ML20100F440
| ML20100F440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | Judd P NUS CORP. |
| To: | Cain J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUS-W3-A760, NUDOCS 8412060578 | |
| Download: ML20100F440 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s, n -&NUS --
- -'o'
[ d%vt.mo acemusa NUS-W3-A760 November 30, 1984 Mr. J. M. Cain President and Chief Executive Officer Louisiana Power and Light Company 317 Barrone Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
Dear Mr. Cain:
As indicated in its October 12, 1984 letter, the Task Force is continuing to complete its evaluations of individual LP&L responses to the 23 issues.
Issue 20, Construction Material Testing (CMT) Personn31 Qualification Records This issue, in the view of the Task Fcree, does not represent a constraint on fuel load or power operation of the plant.
Task Force members L. L. Humphreys and R. L. Ferguson have reviewed and concurred in this report. A letter from the Task Force authorizing my submittal of this report to you has been issued on this date and a copy will be sent directly to you and Mr. D. G. Eisenhut of the NRC.
Sincerely,
_f -?
Peter V. dd Project Manager Prelicensing Issues Task Force Support Group PVJ/cn Enclosure cc D. G. Eisenhut D. Crutchfield 8412060578 841130 DR ADOCK 05000382 PDR 0 4 "a:"oertoo comnamv
2 LIccua #20 Paga 1 of 3
.(
PRELICENSING ISSUES TASK FORCE REPORT
, Issue 20: Construction Material Testing (CMT) Personnel Qualification Records p
- 1. NRC' Instructions-I The NRC instructed LP&L to (1) conduct a review of supporting docttaentation 4
for GEO corrective action stated in Attachment 6 of NCR W3-F7-116 (EBASCO l W3-6497); (2) the review should focus on individuals who were apparently j qualified on written statements by others attesting to the individual's
- training and qualifications; and (3) for such cases LP&L should pursue any new information or evaluations which could provide further assurance in uupport of the actual past work experience end training referenced by the
] written statements.
4 2. Task Force Evaluation j
i a. The LP&L response to Issue 20, Revision 1, issued November 21, 1984, I
indicated LP&L performed a 100 percent review of GEO (CMT) inspection 3 personnel qualification and certification records and, where possible,
{. verified past work experience through a background investigation. This
} review was to verify that each inspector's qualifications met or j exceeded the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-1973 and/or -1978.
i l The TFSG requested GEO (CMT) to identify those inspectors who were j_ responsible for Cadweld Splice Tensile Tests. GEO (CMT) supplied a-i list of 32 inspectors who were involved in Cadweld Splice Tensile i
Tests. The TFSG reviewed GEO (CMT) logs to verify that the list was correct and verified that 16 of the inspectors did not meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6. LP&L concurred with this finding; and Revision 1 of the LP&L response to Issue 20, issued November 21, 1984,
- _ addresses the disposition of the finding.
The Task Force Support Group (TFSG) as part of its validation effort 3 randomly selected fifteen (15) GEO (CMT) inspector qualification and
! certification records for independent review out of a total of 64 inspectors who had been verified by LP&L as meeting the requirements of_ ANSI N45.2.6. The TFSG evaluation of these 15 inspectors' records resulted in the conclusion that those inspectors identified by the LP&L
- review as being qualified did meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.
The final results of LP&L's review of GEO (CMT) inspection personnel 2 identified 82 inspectors who did not meet the requirements of ANSI N.45.2.6. The TFSG verified that the inspectors who did not meet the I requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 were properly identified, and a Corrective Action Report (CAR) EQA 84-21S1 was issued for disposition. The TFSG reviewed'the disposition action taken to resolve the CAR as stated in
- the LP&L response and in Reference 3 to that document, " Engineering i Evaluation Report on the Review and Analysis of the Work of GEO (CMT)."
The results of the TFSG review are covered in paragraphs b, c, and d of this report.
i
. ._ . .. _ ._ _ . _ _ _.__.____m- _. . .
[ Iccua #20 Pcg2 2 of 3 C
The Task Force considers the LP&L response to Issue-20, Revision 1, issued on November 21, 1984, to be appropriate to the NRC instructions.
1
- b. -The TFSG concurs that a cylinder break test is an indicator of quality and strength of concrete placed in the structures and thus is the most important test. A technician can perform a break test-satisfactorily after'a brief~ training by a qualified individual. An-improper testing of a concrete cylinder would result in a lower compressive strength value. The TFSG has reviewed the statistical studies of concrete compressive strength tests performed in accordance with American Concrete Code ACI-214 by LP&L. The TFSG has verified-that the overall coefficient of variance for all concrete mixes ranged from 7.45 percent to 10.32 percent, indicating good to very good control, and the within-test coefficient of variation ranged from 1.07 percent to 2.00 percent, indicating very good to excellent control of testing operation as compared to the standards of control of ACI-214.
The TFSG concurs with LP&L that en in-place density test determines c.
whether the backfill material has been compacted as required by the specification and thus is the most important test. A technician can perform the in-place density test satisfactorily after being trained by a qualified individual. The TFSG has reviewed the backfill statistical studies performed on the in-place density tests.and concluded that the Class "A" backfill was constructed in accordance with the relative density requirements of the EBASCO Specification LOU-1564.482, filler, and backfill. The standard deviation was found to be within the specified tolerances. Other field and laboratory tests were conducted to ensure a good control of the soil material'and compaction process but did not provide direct data for determination of the specification compliance.
E
- d. The TFSG has reviewed the procedure to perform a break test on cadwelds and concluded that a technician can perform this test satisfactorily after being trained by a qualified individual. The TFSC has reviewed the cadweld break test results and found that the average tensile ,
strength of the cadwelds is in compliance with the specification requirements.
- 3. _ Summary' The TFSG conducted a review of Corrective Action Report (CAR) EQA 84-21S1, Attachment 6 of NCR W3-F7-116 (EBASCO W3-6497), and the Engineering
. Evaluation Report on the Review and Analysis of the Work of GEO (CMT)
(Reference 3 of the LP&L November 21, 1984, response to Issue 20). The Task Force concludes that'LP&L has properly addressed the NRC concern and that appropriate corrective action has been taken.
- 4. Cause, Generic Implications, and Safety Significance The cause of this issue was improper implementation of ANSI N45.2.6-1973.
GEO (CMT) issued certifications to testing personnel without properly
Incua #20 Prga 3 of 3 documenting other factors used as substitution for education and experience. LP&L has performed 100 percent review of GEO (CMT) inspection personnel qualification records and has issued a Corrective Action Report for dispositioning the inspection activities of QC inspectors whose
-qualifications could-not be verified. Based on the TFSG review and concurrence with~the action taken to disposition CAR EQA 84-21S1, the Task
~
Force believes that'this issue has no remaining safety significance and therefore poses no constraint to fuel load or power operation of the plant.
=