ML20234E357
| ML20234E357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1987 |
| From: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234E089 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-R00284, TAC-R284, NUDOCS 8801080042 | |
| Download: ML20234E357 (185) | |
Text
gOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 I
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM RESULTS REPORT FOR ISAP - Vll.C 1 OCONSTRUCTION REINSPECTION / DOCUMENTATION REVIEW '
l VOLUME IV-D STRUCTURAL POPULATION REPORTS (APPENDICES 18 - 24)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY l
A DIVISION OF O TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY
[B!i2 888E SUSSjp
l=
Revision: 1 Page 1-of 30 i /~ RESULTS REPORT
(.
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)-
Appendix 18 Concrete Placement 4
1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construction work category of concrete placement is comprised of all safety-related concrete pours. Concrete placements (pours) encompass such concrete members as walls, slabs, beams, columns, piers, pedestals, and curbs.
1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work category, a population of approximately 7,600 items was identified as QC-accepted as of the date of this reinspection effort. Reinspection and
/"' documentation reviews were performed for a total of 154 ks ,)T accessible items. Of these, 151 first sample items were randomly selected from the population to ensure that at least 60 reinspection or documentation reviews of each attribute were performed. An additional 3 sample items were randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 safe-shutdown hardware items were reinspected or reviewed.
1.3 Attributes Selected Sample items were reinspected for the following attributes:
Attribute 1 - Location Attribute 2 - Size Attribute 3 - Surface conditions J
Attribute 4 - Anchor bolts and embedded plates l Sample item documentation was reviewed for the following attributes:
Attribute 5 - Batch plant operations
,-s, Attribute 6 - Concrete replacement activities Attribute 7 - Placement of reinforcing steel l
J i
Rsvision: 1 !
Pego 2 of 30
(i
\m /
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
Attribute 8 - Cadwelds and lap splices Attribute 9 - Anchor bolts and embedded plates Attribute 10 - Depositing and consolidating Attribute 11 - In-process concrete tests Attribute 12 - Curing records Attribute 13 - Compressive strength tests Attribute 14 - QC inspector certification
.n
(,))
(
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summarv of Results For reinspection, 41 Deviation Reports were issued describing l 62 deviations. Approximately 4,400 inspection points were encountered in performing these reinspection. See Table 18-1 for the'results of the reinspection.
For documentation review, 97 Deviation Reports were issued describing 152 deviations. Approximately 2,900 review points were encountered in performing the documentation reviews. See Table 18-2 for results of the documentation reviews.
Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Section 2.3.10, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are summarized in Section 2.3.10.
jeq In the four reinspection attributes of this population, none of the deviations was evaluated to be a construction
'sj deficiency. One unclassified trend was identified against
l Ravision: 1 Page 3 of 30 q
/ RESULTS REPORT
's ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
' Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Attribute 3 - Surface conditions regarding unsound concrete mortar at construction joints. See Section 2.2.3 for a discussion of this attribute.
In the nine documentation review attributes in this population (excluding QC inspector certification), one deviation was notab* e, and, the remainder of the deviations were determined to be insignificant. Two trends were identified: random inspection of truck mixing discussed in Section 2.3.1 and debris at construction joints discussed in Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.3.2.
2.2 Analysis of Reinspection Results
('] This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the
\s_/ reported deviations, an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the functional capability of the concrete members, and an analysis of the deviations for the presence of trends. The safety-related structural function of a concrete member is to provide support under design loading conditions.
2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Location In approximately 98 inspection points to verify that the concrete members were located as required by design drawings, two deviations were reported.
In one case, a concrete beam was 3/4 inch'from the location specified on the design drawings. This beam supported a slab with a tributary span of 7 feet 6 inches. The tributary load on the beam is not affected i by this 3/4 inch lateral shift in location. The effect l of the deviation on the slab is minor and insignificant.
l The other deviation was a concrete column located 2-1/2 i inches from its design location. This occurred because the column was built 2-1/2 inches wider than required.
The additional concrete does not decrease the design capacity and, as the column cross section is 5 feet by
( 4 feet 6 inches, the increase in mass is not significant.
A __-. _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Revision: 1 Page 4 of 30 RESULTS REPORT lf ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Evaluation of both deviations showed a negligible increase in load on the members and negligible eccentricities induced on the structural system. As there was no reduction in design capacity, these deviations were determined to be insignificant. Both location deviations were minor. It is expected that stnilar deviations, should they occur in the-uninspected portion of the concrete population, would also be insignificant. No adverse trends were identified.
2.2.2 Attribute 2 - Size In approximately 91 inspection points to verify that the concrete member size was as required by the design 9 drawings, two deviations were reported.
One deviation concerned a thickened portion of a wall for an equipment hatch that extended beyond the wall 35-3/8 inches rather than the required 36 inches. The combined thickness of wall and its thickened portion met the minimum thickness requirement of 7 feet 6 inches. As design strength is based on overall thickness, no reduction in design capacity occurred.
This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
The second deviation was reported on a wall pour that, by design, was required to be 4 feet thicR in one portion and 2 feet 9 inches in another. The reinspection results noted that the wall dimensions were 3 feet 11-3/16 inches and 2 feet 8-3/8 inches respectively. An evaluation showed that the effect on the design capacity of both portions of the wall was insignificant.
In the two reported deviations, the maximum deviation was 13/16 inch. As most concrete members are 2 feet thick or more, and as a review of concrete strength results, plotted on a daily basis, showed the concrete strength was typically more than ten percent higher 9 than required, this type of minor deviation would also be insignificant if it occurred in the uninspected portion of the concrete population. No adverse trends were identified.
Rsvision: 1 Page- 5 of 30 7 'N l l ) RESULTS REPORT I l \J l ISAP VII.c j (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 )
(Cont'd) i
)
l 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.3 Attribute 3 - Surf ace Conditions In approximately 320 inspection points checked for surface condition, 36 deviations were reported.
The reinspection of surface condition includes examination for abandoned drilled holes, cored holes, surface voids, foreign materials, cracks, and patching.
Each of the categories with deviations is discussed as follows:
Abandoned Drilled Holes
,,_, The concrete members were inspected to determine if
( ) abandoned holes, primarily a result of drilled-in N' anchors that were not used, were repaired. An unrepaired abandoned hole could affect the structural capacity of the concrete member if the hole exposed enough reinforcing steel to permit extensive corrosion.
In approximately 80 inspection points for abandoned holes, ten deviations were reported.
Eight deviations concerned abandoned holes that did not expose reinforcing steel. In seven of these cases, the !
hole diameters ranged from 1/4 to 1 inch, with a maximum depth of 16 inches. In the remaining case, the abandoned hole was 1-1/2 inches in diameter and 29 inches deep in an exterior wall that is 30 inches thick. A curb wall for a ventilation opening was poured directly abutting this wall at the point where the hole was drilled, resulting in 30 inches of concrete beyond the hole. Apparently an attempted installation of a thru-bolt could not be completed due to the interference of the abutting wall. As no reinforcing steel was exposed, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Two deviations concerned exposed reinforcing steel. In
/'
each case the exposed area was less than 1/2 square
'\s,) inch. It was determined that should any corrosion occur, the rate of corrosion, based on this small opening, would have a negligible effect on the overall area of reinforcing steel in the concrete members throughout the life of the plant.
Rsvision: 1 Page 6 of 30 g) I RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
As these deviations exposed only small localized areas of single reinforcing steel bars, similar deviations, if they were to exist in the uninspected portion of the concrete population, would not have a significant effect on the typically heavily reinforced concrete members.
No adverse trends were identified.
Cored Holes The concrete members were inspected to ensure there were no unauthorized cored holes. Authorization for cored holes was obtained via Core Drill Request Cards.
/ Authorization in cases where reinforcing steel was to k--)' be cut was obtained via DCA. In approximately 80 inspection points, two deviations were reported.
One deviation conccrned a cored hole authorized by a Core Drill Request Card that had notched a small port 1on of the end of a reinforcing steel bar. The concrete was chipped prior to coring to locate the reinforcing steel. A tolerance for locating the hole was specified by site engineering on the Core Drill Request Card. The hole location, with the specified tolerance, could result in notching of the bar.
However, proper authorization for cutting of reinforcing steel was not obtained. The & valuation of this deviation showed that, since the stress at the end of the reinforcing bar was small, the effect of the notch on the design capacity of the concrete member was minimal and the deviation was, therefore, determined to be insignificant.
The second deviation concerned a 7-inch diameter hole cored 4 inches from the location specified on the ;
design documents. The concrete was chipped prior to coring to locate the reinforcing steel. Though it appears the core location was moved to miss existing t]
exposed reinforcing steel, a con ~servative evaluation (m,/ was performed, based on the assumption that the maximum amount of reinforcing steel was cut. The decrease in design capacity was determined to be insignificant.
Ravision: 1
, Page 7 of 30 bG RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd,)
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
As both deviations involved chipping per construction procedure 35-1195-MCP-13, " Core D1111ng",'to locate reinforcing steel prior to coring, it is expected that similar deviations, if present in the uninspected portion of the population, would also be insignificant because there is no evidence to suggest that holes were cored at locations out-of-tolerance except to avoid cutting rebar. Thus, no adverse trends were identified.
Surface Voids In approximately 80 inspection points for the presence of unrepaired surface voids, eight deviations were reported.
Two of the deviations concerned surface voids, caused by the bolting of formwork, affecting a maximum area of approximately 20 square inches and up to 2-5/8 inch deep. Five deviations concerned miscellaneous surface voids ranging from 3 to 18 square inches of affected I surface, with a depth ranging from 1-1/4 to 3-5/8 inches. Evaluations of these seven deviations showed a minor percentage of the surface was affected and-the reduction of the concrete member's cross-sectional properties was minimal. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Because of the small size and depth of these surface voids, and as no reinforcing steel was exposed, these l deviations are primarily of a cosmetic nature. If similar deviations were to exist in the uninspected portion of the concrete population they would also be insignificant.
One deviation concerned a surface void on the top of a concrete pour that filled a blockout approximately one foot square in a 2-foot-thick wall. This void was 1/8 inch in height and extended 7 inches deep into the wall for the full length of the blockout. As the
-O configuration of the blockout includes shear keys, the blockout can perform its function of remaining in place under design loadings; therefore, the deviation was
Revision: .1 Pags 8 of 30 V
(N-v RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) determined to be insignificant. The void is typical of that caused by an air pocket, which.can result from the construction practice in which both sides of the wall blockout are formed and concrete is' gravity-fed through a small opening.in one of the forms. Entrapped air tends to be forced co the opposite side. . This
. deviation type is considered to be limited to blockouts.
that are required to remain in place under design
' loadings. 'Since standard blockout details per drawing 2323-S-0785 include shear keys, other deviations of this type would also be insignificant.
No adverse trends were identified.
Foreign Materials
- 3 i
In approximately 80 inspection points, a total of 16 I
deviations were reported for construction debris, such as tie wire, wood chips, and nails, visible at the concrete surface.
One deviation concerned a thin strip of insulation 6 inches long located at mid-height.in a 30-inch-thick wall pour. This is believed to be due to debris that was attached to the formwork at the time of the pour, and is insignificant in relationship to the cross-section of the wall. Therefore, this deviation was. determined to be insignificant.
The remaining 15 deviations concerned debris located at construction joints. Ten were for pours that filled ,
blockouts. Three cases were for concrete columns. Two deviations were noted regarding wall pours. In these 15 deviations, the debris visible at the concrete surface was insignificant in relation to the cross section of the concrete members.
To investigate and correct the reported conditions (i.e., to determine the extent of debris beyond the surface), chipping to sound concrete was directed by
() Project engineering. In two such cases the third party observed that concrete columns were chipped to
1 Rsvision: 1 Paga 9 of 30 RESULTS REPORT
[]
V ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) l t
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) approximately 6 inches beyond the depth of the q reinforcing steel and approximately 20 percent of the cross-section was removed. In both cases, the amount of debris (wood chips, nails, and tie wire) was slight and scattered and was insignificant in relation to the column cross-section. However, unsound concrete mortar was noted during the chipping. This was apparently due to the poor quality of the first layer of mortar (starter grout). This mortar is placed at the construction joint to ensure bonding between pours, and consists of the same cement-sand proportions (without coarse aggregate) as the concrete to be placed. As the unsound mortar extended beyond the surface and past the reinforcing steel, and its full extent could no?. be determined by non-destructive inspection methods
(~')
x ,_/ available to CPRT, these two deviations are notable.
Since the safety significance of this type of uncharacterized deviation could not be determined, an unclassified trend was identified. This is discussed further in Sections 3.0 and 4.0.
Debris was found at 15 construction joints of the 98 reinspected. In all these cases the amount and size of the debris visible at the surface was slight and scattered and in the two cases that were destructively ,
examined, the sub-surface debris was similar. Similar I debris, if found elsewhere in the uninspected portion of the population, would also be insignificant.
Therefore, no adverse trend was identified regarding construction debris. However, a trend was identified and a recommendation for improvement was made. See Section 2.3.2.
2.2.4 Attribute 4 - Anchor Bolts and Embedded Plates In a total of approximately 3,900 inspection points to verify proper size and embedment of anchor bolts and embedded plates, 22 deviations were reported.
Eighteen deviations involved anchor bolts whose 7- .s These 18 bolts were part of projections were cut.
i
-' ) three sample items. Projection is checked to provide t
_-_-------_________w
l l
R2 vision: 1 1 Pags. 10 of 30
[D RESULTS REPORT
(/
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) assurance that the anchor bolts are set correctly.
Proper replacement inspections of the setting of these anchor bolts exists and in all cases proper nut engagement exists. The portion of the bolt projections that were cut were beyond the nut and would not effect the capacity of the bolts. Deviations of this type were therefore determined to be insignificant.
Two deviations concerned two 2-1/2-inch-diameter, 24-inch-long anchor bolts that projected from the concrete surface 7/8 inch more than that specified on the design drawing. The embedment lengths of the anchor bolts were 4 percent less than that required; however, review of the concrete strength test results f'~N for this sample showed that the concrete strength is
( higher than the required design strength by a sufficient amount to offset the loss of embedment.
Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Review of concrete strength test results, plotted on a daily basis, showed that increase in actual concrete strength over required strength was typically more than enough to offset the reduction in embedment capacity of similar deviations that might exist in the uninspected portion of the concrete population.
One deviation concerned an anchor bolt that was 5/16 inch closer to the edge of concrete than that shown on the drawing. Because the anchor bolt was installed with a sleeve to allow a location tolerance, and the tolerance within the sleeve was greater than 5/16 inch, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
One deviation concerned spacing between embedded strip plates that were 1/2 inch further apart than specified on the design drawings. An evaluation indicated that the increase in gap between embedded plates did not affect the function of the embedded plate. Therefore, r3 this deviation was determined to be insignifiestt.
('-) No adverse trends were identified.
Revision: 1 Page 11 of 30
((m.) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.3 Analysis of Documentation Review Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the documentation review deviations and an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the ability of the evidence collected to provide reasonable assurance that the concrete was constructed in accordance with design requirements.
2.3.1 Attribute 5 - Batch Plant Operations In approximately 500 review points. 105 deviations were reported concerning concrete batch plant operations.
Two batch plants existed on site: a main plant where
()
concrete was centrally (automatically) mixed, and a dry-batch backup plant where mixing was done-in trucks.
The reviews for this attribute addressed mix designation, minimum mixing revolutions of truck-mixed concrete, discharge time of concrete trucks, calibration of batch plant scales, and proper completion of batch tickets (showing mix proportions).
Deviations were reported in four of these categories.
In approximately 100 inspection points no deviations were reported for verifying documentation showing that the batch plant scales were in calibration. Each of the categories with deviations is discussed below.
Mix Designation The field engineer records the desired mix on the Concrete Pour Card and requests the mix from the batch plant. Both plants recorded concrete mix data on batch tickets, showing the mix proportions of each 10-cubic-yard capacity truck. The concrete produced was tested and the results were recorded on the Concrete Placement Summary.
The batch tickets and laboratory tests were reviewed to ensure that the mix number listed was the same mix
(, number specified by the field engineer. Approximately 100 inspection points were reviewed and seven
_r ,
J l
Ravision: 1-Page 12 of 30 1
RESULTS REPORT
- ISAP VII.c l (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) deviations were reported. The deviations are in two categories; four deviations for misrecorded or omitted pour numbers and three deviations for incorrect mix designation.
Four deviations concerned pour documentation that did not list the correct pour numbers. A review of all pours made on the dates involved in these four cases showed that in two cases, one letter in the ten-character pour number was mislabeled on the batch ticket. Once the correct pour number wse established' the documentation was located s7d the sttribute verified. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant. The two remaining deviations concerned pour numbers not listed on any batch tickets.
Both cases were pours filling blockouts with a volure less than 1 cubic yard. Typically on small pours, the batch ticket used-for the 10-cubic-yard trucks will contain several pour numbers. As the pour numbers were not listed, all bacch tickets produced on the days these pours were made were reviewed and it was shown that the mixes made were acceptable for these pours.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Three deviations reported that the mix supplied by.the batch plant (and consequently tested by the laboratory) did not match the mix specified by the field engineer.
Evaluations showed that each mix provided*by the batch plant, when compared to the mix specified by the field .
engineer, though different, was acceptable. In two !
cases the only difference between them was the allowable concrete placement temperature range. As the recorded temperature fell within both allowable ranges, the discrepancies in mix designation were inconsequential and there was no effect on the concrete pours. The third deviation showed that the mix used was different than that specified by the field engineer, but equally acceptable. As the mixes used were cceeptable, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Ravision: 1 Page 13 of 30 1
/ RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
' Appendix.18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Truck-Mixed Concrete Inspection reports were reviewed to verify that concrete and mortar mixed in trucks at the backup plant completed the minimum required' mixing revolutions.
In approximately 100 review points, 36 deviations concerned the lack of a notation indicating that the minimum number of revolutions was verified. These deviations were due to the site practice of performing this inspection on a random surveillance basis, rather than for each truck. Inspection procedure QI-QP-11.0-8, " Concrete Production Inspection", does not state that random surveillance of this attribute is
/"' acceptable. The construction procedure 35-1195-CCP-10, is,)N " Concrete Batch Plant Operations", required each backup plant truck to meet minimum mixing criteria.
As truck mixing is required only at the backup plant where mortar was the principal product. 34 of these deviations were for mortar and two were for concrete.
The mortar mix used consisted of the same sand-cement proportions as its corresponding concrete mix. It is considered likely that the mortar will properly mix in less revolutions than-its corresponding concrete mix.
As a review of the compressive test results for mortar showed the strength met design requirements, mixing mortar to the same requirements as concrete and utilizing a random surveillance provides assurance that this criterion is being met. Thus, a random surveillance of minimum mixing criteria is ccasidered to be acceptable for mortar, and the reported deviations regarding inspection of mortar mixing were determined to be insignificant.
The two deviations regarding truck-mixed concrete involved two pours. Both pours had laboratory tests of air content, slump (a measure of workability),
temperature, and compressive strength on samples takan s from the trucks. In both cases, all test results met s design requirements, providing reasonable assura'nce that proper mixing occurred. In addition, laboratory test results for all concrete mixes, available on a
J Rsvision: 1 Page 14 of 30 m RESULTS REPORT s_- )
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) daily basis, were plotted and a review of these plots revealed uniformity in the test results, providing additional assurance that the concrete used was mixed correctly. These two deviations were, therefore, determined to be insignificant. Based on the above discussion, there is reasonable assurance that proper mixing was done for all concrete mixes. However, a trend was identified for random inspection of truck ,
mixing and a recommendation for improvement is made in Section 4.2 to prevent future occurrence of this type !
of deviation.
Discharge Time of Concrete Trucks
(~'h The maximum time at which a concrete truck can
\- discharge its load is limited in order to avoid difficulties in working and consolidating the concrete, loss of entrained air, and to avoid excessive wear of the aggregate.
In review of approximately 100 inspection reports for notation of the discharge time of concrete trucks, 61 deviations were reported.
These 61 deviations were that the acceptance of the truck discharge time was not listed on the inspection report. Each inspection report did reference the inspection procedure containing this attrlbute.
In most cases, a pre-printed inspection checklist was used that did not list this attribute and the inspector did not add this item.
l The seventh edition of the ACI Manual of Concrete l Inspection states that a time limit is not necessary as long as the concrete can be properly placed, fdlly consolidated and finished without the addition of unauthorized water that could raise the water-cement ratio above its maximum allowable. All pours lacking notation of discharge time had acceptable slump test results, indicating the concrete was workable, and each
(Ns,) showed the proper use of vibrators, indicating that the concrete was workable and could be consolidated. The main contribution of entrained air is its ability to i
Rsvision: 1 Page 15 of 30 RESULTS REPORT U).
ISAP VII.c 1 (Cont'd) 1 I
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
I provide small air pockets which allows a place for freezing water to expand, thus increasing freeze-thaw I
resistance. Though the Texas environmcut is no?
subject to. freeze-thaw extremes, each of the above pours was reviewed and each had air content test results within the allowable range. With the exception of the deviation discussed under the heading " Batch Tickets", all sample documentation did not indicate the addition of any unauthorized water, and the one deviation involving possible unauthorized addition of water had maintained the proper water-cement ratio. As all associated compressive strength test results met design requirements, there is reasonable assurance that excessive wear of the aggregate did not occur.
- Several of the above deviations were from items whose documentation contained transmittals documenting rejected truckloads of concrete that exceeded the 90-minute limit, providing evidence that this attribute was verified, but not specifically recorded on the inspection. reports. ;
As there is reasonable assurance that these inspecti'ns o were performed, but not listed on the checklist, these types of deviations were determined to be insignificant. As the current inspection procedure contains this attribute on a pre-printed checklist, future occurrence of this type of deviati8n will be prevented.
Batch Tickets 1
i Batch tickets were reviewed to verify that they had been filled out correctly. In approximately 100 review points. one deviation was reported.
The deviation involved a concrete placement summary that recorded that water was added to a concrete truck after it had left the batch plant; however, the corresponding batch ticket did not list the addition of water, nor
( did it contain the required testing laboratory approval. The evaluation could not determine whether water was actually added or if an error existed on the I
1 l
Revision: - 1 Paga 16 of 30
-['T RESULTS REPORT U
ISAP VII.c
-(Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) placement summary. As the amount of water listed as added on the placement summary was within the allowable listed on the batch ticket to maintain the required water-cement ratio and the placement summary was signed by laboratory personnel, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.3.2 Attribute 6 - Concrete Replacement Activities l
In approximately 400 review points for notation of completion of the activities necessary prior to placing of concrete, a total of eight deviations was reported.
Concrete replacement activities include preparation.of construction joints, seismic air gap, installation of k formwork and waterstops, and pour card signoff. In approximately 300 review points, no deviations were reported for notation of the use of proper formwork, installation of waterstops, or for the proper signoff-of the concrete pour card by construction, engineering, and QC. Each of the categories with deviations is discussed below.
Preparation of Construction Joints Inspection reports were reviewed for notation of the proper preparation of construction joints. In approximately 100 review points, six deviations were reported.
, Five deviations were that the item on the inspection report checklist for preparation of construction joints did not match that specified in the corresponding QC inspection procedure. The inspection procedure requires " construction joints clean and thoroughly wetted with no standing water". The checklist reads
" construction joints clean", with no mention of the wetting of the construction joint. This type of deviation was determined to be insignificant, as
" construction joints clean" is considered an O.
abbreviation for the full check of the single attribute
Ravision: 1 Page 17.of 30 RESULTS REPORT
'ISAP VII.c (Cont'd).
Appendix 18 .
(Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) of the inspection procedure (which is referoaced on each inspection report). However, Section 2.2.3,
" Foreign Materials", reports 16 deviations for small amounts of surface debris visible at the surface of construction joints. The limits on how clean the construction joints needed to be appears to have been left to the subjective judgment of the inspectors. As a consequence, there were times when amounts of debris were left that were detectable but still insignificant.
A trend for debris at construction joints was identified and a recommendation is made in Section 4.2 for clarification ef this inspection criteria.
One deviation was that this attribute was not listed on the handwritten inspection checklist. No deviations
(]/
e were reported for debris at the construction joint in the reinspection of this pour. Had the joint not been properly wetted the dryness of the preceeding pour could have drawn water from the pour in question. As there is no recorded evidence that this attribute was checked, this deviation was determined to be notable.
Section 2.2.3, " Surface Conditions", under the heading
" Foreign Material" identifies an unclassified trend for unsound mortar at construction joints and recommends a program be developed that will evaluate the quality of mortar placed at joints. As implementation of this program will result in reinspection of construction joints and the mortar would be most effected by improper joint preparation, satisfactory completion of l the program will provide additional evidence that no programmatic concerns exist.
Seismic Air Gap An air gap is required to be maintained in clean !
condition between buildings that are subject to i differential movement during a seismic event.
In seven review points, twa deviations were for a lack A of notation of inspector acceptance of the cleanliness
() of seismic air gaps on the inspection report form.
1
Rzvision: 1 Page 18 of 30 (g
U
- RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cent'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
This concern has been previously recognized, and a corrective action program has been implemented (ISAP II.c) that consists of reinspection of all seismic air ,
gaps. Therefore, no further analysis was performed.
i 2.3.3 Attribute 7 - Placement of Reinforcing Steel In approximately 400 review points for notation of the proper placement of reinforcement steel, two deviations-were reported.
The review of the placement of reinforcing steel documentation addressed the amount of concrete cover
,,_ for reinforcing steel, anchorage length of dowels,
( ) reinforcing steel size, and reinforcing spacing.
\' Deviations were reported in two of these categories.
In approximately 200 review points, no deviations were reported for size or spacing. Esch of the categories with deviations is discussed below.
Concrete Cover Inspection reports were reviewed for notation that concrete cover was in accordance with the design documents. This concrete cover protects the reinforcing steel from possible corrosion.
In approximately 100 review points for tha attribute of {
concrete cover, one deviation was reported.
The deviation was that the attribute of proper concrete cover for reinforcing steel was not listed on the inspection checklist. All other attributes pertaining to reinforcing steel were properly recorded. The j inspection report for the adjacent pour was found to j contain the cover attribute and as the same reinforcing steel extended through both pours with the same cover ,
requirement. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that the correct cover was provided. This deviation
(T was determined to be insignificant.
V i
Rsvision: 1 Page 19 of 30
/ \ RESULTS REPORT d
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Anchorage Length of Dowels Inspection reports were reviewed for notation that the anchorage length of dowels was in accordance with the design documents. A dowel is a reinforcing steel bar used to connect two different pours. The anchorage length per drawing 2323-S-0786 is that portion of the bar that extends into the initial placement.
In approximately 100 review points for the anchorage length of dowels, one deviation was reported.
The deviation was that the attribute of anchorage length of reinforcing dowels was not listed on the
(~)
k/
inspection checklist. The inspector did list that the
- size, number, and lap splices of the reinforcing steel were correctly installed. Dowels are generally used to connect different pours; however, this single checklist covered multiple pours including the pour above the anchorage length of the dowels. The portion of the dowel above the anchorage length is a lap splice. In order for the correct number of bars to be installed and the correct lap splices to be installed the correct anchorage length would have to exist. The required dowels were clearly delineated on the engineers drawings, and the inspector refcrenced these drawings on his inspection report. The detailer's drawing was also clear in its instruction to construction as to the required installation of these dowels. It i= therefore considered to be very likely that construction installed the correct anchorage length and that it was inspected as part of the other reinforcing steel attributes. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.3.4 Attribute 8 - Cadwelds and Lap Splices Inspection reports were reviewed for notation that cadwelds and lap splices met design requirements. A
(
(_,}/
cadweld is a mechanical splice of reinforcing steel bars used mainly on larger size bars where lap splices are impractical or.otherwise prohibited by code.
Rsvision: 1 Page 20 of 30 t% 1 RESULTS REPORT
( ,)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) l I
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) ;
Approximately 120 review points were encountered, with one deviation reported concerning an inspection block that was blank. All other reinforcing steel attributes were listed and checked correctly. Review of detail drawings showed that there were no cadwelds required and that the required lap splices were for horizontal bars in a wall pour. The horizontal bars were to be installed in three sections, with the middle section lapping the two end sections. The only way the lap splices could have been installed incorrectly would be for the middle bar to be shifted, resulting in too much of a lap splice on one end and not enough on the other.
However, due to the symmetry of the reinforcing placement this is considered to have been unlikely. As only one inspection report in approximately 120 (s)
- reviewed was left blank, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.3.5 Attribute 9 - Anchor Bolts and Embedded Plates In approximately 70 review points to confirm proper type and installation of embedded plates and anchor bolts, seven deviations were reported.
Anchor Bolts Four deviations were that the anchor bolt type was not listed on the checklist. In all cases, material requisitions for the proper anchor bolts were present in the pour package documentation. Size and projection were verified for these bolts as a reinspection attribute, and both were shown to match the correct anchor bolt type. This provides evidence that the correct bolts were installed. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Embedded Plates One deviation involved an embedded ring plate that
(T supports the cover for an equipment hatch. The
(_ / deviation reported that the ring plate was 1
I
Rsvision: 1 l
Page 21 of 30 g
RESULTS REPORT (D'
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) misinterpreted by construction and QC as being non-nuclear-safety-related (NNS). This is believed to have occurred as all other embeds on the design drawing that contained the ring plate were NNS. The ring plate was purchased as a safety-related component. The difference between a safety-related installation and a NNS installation is that, for safety-related installations, a material requisition is required for traceability. The inspector would then verify that the item installed matches the design drawing and the material requisition. As the ring plate is physically installed correctly and the required traceability can be obtained from the receipt inspection report, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
t,_T Ns l Two deviations were that the acceptance of embedded plate installation was not indicated on the inspection checklist. For these installations, the correct material requisitions were in the pour packages and the correct embedment plate sizes were verified by the reinspection effort, thus providing evidence that the correct embedded plates were installed. These deviations were, therefore, determined to be insignificant.
2.3.6 Attribute 10 - Depositing and Consolidating Inspection reports were reviewed for notation of the methods of depositing and consolidating. This provides assurance that the concrete placed is uniform, fills all parts of the forms (to eliminate air and rock pockets), and forms a bond with the reinforcing steel and adjacent concrete.
In approximately 700 review points for depositing and consolidating, a total of nine deviations were reported.
The depositing and consolidating attribute addressed placement rate, amount of placement, minimization of r~')s
(_, segregation, elevation of placement, speed of vibrators, penetration of vibrators and the extent vibrators can be used to move concrete in congested areas.
l 3
Rsvision: 1 Page- 22 of 30
/ RESULTS REPORT
)j ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) I Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Seven deviations concerned one sample for which the inspection report left blank the seven depositing and consolidating categories noted above. The inspection !
report is a preprinted card with attributes listed'on both sides. As the inspection report covered 10 pours done that day, it could only be filled out after the last of the pours was completed. It appears that the inspector, after~ completion of the final pour, did noc fill out the reverse side of the inspection report that.
listed the above attributes. A reference to the equipment used by the inspector to monitor the vibrator speed was made on the front side. This pour was reinspected and no surface void deviations were reported. This provides reasonable assurance that the
/N inspection was done, and these deviations were, b therefore, determined to be insignificant.
Two deviations were reported on one sample because the attributes of vibrator penetration and the extent that vibrators can be used to move concrete were not listed on the handwritten inspection report checklist. The )
inspection procedure referenced on the inspection '
report required the verification of these two attributes. This pour was reinspected and no surface ;
void deviations were reported. The vibrator speed was listed by the inspector on the inspection report. As I vibrators were used and the required vibrator l l
attributes were clearly listed in the referenced inspection procedure, there is reasonable assurance that this inspection was performed. These two deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.3.7 Attribute 11 - In-process Concrete Tests The Concrete Placement Summaries were reviewed to determine if in-process test results of concrete were i in accordance with the design requirements. The in-process tests are for air content, temperature, and slump. These tests are performed at the point of p placement of the concrete and ensure that the concrete d
Ravision: 1 Pags 23 of 30
(}
%.)
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) is uniform and workable and can develop the required design strength. The slump test is a measure of concrete consistency and workability, and is required a minimum of one per every 50 cubic yards. (approximately one out of every five concrete trucks).
In review of approximately 300 review points, six deviations were reported.
Four deviations concerned four concrete placement j summaries that were not available for review and, therefore, the air content, temperature, and slump test results could not be verified. These summaries are for the same four pours identified in Section 2.3.1
/ (Attribute 5, batch plant operations mix designation)
(s_)T where the pour number had been misrecorded. In two cases, one letter in the ten-character pour number was mislabeled on the batch ticket. Once the correct pour number was established, the proper in-process tests were verified. The o.ther two deviations were reported where the pour numbers were not listed on any batch ticket and were resolved by reviewing all the results for in-process tests completed on the day the pours were performed. All of these in-process tests were shown to be acceptable. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Two deviations concerned slump test results that exceeded the allowable slump by 1/2 inch. This could have been an indication of a decrease in compressive strength due to high water content. However, the evaluation of one deviation showed that a compression test was performed on a sample taken from the same truck with the high slump test result, and it showed the compressive strength to be above the required compressive strength of 4,000 psi and the proper water-cement ratio to have been maintained. Therefore, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
O LJ i
f Revision: i Page 24 of 30
/i 'RESULTS REPORT y .
1 ISAP VII.c j (Cont'd) ]
l Appendix 18 i (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The evaluation of the other high-slump deviation showed that seven of the eight trucks sampled for that pour ;
had acceptable slump test results and the proper water-cement ratio was maintained. Though the .
compressive tests (taken a minimum of one in 100 cubic !
yards, or approximately one in 10 trucks) for this pour did not coincide with the truck with the high slump, it was shown that the trucks sampled for the compressive '
strength tests had mix proportions similar to the truck with the high slump, that no water was,added to the-truck, and that their test results were above the minimum required strength.- This deviation was determined to be insignificant as adequate evidence n exists that the compressive strength exceeded the
.( minimum required.
2.3.8 Attribute 12 - Curing Records l
Inspection reports were reviewed for notation of proper curing and weather protection. Proper curing consists primarily of keeping the concrete moist and protected from extreme temperature variations for seven days after placement.
In approximately 200 review points, 11 deviations were reported.
Six deviations were that the follow-up inspection of the curing compound (seven days after application) for possible accidental damage, was not documented. The follow-up inspection is secondary in nature (the primary inspection, which was documented as having been performed in each of these cases, occurs just after the application of the curing compound). These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Three deviations were that the inspector did not properly sign the bottom of the curing inspection report. In each of these cases, the inspection reports
/
N contained the daily curing log, which was initialed and q d dated, indicating that proper curing had occurred. The inspector's initials are present on a daily basis, providing reasonable assurance that the inspection was done. Therefore, these deviations were determined to
- be insignificant.
c i
Rsvision: 1 Page 25 of 30 l RESULTS REPORT
(}
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Two deviations were that the date of form removal was left blank. In both cases, the daily curing log was present, providing verification that the inspector witnessed the curing process and that it met the required curing procedures. The date of form removal is not, in itself, significant if proper curing occurs.
Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.3.9 Attribute 13 - Compressive Strength Tests Concrete cylinders for use in compressive strength tests are required per each 100 cubic yards (approximately one of every 10 concrete trucks). Two <
g sets of cylinders are made: one set is field-cured alongside the pour it represents, and one is laboratory-cured. Compressive tests of these two sets I of cylinders ensure that the required minimum design strength is achieved and, by comparing the results of the lab-cured cylinders with those cured in the field, that proper curing has occurred.
In review of approximately 200 compressive strength test results, three deviations concerned misrecorded i documentation for three concrete pours (three field-cured and three lab-cured sets of concrete cylinders).
These three pours are also identified under Attribute 5 under the heading Mix Designation and AttrChute 11 "In-process Concrete Tests." One deviation resulted from a misrecording of the pour number. Based on the correct pour number, the proper compressive strength tests were verified. The other two deviations occurred because the pour number was not listed on any batch ,
ticket. A review of all documentation for compression I tests made for concrete produced on the days the pours were made showed acceptable compressive strength tests in both cases.
O 1
l Ravision: 1 l
Pags 26 of 30 A RESULTS REPORT
' Y.)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
As compressive strength test results were shown to be acceptable in all cases, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.3.10 Attribute 14 - QC Inspector Certification Approximately 900 review points were reviewed to determine if the QC inspector who signed the inspection report or test results was appropriately certified to perform the inspection or test for concrete placements.
Deviations were identified whenever evidence of j certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be e found. However, as a result of the ISAP.I.d.1
! evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP I.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all inspectors either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those l with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise j shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details i are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS l An unclassified trend was identified regarding unsound concrete l mortar at construction joints. Since sufficient information to determine the safety significance or root cause could not be obtained, a program is recommended in Section 4.1 to investigate the subject of unsound mortar. The root cause and generic b implications will be determined within this program.
3 Revision: 1 Paga 27 of 30 V
/} RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18
-(Cont'd) :
i 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Recommendations for Corrective Action ,
l The following recommendation is considered necessary to ensure the, functional capability of concrete members:
Unsound Concrete Mortar i The placement of concrete mortar at construction joints was identified as an unclassified trend. A program is required i that will achieve the following: !
)
- 1. Perform safety-significance evaluations of the two reported cases of unsound mortar.
- 2. Select additional construction joints and examine the
, f-~s mortar quality.
t
- 3. In the event that unsound mortar is detected at'these joints, determine if additional inspections are required and repair as necessary.
- 4. Determine the root cause and generic implications of unsound mortar, if possible, and address them a's necessary.
4.2 Recommendations for Improvement The following recommendations are made to ensure future documentation clearly represents the requirements of the concrete design specification and the corresponding inspection procedures:
Random Inspection of Truck Mixing Inspection procedure QI-QP-11.0-8, " Concrete Production Inspection", should be revised to state which attributes are to be checked on a random surveillance basis and which attributes require 100 percent inspection.
For ease of operation, all trucks should have QC verification that a minimum of 70 revolutions has been obtained prior to the truck leaving the back-up plant regardless of whether the O, truck contain concrete or mortar.
'1
)
R2 vision: 1 Pags 28 of 30
(] RESULTS REPORT
(_)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
' Appendix 18 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd)
Debris at Construction Joints Section 3.2.lg of inspection procedure QI-QP-11.0-3,
" Inspection of Concrete and Mortar Placement", should be revised to indicate clearly if any amount of surface debris at construction joints is considered acceptable. If no amount of debris is considered acceptable, then QC and construction personnel should be retrained with respect to cleanliness requirements. If a slight amount of scattered debris is. ,
considered acceptable, then the appropriate technical I justification and engineering approval should be provided,
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
.e S The reinspection and documentation review of the concrete placement j
(^) population has demonstrated that, contingent on satisfactory completion of recommendation 4.1 (unsound concrete mortar), and the i
resolution of other concrete external source issues, there is reasonable assurance that the concrete is adequately installed to perform its safety-related function.
/h
.___.-_.-q R$ vision: 1 Pago 29 of 30 i
()
\.J RESULTS REPORT l ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 (Cont'd)
Table 18-1 Summary of Reinspection Results Concrete Placement Deviation Classification Number of Inspection Number of Insigni- Construction Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable Deficiency
- 1) Locat1on 98 2 2 0 0
- 2) Size 91 2 2 0 0
- 3) Surface Conditions 320 36 34 2 0
/~N, 4) Anchor Bolts and
( ,)
Embedded Plates 3,900 22 22 0 0 TOTALS 4,409 62 60 2 0 Approximately (4,400) i
+
O
R2 vision: 1 Pags 30 of 30 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c- j (Cont'd)
Appendix 18 )
(Cont'd)
Table 18-2 ,
1 Summary of Documentation Review Results '
Concrete Placement Deviation Classification i
Number of Review Number of Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable i
- 5) Batch Plant Operation 500 105 105 0
- 6) Concrete Replacement Activities 400 8 7 1
- 7) Placementlof lg _
Reinforcing Steel 400 2 2 0
- 8) Cadwelds'and Lap Splices 120 1 1 0
- 9) Anchor Bolts and Embedded Plates 70 7 7 0
- 10) . Depositing and Consolidating 700 9 9 0
- 11) In-process Concrete Tests 300 6 6 0
- 12) Curing Records 200 11 11 0
- 13) Compressive Strength Tests 200 3 3 0 TOTALS (1) 2,890 152 151 1 (Approximately 2,900)
(1) QC Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate
()
that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
l t
Revisions' 1 Page' 1:of 60
( RESULTS REPORT' ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 1
. Structural Steel 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM" IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category The construction work' category of structural steel is' comprised of all seismic Category I structural steel members, including their connections to structural steel and to concrete.
The structural steel construction work category iacludes access platforms, monorail supports, bracing members, jet shielding, radiation shielding,.sumpscreen supports and~
miscellaneous steel structures. Due to the construction method employed (concrete with removable formwork), there are
, no major seismic Category I structural steel building
- (, ) elements.
1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work category, a population 'of approximately 600 items was identified as QC-accepted as of the date of this reinspection effort. Reinspection and documentation reviews were performed for a total of 143 accessible items. Of these, 105 first sample items were randomly selected from the population. An additional 38 second sample items were randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 safe-shutdown hardware items were reinspected or reviewed. All attributes in the first random sapple were reinspected or reviewed a minimum of 60 times except as noted below:
- 1. Concrete inserts (Richmond inserts) - The reinspection results are combined with the results from other populations on a proportional sampling basis to achieve the required sample size. Refer to Appendix 33 for the combined results.
- 2. Concrete expansion anchors (Hilti bolts) - The reinspection and document review results are combined with the results from other populations on a proportional sampling basis to achieve the required sample size. Refer to the ISAP VII.b.4 Results Report for the combined results.
Revision: 1 Page 2 of 60
() RESULTS REPORT ISAT VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
- 3. Document review vas performed for a minimum of 60 members. Nonetheless, inspection documentation was not available for all installations; the resulting unclassified trend for missing documentation is addressed in a corrective action recommendation (Section 4.7). Furthermore, there was not a unique inspection report for each member inspected. Usually the documents encompassed several structural steel members with a simple entry or multiple signatures without attribution to a specific member. Because of this, the results of the documentation review are reported on a documentation package basis rather than a member basis.
() 4. Of the 143 items reinspected only seven had welded stud connections. Therefore, based on the limitad number of members with welded studs and the acceptable reinspection results of other construction work categories (e.g., Conduit Supports, Instrument Tube Supports and Equipment Supports) with welded studs additional documentation reviews of stud welding for structural steel were considered unnecessary.
l
- 5. The documentation review results for material traceability are also considered along with those from other populations for evaluation in ISAP VII.a.1
" Material Traceability".
l l The reinspection and documentation review results for structural bolting and welding are included in the proportional samples of structural bolting and welding that are evaluated for trends in Appendices 34 and 35, respectively. However, the results for these two attributes are evaluated fully in this Appendix with respect to this construction work category.
1.3 Attributes Selected Sample items were reinspected for the following attributes:
Attribute 1 - Member configuration Attribute 2 - Alterations I
m - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
R* vision: 1 Page 3 of 60 l
[~'N
- RESULTS REPORT 1
U ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 :
(Cont'd) I 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) l Attribute 3 - Connection component configuration (including field installed details configuration)
Attribute 4 - Welding Attribute 5 - Structural bolting Attribute 6 - Concrete inserts l Attribute 7 - Concrete expansion anchors l Sample item documentation was reviewed for the following attributes:
/%
- Attribute 8 - Inspection drawing identification !
(d Attribute 9 - Inspection of welding Attribute 10 - Inspection of concrete expansion anchors Attribute 11 - Inspection of structural bolting Attribute 12 - Inspection of Stud Welding Attribute 13 - Material traceability documentation Attribute 14 - QC inspector certification ,
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summary of Results For reinspection, a total of 279 Deviation Re, ports was issued l describing 819 deviations. Approximately 37,495 inspection points were encountered in performing these reinspection.
See Table 19-1 for results of the reinspection.
For documentation review 180 Deviation Reports were issued J'
(N
(,-)
describing 57 deviations regarding attributes other than QC inspector certification. Approximately 539 review points were encountered in performing the documentation review. See Table 19-2 for results of the documentation review.
1 i
Revision: 1 Page 4 of 60 xl RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Section 2.3.7, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP 1.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual {
inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are j summarized in Section 2.3.7. j l
In the seven reinspection attributes of this population, there l were four construction deficiencies, one adverse trend, two unclassified trends and one special case, which were
/~'N identified as follows:
\~-)
- 1. Attribute 1 - Member configuration: Unclassified trend I for substitution of smaller members. See Section 2.2.1 ]
(member size) for discussion of this attribute. l
- 2. Attribute 4 - Welding: Adverse trend for missing welds. See Section 2.2.4 (weld location) for discussion of this attribute.
- 3. Attribute 4 - Welding: Unclassified trend for undersized welds. See Section 2.2.4 (weld size and profile) for discussion of this attribute.
- 4. Attribute 5 - Structural bolting: Special case for substitution of smaller diameter bolts. See Section 2.2.5 (bolt diameter) for discussion of this attribute.
- 5. Attribute 5 - Structural bolting: Construction ,
deficiency for lack of jam nuts (locking devices).
See Section 2.2.5 (bolt jam nuts) f or discussion of this attribute.
- 6. Attribute 5 - Structural bolting: Three construction deficiencies for gaps between the connected plies. See g-~ Section 2.2.5 (bolt tightness) for discussion of this
( j attribute.
[
Ravision: 1 Page 5 of 60
/3
( j RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In the five documentation review attributes of this population (excluding QC inspector certification) 36 of the documentation review deviations were determined to be insignificant and 13 were notable. Three deviations were referred to ISAP VII.b.4.
One unclassified trend was identified for missing documentation. This is discussed in Section 2.3.
A trend was identified related to lack of proper inspection drawings and is discussed in Section 2.3.1.
2.2 Analysis of Reinspection Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the s reported deviations, an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the functional capability of the structural
_ () steel members, and an analysis for the presence of trends.
The function of a structural steel member is to transfer the' applied loads to the supporting structure and to maintain its l structural' integrity. ;
l 2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Member Configuration The reinspection for member configuration includes member locs. tion, member size, member length, and member orientation. Deviations were reported in three of i these characteristics; no deviations were identified for member orientation.
In 354 inspection points for member configuration, 74 deviations were reported. Each of the characteristics with deviations is discussed below.
Member Location Member location was inspected to determine if the item was installed as specified on the design drawings. In general, design drawings did not have construction tolerances, and thus the tolerances for these reinspection were provided based on the site l's. construction procedure and general industry fabrication l tolerance limits.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~
Rsvision: 1 ,
i Page 6 of 60 {
l i
j RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF'RESULTS (Cont'd)
In 104 inspection points for member location, 66 deviations were reported.
The average deviation reported was approximately 15/16 inch. The largest deviation was 4-9/16 inches, except for one case where an undocumented modification to a monorail bracing member was performed. (This deviation is discussed in Section 2.2.2 with the miscellaneous alterations.) A member location deviation could affect the load capacity of a member by increasing the eccentricity of the structural system or changing the load application point on an item. All of the deviations were evaluated, and the stress increases were slight in each case. These deviations were determined to be insignificant. If deviations of the
(} type identified were to exist in the uninspected portion of the structural steel population, they would be likely to result in a relatively small change in the member stress. Although the frequency of deviations is high, no adverse trend was identified due to their low level of severity.
Member Size Member size was inspected to confirm that the installed item was dimensionally consistent with the member size specified on the design drawings.
In 96 inspection points for member size, four deviations were reported.
Two deviations were for members that exceeded the mill l tolerances (on some dimensions) for their nominal size. l Subsequent documentation reviews indicated that the {
proper material (i.e., the member size as shown on the drawing) was requisitioned for one of the members, while no documentation could be located for the other.
Review of the identified deviating dimensions indicated that the larger sizes were most likely due to items f being received that exceeded mill tolerance. These size differences were determined to be insignificant because a larger member will generally. reduce the stress level.
i
Rsvision: 1 Page 7 of 60
(~'}
\,,)
RESULTS REPORT I ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
One deviation was for an assembly, consisting of three plates spliced together, that had width dimensions that differed from the specified dimensions by 3/4 inch. This assembly is constructed within general industry tolerances for the type of installation, (one plate was slightly larger while the other plates were slightly smaller, but the overall dimensions were !
maintained). The deviation was determined to be insignificant.
One deviation was for the substitution of a smaller utsber than required, A 1/4-inch thick angle was substituted for the specified 3/8-inch thick angle.
The reduction in capacity was approximately 15 percent; f'~'s this deviation was determined to be notable, r I
~
The one notable deviation for a smaller member size l substitution represents a frequency of about 1 percent.
However, field observation of other members in the same installation indicated additional occurrences of this type of deviation. Most members in this population are lightly loaded, and deviations of the type noted would still permit them to perferm their function. However, a similar reduction in capacity could potentially cause a highly stressed member, should it exist in the structural steel population, to lose its ability to perform its intended function. As determination of the design stress levels for the uninspected bembers of this population would be difficult, an unclassified trend for substitution of smaller members was identified.
For the root cause and generic implication analysis ;
associated with this unclassified trend, see Sect 1on 3.1.
Member Length Structural steel items were inspected to determine if l f-~s the length of the installed member was within the
) specified tolerance.
l
! j Ravision: 11' Page 8 of:60 x ) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS'(Cont'd)-
In 52 inspection points for' member. length, four deviations were reported.
The deviations were for members being longer or shorter than.specified by no more than 1/2 inch..with the average deviation being approximately 3/8 inch. For-the type of member installations included in the structural steel population, such deviations would have a minor impact on the load capacity of the members.
These' deviations were determined to be insignificant.
No adverse trend was identified.-
2.2.2 Attribute 2'- Alterations
'l ( . -
The reinspection of alterations includes location of the alteration, size of alteration, limit of
.)
alteration, re-entrant corners, and. workmanship of cuts and' holes. Deviations. ware reported in three of these characteristics; no deviations were reported for location of alterations and workmanship of. cuts and holes.
In 293 inspection points for alterations, 32' deviations were reported. Each of the characteristics in which deviations were reported is discussed below.
Size of the Alteration Each alteration was inspected to verify that the size of the alteration was within the specified tolerances.
In 43 inspection points for. size of the alteration, five deviations were reported.
All of the deviations were for copes that were larger than specified on the design drawings. One deviation was for a member with a single cope larger than specified. The other four deviations were for two members with both the top and bottom copes larger than
~'A specified. The discrepancies in size decreased design margin by about 7 percent at the coped section, but the i
Revision: 1 Page 9 of 60 7 , g ,j - RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) stress level was well below the stress allowed by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) code.
The deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Because the member stresses in the region of a cope are usually low and rarely govern the design, a similar reduction of the capacity in other members of the structural steel population would still be likely to result in sufficient margin. No adverse trend was identified.
Limit of Alteration Each member was inspected to determine if the actual
,f s alterations were confined to those shown on the design
() drawings.
In 153 inspection points for extent of alteration, 15 deviations were reported.
Four deviations were for holes that were not as specified on the design drawings. Holes for lifting an assembly were cut in more places than specified on a jet shield. This jet shield, with extra holes, consisted of stiffened structural plates that were to have 2-inch diameter holes drilled to facilitate lifting. The holes are shown on the design drawing in two sectional views. Neither is labeled typical; however, for the installation to be perfoFmed, they must be assumed to be typical. One view indicates that a hole is to be located in three of the five stiffener locations, while the other view implies that holes are to be located at all five locations. The holes are in accordance with the latter view. The original design conservatively assumed all five holes existed for the purpose of sizing the stiffeners. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
One deviation was for a unused bolt hole. The hole apparently was misdrilled by the fabricator and not correctly reworked. The deviation was determined to be k insignificant.
'l .
}~
G [j]\l[n .,
l ,
f v. $- .
' Rsvision: 'l
. A i's '
-age 10 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
< ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
[!
{', ,
9 < Appendix 19 Mont'd) i- $*
2.,0 DISCUSSION OF PESJLTS (Cont'd)
[ V n
- Sever, deviations were for additional cope and corner clips, alterations that were required for the erection c ' of the inspected item, but were not shown on the design
' drawings. These alterations were determined to be insignificant, as such alterations are obviously necessary for erection, and analysis indicated that
,s member capacity is not affected.
'Three deviations were for misc.311aceous alterations that vere undocumented. One deviation was for a monorail bracing r. ember that was to be perpendicular to i .,i the mor.orail, but was installed at 45 degrees. Another deviation was for a bearing plate that was unevenly cut along one edge. Both of these deviations were
. 1 determined to be insignificant, as the analyses k concluded that there was no significant change in the stress level and that the structural steel item would perform its design function. The remaining deviation was for a burnt-out notch in the top flange of a channel. The analysis of the identified notch conservatively determined that the member stress increased from 44 to 67 percent of the AISC code-allowable stress. This corresponds to a reduction in capacity of 34 percent and is notable; while this decrease in capacity is rather large, significant margin remains. The sole notable deviation is 4; attributed to minor damage that most ifkely occurred during the installation of other equipment. This type of minor damage, if encountered in the uninspected portion of the structural steel popu > tion, is not expected to cause a construction deficiency due to the light loads encountered and the ductile nature of j structaral steel.
No adverst trend was identified.
Re-entrant Corners The re-entrant corners of copes were inspected to verify that they were notch free'.
I .
1 i
Revision: 1 Page 11 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
)
' ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 i (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In 41 inspection points for re-entrant corners, 12 deviations were reported for corners that were not notch free.
The evaluation of the reported deviations concluded that ten of the deviations had a sufficient transition of the cut surfaces, according to the requirements of the AISC. These ten deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The remaining two deviations both occurred on the same sample item, a monorail support brace. The evaluation for this item concluded that the stress incrense was minimal. Additionally, the design function of the item 9 was not effected. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
No adverse trend was identified.
2.2.3 Attribute 3 - Connection Component Configuration The reinspection of connection component configuration includes location of connection component, size of connection component, orientation of connection component, bearing of base plate, installation of grout, location of field-installed details, size of field-installed details, and orientation pf field-installed details. These last three characteristics, which pertain to field-install >d details, are included with the connection configuration attribute, os the work process is similar.
In 414 inspection points for this attribute, 59 deviations were reported. No deviations were reported for installation of grout. Each of the characteristics with deviations is discussed below.
Connection Component and Field-Installed Detail Location O The location of the connection components and field-installed details were inspected to ensure that the
Ravision: 1 Page 12 of 60
('~h RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In 118 inspection points for connection component and field-installed detail component location, 42 deviations were reported.
One deviation was for a gusset plate that was installed in a mirror Laage to the configuration shown on the design drawing. This gusset plate was for a vertical brace. Due to the symmetry of the structure, no change to the functional capacity of the structure resulted from the deviation. The design drawing for this structure was confusing in that it specified various sectional views as similar to other sectional views on the drawing. The brace involved is on one of these "similar" views. The term similar can be interpreted f'"s many ways and probably contributed to the deviation.
( ,) As there was no loss of tunctional capacity, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Another deviation was for the apparent dislocation of a plate intended to support the floor grating. Review of the design drawing shows that the specified location dimension is not consistent with the geometry of the installation and would be impossible to maintain. As the installed configuration was adequate, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
One deviation was for the undocumented modification of the monorail bracing member previously identified and should not be considered an additional occurrence (see Section 2.2.2).
One deviation was for a wall support angle missing the design-drawing-required stiffener. This angle was originally specified to be a single angle with stiffeners spaced at 1 foot on center. However, the design was revised, allowing the angle to be cut to facilitate erection. The angle was cut into pieces, the shortest piece being about 18 inches long. This short piece of angle did not have a stiffener installed. Analysis of the deviating condition f-(*j concluded that there was no change to the functional capability of the angle and that the stiffener was not i required. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
l l
t R2 vision: 1 Page 13 of 60 I
,~
s ) RESULTS REPORT s- ;
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 19 (Cont'd) l l
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The remaining 38 deviations were for dislocations ranging from 3/16 to 2-1/2 inches. These deviations were determined to be insignificant, as in every case the increase in member stress was minimal. In fact, some deviations caused a decrease in member stress.
(Note: the high number of deviations is due to two members that had a total of 16 instances in which stiffeners were mislocated throughout the installation.)
Based on the demonstrated insignificance of the reported deviations, similar deviations on other members of the population would be expected to have an insignificant effect on the stress levels. No adverse trend was identified.
(J-)
Connection Component and Field-Installed Detail Size Connection components and the field-installed details were inspected to determine if their dimensions were within specified tolerances.
In 132 inspection points for connection component and field-installed detail size, 13 deviations were reported.
Three deviations were for apparent drawing errors. Two of the original design documents specified a plate size predicated on a specific bolting configuration.
Subsequent design change documents changed the bolting configuration, but failed to revise the connection plate size. For the other deviation, a design change allowed the connection to be altered; however, it did not provide sufficient information for the connection component substitution. Because construction personnel maintained the applicable design bolt configuration with an adequate plate size for the configuration, this type of deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Nine deviations were for apparent fabrication errors.
f/}
s_ Two deviations were for plates that were slightly larger than those specified on the design drawings. In l
l
Revision: 1 Page' 14 of 60
-- RESULTS 10EPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19
.(Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) each of these cases, the. member stresses were not-adversely affected. The remaining seven deviations were for connection stiffeners and a connection gusset that were incorrectly cut.from stock. Each of these deviations was determined to be insignificant, as the-increase in member stress was minimal.
One deviation concerned the use of 1-1/4 inch thick material rather than the 1 inch thick material specified. This substitution caused a decrease in member stress. The deviation was determined to be insignificant.
3Q Should deviations similar to the above occur elsewhere
\) in the structural steel population, it is expected that-they too would be insignificant, as the magnitude of the change in stress due to the reported deviations is.
minimal. No adverse trend was identified.
Connection Component and Field-Installed Detail Orientation Connection components and field-installed details were inspected to verify that they were oriented as specified on the design drawings. -
In 133 inspection points for connection component and field-installed detail orientation, one deviation was reported.
The deviation was a result of the undocumented modification of the monorail bracing member, previously identified under the alteration attribute, and should not be considered an additional occurrence. This type of deviation, undocumented modification, is discussed in Section 2.3, Analysis of Documentation Review Results, and the recommendations for correction are as l indicated in Section 4.8.
) Base Plate Bearing Base plates were inspected to verify compliance with the procedural requirements for bearing of the base plates.
l l
l l
R vision: 1 Page 15 of 60
\_'
s RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) l In 22 inspection points for base plate bearing, three I deviations were reported.
The three deviations were for base plates that did not !
have the required bearing. Base plate bearing assures i that the load is transferred to the concrete without l overstressing the base plate. Analyses concluded that j these deviations would result in no loss of design i function of the structural steel item because the plate l bearing stress is within code allowables even without the plate bearing area required by the drawing. The deviations were determined to be insignificant.
I
( The population items that require the base plates are 1
(m-)' predominantly hangers suspended from the ceiling. This type of item usually does not experience loadings that bear against the concrete, and when such loads are encountered, the loads are small. This deviation type, due to the installation configuration, is expected to occur on ceiling mounted plates. It is expected that, if similar deviations were encountered in the structural steel population, the base plates and thus the member could perform their design function.
Therefore, it is concluded that any similar deviations would also be insignificant, and no adverse trend was ident1fied.
2.2.4 Attribute 4 - Welding The attribute of welding includes location, size and profile, length, fusion, craters, undercut, porosity, overlap, surface slag, and cracks.
Approximately 26,400 welding inspection points representing approximately 2,200 welds were inspected, resulting in 299 deviations. No deviations were reported for craters, porosity and cracks. Each of the characteristics with deviations is discussed below.
()
n Weld Location Each weld sampled was inspected to verily that the weld was located as specified on the design drawing.
Revision: 1 Page 16 of 60 e's '
RESULTS REPORT
()
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In approximately 2,200 inspection points for weld location, 10 deviations were reported.
Two deviations were for welds that did not match the design drawing requirement for an "all around weld".
The weld was discontinuous at the transition points of the rolled shape. This portion of weld is usually discounted in the design process, as the length of this portion of the weld is extremely small. An evaluation showed that there was no decrease in joint design capacity due to this omission. This type of deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Eight deviations were for missing welds. These
(~ deviations occurred on four members of a single platform, and each missing weld was of the same weld detail. The weld detail specified two equal welds, one on the near side and one on the far side of the member; however, only one weld was made. An evaluation determined that the missing welds reduce the design capacity by 33 percent, and these deviations were determined to be notable. Because the same weld detail was consistently missing, it is considered that a conscious decision was made not to perform the weld.
However, no design documents could be located that allowed the weld to be omitt'ed. This type of deviation on other members of the structural steel population has a potential for exceeding the design capatity of the member. Therefore, an adverse trend was determined to exist for missing welds.
For the root cause and generic implication analysis associated with this adverse trend, see Section 3.2.
Weld Size and Profile The sampled welds were inspected to verify that the weld size was within the tolerance specified on the design drawing and that an acceptable weld profile was present.
1 I
Revision: 1 Page 17 of 60 1
i RESULTS REPORT
[]v ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
' Appendix 19 )
(Cont'd) ]
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In approximately 4,400 inspection points for weld size and profile, 268 deviations were reported. Of these !
deviations, 186 were for velds that were oversized, 74 were for undersized welds, and eight were for welds with an unacceptable profile. !
The 186 deviations for oversized welds were all reported for one monorail that had specific drawing ,
l requirements to restrict the maximum weld size. This- l restriction was imposed so that the monorail vould nor !
undergo excessive warpage, which would prevent the operation of the monorail crane. Since the monorail crane is operating with the as-built condition, this type of deviation was determined to be insignificant.
[ ) The 74 deviations for undersized welds identified welds s _/
that were undersized from 1/32 inch to 1/4 inch for a portion of the weld length. Of the eight deviations for unacceptable profile, six deviations were for 1 insufficient throat, one deviation was for a substituted weld type, and one deviation was for an unconsumed welding rod.
As the profile and size inspection points address the same welding characteristic, the results are presented 1 together. A total of 45 weld configurations were j encompassed by the deviations. These weld j configurations were reviewed to determine' capacity j reduction. Twenty-nine configurations had a capacity reduction of less than 10 percent. These deviations were determined to be insignificant. Sixteen configurations (36 deviations) had a capacity reduction of 10 percent or more. These deviations are notable.
Only two of these 16 weld configurations were loaded to 'j more than 50 percent of their design capacity, and both had more than 40 percent margin after the impact of the deviations was included. i i
Review of the stress distribution and capacity reductions for the 45 weld configurations indicates A) t that there is the potential for an undetected
Revision: 1 Page 18 of 60 A'
RESULT 5 REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) construction deficiency; however, the available data on loadings is not broad enough to enable accurate conclusions on likelihood to be drawn. Therefore, an unclassified trend was identified for undersized welds.
For the root cause and generic implication analysis associated with this unclassified trend, see Section 3.3.
Weld Length The sampled welds were inspected to verify that the weld length was as specified on the design drawings.
In approximately 2,200 inspection points for weld length, 11 deviations were reported.
Four of the deviations were for spacing violations on intermittent fillet welds. Another deviation was for the lack of a drawing-specified end return. Review of the inspected configurations indicates that more than the minimum required weld was deposited and no capacity reduction would occur. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The remaining six deviations were all for welds that were underlength. The maximum deviation was 12.5 percent of the specified weld length. The six ;
deviations occurred on four weld configurations. An analysis of these four veld configurations was performed to determine the capacity reductions and the actual design margins. Two of the veld configurations (2 deviations) had capacity reductions greater than 10 percent and were determined to be notable. One configuration (2 deviations) had a capacity reduction of less than 10 percent and was determined to be insignificant. The remaining weld configuration (2 deviations) could not be fully analyzed as a portion of
.~
the weld was inaccessible. By review of the configuration it appears that there would be at most a minor capacity reduction, and the deviations were determined to be insignificant.
' Revision: 1 Page 19 of 60
- ( ) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Both of the notable deviations were for very lightly loaded welds. The design stress was less than 5 percent of the AISC Code-allowable. The increase in stress due to the deviation was 1 percent of the AISC Code-allowable. This magnitude of stress increase is negligible.
Based on the insignificance and low frequency of the reported deviations, no adverse trend was identified.
Weld Fusion The sampled welds were inspected to verify that incomplete fusion, if present, did not exceed cne specified limits.
In approximately 2,200 inspection points for veld fusion, one deviation was reported.
This deviation was for a 5/16 inch-long area of non-fusion on a 3 inch weld (10 percent). The analysis conservatively assumed the area of non-fusion did not provide any structural benefit. The resulting weld strength of the joint was still greater than the design-required joint strength. As the design strength of the weld was achieved, the deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Based on the low frequency of occurrence and the insignificance of the reported deviation, no adverse trend was identified.
Weld Undercut The sampled welds were inspected to verify that undercut, if present, did not exceed the specified limits.
In approximately 4,400 inspection points for weld undercut, four deviations were reported.
i
Revision: 1 Page 20 of 60 b
\- # RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) 1 Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The deviations were for undercuts with a maximum size of 1/8 inch for a depth of 1/8 inch. This amount of undercut is insignificant for the type of structural steel items in the population. No adverse trend was identified.
Weld Overlap The sampled welds were inspected to verify that if any L I
weld overlap was present,.it did'not exceed the specified limits. !
In approximately 2,200 inspection points for weld overlap, one deviation was reported.
(
The one deviation was for an area of overlap of approximately 3/4 inch on a welded joint with 32 inches of weld (2.3 percent). This small amount of overlap, which by itself does not reduce the strength of the weld, is insignificant. No adverse trend was identified.
Weld Surface Slag The sampled welds were inspected to verify that surface slag, if present, did not exceed the specified limits.
In approximately 2,200 inspection points for weld surface slag, four deviations were reported.
The four deviations were for instances of non-isolated surface slag. The analysis for these deviations conservatively neglected the wcld portions that contained slag. For all cases, the remaining weld had significant design margin. The slag that was identified was relatively minor in size compared to the overall size of the welded joint. As the weld joint and the functional capacity of the steel item were not fs t
affected, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Based on the low frequency of occurrence and the demonstrated insignificance of the deviations, no l adverse trend was identified. l f
I
l Rsvision: 1 Page 21 of 60 RESULTS REPORT (U
4 ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.5 Attribute 5 - Structural Bolting The reinspection of structural bolting includes bolt diameter, bolt material, quantity of bolts, washers, i I
beveled washers, hole coverage, jam nut (locking devices), thread engagement, edge distances, tightening, bearing, spacing, and configuration.
In approximately 8,104 inspection points representing about 840 bolts, a total that includes 124 concrete expansion anchors and 16 concrete inserts, 346 deviations were reported. No deviations were reported :
for quantity of bolts or beveled washers. Four construction deficiencies resulted from 80 deviations
(~'N for the lack of locking devices and gaps in bolted s_-) joints (see Table 19-1 for tabulation of construction deficiencies). All other deviations were determined not to be construction deficiencies. Each of the characteristics with deviations is discussed below. l Bolt Diameter The bolts were inspected to verify that the diameter was as specified on the design drawing.
In approximately 700 inspection points for bolt diameter, 13 deviations were reported. l 1
All of the deviations were for the substitution of bolts with the nominal diameter 1/8 inch smaller than that specified on the design drawing. Analysis indicated that sufficient design margin existed after considering the deviations.
l The load capacity of the bolts is a function of the 1 bolt cross-sectional area. Two types of substitutions affecting diameter were encountered: 3/4-inch diameter bolts for 7/8-inch diameter bolts (26 percent reduction in area), and 5/8-inch diameter bolts for 3/4-inch
s diameter bolts (30 percent reduction in area). Due to {
g( ,) the magnitude of the capacity reduction, the deviations l were determined to be notable. While the frequency of l occurrence is not high, the possibility of undetected I
_________________J
Ravision: 1 Pags 22 of 60
/ RESULTS REPORT O
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) substitutions with bolts of smaller diameter exists.
Other occurrences would not be expected to impair the functional capacity of the structural steel item, as the bolted connection capacity of items in the structural steel population is rarely the governing design parameter.
As the deviation type is not expected to result in a construction deficiency, no adverse trend was identified. However, this deviation type, substitution of smaller diameter bolts, was classified as a special case because the design drawings should reflect the as-built bolting to ensure proper control of possible modifications.
j ~'N For the root cause and generic implication analysis
(_,) associated with this special case, see section 3.4.
Bolt Material The bolts were inspected to verify that the material of the installed bolts was as specified on the design drawing.
In approximately 700 inspection points for bolt material, 133 deviations were reported.
Of the 133 deviations reported, 54 concerped substitution of bolts of higher strength (ASTM A325 for !
ASTM A307 and ASTM A490 for ASTM A325). These substitutions were determined to be insignificant, as they will not reduce the design margin.
Of the remaining deviations reported, 78 were for material that was to be ASTM A193 grade B8. However, !
the markings on the bolts did not conform to the standard ASTM marking for that material type. ASTM A193 grade B8 is a stainless steel (austenitic) material. A review of the construction operation travelers found that acceptable installation of stainless steel bolts was documented. The traveler .
(e- ). packages also contained material requisitions and l
1 J
t Rsvision: 1 Page 23 of 60
[T RESULTS REPORT V
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSIOR OF .RESULTS (Cont'd) material receiving reports that indicate the bolts were stainless steel. The required material (ASTM A193 grade B8) has a specified yield strength equal to the lowest specified yield strength of commercially-available stainless steel material.
Because the capacity of a bolt is a function of the yield strength of the material, the reported deviations will not reduce the functional capacity of the steel item. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The final deviation concerned one bolt in a four-bolt connection that could not be verified as being of the specified material, ASTM A325. This bolt's capacity g' . was evaluated assuming it was of the lowest grade is carbon steel bolt material available. The analysis concluded that there was sufficient capacity. The reported deviation is due to the absence of any identifiable marking to indicate the required bolt material. The marking can be obscured due to damage to the head or abrasion. No evidence exists to suggest that the bolt material is not as specified and, as all of the other bolts in the connection are as specified, it is probable that this bolt material is correct. The deviation was determined to be insignificant.
As the analysis indicated that there was no affect on the design capacity, similar deviations ip the uninspected portion of the structural steel population, would also be likely to be insignificant. No adverse trend was identified.
Bolt Washers The bolts were inspected to verify that washers were installed according to the design specification.
In approximately 16 inspection points for concrete insert washer installation, no deviations were noted.
In approximately 700 inspection points for structural (A) steel bolt washers, 20 deviations were reported.
Revision: 1 Paga 24 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
()
- u. .
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The deviations are classified into two groups: ASTM A490 bolts installed without a washer under the head, and ASTM A325 bolts installed without any washers.
Washers are specified for the ASTM A325 bolts under the-turned element (either the bolt head or nut) and for the ASTM A490 bolts under both the bolt head and nut.
This is a standard requirement to prevent damage to the structural secel material during the pretensioning of the bolt. The bolts in question were not required to be installed with a pretension; therefore, the absence of a washer is of no consequence. These deviations j were determined to be insignificant.
As very few, if any, structural bolts are likely to require any pretension, it is expected that similar O deviations on other bolts in the population would also be insignificant. No adverse trend was identified.
Bolt Hole Coverage The bolts were inspected to verify that the washer completely covered the bolt hole, unless otherwise specified on the design drawing.
In approximately 600 inspection points for bolt hole coverage, eight deviations were reported.
The deviations were reported for areas where the bolt hole was partially exposed. The hole coverage requirement ensures that the bearing pressure due to j bolt tightening does not cause excessive force on the j steel item. Analysis of these deviations showed that j the bearing pressure was within Code allowable and there was no functional loss of.either the bolted connection or the structural member. Therefore, the deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Should similar deviations occur in the uninspected portion of the population, it is expected that they would also be insignificant, as very f ew, if any, O- connections were likely to be tightened by methods that would produce significant-bearing force under the head or nut. No adverse trend was identified.
l J
Revicion: 1 Page 25 of 60 y, ) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Bolt Jam Nuts The bolts were inspected to verify that the jam nuts (locking devices) were installed when specified on the design drawing.
i In approximately 290 inspection points for bolt jam nuts, 78 deviations were reported. One construction deficiency resulted from 70 of these deviations.
A total of 70 deviations identified lack of jam nuts or spoiled threads on the Unit 1 rotating platform. The rotating platform did not have a specific design drawing requirement for installation of jam nuts, but
()
s had a requirement based on the structural steel specification. The specified locking devices are intended to prevent the nuts from backing off (nut rotation). The evaluation of this structure concluded that, should the nuts back off and disengage from the bolt, the bolts would fall out of the connection and the structural steel item would not be able to perform its functional requirement. Due to the movement of the rotating platform, vibrations exist that may cause the nut to disengage. Thus, the reported deviations for lack of jam nuts were classified as a construction deficiency.
Eight deviations identified lack of jam nuts or spoiled threads on the Unit 1 pressurizer platform. A Design Change Authorization (DCA) to the design drawing for the pressurizer platform specified the installation of jam nuts or the spoiling of the threads. The evaluation for this structure concluded that, as there was no movement or attachments that would induce vibration, the nuts would not back off. Therefore, the functional capacity of the connection and the inspected item would not b.. reduced. The lack of locking devices is considered notable as other structural steel members may experience movement or vibration that could cause f\
\~ l the nut to back off, resulting in a construction deficiency. However, these deviations are not l
i
Revision: 1 Page 26 of 60 73 V) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) separately analyzed for trends, as a construction deficiency in this area has already been identified, and the corrective action will cover all locking devices in this construction work category.
For the root cause and generic implication analysis associated with this construction deficiency type, see Section 3.5.
Bolt Thread Engagement The bolts were inspected to verify that each bolt was installed so that the bolt was flush with or projected
,/) beyond the face of the nut.
O In approximately 700 inspection points for bolt thread engagement,'four deviations were reported.
These deviations were all for one installation for which the four bolts were installsd with the bolt end recessed 3/16 inch below the face of the nut (nut height is 3/4 inch). The analysis of the deviations showed no reduction of design capacity of the bolted joint and the structural steel item. Therefore, the deviations were determined to be insignificant. The nut engagement criteria is potentially significant only when the bolts experience tension loading). Since only a small percentage of the structural steel connections undergo tension loading, it is expected that similar deviations would also be insignificant.
Due to the' low frequency of occurrence and the insignificance of this type of deviation, no adverse trend was identified.
Bolt Edge Distance The bolts were inspected to verify that specified edge fs distances were within given tolerances.
I
(_ / In approximately 24 inspection points for concrete insert bolt edge distance, no deviations were noted.
Rsvision: 1 Page 27 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
/
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In approximately 990 inspection points for structural j steel bolt edge distance, five deviations were l reported.
l The observed deviations were edge distance violations of 1/8 to 1/4 inch. Four of the deviations were for :
bolt edge distances that were less than the AISC Code l requirements. The other deviation did not meet edge j distance specified on the design drawing.
l The violation of the drawing-specified edge distance was determined to be insignificant, as the AISC requirements were met and the analysis showed that no
. reduction in the design margin occurred due to the
- deviation.
The four deviations from the AISC requirements were also determined to be insignificant, as the edge distance in question was not in the direction of loading and there was no reduction in the design margin. Additionally, the type of minor deviations reported, coupled with the light loads encountered in the structural steel population, would not be expected to result in a construction deficiency even if the reduced edge distance was in the direction of loading.
No adverse trend was identified. ;
3 In approximately 218 inspection points fo'r concrete i t
expansion anchor edge distance, five deviations were noted.
The maximum edge distance deviation was 1/2 inch different from the design drawing specified dimension, with the average deviation being 0.20 inch. For all of the deviations, che as-found edge distance was greater !
than or equal to the AISC minimum edge distance requirements and there is no change in the member stress. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
f l
Ravision: 1 Page 28 of 60
'(). RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cent'd)
Appendix 19.
(Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS-(Cont'd)
The concrete expansion anchor edge distance deviations reported are relatively minor. Considering the demonstrated minor impact on the member stress, it is expected that similar deviations, should they occur in the uninspected portion of the structural steel population, would also be insignificant. No adverse trend was identified.
Bolt Tightness The bolting was inspected to verify tightness. The tightness criteria were based on the type of connection specified on the design drawings. Connections specified to be snug tight were inspected by verifying
~'\
that the bolt and/or nut could not be rotated by hand,
[/
\~s and that there were no visible gaps between the connected plies. Bolts specified to be hand-tight were che:ked for bolt thread engagement criteria.
Bol:s/ threaded rod isstalled in concrete inserts were inspected by verifying that the bolt and/or threaded rod could not be rotated by hand.
In approximately 16 inspection points for bolt tightness in concrete inserts, no deviations were noted.
In approximately 800 inspection points for structural steel bolt tightness, 43 deviations were reported.
Three construction deficiencies encompassed 10 of these deviations.
Six deviations were for bolts that were loose. All six deviations occurred on one thirty-bolt assembly, a {
screen for the Unit 1 sump structure. Review of the I installation concluded that the bolts are probably loose because of the tightening of adjacent parts, which would cause movement in the sumpscreen. The analysis showed that there is no loss of design .
capability due to the reported deviations. These l
'O deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Rsvision: 1 Pags 29 of 60 l
/T RESULTS REPORT
\ ,) l ISAP VII.c l (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) j i
I Four deviafcons were for a gap between the connected plies of the support bracket and the platform girder on the Unit i rotating platform . These gaps were a ,
result of the omission of the 1/4-inch shims specified I on the design drawings. Two deviations for gaps l between the base plate and an embedded plate that had not been adequately shimmed were identified on the Unit i 1 sump structure. Analysis for one of the deviations j for the Unit 1 sump structure concluded that the identified gap was localized and would not affect the function of the structural steel item. This deviation was determined to be insignificant. The evaluations for the other five deviations concluded that, because the load transfer mechanism relied on contact of the
/+ connection plies, the connections would not perform i k-- their design function. These five deviations for gaps between the connected plies were enveloped by two construction deficiencies.
Five deviations were for a gap between the bolt nut and j the steel item for the same installation. This !
installation is a series of structural steel angles l designed to transfer seismic loads betweer. a concrete l wall and a concrete beam. These seismic wall angles {
rely on the bolt to transfer the tension forces. The )
evaluation concluded that in one case the deviation was insignificant and in another case, due to the reported gap, the bolt would not be effective until the wall movement closed the gap. Therefore, the seismic wall ;
angle would not perform its intended design function. l The remaining three deviations were considered l unclassified deviations based on the above l safety-significant deviation. These five deviations for gaps between the connected plies were determined to be a construction deficiency.
The remaining 26 deviations for gaps between the connected plies were analyzed not to be construction deficiencies and were all instances where the bolt was in bearing and transf erred no axial (rela tive to the j f"'
(_) bolt) forces. For this type of connection the identified gap between the connection plies is of no consequence. These 26 deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Revision: 1 Page 30 of 60 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd)
\ 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
For the root cause and generic implication analysis associated with these construction deficiencies, see Section 3.6.
Bolt Bearing The bolts were inspected to verify that they were installed square to the connected plies and there were no visible gaps between the head of the bolt and/or nut except as allowed per the beveled washer acceptance criteria. This inspection was performed to provide additional assurance that the connections were properly tightened.
In approximately 700 inspection points for bolt 9 bearing, eight deviations were reported.
Six deviations were for three cases of improper installation of beveled washers and three cases of misalignment of connected parts or debris under the bolt head. These resulted in no significant reduction in the bolted joint capacity. Review of the results of the hardware inspection for bolt tightness and field investigation of the installations indicated that the bolts were probably tightened as specified. The deviations were determined to be insignificant, as additional assurance that the :ennection was tightened as specified was provided. No adverse trbnd was identified.
Two deviations regarding possible improper tightening concerned two installations of bolts specified to be hand-tight. The inspection identified a gap between the nut head and the face of the connected part was present. These deviations were previously discussed under the bolt tightness discussion and should not be considered an additional occurrence.
Bolt Spacing h The connection was inspected to verify that the installed bolt spacing was within the specified tolerance.
Ravision: 1 Page 31 of 60 f
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In approximately 580 inspection points for bolt spacing, 13 deviations were reported.
The deviations were for bolt spacing that differed from the design documents b'y 3/8 inch to 3-1/4 inches.
While these deviations did not comply with the design values, they all complied with the minimum spacing of the AISC Code. Evaluation of the deviations showed no reduction of the design function of the structural steel item. These deviations were determined to be insignificant, and no adverse trend was identified.
Bolt Configuration O
\_,) Each connection was inspected to verify that the .
bolting configuration was as specified on the design .j drawing. j 1
In the 14 inspection points for concrete insert configuration, six deviations were reported. The ]
deviations reported the spacing of bolts used in concrete inserts being 1/4 to 1-1/16 inches different from the locations specified on the design drawings. i Analysis showed that there was no decrease in the functional capability of the item due to these deviations. The location of the concrete inserts is predicated upon proper and accurate locatJon during concrete placement. Slight relocations of the type noted by the deviations are expected. Considering the acceptable magnitude of the location deviations and the minimal effect on the connection capacity, these deviations were determined to be insignificant. Should similar deviations exist in the uninspected portion of the structural steel population, it is expected that they would also be insignificant as the magnitude of the identified deviations was small. No adverse trend was identified.
In approximately 140 inspection points for structural steel bolt configuration, one deviation was reported.
Rsvision: 1 Page 32 of 60 (g) RESULTS REPORT x-ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
This deviation was a result of the undocumented modification of the bracing member, previously identified under the alteration attribute (Section 2.2.2), and should not be considered an additional ,
occurrence. This type of deviation, undocumented I modification, is discussed in the documentation review port 1on of this report and the corrective action ;
recommendations are as indicated in Section 4.8. No i adverse trend was identified.
The concrete expansion anchors configuration was inspected to verify that the center-to-center spacing j of the concrete expansion anchors was within 1/8 inch
.,s of the design drawing-specified spacing and that the 1
[) actual edge distance met or exceeded the design N' drawing-specified edge distance. In 76 inspection points for spacing, nine deviations were reported.
The maximum spacing deviation was 1-7/8 inch different i from the design drawing-specified dimension, with the average deviation being approximately 3/,4 inch. The deviations were for three configurations. The analysis of these configurations indicated that there were only }
minor changes to the configuration capacity due to the :
deviations. All of the deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The concrete expansion anchor configuration deviations reported are relatively minor. Considering the demonstrated minor impact on the member stress, it is expected that similar deviations, shuold they occur in !
the uninspected portion of the structural steel i population, would also be insignificant. No adverse trend was identified.
2.2.6 Attribute 6 - Concrete Inserts The reinspection of concrete inserts includes thread l engagement, tightness, washer installation, ;
configuration, and edge distance. All of the l
("'N
\_l deviations were reported for the configuration of the s
i
i Rsvision:- 1 !
Page 33 of 60
)
l RESULTS REPORT f
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) !
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) concrete insert; no deviations were teported for the other characteristics. The analysis of concrete inserts in Appendix 33, " Concrete Insert Thread-Engagement," includes the results from the structural steel reinspection for thread engagement. All the other characteristics are reported under Attribute 5, structural bolting.
2.2.7' Attribute 7 - Concrete Expansion Anchors The reinspection of concrete expansion anchors includes size and number, embedment length, bolt spacing, angularity, concrete damage, nut engagement and bearing, and configuration. All other character 1stics for concrete expansion anchors are n treated with similar characteristics under Attribute 5, structural bolting.
In approximately 1,914 inspection points for concrete expansion anchors, nine deviations were reported. No deviations were reported for angularity, concrete damage, or nut engagement and bearing. One deviation was for embedment length, eight deviations were for bolt spacing. The results of these deviations are included in the ISAP VII.b.4, "Hilti Anchor Bolt Installation" Results Report.
2.3 Analysis of Documentation Review Results -
This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the documentation review deviations and an analysis of the effect .
these deviations have on the ability of the evidence collected I I
to provide reasonable assurance that the structural steel members were properly installed.
The documentation review did not locate any inspection ;
documentation for 31 sample items that comprised portions of l l seven installed structures. While lack of inspection documentation is not in itself indicative of defective hardware, the possible lack of inspection and the number of i
Revision: 1 Page 34 of 60 (3
' ,'f RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) hardware deviations associated with these structures (undocumented modification of bracing monorail member, missing welds, and member and bolt size substitutions) supports the classification of the missing documentation deviations as notable. Given the large percentage of the population that is likely to have missing documentation an unclassified trend was identified for missing documentation.
For the root cause analysis and the generic implication analysis associated with this unclassified trend, see Section 3.7.
,-s 2.3.1 Attribute 8 - Inspection Drawings Identification
- - The documentation was reviewed to verify that the drawings used for the original inspection were the same as those (the latest available drawings) used for the reinspection.
A total of 40 design documents was reviewed, and 26 deviations were reported. Fourteen of the deviations were reported where the revision number for the Gibbs &
Hill design drawing was not listed on the inspection report. Six deviations were reported for instances of DCA's that were referenced on the documentation, but the latest revision was not referenced. Three deviations were reported for DCAs that were not listed on the original documentation, and three deviations were reported for drawings that were not listed. The latter six deviations that were identified for design drawings or DCA's that are not listed were determined to be notable. The other 20 deviations were determined to be insignificant based on the review discussed below.
The design documents that had deviations were reviewed to determine if any change was made to a non-recreatable attribute. Additionally, the
/ inspection dates of the Project inspection
\_-} documentation were compared to the issue date of the design document to see if a reasonable conclusion as to the document used for inspection could be made. If a design change was made, the hardware inspection results i
R2 vision: 1 Page 35 of 60
[ \ .
RESULTS REPORT
()
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) were reviewed to ascertain if the design change was identified as not being implemented by construction. ,
All the reviews concluded that there were no additional non-recreatable attributes that the hardware inspection would not have identified and inspected.
The results of this review provided adequate assurance that the hardware reinspection was performed to the latest engineering requirements. A trend is identified because it is important that all inspection documentation reflect that the inspections were performed to the latest design requirements. This is covered by the recommendation made in Section 4.8.
(O s_/
i 2.3.2 Attribute 9 - Inspection of Welding The review of documentation regarding welding included the weld procedure qualification, the weld procedure application, the welder qualification and the stress relieving.
In the review of 29 original documentation packages for welding attributes, consisting of approximately 270 review points, eight deviations were reported. Five deviations were due.to paperwork inconsistencies, one deviation pertained to the weld procedure application, and two deviations pertained to welder qu,alification.
The five deviations due to incomplete paperwork consisted of two cases where the weld filler metal log was not included in the inspection package, one case where there was no entry for the inspector to verify the weld filler metal (on a subcontractor's documents),
and two cases where there was no record of the welders ,
who performed the work (on a subcontractor's l documents). For the two cases without the weld filler metal log, the hardware reinspection indicated that good quality welding was performed. Review of other available documents indicated that the filler metal was f~'i
\
the proper material. For the other deviations no additional information could be located.
1 I
l
Revision: 1 Page 36 of 60 RESULTS REPORT 1 till ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Missing documentation alone is not indicative of inadequate hardware and review of the hardware reinspection for r.hese welds indicated that good quality welding was performed. The magnitude of incomplete paperwork was slight. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The deviation for the weld procedure application was I due to the referenced subcontractor's procedure not covering the welding of ASTM A36 material to ASTM A36 material. The procedure did reference the base metal ASTM A588 grade A or A500 grade B being joir.ed to ASTM A36 material. By review of another of the subcontractor's welding procedures that did cover the welding of ASTM A36 to A36 material, it was concluded G that the procedure referenced o'n the inspection documents would have produced the same weld. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
The velders listed on the weld filler metal log were reviewed to verify that they were qualified to the welding procedure specified. For the 53 welder symbols reviewed, two deviations were reported. Additional review of site documents indicated that while one of the welders was not specifically qualified to the proper procedure, his qualification to a standard test qualified him to a comparable procedure to the type of weld performed. The other welder was listed on the weld filler metal log but was not listed on any other site documents for rod issuance for the date in question. The employment files indicate that the welder in question was not employed onsite during the time period. It has been concluded that a clerical error was made when recording onto the weld filler metal log and that the reported welder did not perform any welding on the inspected item.
Both of the reported deviations for welder qualification were determined to be insignificant.
O
l Rsvision: 1:
Page 37 of 60
- RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)'
' Appendix 19 (Cont'd) .g I
W 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Q'\ 2.3.3 Attribute 10 - Inspection of Concrete Expansion'Anch'rso The concrete expansion anchor documentation review attribute includes verification of the calibration of the torque wrench, that the specified torque was applied, that rework was documented and if,the bolt l spacing was witnessed, that the bolt setting and hole drilling was documented.
,In 20 review points for concrete expansion anchors.-
i.
thres deviations were reported. All of'the deviations-l were for the torque value characteristic. The results of the documentation review for this attribute are included in the ISAP VII b.4, "Hilti Anchor Bolt Installation", Results Report.
'q 2.3.4 Attribute 11 - Inspection of Structural Bolting The structural bolting documentation review attribute includes _ verification of bolt tightness and proper bolt torque.
In 86 review points for the structural bolting documentation, no deviations were reported.
2.3.5 . Attribute 12 - Inspection of Stud Welding l.
The' stud welding documentation review attribute includes verification of daily _ stud gun qualification report and stud testing, if testing was performed. The deviations were All reported against the daily qualification repert review point.
The inspection documents were reviewed to verify that the daily stud gun qualification report was signed and dated and that the report was either included with or referenced on the inspection documents. -The daily stud gun qualification report is reviewed to obtain additional confirmation that the welded studs were properly installed.
Rsvision: 1
, Pegs 38 of 60
[}
U RESULTS REPORT ISAF VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 D'#CUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) ,
Three traveler inspection packages were r3 viewed, i resulting in five deviations. All of the deviations were due to the daily stud gun qualification report not i being included with or referenced on the inspection I documents.
Two of the deviations were for structures for which the welded studs were load-tested. The load test results provide reasonable assurance that the studs will function as designed. These deviations were decennined to be insignificant.
The remaining deviations were for installations for which some studs were installed with a stud gun, and
(}
(,,,
others were installed manually. Daily stud gun qualification reports are referenced for two of the three days that studs were installed. However, there is no indication of how many studs or which studs were installed with the stud gun. No documentation, other than a record of visual examination, is required for manually installed studs. For these deviations the q traveler contained proper sign-of f for visual inspection of the welded studs. It is apparent that, while the documentation is unclear, there is no i violation of the site procedure, because the daily stud gun qualification reports were issued. The deviations were determined to be insignificant, and no trend was identified.
I 2.3.6 Attribute 13 - Material Traceability Documentation I l
The requirement for site-fabricated structural steel is to maintain material traceability back to the heat number. Vendor-fabricated material traceability requirements, according to the structural steel specification, are that certified mill test reports be submitted.
1 Document review was performed to verify that the
()
- requirements for the site-fabricated items were fulfilled. In approximately 96 review points for i
material traceability eight deviations were reported.
The deviations fell into two groups: six deviations j 1
Revision: 1 Page 39 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
(}
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) deviations for which no documentation for material traceability could be located, and two deviations for which it could not be verified that the material conformed to the design drawing requirements.
The six deviations for items with no material traceability were reported for two structures: a series of wall support angles and the Unit 1 compartment Number 3 platform. For each of the reported deviations, site documentation could be located that, while not in strict compliance with the site procedure, provided a sufficient degree of assurance that the material was traceable. This documentation consisted of shop inspection reports that O identified the information required to trace the material. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Two deviations were for material that could not be verified as conforming to the design drawing requirements. One deviation was for an instance where the design drawing specified a member size W12x22; however, the certified mill test report indicates that the member is actually a W12x19. The available material requisition forms clearly show that the W12x22 was requisitioned. Additionally the receiving documents identify the material as being a W12x22. The dimensions of a W12x22 and a W12x19 are sb similar that, when the mill tolerances are included, there is no measurable difference. The other deviation was for ASTM A36 shim material being substituted for the drawing-spccified ASTM A514 or A588 material. Analysis j
concluded that the shim material's only function was to provide adequate contact of the connected plies, and the ASTM A36 material was adequate. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.3.7 Attribute 14 - Inspector Certification A total of 53 review points wet. reviewed to determine O if the QC inspector who signed the inspection report or inspection traveler was appropriately certified to perform the inspection for structural steel.
Rsvision: 1 Page 40 of 60 pm
- J)
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 19 l (Cont'd) l 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) I Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 l evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied ]
upon (thou8h they were considered) in determining {
inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were ,
assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP 1.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP I.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work
( affected this population concluded that all inspectors V either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be cable of 4 performing satisfactory inspections (including those l l
with substantial positive evidence) or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION This section provides a root cause and generic implication analysis ;'
for the following construction deficiencies, adverse trend, unclassified trends, and special case: ,
l
- 1. Unclassified trend for the substitution of smaller member size {
1
- 2. Advers., trend for missing welds l 3. Unclassified trend for undersized welds l
l 4. Special case for the substitution of smaller diameter bolts I
- 5. Construction deficiency for the lack of jam nuts ;
- 6. Construction deficiencies for gaps between the connected plies
- 7. Unclassified trend for missing documentation
{
.~.
Revision: 1 Page 41 of 60 J/ - RESULTS REPORT v
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
-3.1 Substitution of Smaller Members Root Cause The member of a smaller size than required was on a platform for which no original inspection documentation could be located. It was hypothesized that either the incorrect material was received from the vendor, or construction personnel substituted a smaller member. The substitution hypothesis was investigated by reviewing the receiving inspection report for the vendor-supplied material. This report indicated that the received material was as specified on the design drawings. Even if the-vendor had supplied the smaller member, it is expected that the construction personnel
/ would have corrected the situation as the substitution is very obvious, given an adjacent correctly sized member. Thus the 1
root cause investigation was focused on the construction process.
The primary root cause for the substitution of a smaller member was determined to be less-than-adequate construction supervision as the substitution should have been detected and corrected regardless of procedure requirements.
Prior co the issuance of the formal inspection procedure, the inspection requirements were contained in construction procedure CCP-22, " Structural Steel Erection". The inspection requirements in that procedure did not provide a' requirement for documentation of the inspections, nor did they req'uire that member size be verified. The construction procedure added specific direction to control the substitution of members in Revision 3, dated March 4, 1982; prior to this date, it was silent on this subject.
1 The platform was installed before a separate inspection procedure was issued on June 11, 1981. This inspection procedure, QI-QP-11.14-1, " Inspection of Site Fabrication and Installation of Structural and Miscellaneous Steel", required inspection documentation and verification that the material is
-~ correct per the fabrication drawing. This procedure is
()s considered adequate.
P Revision: 1 l
Page 42 of 60 l t 7"'sj RESULTS REPORT k.
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
The secondary root cause was this less-than-adequate inspection procedure prior to 1981. (The present inspection procedure is adequate.)
Generic Implication Based on the secondary root cause, a stratum was identified for this unclassified trend consisting of those population items for which inspection documentation cannot be located.
The sample was expanded to include a total of 60 sample items from the balance of the population for which inspection documentation was located. Each item was reinspected to verify the member size. All of these reinspection found no smaller size member, thus validating the stratum hypothesis, g-mg Inadequate construction supervision is concluded not to extend
() beyond the stratum.
No samples from the platform that had the member size deviation vere included in the expanded sample as no inspection documentation was located for this platform.
However, additional occurrences of smaller member substitution i on this platform were noted on en out-of-scope observation report.
As the construction and inspection procedures have been revised to control the substitution of scmbers, the potential of other substitutions is limited to those items for which no inspection documentation can be locateds Thus the generic implication is that there may be other smaller cember substitutions within the identified stratum, and other attributes for items in the stratum may also include deviations, given th6 breadth of the identified root causes.
The generic implicatio; of less-than-adequate construction supervision is similarly limited to the portion of the structural steel population (all attributes) without original inspection documentation, because no similar deviations were reported outside of this stratum.
v
Rsvision: 1 Pags 43 of 60 RESULTS REPORT
(~~}
Q ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AhD GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
Summary The substitution of a smaller member was due primarily to less-than-adequate construction supervision and secondarily to a less-than-adequate inspection procedure. Other items constructed using this procedure, for which inspection records are not available, may also have smaller-than-required members and may have deviations impacting other attributes as well.
The recommended corrective action to address the generic implication within the identified stratum is presented in Section 4.1.
3.2 Missing Welds (q/ ,
Root cause The weld detail involved was not complex, nor would it be expected that the detail would be misinterpreted by welding personnel. A possible root cause may be oversight by construction personnel. However, less-than-adequate construction supervision is considered to be a primary root cause as the weld was consistently omitted throughout the ,
installation, j The fact that the missing weld went undetected resulted from lack of proper inspection. The procedures in effect at the ;
time of installation (prior to 1981) did not provide for the !
documentation of inspections; therefore, it cannot be determined if the installation was inspected. The secondary ]
root cause is the less-than-adequate inspection procedure j prior to 1981. (The present procedure is adequate.) 1 l'
Generic Implication The eight deviating conditions were all for the same weld detail on a platform for which no original inspection documentation could be located. The identified stratum was field welds for which no inspection documentation could be located. Additional items were sampled to achieve a minimum j l$
1 I
L____..._____
t Revision: 1 Page -44 of 60 s
%- RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) ,
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) i 3.0' ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd) i of 60 items that had field welds that had been inspected.
Reinspection of this sample did not encounter any missing welds. It was thus determined that the missing welds were limited to the' identified stratum. i i
The generic implication is that for other members within the identified stratum there may be missing welds. Given the breadth of the identified root causes, there may be other attributes for other items with deviations in the strs* r.
The generic implication of less-than-adequate construction supervision is similarly' limited to the portion of the structural steel population (all attributes) without original f inspection documentation because no similar deviations were
\ reported outside of this stratum.
Summary The missing weld was determined to exist primarily due to less-than-adequate construction supervision and secondarily due to less-than-adequate inspection procedure.
Because the inspection procedure had been rev1 sed to require documentation of the weld inspection (after 1981), a stratum was identified and the generic implications of th3 adverse trend were limited to those items (all attributes) in the stratum. ,
The recommended corrective action is discussed in Section 4.2.
3.3 Undersized Welds Root Cause The identified undersized welds do not occur with any discernible pattern. They were not inspected by any one inspector, installed during any one time period, nor can the welding be identified as being performed by any one welder.
() The applicable construction procedure, CCP-22, and inspection procedure, QI-QP-11.14-1 were reviewed. Both of these procedures were determined to be adequate. i
__________ _____________________________ A
h R* vision: 1 Pags 45 of 60 RESULTS REPORT l
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
The primary root cause for the undersized welds was determined to be less-than-adequate structural welding workmanship or supervision, as the specified weld size was not made.
However, more precise reason (s) why the welds were not the required size cannot be determined.
The fact that the undersized welds were not detected and corrected must be due to less-than-adequate QC inspection.
This secondary root cause is believed to exist in part because of the method used to document the welding inspections. The entire construction activity, including inspection, was l controlled and documented on the construction operation traveler (C.O.T.) even after a separate inspection procedure was introduced (June, 1981). The C.O.T. usually has only a single QC sign-off for all of the welds on the entire C structure. .Most structures involve multiple weld details and
(, many welds. The welders typically do not measure each weld themselves as they know how many passes are required to achieve a certain weld size. QC, on the other hand, must, by procedure, verify each weld size. The single QC sign-off for all of the welds does not assure that all of the welds have been inspected properly.
Another factor contributing to variable weld quality may be the method of. inspection. The historical and current procedures permit visual inspections in accordance with AWS specifications and thus do not require that weld gauges be used. Reinspection were performed with gauges, but to visual weld acceptance criteria (VWAC) that introduce tolerances to existing AWS requirements. Considering the VWAC tolerances, the original inspections, whether visual or with gauges, should have identified the undersized welds.
No inspection documentation could be located for some of the items. This indicates possible lack of QC inspection, which has been determined to be a contributing cause.
Generic Implication A generic implication is that there may be additional
.p undersized welds in the uninspected portion of the structural Q steel population.
R: vision: 1 Page 46 of 60
,n f )
V RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND CENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
As the entire structural steel inspection activity was controlled by the C.O.T., other attributes may not have been adequately inspected. The attributes of concern are those that involve inspection of many details on a single QC sign out, e.g., welding. Review of the structural steel population attributes, other than welding, indicates that only the bolting inspections consistently involve inspection of multiple details. Therefore, a generic implication is that the C.O.T. program is inadequate to control the inspection of the bolting and the welding of the structural steel population. However, the reinspection of those areas which j had inspection documentation gave no indication of missing or undersized bolts, and the generic implication is thus limited to welding.
[\J-Summary The undersized welds were determined to exist primarily due to less-than-adequate structural welding workmanship or supervision. The secondary root cause was determined to be less-than-adequate inspection with less-than-adequate inspection documentation. A contributing cause of lack of inspection documentation was also identified. Other undersized welds may exist in the structural steel population.
The C.O.T. program is less-than-adequate to control the inspection of bolting and welding. ,
The recommended corrective action is presented in Section 4.3.
3.4 Substitution of Smaller Diameter Bolts All of the deviations concerned installations of vendor-fabricated structural steel items. These installations were on two structures. The design drawings all specified the bolt diameter to be used; however, the vendor fabrication drawings specified a smaller uiameter hole, and thus a smaller diameter bolt. The vendor f abrication drawings were approved by engineering without annotating the change on the vendor p drawing. ,
(_
L . . - _ '_______--._
J Revision: 1 j Page 47 of 60 i
_s - .
\ RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appandix 19 (Cont'd) l 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
The primary root cause for the substitution of smaller' diameter bolts is determined to be the lack of detection of the vendor's substitution by engineering. A contributing cause is the substitution of the smaller diameter bolts by the structural steel f abricator without formally notifying the engineer.
The TU Electric inspection procedure QI-QP-11.14-1,
" Inspection of Site Fabrication and Installation of Structural and Miscellaneous Steel", Revision 19, dated February 13, 1985, added the requirement to verify that the bolting configuration is per the design drawing. It is expected that this requirement encompasses the verification of bolt diameters.
? i
\/ .The Brown & Root construction procedure CCP-22, " Structural '
Steel Erection", Revision 0, dated March 12, 1976 has provisions for the type of bolt material and connection type (bearing), but does not specifically delineate bolt diameter
~
requirements. i Industry practice is to receive the fabricated structural steel along with the bolt material from site storage. This material is then erected and the bolts are installed according to the size of the pre-drilled hole. While it is expected that' proper inspection of the installation would identify the incorrect bolt diameter substitution, the fact that the bolt holes were fabricated to dimensions smaller than those required and the smaller size was shown on the vendor drawinga, could lead to incorrect inspection decisions. While inspection documentation cannot be located for either of the structures identified, it is likely that the inspec. tor would have accepted the installed structure. It is concluded that i
the inspection and construction procedures are adequate and no j_
secondary root cause is identified.
Generic Implication The generic implication is that other instances of engineering approved, vendor substituted smaller diameter bolts in the l
l O. structural steel population cannot be precluded. This generic implication is limited to the bolt size substitution because l the investigation determined that the vendor's decision to I
substitute was unique to bolting involving a conflict between detailed member size and the specified bolt diameter.
Revision: 1 Pags - 48 of 60
/7 RESULTS REPORT QJ ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)'
Appendix 19 (Coat'9) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
Summary The substitution of smaller diameter bolts was determined to exist primarily due to the lack of detection of this j substitution by engineering during the review of the vendor !
fabrication drawings. The generic implication is that other smaller diameter bolt substitutions may exist on vendor fabricated structural steel.
i The recommended action is discussed in Section 4.4.
3.5 Lack of Jam Nuts (Locking Devices)
A. Unit 1 Rotating Pictform
(_,/ Root cause !
The. structural steel specification, 2323-16B, requires jam nuts or spoiled threads on high strength bolts (ASTM A325 and ASTM A490) 1-inch diameter and larger in bearing type connections. This requirement'was cdded to the specification by DCA 18853, Revision 2 on August 1, 1984.
The Brown & Root construction procedure CCP-22, " Structural Steel Erection", Revision 4, dated August 13, 1984, added the requirements to use a jam nut or to spoil threads for the bolts types identified in.the specification.
TUGC0 inspection instruction QI-QP-11.14-1, " Inspection of Site Fabrication and Installation of Structural and Miscellaneous Steel", Revision 20, dated May 16, 1985, added the locking device requirements of the structural steel specification.
Contrary to these requirements, no locking devices were installed on the 1-1/8 inch diameter ASTM A325 bolts for the Unit 1 rotating platform. The inspection documentation for the Unit 1 rotating platform cannot be located. Investigation determined that the platform was installed before the specification requirement changed. There was no evidence of a
- 7s
()
documented review of previously installed structures to determine those areas needing backfit to the latest specification requirements.
i
______ _ ____ _ J
Rsvision: 1 ,
Page 49 of'60 l gy .
\ '1 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
The specification, the inspection procedure, and the construction procedure all now provide clear and adequate direction for the installation of jam nuts or spoiled threads.
The primary root cause was determined to be lack of a documented review of the new requirements for backfit of previously installed structures.
Generic Implication The generic implication is that other changes to the structural steel specification may not have been evaluated for the areas requiring hardware retrofit to the latest requirements.
Summary The primary root cause for lack of jam nuts was determined to be due to the lack of a documented review to backflL che hardware on installed structures when specification requirements were revised.
The recommended corrective actions for this item are contained '
in Sections 4.5 and 4.8.
B. Unit 1 Pressurizer Platform Root Cause .
The Unit 1 Pressurizer platform had two beams upgraded to Seismic Category I by DCA. These beams were to have lock nuts (jam nuts) or spoiled threads per a separate DCA. The reinspection of the beams found no evidence of either jam nuts !
or spoiled threads. ;.
l The inspection documentation, a C.O.T. prepared in response to l
the DCA upgrading the beam to Seismic Category I, did not l l
reference the DCA that added the requirement for the locking f
l devices. Prior to June 26, 1980, Construction Procedure l j-~g CP-CPM-6.3, " Preparation, Approval and Control of Operation
( ,) Travelers," had criteria for the review of the design changes. l The criteria were deleted after the issuance of Revision 7 i
i j
.i l
Ravision: 1 Page 50 of 60 O)
's,, RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
(June 26, 1980), however, and before issuance of.the subject-DCAs. Thus, this procedure was not written to ensure that both DCAs would be addressed.on one C.O.T. More importantly, revies of site procedures shows that there was no formal procedure for ensuring review and implementation of 3 design changes affecting Unit 1. The document control group 1 made controlled distribution of all design changes but did not i track field disposition. In this instance, one DCA was )
implemented and one was not. Another Construction Procedure, J CP-CPM-7.1J, " Review of Design Documents," dated April 26,' '
1985, established a process for review of design changes for Unit 2, but not for Unit 1.
No evidence could be found that indicated that the DCA was
(, considered to be an open item.- Therefore, the primary root cause was identified as a lack of procedural requirements for j ensuring the review of design changes to determine if l '
additional work is required.
Generic Implication The generic implication within the structural steel population for the identified root cause is that there may be other .
design changes which have not been incorporated. !
Summary The primary root cause is lack of a procedure for ensuring the .
review of design changes to determine if additional work is 1 required.
i The recommended corrective action for this item is contained l l in Section 4.5 and 4.8.
3.6 Bolt Tightening - Gaps Between the Connected Plies A. Seismic Wall An g Root Cause .
The bolts for five seismic wall angles were identified as not j being properly tightened. One of the deviations was analyzed i to be insignificant. One of the deviations was analyzed to be l
t
Ravision: 1 Page 51 of 60 A $
(_,/ RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd) a construction deficiency and the other three identical deviations were not evaluated for safety significance as they are covered by the corrective action for the construction deficiency. The connection involved is a slotted connection that is intended to slide to alleviate loadings due to thermal growth and vertical seismic movement.
The connection is specified to be hand-tight. The nut would be expected to bear on the wall angle and should not be able.
to be further tightened without using a wrench. The as-found condition is contrary to this specification in that the nuts were loose. The design drawings also specified that the connection was to have jam nuts installed or have the threads e spoiled. The threads were found to be spoiled; however, (g')s _
closer examination shows that the spoiled portion of the threads is such that the nur can be partially backed off. As the nuts were specified hand-tight, the nuts could easily have been accidentally backed off after the initial tightening.
The construction deficiencies resulted from the inability of the bolted connection to transfer the. loads via bolt tension, due to the gap between the nut and the seismic wall angle. It is concluded that this gap existed due to inadequate bolt tightening or inadequate spoiling of the threads. As the connection was specified to be hand-tight and che nut is in place, the most likely cause is inadequate spoiling of the threads. .
The as-found spoiling of the threads is adequate when the bolt is not intended to transfer axial bolt (tension) loads.
However, for the connection configuration designed, greater control was required to ensure that the connection would function as designed. This control should be in the form of detailed engineering instruction on the drawing to provide adequate spoiling. The primary root cause for this construction deficiency is lack of sufficient instructions from engineering to the construction personnel and Q/C inspector to ensure that the unique spoiling of the threads
,- required in this instance would be adequately performed.
t
Review of the construction procedure (CCP-22) indicates that no specific criteria exist for establishing a hand tight condition or for the spoiling of threads. Both of these
1-Ravision: 1-I' Pags 52 of 60 1
,' RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd) operations are common structural steel operations and generally would not require specific instructions; however, since these bolts are loaded in tension more precise requirements than those indicated on drawings should have been provided. Thus, this procedure was determined not to be contributing to the root cause. The inspection procedure (QI-QP-11.1-14-1) was similarly not deficient for the original engineering requirements but the revision will be required to reflect new acceptance criteria for tension loaded connecting.
Generic Implication The generic implication within the structural steel population is that there may be other connections that require additional engineering instruction to provide an adequate locking device.
( Based'on the root cause that is specific to locking devices in certain applications, the generic implication is limited to.
the bolts in tension that require locking devices.
Additionally, the hardware inspection did not encounter any similar deviations for other attributes.
Summary The primary root cause that the gap between the nut and the steel member was determined to be due to insufficient instructions from engineering to the construction personnel to ensure adequate spoiling of the threads.
. I The recommended corrective action for this item is in Section 4.5.
B. Unit 1 Rotating Platform and Sump Structure The two construction deficiencies were due to excessive gape '
between the connection plies. These connections transmit load via bearing of the plies and/or tension in the bolts. The forces developed, due to the identified gaps, were determined to cause these construction deficiencies.
The Unit I rotating platform structure was to have shims installed, per the' design drawing, to alleviate the gap.
(
No shims were installed. The Unit 1 sump structure had gaps l
l
. Revision: 1 r-Page 53 of 60 q
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd) identified between the sump frame and the embedded floor plate. The governing design drawing also required shims to be installed. Shims were installed, but the shims did not provide adequate bearing.
The structural steel specification, 2323-SS-16B, Section 9.4 states that all members in completed frames shall be free from open joints. This requirement was not incorporated into either the construction procedure (CCP-22) or the inspection procedure (QI-QP-ll.14-1).
The root cause for these construction deficiencies was determined to be less-than-adequate procedures, primarily
- ' construction and secondarily inspection, in that they did not s address gaps.
Generic Implication The generic implication for the identified root cause is that failure to incorporate specification requirements in procedures may exist for other attributes of the structural steel population.
Summary The gaps between the bearing surfaces of the connection were determined to exist primarily due to inadequate construction and secondarily due to inadequate inspection procedures.
The recommended corrective action for the item is in Section 4.6.
3.7 Missing Documentation Root Cause The reasons the documentation cannot be located vary. At least one structure was installed before the formal inspection
/' documentation requirements were established; for another structure there was an apparent belief that the structure was not to be installed as a seismic Category I structure; and for other structures no reason for missing documentation can be determined.
Revision: 1 Page 54 of 60 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION (Cont'd)
Although a conclusive root cause cannot be determined, the following contributing factors have been identified:
- 1. Early site procedures did not have requirements for the documentation of inspection in this construction work category. The' formal inspection procedure was not in place until June 11, 1981. Prior to this date the inspection was governed by the construction procedure.
- j. The majority of missing documents identified by the I reinspection resulted from this factor.
- 2. The retrieval system for inspection documents requires knowledge of either the construction operation traveler 0- inumber or a construction-assigned equipment number.
Neither of these numbers is cross-referenced to the design drawings on any official site documentation.
- 3. Site (TUGCO) engineering indicated that some structures may have been inadvertently classified as seismic Category I, possibly leading to some uncertainty regarding structure classifications by construction personnel.
Generic Implication The generic implication is that for the structural steel l population inspection documentation may not exist for other items in the uninspected portion of the population.
Summary No conclusive cause can be determined for the missing inspection documentation. However, it can be shown that the early (pre-1981) procedures did not have requirements for the documentation of inspections, the inadequate documentation retrieval systems have contributed significantly to the situation, and there was confusion as to the required seismic category of the steel members.
~() The recommended corrective action is contained in Section 4.7.
Revision: 1
. Pags 55 of 60
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)-
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Substitution of Smaller Members As the construction and inspection procedures are in place to control and inspect member size adequately, future occurrence of this deviation is not anticipated and no recommendation regarding procedures or personnel training are required.
Action required to confirm the adequacy of installations prior to when the inspection procedure was put in effect, is discussed in Section 4.7, Missing Documentation.
4.2 Missing Welds ss rne construction and inspection procedures are in place to control and inspect member welds adequately, future occurrence O\
of this deviation is not anticipated and no recommendation regarding procedures or personnel training are required.
Action required to confirm the adequacy of items installed prior to the date when the inspection procedure was put in effect, is discussed in Section 4.7, Missing Documentation.
4.3 Undersized Welds As the sampled welds were not sufficient in number to draw an accurate conclusion regarding the likelihood of an undetected construction deficiency, a program should be developed to achieve the following:
- 1. Select additional samples of field welds and inspect them, using site QC procedures, for weld size.
- 2. Compile the capacity reduction and stress distribution data from the sampled welds that are found to have deviations.
- 3. Determine if additional inspections are required to assure that there are no undetected construction I deficiencies. i L
O
Revision: 1 Page 56 of 60 I\ RESULTS REPORT b
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd)
To prevent future occurrences the method for documenting the welding and bolting inspections should be modified to accurately log the inspection of each weld and bolt detail and the training or methods of welding inspection should be improved as necessary to ensure satisfaction of AWS !
requirements. !
4.4 Substitution of Smaller Diameter Bolts An evaluation should be performed to determine the need for review of vendor drawings for compliance of the bolt diameter with the design drawings.
To avoid future occurrences of bolt diameter substitutions, verify that vendors are instructed to obtain written approval f,'}
v from the engineers prior to any bolt diameter substitution, 4.5 Locking Devices A. Lack of Jam Nuts A program should be developed and implemented that would achieve the following:
- 1. Identification of bolted connections that require locking devices.
- 2. Definition of the inspection requirements for j the connections identified above, including special requirements for those ~onnections, c
specified to be installed hand-tight, that transmit the loads via bolt tension.
l
- 3. Reinspection of the identified connections )
and correction of any deviations identified l during the reinspection. l B. Gaps Between Connected Plies - Seismic Wall Angles To avoid future occurrence of unacceptable gaps of r' " hand-tight" connections that transmit the loads via
( ])
bolt tension, similar to the seismic wall angles, engineering should identify those connections that
- - _ _- _ ._. _ . _ _ .__--___-_________-__-___---__a
l l .
Ravision: 1 Page 57 of 60
[) i
(_ / RESULTS REPORT ;
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd) require additional instruction for the installation of the locking device (to prevent nut rotation), and note the instructions on the design drawings.
4.6 Gap Between Connected Plies - Unit 1 Rotating Platform and Sump Structures A procedure should be developed and implemented that would achieve the following:
- 1. Identify bolted connections that transmit the design force via bearing of the connected plies.
(^3 2. Detail the inspection requirements for the connections i _/
s identified above.
- 3. Reinspect the identified connections and correct any deficiencies identified during the reinspection.
To avoid future occurrences of unacceptable gaps, both the construction and inspection procedure should be revised to delineate the specification requirement that the connections bc free of open joints. Additionally, the construction and inspection procedures should be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that the specification requirements are addressed. ,
4.7 Missing Documentation The structural steel population documentation should be reviewed to identify all items for which inspection documentation cannot be located. Items for which documentation is unavailable should be inspected and reworked, as necessary.
A master list of inspection documentation cross-referenced to the design drawings should be prepared during the recommended documentation review.
O The documentation review process should include an engineering t
\" ,/ evaluation to identify and reclassify any structural steel l
currently classified as seismic Category I that is appropriately seismic Category II.
Revision: 1 Page 58 of 60 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont ' :1)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd) 4.8 Proper Inspection Drawings A program should be established that would review all structural steel design change documents, including design change authorizations to the structural steel specification and to drawings and drawing revisions, to determine those which have not been inspected or constructed. Appropriate work should then be performed on the identified items. To prevent future occurrences of similar situations, a procedure for ensuring the review and implementation of design changes related to structural steel should be established and implemented.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the findings of the reinspection and documentation reviews, satisfactory implementation of the above recommendations, and the conclusions stated in Appendix 33, " Concrete Inserts," and the Results Reports for ISAPs VII.a.1 and VII.b.4, there will be i reasonabic assurance that the hardware in this construction work l
category will be adequately installed to perform its safety-related function.
O
Ravision: 1 Page 59 of 60 1
/
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) j i
Appendix 19 (Cont'd)
Table 19-1 !
Summary of Reinspection Results Structural Steel Deviation Classification Number of Inspection Number of Insigni- Construction Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable Deficiency
- 1. Member 354 74 73 1 0 Configuration
- 2. Alterations 293 32 31 1 0
- 3. Connection Component 414 59 59 0 0 Configuration t
v) 4. Welding 26,400 299 253 46 0
- 5. Structural Bolting 8,104 346 245 21 4* i l
- 6. Concrete Inserts 16** 0 0 0 0 l l'
- 7. Concrete Expansion 1,914*** 9 [A] [A] [A]
Anchors l
TOTAL 37,495 819 661 69 4 )
- 1 Construction Deficiency envalopes 5 deviations for bolt tightening for the seismic wall angles.
1 Construction Deficiency envelopes 4 deviations for gaps between the connected plies of the Unit 1 rotating platform. .
1 Construction Deficiency envelopes 1 deviation for gaps between the connected plies of the Unit 1 sump structure. l l
1 Construction 'Daficiency envelopes 70 deviations for jam nuts on the Unit I rotating plat!nts.
- The analysis of concrete inserts in Appendix 33 includes the results from the q) structv.;al steel inspections for thread engagement. All of the other characteristics are reported under Attribute 5 - Structural Bolting. l
- Concrete expansion anchor inspection points for edge distance and configuration ;
are included uader bolting. [A] Classification deferred to ISAP VII.b.4. ]
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ l
.o Ravision: 1 Page 60.of 60 y
.y] RESULTS REPORT
)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 19 (Cont'd) J Table 19-2 Summary of Documentation Review Results.
Structural Steel q Deviation Classification-Number of Review Number of Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable j i
- 8. Inspection 40 26 20 6 l J
Drawing (s) Identification
- 9. Inspection of 270 8 8 0 Welding
- 10. Inspection of 20 3 (A] [A]
Concrete Expansion Anchors
- 11. Inspection of 86 0 0 0 Structural Bolting
- 12. Inspection of (3) 5 5 5 0 Stud Welding
- 13. Material Traceability 96 8 8 0 j i
Documentation Inspection (2) 22 7 0 , 7 Documentation TOTAL ( ) 539 57 41 13 (1) QC Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals ;
and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualification.
() See Section 2.3. .
- } The recreatable attributes for welded studs were included with structural '
bolting.
[A] Deviations not classified since conclusions of Concrete Expansion Anchors are separately stated in the Results Report for ISAP VII.b.4.
I 6
Rsvision: 1 Page 1 of 42 1
O)
( RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c l (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 Fill and Backfill Placement 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construction work category of fill and backfill placement includes all fill and backfill that is safety-related and seismic Category I. Such fill and backfill is associated with the Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam, Service Water Piping, Category I Electrical Duct Banks and Manholes, the Service Water Intake Structure, the Safeguards Pipe Tunnel, the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks, and the Refueling and Condensate Storage Tanks.
All fill and backfill placement was performed by the Brown &
,~ Root Excavation Department. Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam fill placement was inspected by Freese and Nichols, with
(\~} testing services provided by Mason-Johnston Associates. Site backfill placement prior to July 12, 1978 was inspected by Brown & Root, with testing services provided by R. W. Hunt Co.
Site backfill placement after July 12, 1978 was inspected and tested by TU Electric.
As inspections of fill and backfill placements are not recreatable, only a documentation taview was conducted. Items in the population are the fill and backfill placements as documented on inspection reports. Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam fill placement was documented on Freese and Nichols Inspectors Daily Reports. Site backfill placement prior to July 12, 1978, was documented on Brown & Root inspection checklists. Site backfill placement after July 12, 1978, was documented on TU Electric inspection reports.
1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work category, a population of approximately 1,040 items (placements) was identified as QC-accepted as of the date of this reinspection effort. To address the three phases of the fill and backfill placement work, at least 60 sample items were chosen separately from each of the following three groups: the fill placements
/~'T associated with the Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam, the s
Q
R Ravision: 1
'l- '
Page 2 of 42 3
.,w.
i RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c
[ (Cont'd)
/sppendix 20 (Cont'd) 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) backfill placements inspected by Brown & Root, and the backfill placements inspected by TU Electric. An additional 20 1 cess (15 for the fill associated with the Safe 9:utdown Impoundment Dam, and 5 for the backfill work inspected by Brown & Root) were selected for documentation review of selected attributes to provide a total of at least 60 items for each attribute. The 60 items for TU Electric inspections were seiscted to provide at least 45 items for each attribute.
'As all items in the population are related to safe shutdown, no'second sample was required.
1.3 Attributes Selected Documentation was reviewed for the following attributes:
7-S Attribute 1 -
Inspector's. Daily Report notations (for Safe Shutdtvn Impoundment Dam fill)
Attribute 2 - Test results (for Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam fill)
Attribute 3 -
Inspector certification (for Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam fill)
Attribute 4 - Inspection Checklist notations (for backfill
- Brown & Root inspection)
Attribute 5 -
Test results (for backfill - Brown & Root inspection)
Attribute 6 -
Inspector certification (for backfill - Brown
& Root inspection)
Inspection Report notations (for backfill -
Attribute 7 -
TU Electric inspection)
Attribute 8 -
Test results (for backfill - TU Electric inspection)
-/ Attribute 9 -
Inspector certification L (< (for' backfill - TU Electric inspection) j
[v I
Ravision: 1 Page- 3 of 42 rn r.
-( ). RESULTS REPORT I,
ISAP VII.c
. (Cont'd) l Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summary of Results For documentation review, 438 Deviation Reports were issued describing 488 deviations. A total of approximately 4500 i review points was encountered in performing the documentation review. See Table 20-1 for results of the documentation review. Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.6 and 2.2.9, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP 1.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1
/,_q \. conclusions are summarized in the above referenced Sections.
L)
In the six documentation review attributes of this population (excluding QC inspector certification), all but one type of the deviations evaluated were determined to be insignificant.
The deviation type determined to be notable and to constitute a trend was:
Attributes 5 and 8 - Improper frequency of gradstion testing.
See Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.8 for discussion of these attributes.
In addition two other trends were identified: Extent of backfill around Service Water Intake, discussed in Section 2.2.4, and Inspection Report notations, discussed in Section 2.2.7.
2.2 Analysis of Documentation Review Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the deviations and an analysis of the ef fect of the deviations on the ability of the evidence collected to provide reasonable assurance that the fill and backfill will perform their j functions.
/m:
k_,) 'The function of the fill for the Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam (a rockfill dam with an impervious earth core) is to retain the water used for safe shutdown and continued cooling of the plant. The design of the Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam is
Revision: 1 Page 4 of 42
/~~T RESULTS REPORT
' .] ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) based on both hydraulic and structural stability considerations. Prevention of hydraulic instability as well as structural instability is based primarily upon achievement of density requirements.
The function of backfill is to provide stable load support for structures or components. In the case of buried components (e.g., Electrical Duct Banks and Service Water Piping), the backfill is also intended to provide protection for the buried components. The capability of the backfill to provide stable support and protection is based primarily upon the achievement of sufficient density.
2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Inspector's Daily Report Notations (for w Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam Fill)
Notations were to be made on the Inspector's Daily Report (hereafter called " inspection report") to provide evidence that requirements that can affect the quality of the fill placement were met. The inspection report consists of two pages and, for reports dated after May 2, 1976, an attached multi-page pre-printed checklist. The inspection report notations summarize the important characteristics of the placement work performed and are described in detail in the sections which follow.
In 1,300 review points of the notations on the inspection reports, 67 deviations were identified.
Inspection reports dated prior to May 3, 1976 did not contain the multi-page, pre-printed checklist. The checklist was n'ot specifically required by the Fracse and Nichols procedure; hence, lack of a checklist did not per se constitute a violation of procedure.
Apparently, the checklist was provided as a useful aid for documenting inspection results. As the CPRT documentation review procedure contemplated the existence of the checklist, the absence of a checklist for these "early-phase" inspection reports resulted in
[h 40 deviations. These 40 deviations were found in a review of three such inspection reports. The early-phase reports are ges y less detailed than
p n
Revision: 1 Page 5 of 42 4 AESULTS REPORT N/ ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) the later reports that included the multi-page pre-printed checklist. Nevertheless, on all three inspection reports, the notes gave a general description of the work performed, including specification references, and the general notation
" Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box.
marked "None". This information provides reasonable evidence that the requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The following is a discussion of the remaining 27 deviations in groupings by the type of notation involved.
. () General Requirements Notations In 291 review points for general requirements notations, five deviations concerned general type notations that were not made, The missing general
.information was one of the following:
" Construct 4on Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications.
(Include description, location, time, and remarks): None or see below."
- "Are the zones of the embankment and outer slopes being delineated at approximately 100 foot intervals at least every 5 feet in elevation?"
- "Is the hauling equipment causing horizontal shears or slickensides (" scrape" marks indicative of excessive shear deformation),
rutting, quaking, heaving, cracking, or excessive deformation of embankment?"
- "Are materials being secured from approved borrow sources?"
O
Ravision: 1 Page 6 of 42 3
- RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Two deviations involved one inspection report for which no accompanying checklist could be located; however, the notes on the cover sheet of the inspection report gave a general description of the work performed, and )
the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None".
This provides reasonable assurance that the requirements were met. Deviations of this type were determined to be insignificant.
The three remaining deviations were cases where the pre-printed checklist was included. In two of the
'O three deviations, the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was not checked in the box marked "None". However, the attached checklist was completed f and did not indicate any unacceptable work. In the case of the third deviation, the " borrow source" notation was not marked " accept" or." reject"; however, for the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications",
the inspector checked the box marked "None". It is thus very likely that these general requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant. .
Impervious Material Placement Notations In 229 review points, six deviations concerned notations that were (incorrectly) marked "not worked".
The checklist notations marked "not worked" were:
- "Is the combined excavation, placing and I spreading operation being done in such a manner to obtain a blend of material prior to q compacting?"
() - "Is the material being spread in approximately horizontal layers not more than I
8 inches thick before compacting?"
l
+ .
l Revision: 1 Page 7 of 42 (q j RESULTS REPORT l ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) i Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
- "Is the surface of the embankment being roughened and loosened prior to placing cucceeding layer?"
"Is the hauling equipment being routed over tne surface of the embankment to distribute compactive effort?"
- "Is the center portion being crowned so that the fill would drain freely?"
"Are all roots and debris and all stones greater than 6 inches being removed prior to 7- g compaction?"
All six deviations involved a single inspection report.
The inspection report does note that impervious material was placed ("Placed impervious fill . . .
using 4 inch lifts and hand tamping."), which indicates that f or all six notations on the inspection checklist, the "not worked" marking is incorrect. The general notation on the inspection report " Construction Noted Nct in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None".
It is thus very likely that the Impervious Material Placement requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant. .
Rock Fill Placement Notations In 72 review points, no deviations were identified for notations regarding rock fill placement.
Filter Placement Notations In 162 review points, five deviations were identified i' regarding filter placement notations. The checklist notations were:
Revision: 1 Page 8~of 42 i
RESULTS REPORT O ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
- "Is the material being placed in lifts not to exceed 12 inches loose? If so, how thick?"
- "Is care being taken to avoid contamination?"
- "Is the material being placed by equipment that does not induce segregation?" l t
- "Is contamination by adjacent material, 'j roots, or other debris being avoided?"
~
Four of the deviations involved one inspection report on which all four checklist items were (incorrectly) marked "not worked". . For these four deviations, the inspection report notes that," Completed placing . . .
.O filter lift as per (specification section) 101.5.6.3" which indicates that the notations should not have been marked "not worked". In addition, the general notation _
" Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract I Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None". This provides adequate assurance that the work performed met the requirements. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
One deviation was that lift thickness was not noted.
The inspection report notes " filter lift placed per (specification section) 101.5.6.3", which.provides the acceptance criteria for lift thickness. It is thus !
very likely that filter placement requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Moisture Control Notations In 85 review points, one deviations was reported where l notations were not made where appropriate. The pertinent checklist notation was: )
- "Are the filter zones wet sufficiently to avoid segregation at time of placement and O compaction?"
Revision: 1 Page 9 of 42 r RESULTS REPORT (s,
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 i (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The deviation involved one inspection report for which no accompanying checklist could be locarnf and notation for " filter zone wetting" could not bc iound. However, the notes on the inspection report gave a general description of the work performed, and the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None". It is thus very likely that the Moisture Control requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Processing of Impervious Fill Notations
, , ^
In 122 review points, no deviations were identified
/ that concerned notations that were not made.
V) Processing Rock Fill Material Notations In 124 review points, three deviations concerned notations that were not made. The missing checklist notations were:
- "1s each layer being placed to produce a well graded mass with minimum practical percentage of voids?"
i
- "Are large stones well distributed in the )
entire mass of stone?"
- "Is the fill being placed in conjunction with the central core and filter system?" .
l The three deviations resulted from one inspection report that did have an attached checklist; however, the three notations were left unchecked. The inspection report notes give a general description of the work performed, and the general notation
" Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box
/'~ marked "None". It is thus very likely that the rock
(,. fill material processing requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Revision: 1 Page 10 of 42 fx RESULTS REPORT
)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Compaction Equipment Notations In 52 review points, two deviations concerned a notation enat was not found. The missing checklist notation was:
"Does the compacting equipment conform to specification requirements?"
One of the deviations pertained to an inspection report that did not have a checklist attached. The remaining deviation pertained to an inspection report that did have the checklist attached; however, the compacting equipment conformance entry was not marked " accept";or "rej ec t". For both deviations, the inspection reports
() '
notes give a general description of the work performed, and the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None".
It is thus very likely that the compaction equipment requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Impervious Fill Compaction Notations In 92 review points, two deviations concerned notations that were not found. The missing checklist notations were:
- "Is each lift being given eight (8) passes with tamping roller or a combination of four (4) passes with tamping roller followed by four (4) passes with a pneumatic roller as required or by eight (8) passes of pneumatic roller as directed?"
- "Is the rolling sequence or pattern being followed for each lift as required?"
l
Revision: 1 Page 11 of 42 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
- "Is the test sample being taken below the indention (sic) of the sheep's foot roller, or below six inches, whichever is the greater depth?"
The two deviations pertained to an inspection report that has a checklist attached; however, for two of the impervious fill compaction entries, all boxes were left blank. The inspection report notes gave a general description of the work performed, and the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None". It is thus very likely that the impervious fill compaction requirements were met.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Filter Compaction Notations In 42 review points, one deviation concerned a notation that was not found where appropriate. The missing checklist notation was:
- "Is the material being placed with a spreader box that does not induce segregation?"
The deviation pertained to an inspection report that did have the checklist attached; however, the filter compaction entry was left blank. The inspection report notes gave a general description of the work performed, and the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None". It is thus very likely that the filter compaction requirement was met.
This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Rock Fill Compaction Notations In 39 review points, two deviations concerned notations that were not found where appropriate. The missing checklist notations were:
Revision: 1 Page 12 of 42
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c i
(Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
- "Is each lift receiving a minimum of four (4) passes with vibratory roller as required?"
- "How many additional passes are being required this shift?"
The deviations pertained to two inspection reports that did have the checklist attached; however, the applicable rock fill compaction entry,vas not .
completed. The inspection report neces gave a general description of the work performed. In one case the
" minimum of four passes" item on the checklist was left blank; however, the general notes state " completed compaction of rock lift as per 101.5.9.3", which is the specification section that includes the " minimum of O four passes" requirement. 7n the other case, although the number of additional passes was not noted, the
" minimum of four passes" notation was made. In both cases, the general notation " Construction Noted Not in Accordance with Contract Plans and/or Specifications" was checked in the box marked "None". It is thus very likely that the rock fill compaction requirements were met. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.2 Attribute 2 - Test Results (for Safe Shutdown
' Impoundment Dam fill) ,
In-process testing is performed during the course of fill placement to ensure control of material and workmanship in such a manner that the resulting placement is in accordance with specified requirements.
The adequacy of the compaction and moisture control of fill is specified, controlled, and verified by the field (or "in-place") density test. As the inspection report checklist requirements are steps in the overall effort to meet in-place density requirements, a significant departure from these requirements would be evidenced by a failure to achieve density. In approximately 1000 review points for Test Results, 32 O deviations were identified and are dis' cussed below.
i Revision: 1 l Page 13 of 42
-~ RESULTS REPORT
# ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Frequency of Testing In 62 review points to verify that the referenced testing on the inspection repo:t is consistent with frequency of testing requirements, two deviations concerned cases where it could not be verified that the requirements were met. For one of thes> cases, it could not be verified that the liquid 22ait test reported was in accordance with the minimum frequency requirement of one test per 3,000 cubic yards. In the other case, it could not be verified that the minimum frequency requirement of one rapid compaction test per lift of impervious fill was met.
,-s, In the case regarding liquid limit testing, the
( quantity of material placed was not noted on the
) inspection report. For the frequency requirement to have been violated, more than 1,800 cubic yards would have had to have been placed during that shift. Based on an analysis of typical quantities placed per shift, it was concluded that some quantity less than 400 cubic yards was placed. Therefore, the minimum frequency requirement for liquid limit testing was not violated.
This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
In the case regarding rapid compaction testing, the inspection report notes that seven lifts of impervious material were placed on the south abutment ramp, yet only two rapid compaction tests were taken. Based on the inspection report and reference drawings, the total yardage of impervious material placed on the south abutment ramp during that shift was small (approximately 230 cubic yards - 70 feet long by 20 feet wide by 4.5 feet high). The two rapid compaction tests taken did meet density acceptance criteria.
Rapid compaction testing is performed as an in-process acceptance test. The rapid compaction test procedure yields a quick and accurate value for in-place density.
Final acceptance of the placed material is based on the record density test. The record density test for this
(} placement met density acceptance criteria. This
\s ,/ deviation was determined to be insignificant.
l Revision: 1 Page 14 of 42
[
v RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) 1 Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Test Locations Clearly Noted in 63 review points to verify that locations for all referenced tests were clearly noted, one deviation was identified in which the locations for gradation tests were not given on the inspection report. Although locations were not on the inspection report, the tests in question were referenced on the inspection report by test-type name and by test number, and detailed location information was found on the test result forms. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Test Results Location Description Consistency In 272 review points to verify that the referenced test results location description is consistent with the inspection report location description, 18 deviations were identified. Sixteen of the deviations were station, offset, or elevation inconsistencies between the inspection report summary of test locations and the individual test result form location descriptions. Two of the deviations resulted from a case (the case discussed in the paragraph above) in which the inspection report summary did not list the test locations.
in the case of the station, offset and elevation inconsistencies, all the differences were minor in degree (i.e, general location in terms of zone of the ,
dam was clear). In the case in which the inspection report summary did not list test locations, the tests were referenced by test-type name and by test number; !
detailed location information was found on the test result forms. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
]
j 1
l
1 Revision: 1 Page 15 of 42 p-l'
() RESULTS REPORT ISAF VII.c (Cont'd)'
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) l:
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In-Place Density Requirements In 172 review points to verify that in-place density test results (excluding rapid compaction results) listed on the inspection report meet in-place density requirements, no deviations were identified.
Rapid Compaction In 56 review points to verify that any rapid compaction I test results meet in-place density requirements for impervious fill, no deviations were identified.
Reference Test Applicability In 172 review points to verify that the applicable (i.e., most up-to-date) relative density or maximum dry density test is referenced on the in-place density test form, four deviations were identified in which the reference test listed was not the most up-to-date test.
For two of the deviations, the proper results were in
'iact used, although the wrong test number was listed.
For the other two deviations, the next-to-last tes,t was listed and its results used, because the most up-to-date test results were not finalized at that time. The results of this test show an acceptable value for in-place density when either reference test is used. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Reference Test Value Consistency In 172 review points to verify that relative density or maximum dry density test results are consistent with the values reported on the in-place density test form, seven deviations were identified in which the incorrect reference test results were used to compute in-place density.
O
Rsvision: 1 Page 16 of 42
('
i RESULTS REPORT I
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
For five of the deviations, results were recorded in error when transferred from the relative density test form to the in-place density test form. Evaluation using the proper values yields acceptable in-place density results. For the two remaining deviations, the results of the next-to-last relative density test were used instead of the latest test, because results were not finalized at that time. Evaluation using the latest results also yields acceptable in-place density results. All seven deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Material Test Results
(, f In 44 review points to verify that material test results (i.e., gradation, Atterberg limit [a test used to determine the plasticity of a clay soil], soundness, or flatness and elongation test results) referenced on the inspection report meet requirements, no deviations were identified.
2.2.3 Attribute 3 - Inspector Certification (for Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam fill)
A total of 392 review points was reviewed to determine if the QC inspector who signed the inspection report or test results was appropriately certified to perform the SSSI Dam fill inspection or test. Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 evaluations of' inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability.
Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
I
)
Revision: 1 Page 17 of 42 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The ISAP 1.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all inspectors either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
2.2.4 Attribute 4 - Inspection Checklist Notations (for backfill - Brown & Root Inspection)
Notations were made on the Inspection Checklis't p (hereaf ter called " inspection report") to provide evidence that requirements that can affect the quality of the backfill placement were met. The inspection report is a two-page pre-printed checklist.,
In approximately 600 review points of the notations on the inspection report, 110 deviations were identified and are discussed below.
Extent of Backfill Notations In 60 review points to verify that the extent of backfill covered by the inspection report is clearly identified either on the report or on an attached sketch, 56 deviations were identified where the extent was not clearly noted.
For 14 deviations, electrical duct bank backfill placement locations were described by reference to a station system; however, the origin of the station system was not stated. During review, it was found that the station system was clearly defined on an-earlier inspection report; therefore, the extent of the backfill placements were determined. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
O
}
Revision: 1 Page 18 of 42
'[Y
's.
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c ,
(Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
For 29 deviations, backfill placement locations adjacent to the Service Water Intake were described by elevation (start and finish) and by the side of the structure against which the placement was made.
However, the extent of the placement in terms of distance from the structure wall was not given.
Excavation blasting resulted in unanticipated gaps between the structure and the wall of the excavation.
The gaps were backfilled. No as-built excavation drawings could be located. Interim excavation drawings and field notes were located that give an indication of the extent of the areas requiring backfill. By review of the Service Water Intake backfill inspection reports as a group, an approximate extent of the backfill
('s/)
- placement for each given report was determined. The population included all inspection reports required for the estimated amount of backfill adjacent to the Service Water Intake. Thus the colle'cted evidence was concluded to be sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the Service Water Intake fill and backfill will perform its safety function. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The inspection reports reference a structural drawing for the Service Water Intske Structure, yet the reference drawing does net indicate backf,ill ahainst the structure. As no as-built drawing is readily available to confirm the lateral extent of the backfill placements adjacent to the Service Water Intake, and thereby confirm that all backfill adjacent to the Service Water intake was represented on backfill inspection reports, the documentation is considered incomplete. A recommendation for improvement is made.
(See Section 4.0.)
A Y -
1 i
a Revision: 1 Page 19 of 4' I I
- 1 l ')
\,_- RESULTS REPORT 1
I ISAP VII.c ,
(Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Twelve of the deviations pertained to electrical duct bank and manhole placements for which locations were not clearly noted. By review of these inspection reports in conjunction with reports for adjacent areas, the general extent of backfill placement for each of the subject reports was determined and found to be acceptable. These deviations were <ntermined to be insignificant.
One of the deviations pertained to a backfill placement adjacent to the Safeguards Pipe Tunnel for which the inspection report location description was not clear.
However, by review of the referenced structural drawing, the general extent of the placement was
(,)
(N determined and found to be. acceptable. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Signature Card Natation In 60 review points for the notation "A Soil Backfill Placement Signature Card was completed which would cover the topic backfill", no deviations were identified.
Signature Card Signed and Dated In 120 review points to verify that the applicable soil backfill placement signature card was signed and dated to indicate satisfactory completion of pertinent discipline requirements or lack thereof, 51 deviations were identified due to incorrect signing and/or dating of the card.
A properly signed and dated signature card indicates satisfactory completion of pertinent discipline ,
requirements prior to commencing backfill placement and thereby facilitates construction progress by ensuring that future rework of the backfill will not be f- s necessary. A signature on the signature card constitutes a release to perform the subject work.
()
1 Revision: 1 Page 20 of 42 s RESULTS REPORT
' ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd)
~
, 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Ten of the deviations were for cases where dates of signature were not prior to the placement of backfill.
These late signatures would indicate that discipline requirements were met prior to commencement of backfill but that actual signing of the card was performed later. At any rate, discipline requirements would not affect the quality of the installed backfill. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The remaining 41 deviations involved cases in which signature blocks were marked "N/A", while card instructions specified that all disciplines should sign. Review of these cases showed that missing signatures were typically those of disciplines that had no pertinent requirements (e.g., missing mechanical l ) signature for electrical duct bank backfill) for the
\> work in question. In many cases, additional cards were found that contained the missing signatures, and by compiling these separate cards, coverage has been shown. However, for some areas associated with the Service Water Intake and the Safeguards Tunnel, geologist sign-off was not found. For the areas at the Service Water Intake the signature cards in question were for the backfill against the walls in excavated areas previously inspected by the geologist. For the area at the Safeguards Tunnel it also was for backfill against the walls in an excavated area previously inspected by the geologist. In each case'the backfill in these areas was documented on an inspection report that indicates that the backfill was done in accordance with the specification. Therefore, deviations of this type on the signature card are of no consequence in terms of the quality of the installed backfill. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
)
Stockpile Construction and Identification l In 120 review points for " Stockpiles were constructed to prevent contamination and segregation" and
" Stockpiles were properly identified", no deviations
[~ -
were identified.
Revision: 1 Page 21 of 42 RESULTS REPORT
,g '
i i
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Preparation of Working Surface Notations In 60 review points for " Working surface was free of foreign material", no deviations were identified.
Placement of Backfill Notations In 97 review points for " Backfill was placed in horizontal lifts not thicker than eight inches loose" tad " Moisture content of the material was controlled in obtaining the required density", three deviations were identified in which " moisture content controlled" was mistakenly noted as "N/A".
In all three cases, the inspector marked the item "N/A" 7-.s with a note on the inspection report that the material
(
N- in question was going to be removed due to a failing gradation test. In one of the three cases, the material was removed and replaced. In the other two cases, the material removed did not include all of the material placed. In these two cases, the engineer revised the gradation acceptance criteria before all of the material was removed. The test in question met the revised criteria (discussed in Section 2.2.5); hence, removal was not necessary. The inspector did not revise the earlier checklist note. The " moisture content controlled" attribute is a precaution; f ailure of the contractor to control moisture would be reflected in a failure to meet density acceptance criteria. For the tests in question acceptable density was achieved. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Preparation of Trenches Notations In 31 review points for " Trench was excavated to required width and depth" and "Claystone was removed to the required depth when encountered", no deviations were identified.
Revisions. 1 Page- 22 of 42
) RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Pipe and Duct Bank Backfill and Bedding Notations No deviations were identified in 32 review points.for I the following notations:
- "Any bedding material placed was placed in horizontal lifts not thicker.than six inches loose";
" Moisture content of the material was controlled in obtaining the required density";
"Any bedding material placed f or pipe was shaped to fit curvature of pipe for a width
(' of at least 60 percent of pipe diameter";
- " Applicable pipe spacing was maintained during backfill operation";
- "Any bedding material placed was hand-tamped around any cable, conduit or duct bank for a I minimum distance of twelve inches".
2.2.5 Attribute'5 - Test Results (for Backfill - Brown & Root Inspection)
In-process testing was performed during the course of backfill placement to ensure control of material and workmanship. Adequacy of compaction and moisture control of backfill is specified and controlled, and is verified by the field (or "in-place") density test. As the Inspection Checklist requirements are steps in the overall effort to meet in-place density requirements, any significant departure from these requirements would likely be evidenced by a failure to achieve density.
Likewise, achievement of density requirements would suggest that proper steps were followed.
O
4 Revision: l' Page 23 of 42
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In approximately 500 review points for Test Results, 50 deviations were identified and are discussed below.
Frequency of Testing In 31 review points for " Review the Inspection Report to verify that referenced testing is consistent with frequency of testing requirements", 17 deviations were identified. In one case, the minimum frequencies for density and gradation testing were not met. The ,
remaining 16 cases involved gradation testing which did not meet minimum frequency of testing requirements.
In the case of the density test frequency deviation, the specification requirement was one test per three lif ts or 500 cubic yards (whichever would correspond to O- a greater frequency), and the number of lifts of material placed would have required at least four density tests; however, only two were performed. The.
particular placement is in a confined area adjacent to the safeguard tunnel. The total volume of backfill placed was about 130 cubic yards; thus, each test represented less than 70 cubic yards and showed acceptable results. The volume of backfill per test is considered small. This type of deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Seventeen gradation test frequency deviations were identified. The specification required that at least ;
one test be performed for every three lifts or 300 cubic yards of material placed (whichever would correspond to a greater frequency). Typical deviations noted six or more lifts of material placed with one or no gradation tests taken. The specification allows the engineer to provide alternate minimum frequency of testing criteria; however, no documentation of such alternate criteria was found. The deviations were determined to be notah1.e.
What follows is a combined discussion of these 17 deviations for the backfill placements inspected by A Brown & Root together with nine similar deviations ,
noted later in this appendix (Section 2.2.8) for the backfill placements inspected by TU Electric.
Revision: 1 Page 24'of 42 2
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 1he quality of the backfill material was controlled.
The backfill-material came from approved on-site quarries of very hard, tan. fossiliferous crystalline limestone that occurs as a continuous bed throughout the site area. Controlled blasting techniques were used in quarrying to segregate claystone seams and exclude them from the stockpile.
Gradation of the backfill material was controlled by passing the quarried limestone through a cr' usher and a series of vibrating screens. Permissible gradation was adjusted during the early portion of the work to take into account the actual gradations achievable at the site. The geotechnical consultants reviewed the adjusted gradation with regard to cyclic shear strength g characteristics and deemed it acceptable. This specified backfill was a well-graded material with less than 10 percent passing the Number 100 sieve.
-Gradation tests are typically taken at a frequency equal to or less than that used for density tests.
Review of frequency of testing recommendations (from accepted reference sources) for density tests around structures and in trenches indicates the following frequencies:
Agency Source Frequency U S Navy Design Manual 1 per 100-200 cubic yards "DM-7" (1982) and one test when there is a definite suspicion of a change in the quality of moisture control or effectiveness of compaction US Bureau of Reclamation Earth Manual (1974) 1 per 200 cubic yards but at least one test per shift O
- l. - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I '
Revision: 1
]
Tage 25.of 42 l l
RESULTS REPORT f~'
{
?
ISAP VII.c j (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) ,
The studation test frequency specified for the backfill was "one test per three lifts or one test per 300 cubic yards, which (sic) is greater or as directed by the engineers".
The actual test frequency for the cases examined where the requirements for frequency of testing were not met was one test per approximately 100 cubic yards or less.
As the areas involved were relatively confined, this frequency did not meet the specified minimum requirement of one test per three lifts. However, it does meet the minimum frequency recommended by both the Navy and the Bureau of Reclamation.
,g Results of the gradation tests f or the backfill
() indicate that the backfill was a carefully processed material. During the course of the backfill operations, S4 gradstion tests were taken. Of the 84 tests, 14 did not meet the specified gradation requirements. (In every case, the material was replaced and retested and met specification requirements.) Examination of these tests indicates that, in 11 of 14 cases, the variation from the specified gradation was 3 percent or less. In one case, the limit on material passing the " fine" sieve (number 100) was exceeded by 6 percent. Only in the last case did the material fall out of the specified gradation range sufficiently to depart f rem the well-graded characteristics of the crushed stone backfill. In this instance, the increase in material passing the " fine" sieve could have been indicative of the presence of claystone. Thirteen of the 14 tests that did not meet the specified gradation, nevertheless showed that the material was well-graded, with less than 10 percent pasaing the " fine" sieve and was a i stable, free-draining structural backfill. This consistency in gradation attests to the careful i processing of the crushed stone.
l Revision: 1 4 Page 26 of 42 l
/
Q} RESULTS REPORT i
ISAP VII.c l (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
An analysis was made to determine whether, due to insufficient frequency of testing, some " untested" portion of the backfill should have been rejected.
This analysis indicates that a negligible portion of the " untested" backfill could possibly contain a small quantity of claystone. Therefore, it is unlikely that any sizable quantity of reject material could be placed in one area. Any such material would be more likely to have been scattered randomly throughout the backfill 1n such quantities that the effect on the behavior of the backfill would be insignificant.
The 17 gradation test f requency deviations show a trend gs of noncompliance with the specification requirement.
(') Based on consideration of the controlled process by which the backfill was manufactured, consideration of the actual frequency of gradation testing, and review of all the gradation test results, it is concluded that the backfill will perform as intended. A recommendation for improvement is made. (See Section 4.0.)
Inspection Checklist Test Locations In 61 review points for " Locations for all referenced tests are clearly noted either on the Inspection Report itself, on an attached sketch, or on the reference tests", 30 deviations were identified in which test locations were not clearly noted.
In all cases, the test in question was clearly referenced by test type and number on the inspection report, and the general location listed on the test result form was consistent with the inspection report location. However, the location coordinates and/or elevation of the test was not given. Nevertheless, since the reference by test type and number on the inspection report constitutes a clear tie between the inspection report and the test result, it is thus very
/ T likely that the referenced test results represent the
' in-place material at the general location cited by the inspection report. Therefore, the deviations were determined to be insignificant,
Revision: 1 Page 27 of 42 o
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 j (Cont'd) 2.0' DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Test Results Location Description In 155 review points for " Referenced test results location description is not inconsistent with the Inspection F.eport location description", no deviations were identified.
Density Criteria Met In 131 review points for "For in-place density test results listed on the Inspection Report, the density acceptance criteria are met", two deviations were identified.
[() In one case, one of three referenced density tests could not be located and hence density could not-be confirmed. Upon review the missing density test was located in the Permanent Plant Records Vault (not in the TU Electric vault) and it met density requirements. !
'It had been misfiled. In the other case, an apparent inadvertent transposition of test location survey information in combination with ambiguous notes on the test result forms made it difficult to determine whether failing material was removed and replaced.
Based on further review of the checklist and teste in question, it was concluded that no failing material was left in place and that the in-place material was tested sufficiently. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Reference Applicability and Consistency In 131 review points to verify that applicable (i.e.,
most up-to-date) reference values for relative density (or maximum dry density) were used for the relative density (or percent maximum dry density) determination shown on the in-place density test form, one deviation was identified in which the most up-to-date reference value for maximum dry density was not used. Instead the maximum dry density value was taken from the
- previous test performed two weeks prior.
i
Revision: 1 PaFe 28 or 42 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c
-(Cont'd)
' Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Regardless, the use of either the most up-to-date test or the prior test yields an acceptable in-place density result. The deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Gradation Test Results In 24 review points to verify that gradation acceptance criteria were met for gradation test resulta listed on the inspection report, no deviations were identified.
2.2.6 Attribute 6 - Inspector Certification (for Backfill -
t Brown & Root Inspection)
A total of 213 review points was reviewed to determine if the QC inspector who signed the inspection report or O\ test results was appropriately certified to perform the backtill inspections or test results during the Brown &
Root inspection time period. Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a results of the ISAP 1.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily related directly to actual inspector qualifications. Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability.
Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP 1.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP I.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all inspectors either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP 1.d.1 Results Report.
O
4 Revision: -1 Page 29 of 42
./ E RESULTS REPORT
(
ISA? VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 l (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
I 2.2.7 Attribute 7 - Inspection Report Notations (for Backfill
- TU Electric Inspection)
Notations were to be made on the inspection Report (hereaf ter called " inspection report") in order to l provide evidence that requirements for backfill l placement were met. The inspection report is a single page form with space for the inspector to list j pertinent inspection attributes; the inspection report has no pre-printed checklist items. A recommendation for improvement is made. (See Section 4.0.) In approximately 700 review points for inspection report notations, 181 deviations were reported. <1 A total of 15 deviations for this attribute and six deviations for the test results attribute (Section 2.2.8) resulted from one inspection report that could not be located; thus, each of the 15 notation items and the six test results items could not be verified.
Review of the manual log for civil inspection reports (i.e., concrete and grout inspection reports as well as backfill inspection reports) indicates that the report number may have been reserved but not used or that the report may have been voided; however, this could not be confirted. A review of the number sequence for tests performed did find that all tests during the time frame ~
were accounted for and listed on inspectien reports that were located. All of the other 59 inspection reports sampled out of a total of 101 TU Electric inspection reports were located and reviewed. The unlocated inspection report is considered to be an isolated occurrence and the resulting deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Another 10 devictions resulted from two hand-written inspection reports that listed the appropriate attributes except that neither the " sat" nor the "unsat" column was marked for each attribute reviewed.
Further review of the inspection reports found both to have been signed by the inspector and noted as being
-O complete with all applicable items satisfactory. Each inspection report also noted tests performed during the
Revision: 1 Page 30 of 42
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) inspections with the results being satisfactory. The inspection reports had sketches attached that indicated the area being worked with notations where the test had 1 been performed. Based on this review it is concluded that the listed attributes were most likely EAspected as being satisfactory and an' oversight by rhe inspector had occurred is not fully completing the inspection report.
Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Extent of Backfill Notations In 58 review points for "The extent of backfill covered by the report is clearly identified either on the lead sheet or on attached sketch", 40 deviations were
.O. identified where extent was not clearly noted.
Twenty-three of the deviations involved Service Water Pipe Trench backfill inspection reports. Thirteen were for electrical duct bank / manhole backfill inspection reports. Two of the deviations were for backfill inspection reports covering the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks and feeder lines. Two of the deviations pertained to backfill inspection reports for the Refueling and Condensate Tanks.
The deviations resulted from incomplete location descriptions. In all cases, a general description of the area and/or system was given. However, in each case, the plan area and/or elevation description was incomplete. In all but one case, the general extent of
.. the placement documented by a given inspection report L could be determined so as to establish whether or not all of the subject backfill is accounted for on inspection reports. This determination was made by review of the inspection rcports in conjunction with other inspection reports for the same area and/or system, and in view of referenced drawing and test j information. Deviations of this type were determined i
- to be insignificant. l
Revision: 1 Page 31 of 42
[JI RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In the one remaining case, an inspection report concerning placement adjacent to an electrical duct ~
bank, the general extent of documented placement could not be so datarmined. Even though the extent of the work was not verifiable the inspection report and the inplace density test did indicate that the work was performed satisfactorily. Therefore, the deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Signature Card Inspection Checklist Notation In 57 review points to verify the notation for "A Soil Backfill Placement Signature Card was compleced which would cover the topic backfill", no deviations were
() identified.
Signature Card Signed and Dated In 114 review points for "The applicable soil backfill placement signature estd was signed and dated to indicate satisfactory completion of pertinent discipline requirements or lack thereof", 58 deviations were identified due to incorrect signing and/or dating of the card.
A properly signed and dated signature card indicates satisfactory completion of pertinent discipline requirements prior to commencing backfill placement and thereby facilitates construction progress by ensuring that future rework of the backfill will not be necessary. A signature on the signature card constitutes a release to perform the subject work.
Thirteen of the deviations involved cases where dates of signature were not prior to the placement of backfill. Presumably these late signatures signify that discipline requirements were met prior to commencement of backfill but that actual signing of the
,Q card was performed later. In any case, the specific
\s ) discipline requirements involved would not affect the quality of the installed backfill. Deviations of this type were determined to be insignificant.
I l Revision: 1 I Page 32 of 42
[)
v RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
A total of 45 deviations concerned cases in which signature blocks were marked "N/A" although card instructions required that all disciplines should sign.
Review of these cases showed that missing signatures were typically those of. disciplines that had no pertinent requirements (e.g., missing mechanical signature for electrical duct bank backfill) for the work in question. In some cases, additional cards could be found for the same area with the missing signature present and compilation of these separate cards would then show coverage. In the case of the Diesel Fuel Oil Tanks, and the Refueling / Condensate Tanks, the geologist's signature was not found. For both cases a review of correspondence indicates that
() the excavation in these areas had been previously inspected by the geologist, although his signature was In each case the backfill not on the signature card.
in these areas was documented on an inspection report that indicates the backfill was done in accordance with the specification.
Therefore, a deviation on the signature card has little potential to affect the quality of the installed backfill. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Stockpile Construction and Identification Notations I
In 114 review points for " Stockpiles were constructed to prevent contamination and segregation" and .
" Stockpiles were properly identified", five deviations were identified where notations were missing.
i Two of the deviations involved one inspection report on which neither notation was found. The other three deviations re,ulted from three inspection reports on which the first notation was found but not the second.
As construction and maintenance of stockpiles were such that the quality and control of the material were unlikely to change on a day-to-day basis and most O inspection reports showed, both notations these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
. ~. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ .
Ravision: 1 Page 33 of 42
/m RESULTS REPORT ]
{] '
I ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 f (Cont'd) {
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Preparation of Working Surface Notations In 57 review points for " Working surface was free of foreign material", no deviations were identified where a notation was not found.
Placement of Backfill Notations l In 72 review points for " Backfill was placed in horizontal lifts not thicker than eight inches loose" and " Moisture content of the material was controlled in obtaining the required density", three deviations were identified in which notations were not found. Two of the deviations involved one inspection report on which neither notation was found. The remaining deviation b involved an inspection report on which the first notation was made, but the second notation (" Moisture controlled") could not be found. The inspection reports did indicate that density test requirements were being met with satisfactory results and other I
inspection reports for work in the same area list the requirements and are documented as being satisfactory.
Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Preparation of Trenches Notations In 111 review points for " Trench was excavated to l required width and depth" and "Claystone was removed to the required depth when encountered", 20 deviations were identified in which notations were not found.
Four of the deviations involved two inspection reports on which neither notation was found. Twelve of the deviations involved inspection reports on which " trench width and depth" was noted but "claystone removal" was not found. Four of the deviations resulted from inspection reports on which "claystone removal" was q noted but " trench width and depth" was not found. For i all 20 deviations, earlier inspection reports for
\ previous work in the same areas were found that showed the notation. These deviations were determined to be insiF nificant.
I l
l
Revision: 1
~ Pegs 34 of 42
% ' RESULTS REPORT
\ /-
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Pipe / Duct Bank Backfill and Bedding Notations In 132 review points, 30 deviations were identified.
Affected checklist items included:
"Any bedding material placed was placed in horizontal lifts not thicker than six inches loose";
" Moisture content of the material was controlled in obtaining the required density";
- "Any bedding material placed for pipe was shaped to fit curvature of pipe for a width O of at least'60 percent of pipe diameter";
- " Applicable pipe spacing was maintained during backfill operatien"; and "Any bedding material placed was hand-tamped around any cable, conduit or duct bank for a minimum distance of twelve inches".
Five deviations involved missing notation that "Any bedding material placed was placed in horizontal lifts not thicker than 6 inches loose". For four of the deviations, acceptable density test results are j available that confirm the adequacy of the bedding i material in question. One of the deviations pertained to a small quantity (5 cubic yards) of bedding material placed around the flexline connection between a duct 3 bank and a manhole. The inspector did note " Bedding hand-tamped for minimum of 12 inches around conduit at each manhole". These deviations were determined to be insignificant because the supplemental information shows it to be likely that the "6 inch loose lift" requirement was met.
Ten deviations involved missing notation for "Any
-() bedding material placed for pipe was shaped to fit curvature of pipe for a width of at least 60 percent of pipe diameter". Eight of these deviations involved 1
Revision: 1 Page 35 of 42 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) bedding placements that, upon investigation, were above the elevation at which shaping was to be performed. In all eight cases, notation for shaping was found on earlier inspection reports for lower elevations. These deviations were determined to be insignificant. The two remaining deviations were for placement of. bedding for auch relatively small diameter piping (a 12 inch diameter line in one case and a three inch diameter line in the other case) that the shaping requirement is not necessary to assure an adequate installation.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Eleven deviations involved missing notation for
" Applicable pipe spacing was maintained during backfill
(^
(.
operation". For three of these deviations, it was determined that either no pipes were in place at the time of placement or only one pipe was in place and hence the spacing requirement was not applicable. For the remaining eight devi-'lons pipe spacing has a low potential to result in a backfill placement problem (as l
opposed to a pipe configuration problem). Review of
- the as-built piping isometrics for the lines applicable to these backfill inspection reports indicate that adequate spacing between the lines exist. Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
Four deviations involved missing notation,for "Any bedding material placed was hand-tamped around any cable, conduit or duct bank for a minimum distance of 12 inches". All four deviations pertained to bedding placements which, upon investigation, were determined to be above the elevation at which hand-tamping was performed. In all four cases, notation for hand-tamping was found on earlier inspection reports.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.8 Attribute 8 - Test Results (for Backfill - TU Electric Inspection)
In-process testing is performed during the course of O backfill placement to ensure control of material and workmanship so that the resulting placement is in accordance with specified requirements. The adequacy
Rsvision: 1 Page 36 of 42 I
/ RESULTS REPORT V)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) of the compaction and moisture control of backfill is specified, controlled, and verified by the field (or
'. "in-place") density test. As the inspection report requirements are steps in the overall effort to meet in-place density requirements, any significant departure from these requirements would likely be evidenced by a failure to achieve density. Likewise, l
achievement of density requirements would suggest that proper steps were followed.
In approximately 400 review points ,for test results, 42 deviations were identified and are discussed below.
Frequency of Testing l t
(
i In 26 review points for " Review the Inspection Report to verify that referenced testing is consistent with frequency of testing requirements", nine deviations were identified. All of the cases involved gradation testing that did not meet minimum frequency of testing requirements. The quantity of violations shows a trend of non-compliance with the specified requirement. The deviations were determined to be notable and were evaluated further.
The evaluation results are presented in the discussion for Frequency of Testing in Section 2.2.5,in a combined discussion of these nine deviations with 17 similar deviations noted for the Brown & Root portion of the backfill placement.
Inspection Checklist Test Locations In 48 review points for " Locations for all referenced tests are clearly noted either on the Inspection Report s itself, on an attached sketch, or on the reference tests", 29 deviations were identified in which test locations were not clearly noted.
For these deviations, the location coordinates and/or
') elevation of the test were not given. Nevertheless, in all cases the test in question was clearly referenced !
by test type and number on the inspection report, and ;
the general location listed on the test result form was 1
Revision: 1.
Page 37 of 42 RESULTS REPORT
.(
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) consistent with the inspection report location. It is thus very likely that the referenced test results represent the in-place material at the general location cited by the inspection report. Deviations of this-type were determined to be insignificant.
Test Results Test Location In 125 review points for " Referenced test results location description is not inconsistent with the l
Inspection Report location description", two deviations were identified where consistency could not be verified.
One of the deviations resulted from an inspection N-. report for which a referenced gradation test result sheet could not be found. During evaluation the result sheet was found in the test lab (not in the TU Electric vault), and the location description was found to be consistent. Hence, the deviation is insignificant.
The other deviation resulted from an inspection report wherein the test elevation on the inspection report differed by two feet from the test elevation on the test result form. In the context of other inspection reports, it appears that the inspection report i elevation is correct. Since all other location information was consistent for this case and the test i results are clearly referenced on the inspection report by test type and test number, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
Density Criteria Met i In 97 review points for "For in-place density test j results listed on the Inspection Report, the density acceptance criteria are met", no deviations were identified.
O l
l l
Revision: 1 Page 38 of 42 jN RESULTS REPORT ISAP.VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Reference Applicability / Consistency In 97 review points for "The applicable (i.e., most up-to-date) reference values for relative density (or maximum dry density) have been used for the relative-density (or percent maximum dry density) determination shown on the in-place density test form", no deviations were identified.
Gradation Test Results In 28 review points for "For gradation test results listed on the Inspection Report, the gradation acceptance criteria are met", two deviations were
- identified.
Both deviations resulted from inspection reports for which the referenced gradation test result sheet could not be found. During evaluacion, the result sheet was found in the test lab (not in the TU Electric vault),
and the gradation acceptance criteria were met in both cases. Hence, the deviations are insignificant.
2.2.9 Attribute 9 - Inspector Certification (for Backfill -
TU Electric Inspection)
A total of 184 review points was reviewed to determine if the inspector who signed the backfill Inspection report or test results was appropriately certified to perform the backfill inspection or test during the TU Electric Inspection ti'e m period.
Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining fO inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
Revision: 1 Page 39 of 42 lh RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd)
The ISAP 1.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all inspectors either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS A root cause and generic implications analysis is not required.
O 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Recommendations for Corrective Action No corrective action recommendations are required.
4.2 Recommendations for Improvement The following recommendations are made so that existing and future documentation will clearly represent the acceptability of as-built placements:
Extent of Backfill Adjacent to Service Water Intake An as-built drawing depicting the Service Water Intake excavation should be provided. The as-built drawing is necessary to confirm the extent of the backfill adjacent to the Service Water Intake and thereby confirm that all backfill adjacent to the Service Water Intake was represented on backfill inspection reports. The as-built drawing would also serve to resolve the inconsistencies between Final Saf ety Analysis Report Figure 2.5.4-27 (which depicts backfill only along the north side of the Service Water Intake) and the backfill inspection checklists (which indicate backfill surrounding the Service Water Intake).
Revision: 1 Page 40 of 42 m RESULTS REPORT i 1
% .]
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont'd)
The fact that the engineer identified the need for as-built drawings to be compiled (reference GTN-3876) suggests that they may have been compiled and have since been mislocated.
Per Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Section 2.6.5.1 and Atomic Energy Commission Question 2.47, it pas established that geologic mapping of the faces and floors of excavations for Category I structures and buried piping would be performed (Reference TGH-5139). Any such mapping information for the Service Water Intake excavation could be useful for compiling an as-built drawing.
Frequency of Gradation Testing Any evidence of the engineer's direction regarding relaxed minimum frequency of testing requirements for gradation
((~ testing should be located and filed with the backfill inspection reports. This documentation would serve to indicate that no procedural violations were committed.
If the documentation can not be located, justification should be provided for the frequency of gradation testing that was conducted.
Pre-printed Checklist for TU Electric Inspections TU Electric Inspection Procedure QI-QP-11.0-9 should be revised to specify use of a pre-printed checklis,t for documentation of inspection results. The procedure should specify that each checklist item be dispositioned " accept",
" reject", or "not worked", as appropriate.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S I
The documentation review disclosed deviations in the following categories:
- Deviations that resulted from incorrect notations made on the checklist, O
(_,/ - Deviations that resulted from the lack of a detailed preprinted checklist for documenting inspection results.
- Deviations that resulted from missing documentation.
1
Revision: 1 Page 41 of 42 rr
( )
(, / RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd)
5.0 CONCLUSION
S (Cont'd)
With the general exception of the SSI Dam fill placement documentation,.there were numerous deviations in each category, and this reflects negatively on the quality of the documentation.
However, by way of the extensive evaluation of these deviations recorded herein, which included:
- review of supplementary inspection report information.
- review of test results, and
- review of inspection reports as a group to confirm coverage of backfilled areas, y' and in light of resalts of in-place density testing, which are more
( directly indicative of the quality of the placements, the evidence collected indicates that the fill and backfill is adequately installed to perform its safety-related function.
- L) l i
i 1
Revision: 1 Page 4% of 42
(,,/ RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 20 (Cont'd)
Table 20-1 Summary of Documentation Review Results Fill and Backfill Placement Approximate Deviation Classification Number of Review Number of Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable SSI Dam Fill 1)' Inspector's Daily Report Notations 1,300 67 67 0
- 2) Test Results 1,000 32 32 0 0
Non-SSI Dam (B&R)
- 4) Inspection Checklist Notations 600 110 110 0 1
l 5) Test Results 500 50 33 17 Non-SSI Dam (TUGCO)
- 7) . Inspection Report Notations 700 181 181 0
- 8) Test Results 400 48 39 9 Totals (1) 4,500 488 462 26 (1) QC. Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
O l
Revision: 1 Page 1 of 14 tN RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 Cement Grout 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construction ..ork category of cement grout includes placements for saf ety-related base plates, bearing plates, equipment bases, core bores, and other items noted on the design drawings requiring the placement of cement grout.
Grout placements are such that normally the only reinspectable portions are exposed edges. The grout placement attributes are not recreatable and the documentation was not filed by equipment number, since the equipment support installation / inspection was a separate work process than that for cement grout. Accordingly, the cement grout installation process documentation was reviewed as a separate construction work category.
O.- Cement grout includes both fluid and dry pack types. Of the two types of cement grout, fluid grout was used more extensively. Because the fluidity of such grout could be readily varied, it was the preferred grout for larger and more complicated plates. On the other hand, dry pack grout was typically used to repair surface defects in concrete, to fill abandoned anchor holes, or to fill unused core holes. Dry pack grout was also used on smaller, lower stressed base plates where, due to size, dry packing was more practical than fluid grouting. Dry pack grout inspections were performed on a monitoring basis as required by the requirements of the Project QC inspection program. As a result, inspection records are not available on a one-for-one basis for each dry pack grout installation. The method used to track and file this documentation is such that a complete list of dry pack inspection reports relating to specific placements was not available.
Because dry pack grout was originally inspected on a monitoring basis, an engineering sample of dry pack grout placement procedures and documentation was selected for review. See Section 2.4 for results of that review. For the fluid grout placement a random sampling program was utilized.
See Section 2.2 for the results of this sampling program.
f k%
l Rsvision: 1 I Page 2 of 14
(T RESULTS REPORT l I
K.
ISAP VII.c !
(Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) l 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) 1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work category, a population of approximately 3,200 items (Fluid Grout Inspection Reports) was identified as QC-accepted as of the date of this document review effort. Documentation reviews were performed for a total of 120 items. Of these, 67 first sample items were randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 document reviews of each attribute were performed. An additional 53 second sample items were randomly selected to ensure that the documentation for at least 60 safe-shutdown hardware items were reviewed.
1.3 Attributes Selected
/'
')
(, Sample item documentation for fluid grout was reviewed for the following attributes:
Attribute 1 - Surfaces are clean Attribute 2 - Area is vibration free Attribute 3 - Concrete surfaces are prewetted Attribute 4 - Grout properly mixed Attribute 5 - Grout placement and consolidation Attribute 6 - Surface temperature Attribute 7 - Grout curing Attribute 8 - Compressive strength Attribute 9 - QC inspector certification O
Revision: 1 Pags 3 of 14
/~' RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summary of Results For documentation review, 56 Deviation Reports were issued describing 93 deviations. A total of 960 review points was encountered in performing the documentation reviews. See Table 21-1 for results of the documentation reviews.
Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Section 2.2.9, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual r^' inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are
( summarized in Section 2.2.9.
In the eight documentation review attributes of this population (excluding QC inspector certification), all the deviations evaluated were determined to be insignificant.
2.2 Analysis of Documentation Review Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the deviations and an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the ability of the evidence collected to provide reasonable assurance that the fluid grout would perform its intended function. The primary function of the grout is to transfer loads to the concrete structure.
2.2.1 Attribute 1- Surfaces Are Clean In all 120 review points, it was confirmed that the inspection report included an attribute for cleanliness, that it was marked " satisfactory", and that the inspection report was signed and dated by the inspector. Therefore, no deviations were reported.
l
Ravision: 1 Page 4 of 14 j
/~ RESULTS REPORT
\
s ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
' Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.2 Attribute 2- Area is Vibration Free In 120 review points to verify that the inspector documented that the area was free of vibration prior to and during placement, one deviation was reported where the attribute on the inspection report was not marked by the inspector. The attribute (grout placement and consolidation) that follows this one on the inspection report was also not marked but the remaining attributes were marked. Review of other inspection reports completed by the same inspector revealed that they contain both attributes and that these attributes were marked, indicating that they had been inspected. A review of the inspector's certification records indicated that the inspector had a valid certification k',,s) at the time of the inspection.
Third party field verification determined that the item grouted was on top of the pedestal for a diesel generator and was unlikely to have been subjected to vibration at the time of placement. Therefore, it was concluded that the grout placement was satisfactory.
This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.2.3 Attribute 3- Concrete Surfaces Are Prewetted In 120 reviews to verify that the inspector documented that the concrete surfaces were prewetted and excess water was removed, there were 71 deviations where the attribute was not listed on the pre-printed inspection report and six deviations where the hand-written inspection report did not include a notation for the removal of excess water from the surfaces. The inspection procedure used in conjunction with the checklist, however, did include the requirement of l prewetting, j All fluid grout installations were documented with a l
" Grout Placement Card" as well as an inspection report.
In 57 of these cases, the card had a signoff by f--
}
(s) construction to indicate that prewetting was complete.
The card also had a signof f by the inspector verifying that the grout card had been completely filled out
Revision: 1 Fage 5 of 14
. ,_, RESULTS REPORT l .. -
ISAP VII.c l (Cont'd) 1 Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) prior to the pour. Based on these signoffs it is concluded that sufficient evidence exists to provide reasonable assurance that concrete surfaces were prewetted prior to the grout placement. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
In 14 cases where prewetting was not noted on the grout placement card as being completed, the entry was marked-
"NA" to indicate "not applicable". A review of the 14 cases shows them to be core bores and blockouts in walls where prewetting or presoaking is not practical.
For these types of placements the application of a bonding agent, which per the Project procedure is the required alternate to prewetting, was to be performed instead of prewetting the surfaces. . Interviews with-inspectors that performed grout _ inspections confirmed O that it was standard practice to mark prewetting."NA" on the grout card when bonding agents were used. "It was concluded that this alternate method was used when the entry was marked "NA". Since'the proper notation for prewetting was made on the grout placement card when prewetting was to be used, and it was concluded that the grout cards were marked "NA" when bonding agents were used in lieu of prewetting as permitted in these instances, these prewetting deviations were.
determined to be insignificant.
The remaining six deviations were due to the hand-written inspection reports noting that concrete surfaces were presoaked, but not specifically noting that excess water was removed prior to placement.
Review of the inspection procedure used at.the time of the inspections did not specify-verification of the removal of excess water. The installation procedure ;
does reference the manufacturer's instructions, I however, which do recommend excess water removal as a standard practice. A review of other hand written inspection reports completed during the same period by the QC inspectors involved included a notation for j removal of excess water. From this review it was- j concluded that the notations used on the inspection
Revision: 1 Page 6 of 14
.f s RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) reports where the leviations were reported represent the inspector's acceptance of the complete operation of prewetting including removal of excess water.
Therefore, these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.4 Attribute 4- Grout Properly Mixed In 120 reviews to check that the inspector monitored the proportions, mix time, and mix temperature of the grout, one deviation was reported.
For the one deviation, the mix temperature of the grout was not taken, but the inspection report states that "very cold water was used" which is recommended by the manufacturer's instructions. The compressive strength O. test results for this placement were acceptable, indicating that proper grout mixing occurred within an acceptable temperature range. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.2.5 Attribute 5- Grout Placement and Consolidation In 120 reviews to check that the inspector monitored that the grout was continuously placed and properly consolidated, four deviations were reported.
In three cases, the attribute was not on the preprinted inspection report because the form for inspection of concrete repair was inadvertently used instead of the form for documentation of fluid grout inspections. The inspection report noted that the procedure used in performing the inspections was for grout placements.
These three cases were inspections by one inspector on one particular date, yet on other days both prior to and after this date the same inspector used the appropriate form and specifically indicated proper grout placement and consolidation. Given the documented presence of the inspector and his apparent familiarity in other instances with the appropriate requirements, these deviations were determined to be O 1 significant, t- 1
Revision: 1 Page 7 of 14 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 -DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
One deviation was reported where the attribute on the l
preprinted inspection report was not marked: as being L
inspected by the inspector. This occurred.on the same.
I inspection report discussed in Attribute 2 above and was determined to be insignificant based on third. party field verification of surface conditions for this placement as well as the small size and easily accessible location of the plates being grouted.
2.2.6 Attribute 6- Surface Temperature j In 120 review points for documenting the surface l temperature six deviations were reported.
Four deviations were reported where there was no
(
documentation on the inspection report for su'rface or area temperature. Review of the inspection procedure current at the time of the inspections shows that there was no requirement to verify surface temperature. The documentation provided'by the inspector was in accordance with the procedural requirements. This requirement was omitted in only one revision of the inspection procedure. The current revision includes the requirement. To address other inspections ,
performed to this revision of the procedure that were '
not a part of the samples selected, a QA/QC Program Deviation Report (PDR-60) was written. This PDR was evaluated to be a QA/QC program deviations A review of these four placements indicates that they were in enclosed buildings where the temperatures would be controlled and would be expected to be maintained ;
within the required surface temperatures.. Also, a review of the daily temperature log indicates that the 4 ambient temperature range on the days of the placements was within the required range of surface temperature.
Therefore, these four deviations were determined to be insignificant.
One deviation was reported where the surface temperature was not documented on the checklist as O required by the inspection procedure. A review of the daily temperature log indicates that the ambient
Revision: 1 Page 8 of 14
. RESULTS REPORT V ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) temperature range on the day of the placement was within the required range of surface temperature. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
One deviation occurred due to the temperature being recorded as 38 degrees, which did not meet the.
applicable requirement of a minimum 45 degrees. Review of the inspection report indicates the pour was made in the month of June. A review of the daily temperature log for the day of the placement found the minimum ambient temperature recorded was 64 degrees. By review of the other temperatures recorded on the inspection report it was concluded that the mix water temperature (recorded as 82 degrees) and the surface temperature were inadvertently transposed. This deviation was
() 2.2.7 determined to be insignificant.
Attribute 7- Grout Curing In 120 review points to verify that the inspector documented that the surfaces were protected from premature drying, four deviations were reported.
Two deviations occurred due to the item on the curing ,
inspection report not being marked by the inspector. A review of the two curing inspection reports found that none of the items on the reports had been marked as being inspected; however, the inspection report was signed and dated by the inspector. Third party field verification found that in one case the grout had some insignificant cracks but did not have the more extensive cracking associated with improper curing.
The other case was not accessible for verification. It was concluded that the attribute was verified, although an oversight by the inspector had occurred, resulting in the unmcrked attributes on the inspection report.
These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The other two deviations occurred when the curing record was completed indicating the pour number, pour date and the type of curing but the record was not O
\_/ signed by the inspector. A review of the documentation indicates the placement type was such that the grout
Revision: l' Page 9 of 14 RESULTS REPORT
(-g k l
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) would have been protected from premature drying by the plates being grouted and the forms used to contain the grout in the early stages of hydration when grout obtains significant strength. Typically, after form removal, the exposed edges are treated with a curing compound to promote continued hydration.
For these two cases, if curing compound was not applied after form removal, some moisture loss would occur at the edges. However, it would be expected that sufficient hydration would have been achieved prior to form removal. Third party field verification of the two cases found the items to have some insignificant cracking but not to have the more extensive cracking associated with improper curing. Therefore, these two deviations were determin~ed to be insignificant.
O^
2.2.8 Attribute 8- Compressive Strength In 120 review points to verify the cement grout compressive strength, it was confirmed that compression tests were performed as required with the results j meeting the requirements of the specification. .
.i 2.2.9 Attribute 9- QC Inspector Certification A total of 240 review points was reviewed to determine if the QC inspector who signed the inspection reports or test results was appropriately certified to perform the inspection or test for cement grout. Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of !
inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP 1.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability.
Inspector qualifications were assessed for all
() inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
)
Revision: 1 Page 10 of 14 RESULTS REPORT O ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The ISAP I.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all inspectors either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of )
performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP 1.d.1 Results Report.
2.3 Related Inspection Results Limited physical reinspection of specific characteristics of grout placement were conducted in two construction work categories. The reinspection results are summarized below.
O In the Field Fabricated Tanks construction work category no cement grout deviations were found during reinspection of In the Mechanical Equipment I
exposed grout surfaces.
Installation construction work category, eight deviations were identified during the reinspection for missing or damaged grout. These deviations were determined to be insignificant, !
and no adverse trend was identified. The evaluations and discussion of the deviations are in Appendix 17, Mechanical Equipment Installation. From a review of these deviations it is cencluded that the significance and type of deviations are such that they have no impact on the conclusions in this Appendix.
2.4 Dry Pack Grout Review Results A review was performed to evaluate the procedures and documentation for the installation and inspections of dry pack grout. An engineering sample of 25 inspection reports was selected for review to cover the full time period of dry pack grout installation. This review determined if the inspectica reports documented the inspection of safety-significant attributes.
The review of the installation procedure and inspection procedure compared the installation steps to those required by G construction specifications. The procedures were found to be adequate to perform dry pack grout placements.
Revision: 1 Page 11 of 14
/m RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The review of the inspection reports compared the records and data required by the inspection procedure to the available inspection report and the data they contained. This review was conducted to determine if the required records were present and if the data was adequate. However, the frequency of instoction could not be reviewed for adequacy as required since it was not possible to verify that there had or had not been dry pack grout placements during weeks for which no records existed. The review showed that the records were completed as required and the data they contained were adequate regarding safety significant attributes. The following attributes were verified as being included in the inspection reports reviewed:
geg 1. Surfaces are clean
- 2. Prewetting
- 3. Grout properly mixed
- 4. Grout placement
- 5. Grout curing The construction specification requires that compressive strength test data be obtained for cement grout; however, the installation and the inspection procedures do not contain this requirement for dry pack grout. In a response from Gibbs &
Hill it was indicated that this requirement did not apply to dry pack grout, although one group of Project tests had been performed and the results were included in the response. The omission of such a periodic testing requirement for dry pack grout was evaluated to determine its significance for each of two separate application types. Dry pack grout has a low i water content so as to provide just enough moisture for proper hydration. As a result, dry pack grout has a very low l water-to-cement ratio which, when proper attention is given to thorough mixing of ingredients, will provide an inherently i
)
high strength grout that meets or exceeds requirements.
(
1
r____ _ _
Revision: 1 Pagn 12 of 14 RESULTS REPORT 7-s
( )
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RETJLTS (Cont'd)
For base plates and equipment bases, strength is the principal technical concern and the specification requires dry pack grout to be proportioned on the basis of 1 part cement to 2 parts or less of sand, with sufficient water to attain the proper consistency for the placement technique. As part of the QC inspection program, monitoring of dry pack mixing was performed and documented. The resulting documentation was found to indicate that mixing was being performed satisfactorily. Grout proportioned with the maximum sand content allowed by the specification is expected to achieve from 4,000 to 8,000 psi compressive strength, providing other attributes are within their allowable ranges. As the sand content is reduced, even greater compressive strength will be achieved. These expectations are validated by the Gibbs &
- Hill test data that show 28-day compressive strengths ranging
(* from 4,060 to above 5,000 pai for the specified mix and exceeding 10,000 psi for equal proportions of sand and cement.
Given the documented verification of dry pack mixing, the attained compressive strength for these applications would be expected to exceed the specified 4,000 psi. Further, since the ACI applies a load limitation factor of 70% for bearing attachments, there is conservatism in the specified strength requirement that affords additional margin, thus ensuring fulfillment of the dry pack safety function for base plates and equipment bases.
For the remaining applications, such as the repair of surface defects or the filling of cored or drilled holess the primary technical concern is the durability of the grout over the life of the facility. For these applications, the ACI specifies the appropriate mix (1 part cement to 2.5 parts sand) for durability without explicitly addressing strength. Based on the ACI standards, the documented mix verification is concluded to ensure fulfillment of the dry pack safety function for surface repair and hole filling, notwithstanding the specification requirement that compressive strength at !
least equal that of the surrounding concrete. i Consequently, even without periodic strength test data for dry l pack grout, there is reasonable assurance that this grout can
/ \ perform its intended function.
V
l l
Revision: 1 i Page 13 of 14 .
I RESULTS REPORT p
b ISAP VII.c I
j (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS l
A root cause and generic implications analysis is not required.
4.0 RECO)91ENDATIONS No corrective action recommendations are required.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the results of the fluid cement grout documentation review, the related inspections and field verifications, and the satisfactory closure of the PDR discussed in Sectfon 2.2.6, there will be reasonable assurance that the fluid cement grout placements have been adequately performed in conformance with the design.
Based on the findings of the dry pack cement grout review, there is reasonable assurance that the dry pack cement grout placements have been adequately performed in conformance with the design.
O l
-_._____.___.__.___.______________j
Rsvision: 1 Page 14 of 14 l
l i
/i RESULTS REPORT
, N)
ISAP VII.c j (Cont'd)
Appendix 21 (Cont'd)
Table 21-1 Summary of Documentation Review Results Fluid Cement Grout Deviation Classification Number of Review Number of Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable
- 1) Surfaces Are tiean 120 0 0 0
- 2) Area Is Vibration Free 120 1 1 0
(T 3) Concrete Surfaces Are Prewetted 120 77 77 0
(_,/
- 4) Grout Properly Mixed 120 1 1 0
- 5) Grout Placement and Consolidation 120 4 4 0 Surface Temperature 120 6 6 0 6)
- 7) Grout Curing 120 4
- 0
- 8) Compressive Strength 120 0 0 0 TOTALS ( ) 960 93 93 0 1
() QC Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
(
(
l Revision: 1 Page 1 of 10' l
1 - RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 Epoxy Grout 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construct 1on work category of epoxy grout includes Escoveld 7502 and ceilcote 658-N epoxy grout placements for safety-related base plates, bearing plates, equipment bases, and other items using epoxy grout.
As epoxy grout placements are mainly under baseplates, a physical reinspection would have been limited to examination of grout edges, placement holes and gap size, in those populations where epoxy grout was used. Furthermore, the documentation for grout placement was not filed by equipment number since the equipment support installation / inspection was O- a separate work process than that for epoxy grout.
Accordingly, the epoxy grout installation process documentation was reviewed as a separate construction work category.
1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work category, a population of approximately 900 items (Epoxy Grout Inspection Reports) was ida.ntified as QC-accepted as of the date of this document review effort. Documentation reviews were performed for a total of 90 items. Of these, 61 first sample items were randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 documentation reviews of each attribute were performed. An additional 29 second sample items were randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 safe-shutdown hardware items were reviewed.
1.3 Attributes Selected The sample item documentation for epoxy grout was reviewed for the following attributes:
Attribute 1 - Gap size Attribute 2 - Placement hole location Attribute 3 - Surfaces clean and dry Attribute 4 - Surface temperature
I I
I Rsvision: 1
{. Page 2 of 10 (Q I l RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) J l
1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) 1 j
Attribute 5 - Grout properly mixed Attribute 6 - Grout placement continuous Attribute 7 - Grout curing time i
Attribute 8 - Compressive strength Attribute 9 - QC inspector certification I i 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
(~') 2.] Summary of Results LJ For documentation review, 32 Deviation Reports were issued describing 284 deviations. A total of 720 review points was encountered in performing the documentation reviews. See Table 22-1 for results of the documentation reviews.
Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Section 2.2.9, it has been determined enat these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determihe actual inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are summarized in Sec;1on 2.2.9.
In the eight documentation review attributes of this population (excluding QC inspector certification, all of the deviations evaluated were determined to be irzeignificant. !
2.2. Analy:is of Documentation Review Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the deviations and an analysis of the effect of the deviations on f~' the ability of the collected evidence to provide reasonable
( assurance that the epoxy grout would perform its intended function. The grout's function is to limit base plate deflection during in-service conditions by filling the gap between the base plate and the concrete surface.
Rsvision: 1 Page 3 of 10 o'
( RESULTS REPORT r
's ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Gap Size i
In 90 reviews of the documentation concerning satisfactory gap between the baseplace and concrete surface prior to grout installation (maximum 1/2 inch in the reactor building, 1 inch in other buildings as required by the specification), seven deviations were reported.
In six cases the attribute was not on the preprinted inspection report. In addition, review of procedures used at the time these installations and inspections j were performed, indicated no requirement to verify the l acceptability of gaps. The requirement to verify gap 7~ acceptability was added to the installation procedure f
('j in October 1981. Subsequently, a QC inspection procedure was issued to conduct a gap inspection on a room-by-room basis. These inspections were to measure the maximum gaps for installations completed prior to adding the requirement in the installation procedure.
Third party field verification of the six cases found the maximum gap to be 5/16-inch, which is within the acceptance criteria of current procedures. These deviations were determined to be insignificant.
One deviation occurred when the attribute on the inspection report was marked "N/A" (not applicable) and also had a check mark as satisfactory. Review of the traveler indicates that an inspection for gaps was applicable. This epoxy grouting involved chipping of the floor slab to lower the elevation of the base plates. The base plates were'then set in the chipped out area, epoxy-grouted in placc and then covered with cement grout. Since the base plates are enclosed by cement grout topping, the epoxy grout will be insulated from the building environment during accident conditions, precluding excessive temperatures, that could result in loss of strength. Thus, the maximum grout thickness criterion does not have to be met in I)
k- /
this case for the grout to perform its function, Therefore, this deviation was determined to be insignificant.
i Ravision: 1 Page 4 of 10 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c i l (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 l
(Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.2 Attribute 2 - Placement Hole Location In 90 reviews of the inspection report for evidence of the inspector's verification that grout placement holes were properly located, two deviations were identified.
One deviation occurred due to the item being marked "NA" on the inspection report even though placement holes were drilled. The-inspection report referenced a component modification card that approved an out-of-location hole. The marking of the attribute "NA" appears to have resulted from the inspector improperly considering the item as not applicable based upon the issued component modification card approving O the alternate hole location. Third party field verification found that the placement holes were as approved; the deviation was determined to be insignificant.
The other deviation occurred due to the attribute not being marked by the inspector. The inspection report was marked " Inspection complete, all applicable items satisfactory" and was signed and dated by the inspector. Third party field verification of the placement holes found them to meet the installation criteria. This indicates that the item was probably verified even though an oversight by the inspector had occurred, resulting in the unmarked item on the inspection report. Because the placement holes were verified to meet requirements, the deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.2.3 Attribute 3 - Surfaces Clean and Dry In 90 reviews, 68 deviations were identified where the >
inspection report did not document that the inspector had verified that the surfaces were clean; however, it 1 was documented in all cases that the inspector had
]
verified the surfaces were dry prior tc the placement.
Epoxy grout placements were documented with a "Crout Placement Card" as well as an inspection report. In 35 of thase cases, the card had a signoff by construction to indicate that the surfaces were clean. The card also had a signoff by the inspector verifying that the
Revision: 1 Page 5 of 10
/ .
k- RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix.22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) grout card had been completely filled out prior to the pour. Based on these signoffs, it is concluded that sufficient evidence exists to provide reasonable assurance that the surfaces were clean and dry prior to the grout placements. These 35 deviations were determined to be insignificant.
In the other 33 cases, no grout placement card was available as the requirement for a card for grouted base plate installations had been deleted. The installation procedure required cleaning and drying of the surfaces prior to placement of epoxy grout. Review of the inspection procedure used at the time indicated
/"~% that, while the procedure did require a check for dryness, it did not require the inspector to verify that the surfaces were clean. However, since the applicable specification does not specify bonding and-the function of the grout does not require bonding of the epoxy grout to the surfaces, the existence of foreign material on the surfaces would have negligible effect on the functional performance of the grout.
Therefore, these 33 deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.4 Attribute 4 - Surface Temperature In 90 reviews, there were 19 deviations identified where the inspection report did not document that the inspector had verified that the surface temperature of the area to be grouted was within the required range.
The applicable inspection procedure required that for Ce11 cote grout, the surface temperature of the area to be grouted be at 50*F or above; however, there was no provision on the pre-printed checklist to record the temperature. The applicable procedure required that for Escoweld grout the ambient temperature be 60*F or greater, and the preprinted checklist had an attribute to document this requirement.
() All 19 deviations occurred in the documentation for Ceilcote grout placements. In six cases, the inspection report noted that the room temperature was 60*F or greater. Surface temperature is not expected
Rsvision: 1 Page 6 of 10 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) to differ significantly below the range of room temperatures. Therefore, the actual surface temperature was likely to have been greater than that required. Thesa six deviations were de*. ermined to be insignificant. In six other cases the minimum daily temperature recorded, while below 60*F, was still greater than the required.50'F. From this data it was concluded that the surface temperatures at the time of the placement were also likely to meet the installation requirements. These six cases were therefore determined to be insignificant.
For the remaining seven deviations the minimum daily temperature recorded was less than 50'F. Below this 0'
temperature the grout remains in a stable but dormant condition. This-is emphasized by the manufacturer's requirement that states that should the temperature-fall below 50'F, it is necessary to extend the curing period by the amount of time the temperature remained below 50*F.
Since these-placements were in enclosed buildings it is unlikely that the surface temperature actually dipped below the required 50'F mark. However, even if it did, the grout would have resumed curing whenever the temperatures exceeded 50*F until it attained its required strength. Third party field verification of ;
an installation from each of the seven cases found that j the grout was fully cured with no apparent damage or displacement that would indicate that the grout was lofjed prior to full cure. Further, each affected .i configuration was evaluated and it was determined that none of the grout would have been significantly loaded prior to curing (for example, base plates are fully supported by shims and anchor bolts except during design events). Therefore these seven deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.5 Attribute 5 - Grout Properly Mixed All 90 reviews confirmed that the inspection report documented that the inspector had monitored the grout mixing and that it was performed satisfactorily.
l
Revision: 1 Page 7 of 10 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.2.6 Attribute 6 - Grout Placement Continuous In 90 reviews to verify that the inspector documented that the placement was continuous and within the allowable pot life of the grout, there were 88 deviations identified. Review of the inspection procedures indicates the attribute was not part of the inspection criteria when the inspections were performed. Based on a review of installation I procedures the installation of all epoxy grout was by pressure-injection through Zirk fittings. Inj ection can not occur if the pot life is exceeded since the grout will be too hardened to flow. The amount of grout required to complete an installation is typically iO small as the base plate surface area and the gap size are small. As such, it is unlikely that there was any discontinuity in the grout placement operation since the time required to complete the actual grout i placement operation is a matter of minutes. These l deviations were determinad to be insignificant.
2.2.7 Attribute 7 - Grout Curing Time In 90 reviews to verify that the inspector documented l
that the grouted areas had not been placed into service l
prior to the required cure time, 88 deviations were l identified.
A review of the applicable inspection procedure indicates that neither the procedure nor the inspection report required verification of this attribute in 41 of the 88 cases noted as deviations. Review of the inspection reports for all 88 cases indicates that the type of placements was for small baseplates. For small baseplates, design considerations limit the allowable compressive stress on the grout to 400 psi for Escoveld grout and 1000 psi for Ceilcote grout. For both types of epoxy grout the anticipated cure time at 77'F is
/ approximir.e!.y 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with ultimate compressive
( strength being 6000 psi for Escoweld and 14000 psi for Ceilcots. In addition, only a few hours of curing at lower temperatures (above the minimum of 50*F) yields compressive strength that exceeds the design
n--
Revision: 1 Page 8 of 10 rx RESULTS REPORT
()
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) requirements. Based on the statement in Attribute 6 that the amount of grout required is minimal and the known capability of the grout to attain an early strength, it is unlikely that, during the construction phase of the job, these placements were subjected to their in-service loading conditiona prior to them attaining their required strength. Therefore, these 88 deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.8 Attribute 8 - Compressive Strength in 90 reviews to verify the epoxy grout compressive strength, as required by the specification, there were fs 12 deviations identified where no test had been performed. A review of the procedures used at the time
( ')
'- of the installations had no requirement for performing compression tests. Review of the specification found that the requirement for testing epoxy grout had been added after these placements had been made.
A review of the type of placements found that all of the inspection reports are for pipe supports that are limited to a design allowable compressive stress transfer of 400 psi for Escoweld and 1,000 psi for Ceilcote from the baseplate to the concrete. At maximum stress the deflection of the plate must be limited to 1/16-inch. A review of Project test data for epoxy grout compressive strength indicated that a deformation of 1/16-inch occurs at approximately 1300 psi for Escoweld and approximately 3200 psi for Ceilcote. Both test results are well above the stress transfer requirements noted above. Based on the Project qualifying test results, as well as the notation by the inspector that the mixing was performed satisfactorily (Attribute 5), these deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.2.9 Attribute 9 - QC Inspector Certification t
A total of 180 review points was reviewed to determine
'A if the QC inspector who signed the inspection report or test results was appropriately certified to perform the inspection or test for epoxy grout.
- -----_____________________________J
Ravision: 1 Page 9 of 10 t
Am s/ RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP 1.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP 1.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work s,
affected this population concluded that all. inspectors-either we're certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP 1.d.1 Results Report.
3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS A root cause and gener1c implications analysis is not required.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS No corrective action recommendations are required.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the results of the epoxy grout documentation review and related field verifications, reasonable assurance exists that placement of epoxy grout has been adequately completed such that the grout can perform its safety-related function.
Revision: 1 Page 10 of 10 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 22 (Cont'd)
Table 22-1 Summary of Documentation Review Results Epoxy Grout Deviation Classification Number of Review Number of insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable
- 1. Gap Size 90 7 7 0
- 2. Placement Hole Location 90 2 2 0 r- 3. Surfaces Clean (g} and Dry 90 68 68 0
- 4. Surface Temperature 90 19 19 0
- 5. Grout Properly Mixed 90 0 0 0
- 6. Grout Placement continuous 90 88 88 0
- 7. Grout Curing Time 90 88 88 0
- 8. Compressive Strength 90 12 12 0 TOTALS ( ) 720 284 284 0 QC Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Revision: 1 Page 1 of 16
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c l
(Cont'd)
Appendix 23 Containment Liners and Stainless Steel Tank Liners 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construction work category of containment liners and stainless steel tank liners is comprised of liner installation of seam welds for the containment liners and for the stainless steel tank liners. Stainless steel tank liners for Refueling Water Storage, Condensate Storage, and Reactor Make-up Water Storage tanks are included in this construction work category.
The contractor for this construction work category was Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI).
1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection For this construction work cacegory, a population of O approximately 2,040 items (liner seam welds) was identified as QC accepted as of the date of this reinspection ef fort.
Reinspection and documentation reviews were performed for a total of 90 accessible items. Of the tank liners, only the Unit 2 Reactor Make-up Water Storage Tank was accessible since the other (five) tanks contained demineralized water. All 29 items (seam welds) on this tank were selected for reinspection and documentation review. Sixty-one first sample items were randomly selected from the population for the containment liner to ensure that at leauc 60 reinspection or l
documentation reviews of each attribute were performed. No additional second sample items were selected since the containment liner seam welds are all safe shutdown items.
1.3 Attributes Selected Sample items were reinspected for the following attributes:
Attribute 1 - Liner local contour
- Attribute 2 - Weld seam offset
- Attribute 3 - Weld seam surface
- Attribute 4 - Stainless steel liner-weld seam surface
~
- denotes attributes for containment liner only
Revision: 1 Page 2 of 16~
\" RESULTS REPORT
[U ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) .
Sample item documentation was reviewed for the following attributes:
Attribute 5 - Weld joint and welder identification Attribute 6 - Material traceability Attribute 7 - Welding r
Attribute 8 - Welder and welding operator qualification 1
1 Attribute 9 - Nondestructive examination. (NDE) of welds Attribute 10- NDE operator and QC inspector certification 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summary of Results For reinspection of the-containment liner, a total of 28 Deviation Reports was issued describing 28 deviations. A total of 671 inspection points covering approximately 856 feet of welds was encountered in performing the reinspection. See Table 23-1.for containment liner reinspection results.
For reinspection of the stainless steel tank liners, a total of 39 Deviation Reports was issued describing 40' deviations.
A total of 199 inspection points covering approximately 505 feet of welds was encountered in performing the reinspection.
See Table 23-1 for tank liner reinspection results.
For documentation review, nine Deviation Reports were issued reporting a total of nine deviations for both containment and stainless steel tank liners. A total of 1,382 review points was encountered in performing the documentation review. See Table 23-2 for documentation review results. ]
Documentation review deviations related to inspector I
- r certification have not been included in the aforementioned i I totals. As discussed in Section 2.3.6, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were
Rsvision: 1 Page 3 of 16 RESULTS REPORT
'Q O- ISAP VII.c t
I (Cont'd)
' Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) considered in the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual i inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are I
summarized in Section 2.3.6.
In the four reinspection attributes of this population, one unclassified trend regarding the presence of rust on stainless I
l steel tank liner veld seam surfaces was identified (for I discussion, see Section 2.2.4). No construction' deficiencies I
or adverse trends were identified.
In the five documentation review attributes of this population (excluding QC inspector certification), all the deviations evaluated were determined to be insignificant.
2.2 Analysis of Reinspection Results-This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the reported deviations, an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the functional capability of the liners, and an analysis for the presence of trends. The function of the
- l . liners is to maintain a leak-tight barrier.
2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Liner Local Contour (Containment Liner)
For the attribute of liner local contour, the plumbness and the curvature of the liner were verified.
In 305 inspection points, three deviations concerned localized contour variations in the liner plate that exceeded, by up to 1-1/2 inches, the tolerance permitted by the liner specification. These cases were evaluated, and it was found that although the localized contour variations exceeded the specification requirement, the resultant calculated strain was within the ASME Code allowable. Based on the calculated increase in strain, these deviations were determined to be insignificant. In addition, the evaluation determined that the strain that would occur in the j liner due to the postulated accident conditions is smaller in the liner sections with local bulging than in the initially flat plate (deformation inward is precluded by the concrete). Therefore, this type of j
Revision: 1 Page 4 of116 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) deviation would have no significant effect on the functional capability of the liner, should it occur in the uninspected portion of the liner. Due to the insusceptibility of the liner to such deviations, no adverse trend was identified.
2.2.2 Attribute 2 - Weld Seam Offset (Containment Liner)
For the attribute of weld seam offset, the alignment of the liner plates to each other or to insert plates was verified in accordance with the Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-S-14.
In 122 inspection points of liner plate offset at the e- weld seams, six deviations were identified where the-allowable offset permitted by the specification was exceeded. The maximum permitted offset is 3/32-inch in cylindrical shell liner plate and 1/8-inch for dome liner plates.
All six deviations occurred where the typical 3/8 or 1/2-inch liner plates were joined to insert plates with thicknesses of 1 to 1-1/4 inches. Weld seam offset may occur where the edges of two liner plates or the edge of a liner plate and that of a thickened insert plate are not aligned. In each instance, only localized portions of the weld seam around the thickened insert plate exceeded the permitted offset. In four of the six cases, the allowable offset was exceeded by only 1/32-inch. In two other cases, the offsets were exceeded by 1/8 and 3/16-inch. All six deviations are considered notable because the strain increased in excess of 10 percent. However, an analysis of these deviations determined that strains induced in the liner were still within Code-allowable limits, even for the most extreme case of offset that occurred. Therefore, the leak-tight integrity of the liner is not jeopardized.
The effect of this type of deviation, if such deviations were to occur elsewhere in the liner, was j - IO evaluated based on a boanding configuration. Weld seam offset equal to the liner thickness was taken as the
Revision: 1-Page 5 of 16 RESULTS REPORT O,
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) bounding configuration since required initial tack welding is not feasible at or beyond this misalignment.
The evaluation confirmed that for feasible configurations for tack welding, encompassed by this bounding misalignment, the liner would be able to-perform its safety function (leak-tight integrity). No adverse trend was' identified.
2.2.3 Attribute 3 - Weld Seam Surface (Containment Liner)
For the attribute of weld seam surface, the surface of the liner of the weld seams was inspected for the presence of grooves, undercut, or excessive reinforcement. There were no deviations for excessive
-s reinf orcement .
In 244 inspection points, 19 deviations were identified concerning veld seam surface conditions as described below.
There were 14 deviations that concerned the presence of coarse ripples or grooves covering a cumulative length of 138 feet out of approximately 856 feet of weld inspected. The presence of coarse ripples or grooves is not permitted by the specification.
These ripples and grooves do not contain notches that could induce stress concentrations under tensile loading. In addition, the ripples and grooves did not interfere with the nondestructive testing performed for these welds. The reinspection instructions for this attribute required a certain amount of interpretation to be utilized by the inspection personnel. In this instance, this latitude for interpretation may have resulted in unnecessary deviation reports. In fact, ripples and grooves such as these, which do not violate minimum thickness requirements and are sufficiently localized to not preclude required NDE, have no impact on the liner function. These deviations were determined to be insignificant, and no adverse trend
. () was identified.
.+ Revision: 11 Page 6 of 16'
);.ESULTS REPORT.-
!9AF UII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS-(Cont'd)
Five deviations were for. localized arehg.of undercut that exceed the maximum permitted value of'1/32-inch.
The cumulative length was 0.20 feet'ft approximately 856 feet of weld inspecte.d. The undercuts ranged from 3/64 to 1/16 inch deep and 1/16 to 1-1/4 inch long, and they are not sharp. The. liner plates are 3/8 inch thick in the cylindrical she11'and 1/2 inch thick'in-the dome. These undercuts were evaluated, and in each case it.was determined that the undercuts were blended uniformly with the surrounding surface. The containment liner is installed in accordance with the Engineer's specification and ASME Section III, Div. 2' (ACI-359). The specification'and the code allow for a section reduction not exceeding 1/16-inch. The undercuts are within this allowable 11mit. Due to the
( insignificant proportion of the cumulative length of the undercuts to the total weld length, their smoothness, and the allowable section reduction, this type of deviation was determined to be insignificant, and no adverse trend was identified.-
2.2.4 Attribute 4 - Stain 1cos Steel Liner - Weld Seam Surface For the attribute of weld seam surface, the surfaces of the stainless steel tank liners were reviewed for the presence of grooves, undercut, excessive reinforcement and rust.
In 199 inspection points, 40 deviations were identified as described below.
Six deviations concerned the presence of coarse ripples, grooves, or overlaps covering a cumulative length of 62 feet in approximately 505 feet of weld inspected. These surface conditions were similar to those reported above for the containment liner. They were also determined to be insignificant and no adverse trend was identified.
Eight deviations concerned localized areas of undercut that exceed the maximum permitted value of 1/32 inch.
- ON These ranged from 3/64 to 1/16 inch deep, and 1/8 to 3/4 inch long. The stainless steel tank liner is l
3 Revision: 1 Page 7 of 16'
.- /'s RESULTS REPORT (jz ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 3/16 inch thick. The eight deviations cumulatively represent a length of only 0.25 feet in approximately 505 feet of weld inspected. The undercuts are not abrupt or sharp enough to induce stress intensification. The tank liners are required to provide a leaktight barrier only and carry no structural load. Any loading due to the weight of the water is transmitted to the concrete tank surrounding the liner. The normal water temperature in the tanks.
is moderate (50 F and above) and will not cause significant thermal stresses. The reduction of the base material does not adversely affect the functional capability of the liner. Due to the insignificant proportion of the cumulative length of the undercuts to the total weld length. and the local nature of the O -deviations, these deviation types were determined to be insignificant, and no adverse trend was identified.
Three deviations concerned weld seam reinforcements that were up to 1/16 inch in excess of the 3/32 inch permitted by specification. The cumulative length of excessive reinforcement is 3.25 feet in approximately 505 feet of weld inspected. These deviations ranged in length from a minimum of 0.5 inches to a maximum of 2.7 feet. Evaluation of the deviations determined that excessive reinforcements did not interfere with the nondestructive testing activities such as vacuum box tests. There was no abrupt or sharp rise.in reinforcement that would result in stress intensification. These types of deviations were therefore determined to be insignificant, and no adverse trend was identified.
There are 23 deviations concerning the presence of rust in approximately 505 feet of the welds reinspected.
The presence of rust is not permitted by specification.
The rust spots in the weld seam or in the base material are localized and not continuous. Tests performed on the rust indicated it was the result of two possible sources: microbiological 1y-induced corrosion and/or
() embedded iron contamination. Microbiological corrosion occurs in the presence of stored water with certain contaminants and therefore is not considered to be i
Revision: 1 Page 8 of 16 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) attributable to tank f abrication or erection activities. Such rust may occur during or after system startup or testing, when the tank contains water. _
)
Microbiological-induced corrosion is a design-related issue. Therefore, the matter was referred to the L Design Adequacy Program and was not considered-further in this report.
The presence of iron contamination was noted in each of the reported cases, and active corrosion of the iron l was found. Due to the repetitive nature of the problem, the deviations are considered notable. The liner could continue to corrode if the contamination remained, but it is unknown if the corrosion over time could result in leakage. Therefore, the presence of O
.1%
rust due to the embedded iron was determined to be an unclassified trend.
For root cause and generic implication analysis associated with this unclassified trend, see Section 3.0.
2.3 Analysis of Documentation Review Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the documentation review deviations and an analysis of the effect of the deviations on the ability of the evidence collected to i provide reasonable assurance that the liners were properly installed.
2.3.1 Attribute 5 - Weld Joint and Welder Identification For the attribute of weld joint and welder identification, the record drawing was reviewed to verify that the joint identification numbers and the l welder identification were recorded on the drawing. ,
l In 180 review points, there was one deviation that j concerned a missing welder identification on a record drawing. The available documentat1on indicates that )
the weld was inspected and accepted for fit-up, I O* prepared using the appropriate weld procedure, and had In addition, a I
been satisfactorily completed. f 1
l 1
Rsvision: 1 Page 9 of 16
, RESULTS REPORT
, -~ !
?
~ ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) nondestructive examination of the weld was performed with satisfactory results. This is an instance where the welder identification was apparently inadvertently not recorded. In addition, the contractor has provided documentation that shows that all welders performing welding on this site were qualified for this site.
This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.3.2 Attribute 6 - Katerial Traceability For the attribute of material traceability, the existence of Certified Material Test Records for the containment liner plates, the stainless steel tank plates, and the insert plates were verified.
In 270 review points, there was one deviation which
( ')
-- concerned lack of material traceability for a thickened insert plate. The vendor provided a duplicate copy of the material certification that established that the material was as specified. In addition, the contractor's inspection checklist shows that the material was verified by their inspectors. This deviation was determined to be insignificant.
2.3.3 Attribute 7 - Welding The verification of welding encompassed the following characteristics: the weld procedure used.co perform the weld was valid and approved by the engineers, weld fitup and finished welds were inspected and signed off, and the " weld-complete" column was initialed and dated after all inspections and testing were complete. The initials in this column representing all the previously described characteristics indicate that the weld was performed correctly, that the correct weld filler material was used and that the quality of the weld was determined to be acceptable. In all 421 review points, welding was thus verified to be in accordance with the specification, and no deviations were reported.
2.3.4 Attribute 8 - Welder and Welding Operator Qualification
(]T L.
For the attribute of welder and welding operator qualification, the validity of the welder / welding operator qualifir.ation was verified.
i
Ravision: 1 Page 10 of 16 RESULTS REPORT
' ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) 1 Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
In 90 review points related to documentation of welder qualification, two deviations were reported where a welder had performed a weld while not being qualified to the correct welding procedure. However, the welder was qualified to other similar welding procedures. In each instance, a nondestructive examination was performed, and the records of NDE show that the welds are satisfactory.
Due to the satisfactory nondestructive examinations performed on the welds and welder qualifications to similar procedures, this type of deviation was determined to be insignificant.
233.5 Attribuce 9 - Nondestructive Examination (NDE) of Welds For the attribute of nondestructive examination of welds a review was conducted to verify that documentation for the weld joints for the sample welds has the NDE listed, initialed, and dated, the procedure verified, and the record report number is recorded on ,
I the record drawing.
In 421 review points to check that adequate documentat. ton of nondestructive examination existed, five deviations were reported concerning the lack of traceability of NDE on containment liner welds. In each instance, it was determined that the, reports are available, but that the piecemark identifications shown on the NDE report are incomplete. (Example " Joint 9-10B" is listed on the NDE report as " Joint 9-10".)
These were determined to be minor recording errors.
These types of deviations were determined to be insignificant.
2.3.6 Attribute 10 - NDE Operator and QC Inspector Certification A total of 392 review points was reviewed to determine if the NDE Operator or QC inspector who signed the NDE report or the inspection report was appropriately O certified to perform the weld NDE or liner plate inspection.
I
Revision: 1 Pags 11 of 16 m RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP I.d.1 evalustion of inspectors whose work
,,m affected this population concluded that all inspectors
(}
either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the time of inspections, were found to be capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence), or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern. Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
I 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS This section presents root cause and generic implications analysis of the unclassified trend identified in Section 2.2.4 - the presence of rust on stainless steel tank liners due tp embedded I iron.
Root Cause The rust resulting from embedded iron was noted along the weld seam in an area where grinding was performed after welding and in an l area where stud welding was performed on the wrong side of the liner and later removed by grinding. Grinding or wire brushing with iron-containing materials would likely have caused some embedded iron, which could have resulted in the observed rust on the liner.
3 (O \
l
Revision: 1 Page 12 of 16 RESULTS REPORT-
%) ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)- ,
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS (Cont'd)
The Gibbs & Hill erection specification 2323-SS-17 for the tank liners did not specify a requirement for cleaning during and after erection of the liner plates, nor did the specification state the level of cleanliness required for the liners, or require final cleaning. Furthermore, the specification does not provide requirements for the use of iron free tools such as grinding wheels ,
and brushes during erection in the field. The specification is considered to be less than adequate in this regard. The specification, however, does contain a requirement for cleaning after shop fabrication, and instructions to use iron-free grinding wheels and stainless steel brushes for cleaning.
The erection contractor's cleaning procedure, 83420-CPIN, required
~
that grinding wheels used for cleaning be free from iron. The procedure states that deposits, such as rust, scale, slag, flux, g
etc. on the plates, shall be removed by mechanical means and documentation shall be signed as each ring of the tank liner is erected and cleaned. However, the method for control of iron-containing or iron-contaminated tools is not described in the procedure.
During implementation of the erection contractor's cleaning procedure, the craft are expected to exercise the appropriate .
control of tools in accordance with the general requirements that only iron-free tools be used. It is intended that general practice be followed even without specific procedural requirements on the methods of tool control. Thus, in this case, uncontrolled use of iron-containing or contaminated tools is determined to be the ,
primary source of rust due to iron contamination. l Neither the erection specification nor the contractor's shop and j field cleaning procedure (which included inspection requirements) had any explicit provisions for inspection of the cleaning process. )
In addition, there was no separate quality control procedure or l general requirements to monitor in-process cleaning, grinding work, tool control methods, or provisions for documentation of the adequacy of such work.
The extent of training on the use of iron-containing or iron-contaminated tools is unknown and no specific requirement for such training is documented.
Revision: 1 Pags 13 of 16 RESULTS REPORT
'- ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS (Cont'd)
The primary root cause of tank liner contamination by iron embedment is the lack of requirements for control of iron-containing or iron-contaminated grinding wheels in the CBI erection procedure. Contributory causes of the iron embedment condition are (1) the specification did not contain final cleanliness requirements, (2) the subcontractor's quality control inspection requirements of appropriate parts of the grinding and cleaning processes were less than adequate.
Generic Implications l
The stainless steel tank liners that were not reinspected were erected by the same contractor utilizing the same specification, erection procedures, procedure implementation technique, and quality control program. Thus, they would also be expected to have
( similar rust conditions. This was confirmed for Unit 2 by TU
\m. Electric's subsequent inspection of the other tanks.
The erection contractor for the tanks is also racponsible f or fabrication and erection of the field fabricated stainless steel tanks at this site (see Appendix 14). These tanks are utilized for storage of boric acid and demineralized water. No rust was found during the reinspection of these tanks. The tanks were constructed by the same contractor under a separate contract with a separate construction program and at a different time period. The absence ;
of rust indicates that the contractor (CBI) had better control of tools and that no iron contaminated tools were used during this time period. Therefore the findings in this population do not extend to the field-fabricated stainless steel tank population. l Summary The primary root cause of the presence of rust on stainless steel tank liners is the lack of requirements for control of iron-contaminated grinding wheels in the CBI erection procedure. l Contributing causes are that the specification did not contain final cleanliness requirements and inspection of the grinding and cleaning processes was lacking. There are no generic implications beyond this population.
I f
ud
Revision: 1 Page 14 of 16 l
RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd) 1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS l
4.1 Recommendations for Corrective Action A program should be implemented to inspect the stainless steel-lined tanks for Units 1 and 2, to correct as necessary and to maintain appropriate surveillance over the life of the facility.
A program for control of grinding and cleaning tools used for stainless steel components, equipment, and structures should be established for all future contractors. In addition, the specifications, procedures, quality control program, and training for such work should be reviewed to determine if additional provisions to prevent iron embedment are necessary.
l
5.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the reinspection and review of documentation, there is reasonable assurance that, if the recommended corrective action is implemented, in addition to the ongoing activities, the hardware in this construction work category will be adequately installed to perform its safety-related function.
O
Revision: ~1 Page 15 of-16 RESULTS REPORT f ;
'(. '
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 (Cont'd)
Table 23-1 Summary of Reinspection Results Containment Liners and Stainless Steel Tank Liners Deviation Classification' Number of Inspection Number of Insigni- Construction Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable Deficiency (Containment Liner)
- 1. Local Contour 305 3 3 0 0
- 2. Weld Seam Offset- 122 6 6 0
, 3. Weld Seam Surface 244 19 -19 0 0 SUB TOTAL 671 28 22 6 0 (Stainless Steel Tank Liner)
- 4. Weld Seam Surface 199 40 17- 23 0 SUB TOTAL 199 40 17 23 0 TOTAL 870 68 39 29 0 1
I J
4
Rsvision: 1 Pego 16 of 16 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 23 ;
(Cont'd)
Table 23-2 Summary of Documentation Review Results Containment Liners and Stainless Steel Tank Liners !
Deviation Classificatica Number of Review Number of Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable
- 5. Weld Joint and Welder Identification 180 1 1 0
- 6. Material Traceability 270 1 1 0
- 7. Welding 421 0 0 0
- 8. Welder and Welding
())
's Operator Qualification 90 2 2 0
- 9. NDE of Welds 421 5 5 0 TOTAL I 1,382 9 9 0 I) QC Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
I O
i l
I I
i
R2 vision: 1 Page 1 of 12
/N $ RESULTS REPORT
%)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 Fuel Fool Liner 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 Construction Work Category Description The construction work category of fuel pool liners is comprised of the weld seams for the fuel pool liners. The fuel pool liners are made of 3/16-inch-thick stainless steel plates. The stainless steel liners act as a waterproof barrier inside the reinforced concrete fuel pool. The liners are not required for any structural purpose.
I 1.2 Population Size and Sample Selection j For this construction work category, a population of 2,610
..s, items (weld seams) was identified as QC-accepted as of the date of this reinspection effort. A total of 90 accessible first sample items was randomly selected to ensure that at least 60 reinspection or documentation reviews of each .
attribute were performed. No additional second sample items .
needed to be selected since fuel pool liners are not related to safe shutdown. Because of inaccessibility of the Unit 1 fuel pool, only the Unit 2 fuel pool, cask pit, and transfer )
canal were reinspected.
1.3 Attributes Selected f I
Sample items were reinspected for the following attributes- l Attribute 1 - Irregularities on weld surface '
Attribute 2 - Rust or corrosion on weld-affected area Sample item documentation was reviewed for the following attributes:
Attribute 3 - Liner material traceability Attribute 4 - Welding, procedures, filler material, and welder symbol J j
l Attribute 5 - Welder qualification j
(~)
\ss/ l Attribute 6 - Non-destructive examination (NDE) of welds ii
_ .__ . _ _ _ _ _ .______________ a
Revision: 1 l Page 2 of 12 O' RESULTS REPORT
- %)
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 1.0 REVIEW PROGRAM IIIPLi>1ENTATION (Cont'd)
Attribute 7 - NDE operator and QC inspector certification Attribute 8 - Stud welding Attribute 9 - Stud welding QC inspector certification 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2.1 Summary of Results For reinspection, a total of 10 Deviation Reports was issued describing 10 deviations. A total of 248 inspection points
,_ covering 481 feet of welds was encountered in performing the
( ) reinspection. See Table 24-1 f or results of the reinspection.
LJ For documentation review, 18 Deviation Reports were issued describing 33 deviations. A total of 1,044 review points was encountered in performing the documentation review. See Table 24-2 for results of the documentation review.
Documentation review deviations related to inspector certification have not been included in the aforementioned totals. As discussed in Sections 2.3.5 and 2.3.7, it has been determined that these deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications. These deviations were considered in the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation together with supplemental information as necessary to determine actual inspector qualifications. The ISAP I.d.1 conclusions are 1
summarized in Sections 2.3.5 and 2.3.7.
In the seven inspection attributes of this population 1 (excluding QC inspector certification), there were no I deviations that were evaluated to be construction deficiencies and no adverse trends were identified.
2.2 Analysis of Reinspection Results This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the
(~'} reinspection deviations, an analysis of the effect of the
\_ / deviations on the functional capability of the fuel pool liners, and an analysis for the presence of trends. The function of the fuel pool liners is to maintain a watertight I
l l
Revision: 1 Page 3 of 12
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) barrier inside the concrete pool, and to provide a smooth
~
surface for ease of decontamination. The liners are not required for any structural purpose.
2.2.1 Attribute 1 - Irregularities on Weld Surface in 62 inspection points for veld surface irregularities, all seams were verified to meet the requirements of the fuel pool liner specification. No deviations were reported.
2.2.2 Attribute 2 - Rust or Corrosion on Weld-affected Area l
In 186 inspection points on weld seams and the weld
/ 'N affected areas, 10 deviations concerned localized k- concentrations of scattered rust that was present on weld seams and weld-affected areas. The localized concentrations represented an approximate cumulative length of 3-1/2 feet in 481 feet of weld and liner surface inspected, and did not contain pitting. Field investigation and testing of the rust indicated that it is superficial and inactive except in one spot. This spot is about 3/4 inch in diameter along the weld seam of an embed plate. Testing of this rust indicate that it was caused by embedded iron and microbiological corroston. Microbiological corrosion occurs in the presence of stored water with certain contaminants and is, therefore, not considered a result of liner fabrication. or erection.* Such rust may develop during or after system startup or testing, when the tank contains water. The contamination with embedded iron is similar to that reported for stainless steel tank liners (see Appendix 23), and is similarly the result of grinding or wire brushing with iron-contaminated or iron-containing tools.
It is not likely that the rust will penetrate through the liner. However, even if the rust eventually penetrated through the liner, the leakage would flow
/
(/
- Further investigation determined that the Project had developed an acceptable program to address potential microbiological corrosion during operation.
i l
i
Revision: 1 Page 4 of 12 L
l r~
( R[SULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) into an existing leak chase channel that drains into a drip pan. The leakage would be detected because the drip pan is monitored during the operational phase of the plant. The rust was present on a very limited portion of the inspected area and no leakage is expected; however, this deviation was determined to be notable as the rust spot remains active. As discussed, even if the rust were to penetrate the liner, the leakage would be detected. No adverse trend was identified.
2.3 Analysis of Documentation Review Results 7,
This section provides, by attribute, a discussion of the i h documentation review deviations and an analysis of the effect
\- of the deviations on the ability of the evidence collected to provide reasonable assurance that the fuel pool liners were properly installed.
2.3.1 Attribute 3 - Liner Material Traceability In 124 review points for material traceability all materials installed were determined to be of the grade and type specified. No deviations were reported.
2.3.2 Attribute 4 - Welding, Procedures, Filler Material, and Welder Symbol .
Welding records were examined to determine if adequate records exist that indicate that (1) welding had been performed in accordance with the appropriate procedure, (2) the procedure was approved for use by the appropriate engineering organization, (3) the appropriate filler material had been used, and (4) welder symbols were appropriately identified. In 310 review points, 10 deviations were reported where the filler material records did not meet procedure requirements. No deviations were reported regarding the welding performance being in accordance with proper
'[~'\ welding procedures, the procedures being approved by
\~ l engineering, or welder symbols being appropriately identified.
L Revision: 1 L Page 5 of 12
(~% RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The filler material deviations were in regard to maintenance of a filler material log. It was reported that in seven cases no entry was made. In three cases minor record entry errors were made due to an inappropriate deletion by a:line-out, yet other entries in these records indicated that the proper filler material was used. Therefore, these three deviations were determined to be insignificant. For the seven deviations where the entry was not made, the deviations are considered notable even though the reinspection <of 1 the weld st.ow that stainless filler material was used.
These deviations are similar to deviations for this attribute found in ISAP VII.a.8 and should be considered in the implementation of the corrective action recommended in the ISAP VII.a.8 Results Report.
2.3.3 Attribute 5 - Welder Qualification In 62 review points, two deviations were reported where a welder was not qualified for the velding procedure utilized. The welder was qualified to similar welding procedures in each case, and the weld was performed in accordance with an approved procedure. The welds made for the sample items were. acceptable based on the Third party visual reinspection. Successful visual inspections and non-destructive examinations (vacuum box and liquid penetrant) had been per. formed by the Project and documented on the original inspection report. The lack of qualification documentation for this welder did not affect the quality of welding as evidenced above. Welder qualifications were also verified by ISAP VII.a.8 on a sample basis, and no deviations were noted. Therefore, these deviations concerning one welder were determined to be unique.
They were determined to be insignificant because the welder was qualified to similar welding procedures and the examination results were acceptable.
1 1
i l
_. -____ _ -__---____---______ A
Revision: 1 Page 6 of 12 m RESULTS REPORT (U )
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 2.3.4 Attribute 6 - Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) of Welds in 248 review points for NDE reports, eight deviations were reported where two out of 62 NDE reports did not provide liquid penetrant and vacuum box test results.
The original Project visual inspection of tha welds, including both fit-up and final weld, and the CPRT visual' reinspection of the welds report that the welds are of acceptable quality. Additionally, the entire pool had been filled with water and hydrostatically tested for leaks with acceptable test results.
Even though the NDE reports are unavailable, the leak-tight integrity of the liner has been
[ demonstrated. The deviations were therefore determined V) to be insignificant.
2.3.5 Attribute 7 - NDE Operator and Inspector Certification A total of 62 review points was reviewed to determine if the NDE operator or QC inspector who signed the NDE report or the inspection report was appropriately certified to perform the weld NDE or liner place inspection.
Deviations were identified whenever evidence of certification to the established procedural requirements at the time of inspection could not be found. However, as a result of the ISAP I.d.1 evaluations of inspector certifications, it has been determined that such deviations do not necessarily relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
Consequently, the identified deviations were not relied upon (though they were considered) in determining inspector capability. Inspector qualifications were assessed for all inspectors (those with and without reported deviations) using the ISAP I.d.1 methodology.
The ISAP I.d.1 evaluation of inspectors whose work affected this population concluded that all but one
(/T
(- inspector either were certifiable to applicable criteria at the tima. of inspections, were found to be l l
l Revision: 1 Page 7 of 12 RESULTS REPORT l
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd) l Appendix 24 q (Cont'd) ]
1 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) capable of performing satisfactory inspections (including those with substantial positive evidence),
or were otherwise shown to be of no further concern.
Evaluation details are discussed further in the ISAP I.d.1 Results Report.
An analysis was performed on the inspection discrepancies noted during the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation that are attributable to the inspector not found to be either certifiable or capable of performing satisfactory inspection by the ISAP I.d.1 evaluation.
This analysis took into account the nature, scope, and relevancy to this population of the reported discrepancies and considered the possibility that such 9 discrepancies might result in a construction deficiency, adverse trend, or unclassified trend if they were to occur on items in this population. This analysis determined that these discrepancies are all of a relatively minor nature and are similar to deviations (those that did not result in findings) noted during the reinspection conducted on items in the randem sample for this population. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that inspection discrepancies of the type and sever 1ty noted during the ISAP I.d.1 Phase III evaluation, were they to occur on a reinspection or documentation review attribute for an item in this population, would not result in a construction deficiency, adverse trend, or unclassified trend.
Thus, the possibility of such discrepancies existing does not detract from the conclusions made for this construction work category.
2.3.6 Attribute 8 - Stud Welding In 300 review points, 13 deviations were reported for inadequate stud welding records. Ten deviations concerned stud welding documentation that was not available for two plates. The unavailable documentation concerned acceptance records for use of the proper weld procedure, bend test, stud size, G after-weld length, and visual inspection. Three deviations were in regard to one stud welding document that included the initials of a person who could not be verified to be an inspector.
Revision: 1 Page 8 of 12
'A -RESULTS REPORT
( _)
ISAP VII.c-(Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The missing stud welding documentation for two plates (ten deviations) was related to two samples out of 60 samples reviewed. The documentation for the remaining 58 sample items shows that the studs were satisfactorily installed and the tests performed were acceptable. Subsequent to the writing of the deviation reports, an ultrasonic test for the existence of studs on the two plates was performed'by Project QC. The test results show that the studs were installed for these' plates. Prior to installation of studs each day',
the stud welding installation gun and the procedure were qualified by testing. In each of the 58 instances it was noted that when the gun was qualified, the rg production tests showed acceptable results. Therefore,
' it was concluded that the hardware installation was
- ~) most likely completed using a qualified gun and procedure and that the studs were satisfactorily installed. The deviations were determined to be insignificant.
The one acceptance block indicating acceptable welding on the stud welding document that was initialed by a person who could not be identified as an inspector (three deviations) contained the following information signed by a certified inspector:
- Stud welding gun and procedure qualification were found to be satisfactory.
- Four other plates were inspected with satisfactory results indicated.
1 Where a stud welding gun and procedure were satisfactorily qualified (as they were here), the production weld tests are likely to be satisfactory.
In fact, three lines on the same form document satisfactory stud welds, performed with the same gun on the same day, that were appropriately inspected. An ultrasonic test for the existence of studs on the plate 5
was performed by Project QC. The test determined that
\- studs were installed for the plate. Thus, even though the individual who witnessed the stud welding in one
Revision: 1 Page 9 of 12 lh RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) 2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) instance can not be identified, it is likely that these studs are also satisfactorily installed. The three deviations for this one instance were therefore determined to be insignificant.
2.3.7 Attribute 9 - Stud Welding Inspector Certification A total of 60 review points was reviewed to determine if the QC inspector who signed the stud welding l inspection record was appropriately certified to perform the stud weld inspection. The initials of one individual who signed an acceptance block could not be identified. The acceptability of the related hardware (stud welding) is discussed under Attribute 8. The e matter regarding the unidentifiable initials was referred to QA/QC collective evaluation for consideration. No deviations were noted for certification of identified inspectors.
3.0 ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATION A root cause and generic implication analysis is not required.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION The recommendation for corrective action nade in ISAP'VII.a.8 " Fuel Pool Liner Documentation" Results Report remains appropriate based on the results of this reinspection. )
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The results of the documentation review portion of the reinspection are consistent with the findings reported in ISAP VII.a.8, " Fuel Pool Liner Documentation", and support the conclusion reached in that Results Report, i.e.,
O
l Revision: 1 Page 10 of 12 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd) b
5.0 CONCLUSION
S (Cont'd)
"Despite the documentation problems, there is a substantial amount of information available to indicate that it is likely that the fuel pool liner system was generally fabricated and installed utilizing qualified weld procedures and welders and that appropriate inspections and tests were actually conducted."
The hardware reinspection performed for this CWC did not identify l problems requiring corrective action. These results further support the conclusion that the fuel pool liner system was adequately installed to perform its safety-related function. This information should be considered for the engineering evaluation l
recommended in ISAP VII.a.8. ,
O \
l O
' Revision: 1 Page 11 of 12 RESULTS REPORT.
ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix.24 (Cont'd)
Table 24-1 Summary of Reinspection Results Fuel Pool Liner Deviation Classification
' Number of Inspection Number of Insigni- Construction Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable Deficiency.
i
- 1. Irregularities on. Weld Surface 62 .0 'O O O
- 2. Rust or Corrosion on Weld-affected
, Area 186 10 9 1 0 10TAL 248 10 9 1. 0 l
l
Revision: -I
.Page 12 of 12 RESULTS REPORT ISAP VII.c (Cont'd)
Appendix 24 (Cont'd)
Table 24-2 Summary of Documentation Review Results Fuel Pool Liner.
Deviation Classification-Number.of Review Number of- Insigni-Attribute Points Deviations ficant Notable
- 3. Liner Material Traceability 124 0 0 0
- 4. Welding, Procedures, Filler Material, and Welder Symbol 310 10 3 7'
- 5. Welder Qur.lification 62 2 2 0
.6. .NDE of Welds 248 8 8 0
- 8. Stud Walding 300 13 13 0 TOTAL (I.) 1,044 33 26 7 (1) QC-Inspector Certification review points and deviations are excluded from totals and the deviations are not classified because the results of ISAP I.d.1 indicate that these deviations do not relate directly to actual inspector qualifications.
_ - . _-