IR 05000508/1987004

Insp Rept 50-508/87-04 on 870609-19 & 30.No Violations or Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation of Readiness Review Program/Const Assurance Program for Const Work Completed Prior to Extended Const Delay

ML20238E827
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	08/20/1987
From:	Lewis G, Richards S, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238E822	List: IR 05000508/1987004 ML20238E819
References
50-508-87-04, 50-508-87-4, NUDOCS 8709150234
Download: ML20238E827 (21)

Text

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

-- - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ ,

'

,

9.. .

'$8

>

y y

U.- S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQh

REGION V

,

Report No. 50-508/87-04'

t Docket No. 50-508 Construction Permit No. CPPR-154 Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)

P.' O. Box 1223 Elma', Washington 98541 Facility Name: . Washington Nuclear Project'3 Inspection Conducted: June 9-19,'and June 30, 1987 Inspectors: M.- N 8!No 7

- D. Toth,-Project Inspector Date Signed A3 &~

S., Lewis, Inspection Specielist, NRR s/sh7 Date Signed-Consultant: 0. Mallon, Gibbs and Hill Approved By: /Wh & P/Jb[#7 S. VJictiards, i'ef .

Dafe S(gne~d Eng4feering Sec on', Regi V

.,

Summary:

Inspection on June 9-19, and 30, 1987 (Report No. 50-508/87-04)

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by i regionally based

' inspector, a consultant,.and NRR' inspector'of the imp' cementation of the j-readiness review program / construction assurance program for concrete work completed prior to commencement of extended construction delay. Inspection procedures .30703, 47051B, 470568, 47054B, 92701 and 35020 were considered for inspection guidanc Results: In the areas inspected, no violations were identifie ;

.

"

':

8709150234 870826 PDR ADOCK 0500050BF G P DR r. ".

u n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - -. - - - -

__-- __ - . _ _

.

i

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted:

Washington Public Power Supply System

• A..D. Kohler, Director of Projects

• R. B. Glasscock, Director of Licensing and Assurance

• P. D. Olson, WNP-3 Program Director

• C. E. Love, WNP-3 Project Support Manager D. R. Coody, WNP-3 Project Quality Assurance Engineer W. K. Drinkard, WNP-3 Quality Assurance Engineer

+*L. J. Garvin, Readiness Reviews Program Manager

+*R. L. Knawa, Construction Assurance Program Manager

• T. A. McCormick, WNP-3 CAP Concrete Module Team Leader (Bechtel)

F. Teague, WNP-3 CAP Concrete Module Engineer (Ebasco)

• N. F. Blais, WNP-3 Quality Assurance Manager R. Davis, Corrosion Engineer EBASCO

• C. G. Reid, WNP-3 Site Project Engineer

• H. Torturgul, WNP-3 Civil Lead Engineer (ESSE)

• B. C. Bennett, WNP-3 Contract Administration Manager G. D. Slater, WNP-3 Site Quality Supervisor

• P. A. Szumlanski, WNP-3 Contract Administrator Adams Associates (WNP-3 Owners Group Agent)-

• J. A. Adams, Site Representative 1 Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

• Mills, Compliance Manager NRC Supervisors at Site June 18-19, 1987

)

J

+* J. Pate, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, Region V  ;

• F. Hawkins, Chief, Quality Operations Section, NRR q

• Designates persons in attendance at exit meeting 8:00 A.M. June 19, 198 + Designates persons in attendance at information meeting June 30, 198 . Inspection Objectives The objective of this inspection was to obtain independent review data I

for consideration during NRC evaluation of the conclusions of the Construction Assurance Program (CAP) Module C3-02 " Concrete" final repor Information for the following review purposes was sought during this site inspection:

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

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

~

.

2 Determine if CAP review activities were conducted as stated in'the i C3-02 final repor i Determine if discrepancies identified by CAP reviewers were-

. accurately characterized in the C3-02 report, including evaluation and dispositio C .- Determine if-quality discrepancies exist which were not detected by the CAP. approac . Inspection Approach Assessment of CAP Module C3-02 Scope i NRC inspection report 50-508/86-13 documented NRC review of in g rocess work activities of Module C3-02; uti'nization of several CAP checklir ts was verified by interview of reviewers and  ;

examination of completed checklists and records reviewed. During '

the current inspection, implementation of the remaining checklist was examine Assessment of Disposition of CAP Findings The CAP checklists contained various negative observations by CAP reviewers. Some of these were translated into more formal documents and entered on the CAP Open Items List (Ref. C3-02 Appendix 2).

Others were closed via notation on the checklists themselves. The NRC inspectors reviewed the details o7 the evaluation / disposition of all 58 items on the C3-02 open item lis For ch ckiists examined by the NRC inspectors, items closed by notation on the checklists ,

were also reviewe ;

The C3-02 report also identifies various quality issues which have '

been deferred for future consideration. Some of these involve project nonconformance reports which have not yet been evaluated by the engineer for their generic implications and impact on completed construction (Ref. C3-02 Page 5-33). In addition, the CAP Open Items List (Ref. C3-02 Appendix 2) includes several items which have been referred to the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) for future evaluation; some of these items reflect areas where the work procedures or specifications may not be consistent with commitments or regulatory requirements. The NRC inspectors considered the details of the above matters relative to their potential for involving generic concerns which could impact on the acceptability of completed wor Coview of Past Problems Duritg prior NRC inspections and meeting with WPPSS, the inspector noted that the CAP had included little documentation to demonstrate that the CAP work in progress gave comprehensive consideration to past problem history, in selection of inspection samples and attribute In response to this concern, the C3-02 final report has included references and discussion of the CAP review of past

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

- _ -_

,

.

problems to clarify the extent of that revie It also discusses how certain prior problems were addressed by the CAP review In preparation for the inspection, the inspectors examined all past NRC inspection reports and reports of Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). Inspection statistics were compiled relative to extent of NRC inspections of concrete work, and with regard to prior inspection findings relating to concrete work. The inspectors part#cularly considered recurrence of findings, or adequacy of work performed prior to implementation of the corrective action. This type review was not part of the CAP program and thus was not discussed in the C3-02 report. As determined during interviews conducted May 13, 1987, the Oversight Committee did not explore the data base of past NRC inspection reports as part of their activitie This NRC inspection focused on past NRC and licensee identified problems that have individually been addressed and closed for indications of trends which might have resulted in generic quality problems or indications that one contractor perforned significantly differently than the other (ref. C3-02 page 5-27).

4 Review of CAP Field Inspections The NRC inspectors reviewed checklists CAP-H-C-02-21 Concrete Walkdown Concrete and CAP-H-C-02-23 Concrete Walkdown Rebar Dowels. The NRC inspectors also field verified a sample of the placement The following is a summary of our finding CAP-H-C-02-21 Concrete-Walkdown Concrete Placements NRC inspector reviewed 29 of the 60 completed cencrete placements  ;

reviewed by the WPPSS Readiness Review Team for soundness and  !

surface defect All areas apppeared to be acceptabl )

j CAP-H-C-02-23 Concrete-Walkdown Rebar Dowels

\

The NRC inspector reviewed five reinforcing steel placement Three areas were the same areas inspected by the Readiness Review Tea ]

The other two were selected by the NRC inspectors. These were areas where the concrete placements were partially complete and had reinforcing available for inspection. Bar size, grade of steel and j spacing were inspected. In three of the areas the reinforcing steel was found to be acceptabl In the fourth area, rebar used to support a pipe penetration had been welded to the reinforcing stee EBASCO specification prohibit welding to reinforcing steel. EBASCO engineers explained that this area was a construction blockout and l that the design of the reinforcing steel within the blockout had been considered to be cut and replaced with additional restee ; They also stated that they had revsewed all the NCR's relating to reinforcing steel and no other instances had been identified where items had been welded to tne rebar. This is considered an isolated 1 case and considered closed. The fifth area inspected was a block wall installation at elevation 390'. The dowels for a removeable !

i

l

_ _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - )

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

section of the wall were missing. EBASCO engineers speculate that the bars had been cut off since this portion of wall had been changed to a removeable sectio They were unable to locate the FCR that allowed the cutting of the dowel This item is considered open and will be reviewed when the project is restarted. (Followup Item 87-04-01) 1 Review of CAP Records Review Details )1 The NRC inspectors reviewed CAP checklist #10,12, 21, 30 and 31. CAP checklist 16, 17, 22 and 26 (Grout for Equipment Foundation and Concrete Block Wall Construction) were not reviewed since the CAP team determined I that these items would require further investigation and recommended that this be performed by the project after restart of constructio CAP checklist #29 (Anchor Bolts and Embedde.d' Plates) was also not j reviewed, since it was deferred to the C3-04 module structural steel.

}

The following is a summary of the review of the CAP checklist Checklist CAP-D-C-02-10 Cement in Process (User) Tests The NRC inspectors reviewed 140 Certified Mill Test Reports by Associated Sand and Gravel Company (AS&G) responsible for stockpiling, batching and delivery of concrete and aggregate Reports covered a test period from mid-1977 to early 1982. The reports were reviewed to ascertain whether only cement conforming to iow-alkali requirements was provided for QC-I concret In inspection report 78-04 (May 1978), the NRC inspector identified {

that the aggregate used in the production of concrete contained a relatively high percentage of Chert which has the potential of reacting with the alkali in the cement if low alkali cement (less 0) was not use At that time AS&G and the cehient than 0.6%

supplier agrNa$ed that low alkali cement would be supplied to the project until it could be determined that an alkali reaction problem did not exis The NRC inspector also recommended that the specification be revised to specify that low alkali cement would be supplied and to prevent the inadvertent use of normal type I or type II cement. Accordingly, in August of'1978 FCR-F-015 was approved to require the use of type II low alkaline cement until it has been determined that the potential alkaline reactivity does not exist in accordance with ATSTM C-227 (Mortar Bar Test). Specification 3240-209 was revised to incorporate the FCR requirement in June, 1979 (Rev. 13).

In June 1980 specification 3240-209 (Rev. 14) was revised to delete the requirement for low alkaline cement and specificity that the cement shall be type II cement with a maximum NAp 0 of 0.75L In February 1981 a test for potential alkali reactivity of cement -

aggregate combination (ASTM Method C227 Mortar Bar Method) was completed and showed that a potential reactivity did not exis l l

,

--

.. S'

'

.

,

t However, the cement used in the test was not specified as having a r: high NA 0 cementhr%asrequiredbyASTM227andmayhavebeenthelowelkali eviously specified for the project. The test would then !

not be a valid test. ASTM C-227 states that the cement used in this test shall be of the highest alkali content representative of the general use intende The cement should have been specified to have an alkali content of at least 0.75 (NA20).

The cement supplied to the project after the specification was changed to allow the higher alkaline content, in' general had an alkaline content of less than 0.6% (NA.30). A few cases were identified where the alkaline content Qas slightly above 0.6%.

The WPPSS readiness review project team were unable to determine the alkaline content of the cement used in the ASTM C-227 (Mortar Bar Test) and also could not locate previous ASTM C-227 (Mortar Bar I test) tests that allowed the specification to be revised in June ;

1980 deleting the requirement for low alkaline cement. This is a '

followup item for construction restart (87-04-02). Checklist No. CAP-D-C-02-12, Placing Contractor Personnel Qualifications The NRC inspectors reviewed the contractor personnel qualifications documentation'for two of the five placing contractors, Guy Atkinson Co. and Boecon-Fegles. Based on this sample, the NRC inspector concluded that the CAP conclusion was reasonable, i.e.,

that contractors' qualification and certification programs were acceptabl Checklist No. CAP-D-C-02-31, Concrete Sand Gradatic.)

The NRC inspector reviewed concrete sand gradation test reports by P4ttsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) for the period September 1978 through November 1983, the entire period of QC-I concrete and grout j production. PTL performed on-site testing of all concrete work for WNP- The Seive Analysis data torms contained the minimum information required by the applicable ASTM C-33. However, 38 of ,

the forms omitted data used for intermediate calculations, i.e. the '

quantities " Original Dry Weight of Sample" and " Weight Retained"'

were listed as not applicable. These quantities must be measured in l order to calculate fineness modulus. Although the reports were not j auditable in this regard, the 38 reports were acceptabl l 6. Review of CAP Findings The inspectors reviewed the various findings described in the C3-02 final ,

report to assess the significance of the finding and the evaluations and i corrective actions taken. All CAP evaluations were found to be acceptable: Review of the CAP Open Items List

'

___

. - - _ _ _

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

'

6 l I l

1

.The C3-02 final report. Appendix 2 listed the status of, and 'I references associated with, 58 items which were entered into a tracking system for control 'of their evaluation and resolutio The inspectors examined the references'for each item to determine if the specific issue was adequately resolved and the generic implications -

fully considered. Particular attention was given to the twelve items involving personnel qualifications, and the six items involving adequacy of audit re::ords; resolutions of specific documentation matters was reasonable and no significant trends were noted. The personnel qualifications items for the concrete testing contractor (PTL, Contract 204) were consistent with resolution of allegations and NRC followup actions early in the project history in 197 The inspectors also particularly examined items number 18 (math error), 21 (unclear curing specification), 23 (cadweld location documentation), 25 (slump acceptance criteria), and 48 (missing reinforcing steel dowels). Evaluation of these items, and their resolution appeared acceptable and were not reasonably indicative of any significant generic problem The inspector noted that two items mentioned in the C3-02 final report were not included on the Appendix 2 Open Items List: EAP review of grout qualifications (page 5-34) and grout walkdown inspections (page 6-28). However, the CAP manager referred these to the WNP-li program manager during the inspection, who provided evidence that the items had been entered on.the project general status tracking system for consideration at construction restar This is acceptabl The inspector concluded that handling of the documented CAP findings was acceptabl " Review of CAP Findings That Were Not On CAP Open Items List As discussed in the C3-02 report (item 3.5.7, page 3-7) many of the CAP. reviewer observations were considered to be minor; their 4 resolution was documented on the individual checklists rather than via entry on the CAP Open Items List. This appeared to be a reasonable approac The inspectors reviewed the " minor" items as they were encountered during review of completed checklists. In many cases the checklists included memoranda from the Team Leader or from EBASCO engineers which clarified the issue and provided rationale for acceptanc ]

For the items examined, the resolutions appeared reasonable and the items did not suggest any significant generic problem The inspectors concluded that the above minor issues were accurately characterized in the C3-02 report and acceptably handle I Review ~of WNP-3 Concrete Related Open Issues

, '1 l

l l

\ \

>

_ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ .

- __

, 7

,

, q ,

During the' entrance meeting the inspector requested access to the project general open'iten tracking data, in order to assess any implications relative to the concrete work complete to date. This

.information was unavailable at the end of the inspection, however, status of most construction related quality problem documents was obtained by the inspector via examination of records of Quality finding Reports,-Nonconformance Reports, sampling reviews of EBASCO l Surveillance Reports, and the C3-02 Open Items Lis The inspector reviewed records that showed that all EBASCO QFRs, including those arising from both audit and surveillance activities, l had been resolve Supply System QFR's, associated with both audit and other activities, were also resolved, with exception of one j recent'QFR (relating to assuring corrective actions for past and future findings by the corrosion engineer).

The inspector examined the project NCR's, listed on page 5-33 of the C3-02 report, which had not yet been fully evaluated and resolved by the project. The licensee advised that NCR-263-6460 was ]

inadvertently shown as NCR-265-6460 on the list. With the exception of the NCR relating to embed plates (embeds are to be addressed in a future CAP module), the details of these NCRs did not appear to suggest any significant generic problem, i

The inspector concluded that the open issues appeared to be j accurately characterized in the C3-02 repor . NRC Review of Problem History Section 5-3.3.6 of the C3-02 report describes three elements of the Construction Manager (EBASCO) Quality Assurance Program Control considered by the CAP team: surveillance, audits, and personnel qualification NRC inspection report 86-13, paragraph 12 discussed the 1 limitations of the CAP review, ano noted the NRC intent to conduct an l integrated review of quality assurance problem identification and i correction documentatio !

Nearly all prior NRC findings had been addressed by the licensee and )

closed by NRC, with some exceptions such as upgrading of work procedure The C3-02 report Table 5.3-1 did not recognize NRC inspection reports 80-12, 80-15, 81-03 which point to weaknesses in work procedures, and SALP reports of April 29 and October 27, 1982. The April 29 report ,

mentions "the failure to follow procedures by employees of several I contractors continues to be a chronic problem at this site and is indicative of a deficiency in the training programs and/or construction management." The SALP reports also mention weakness in the Construction Management oversight of contractors in the area of the Surveillance Program effectiveness, promptness of effecting contractor corrective actions, and "non-specific complaints from quality control personnel about cavalier treatment afforded their concerns." The SALP reports '

specifically mentioned problems with concrete consolidation and rebar spacing, matters which appear particularly difficult to assess after the fact through examination of records and areas remaining exposed for examination at this tim . _ _ _ _ . ____ __ _ _ ____________-__-_ _

___

.

m .

<

'

8

[}i l y+

'

NRC, inspection. reports.78-08, 78-09, 81-08, 81-14 and 81-16 discuss l

.. ,

,

'

negative observations regarding audit and surveillance program

effectiveness. These' observations do not appear fully consistent with y the results of the. CAP review of surveillance reports and audit reports b..<

(to assure' adequate monitoring), which conclude that "The adequacy of

- Ebasco's performance of surveillance and personnel qualifications was demonstrated" and "an effective construction management program was

- implemented on the project".(ref. page 6-47 of report C3-02). With-respect to the CAP special . review of surveillance of JAJ Contract 265 (in response to prior NRC questions),.the C3-02-report'(page 6-39) concludes

- that the " surveillance program for JAJ.was aggressive and that.JAJ was

'

responsive to independent scrutiny of the quality of its concrete"; this conclusion l contrasts to the NRC October 1982 SALP report conclusion that

"the JAJ quality performance had not improved measurably during the SALP

- evaluation period."

>

During the current. inspection the inspector selected several contractors to review the problem histories that in some cases may not have been extensively examined.by the CA To the varying degrees discussed below,

. the inspector reviewed the available records.for persistent trends which may.not have been apparent at the time that the individual issues had

- >

been evaluated and' resolve For reinforcing steel and concrete, the inspector particularly considered the adequa'cy of materials used and the craft' performance of material placemen Adequacy of con Nele curing was also considered. In the arec

of materials, the inspector noticed no.significant trend Some

- persistent trends were noticed regarding placement and curing practices; this~was consistent with data-from the NRC inspection program during construction: Contract #216, Guy F. Atkinson, Basemat The CAP examined records of one of the sixteen massive concrete

'

placements performed by this contractor. The CAP sampling review of the EBASCO surveillance activities, mentioned in the C3-02 report,

. included one surveillance report (one day) relative to contract

1. 216:

<

The NRC inspector examined all EBASCO surveillance reports for contract #216,- for th period that concrete placement work was in progress ' at WNP-3, September '7,1978 through January 8,197 The surveillance program for GFA appeared to be aggressive. The reports clearly enumerated various good practices, required by codes and specification, which were'not fully implemented; e.g. for 13 of the 16 placements, the EBASCO quality assurance surveillance engineers noted cases of poor concrete placement / consolidation practices. Corrective actions were als.o documented.

l- The inspector examined all Quality Finding Reports and l Nonconformance reports identified in the surveillance reports. The disposition of the individual reports appeared appropriate; however, L Quality Finding Report QFR-216-18 (dated January 5,1979) complained I that "GFtCO Quality Control personnel failed to take effective m _ __ _ _

W y-

,

>

g .

.g

,

p l, . action'to prevent re-occurrence of faulty placing techniques pointed or i

out to them by.EBASCO QA Surveillance personnel." .This QFR was

..

closed based upon contractor response that the situations "were

( brought to the attention of appropriate construction supervision and

'

corrected as they' occurred". Several voided /unissued QFRs'( Nos. 216-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in November 1978) appeared similar, and had .}

v' been voided with the notation "similar instances'of failure of GFACO .!

QC'to function have been noted and. issued on subsequent QFRs-1/5/79". The QFR-216-18 referenced nonc.:aformance report No and 106, which the Engineer accepted "as-is" January 10, 1979 "as long as the inspection reports indicate that proper consolidation and a lack of segregation occurred. Contractor QC to

.'

supply required inspection reports." The NCR-101 was closed January 16, 1979 with~a copy of a GAFC0 inspection report dated December.21,.

1978 which showed "9) Adequate consolidation has been achieved".

However, QFR-13 (dated November 29, 1978) challenged the ability of g'

the GAFC0 QC inspector "to tell when concrete was adequately consolidated", and training to resolve this matter was not agreed by GAFC0 until January 15, 1979 and scheduled for completion until January 22, 1979 (after all WNP-3 basemat piacement has been completed). The above reports appear indicative of a chronic problem with craft and contractor first line QC performanc The inspector examined all nonconformance reports (NCRs) associated with GAFC0 concrete work for WNP-3. These were examined for evidence of consequences of poor placement / consolidation practice For'the sixteen basemat placements (each about 2000 cubic yards)

only 24 of the 64 vertical surfaces were originally accessible for visual observation following removal of' forms; this was due to sixteen surfaces being against the excavation surface, and due to the particular sequence of concrete placements. Nonconformance ,

reports documented observed unsound concrete on 12 of the 2 l accessible surfaces after removal of concrete forms, plus problems at elevator shaft pits and column base plate blockouts. Of the 13 placements where EBASCO surveillance reports complained of consolidation practices, 8 of these had areas of unsound concrete documented on the NCRs. Various sketches were often included with

'

the NCRs, showing lo' cation and size of the questionable areas. The unsound areas were often near the bottom of the exposed surface, but several areas were near the center where little congestion of reinforcing steel appeared to exis )

The NCRs clearly show that the unsound concrete areas on accessible concrete faces were repaired prior to subsequent concrete placements. However, there was no evidence to suggest that potentially existing similar areas at. inaccessible surfaces had been evaluated. This question was resolved during a June 30, 1987 NRC/WPPSS meeting subsequent to the inspection. Discussions with a GAFC0 inspector employed during basemat work, plus a file of.

ic construction' photographs demonstrated that expanded steel forms created configurations conducive to concrete honeycomb / void in absence of exceptional consolidation practices. Such conditions were characteristic of only the form faces and did not exist at the )

inaccessible faces of concrete placement '

<

l

C,.. .

_ _ _

l

,

.

The inspector also noticed that EBASCO surveillance reports repeated observations of discrepancies regarding water and temperature control for concrete curing; 7 of the sixteen placements had such observations (nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16). However, the immediate corrective actions noted, plus the Engineer evaluation and disposition of these observations were sufficient to indicate no significant final disci apancie NRC inspection report 81-12 discussed voids which had been identified via hammer-blow sounding of embed plates on the top surface of basemat concrete at WNP-5 in 1979. Additional investigation by the contractor identified 17 such base plates with discrepant conditions. Embed plates in 9 of the 16 WNP-5 individual basemat concrete placements were involved (i.e. placements nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16). Only four plates (with voids exceeding %-inch depth) required repair by grouting, as documented on site nonconformance reports 216-261 and 216-266. Neither the NCRs, nor any other documentation offered by the licensee, suggested that similar configurations at WNP-3 had been evaluated for existence of this generic discrepancy. This question was resolved during the June 30, 1987 meeting subsequent to the inspection. A telephone report, signed by the responsible GAFC0 QC inspector, who no longer works at WNP-3, affirmed that the QC inspector had performed similar inspections at WNP-3 and found no discrepancie He stated that he had prepared a report of the investigation at the time. However, the Supply System has been unable to locate the report, due to its " acceptable" nature and it's thus not being filed with usual problem report records for WNP-3. This is acceptable and the inspector had no further questions on this matte The inspector concluded that contract #216 work was closely monitored and evaluated to assure that chronic performance problems did not result in significant quality defects that were uncorrecte B. Contract #219, Boecon/Fegles, Reactor Building Shield Wall The CAP examined records for one day of the 20 days of continuous slip-form concrete placement. The CAD sampling review of EBASCO surveillance activities, mentioned in the C3-02 report, included one surveillance report (one day) relative to contract #21 The NRC inspector examined all EBASCO surveillance reports for contract #219, for the 20 day period that the WNP-3 concrete continuous slip-form placement was underway, January 31 through February 20, 1987. The inspector also examined all Quality Finding Reports, Nonconformance Reports, and contractor internal audit reports regarding this wor The surveillance program for B/F appeared to be aggressive. During the concrete placement, EBASCO surveillance engineers apparently conducted 24-hour three-shift monitoring of the contractor performance, with each surveillance engineer preparing a separate daily report of his activitie Neither the surveillance reports, nor the other quality documents indicated any significant repetitive observation Some repetition was involved regarding concrete curing, but this was minor and/or

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

i i

'

i i

t fully evaluated by EBASCO for acceptability. There was no indication of any continuing problem with concrete. consolidation practices; the inspector noted only one such observation in the group of surveillance reports for this contracto The nonconformance report records indicated few instances of unsound concrete after forms removal; these were minor and were correcte Repair of such areas was observed by NRC inspectors in 1979 (report 79-01). Since the shield wall was relatively thin (3 feet) and both surfaces were visually accessible following form removal, the inspector considered the possibility of undetected / uncorrected voids to be highly improbable. The inspector had no question regarding performance of this contracto C. Contract #266, J.A. Jones Company, Containment Internal Concrete The CAP examined records of nine of the 202 placements performed by this contractor. The CAP sampling review of the EBASCO surveillance activities, mentioned in the C3-01 report, included 3 concrete-related surveillance reports for contract #26 In response to NRC observations in NRC inspection report 86-13, the CAP conducted an additional review of all 681 surveillance reports of contractor #265, and discussed the results in the C3-02 final report Part 6.3.27. The review also examined Quality Finding Reports and Nonconformance Reports referenced in the surveillance reports. The CAP reported that the " surveillance program for JAJ was aggressive and that JAJ was responsive to independent scrutiny of the quality of the its concrete".

The NRC inspector examined the package of documents reviewed by the CAP reviewers, including the referenced surveillance reports, Quality Finding Reports and Nonconformance Reports. The surveillance program for JAJ appeared to be aggressive as surveillance were conducted nearly on a daily basis between May 1, 1980 and June 198 The disposition of the individual reports appeared appropriate, although the Engineer's repetitive requests  ;

"More care shall be taken when vibrating" and the repetitive occurrence of unsound concrete at form surfaces (particularly behind and around embed plates) demonstrated a chronic problem with achieving proper consolidation of concrete (see Table 7.C-1).

It is generally recognized in concrete structure design margins that  ;

some local areas of incomplete concrete consolidation may be j unavoidable. At WNP-3 quality control efforts attempted to minimize J such occurrences, and correct those that did occu The individual conditions appearing at form surfaces at WNP-3 were clearly identified and corrected. The implications for complex reinforcing steel locations deep in thick placements, (if any) far from the form surfaces, are inconclusive. However, the consensus view of the ,

inspection team was that major zones of poor consolidation are '

improbable in view of the demonstrated attention of EBASCO surveillance activities for major placements, over and above the contractor quality control inspections, i

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _

- -_- . _ _ _ _ _ _

'

i

.

"i The inspector concluded that contract #265 work was closely monitored.and evaluated to assure that any significant quality defects were correcte !

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

'

.

Table 7.C-1 The following Contract-265 EBASCO surveillance reports were included in the data base of 681 reports examined by the CAP; these involved questionable concrete placement practices:

Date Surveillance N Problem Observed l

6-3-80 49 Handling Vibrators 7-8-80 64 Handling Vibrators 2-4-81 216 Handling Vibrators 2-6-81 222 Handling Vibrators 3-26-81 277 Handling Vibrators {

4-9-81 286 Handling Vibrators '

The following Contract-265 nonconformance reports were either referenced by EBASCO surveillance reports that described unsound concrete at Form Surfaces, j or were included in record copies of NCR's for the period May 1, 1980 through 1 March 30,1981 (time constraints prevented NRC review of the period after March 1981):

Date NCR N Nature of Problem 5-5-80 2907 Unsound Concrete 5-9-80 2910 Unsound Concrete 5-16-80 2913 Poor consolidation practices 5-21-80 2914 Unsound concrete 5-27-80 2915 Unsound concrete 5-27-80 2916 Unsound concrete 7-23-80 2923 Poor consolidating practices '

7-23-80 2925 Unsound concrete 1-15-81 2979 Poor consolidation practices 2-6-81 2989 Poor consolidation practices 3-30-81 3035 Poor consolidation practices The following Contract-265 nonconformance reports document repetitive EBASCO j Engineer requests for improvement in craft performance:

Date NCR N Engineer (Request for) Action to Prevent Recurrence l 2-18-81 2996 Instruct craft to thoroughly vibrate concrete 3-18-81 3023 Instruct Craft on procedures for use of vibrators 12-16-81 3426

&Mr i b shall be taken in vibrating 11-17-81 3547 Take greater care to assure proper consolidation 1-26-82 3612 More care shall be taken when vibrating concrete 3-15-82 3713 More care shall be taken when vibrating concrete 3-31-82 3742 Greater care shall be taken when vibrating concrete 3-31-82 3743 Nore care shall be taken when vibrating concrete

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -  ?

gy - - - -

,

- - - - - - - - - --- --------

D

" ' '

,

.

, 9

,

>

4 .

'

< . ,

• Lic'ensee' Action'on Previously Identified NRC Inspection Findings

>

"

The~ inspectors reviewed records and interviewed personne1'regarding the

.

g

' ~ following questions raised during. prior. NRC inspections: 1 .(82-06-01, Closed) - Reinforcing steel splice lengths did not appear lto be identified on drawings and " detail" drawings were being used  !

L for final acceptanc .

,

I When this issue was~first raised, the NRC inspector did not accept the EBASCO personnel arguments that quality control personnel did not.need to inspect splice lengths due to existence of other, indirect, inspection points. This matter was identified as ar spen ite During the current' inspection it was determined that contractor quality control inspectors did check splice lengths. The inspection criteria was sometimes included on drawings in the form of tables of values; at other times the length was dimensioned on the' drawing details. In' places, the dimension was shown as " typical" at.one location, requiring inspectors to refer to that detail for dimensions not repeated elsewhere on the same drawing or on other associated drawings (this is an acceptable practice). .The NRC inspector examined a tabulation prepared by the EBASC0; Lead Civil

' Engineer, which' identified where splice criteria were shown for various drawings which, at first examination, appeared to. omit the dimensions. The inspector also examined several drawings to verify presence of such dimension CAP reviewers, and EBASCO engineers, stated that " detail" drawings were not prepared by contractors.since it was the EBASCO practice to provide all required fabrication and installation details on the design drawings themselve One exception, identified through NRC review of past problem reports, involved one contractor who did

' prepare detail drawings and used those for inspections; however, in this case all such drawings were reportedly reviewed and approved by EBASCO. This matter is close (87-02-01, Open) Corrective Actions for Corrosion Engineer Observations Supply System memo E3-DIH-87-39 (dated February 13, 1987) documents delay in implementation of corrective action for Quality Finding Report QFR-SS-003 (dated November 11, 1986). Supply System memo QA-3-86-75 (dated November 10, 1986) describes that QFR-SS-003 was prepared as a result of NRC questions raised in May 198 The corrective action for QFR-SS-003 included revising procedure WCM-051, as discussed on pages 3 and 6 of NRC inspection report 87-02. Implementation of the revision will be considered during a future inspection of the preservation progra The (prior) Pro. ject QA Manager objected to the characterization in NRC Report 87-02 (page 2) that "he was unaware that WCM-051 had been submitted as a commitment to NRC," particularly since he authored r QFR-003 and signed WCM-05 He clarified that a misconception had been created during a meeting between the NRC inspector, the WPPSS

.4

-- - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - .

!

'

15- ,

l \

l Corrosion Engineer and Project QA Manage His written reply to J. . Garvin describes that "It is correct that the Corrosion Study Coordinator expressed this position; however, the Project QA Manager had not." The Project QA Manager clarified that "due to a concern that his quality finding report actually may have been in error (i.e. Appendix B does not apply) he had remained silent during the discussions and did not take a position until the issue could be pursued further with appropriate management." The absence of comment by the QA Manager was perceived by the inspector as concurrence with the incorrect QA position being presented by the Corrosion Study Coordinator. The inspector agreed to clarify the above circumstances in this inspection repor C. (86-13-01, Closed) Concrete module C3-02 sampling plans did not include representative samples. As discussed in part 4.B(1) of NRC Inspection Report 87-03, the NRC inspector considered that sampling plans did not reflect a consideration of past problem history to the extent which may be inferred from the approved program descriptio This was deemed an open item pending further NRC review of problem history files and assessment of their implication The subsequent NRC review is discussed in paragraph 7 of this report. The reviews focused on problem histories of three contractors and resulted in insights into contractor performance which differ somewhat from those described in the licensee's C3-02 repor The inspector concluded that chronic problems were experienced with contracts 263/265 work activities and that the 219 contractor demonstrated performance at a higher quality leve However, the extent of licensee consideration of past problem history appeared sufficient, in conjunction with the overall review plan, to meet the program objectives of determining adequacy of completed work. This item is close D. (86-13-02, Closed) - The licensee stated that an additional checklist would enco~mpass batch plant equipment calibration for the period of structural concrete placement activitie The C3-02 report documents the reviews using the new checklis I E. (86-13-03, Open) - A CAP determination of adequacy of completed '

concrete work appears conditional upon determination of adequate control of drilled holes for anchor bolts to avoid damage to reinforcing stee l The licensee confirmed that CAP review of anchor bolt installation (

by various contractors will be deferred for consideration during ]

future reviews. This item remains open pending consideration of  !

results of such future review l

,

l I

F. (86-13-04, Closed) - The CAP determination of concrete acceptability l appeared conditional upon evaluation of embed plate '

I L

The module C3-02 report documents review of concrete placement l activities, including proper embed !acation and adequacy of concrete

____________________________________________J

---_------ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

'

16

,

consolidation. The steel materials design, procurement.and certification have been deferred for CAP review under a future module and has been included in the CAP open item list. Aspects relating to adequacy- of concrete placement have been resolve This item is close G. (86-13-05, Closed) - Certain CAP reviews described in the CAP' review plan were not yet complete at the time of'the previous NRC inspection and were identified as open items pending completion of the reviews and inspection by NRC. One such item involved trending analysis of concrete compressive strength test The described review was completed, reported in the C3-02 report, and the results examined by NRC inspectors during this inspectio No discrepancies were noted by the inspectors. This item is close H. (86-13-06, Closed) - Concrete sampling correlation dat See Item 8.g abov I. (86-13-07, Closed) - Statistical analysis of reinforcing steel tensile tests. See item 8.g abov J. (86-13-08, Closed) - Statistical analysis of cadweld test result See item 8.g abov K. (86-13-09, Closed) - Construction Manager actions relative to NRC/QA activitie See item 8.g abov L. (86-13-10, Open) - Review of epoxy grout environmental qualifications and NRC Information Notice IN-83-40 applicabilit The licensee confirmed that review of grout qualification records will be deferred for review after project restar This item {

remains open pending examination of results of the future review, and assessment of locations (if any) where such grout was used for concrete repair M. (86-13-11, Closed) - Control of core drilling of completed concrete for installations other than anchor bolt The inspectors ascertained that adequate procedures existed for control of major core drillin N. (86-13-12, Closed) - Consideration of past problems relating to bending of reinforcing stee CAP review and independent walkcown of exposed steel indicated no i significant problem with bendin l 0. (86-13-13, Open) - Need for CAP grout walkdown inspection NRC inspectors noted cracks in grout at equipment foundation The project restart list has been appropriately supplemented to include future visual examination and engineering evaluation of equipment

,

,

i

.

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ . -- - ._ _ . _ _ .

'

.

grout. This item remains open pending future NRC review of the

.results of such inspection / evaluatio (86-13-14, Closed) - Review of problem history for contract 265 relative to issues identified during early audit The licensee initial follow-up review of this item was discussed with the licensee as noted in part 4.B.(4) and 4.B.(5) of NRC Inspection Report 87-0 The CAP performed additional reviews of problem history records for contract 265 and described the results of this review in the C3-02 repor Additionally, the NRC inspector performed a review of the CAP data results and additional independent review as described in paragraph 7.c of this repor Contractor performance problems were confirmed by this review, although no evidence of uncorrected concrete discrepancies was identified. This item is close (86-13-15, Closed) - CAP review'of construction manager contractor -

surveillance reviews were not specifically focused on concrete activities. As discussed in part 4.B.(5) of NRC Inspection Report 87-03, the licensee confirmed that specific review of concrete surveillance records was not intended by the CAP progra The CAP performed additional review of contract 265 surveillance records, plus a statistical review of surveillance records of all concrete contractors. One purpose of the statistical review was to determine the frequency that surveillance findings were elevated to more formal corrective action programs; the results appeared inconclusive (e.g frequencies ranged between 5% and 10%, which may be interpreted as all contractors having approximately same low frequency, or alternatively that one contractor involved escalation twice as frequent as another).

The NRC review of surveillance records, in conjunction with other problem reports, and conclusions thereof, are discussed in paragraph 7 of this report. The review focused specifically on concrete activities. This item is close (86-13-16, Closed) - The CAP did not appear to incorporate consideration of nonconformance report (NCR) trend data into CAP sampling plan The CAP reviewers stated that the trend data was generally considered during sampling plan preparation to highlight subjects (e.g. missing dowels) which were then assured to be included into CAP checklists. This, and other subsequent considerations of the data by the reviews, have been described in the C3-02 report Section 5.3. This item is close (86-13-17, Closed) - Reinforcing steel clearance discrepancies were identified by the NRC inspector at a block-out area of the shield l buildin l

___-__

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

..,

yy'

.

Subsequent, review by the Engineer revealed that the installation contractor had improperly installed one layer of reinforcing steel-in a" local area. The Engineer assisted the inspector in review of shield wall drawings to demonstrate that the area in question was unique in its local configuration and not indicative of general misplacement of reinforcing steel layers. This item is close T., _ (86-13-18, Closed) - Construction specifications did not appear to incorporate appropriate acceptance criteria for compliance with one-bar-diameter clearance criteria of Section 7.5 of ACI-318-7 The licensee explained the Burns and Roe approach to the ACI-318-71 criteria, via' correspondence to NRC dated March 31, 1987 and June 15, 1987 and during NRC Inspection 87-03. This item is close U, (86-13-19, Closed) - Damaged equipment grout did not appear to be identified and corrected. The licensee replied to this item via letter to NRC dated March 31, 1987 and acknowledged by NRC letter dated Jur,e 3, 1987. Future inspection of completed grout will be considered by NRC as noted under open item 86-13-13, paragraph of this repor (86-13-20, Closed) - Future monitoring of concrete cracks exhibiting water intrusion appeared warranted in the preventive maintenance progra The inspector interviewed the Supply System corrosion engineer regarding his quarterly monitoring program. Although a documented inspection checklist is not used for his activities, he stated that he conducts general facility walkdowns in addition to the specific corrsuion specimen monitoring work prescribed in procedure WCM-05 The inspector examined a draft revision te preventive maintenance Task 42, which called for monitoring of the concrete crack at area TK Also, Startup Tracking System Task 300000227 has been added, which specifically calls for assessment of possible reinforcing steel corrosion at the southwall Reactor Auxiliary Building elevation 33 This item.is close (86-13-22, Closed) - The report of concrete in place strength tests appeared somewhat incomplete at the time of the NRC inspectio The report has been supplemented with additional data described in ASTM-C805, and the completed report included in the C3-02 repor This item is close ,

X, (86-13-23, Closed) - The concrete block construction checklist appeared somewhat ambiguous in its acceptance criteria. The NRC '

concern was clarified in part 4.B.(9) of NRC Inspection Report 87-0 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

___ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _

,

l-

,

j

{

The future review and evaluation of concrete masonry wall construction has been incorporated into the CAP open items list for consideration daring project restar Future NRC review will be considered under NRC open item 82-16-03, 84-80-11, and TI-15-37. Item 86-13-23 is close . Review of Oversight Committee Independence The inspector examined documents which indicated that members of the Oversight Committee were selected with consideration of qualified individuals identified by NRC. The inspector noted that one committee member had previously been employed by NRC as the Senior Resident Inspector at WNP-3 (June 1980-July 1981) and in subsequent senior NRC supervising positions which responsibilities included WNP-3. The individual is currently employed by a non government consultant firm and was evaluated by the Supply System to assure independence and technical capability. The inspector considered this Committee member to be en i asset to the Oversight Committee, due to his prior knowledge and perspective of the problem history at the facilit The inspector concluded that the Oversight Committee had sufficient j independenc . Management Meeting At the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held with WPPSS management and staff at the site on June 19, 1987. The results of this inspection, as described herein, were summarized at that meetin Personnel in attendance are noted (*) in Paragraph 1 of this repor A Region V inspection supervisor and an NRR special inspection supervisor J reviewed the inspection findings prior to the meeting and attended the  !

meeting. Several matters were identified as open items to be considered by NRC at the time of construction restar Supply System i representatives indicated that additional relevant information may be j identified through further review of records files; they committed to l provide any such information to NRC by June 30, 198 ]

l 1 Follow-up Information Meeting

_

l On June 30, 1987 the WPPSS Manager of Readiness Reviews Programs and the j Construction Assurance Program Manager visited the NRC Region V office to present information obtained from additional reviews of records and discussions with personnel. They met with the Project Inspector and the Chief of Reactor Safety Branch of NRC Region V. The information presented was sufficient to resolve several of the open items discussed during the on-site inspection management meeting. In addition to open items indicated in paragraph 8 of this report, the following items were not fully resolved and will be considered by NRC at the time of future construction restart:

! Evaluation of documentation of control of removal / cutting reinforcing steel, illustrated by apparent missing dowels in the concrete floor beneath a masonry wall blockout are (87-04-01)

l

. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - J

-. _ - - .

.,. 20 l:

B .' Evaluation of tests which were used as the basis for specification changes that permitted use of cement without low-alkaline characteristic (87-04-02) Evaluation of design criteria for fire hose station and piping mounted on a concrete masonry block wall..(This was a condition observed during an examination of concrete block walls.) (87-04-03)

!

...

4 e

1 ..

L-.

I l

l I

i i

i q

l

I I

J

_ -_ __

, _ _ _

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

1,

.

.>

1 gn e

, .cc jf

h

.

t t o:

rx g

v.>

.

!

l o~

1' m AAJ i y f e--

.

t t t l

.

!

'.