrical Ductbanks Soil cenent was placed under and adjacent to the dry cooling tower and electrical vault to fill low spots in undisturbed sandstone, in over-excavated areas where weathered sandstone was removed, and above "lectrical ductbanks located below the foundation of the dry cooling tower.

The work was completed during January and February, 1983, and is shown on Dwgs. G-2260, R2; and G-2289, R3.

l

.3 Diesel Oil Storage Tank "A" at the Dry Cooling Tower Diesel oil storage tank "A" is located at the north end of the dry cooling tower structure. Soil cement was placed beneath and adjacent to the tank. found-ation mat to bring over-excavated areas tc grade.

The work was completed in November,1982 and is shown on Dwgs. G-2280, R2 and G-2289, R3.

.4 Cement Silo (Not Constructed)

Soil cement is specified to fill low spots in the undisturbed sandstone. The work has not commenced and therefore is not considered in this review.

O v

I

I l

l 2.3.2 Class Al Structural Backfill (Earthwork)

O Missile Protection Slab for Yard Piping (Not V .1 Installed) l The yard-piping missile-protection slab is . located outside the northeast corner of the condensate i storage tank. Class Al backfill was placed adjacent to the sides of the slab for a distance of 3 ft.-

4 in. minimum or to the face of undisturbed sandstone excavation, which ever was less.

The work was accomplished during April,1983 and is shown on Dwg. G-2240, R6.

.2 Electrical Ductbanks (Not Installed) l Seismic Class I electrical ductbanks are designed to l run between the reactor auxilary building and the dry cooling tower. Class Al structural backfill is specified to be placed between the top of the duct-bank and grade. However, due to project rampdown, temporary QC-G fill wes placed in this location.

Seismic Class I ductbanks are designed to run between the reactor auxiliary building and the condensate -

and refueling water storage tank area. No ductbanks have been installed.

The work is shown on Dwg. G-5143, R3. Since final work is not completo, it is not considered in this revicw.

.3 Buried Safety-Relateo Piping Class Al structural backfill was placed and compacted beneath, around, and above the following piping systems in the yard:

a. Emergency Generator

b. Auxiliary Feedwater

c. Chemical and Volumetric Control

d. Safety Injection

e. Component Cooling The work was accomplished between November,1982 and April , 1983. The piping locations are shown on Dwgs.

1108, R7; 1109, R7; 1110, R6; 1111, R7; and 1112, R6.

2.4 Important Class II Earthwork' A review of the drawings and records for the important QC-II foundations, the turbine-generator and the natural-draft cooling towers, was also conducted. The turbine-generator is founded on C

sandstone with some unreinforced concrete used for leveling and fill. The cooling tower is founded on Class A compacted fill V installed under contract 3240-205, by S. J. Groves, Inc. A 40-foot gravel surcharge was placed over the fill and settlement monitoring was performed by the AE and consultants to assure that the soil was adequately compacted.

The adequacy of important Class II earthwork will be evaluated and discussed in the final report.

2.5 Construction Management Activities Activities of the Construction Manager will be reviewed as they

. related to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) publications, and

- Quality Assurance Program activities.

Examples related to the NRC which could have an influence on the review are:

o NRC item of noncompliance number 1508/78-09-01, dealing with the falsification of personnel qualification records by the 3240-204 Contractor, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory.

o NRC circular number IEC 81 -08 concerning industry problems with control of installation backfill and specifications for foundation materials.

Examples related to Quality Assurance Program activities which could have an influence on the review are:

o Audit activities.

, o Nonconformance control and surveillance of contractor quality program activities.

The initial plan of the CAP was to verify the effectiveness of CM quality control surveillance of contractors' work by sampling the reports generated for each contractor's activities as a part of each module. A preliminary review of existing ' documentation prompted rethinking the evaluation prrcess doe to the fol'owing factors:

o The .CM Quality Control organization performed all overview surveillance activities for all contractors who performed QC-I and IIA work.

o A unique CM Quality Control procedure was followed for all overview surveillance activities.

o The CM Quality Control organization (or WNP Management) reviewed and evaluated all overview surveillance reports.

4 , _ _ _ - - _ - _ . . - . _ _ . - _ - . - -

'o The population of surveillance reports totaled 7,346'. I O

i/ Since all surveillance activities were performed, reviewed,  !

and evaluated by one CM Q.C. organization under a unique  ;

procedure, it was decided to treat all surveillances of WNP-3 i contractors as a single population. Therefore, a review of surveillance activities will be conducted on a strati fied random sample to ensure the inclusion of all contractors who performed work at WNP-3.

2.6 Preservation and Maintenance Activities Preservation and maintenance is not an active or on-going activity for completed earthwork. The site is at finished grade with an established surface drainage system. As part of this review module, a walkdown of the area immediately surrounding the power block will be made to establish the adequacy of the existing grading and surface water drainage system so that completed QC-I earthwork is not endangered by runoff.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Construction Management Services Construction Management (CM) during installation of mos't of the Class I soils and soil cement was completed by Ebasco, although in 1979 CM was performed for a short time by an integrated organ-ization made up of Supply System and Ebasco personnel. The CM pd organization was responsible for overview of construction activ-ities and coordination among the site contractors.

Construction Management (CM) services included the initial Quality Assurance Program for the oversight of QC-I and IIA work and consisted of an integrated team of Quality Assurance personnel, utilizing integrated precedures. The program was controlled by the Supply System Quality. Assurance Manager. All site contractors who were to perform QC-I and IIA wori were required to initiate a quality program in compliance with the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B subject to the approval of the Supply System. Site contractors were required to implement their program and pass an initial evaluation audit of program compliance prior to commencing QC-I or IIA work.

Construction Management services involved the following activities:

o preparation and administration of site contracts and equipment purchase orders as the owner's representative, o preparation and control of the project's integrated construc-tion and design schedule, 1

o control of labor cost and performance forecasts and reports, o QA surveillance and audits,

- 7 ;-

~

o QC receipt inspections of' owner-furnished equipment prior to

(] turnover to the installing contractors, V

. o QA review of installation documentation and maintenance of records, o QA review of the maintenance of installed components until turnover to the owner for test and startup, o daily monitoring and control of the construction contractors to assure conformance with project schedules, cost and. quality requirements.

For soils and soil-cement work, the CM organization did not generate first line documents to verify the quality of the work.

All documents generated by CM, including construction contracts, were intended to present technical, construction, commercial, and quality requirements to the contractors, and then to monitor and control compliance with such requirements. Although other com-modities include first-line quality verification documentation generated by CM or the owner, (e.g., QC receiving reports of owner-furnished materials and preventive maintenance reports on installed equipment), such documents do not exist in soils and soil-cement work.

3.2 Industry Source-Document Review 3.2.1 General ,

O)

In order to make this review effective and responsive to site-specific activities and to industry concerns, numer-ous source docurants were researched to identify expressed concerns that could possibly influence any of this module's review activities, such as establishing popu-lations, checklist attributes, sampling, etc. These are generally identified in the following paragraphs.

3.2.2 Project NRC Inspection Item List All items pertaining to earthwork and soils compaction were closed with appropriate corrective action taken. The documents will be reviewed to gain knowledge of the problems invol.ved, and corrective actions taken as they may possibly influence the review process.

3.2.3 Project List of 50.55(e) and Part 21 Items All items and noncompliances pertaining to earthwork and soils compaction were closed out or dispositioned as being insignificant and not safety related. One item, D/N (Deviaticn/ Noncompliance) number 003, PTL Falsification of Records, was examined in some detail and will be discussed in the final module report. As part of the review, h inspector qualifications will be evaluated for conformance with ANSI and project requirements.

3.2.4 NRC Documents

.1 NRC Bulletins were reviewed and determined not to contain information that is applicable to this module.

.2 NRC Circulars were researched. It was determined that IEC 81 -08, Foundation Materials, was directly applicable to this module. It was reviewed and considered for potential effect on this review plan, and will be discussed in the module final report.

Problems experienced by other plants, such as inade-quate compaction and inadequate QC procedures, etc.,

will be reviewed for possible bearing on the adequacy of the installed earthwork.

.3 NRC Generic letters were reviewed and found not to f contain information that is applicable to this module.

.4 NRC Information Notices were reviewed and found to be not applicable to this module.

.5 NRC Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans were reviewed and found to be not applicable to this module.

.6 NRC Draft Safety Evaluation Report for WNP-3 issued November, 1985 was reviewed for potential questions

/3 relative to earthwork construction. No applicable V information was found to affect this review.

3.2.5 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) Publications Publications issued by the Construction Project Evaluation Division of INPO, such as construction evaluation cri-

\ teria, recurring findings, and current network messages, were researched. No specific items were identifed to influence the review in this module.

3.2.6 Other Documents In addition to the above documents, the Project General Tracking System, Quality Verification Plan - WNP-3, Lessons Learned Program, Quality Verification Program -

WNP-2, and the Ford Ammendment Study were reviewed to obtain information that could influence the earthwork review. No specific information was found to be appli-cable to this module beyond the scope identified in this pl an.

3.3 Contractor Procedures Team members read applicable contractors' procedures to establish that they incorporated the design requirements and could result in satisfactory earthwork. The applicable contractor procedures U reviewed are listed in Paragraph 4.4.5.

3.4 Review Team Personnel All review team personnel are independent of work being reviewed and of the contractor organizations that prodJced that work. They are qualified to fulfill the functional responsibilities outlined in CAP-6.1, and are listed below by functional title on the review team.

3.4.1 Team Leader BSCE, Civil Engineering; MSCE, Structural Engineering, MBA. Twenty-nine years experience in civil and structural design and construction, including containment structures, nuclear power plants (8), fossil power plants, defense projects, and other heavy industrial projects. Licensed Professional Engineer in five states. Member ASCE, ACI.

3.4.2 Engineer BSCE, Civil Engineering. Sixteen years experience in civil design and construction, construction management, including nuclear power plants (6), fossil power plants, and highway construction. Licensed Professional Engineer, Washington State.

3.4.3 QA Engineer Principal QA Engineer. Thirty years experience in quality s assurance activities, including nuclear power plants (6),

fossil power pl ants, and space research projects.

Registered Professional Engineer, QA, California. Member ASME, AWS.

3.4.4 Inspector Level II Civil QC Inspector. Nineteen years experience in quality inspection, surveying, and construction; including nuclear power plants (4) fossil power plants, highway, and mining projects.

3.4.5 Inspector Level II Civil QC Inspector. Twenty-two years experience in quality control and inspection, including nuclear power plants (3) highway and mass transit projects, and crushed stonc production.

4.0 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Review Process The primary method for determining that earthwork meets specified requirements is review of the quality documentation prepared at O the time the work was in progress. Should the document review

f reveal that earthwork does not meet requirements, or that its quality cannot be ascertained, further investigation and planning

(#A) may be necessary. -This could include subsurface investigation or other sampling and testing, however, such a determination will be made only after evaluating the results of the records review.

Based on review of the project FSAR, contract specifications, and contractor procedures, the quality records associated with the following list of subjects are considered to contain the principal information that attests to the quality of earthwork accomplished at the plant prior to commencement of this review.

o In-Place Density Testing o Cement Requirements o Personnel Qualifications o Equipment Calibration o Frequency of In-Place Testing o Installation Quality Control o Quality Assurance Progr,am Control Each subject is to be reviewed for the most critical elements in earthwork construction as outlined in this section of the plan.

The specific information sought in the review is detailed on checklists for the documents associated with these areas. The checklists are included as Attachment 6.1 to this Review Plan.

The activities for this module are i:arried on in the sequence Q illustrated in Figure 4-1, t.ogic Diagram for Earthwork Review.

b The following narrative provides additional detail in support of the figure. Samples of 60 of each type of quality record identified in the paragraphs below are randomly selected as specified in Procedure CAP-6.5. Variations from the selection process due to peculiarity of specific records or of specific work are delineated herein, for each type of quality record or group of records.

4.1.1 In-Place Density Test Reports

.1 Discussion In considering the selection of a sample of com-paction test reports, it was originally planned to randomly select a statistical sample of 60 reports, which would yield resul ts with a 95% confidence level. If no design-significant deficiencies were identified in such a sample, it could be established with that high degree of confidence that no more than 5% of the tests could possibly be defective.

Upon examination of the total lot, or population, of compaction test reports it was determined that 153 such tests were performed for QC-I soil cement and 76

, for QC-I earth fill s. Fifty mo're compaction tests O

O -

O O NOTES: s so

• erst w.seoo r, 9 - Review Plan paragraph number 7,",','.j f,'$'

) that describes the activity. ,

l Sl o. s. '

C/L - Checklist suffix serial number review nais for the activity. Checklists ,,,y,$, u e rs for this review are numbered I

CAP-D-C .

g, re errwei Its vlEWG r I i i i up our e4 s ni 4 g4:5 e 4 <.

r i'1' !!' I" -- el- rt Aces 0*$'yf c aus*ar prapirerMeirc sus w .et avai sncatwisc enoiti.ie etr cALieRaf804 GA fWo3 RAM fe strie rsteeddric4

, l j I u s.n nis.n !ca.ee,a cTo,ownti}cAos,io c4 it.o. u. c4 .t.. i r. t o I

" oco mis oceante * ormasw "* wesonte G l \

l 1 1 " sese/ 1 esfa  ? T i g4., _e 4 a eu ses ines yes 9es was . Ses waseR 48 4"r Mei"5 ea te nsiaa o,ubesv-pi Agewever conmio

@ h h , ,

h h h a .. a .. S .,

i /N i

N# [prausse "8 .r, tan t e "* at'tctuate

?  ? I i a_ e.in . . -i n s j

i s g (es) g tweane .e 4 s i . ,

No W._ 433esete a :<xis ._

s.a s is uco,4- ritani.

navilre m rost wo.cas.oes cercer j f ratahlReftti

, essvar

.ses bl.l. e 4.i. O

~ -

lic&;p. anwisis i

1 a Figure 4-1 LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR EARTHWORK REVIEW

! MODULE C3-01

were performed for fill installed by PKS for safety-4 related piping. This fill was reported as noncon-forming and later upgraded to QC-I as discussed in

,1 Paragraph 2.5. i i

For the following reasons it was decided to review i all compaction test reports.

, o In-place density testing is the primary method i of measuring the quality of earthwork activi. ties.

l o Acceptance _ crit'eria specified for these tests include a limited tolerance below the design density; namely, a maximum of 10% of all tests may fall as low as 5% below the specified

~

compaction. The results of sampling may not reveal whether any of the tests fell within this tolerance, or whether this criterion was met.

' The total number of tests is relatively small o

and, while this trial review is not intended to set precedent, iTTii manageable by the review

. team.

o This is the first module of the CAP and the program staff is keen to obtain as much infor-

)

j O. mation as practical to determine the meaning of results, especially in unusual situations, such e as limited tolerances discussed above.

.2 Review Instructions

[

I Examine the compaction test reports in accordance with the checklist. If this documentation shows that the earthwork was properly installed and compacted

! ("Yes", in Figure 4-1 ) , proceed to review other quality records that demonstrate the validity of information contained in the compaction test reports. For example, hypothetically unqualified lab technicians could have generated erroneous test reports, regardless of compaction quality.

There-i fore, it is necessary to verify that the personnel associated with the work identifed on the test reports were properly qualified. These and other

confirmatory reviews delineated on the right side of the logic diagram are designed to establish con-fidence in the primary earthwork records --- in-place These confirmatory reviews are indi-

density tests.

l vidua11y necessary to assist in characterizing the construction process. They are covered in Paragraphs 4.1.2 thru 4.1.6, below.

i l '

If the compaction test reports show that earthwork q may not have been properly installed and compacted

'j i ("No" in the figure), prepare information for a non-conformance report. It will also be necessary to determine the cause, or at least to obtain more information about the nature of the discrepancy identi fied. To accomplish this, proceed to examine quality records associated with construction activ-ities leading up to the compaction test reports, so that the cause of improperly installed and compacted earthwork can be identified. This investigation is illustrated by the sequence on the left side of the logic diagram.

An alternate approach to review of these left-side (in the figure) records is that, regardless of the results obtained from examination of in-place density tests, the review team will seek to determine the consistency among process activities, qualification of materials, and results. The left-side records are anticipated to illustrate that consistency, and this alternate approach has been chosen for this module.

Review of these records is discussed in Paragraphs 4.1.7 thru 4.1.9.

Identify all observations on the Open Items List for this module. Items that do not meet speci fied p requirements shall be supported by sufficiently U detailed infonnation to completely characterize the nature of the discrepancy for inclusion in an NCR.

Analysis of this data is discussed in Paragraph 4.1.11, below.

Retain all resul ts , positive and negative, for reporting in the final report for'this module.

4.1. 2 Cement Requirements Examine 60 mill test reports in accordance with the checklist. These test reports represent the entire period cement was used on the project, and must include reports covering the three-year period of soil-cement production beginning January, 1980.

Examine 60 soil-cement delivery tickets to determine the percentage of cement in the mix, in accordance with the checklist. This sample must represent each placement of soil cement.

If the records indicate that cement used in soil cement construction m.eets specified requirements, proceed to review personnel qualifications. If the cement does not meet requirements, also investigate further to determine

the extent and significance of the problem identified. If A the results of this determination are that the finding is insignficant, enter the information on the OIL and retain y! it for the final report. If results indicate a noncon-forming condition, prepare sufficiently detailed infor-mation for inclusion in an NCR.

4 User tests of chemical and physical properties will be sampled, verified, and reported in Module C3-02.

4.1. 3 Personnel Qualifications Examine the personnel qualification records for all inspection and testing personnel identified on in-pl ace density test reports examined in Paragraph 4.1.1, in accordance with the checklist. This review serves to confirm the validity of test recor's.d If the records indicate that personnel were qualified, proceed to review equipment calibration. If personnel were not qualified, also investigate to the depth neces-sary to determine the extent and significanoe of the problem identified. If the findings are not significant, enter the infon7ation on the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the results indicate a nonconforming condition, prepare sufficiently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

4.1. 4 Equipment Calibration Examine the calibration records for all test and inspec-tion equipment identified on in-place density test reports examined in Paragraph 4.1.1, in accordance with the check-list. This review serves to confirm the validity of test records.

If the recorcs indicate that test equipment was properly calibrated during use, proceed to review QA program records. If equipment was not calibrated, also invest-

' igate to the depth necessary to determine the extent and

. significance of the problem identified. If the findings are not significant, enter the information on the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the results indicate a nonconforming condition, prepare sufficiently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

4.1. 5 Quality Assurance Program Examine QA audit plans and reports for each contractor associated with earthwork, in accordance with the check-lists. This review establishes whether or not earthwork operations were appropriately addressed by applicable QA programs, and were monitored for adherence to the requirements.

i

) Examine the CM Site Surveillance Program as a single population assuring that overview activities of the module-specific contractors are included by utilizing' a stratified random sample of 60.

! If the records indicate that' these activities were properly accomplished and that the results meet specified

requirements, retain this information for the final report and proceed to review testing frequency. If this is not 4 the case, also investigate to the depth necessary to

, ' determine the extent and significance of the problems. If I the findings are not .significant, enter the information on i.

the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the

results indicate a nonconforming condition, prepare suf-ficiently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

4.1.6 Testing Frequency .

l.

Examine all the earthwork or soil-cement placement lifts identified on in-place density test reports examined in

paragraph 4.1.1, in accordance with the checklist. This ,

j review independently verifies that earthwork operations

- were tested with at least the specified frequency. If the i compacted lifts were tested 'often enough to meet specified  !

j requirements, retain the information for the final report. If not, also investigate to the depth necessary to determine the . extent and significance of the problem.

- If the findings are not significant, enter the information  !

I on the OIL and retain it for _the final report. If the results indicate a nonconforming condition, prepare suf-j ficently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

) 4.1. 7 ' Installer's QC Records

! Examine the Morrison-Knudsen quality control records for

[ each placement associated with all the in-place density

{

tests examined in Paragraph 4.1.1, in accordance with the .

l checklists for each type of document. These include

placement inspections, curing records, and ' qualifications

{

of personnel- involved in these operations.

It also includes an independent review of project exca-i vation permits to determine locations where completed QC-1 placements were disturbed for subsurface installations of i piping or electrical raceways that occured at later times. Follow-up review of project records is to be

accomplished for all permits that identify QC-1 placements subsequently disturbed, to determine whether or not they were properly restored.

! If the records indicate that these activities were properly accomplished, that the resul ts meet specified

requirements, and that the personnel were qualified for i

! l t

]

the tasks they performed, retain this information for the  !

("] final report and proceed to review batching and delivery l

() records. If this is not the case, also investigate to the  !

depth necessary to determine the extent and significance of the problems. If the findings are not significant, enter the information on the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the resul ts indicate a nonconforming condition, prepare sufficiently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

4.1. 8 Batching and Delivery Examine 60 batch tickets for soil-cement mix delivered to the job, in accordance with the checklist. This review verifies whether or not the proper mix of materials was correctly handled up to the point of placement and com-paction. If the records indicate materials were properly batched and delivered, and that this was accomplished l within specified time limits, proceed to review water requirements. If this is not the case, also investigate to the depth necessary to determine the extent and sig-nificance of the problem. If the findings are not sig-nificant, enter the information on the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the resul ts indicate a non-conforming condi tion, prepare sufficiently detailed information for inclusion in an NCR.

O Batch plant qualifications will be addressed in Module (V C3-02, Concrete.

4.1. 9 Water Requirements Examine all monthly water-quality reports for batch water used in concreting operations on the project. This review establishes whether or not the water used in batching operations meets requirements for purity and acidity. If the records indicate these requirements were met, retain the information for the final report. If not, al so investigate to the depth necessary to detennine the extent and significance of the problem. If the f.indings are not significant, enter the information on the OIL and retain it for the final report. If the results indicate a non-conforming condition, prepare sufficiently detailed infor-mation for inclusion in an NCR.

4.1.10 Sand Gradation Requircinents The soil used in soil-cement manufacture was specified (Specification 466) to be sand, similar to that used for '

Concrete.

O

Sand-gradation-analysis test reports supplied by AS&G (Contract 209) were examined for the time periods of soil p/

U cement manufacture and found to be consistent with the i technical specification requirements for concrete aggregates.

Since Specification 466 did not require a specific grada-tion, no checklist is considered to be necessary in this module. Specific requirements for sand gradation for concrete will be addressed in Module C3-02.

4.1.11 Analysis of Results No'nconformance Reports are prepared in accordance with Procedure CAP-6.8. Information presented on NCR's must be as complete as possible to characterize the nature and extent of the findings, so that the Architect / Engineer has enough data to determine the design significance of ident-i fied deficiencies. This means that an engineer, who would ordinarily choose the most practical and economical disposition of a construction-related nonconformance, must go beyond that for Readiness Review Program findings.

Specifically, he must provide the necessary analysis to demonstrate whether or not the nonconforming item would fail in service as a result of the uncorrected deficiency, or if its service would be impaired in performing its safety-related function under design or actual condi-O V

tions. The results of such analysis will determine -the design significance of identified deficiencies.

If the Team Leader considers it appropriate to have the review team meet with the A/E to draw conclusions about the significance of findings or the collection of find-ings, he arranges such a meeting or teleconference.

Results of findings are analyzed as described in Procedure CAP-6.7.

4.1.12 Assemble Review Results Resul ts of the review, including checklist information both positive and negative, lists of findings, analysis, and conclusions are collected for inclusion in the final reports. Information must be as complete as necessary to accurately characterize the quality of earthwork and earthwork operations at the project.

4.1.13 Recommendations From the collection of results of the review, make recom-mendations to the project concerning earthwork, or the potential necessity for corrective actions, or advancement to the next phase of completion, where possible and appro-priate to do so. The recommendations are to be included O in the final report.

4.1.14 Final Report Prepare the report for this module in accordance with Procedure CAP-6.9.

4.2 Che.cklist Preparation Checklists were prepared in accordance with Procedure CAP-6.6, Rev. O, Section 3.2. Checklists were prepared for each design-significant, recreatable attribute associated with the review process described in Paragraph 4.1. All checklists are included in Attachment 6.1.

4.3 Review Documents In the development of this review plan numerous specifications, design drawings, standards, and procedures were reviewed to establish the sample population , checklist instructions, etc.

They are included here for reference.

4.3.1 Project Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

The FSAR commitments are described in the following paragraphs:

o 2.5.4.2.5 Properties of Class I Soil-Cement Fill Material sO V o 2.5.4.2.6 Properties of Class Al Structural Fill Material o 2.5.4.5 Excavation and Ba'ckfill All requirements in the technical specifications were reviewed for these commitments and found to be in agreement.

4.3.2 Specifications The governing specification for all QC-I soil cement and structural backfill work is WPPSS 3240-466; Soil Cement and Structural Backfill for RAB Access Ramp, Piping and Adjacent Areas.

, Additional specification requirements are included in Section 2A of each of the following contracts:

o 3240-263 o 3240-209 o 3240-204 i

l em,,.+--~--m wan~--,.,-n -m_--8,em e ,--,,.,_-----.--n-_m _,_,-,,,y ,_,,,ry, -,,--,,,,,.,,em,,. 3 -,,-3-p~

g g-- ,.-,y y 4g --mm- 9 ,,

4.3.3 Design Drawings

Design drawings used in the review are included in Section 2.3, Placement Areas.

4.3.4 Standards The standards used for testing - of all soil cement and structural backfill are as follows:

ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials C 117-69 (1974) Test for material finer than No.

200 (75-mm) Sieve in mineral aggregates by washing.

C 136-71 Test and Steve or Screen Analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.

C 150-76 Standard Specification for Portland Cement.

D 558-57 Test for Moisture-Density Relation of Soil l Cement Mixtures.

D 1140-54 Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Steve.

J C% D 1556-64 Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Sand Cone Method. (one possible method)

\_/

D 1557-78 (Method D), Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil Aggregate Mixtures Using 10

lb Rammer and 18-in. Drop. .

i D 2167-66 Test for Density of Soil in Place by the

Rubber Ballon Method. (one possible

! method)

D 2216-71 Laboratory Deter.iination of Moisture Con-tent of Soil.

D 2922-71 Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods. (one possible method)

D 3017-72 Mositure Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods.

(one possible method) l AASHT0 - American Association of State Highway Trans-portation Officials

}

4 0

-w _

,cv.,_.- -,__,_.----.,___m .. ._,_m.__ _ , , _ . , , , , _ - _ . , ., _-._,-__..,.__-.,,.-3 - , . . . . _ . - - , - , . . _ . , , . . . - _

T 217 Determination of Moisture in soil s by means of a Calcium Carbide Gas Pressure O Moisture Tester 4.3.5 Contractor Procedures

.1 Contract 3240-263 (Morrison-Knudsen) o CP 17, Rev. 5 - Procedure for Placing, Com-pacting, Curing and Inspection of Soil Cement and Class Al Structural Fill .

AI-ll , Rev. 3 - QA/QC Personnel Qualification and Certification Procedure AI-10, Rev. 4 - Project Training Program

.2 Contract 3240-204 (Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory) 4 o QC-SC-1, Rev. 2 -

Soil Cement: Batching, Delivery, Sampling and Testing o QC-ST-1, Rev. 3 - Soil Inspections & Tests, Fi el d.

o QC-LT-1, Rev. 34 - Laboratory Testing o QC-PQ-2, Rev. 7 - Personnel Qualifications.

o QC-CAL-3, Rev.15 - Tool, Gauge and Instrument j Control

.3 Contract 3240-209 ( Associated Sand and Gravel) o Inspection F ocedure No. 4, Rev. 7 l o . Test Control Procedure No. 5, Rev.12

o Control of Measuring and Test Equipment Procedure No. 6, Rev. 1 i

o Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment' Procedure No. 16, Rev. 8 o Handling, Storage and Shipping Procedure No. 7, Rev. 9 4.3.6 Other Information Construction drawings, contractor procedures and drawings, manufacturers' prints, etc. will be added to this list as they are identified during the review process.

O

- --- y -__ -~- . ,,----- __ , _ , _ _ . _ . , , , . , , _ , , , ,

5.0 SCHEDULE See Figure 5-1.

6.0 ATTACHMENTS 6.1 Checklists and Instructions i

l 4

l 1

I l

i f

4 i

4 1

5 4

i i

l i

l l

l I l l

- .-- .. . . _ - . - . . - . - - .. . - - __ . . _ - . . - - - - - - , - . .. ..- . . . - ~ .

i O O -

O j CAP MODULE C3-01, EARTHWORK, OVERALL SCHEDULE l APRIL l MAY I JUNE l JULY l AUGUST l.SEP j ACTIVITIES l 181 251 021 091 161 231 301 061 131 231 271 04l Ill 181 251 011 08l 151 221 291 051 j i l I i l I I I i l i I I I I I I I I I I I

1. PREPARE OVERALL PLAN I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l I a. Methodology 1///////l l l l l l l l l l l l- 1 I l l l l l l l l 1 -l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

{ b. Checklists l l7/71 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l t i I I l -l I i l l l l l l l l l l l l. 1 I l l c. Sampling Plans l l 17/71 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I j d. Review & Approval l l Il7/T/l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l

I I I I I I I I  ! I I I I I I I I I I I I i

c. Consultation i l 1*I I i l i i i i i i i l i i i l l l l w/ Statistician l I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 'l l I I I I I I I I I I I l I l I I i i l I i i i

2. PERFORM REVIEWS I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I l l I I I I

a. Exam. Records, Fill l l l I///////////////////////////////l l l l l l l l l l l

m Out Checklists l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ' b. Prepare NCR's l I I l l l l l l l l l l I///////l l l l l l 'l 1 I i l I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

c. Prepare Open Items List i I l l l l l l 171 l l/////////l i 171 1 171 l l l l l I I I I I I I I l1 I l l l l- I l1 I I I I

3. RESOLVE FINDINGS l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l 1 l i I I I I I I I I I I I

a. AE Dispos. Analysis l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l///////////l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I

b. CAP Office Review & I i l l l l l  ! l l l l l l l l 177/l l l l l 4

Analysis i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i I I I I l l I I I I I I I i l i I I I I I I I I I I I i c. Reconmiendations l I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 17/71 l l l

! l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

!- 4. PREPARE REPORT I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l I I .I .I I .l l l l I I I I I I I

a. Draft (s) l I I I I I I I I I I I l///////////////////////////l I I i . I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l i i i l i l i b. Review & Approval l I l l l l l l l l l l l///////////////l l I l l l l l l FIGURE 5-1 l l l l l l l l l l l

c. Issue Report i I I I I l l l l l l l .I l l l l

• l' I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l l- 1 I I

~

ATTACHMENT 6.1 O

V TO REVIEW PLAN FOR CAP MODULE C3-01 CHECKLISTS AND INSTRUCTIONS INDEX Number Rev. Title CAP-D-C-01 -01 0 Soil Cement - In-Place Density / Moisture Test CAP-D-C-01-02 0 Cement - Compressive Strength CAP-D-C-01 -03 0 Soil Cement - Cement Content CAP-D-C-01 -04 1 Soil / Soil Cement Personnel Qualifications - Testing l CAP-D-C-01 -05 J Soil Cement / Soils - Equipment Calibration .

CAP-D-C-01 -06 0 Soil Cement Density Test Frequency CAP-D-C-01 -07 1 Soil Cement / Soils - Curing & Lift Thickness CAP-D-C-01-08 1 Soil Cement Water Quality -

CAP-0-C-01-09 0 Soil / Soil Cement Personnel Qualifications - Batch Plant C AP-D-C-01 -10 1 Soil Cement / Batch Plant Equipment Calibration CAP-D-C-01 -il 0 Soil Cement / Soils - Personnel Qualifications, Placing Inspection CAP-D-GC-01 -12 0 QA Audits CAP-D-GC-01 -13 1 Site Surveillance (Sample Procedure)

CAP-D-C-01 -14 0 Proctor Tests / Sieve Analysis - Class Al Fill CAP-D-C-01 -15 1 Class Al Fill - In-Flace Density Tests CAP-D-GC-01 -16 1 Site QC Surveillance CAP-D-C-01 -17 0 Class Al Fill Density Test Frequency

~

O

\

l l

ATTACHMENT 6.1 TO

REVIEW PLAN FOR CAP MODULE C3-01 i

CHECKLISTS AND INSTRUCTIONS i

INDEX.

(Continued) i Number, Rev. Title I CAP-D-C-01 -18 0 NCR Fill, Proctor' Tests and Sieve Analysis 4

C AP-D-C-01 -19 0 NCR Fill, In-Place Density Tests CAP-D-C .01 -20 0 -

NCR Fill, Density Test Frequency '

4 i CAP-D-GC-01 -21 1 Ebasco Quality Control Inspection Qualification l

O I

i i

l i

O 4

~

O O O CONSIRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST H0. CAP-D-C-01-01 DOCUMENT ltEVIEW CHECKLIST l X_l PREPARED BY dr DATE5/a/g6 REY. NO. O SHEET 10F 2 HARDWARE INSPECIION CHECKLIST l[l APPROVED BY TAM DATE 5 /3/gg, CAP H000LE No. A TITLE: C3-01 EAP.THWORK/50Il COMPACTION I I I 00tlP0HENT/EQllIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRANING/ SPEC. 1 Document Reviewed:

IDENTIFICAlION HO. I DESCRIPTION l HUMBER I Pittsburg Testing Lab I S0IL CEMENT l " " '

l For:a #5L-2 IIn Place Density /Moisturei Spec. 466, R2 I cap-D-C -014. for' additional

_ ~ ,,-- - n..--.

l .T.e.sts- ----------- I ----

l instructions.

l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l AT1RIl!UTE l ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I l INIT. I DATE l INIT. l DATE l l E I I I I I I I 1 I In Place Density l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I l l 'l 1 I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l I i i l l I l l l l 2 i Density Calculation i l l l l l l l l 1 I .I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i i l i I I I I I I 3 l Moisture Content i I l l l l I I I I I I I I In Place i l I I l i l l l l l l l l ~

l l 1 I I I l I l l l SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I APPROVED BY TEAN LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE I I I I l I I I l I

. . . . _ _ . .. . . . . . - - .- - -a._ . . - . . , _ - . - - _ - - - _ _ - - . -

• I.  %$

g  %

m eC w w - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - _- .-. o W l=

A) i o o --

- ae V1 M ==*

W

• E q D E dL E 4

( W U W W >=

aC w G3 C3

> > M Q 1

i CO CII E W W C A >

j C C s- s C C W W W a M 4 M 3 a1l* A et C > 2 &

i A Cr.' Cr. Q (

~

. W Q. t.aJ Q CE C- M A

• 4 4 CEB C da!

O E - --

J

! 2 J

W

~ . U 4 2 Q 8

g W M s t U1  %.*

O M CC J -

A W w M O r LM M W U J Z (X 2 M U W

< U C) g

, CC W 2  %

t D T C td 4

~

M U M. J V1 W 4C 3 O

< W -- - -- - .-- .- - -

= to*

e A - --- -- -- -.--

.< a > V1 W i

m W M Cad l & CIC e=e >== >=

W W CIS D W (M >== Q CC 2 M U -- -- -- - - .-. c t w W R W- - -- -- -- -- - --

W M '.E ""T J >

• D Q 2 o

tM +

Cu p o

'; 5 O C w w QC O L Q W M A i (

U w

M

-- -- -- -- -- - -- ------ w - -

i. -- - -

ta.

M W CIC b.= -- -

' t.a. eC

> WQ W -- - . - -. - .-. -- -

LAJ N

U U e i- eC

<>==

w Q

J, 2

> w 4 e t&. -- - - . - - -. - - - - . -- - - - - - . - - -- - --

g Q - -

s M

I O Clf s N C i U >-

e U C W e 2 ik A W C td t/1 9 eC LM "M 2 j u LM H3 W

x U cc m . .

j u) WM Ch. Cg u th

!

• g Q i O 2 MH c W h 22 o 2 >=

\ M w aC y CC W

1

>-= 6 W

M M.

al' 3

=

k. <

"J" M M CX t'3 l u t==

W M - - --

i

• C O U- U e 4r i

O

i. a

a .

l o o o  ;

, CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM i

i INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-01 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY h DATE f/a/n REY. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 3 DOCUMENTS lTl __

HARDWARE 1]l APPROVED BY ~DfPt DATE D d6' .

CAP.ODULE.

M C3-01 EARTHWORK /50Il COMPACTION - S IL CEMENT-IN-PLACE DENSITIES / MOISTURES

---

.NO. 8 TITLE:

.(---- ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE I '

I I 1 lIn-Place Density I a) RAB ACCESS RAMP l I l l Verify in-place density is equal to or greater than 95% of maximum density given in the i I l l Woodward Clyde Soil Cement Design Report; or, the dry in-place density shown on the PTL Soil i i l

l , l Cement In-Place Density Form-SC-2 is equal to or greater than 113.9 lb/ft3. NOTE

Ten per i i I l l l

cent (IO%) of the tests, randomly distributed throughout the fill area, may be as low as i

) l l 107.9 lb/ft.3 . / Specification WPPSS 466, Revision 2, paragraph 6.01; FSAR paragraph 4- l l l l l 2.5.4.2.5.3 and Table 2.5-26. -

! I I l l l b) Areas other than the RAB Access Ramo blaced after 11/16/82:

! I I '

! l l Verify that in-place dsnsity is equal to or areater than 95% of the maximum density obtained <

l i I l l from PTL's Standard Proctor Tests'done per ASTM #D558-57 on the same sand used in the Soil

• I I l l cement mix. Values for dry in-place density on the PTL Soil Cement Density Form SC-2 shall  !

I I l l be as follows:

I I - .

l l SAND TYPE LA8 PROCTOR TEST # MINIMUM DRY DENSITY MINIMUM DRY DENSITY .j i

l I

l (PTL Form ST-5) (PTL Form SC-2) FOR 90% of TESTS FOR 10% OF TESTS l l .Weyerhauser S-276 124.8 /

ft3 118.3 /ft3 Steilacoom S-277 118.4 lb/ft3 112.1 lb/ft3

__ ___.-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ . . _ - --_ _ _ -. _ ___ - - - - - . - _ . _ ~ _ _ . _ . _ _ - - . _ _ ,_._

i o o -

o l CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM 1

l INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C- 01-01 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY 6f" DATE$I=./W

! CONTINUATION SHEET 2 0F 3 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY 'EA>L DATE Y9/d6 t i

j g g M . ,8,_ TITLE. C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION - S0IL CEMENT IN-PLACE DENSITIES /M0ISTURES l __l - i l INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCLMENT l NO. l ATTRIBUTE l -

! I I

! l l / Spec 466, R2, pp 6.02.

I I I l l 1 ,

I I ,

q 2 l Density Calculation l Check percent compaction calculations including all preliminary arithmetic on PTL form SC-2.

I I i

l .

l / ASTM D-2167 I I 3 l Moisture Content l a) RAB ACCESS, RAMP .

I l Il (In-Place) l Verify field moisture content is not less than 8.4% nor more than 12.4%, or field moisture i 4

I '

I l l is within 2% of Woodward Clyde Design Report optimum. Field moisture content test results

! I l l are reported on PTL Form SC-2. / Spec 466. R2, pp 6.01; FSAR paragraph 2.5.4.2.5.3.

I I -

l l b) AREAS OTHER THAN THE RAR*ACCFSS RAMP PiArFn AFTER 11/1M R7-  !

i' l 1 .  :

l l Verify that field moisture content is within 2% of the optimum moisture obtained from l l j l l Standard Proctor Tests per ASTM #D558-57 on the same sand used in the soil cement mix as  ;

I I l l follows:

1 I I l l SAND TYPE LAB PROCTOR TEST # RANGE OF MOISTURE CONTENT '

I I l l (PTL Form SC-5) (PTL Form SC-2) t I

I l l l Weyerhauser S-276 9.2 - 13.2%  ;

l l Stellacoom S-277 9.1 - 13.1%

( _

/ Spec 466, R2, pp 6.01.

4 O O O 1

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM i

INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-01 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY DATE .f[r/s a.

CONTINUATION SHEET OF DOCUMENTS l'Yl HARDWARE . APPROVED BY TNPf f DATE/9/dd-

_ l[I l

1 CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01

_ _ EARTHWORK

, . _ - - . _ /S0IL COMPACTION - 50Il CEMENT IN PLACE DENSITIES / MOISTURES

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

! NO. I ATTRIBUTE l -

t i I

] 4 g Report Data l Verify that In Place Density form SC-2 was completed to include the time date and ,

I I l l l location of the test, the inspectors' names, type and ID number of test equipment used and l lweatherconditions.Locationoftestshallbeidentifiedbyhorizontalgridlines,or 5

l ,

l other readily identifiable horizontal reference, and the elevation of the test.

4 l I i

l I /Enntract 3740-204_ 7A. nn ?_O

) i I i i i F i I l 1 I i i I J l l

! i i i l l 1 1 I i

l l I I I

.; I I I i l l l' l I

l 1 -

1 I s

I_ l I I I 1 I il i i i l i I

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURAHCE PROGRN4 CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01 -02 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST lli PREPARED BY (( DATES /.t[FL REY. NO. O SHEET I 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY M DL DATE S

/8/d6 CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION l . I IDocument Reviewed:

COMP 0HENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAM!NG/ SPEC. I IDENTIFICATION H0. I DESCRIPTION I NUMBER 1 Cement Suppliers l Cement - Comp. l lRevie w M e-Cement Mill Cert. l Strength l SPEC 466, Rev. 2 I mm____________-,- 1______________._____I________ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l VERIFICATION I OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION l l ATIRIlluTE I ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. 1 I INIT. l DATE l INIT. I DATE I I d

~I l l l l l l 1 l Cement Compressive l l I l l l l l l l l l l l Strength l l l l l l l l l l l l .

I I l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

- l l l l i i 1 1 I I I 'l' l l l l l l 1 1~ I I I I I I I l l __ l l 1. l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 l l I l I

~ ~- ~I I i l l 1 l l l l l l l l f- I l l I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SitiNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPRoyED BY FEN 4 LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I I I I I l i l i I

' l1 l 1li i

/hS

/ [E h

fN E E l

l .

T T i A A m D D nV d i

e f

i t

r e

c f ~t I n e

M m e

c n

o Y Y n B B e D D v i

E E g

• R V A O T 9 P R N 0 E P E 1 R P M - -

P A U C C  :

O M w D T o H S l G E A e T C b M l N R r q A U e R

G

]

l E

R T

S O

S p

s c

v O i g

R / t P P s N E M N e s E O R O O t e C I A C I u N T W T f l A C D T C o a R U R N U v U R A E R s S T H M T t e 3 _

E md

(

S A

S N

I C

S N

I l

u s

e h

t n

i s

i s

0 3

N r a p p p O T i N h p S

I I

C U

I L

l l

O I

T h

t g

t s

0 0

5 0

0 5 2 K C n s 1 2 R R C S A e e T E T P r l ,

S H N M t 6 N C E O s t 6 O M C o 4 C U e n C l v c O I i e e D 0 s r p 5 s a S

/ e s y

s y

K r s ,

R p t a a 0 O m r d d 5 W o o 1 H c p 3 7 -

1 T

y e C R r A f M

- E i t T F r s S 2 0 e e A 0 V t /

- 1 1 1 0 III ll lIIl llIl IlII IIIlII IIIl iIII II II 0 T -

- E 3 C E C

- H D S _

P E e A L N v i

C T OE s I I T s

J TU CB e r

EI p .

. PR m O

N M, IAN T N

ST C

o h

,. r(s N I

O O

E L

t n

t g

n T . U, e e m r C

U O

N p C e t S

R Hj T .

I ll ll Ilil il IIII II IiiI IIIl lI II II II S Y P N E A I R C .

_ O 1 ~

. N -

llll

. O /O V N. ]

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. C AP-D-C- 01 -03 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST lX,1 PREPARED BY g7 DATEf/2kG REY. No. O SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECIION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY 'C4"I DATEY1/86 CAP HODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION l l l Document Reviewed:

COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. I IDENTIFICATION NO. l DESCRIPTION l NUMBER l'eviewer R Note: See Instruction CAP-D-C-01-04 for Associated Sand & Gravel Soil Cement I I additional instructions

• Delivery Tickets Cement Content l Spec 466, Rev. 2 l

......--....--- - ,- I l - l l VERIFICATION I OoSERVATION DATA INSPECTION 1 l ATTRIHUTE l ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. l DATE l INIT. I DATE I l 4 I I I ~

I I i 1 l Cement Content i I l l l i I l' I I ll l I I I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l 2 I Transport Time l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l

~~~ I I I I I i 1 .

3 l A:abient Air Temperatur( l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 -

1 I I I I I I I I I l l l l l i l I I i I i I

, SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE I I l l l l l l l 1

CONSTRUCIION ASSURANCE PROGRAll INSTRUCIION NO. CAP-D-C-01-03 CilECKLISI INSIRtlCTION PREPARED BY h 7~ DAIE 672/t REY. NO. O SilEET 10F 1 00Cl#1EllIS lTl llARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY TM DATEY9[8f, EARTHWORK /50Il COMPACTION - BATCH / DELIVERY TICKETS.,,- s

_ CAP _1400.V.L.E.

- .NO. &_TITL.E.:. . C 3-01 INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT HO. I AT1RIBUTE l I 1 1

l Cement Content l Verify the percentage of cement weight to SSD aggregate weight is within the required batch I 3240-209 delivery tickets. The percentage of cement to sand l tolerances by review of Contract l

l may vary from 10.78% to 11.45% due to batching tolerances in Spec 414, pp 6.03, if the standby batch plant is used. If the delivery ticket notes that the main plant is used, contact the Team Leader or Engineer for resolution. / Contract 3240-209, pp 13.3, / Spec 414, R7, pp 6.03. .

l I I I I I I

2. l Transport Time l Verify that total elasped time between mixing and discharge of material from truck does not l l l

l exceed 45 minutes by review of Associated Sand and Gravel delivery tickets. / Spec 466, R2, I i l l PP 5.02. ,

I I I l

3. Ambient Air Tenperature Verify that ambient air temperature is rireater than 40 by review of Associated Sand and Gravel I I l

l delivery tickets. / Spec 466, R2, pp 5.02.

> I I I I I I I I I I I l T l l l

O O O CONSIRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-04 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [-f' DATE(,jfq/g5 1

REY. NO. 1 SHEET 10F 2 DOCUMENTS ITl HARDWARE l--l ' APPROVED BY M DATE I $

C3 01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION PERSONNEL QUALS CAP MODULE NO. & TI_T_L_E_:______ __ _________ _ ______ _ ___ _ ______________._ - TESTING CONTRACT 3240 _204 INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. i ATTRIBUTE l l l

? 1 l Inspector Identification l Identify PTL inspectors who performed and supervised the lab or field tests which were reviewed l l l l per instructions CAP-0-C-01-01, CAP-D-C-01-04, CAP-D-C-01-06, CAP-D C-01-08, CAP-D-C-01-14 and I I l l CAP-D-C-01 -15. Us'e a separate copy of the checklist for each employee to record his name, the i I l l type (s) of test (s) he performed and the date or range of dates he performed the test (s). List i I l l the type of record and doctment number (s) used to obtain the above information.

I I l l 2 Training lVerifyrecordoftrainingfortestingmethodwhichwasusedinthefieldorlabtestperformed by review of PTL Form PQ-2. / Spec 860w, R6 / ANSI N45.2.6-73, pp 2.2.1 l

I I I I 3

l Verify record of PTL Certification for the type of test performed, which is dated no earlier l Certification of I i l Personnel Qualification l than 2 years before the tests were performed, by review of PTL Form PQ-3. Also verify that i I l l the PTL Certification doctments an eye examination which is . dated no earlier than 1 year before l h lthetestswereperformed. / Spec 860w, R6 / ANSI N45.2.6-73, pp 2.0 / Implementing Procedure l #QC-PQ-2, R7 by PTL.

'I I I I I I I l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-04 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [E 7 DATE4./9/ts CONTINUATION SHEET 2 0F 2 DOCUMENTSl[l HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY W D DATE /9/84

. CAP . MODULE NO. &..T.I.TLE:- - _ _C3-01

- - - - . . . EARTHWORK /50Il COMPACTION - PERSONNEL QUALS - TESTING CONTRACT 3240-204 j INSPECTION I INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. I ATTRIBUTE I _

l l 4 l Experience and l Verify that experience and education requirements are met according to level of certification l Education l as shown below, by review of enployee resume':

l Certified Level Equivalent Experience Education l

Level I 1 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate l l Level II 2 yr including testing or inspecting 4 yr Tech. College Graduate

] l 1 Level II 4 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate l

I I Level III 5 yr w/ testing, inspecting *. 4.uciear 4 y[Nc'h'. College Graduate i I l l Level III 10 yr w/ testing, inspecting, & nuclear High School Graduate l l [ Not more than 1/2 the education or ex.perience (but not both) required by ANSI N45.2.6 may be l l waived upon specific concurrence of the Engineer. Spec 204 2A, pp 2.0 / ANSI N45.2.6, pp 3.1.

I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l I I I I I l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-04 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST IT__l PREPARED BY h DATE c/e,/a REY. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 2 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY ~ MM f DATE/i/84 CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. lDocumentReviewed:

IDENflFICATION NO. I DESCRIPTION I NUMBER- I Pittsburg Testing Lab I Soil / Soil Cement I Spec 466, Rev 2 l Reviewer Note:

Forms PQ-2 and PQ-3 I Personnel Quals - l 860w, R6 I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ _ .I _ _ If S ! ! 0 0 _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _

_ _ _I_ ___ _..____________________ ___. _ ___ _______ __.__

l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION i l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. l DATE l INIT. l DATE I l l l l 1 -l 1 1 Inspector Identificatioh l l lName: l I I I I I I I l l l l l l Tests Performed: I

~

l i I I I I I I I I l l l (List Spec) l I I I I I I I I I l l l l Date Performed: 1 I I I I I I I I l l l l l Report used for information: l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 l PTL Form PQ-2 l l l l l l Training. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE l  !  !-  ! _ _ _ $

y 5

/s /8 _

/s 7 d E IkE E l Illl llll II Il l ll lI Ii Il lI Il llIi T

A D

) T T -

(V A D

A D IIIl

) R S E R G E A B N M U N

M A M

4 M P

A A C T T A

E T

I Y B

D Y Y N B B N E D O P E D D I O V E E T O R V A , R A O V N P P R R D P E P E D A R P S P A B ,

O R C

N IIII l l E D

T_ ]

l l U

L E 1 C T N T N A D

R I G S ( .

O I R L P T K IIII S C E I E l

C L l N K C R A C E OVU R S

S E

l i

C N

I T

O D

A E

L A W C E E M N I P l[lIl Il ll ll ll Il Il ll lI II Il lI Il ll Il A

O V S E I E N E T T R I T C A Y U T E TD B R N R C T E A EI Il ll ll ll Il Il l ll lI II Il lI Il ll Ii D S M W J E N U D N E . V O C R O RT O C O A I I R D H - T N P A I P C A I II Il ll ll ll Il Il ll lI II Il lI Il ll II F

I E R T E A IIII V TD P

El Illl ll ll II Il l lllI IIIi lI Il ll il 2 C E C . T AT A I D N

I 4 F 0 0 llIIl Il ll llll II Il l ll l1 II II l1 II ll li IIII 1

0

- R C 2 O

- T D C

- N E P T OE P A E I T d S C E IU 3 n n N H CB - o a I S EI Q i

. PR P t a

e c n

.F O N ST O Ob N O I

NT I A m

r o

i f

c i

e n

i t

o E

R T T S A F i r a U I U t e c T L N L r p u A K I T e x d N C T P C E E ~ G E N li1 ll ll ll 1II1lll l1IIIIll II llII I l

i O -

- S C C .

3 4 O

N -

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST !!0. ' CAP-D-C-01-05 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST IT l PREPARED BY k DATEf/t/st REV. ,NG. O SHEET 1 0F 2 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l ' APPROVED BY I M DATEYi/86 CAP N00ULE No. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION COMP 0rlENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. lDocumentReviewed:

IDENTIFICATION HO. I DESCRIPTION l . NUMBER l '

PittsburgTestingLablSoilCement/ Soils Spec 466,Rev.2 Reviewer Note:

l form.__________.._.____I_

1. CAL 3 Equipment Calibration

_l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Spec 860w, Rev. 6__l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __.______,

i VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DON, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. I DATE l INIT. l DATE i I d l I I I I .

l l Eouioment Identificatidn l l l Equipment I.D.#: l l l l l l l l l l l l l lDate(s) Used: 1 1 1 I I I I I l l l l l lDate(s) Calibrated: ^

I I I I I I I l l l l l l l Report (s) used for information:" l I I I I I I i I l 1  !  !' l l l , . I _ _ . .. ,1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T 2 l Calibration I i l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I ,

I i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l I i l I . I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I l I i i a a a n n

b

/ng O

/y d E T

A E E l ll llII II Ii IIIi II II II II IlII Il II D

O T A

D T

A D I I

) R S E R G k E A B N M A U M N P M A Y

MY A

T A

D E

T I

N C

Y B

B B N E D O P E D D I O V E E T O R V A , R A O V N P P R R D P E P E D A R P S P A B ,

O R C

N IllI I I E D

T I I U

L E

M C T A N A R T I D G S (

O I R L IIII P T K S C E I E l

C L l N K C R ORA U

S S

C E

l l

C N

O I

T E

D A

E L

A W C M

E E N P A O

I V S IlIlIll ll II II II Ii Il II II II Il Il II Il7l E I E N E T T R I T f

C A U T E TD B R N R C T E A EI Il ll Il II Il Il Ii II II II Il Il II Il li D S M W J E N U D N E . V O C R O RT O C O A I I R D H T N P A I P C A Ii II II II II II II IllI I Il Il llIi II II II F

I E R T E A IlII V TD P Il lI IIII II II El Il ll II II II II II IIII C E 2 C . T AT A I D N

I 5 F 0 0 IIIIl Il ll1I II II iI II II II II II iI II Il lI IIII 1 y 0 c

- n R C e O

- 2 u T D q C N e E P r OE r P A E I T F S C IU N CB n I S EI o

O i

. PR t F o N ST a O H O NT r E I I A b R T I i S A l U I U a T L N C A K I N C r G E H l illllI II II lIII II II IIIIlIII Il lI I H O ~ S C C . 3 ~ .

O H ~ -

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM k Hal % jan INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C- 01-05 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [r DATE Sff/8 =

REY. NO. 2 SHEEI 1 0F 2 DOCUMENTSlil HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY M TE k85, Dfh14 /n/f4 CAP H00VLE NO. & TITLE: C 3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION - EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION I

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBU TE l l l 1 l Equipment Identification l Identify equipment used to determine In Place density and moisture content in tests reviewed per I

il (from Checklist # CAP-D- l Checklist # CAP-D-C-01-01,14,&15. On a seperate copy of the checklist record each equipment I.D.

I I l

01-01,14&l5) l number used and the date(s) of tests performed by each piece of equipment.

~

I l i I I l 2 l Calibration ll Verify that record of equipment calibration was documented at the time the field tests were I l

, l i performed by review of PTL calibration form # CAL-3/ Spec 860w, R6, ANSI N45.2-71, PTL procedure l l l l #QC-CAL-3, Rev. 15.

I I I I I I 3 l Calibration Frequency l Check that frequency of calibration is maintained as listed below: (Note: If other types of I I l l equipment are listed, contact engineer or team leader for disposition.)

l la) Scales (#LS) - calibrated each 12 month period of use l I l l b) Calcium Carbide Moisture Tester (#SM) - Calibrated by check of meter readines versus oven drv I I l l moisture contents per AASHT0 T217-67 (74). Calibrate once each six (6) month period of use.

I I l l c) Rubber Balloon In Place Density Tester - Calibrated each 12 month period of use.

I I .

l l d) Nuclear In Place Density Tester (Troxler) - Calibrated by correlation to rubber balloon or l sandconeandovendrydensityandmoisturetestinamethods.*(SeeNextPage)b

. f

O O O CONSIRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM g[n f ac INSIRUCIl0N 110. CAP-D-C- 01-05 CllECKLIST INSTRUCIION PREPARED BY [7 T DATE(/ 8 CONTINUATION SilEET 2 0F 2 DOCUMENTS ITl llARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY M DATE h k TMn 4//7/f4 ~

CAP MODULE N0  % & TITLE: EARTHWORK /50ll COMPAC3 0 h Egu,IPMENT CALIBRATION _ _ _ _ _ _

I~

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT I NO. l ATTRIBUTE I I I

______l l NOTE: The period of use for equipment listed above is defined as the time frame the equipment l l was used on tests. checked per Checklist # CAP-D-C 01-01,14&l5 l / Spec 860w, R6; ANSI N45.2-71; PTL-QC-CAL-3, R5, Attachment I; PTL QC-LT-1, Rev. 34, 1 I j

l l Appendix 1.

l *l e) Moisture Density Rammer (#PP) - Calibrated each 12 month period of use.

! I I l l f) Moisture Density Mold (#CE)- Calibrated each 12 month period of use.

l l l l g) Drying Oven (#LO) - Both temperature and evaporation - Calibrated each 12 month period of use.

l b h) Thermometer (TH) - Bimetal type - Calibrated each 3 month period of use: others calibrated i l I each 12'mhth period of use.

! I I l li) Microwave Oven (LO) - Correlate drying time with standard oven once for each material type (ie. soil classification, concrete aggregates, etc.) per procedure ISMO Rev 1.

I I

. I l

! F i l l i I I I 1 I

~

I i f I i i

O O O CONSTRUCTIOH ASSURAllCE PROGRAH CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C 06 DOCUt1ENT REVIEW CHECKLIST lTl PREPARED BY kr7' DATEf/cI1.

REV, NO. O SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l-l _

APPROVED BY 'I~4Pf,, DATE T/9/86 CAP MODULE NO. A TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION I I I D

COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. I ocument Reviewed:

IDENIIFICATION NO. l DESCRIPT10N l NUMBER I PittsburgTestingLablSoilCement-Density l Spec 466,Rev.2 form #SC-1 l Testing Frequency l .._-- l - - - - - - - _ - - - - - -

I VERIFICATION I OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l l INIT. l DATE l INIT. l DATE l l d i I I I 1 l Lift Identification l l Placement Location: l l l l l 1 l l l for Testing l l l l l Lift Elevation: l l l l l t i I l l l l l l Lift Area (SF): l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l '

l 2 I Frequency of Testing l l l l l Number of tests required: l 1 I I I I I I l l ~l l l l Number of test taken: 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

, I I I I I I I.

l l l l l l l~

F i I I I I i

! I I I I I I I 4

I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I I I I l l l I I l

p (

d V ()l C

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM IrlSTP.UCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-06 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY NT DATE_5/fjr REV. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 1 DOCUMENTS lT! HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY TA7+(, DATENi[8h CAP Il000LE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION - TEST FREQUENCY _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,

f INSPECTION I INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

NO. l ATTRIBUTE l 1

lLiftidentification l Identify location and lift elevation of each test in the sample obtained for Check ~ list Ifor Testing I CAP-D-C-01-01. Use a separate copy of the checklist which records each lift location l l l I and elevation.

I I I I I I 2 Frequency of Testing l By review of appropriate area design drawings (Ebasco G-2000 Series) and lift sketches in the placing documents, determine the area of each lift under consideration. For each l I lift identified, verify that a minimum of, one (1) in place density test is taken for each l I i

l l 2000 square feet of material placed in the lift, and a minimum of one (1) test is taken l I l l in each lift, by review of the PTL in Place Density Summary form #SC-1. / Spec 466, R2, I I I I pp 6.01.

I I I I I I I I I I I I l' l l 1 .

I I I I I I I I I I

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PA0 GRAM CHECKLISI NO. CAP-D-C 07 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST -l11 PREPARED BY I'7 E fMd 1 W N'$

REV. No. SHEET 1 0F 1 ' HARDWARE INSPECIION CllECKLIST 1]l APPROVED BY Tk*1 - DATEY7/84 a

CAP MODULE No. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0IL COMPACTION i l l I Document Reviewed:

COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRA91NG/ SPEC. l IDENTIFICATION NO. l DESCRIPTION l HUMBER l Reviewer Note: See Instruction # CAP-D-C-01-ll for Morrison-Knudsen I Soil Cement - Soil l l additional instructions.

form #QC-19 l Curing & Lift Thickness l Spec 466, Rev. 2 1

._.2_____ ____________l_______________.__I_______ . __ _ _I_______ ______ ___ _ _ __ _ _

l VERIFICATION I OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION l i ATTRIBUTE l ACCEPT I REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. l DATE l INIT. I DATE l I d i I I I I i 1

l Lift Identification l l l l Placement Location: l l l l l l l l l for Curing and Lift l l l l l Lift Elevation: l

. I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 2 lCuringDuration l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I l 3 Lift Thickness - Soil

. l- 1 I I I I I

' -/Al l' I I I I I 1 I I I I I l 4 leLift Thickness - Soil I l l l l .

I I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE

I I I I I I I I l I

!D C/ (~)

v (/)

(

CONSTRUCIION ASSURANCE PROGRAM 7YR8/t' INSTRUCTION N0. CAP-D-C-01-07 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [2 -r- DATE s/agu tnwtWLt&&

REY. NO. 1 SHEET 1 0F _ 1 DOCUMENTS l1l HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY T A E DATEYi/64' CAP l100ULE NO.,,&.

n .TITL.E.:.-- C3 . - - - - EARTHWORK

/S0ll COMPACTION - S0IL CEMENT CURING AND LIFT THICKNESS INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l 1 I e 1 l l.ift Identification l Identify location and lift elevation of soil cement lifts. Use a separate copy of the i I l for Curing and Lift l checklist which records each lift location and elevation.

I I I I I I 2 l Curing Duration l By review of Morrison-Knudsen curing checklist for soil' cement, Attachment A to QC #19, l l verify that top surfaces of soil cement placements are kept moist until placement of overlying I l l l layers or a minimum of 7 days. / Spec 466, R2, pp 7.01 l l l 1

3. lLiftThickness-Soil l By review of QC Inspection Report, Form QC #19, verify that the lift thickness is equal l Cement to or less than 12 inches after compaction. / Spec 466, R2, pp 5.03 J I dli I __ _ _ _ _

! l 4 iLift Thickness - Soil l By review of QC Inspection Report Form OC # 19. verify that the lift thickness _ docs not evcaad i I l l 15 inches after' compaction by large scale mobile compaction eauinment. In ==n11 nranc ine ~

i I

-l l accessible to large equipment, verify that lift thickness does not exceed 6 inchac.

l l .

l l / Spec. 466 R2, pp8.03 I I I I I I I l 4

O O O CONSTRUCf10N ASSURANCE PROGRAM CllECKLIS I 'l10. CAP-D-C- 01 -08 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST ITl PREPARED BY h f r c MDATEf * [f/ss REV. NO. 1 SHEET 1 0F l HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l[l APPROVED BY MM g DATEf/1/d6 CAP N000LE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /50Il COMPACTION I I lD COMP 0HEllT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. I ocument Reviewed:

IDENTIFICATION H0. l DESCRIPTION I NUMBER l Pittsburg Testing Lab Soil Cement l Spec 466,R2 Reviewer Note:

Monthly Water Report lWaterQuality l

- , - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . l

-- - - - -- ---- -- l --------. - - - - - - . - - - - - . . .

I VERIFICATION I OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

H0. I I INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE l I d i I I I I i 1 l Water Quality l l l l l 1 I I I I I l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I i l I f- 1 I I I I I 2 I Water Test Frequency l l l l l l AI I I I I I

I I

I I

.I I

I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I i 'l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

^

I- I I I I I l 1 I I I I SIGi1ATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE i l l I I I I I I I

t) s.J v CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM gr Gr ann INSTRUCTION HO. CAP-D-C- 01 -08 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY DATER /r/

REY. NO. I SHEET 1 0F l DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY M e/86 4/2 DATE 5 b/#l, CAP _00LE NO. C3-01 EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION - WATER TESTS

.- ---.H0 ~ - - &.

- - TITLE: .-.------- --- _ - --- -- - ----- _.---... . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - -- _ _ _ _ _

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l l l

_1 l Water Quality l Verify that the following water standards are met by review of the PTL monthly Water Quality i I l l Report for batch water:

I I l l Chloride Ion d 100 ppm i I l l Sulfate s1000 ppm I I l l Total disolved Solids s.1000 ppm ,

I I l l Suspended Matter $2000 ppm

~

l l PH . 6-8 l

l/ Spec 466, R2, pp 3.04.

l l I I I I I I IWater Test Freauency i Verify that water auality testina was performed every nonth during the process of Quality A

~

I l l l Class I concrete production or, upon Resident Engineer's approval, no longer than every I l l l six nonths during Quality Class I production.

I I I

I I I I I I l l l l l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST 110. CAP-D-C-01-09 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST ITI PREi'% RED BY bf DATE S/6/ar.

REV. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 2 IIARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY TD DATE 5/Y86 CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll CCHPACTION C0fIP0HENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. l IDENTIFICATION NO. I DESCP,IPTION l NUMBER l' Associated Sand & I .I I Reviewer Note:

Gravel Evaluation & l Soil / Soil Cement l Spec 466, Rev. 2 l

. .Certification

. . . --- -- . . Forms l Personell

. --.------_ . . _u a lQs - Ba tc h Q l ant i - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - _ _ - . . - - . - . . .

I VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l .

I INIT. I DATE l INIT. l DATE I I d

1. l Batchman/In spector l l l l lhame:

l l l l l l l Identification:

l l l l l lTypeofWorkPerformed: l l'

l l l Date Performed: l l l l l l l Report used for information: l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.lAS&GPersonnel l l l l l l lEvaluationForm l l l l l l .

I I I I I .I I I I I l l I I I I I I I I l- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE f f k k f

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM

, CllECKLISI NO. CAP-D-C-01-09 DOCUMENT REVIEW CilECKLIST- l[I FREPARED BY 67 .DATEsd,/,.

CONilllUATION SHEET 2 0F 2 HARDWARE INSPECTION CilECKLIST l]l' APPROVED BY T M DATEN1/66

. I I I VERIFICATION I OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I I ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMlERS)

' NO . l l INIT. I DA1E i INIT. l DATE l '

I d l I I I I I l 3.l AS&G Certification l l l l l [

l l I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1

-~ ll l i

l I

l I

l I

l I

l I

I I I I I I i

4. l Experience and Educa- l l l l l l l tion l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I - I....__._.-__

i i l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l I l I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I I I I I I I I I l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE-PROGRAM ItJSTRUCTION !!0. CAP-D-C-01-09 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [r# DATEFk8' REV. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 2 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE ll APPROVED BY T N DATE*b/db CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION - PERSONNEL QUALS - BATCHING CONTRACT 3240-209 ___

l IllSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l 1 l Batchman/ Inspector lIdentifyBatchplantinspectionpersonnelandplantoperatorsandsupervisors. Use a separate l Identification copy of the checklist for each identified employee to record tis name, the type of quality l l affecting work performed and one (1) date on which the work was performed. This information l l shall be taken from any inspection / test reports found in the quality documentation.

I I I I

2. Verify record' of evaluation for the type of work the employee performed by review of the lAS&GPersonnel l

/ Spec l Evaluation Form lAS&GbatchmanEvaluationformorthePerformanceEvaluationFormasapplicable.

I I 860w, R6; ASNI N45.2.6-73, pp 2.2.1 1 I I I l l .

3. I AS&G Certification l Verify record of AS&G Certification for the type of work performed which is dated no earlier i I l l than 2 years before the work was performed, by review of the ASSG Employee Certification.

I l j l I / Spec 860w, R6; ASNI N45.2.6-73, pp 2.0; Implementing Drocedure #1, Rev.1, by AS&G.

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION N0. CAP-D-C-01-09 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY k7 DATE6[</46 CONTINUATION. SHEET 2 0F 2 DOCUMENTSlil HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY M DATEhM96 C3-01 EARTHW'ORK/S0Il COMPACTION - PERSONNEL QUALS - BATCHING CONTRACT 3240-209 CAP MODULLN L & TITLE:

l, INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT HO. l ATIRIBUTE I I I 4 l Experience and l Verify that experience and education requirements are met according to level of certification I I l Education l as shown below, by review of employee resume':

I I l l Certified Level Equivalent Experience Education i I l l Level I 1 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate i I l l Level II 2 yr including testing or inspec. ting 4 yr Tech. College Graduate l l Level II 4 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate

~

l I Level III 5 yr w/ testing, inspecting & nuclear 4 yr Tech. College Graduate g g Level III 10 yr w/ testing, inspecting, & nuclear High School Graduate l l

/ ANSI N45.2.6, pp 3.1.

l l I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l I I I I I '

I l

.1

O -

O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CilECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-10 DOCUMENT REVIEW CllECKLIST l]l PREPARED BY 6( DATEM[o REY. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 2 HARDWARE INSPECTION CilECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY IM DATE [86 CAP.. MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0Il. COMPACTION C0t!PONENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. l IDENTIFICATION NO. I DESCRIPTION i NUMBER- l Associated Sand & I I l Reviewer Note; l Spec 466, Rev. 2 l

_____..___ _ ___g Calibration Equipment Calibration

_____________ ____lSoilCement/BatchPlant l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATI0ll DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE i ACCEPT -l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l l INIT. I DATE I INIT. l DATE l l d i I I I I i 1 l Equipment Identificatiolri l l l Equipment I.D.#: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Date Used: l l l l 1 1 I I l l l 'l l l Date Calibrated: l l 1 I l~ l l I l l l l l Report used for information: l l l l l l , I I I I i l l l

2. l l Calibration l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I l l I l l l 1 I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I i l l l I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER DATE l l l l' a- a a a a

1

/,

/* 8 Y

d E k(W E E I Ii II IlII II IllIIiIlIIII lI Ii iI iI T

A D

O T T A A D D l l

) R S E R G E A N

'f E D A

[t U M N

P A

N A T

A D

M E

T I

C Y

B Y Y N B B N E D O P E D D I O V E E T . O R V A , R A O V N P P R R O P E P E D A' R P S P A B ,

O R C

N IIII i I E

D l

L_ l U

L E T

M C A

A N R T I D G S (

O I R L P T K IIiI S C E I E C L H N K C R OUA R

3 S

A C

E l

i C

W N

O I

T C

E D

A E

L E E M N I P IlllI IlII IIII II Il Il II Il Il IIlI II II II A O V S E I E N E T T R I T C A Y U T E 1D B R N R C T E A El Ii IIII lI II IlII II IiII II IIII II II D S M W J E N U D N E . V O C R O RT O C O A I I R D H T N P A I P C A II Il Il II I1 IIII II I lI II II II lI II II II F

I E R T E A IIII V TD P II II II El II IIII lI IIIIII II II II Il Ii C E 2 C . T AT A I D N

0 I 1 F 1

- 0 IllIl il y

IIII lI IIIIII Il II IIIl IIII ii II IlII 0 c

- n C e R

- p u O D q T

- e C P N r E A T OE F P C E I T S E IU n N l

i CB o I .

i S EI t F O

. PR a O N ST r O N O NT b E I I A i T T R .

S A l

a U' -

I V T _

l C A .

L l -

K I N C

E l

i T

N O

J 3

IlII lIIIII II II II 1I Fi II IIIl II G

I S

C C .

o -

N

, i ,' , ;! l  : i ! .!

1  !

C 0 N 0)

% V .

CONSfRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM Gr anleu IllSTRUCTI0tl NO. CAP-D-C-01-10 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY h , DATE 6/1/s*

REY. NO. 1 ' SHEET 1 0F 1 DOCUMENTS l]l HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY M W ATEb/dir

_CA.P -H_0DU_LE NO.. .,&,.T.I.T.L.E.:- C3-01-...-- .... -----. _ _ .--------- - .--EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION - EQUIPMENT. CALIBRATION BAT INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l I i 1 l Equipment Identificatiori Identify equipment used in Contract 3240-209 work which requires calibration. Use a separate i I l l copy of the checklist to record each equipment .D. number, and date(s) of one test done l b l for each piece of equipment. This information shall be taken frem records in the quality report i I .

l l files. Do not list sieves, small test scales, or other equipment not used in production of I

l soil cement. ,

i

2. l Calibration l Verify that equipment calibration was documented at the time the equipment was used by review I I l l of AS&G Equipment Calibration Recor~ds. / Spec 860w, R6; ANSI N45.2-71, and AS&G Procedure #6, I l l l Rev. 1 ~-

l l l l l

3. l Calibration Frequency l Check the AS&G calibration records to verify that all Batch Plant equipment was calibrated within l the six-month period prior to its use identified above except for recording thermometers which shall be calibrated within the previous 12 months and the Batch Plant scales, which shall be lcalibratedwithintheprevious90dayperiod. / Spec 860w, R6; ASNI N45.2-71; AS&G Procedure l

l l#16,Rev.8 I I I I I I I I

1 O O O I

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-Il DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST IT_I PREPARED BY k DATEsk/n SHEET 1 0F 2' APPROVED BY 'Th DATE F //4/86 REY. NO. O HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l[l CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0ll COMPACTION I I i D

j' COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. I ocument Reviewed:

IDENTIFICATION NO. I DESCRIPTION I .HUMBER l Morrison-Knudsen I Soll Cement / Soils l l Reviewer Note:

I Personnel Quals I Spec 466, Rev. 2 Form # g I VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA -

INSPECTION l' I ATTRIBUTE l ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l l INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE I l d i I I I I i 1

l Identify Inspectors l l l l l Name: l l l l l l lDateInspectiorsPerformed: l l l l l l lTypeofInspection(s): l l l l l l lReportUsedforInformation: l I I I I I I l 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 2 l Training i I I i l l i I I I I I I I I I I -

I I I I I I I 1 l l l l l l l- 1 I I I I I

3 I Certification of I I [ l I I t i I .

I I I I I Personnel Qualificationi  !

I I l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I I I i 1 p .p. _n_ n n

.l!

1 6

<- 8

/

/ 4 l d

[5 Y E T

A D

E E IIl ll Il II Il lI Il II IIII lI Il II II II O

T T A A D D lliI

) R S E R G E A f e N A

d f U M N P M A N A T

A E

T I

C Y

B D

Y Y N D B B N E E O P V D D I O O E E T R R V A ,

P A O V N P P R R D ,

A E P E D R P S P A B ,

O R C

N lIIl l E D

l X -I_

l U

L E C T M A A N D R T I G S (

O I R L IllI P T K S C E I El C L l R

N K C OU E

A C D R E N A l

l O E S C I L

S T A W C M E E A N I P IIlII Il ll Tl IlIl iI Il II II IIII Il II II II E

O V S T I E N E T R I T Y C A B U T E TD R N R C II IIIl II II II D E A El Illl Ii II Il II II T

S N U M W D N J

E .

ll7l E V

O C R O RT O C O A I I R D H T N P A I P C II II A

Il II II II II IIII I lI II llll li Ii II F

I E R T I E A V TD P Il II II II II II 1I II Il EI II ll ll li IIII E

2 C T C . A AT I D N

1 I 1

F II II II II 1I II II IIiI

- 0 IIIIl Ii ll ll lI II II Il Il 1

0 C R

- 2 O D T

- C P N E A T OE P C d S E I T n N E TU a I H CB S EI e F O PR c n O O N ST n o N O NT e i E I I A i t R T T r a U S A e c T I U p u A L N x d N K I E E G C T 1lII Ii II lIIIII I E N l Illl ll lIII I1 Il II S

l O 4 l

C C .

O N -

4

< l ;j1~ j <i'

O O .

O -

s CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-C-01-ll CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY k DATENo)hE DOCUMENTS lTj M E DATE//d[#(,

REY. NO. O SHEET 10F 2 HARDWARE l]l APPROVED BY C3 01

_CA_P _M_O_D_U_L_E_ . _N.O ___..__

_&__T__I_T_L.E : EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION - PERSONNEL QUALS - INSPECTORS INSPECTION I INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE I .

I I 1 lIdentifv Insnectnrs l Identify each inspector who performed the soil or soil cement place /_ cure . inspections reviewed per i I l l Checklist CAP-D-C-3-01-07. Use a separate checklist for each inspector to record his name,

I I l l and the date inspections were performed for each type of inspection (curing and placing).

I I I . I 2 l Training l Verify record of training for Soil or Soil Cement, Morrison-Knudsen Procedure #CP17 by review lofMorrison-KnudsenTrainingRecordFormQA-004. / Spec 860w, R6; ANSI N45.2.6.73, pp 2.2.1 l

l, landImplementingProceudr'eMorrison-Knudsen#AI-10,Rev.4

~

I I l l I I 3 ICertification of Person-l Verify record of certification for Soils or Soil Cement workwhich is dated no earlier than 2 l l

Inel Qualifications Iyears before the field inspections performed, by review of form 0C-21-C0, R-1.

I I l l Spec 860w, R6; ANSI N45.2.6-73, pp 2.0; Implementing Procedure #Al-ll, Rev.'3.

I I

I I i

I .

I I

, I I l 1 _

l i l I I I l l l

O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM O

INSTRUCTION H0. CAP-D-C 01-11 C!!ECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY (f- DATE5[I&

CONTINUATI0tl Sl!EET 2 0F 2 HARDWARE APPROVED BY M /f84, ~

DOCUMENTS l1l l]l OATE CAP MODULE NO. . & T.I.TL_E_: .. _ _ _ _ . C3

. . _01 _ . EARTHWORK

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ / SOIL COMPACTION - PERSONNEL QUALS - INSPECTORS INSPECTION I INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

!43. I ATTRIBUTE l -

1 I 4 Experience and l l Verify that experience and education requirements are met according to level of l Education certification as shown below, by review of employee resume: '

g l l Certified Level Equivalent Experience Education l ,

l Level I 1 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate l l Level II 2 yr including testing or inspecting 4 yr Tech. College Graduate Level II 4 yr including testing or inspecting High School Graduate Level III 5 yr w/ testing, inspecting, & nuclear l 4 yr Tech. College Graduate i I

! I Level III 10 yr w/ testing, inspecting, & nuclear High School Graduate l / ANSI N45.2.6 pp3.1 1 I ,

I i i I .

I I I I . .

I I I I I I -.

I I t i I I I I i i l i '

I l

O O O CONSTRUCTI0ll ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-GC-01-12 DOCUMENT REVIEW CilECKLIST l[l PREPARED BY &E DATE(.11/&

REV. NO. O SHEET 1 0F 3 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l-l APPROVED BY M 6 DATE)/4/84, CAP HODULE NO , & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /S0IL COMPACTION I I l COMP 0NENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. I Review of WPPSS/Ebasco QA Audit #

IDENTIFICATION NO. l DESCRIPTION I NUMBER l of contrdctor who l I I NA l QA Audits lWPPSS/Ebasco QAI-18-1 l performed work under Contract 3240- .

I

..--.............-.I- - - - - . .----.......---I.---.----

l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE l ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l .

1 INIT. I DATE i INIT. I DATE I I h l I I I I I i 1.l Audit Team Qualificati $ l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 -

I '

I I I I I I I l l l l 1 l I l' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.lAuditPlanPreparationl l l l l l l Defining Scope of Audit l l l l l l l Activities. l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I i l i I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE l l l l l n n -- -_ 2-------- - -- 1 ------------ _ ----

, b '

m d

{

t q Y l 4 E

( T

' q A E E III IlIlllII IIl lllll llll 1I Il D

T T A A O D G

11 I

) R

S E R G E A m B N M A O U N

M P

M A M A T

A D

E T

I C

Y B

y Y N B B N E D O P E D D I O V E E T O R V A , R A O V N P P R R D P E P E D A R P S P A R ,

O R C

N li 1 I I E

D

((

l l U

L E M C T A

A N R T I D G S (

O I R L P T K IIIl S C

'E I E C L H N K C R E

OS A C R E N D U H O A C I E S T L A W C E E M N I P IIllI II IlIlll II II l l ll ll llll lI II A

O V S E I E N E T T R I T C A Y U T E TD B R N R C T E A EI II Il Il l1 II II l l ll ll llll lI i1 D S M W J E N U D N E . V O C R O RT O C O A I I R D H T N P A I P C ll ll lI il

- A I ll II IlIlll II II l ll ll F

I E R T E A IIIl V TD P

EI II Il I.l ll II II l l llllll ll ll il C E 3 C . T AT A I D 2 N 1

I 1 F . r 0 0 IlIIIII Il ld ll II II l ll ll ll ll lI il iIIl

- e t C i c G s c a R

- 2 ' n r O D R a t

- F p n T P Q e o C A N r C R E C T OE f c F P E I1 o s f Q S E TU i o N H CB n D o I EI o n t

.SN PR i d o e

. F O

O O ST t e i s

s g

N O NT a t t n

I I A r .o a n E T T a N u o i R S A p l p d U I U e r a s n T L N r o v e i A K I P f E R F N C T G E N I III1ll llII II l l l ll ll ll ll l1 ii I H O . S C C . 3 4 O

N -

i

ps .

(, (s,

( ( Cl CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CllECKLISI HO. CAP-D-GC-01-12 DOCUMENT REVIEW CllECKLIST lTI PREPARED B .DAT .tq k CollfillVATION SHEET 3 0F 3 HARDWARE INSPECTION CllECKLIST lI _

APPROVED BY M #

DATE [l4/8(c I I l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPI I REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. I DATE l INIT. I DATE l l 4 I I I I I I I

5. l Determination of Sat- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I l isfactory Resolution l l l l l l l l l l l l l l of All Audit Findings. l l l l l l l l l 1 f I I I ~

I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I i 1 1 I I I I I I

6. Il Determination of Audit l l l l l l l l l l l l l Status (0 pen / Closed). l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I i l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -

I I I I I I I

7. l Attach Ccpies of All l l l l l l f I I I I I I l Audit QFR's. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE I I I I I I I I l

,r- .

pr N.Y CONSTRllCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-GC-01-12 CHECKLIST INSTRilCTION PREPARED B J. m

~ DATEh.t[84 REY. No. O SHEET 10F 3 HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY Td4 DATEg/a/g4 DOCUMENTS l]l _

CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK /50Il COMPACTION - EBASCO QA AUDITS I

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE I .

I I l INFORMATION l IHE INITIAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AT WNP-3 CONSISTED OF AN INTEGPATED SUPPLY SYSTEM /EBASCO I I .

l l TEAM 0F QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL UTILIZING INTEGRATED PROCEDURES. THIS COMMENCED IN FEBRUARY I I l l 1979 AND ENDED IN JANUARY 1981, AT WHICH TIME THE SUPPLY SYSTEM ASSUMED AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION I I l l INDEPENDENT OF THE EBASCO QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM. CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED TO ASSURE USE I I l l OF THE CORRECT PROCEDURE (INTEGRATED /NON-INTEGRATED) WHEN DETERMINING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA NOT l l l l CONTAINED IN THE CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS.

I I I I

1. l Audit Team Qualification l Procedure WPPSS/Ebasco QAI-18-1, Revision 0, dated 2/13/79, requires availability of documentation l l for the Audit Team Leader verifying the following:

l A. Completion of Auditor Qualification Record form with 10 or more points.

l B. Completion of 5 NQA Audits prior to Lead Auditor qualification.

C. Annual re-evaluation.

l l l l 0. Auditor Certification Record form completed with 10 or more points.

l l l 1 1 I

2. l Audit Plan Preparation l Paragraph 3.2.5 of QAI-18-1 requires checklists /worksheets for items 1 thru 10 of the %mmary i I l Defining Scope of Audit l of Initial Evaluation form. Paragraph 3.4 requires preparation of a formal audit plan and

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASS'IRANCE PROGRAM CAP-D-GC-01-12 G.1 ,

INSTRUCTION NO. CHECKLIST INSTRilCTION PREPARED BY DATE h K CONTINUATION SHEET 2 0F 3 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY TM DATEY/M84 C3 EARTHWORK / SOIL COMPACTION - EBASCO QA AUDITS

__C_A_P M_O_D_U L_E__NO ._ _A_

__ _____-01

_T_I_TL E INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE I I I l l checklists for regular audit activities.

I I I l

3. Preparation of QFR's l Paragraph 3.6.1B - Verify that 'QFR's were initiated for all findings listed in the audit report.

I I l For Noted Audit i I I l Descrepancies. l l l l l l 1 4.l Evaluation of Contracto( Paragraph 3.7.6 - Review contractor responses to QFR's and assess appropriate addressing of I l l Response to Audit l the audit finding and the timeliness of the stated corrective action. Review stated actions i I l Findi ngs l to preclude recurrence to determine adequacy.

I I I l 5,l Determine Status of Reso- Paragraph 3.2.15 - 3.2.19 - Verify that contractor was notified of work, limitations, if any, l olutions of Findings and that QFR status was maintained.

I I '

I I 1 I 6.l Determination of Audit l Verify presence of audit closure letter, and that documentation package contains the information.

I I l Status l required in paragraph 3.8.2.

I I I l

4 .

[

A [8 .

q _ .

a /# _ r

[f -

e E E

- d .

T T - a A A _ e

_ L D D -

w -

m a

e

-_ . T e

- h Z -

t y

b

- w i

e v

T e r

Y Y r B B o f

D D E E t R V s A O T i P R N l E P E k R P -

M c P A -

- U e C h

-O c e

- D.

E h l

C t M - R o A

R l

U O t G S -

S O T d R

I - / e P E D - h N R U -

N c E O A A -

O a

- t C I W A -

I t N T D Q T a A

R C

U R

A

- UC e U O -

R H C -

R r S T S T a S S A - S C& A N

N I

l B

E -

- N I

'R s

O T - - - F I

T S

I T

I N --

Q C L O l U K S I l R C T T a T E N C S H E A f N C M P o O U M C C O s O C e D i p

l l o 0 c S

/ t K a '

R h O t W

H - e T - r R u A s 2 E s 1

A 1

3 -

1 -

0 F 0 gII Il Il IIIll1 IIII II IIl1Il l1 II II II Il

- 0 - -

C 3 G C -

- l D -

- l P E A

A 3 L N f C T OE o

' I I T T T TU s E -

CB e E & EI i

. H PR p o

O - ST O S .

N NT C

\ N N - IA N O h C)L O I

T I

T A

E --

L U - t c

a '

R s

C U D t F U N O -

A Q R I M-T T -

lIl Il II Il l1II II II Ill1 Il ll II IIII II S N P .

N O A 7 I C C .

O N

4 :i  ! l

f~) Q \

(> k _) J CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST N0. CAP-D-CC-01-13 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST lEl PREPARED BY w Cx' ,DATEljto[&

m ,;- .

REY. Il0. I SHEET 1 0F 2 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST lI _

APPROVEDBYTMN134*

DAT Y6 CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: ALL MODULES --- EBASCO SITE SIIRVEILLANCE I I I COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. l Sample selection for review of documentation IDENTIFICATI0fl H0. I DESCRIPTION I . NUMBER l l l l of the Ebasco site surveillance process.

N/A I Site Surveillance WPPSS/Ebasco QAI-7-3 I I VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DON, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. I I INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE l l d 1.lSurveillancePlanning Matrix .

I I I I I I I l i I I I I 'l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l- 1 I I I

2. Surveillance Schedule i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I l I I I I l l I I I I I I I I l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE I I I I l 0 0 l 1 1

[9cN o d i

E -

d( T A _

E E I l Il II II Ii II II Ii iI II II Il II II D -

T T O A D

A D I L

e

) R S S E

R E

G A

1 M B M

N A

U M N. N N

P M A A E C T T

\ A I Y D B Y Y N _

B B N E D O P E D D I O V E E T O R V A , R A O V N P P R R D P E P E D A R P S P A B ,

O R C

N IlI L l l E

D lg_ l U

L E T

M C A N A R T I D G S (

O I R L P T K IIIn S C E I E l

C L i N K C R OS A C E R E N D U l i O A C I E S T L A W C E E M N I P lIlII l IlII II Il II II II II II IIII II II A

O V S E I E N E T T R I T C A Y U T E TD B R N R C T E A EI l IlII Il Ii II II II II II II II II II D S M W E N

O U

C D

R

~N O J

E .

RT

' V O

C O A I I R D H T N P A I P C II II iI II II II II lI A

I lI l IlIl Il II II l F

I E R T E A IIIa V TD P

El l 1l Ii ii II II II II II II II II II II C E C . T 2 AT A 3 I D 1

N

- I 1

0 F .

IlIa 0 Illil l ll 1I II II 1I 1I II Ii II 1I II II II C

C R

D 2 O

- T P g n C A N o o E C T OE t i P t S E I T e c E TU N H CB c e I S EI n l

. PR a e F O N ST l S O O

l N O NT i e I IA E T T e l R S A vr p U I U m T L N u a A S S N K I C T G E N l l ll 1I II II 1I llIII Il II iI II II II I H O . .

S C C .

3 4 o

N

O O O

\

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM h

INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-CC-01-13 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BYt h i a i J ATEtolto[ M REV. NO. 1 SHEET 1 0F 2 DOCUMENTS lHI HARDWARE ll APPROVED BY 6f/ M b DATE((/8[8s

! _ __C_A_P_ _M_O_D_UL_E__NO _ _&_T_I_T_L_E_:

b

. _ _ _ _ _ . _ALL. MODULES --- EBASCO SITE SURVEILLAN.CE, SAMPLE SELECTION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l -

i l I l

INFORMATION l Tile INITIAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AT WNP-3 CONSISTED OF AN INTEGRATED SUPPLY SYSTEM /EBASCO i -l I i

l l TEAM OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL UTILIZING INTEGRATED PROCEDURES. TilIS COMMENCED IN FEBRUARY I I l l 1979 AND ENDED IN JANUARY 1981, AT WilICll TIME THE SUPPLY SYSTEM ASSUMED AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION I I g l INDEPENDANT OF THE EBASCO QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM. CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED TO ASSl!RE U

~

OF Tile CORRECT PROCEDUjE (INTEGRATED /NON-INTEGRATED) WilEN DETERMINING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA NOT CONTAINED IN blECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS.

I I I I I I 4 1. l Surveillance Planning l- Review Surveillance Planning Matrix and revisions to' determine activities requiring Ebasco l I W l Matrix l surveillance, and that SPM and revisions have been approved by the SPQE for the contract.

, I I l l Include all Quality Class 1 and 2A site contractors.

l I I I I I I I I I I i i l l I

I I I i 1

l l 1 1 I I

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM I N INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-CC-01-13 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY i DATE(.ho[ K CONTINUATION SHEET 2 0F _2_ DOCUMENTS lCUl HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY ( 4Md<. DATE 6 /* 84 CAP MODULE NO. A TITLE: ALL MODULES -- _EBASCO SITE SURVEILLANCE, SAMPLE SELECTION b __

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. I' ATTRIBUTE I I I

2. l Surveillance Schedule l Utilizing the contract surveillance schedules, determine the total number of surveillances l I g g performed by all Quality Class I contractors and enter that number on the checklist.

I I I I I I I -

1 I I

, 3. l Surveillance Log l Review surveillance log for correlation with the surveillance schedule and determine contractor I I

, l l surveillance serial numbers for the total numbers listed in item 2. Record serial numbers, 1 I l l by contractor, on the checklist.

I I

. I I I I

4. l Sample Selection l Submit totals obtained in Item 2 to the CAP engineer and request selection of a stratified i I l l random sample of 60 to ensure the inclusion of all contractors in the sample. CAP engineer will l I l l utilize a computer rpogram for randc= number selection. Record sample selection on checklist i I l land attach computer printout of random number selection.

, I I

i I

! I I l l I

I I i l l I I I l

O O O C0tiSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM i

j CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-14 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST l-X.I PREPARED BY k T~ DATE 6/f3 /fc SHEET 1 0F APPROVED BY N DATEYlT8b

. REV. 110. O 1 HARDWARE INSPECTI0tl CHECKLIST l]l CAP MODULE i;0. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK / SOIL COMPACTION I l I C0r!P0HENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWIl4G/ SPEC. l D cument Reviewed:

j IDErlTIFICATIO!1 NO. I DESCRIPTION l NUMBER p p , ,

. Pittsburg Testing Lab g Proctor Tests / Spec 466* Rev' 2 CAP-D-C-01-05 for additional instruc-l l Form ST-5, ST-1, ST-8 g Sieve Analysis - Fill ; l_

tions.

l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

______m,

! l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I I ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS) i NO. l .

I INIT. l DATE I INIT. I DATE l l d

1. Proctor Test l l l l l l

, l Calculations l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I i I

2. l Fines Analysis l l

]

l 1 I l l l l l i I

, I I l I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I l I I I I I I I I i i I i l l I I

3. l Sieve Analysis l l l l l

' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE i SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I I I I I I n a a .

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM i

CAP-D-C-01-14 j INSTRUCTI0t! NO. CHECKLISI INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY 6( DATE6/n/h ,

REY. NO. O SHEET 10F 1 DOCUMENTS l11 HARDWARE l~l APPROVED BY M DATE Ih CAP H000LE NO. & TITLE: C3-01,_E, ART _Hhl0_RK/ SOIL COMPACTION _- PR0(TOR T QTS /SIFVF ANAlvRTR I

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

NO. l ATTRIBUTE l -

I i

1. I Proctor Test l Check Dry Density calculation including all Dreliminary arithmetic on PTL form ST-5. _

l 1 l Calculations l / ASTM D1557-70 Method 'D' I I l l I I

2. l Fines Analysis l Verify that Class A-1 material contains a maximum of 15% passing the number 200 sieve by review I I l l l of PTL form ST-1. Check the calculations of material passing the 200 sieve. / Spec 466, I I l l Rev. 2, pp 8.01.

l 1 I I l

3. l Sieve Analysis l Verify that Class A-1 material contains a maximum of 6" material and contains a maximuni of l l 15% passing the ntaber 200 sieve by review of PTL form ST-8 Sieve Analysis. The maximum size  ;

l l of Class A-1 material shall be 3/4" (unless otherwise specified on design drawings) when'used as pipe bedding. / Spec. 466 Rev.2, pp8.01

! I I I i I -

l l l l _

! I I I I i l i I l I I

, I I I

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM T[a-hb CHECKLIST 110. CAP-D-C-01-15 DOCUMENT REVIEW CilECKLIST IT1 PREPARED BY kT f( DATEC//3//r.

REV. NO. 1 SHEET 1 0F l HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY M E l'[86 CAP H0DULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK / SOIL COMPACTION I I C0!!P0tlENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC.

lI Document Reviewed:SSFDR-Reviewer Note: See Instruction CAP-D-C-01-04, & 05 for Pi sb Testin Lab Class A-1 Fill l Form SI-4 l In Place Density Tests l Spec 466, Rev. 2 l additional instruction.

I

.--..----_n------------------------------

I I l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l I INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE l l d i I I I I I i

1. I In Place Density l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l' I I .

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i I I I

2. lDensityCalculation l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I l l l l l l I I I _I I I I I I I I I I i

/h 3. l l Report Data I

l I

l I

l I

l l I I l

l l l l l l 1 1 I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I SIGNr.TURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPR3VED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE k I b

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. C AP-D-C M CHECKLIST INSTRilCTION PREPARED BY b( DATE REY. H0. I SHEET 1 0F 1 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l'-l APPROVED BY D Ole C3 01 EARTHWORK / SOIL COMPACTION Class A 1 Fill In Place Density Tests

_ _C_A_P _11_0_0_U_L_E_NO. _3_

_ _ _ _T_I_T_L_E_:

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT H0. l ATTRIBUTE l .

1. lInPlaceDensity l Verify in place density is at least 95% of the maximum density obtained from the Modified Proctor

! I I l l l Test performed in the PTL In Place Density Form SI-4. Verify that the value given in Form I l l SI-4 for Max Dry Density agrees with the corresponding value on the Proctor Test form ST-5.

l l Note: Ten percent (10%) of the tests may vary as low as .

90% of the maximum Modified Proctor density.

l l / Spec 466,. Rev. 2, pp 8.05.

i l i i I

2. lInPlaceDensity Check ' percent compaction calculations including all preliminary arithmatic on PTL form SI-4.

I I l Calculations l / ASTM D-2167 I i 1 l 1

3. l Report Data b l Verify that In Place Density form SI-4 was completed to include the time, date, and location i I

, l l Of the test, the inspectors' names, type and ID number of test equipment used and weather I I J l l conditions. Location of test shall be identified by horizontal grid lines, or other I i l l readily identifiable horizontal reference, and the elevation of the test.

I i j l I

I I 1

l l 4

e L. O wJ CONSTRUCTION ASSUP.ANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-GC-01-16b DOCUMENT REVIEW CilECKLIST lRl PREPARED BY rr s DATE(lto[R

• I I HARDWARE INSPECTI0li CHECKLIST lI APPROVED Bf fd W DATE /0[86 REY. tio. SHEET 1 0F _

CAP H00VLE NO. & TITLE: ALL MODULES --- EBASCO SITE SURVEILLANCE b I I I COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. l Review of Ebasco Site Surveillance documentation IDENTIFICATI0!! NO. l DESCRIPTION l NUMBER - l for the activities of the Contract 3240 contractor l

Report Number l Site Surveillance l WPPSS/Ebasco OAl- 7-3 ll l

__._________..__________I_________-______________I_____ _ _ _ _ - _ I___ - _ -__ _ _ _ ___ _ _______. _____ _ __ ..__________ -

l VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I l ATTRIBUTE i ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DD!l, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS) ,

~NO. l l INIT. l DATE l INIT. I DATE l l t l .

I I I I i

1. l Documented and Approved, I i l l l l l l l I I I l Surveillance Reports l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l 1 ~l i I

2. l Surveillance Report l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I IApproval l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l 1 l l 3.lStatusofReported l l l l l l Items. (Open/ Closed) g i  ! I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE I APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE l l l l I a a a n J_

,.,\

( l Id,m s V CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM

'S It!STRUCT!0tl NO. CAP-0-CC-01-16 b CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY Or.~ .DATEL,[id[eb I I DATb'h 80 REY. NO. SHEET 1 0F DOCUMENTS [ l HARDWARE 1]l APPROVEDRY6l)h

. . .C.A.P .IV,, D.U.L E. .N,O,., .,& T.I.T.L.E.:..

. . ALL MODULES __--

~ . . . . _ . . - - .

EBAS CO SITE SURVEILLANCE b,_

INSPECTIGH I INSTkUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. i A f fRIBUTE I I i

1. g Documented and Approved l Prepare a separate checklist for each surveillance report selected in step 4 of checklist i I g Surveillance Reports g CAP-D-CC-01-13. Review the surveillance reports to-determine clarity, completeness, and that .

i l g g open or questionable items have been satisfactorily resolved, either with an NCR, QFR, or I additional review to clarify the area of concern. Record on the checklist.

4 I I l 1 -

1 1

2. g Surveillance Report g Review the surveillance report for QC approval signature.

I I g

Approval g i I I l- ___

l I

3. g Status of Reported g Determine status of items noted in .the surveillance reports reviewed. When adequate closure i I g Items. (0 pen / Closed) g cannot be determined, the item shall be noted on the checklist and the Open Item List. ,

I I I I I I i l -

I l I I I I ' '

I i I I 1 i I i l I

(, ..

b,- C,m _

CONSTRUCTI0ll ASSURANCE PROGRAH CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01-17 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST l11 PREPARED BY kF DATE M//*'

REY. NO. O SHEET 1 0F l HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY M DATE /4/8S CAP HODULE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWOR K/S0lt COMPA CT IO N .

I I I COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPO!1ENT/ EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. l IDENTIFICATION NO. I DESCRIPTION I NUMBER l PTL Forms ST-4, ST-5 l Class A-1 Fill Density l Spec 466,

. ___ __________ _____I__________. ____________ _l___Rev. 2_________________I_________________._________________ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

! VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA INSPECTION I I ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT. l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l -

1 INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE l l E I I I I I I i 1.ILift Identification l l l l l Placement Location: l l l l 1 I I i l For Testina l l l l l Lift Elevation: l I I I I I I I l l l l l l Length of Fill or Areas of Lift: 1 1 I I I I I I l i I I I I I I i 1 I I I I

2. I Frequency of PROCTOR l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I l Tests l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I l  ! I I I I I I I I I I_ ~l i I I

I I

i I

1 I

I I I

3. I Frequency of In Place l l [ l l l l l 1 l l 1 I l Density Tests

~

l l l l l l l l i I I I I I I l l l l l

~

l l l l l SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER l DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER I DATE f k

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM IHSTRUCTION HO. CAP-D-C-01-47 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY [f- DATET/s//H REV. NO. O SilEET 1 0F 1 DOCUMENTS }TI ilARDWARE ll APPROVED BY N DATE /d[64

_ CAP- H00.V_LE N.O

--- .. &. IITLE.:C3

-- _01 EARTHWORK

-.._._._--_ /S0Il COMPACTION - CLASS A-1 FILL DENSITY TEST FREQUENCY

~ ._-____..- ____.._____ ____ ________ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

INSPECTION I INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE I I I

1. l Lift Identification l Identify location and lift elevation of each In-Place Density test taken in Class A-1 fill.

lFor Testing lUseaseparatecopyofthechecklisttorecordeachliftlocationandelevation.

I I I I

2. l Frequency of l Verify that one (1) Proctor density test was taken in the location of an In-Place density test Review l Proctor Tests l to represent a maximum of ten (10) In-Place density tests of the same fill material.

l l both PTL forms ST-5 and SI-4 to determine this information. * / Spec. 466 R2, pp. 8.02 l l l l .

3. l By review of appropriate area design drawings (Ebasco1000 & 2000 Series) and lift sketches

] Frequency of In-Place lDensityTests l in the placing doctmentation, determine the length of fill or area of each lift. For each ,

I I l l lift identified, verify that a minimum or one (1) test is taken for every onehundred (100) l l feet, or~ fraction thereof, of pipe installed; by review of the PTl. In Place Density Sunnary l lformSI-1. / Spec. 466 R2, pp. 8.04 I I I I I

I Il

• After 8/12/82, Proctor tests are not required to be taken from an In Place Density test location l I and the quantity of Proctors may be in the approximate ratio of 1:10 to the in place density I test auantity. / PCP 11P07; Snor- 3240-466 R1; nnR 01 I I l I l

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01 18 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST 1]l PREPARED BY h _ DATE Y88/st TM APPROVED BY 4

DATE/dl/86 REV. 110. 0 ' SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST 1[l _

CAP I4000!.E H0. & TITLE: C3-01 EARIHWORK/S0Il COMPACTION I I I Document Reviewed:

COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l DRAWING / SPEC. I C0':P0rlEHT/iOUIP'T l IDCITIf!CATIO!1 H0. I DESCRIPTION l NUllBER p, , ,

p Pittsburg Testing Lab y Proctor Tests / NCR Spec 406 Rev. 7 CAP-D-C-01-05 for additional instruc-l Form ST-5, ST-1, ST-8 Sieve Analysis.- Fill l I

)

. tions.

_ n _ -.. . - ..., - ,, . . - -

VERIFICATION l OBSERVATION DATA l

Irl5PECTION l l ACCEPT l REJECT I (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

ATTRIBUTE NO. 1 I

I INIT. l DATE I INIT. I DATE I I d I I I i I I

. l

1. il Proctor Test l l l l l l Calculations l l l l l 'l 1

l l l l l l l

I l l I I l I

1 I I I I I I

I l i I I I I

I I I I I I I I l i I I I

2. l Fines Analysis l l l l l ,

l I

l l l l l l I

I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I l I I

3. Steve Analysis l l l l l.

I I I l-1 i

1 i

I i l l I 'l I I l i I DATE APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l SIG:iATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l I I I I I n __- -. n -

g .. g_ j

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM bf

~

IrlSTRUCTI0il NO. CAP-9-C 18 CHECKLISI INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY DATE 6/is/ts.

REV. NO. O SHEET 10F 1 DOCUMENTS l11 HARDWARE l],1 APPROVED BY M' DATEYH/86 CAP I1ODULE il0. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTiiWORK/ SOIL COMPACTION - PRO (J Q (${$ $((VF ANAlv4 K- NCR I

ItiSPECTI0tl l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT i

NO. l ATTRIBUTE l -

1 1

1. I Proctor Test l Check Dry Density calculation including all preliminary arithmetic on PTL form ST-5.

l l l Calculations I / ASTM D1557-70 Method 'D' I I I I I I

2. l Fines An'alysis l Verify that Class A-A material contains a maximum of 15% passing the number 200 sieve by review I I l l of PTL form ST-1. Check the calculations of material passing the 200 sieve. Verify that class I

g , d material containe a maximum of 10% passing the number 200 sieve and check calculations for the analysis. / Spec 406, R7, pp. 14.6.1 & 14.2.1

3. Sieve Analysis l Verify that Class A-A material contains a maxismHR of h" material and COntains a maximum Of l l 15% passing the nienber 200 sieve by review of PTL form ST-8 Steve Analysis. Verify that class B material contains a maximum of 6" material, a minimum of 90% passing the 3" sieve and s. maximum i I of 10% passing the number 200 sieve. / Spec 4C6, R7, pp. 14.2.1 & 14.6.1 I I I I l l l l .

! l _

I I I I I I I l i I

______l - l _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - -

_ . - _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . ... _ _ _ . .. ~ ._ _._ ___ _ _._ _ _ _ __._ _ ._ _ _ __ _

O O O i CONSTRUCTION ASSur 9E PROGRAM l

CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01 19 DOCUMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST l Tl PREPARED BY N DATE 6/es k l REY. tl0. Jo ,jp. SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST ll _

APPROVED BY M DATEk86-CAP H000LE NO. & TITLE: C3-01 EARTHWORK / SOIL COMPACTION I I I D

C0!!P0: LENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONENT / EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. I ocument Reviewed: SSFDR-

~ Reviewer Note: See Instruction CAP-D-C-01-04, & 05 for :

s Test n Lab NCR Fill I P

l In Place Density Tests l Spec 406 Rev.7 onal inskucdon.

Form SI-4 l I I - -- _ -

I --.- - - -..-.------ --..... _

l VERIFICATIDN I OBSERVATIDN DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT l REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS)

NO. l . l INIT. I DATE I INIT. I DATE l l 4 i I i l I I I I

} 1. l In Place Density l l l l l l 1 1 I I' I i l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I j i l I I I I I 4

I I I I I I I l l l l l l l  !'

l I I I I I I l i 2. l Density Calculation l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I i i i l l I I i

i l I i i 1 - I j

I I I l .I I l '

! I I I I I I j 3. Il Report Data l l l l l l i l I I I I I l-i

! I l i 1 I l I i i l l I I I I j i l l I I I l 1 I i I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR I DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE l APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE l _ _ - - - - - - -- 2 l

_2 l

-- 1 1

o 1

n _ _ _ ,r I

O O O .

CONSTRUCTION ASSI JCE PROGRAM l IrlSTRUCTION H0. CAP-D-C 19 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY _ NT - DATE 6/t /A, APPROVED BY Cht'D DATET /W/86 REY. NO. /0 fly. SHEET 10F 1 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l[l In Place Density Tests I

n.C.A ..-P M.OD U.L.E. NO ., &. TTE C3.

I L. .:.. 01. .. . -. . . . -.- ---- --EARTHWORK /50ll COMPACTION .

NCR I IllSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT i t:0. l ATTRIBUTE l .

I I i 1

1. l In Place Density l Verify in place density is at the spec %*of the maximum density obtained from the Modified Proctor I

l Test performed in the PTL In Place Density Form SI-4. Verify that the value given in Form I >

l '

I l 51-4 for Max Dry Density agrees with the corresponding value on the Proctor Test form ST-5.

j l l Note: Ten percent (10%) of the tests may vary as low as 5%

l l l below the 8Pecified comprction.

l l l l l/ Spec 406, R7, pp. 14.2.1 & 14.1

~

I l 1 I

2. In Place Density Check percent compaction calculations including all preliminary arithmatic on PTL form SI-4.

I I I l l Calculations l / ASTM D-2167 I

I l

[. I I

3. I Report Data Verify that In Place Density form SI-4 was completed to include the time, date, and location i l l l

of the test, the inspectors' names, type and ID number of test equipment used and weather l

l '

l --l 4

I l conditions. Location of test shall be idt:.itified by horizontal grid lines, or other I

l readily identifiable horizontal reference, and the elevat. ion of the test.

l l j I l

• Class AA material- 95%.of maximum density from modified proctor l I clace n materini -. 90Y n r =n11 . don a t ry frn- '- nairtaa orncenr l l l l l 1

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAtt C:iECKLIST NO. CAP-D-C-01 20 DOCUMENT REVIEW CllECKLIST l11 PREPARED BY NT DATE Yll[6 REY. ti0. O SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTION CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BV_ h DATEYd/h cad H000LE !!0. & TITLE: C3-01 E ARTl! WORK /S0li 00BPACTinf4 CO*!PONENT/ EQUIP'T l COMPONEilT/ EQUIP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. I

!aErTIFICAT!ai NO. I DESCRIPTION I NUM3ER I PIL Forms S1-4, ST-5 l NCR Fill Density Spec 406,R7 [

l Test ,r_.__.

Frequency l l ,

I VERIFICATION l OBSERVATI0ll DATA INSPECTION l l ATTRIBUTE I ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDN, OPEN ITEM NUMBERS) -

NO. l .

l INIT. I DATE l INIT. I DATE I l 4 I I I I I I i

_L_I Lift Identification l l I I I Placement location: l I I I I I I l l For Test ino l l l l I Lift Elevation: l I I I l l l l l l l 1 -l l Length of Fill or Areas of Lift: l l i l l l 1 1 I I I l l l

• l i I I I i i I

2. I Frequency of PROCTOR' l l l l l i I I I I I I I I Tests l l l l l l l I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l 1 I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

3. I Frequency of In Place l l [ l I l l l I l l f I Density Tests I l l l l l

~ ~ ~

l I l I i l  ! I I I I l i I I I I I I I SIGliATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEAM LEADER I DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER DATE I

i  !  ! I I g n. s n =_ n a

O O COllSTRUCTIO'l ASSURANCE PROGRAM O  !'

i.

1 j IISTRUCTI0ll NO. CAP-D-C-01-20 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION' PREPARED BY [6f~ DATE 6),/pg. ,

. REY. No. O SHEET I 0F 1 DOCUMENTS l'Tl _

HARDWARE l[l APPROVED BY 'Gl#f> DATEYW/8(o Earthwork / Soil Compaction NCR Fill Density Test Frequency CAP MODULE: _m__H0. & T.ITL_E_: c3 _01

! INSPECTIO!! l IllSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

{NO. I ATTRIBUTE l l

1 g Lif t Identification for gl Identify location and lif t elevation of each in-place density test taken in nonconforming fill i I g Testing gdesignated "use-as-is." Use a seperate copy of each checklist to record each lift location and I a

. l nd elevation. .

! I I j 2 l Frequency, of Proctor l Verify that at least one (1) Proctor Test is taken to represent each type of material'.in the fill.

i i 1

; Tests l Review material identification referenced on PTL form ST-5 and SI-4 to determine this information.

l g lg / Spec. 406 R7, pp.13.1 ,

i l l .

i l I I I t 3 Frequency of In-Place g g By review of appropriate area design drawings, and PTL form SI-4, determine the length of fill Density Tests or area of each lift. For class AA material, verify that a minimum of one ( 1) test is taken ,

! I I or f every 100 feet, or fraction thereof of pipe installed. For class B material, verify that one l i I  ;

} l I (1) test is performed in each lif t for dvery 20,000 SF compacted, and one (1) test for each area ,[

. I I i

f less than 20,000 SF placed in one day. / Spec. 406 R7, pp.14.1.4 & 14.2.4 j i i i l i i i i l i i l

I I i i l '

i t

o)

,/ m l

) ( ) .

N / x. /

C0'ISTRUCTIOil ASSURANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST NO. CAP-D-CC-01-21 DOCUMENT REVIEW CilECKLIST lHl PREPARED BY ATEQ h h REY. NU. O SHEET 1 0F 1 HARDWARE INSPECTIO!! CHECKLIST l]l APPROVED BY , hA #

DATENftM CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: ALL MODULES --- EBASCO QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION I I I COMPONENT / EQUIP'T l COMPONEN T/EQlilP'T I DRAWING / SPEC. I verify from review of personnel qualification IDErirIFICATION H0. I DESCRIPTIO'l I flutiBER I Inspectors Name: I IANSI/AS}fE N45.2.6-73 i documentation, the adequacy of the Ebasco i Qualification IANSI/AS}fE N45.2.6-78 l

. .-, d- = __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ .!,SilI,TC- M a nd 91Ralad,-m certificatin g ocesp____ ___ _ , _ _ , _ , , , ,____

l VERIFICATION I OBSERVATI0il DATA INSPECTION I l ATfRIBUTE l ACCEPT I REJECT l (INCLUDE NCR, DDil, OPEN ITEM HUMBERS)

NO. l l IllIT. l DATE l INIT. I DATE l l d i I I I I I I

,1. l Certification Level l l l l l l l 1 I I I I l

! I I i l l l

2. Qualifications -

l I I I I I l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l 1 1 I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

3. l Physical Capability l l l l l l l l l l 1 f I i l i I I i l _ _ _ _

l i I I I I I_

I -

I I I l 1 --

1 I 1 I I I I l 4 Certification g y g g g g g

i i  ! I I SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR l DATE l APPROVED BY TEA!i LEADER l DATE I APPROVED BY CAP MANAGER l DATE I i l l I I I I I ---------------------I

i w/  %/ O

CONSTRUCTIDH ASSURANCE PROGRAM l

INSTRUCTION HO. CAP-D-GC-01-21 CHECKLISI INSTRUCTION PREPAREDBYkQ mi s- DATdlBL%

REY. NO. 1 SHEET 10F 4 0000HENTS lTl HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BYvTA,')k %E DATE8[l6/86 CAP 14000LE No A TITLE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _ _ _

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT

, H0. l ATTRIBUTE l --

1 I l Information d l Governing documents are ANSI /ASME N45.2.6 - 1973 and ANSI /ASME N45.2.6 - 1978, as applicable, I I l l or SNT-TC-1A and supplements. Also, Ebasco QAI 2.2, R2, Qualification and Certification of I I

l l Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel.

I I i l I I l Population l Obtain listing from CM Quality Assurance of all CM Quality Control Inspection personnel employed I I l Infoimation dl at the jobsite. Determine population size by total count. Attach listing to his instruction f I l l for information.

, I l 1 1 I I I l

Sample Selection g Request CAP cngineer obtain computer selected random sample of 60 from the total population.

~

Information d Attach computer printout to this instruction for information.

I I I I I I l Sample Identification l Select personnel to be reviewed in accordance with CAP 6.7 requirements and prepare separate ,

dl Information checklists for each individual.

I I l i I I

1. I Certification Level l Identify from personnel qualification file, level of certified capability and period of I I l l service for each level. Record as item 1 on the checklist.

_ -- ~ _ - _

O O O CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION H0. CA P-D-GC-01 -21 CHECKLIST INSlRUCTION PREPAREDBYk_ e DAT M B,(.

CONTINUATION SHEET 2 0F 4 DOCUMENTS l]l HARDWARE l]l' APPROVED BY"CQNbh DATEk/d/h

_ CAP _ MOD _UL_E__N_O.. _&__TITL_E :_ _ _ . _ _ _

? INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT INSPECTION l

!NO.

l ATTRIBUTE I f_

I I

2. l Qualifications l Verify from personnel qualification file, education and experience requirements for level of I I l l certification per ANSI N45.2.6 - 1973 or 1978 as applicable. Record as item 2 on checklist.

I I 1 l l N45.2.6 - 1973 N45'.2.6 - 1978 I i 1

l l Level I Level 1 I I l High school graduate, plus one year of ex- A. Two years related experience in inspection l

lperienceinQualityAssuranceinspectionor examination or testing, or l

ltestingofequival'entactivities. B. High school graduate and six months re-l lated experience, or l

l lLevelII l I Four year college graduate, plus two years C. AA degree in a related discipline plus three i I lexperienceinQualityAssuranceinspection montbs related experience.

l

• Level II f l lofequivalentconstructionactivities, I I or A. One year of satisfactory performance as a I I lhighschoolgraduate,plusfouryearsof Level I in the corresponding class, or l

l etperience in Quality Assurance inspection B. High school graduate plus ten years related l l l4F power plant, nuc. lear plant or similar experience, or l

l l l$perience. C. AA degree in a related discpline plus one i I

O O .

O CONSTRUCfl0N ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION NO. CAP-D-GC-01-21 CHECKLIST INS 1RUCTION PREPAREDBYk L70_ 2 a DATEg[(g[gc.

CONTINUATION SHEER 3 0F 4 DOCUENTS lTl HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY M N DATES 84 '

CAP MODULE NO. & TITLE: _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ,

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. l ATTRIBUTE l 1 I

2. Qualifications (Cont'd)l Level III year related experience, or l

i I l l Four year college graduate plus five years D. Four year college graduate plus six months l experience in Quality Assurance. At least related experience.

l two years experience in nuclear facilities, or Level III if not, suffi9 ent' 1 training in the safety as- A. Six years satisfactory performance as a sects of a nuclear facility. Level II in the corresponding class, or I I i l l or B. High school graduate plus ten years related j i I experience,orhighschoolgraduatepius l l High school graduate plus ten years exper-1ence. Five of the ten years experience re- eight years experience with two years as a -

l l quired in Quality Assurance. Two of the five Level II, and two years at a nuclear facility l

years with a nuclear facility, or if not,, or sufficient nuclear QA training, or l

sufficient training in the safety aspects of C. AA degree and seven years related experience a nuclear facility. with two of the seven at a nuclear facility,,

l I I or sufficient training, or l l D. Four year college graduate plus five years l l of experience. Two of the five at a nuclear l

O -O O

~

CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM -

INSTRUCTION N0. CAP-D-GC-01-21 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTION PREPARED BY O__

, oATEs/is/as

CONTINUATION SHEET 4 0F 4 DOCUMENTS lTl HARDWARE l-l APPROVED BY'-[Z(fr b DATE8[/8/!M

, _ CAP MODULE N.O..A

- - - - - - - TITLE:- ------.--.- -. - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -

INSPECTION l INSTRUCTION / SOURCE DOCUMENT NO. I ATTRIBUTE I I I

2. l Qualifications (Cont'd)l D. facility, or sufficient training.

l l l l l l

. 3. l Physical Capability l Iteview personnel qualification file to ensure verification of inspector physical capabilities.

I I l Record as item 3 on the checklist.

l l i

l l i I

! 4. I Certification I Review personnel qualification file to ensure documented certification as to Level and l l l l l capability. Attach copy to checklist for information. Record as item 4 on the checklist.

i i  !

i I i i l i I I I I I I I I l l l

, I I I I j i l i l I i' i I I I .

i l I I i l I

APPENDIX 2 O EARTHWORK MODULE C3-01 l

OPEN ITEMS LIST J

The Open Items List (OIL) is a computerized tracking document used by the CAP Office to account for all observations made by the Review Team. It was periodically updated to maintain current status of findings and actions to resolve them. The final version is dated September 15, 1986. All observations on the OIL for the Earthwork Module were solved, or " closed",

prior to the preparation of this report.

e O

9

O .

I*

e- . . . . .... 2 .- : 3 -. v: x; e . ., L 2 .. .;5 .. : 1..:

-54 a; _3 4W: s . ; P"a.r t . : ,. . . U'r~! O I

e t

...w . u.a p

.n es Le aF "J.. S l W0 n

'd a u .J.

O " *2*

W

. =... A..

s

's W3 h "i ;,.

"p'".4 C 3 3-w om u L". i c,.

w' '" ,e= l" a < .. u t.l '*.

J. 1 ?! c'd ..s ..,

e -2 $.

G1

'.i

. .o

. u '.s~' T.

. ...m'. W .$. )

., u, a, m .e ., ... . o.a, n. -. u .5 N,. .a. .,. .c in

. .. .. . ....a ..u..a.a

.y..a*

w: .

p a ,,o .

. . .,; a, w g

. . . = .. w - .$. g .. . . .. y .h e.e W 2 2 WM w 2 le "w?. u h ' i .:.'.,.A'., '.".l. n.

.

• c.

= 3.l

= = - . . . = = w .a. .I n.w 3y m- g. a8 M a 2 3 W2 2 2 L1b d O' Wd W 5A d

i g'6 . = = = = = = = = =

l.

a  !

W 3 t:s l *'

. . . .e . .= e I E D a 2 2 2 2 3 3  ! 3 I .

I h -

I g 3 . - e. c. c.

8  ?. .?.  ?.

?  ?.

a

? 7 7  ?

M .

. .=

?., ,4 d d M $

w d d $ d d MM w

= >. d. @

w w - . . 2 2 2 . 2 0, A A A A A y $ A-A A A

- - - . A. .

i di A A.- A A A A.- A-y

. .A . . . A. A.- .

t .

w

. a. <=..

oW

.r,.

W A. A. A A A.

. o A. A. A.

wa l 'a- - M o e oJ *

= d.

.J .'a W 3 3 3 3 3 3 W 3- "'., W . . .

W 8 W

{.x.. w w w . w w

,o 4 ,.i ,, - -

x '2l: 5 W 4 uJ 3

u i .a .

3.

s.. 3

'. ,3

. .=

. h 4 W  :.

w

. W W 5 5 = 's W e

u u -

J =.: W o o.

. . .. .,. o.

- g i'g .3.. .

a. tid x= .= .,

a w 2i, 5n3 5 p"="- . E g ** .

a. 24 d . i'i *;

=

u, .. =. .h al S.pa w g .

1 it c.g. ~. 9. -x o. u .O. i .w. a .c l...a.- =

W ".

w OE

. g w-M5g a -

gI:

5 a w.

r, w. o.

u= a .J ~ d

.. d W .. - -- r 5auT M i .=.a w

g b ui n w l. .,

• " 3 3 a

u .a.

u

~

wo

=W at .

o,La. we - d..

- .- . .. ., w . - w - u og; - .=.

• • 5 8 5 W~ =" O

• Q l 2.:

. 5 m.

$J K' .uM. W2. iAO.-M.- 15. 2 . ".1 . . =

• ~j '.-' ' . - 4, o) .

. 2. .Y. -Q 5u

=

T u.iWA u.

Wn , '4. 5u w. .4 6.=a

~ww

.4x .ad ..9 m.

. . d f' .

h ' at

~. S-a a.- a. .iw < - .a ,. . ww i.z *=== v c.,

w .

u H .e w

. uw v.

w.

u . -u

..3 .

.e .4 .w .d, i e W- = . -

- u.

w.

w

..S.

ic m i, w ..

3 .

4 a

' o.: me : 1a. w

c. a -

- .t

-.,.,.a

. r

v. c n a .e. ~u w.,.

=

W =. .I M 8 t.=a mi

...a"l. .. a. a w=.

m dl= ..i. 25 5 "'5 A a .s u t

5. .s . ,.I -

u- -om .. 5 iu-.

'3

. .m..d .a w u

• • 2 3 8WH 8.~2 ** 5 ." I l = . a. . .$ 0 *g E i '* *MdP 't" d %  ::"

6

=- . u" s*-udm. . :t.,.M

. . -W -

i d S 'hE hus'hi2

- - . N... W E - -5 S5 .

d

.=.2.04 . ~

. (.2 WP an- M el 5

l- d M

u 2 a 2 3 4 et t n # R R I W .$ 2 u . . .. ,. ..

v.

C'..#. Q .R O .#9 ..S .m i e:S g . = 1.a .g A . .. , .a ,

, v, g

= :;; "- :,. Wu a-  ;.

~=J.,

d. =% l'*: n W u. ~t *

• w Pf -w wa - w

.f.i =.

ww

• . . ,w c m

= .

.f. --.- .

': 5 S- *$ k-

, "ld ".: od ~W I;;!' J

.} - *a - . h .... I .=.ms' - a w = ','a.s 3, ,". 4 o .'=f =.,1

-W - .o

= ,W -.4

i

u ,.a

.a o. .

. =-

M IT Ma MO Lt M MW j *A y

. M '.,g ';t i: M 'O M!d

. . . n .

T y w w w w .y w

.o w

• E i. E 8 ".! 8 ',4 l N E f 8 3 d d d d d d d a d d L,~. a. n .

a c.

. to .,

4 . .' s.

J .:'

fZ..

~

[* ..* h.

~~ *

. ce n T_ . W .:. '

,' l..4 ~~

. .2 .4 l u  ? .A. n. , .. ' . . n. n. ...l'.1. *. a .

?

.x'

. e. 7

, . ,r. ...,

2

? ,.

l..

g.c # t< .

g Y

u Y

en Y

og Y

<=

lY .t ri Y

=

Y a o Y l,;

-. .Y.-,..; .. .r . ,.4 Y. J 3 c ....i .

6.. ,,

2 u o o 4 ..

I w2 ,'.,*., l  ?

.i-.  ?.  ?  ?.

. 't. i'.

?

t

o. u, .

.. ... , .. . . e , , - ,. ,

ni .,

- . u o o u u u u u u ol

.v . - - -.. .-.- -.- - f. t - _ . _ .: , . t . .  : ;.,_.

. .,.L - .x s ... _< 1'  :

0 -C.-TC ( C . . T (' (s t. O O O G G a .O O o a A

w

. -d l

- n . . e a g

e 2 d Q B g e

J a a m

a y

a y

. =

g 4 a

9 2 a 2s 2.

= d E

a

=

=

M Y

w M

a S

=

3 E

,a.

O u

(e~

W s' M .g 4 : .

t

?

A

=

W W W d a W

4 M

- = = = = = = = = =

W U

.r.:,W O

• a e a

< a a

e

%= = = = .%. = = = =

W On 3 -

3 a m 1,".

$ aa a .a -

a ia la dd d d 3 k d

M e

,d w

5; 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 8 e

= a

~

a 4 a a a A A 4 W ~

?  ?.

? ~

?  ? .?.  ?  ?

a

~

o a .~

o a

~

a e ,4 ~

a f

g a a 3 2 i*

C'I W h h h h. h .

5 ~. ~. ~. .  %. .

5 =

to lt M

~ -

i5 M.3 E =Q y W3 3 . , SE E W 3 g l3 s OO O E n ad W O 'O .

, == g"

,-- l' 8

=

g e W .

• bl u.- .

w E- ,

E

=

- =.

. =.

, O E -

h

'm 4 / l =2 5 ft .,8 h y 4. 1 . S 'E .

' l5 2 ** 5G g o" E o " : .:. 5 5 . "q"*

I .:t s 5 *W '!f :. . 4C W

• 2~"a d "

a 5  % 5 y

3= a "EO

a- qg #

!w = = m "I n g 5 "E ~5 . 5

. 3 :A?lJ W3? m a?

w y ::',

!=

=

E*'W W W 4 "Is u-

~Q P2W ia w e. 5"*.J *5 :2 M '%4 E 3 "3 W.

gg5 l 5 !:" I=m k 5 y

• Sl= - = -d td tob2 5 = = M

• l .- :;; - u i.. '.'.: .:"5 J 's ~

N ElW 1* E Sw W -W2 O S IM -' Z,7 SM JE n 2'  :. , W 0 ;=

• 2

• 2EN . W" .~  :'. 51i W = Gl*M -

5 E:xSig 5? "h 3 -1" O l' l.E d 5 me z .; m ;e MI us e  :#

• S"

.s s ,5

% s s ,2== m != .: g . Sw 3; 2 s.

sww s- m s .- = m sn -4 s=,:= = - a .:a - k-m we_s l == = n w:- e =w g um is es a:a - e' i o n e= g "aa

~a e;s .s w =ev e:= .  :-2

.s &- ee wa n

B-g 2

n e %g;;;

=== .: *

-a n im a n ale n i* .,. = awsa'-=i eu n:-

,es=L-u  ::4 m s"a -m.;=

=  : -is '::  := sw g = = =. F sWW s= g O!c *d ? ,:! = =i> s .

2E MW ~.A' :5 3;E $ 2 U G l* u .5 8

-mW M' -W o8

=u "Wn : 3G -u w s 2 e t. =. .

3 S 'd W p:::  ?. e x W s.1 .=u ,.5in w' t = 3 .g C .g5-

3=t.c "'a. :ir u . . c - . .m. .

I 8

W n . . . - e . .

2 4 2 2 O 2,5 0 4 2  %

$ 2 S. c c. i. c T

d= y d

2 E W l$

W: -

I"'."- - w

".l ' 5 E- W .a #E e 5 b $

ve au ene m e :-

and uW In =

= 5

._ a e

.e ae

,. a e eae

__ g

-e == c_ w 8 e ,s = s w=w M: MEC 22 WB 3 3 3 ;2

• 3 I

TW5 I.g g a . =

W IM W W

=

N jaW g

. 5 <M o o o = c. a o

G1 d d d d a d d a d 3.

3 Ja

"~

3 l .

d "

c. c. I

• 3O T 3 '

3  ? ?l _. J J  :!:

" a a a II" *e '. . 3 3 ,c. a *. a

)  ?  ?  ? i s= .y= g a s"  ?

v. v v. tnoa::

i ve .a e -

3 . .3 =~ n- as = 9. .: e

.e -

3 c. . c 4 ~ m O O O 1 3 ,. a ..

p. a a a J.

l'M. .,

d .?.

?

e

?

m If  ?

n

?

n

?

n

?

4 u o u ,- u a u u se et -.-. ... --. 7 r. g ,,,  ;; . f m y y. ; ,, , : , , ,7 , , yg : , , c g , ,7 . . ,, j j -C Y ' '

I' (- ( (' O i' C (i fi (' O (- O O O ") O il

er.....e . . . u r .,. ? r 9 . . . = z e _r e e r_ = = r . .:.s=*=ers:- tc:: y  :-t***yr;-: ; .- ;, - .-.r . . :

l l

I ci

• • e, e4 W

2 "

. = .A. . A.

m . .

~,. m.

. =

.=..

. = .n

-. o v.

o c

8 8 Wi* 8, e

a 3 W o

e,

~ n.

. g . .rE c. o.

. . c. -. M.

. W . 4 54 u .,

.=

m

.e v

=

E .1at

.o

=

.=.d g

.e.

g R

3 2.h W

.a

.-i.

.5 g l.t *a.

J g e

M.

2.

aa a

=

m ma

41. md u:

.s a

a

.h a gi d

P

= = = = = = = = =

.5 I

a W

W . . . . . . .

= g g  %

=

=

=

=

=

=

l h.

W . c . .e n n c ~. .

3 e. e. n. a. ~. c. E. a.

u . -o. W

=

m .

=

=. W .

es M M MM . E M d d d 3 dd d d d a d m .

= . e . e . m Ch ..e e . . . .0

1. A A A A A .', A A A A A

EE 7  ?  ?  ?  ?  ? -

• 7 m .?. .? -

3 3 e ~ ~ e E o . o o o e

=

o

. 2 .

-W*

n n . n . n W A A A A A A A A A A N o o o e o o e o o o 4

, 2 5 M. SW I . - u.o l W '

I uu, E. E. .

. "' D. .

W W W W .

3 5

8

. m 'E

= m - m - .

p g :: 4 . ,

=

m.., a l

. .=.

.s 3

.. th.

, , g . .. .

- - a 12 . 3 W = g .A

. E a .

U 5

• M .A 2 .A J . W 8 W n* - .. a

., g Eld 9 l=., -o

= ,

o

. m S =. = **

'.7 ma Wd uW 43 = mE -

a4..

.al::t Si i a%

. 'a.uI .

. n.

. .- 2 S d ..

E 8 u m.=. .d.4 vW Wi . = . .c. o = n m.o 6

.==nu . 8J

e. - . .

bd -.4 - ". -.

E "'.

am

.E - . " . 2~*...

Es t =

.J r  % =

J Ek E Wll-

. 23 *- d

.. I."3 w idx.

3 eg

=

d5 .a.B -

uW m u 1 u.,

e.n.,

. ., =

x.- o

.a 5a 1Lu 'a m.

=>

A g

W EE

• E-b "'n 3.- d !.? *a E o 2 8..l"

. . .E U.

. t"  : .

m .a E E  %

M?u E -

E . W o{ Wo W l* is 2 3 L t! 2 3

- n.

.-. .* .A, .. a. .",;

o .

5.,

.c t.- = -n u o=

M m .

vd $pu.s

.=.

a u.a W .

- W a

".a iu S. S SJ 5!>J

• 2*J Se f'. 3  ?. 5.

2I..u u U., "!

y h

05 2. .a - = m

.a : . .= .na m.a o c s m==, .= m2 ~=

= s.o .='.*: -

.=4 Vm-es u ..W.+.4 o L.x. uu

o. == .

5- E z u us i-

- ia

=2; 5 g '5'. s 3 8 .'t G Ima 8 l'a t' a =2r-?

5.

u M

. E.

. . m. M M 6. J.

W'l W.

• .m h .

3 "a Ec.sa., ==i=.

. :> d . d Ca .A 4

m. .m.3 .

c n

5 5.J m.

0; .=1 u!2

m. M *.4 m c. s.*

.a 3. fW Si

.ra I

.o=

W 5 . . . . . .e . . . - .

S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 u

o

= W iI E E w ..

a -.

- a-

=

m - a ..al s

O.

g u.

O.

am a ,.a 'W

a .a o.

u .

W .2 CW CW =W I C;9 =G '2 G .b .G C

m W'W i - -m 'A..*.. &.

.3 p'l .= - . W . .o .m - - - W n.

o.4 u A .m

.n .t

.. w

u. W At

.n a't Al-oe s Ww- .n d 3 d -

d -

w-d w=

• 3 o .n o 3" Og Gz mW 2 # W  !!* d E5

. e eg 3

2g d- elm' We

• 7. .

W= Wn

=

Wu wa =e L

M W

W W 1 .W aM tt W

• M e, u

o 4'" c. o u o o a 8 o o

. d d d d d d d d d d d

~

~

n. e. . ~..

a.s, n. n. .

e

c. .e.

. . n. .o. E'.

.,. -  !,=... n -

.u 3 ..o. o .o.

-.a . . .

e ,,.an n.. n 41 e e, .

o c...

c.

,.,. l.4 s...,...

n.

Y ... n. ..,.

... o. ..e -. o..

u . ii" ....::a

.e e

.l .,> . => . o Jn - . . S.

-. .,.. o.

o. o.s e .. .e,.

. . o:

o. o.,sn-

> w o, en e ee .-

o. .'c. e. -.. n C o.. o.tr o. o. . o. . o.

Y Yn " . *. nJ . l .- aY Y J!J Y;n*.~.* "

a g no ao n o e. J.

e Y.

e a ao ao n an. . . Y. .- ca .s-Y.

8 o e . -. n v

• g () ee . f ~.

c c. r. e.

f F. N to r

9%  ? Y Y  ?  ?  ?  ?

o * !.

,  ?.

. -  ?- -  ?.

- 1 n n n .. n n .,

n n n

..u . u u u u u u o u l u u u I

. . - . .-

• f- -

T' - t ~~ Uu , - - - '  ; .  : a Y . s.  ;;  ; *

• \c

• l

. r. . .... : .?.

?=. a r - r +

• e v. WY - rv?z. . i. ,- ; 2 ; 1.s .

. ,: .e; ;y, ; .s.a 2.. .  ; . - . 7 r .c i

h l e M

= . . ., -

a R O

E = : . 3 W,

~

2

- g y

= .f c

4

..=

W gI~A

.CT. .

a.2t =

=

if "E m t.a'

.. - . w . 7.i

~

e.

.a.

W sa M .sa3 e.J t.,

.J l Q a

hs

.A

! .=3 o.4ei

.s e f.f e I =.

=.

c.

=

e m_

.a a

.g w .

n

. m a g-LC,

. d om.

l

.. n_=,.e .g3 r.. - 8 u

= .u. w = o w

.=.

~ .l . .

M w

M m.*l.

D*

_A s' .2 k

.a.e d.F W h

.J O

. -C3 ae t e . .,B 3

g '_J e., - m .s. - .

u s*. - .: 2 = 2 "'

T '.ad 's'g .

T 5 o W2 .o. d- - .

. e

~

d

=

.a. = = .: = = = = = = =

W W = .

. == = = = = = = = u h.a

= . . - - . .

5 u

e.e N. N.

=

O.

= ._ . .

== =.

. . .. .: . . .=. .= .

d M M M d d  % d d i,1 e g g e E e. w .

.e

. f.,

'. 2 . 2

=f s:' a a .L ,'. .. a A a a 4 W8 u

?

~ .?  ?  ?  ?

~ ~

? '?

n

?  ? ~

?

o a ~. ~. . o a ~. ~. .

g - 2 a

. . .=O 2

- W a .:.

A.

a a a a

a W A.

A A.

A A- A J . . . A. .

3

. g .

.- a n

=

u 8 W 3' 12 a

d M

3 3

i' W W W W. W W

. . - - . w

• U a_

i-_  ::' m ms o

.f .

. ~.

g.* 4

.a

.y. ,e., Q O .

g ,M - . C'S .J J ~.

S .,9

! f f. .6 3 g - oW 9

re . s y -

2 ..

dw I

.I 'Ia_. s= _ ,0 ,_ $

E

..=.

kE m,. J.

@ 5 h . ., 5E.

m- m h s

.= ~, #m ~.

.. D h Z e 6-A 4 CW T.# .=.d f tM AJ6N 4 .s. g ( Q bJ

• • kJ *e .,B.

m.d T &

Cp

.E M

O t5 "N = .

s.

=-*.

.=..,a .'.?

.. p. ww

';; 5

r."

. " Wc le  %. 0 m l M)d -1 =i.s .,. O .

W _O  %,

..w . ! a. =.a_a = em e

..==. c, w_

v W'.,

.e. _. .p3

.s l-

3 i _n. m _9 c ,'s e t. .

3..

s.J r WQ,. ._.4,. 3 .h. 1:W .

. s m

=m.

n.

e. =

a ..

. .., = .

. f.

- _.,m m

m.

s ., _ i z.. ,.. i~- -p w .,. - ..,,s .,

o p M

.- r 33

• . O w 't3 - 63 or e

= n,=n sw **.*LJ.,..J. ,s_ _ t

. w . ._m

- . , , = .,_m .J

.C

.w ,,,

-. s. .

.i .

- g x.a E -

:s

.. ~w 2r s =e e =. e .,..e

.a:

goww

-e W I.,, s R. _ e. -

- a. . ,

m <,

_ _1 -3 m, m . ._w.- - ,-=. m _

sw

-.a = _a,a ..

m a N-.mm a..a .,. , e m_u

_ . :_m--mes

- . e. . s e e us a. - i . e.e. , --

B l. g

.3aar_ _-

.. _ = . u w . ,.  :. .m oa i= w-a

= _-

• w t. a

. m_

au l5 w.

• a. w- .=

.=-

E . .O ,,. ~.'::

' 2 .m,'. a' :", = N m- . TIM. .E. _W'w  :" T mm

~,;g .s - ---

ame 5

4

= . . . ~ _

=

63 N a a N

3 N

a N .a o N

a

~ .a.

o N .as w

I a

-a

~ ..

1. a = = =

5 n a

...E O lW w

W Tf 9a w

.d =. -- - = _ , - .

.y w u i* , 4? .# ? i' _ ,c =

o M

m .L,.w.,

Ma M_ M yo-- oy . m u m- . m u u d ,W 2" "C c =

= W".,d2 8, 8

. " S.

W t'Jf"a.

.=Eg- 5 e;g ed

- WM

'

a dW as A =2 a= 1; k ll>

d 's au g Je L s - -

u

=

als w ,aJ Ls

= a

=

.. M E o a.

e a o .a t .2 o a d d d d d d d; d d d

e. ~.

= On -

.my i~.

~.,

i.,,

e

, ~ ,. .

...a

< ,4 im -

\~

v.

s Y

=

v

=

P-v vD c~.:

. ~

e

=

r= e

=

e

=

e

=

~

=

8 a = L.: r:

I- " - n b.=. .- k r,

.. ,, .t -

r, 1. 7 y v  ? >

. -  ?.

. '?. . v.

. Le v.

be v v y v (4 .:: - .v, v.

v, -

7 ., .v, - v.

F(

l. - .

.J

. . r.

tJ xm.-,

..J &A e.. c..;4 . 4

.J

.J

- m t,

&J

-: 3 ,

.J

.J tJ g .;.gr -

. r .

9 c. e) c 9 -.

o o o o o 9

6 "

. r. .-' .1 . - . . 7 2 W= . _ - = ; , y :. ..

; 1 :. x . , :. a . .ziaz.2 . . ;: : 1 . 1;.s sa.21: r- .- ~ --- -- .

I w

.G

.s c 2";f .

• B M a y g U a =

• w w  ?

E M I N e$ 3 c; D $

2 4 ti ** , Li .? t .: .

W  ? - N'* C s d" 2

.L 2

E

J O W M W3 r1 N," O . -.

3

• b ., a 2d 3

e E

U

$,5 9%

=:::

Esl an a 3

M 8

- = = = = =

W w

W "2

W * *

.. 2 2

=

5

R=

a y a N O M  :::

d h b N h d d d d d E

_ $_ @ 9

~

W'E "

7  ? ""

? *?

3 3 3 2 3

= 3 3 3 3 WI h h h h s = a = s 5

21 1,8

• - , 5 m

=

g o!d C

- = Wa ,

E

, 2 di ~, W w w w

g - w 5 * . w .

h~g $ $l 2 5 2 5 2

' =s T :fl 5 22 .

S S a g e . A a*

4 25: d 4 b a3* M a  % $ 8 l 4'2 5 W 4l8 eJ 2 Sd I 5

=

.: a.

4 5 tt'd"

= ~enw. = ma l 4= 'nS2 2 3 a g Old Sw 3l= " la 38 q'

.s agg G l.4 , .

e:= g "s w'* 2

. .=

O t'

• • 1 8 15 3 .;. c 4

. 5a2-m i$ += :lc" B 5 e a .,.

C". O 2 ':" 8,::t 3- g 2 . .W l*

M *- E g iip 45 3  :;; 2  :;" 2 hNg c. w5 af

~;s QW dW q E .3 eGa s iHf Di s! si eM E 3

3 W g a

=

~

=

~

=

~ g

' 3

= .

=

cf g

o

=

g:: . Ig = 2 us

= =q w:

3.=~ u ,4  % aC m u

• 5- ","

. C> "% M

.- ~d .u

"'* 2 03 2 6: 3W g ,

M M

=

M a

M

=1 o o o o

7. I d d d d d E

s"  ? 9 I l >3 a s

,, h h

- e. h. e.

g r

.is v  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

..a 1 a a s =

23 6 6 6 6 6

.. ...... ..: ... ..crr-: .. . .. . =2 ......m., , 2  ; -.

. .: r.

C G~C < < -

t i c i O -

': o o O o 3 0