IR 05000282/1990010
| ML20043F866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1990 |
| From: | Gardner R, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043F861 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-90-10, 50-306-90-10, NUDOCS 9006180242 | |
| Download: ML20043F866 (3) | |
Text
- - - -.................................
..
..................
.........
.
....
......
....
......
...
i
.
,
.
,
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
REGION 111
!
-Report No. 50-282/90010; 50-306/90010 Docket No. 50-282; 50-306 License No. DPR-42; DPR-60 l
Licensee:
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall
'
Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: Welch, MN 55089 (Red Wing)
Inspection Cond eted: May 22-24, 1990 1::spector:
[
zz
/[ - / / - jF D
. 1r. NFisler Date
6-Ih70 Y
Approved By:
-
R. N. Gardner, Chief Date
'
Plant Systems Section Inspection Summary inspection on May 22-24, 1990'(Report No. 59-282/90010;50-306/90010)
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection to review the licensee's construction. plans and procedures and to observe the implementation of.
procedures. controlling concrete activities for the Station Blackout / Electrical SystemUpgradeModification-(37700)(SIMSUSIA44).
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
Plans and procedures for concrete installation were adequate and properly implemented.
9006180242 900611
{DR ADOCK 05000282 PDC l
l
-
. - -
...
)
m k
&
kh
,
.
.,
z
,
X f:
(y
- _
.,,
Pi'
DETAILS'
d
l 1.
Persons Contacted
,
,
,
..
.-
L
. Northern States Power j
u
- W.~ Leno, Program _ Manager SB0/ESU
- J. Maki, Project Engineer, SB0/ESU
. R. O' Bryan, Project Supertindent, SB0/ESU
L
- R. Sitek, Quality Assurance, SB0/ESV y
~ *P. Suleski,- Manager, Nuclear Projects' and Suppliers Quality Assurance
'
- J. Leveille, Licensing Engineer, NSS
_
..
,
,,
- J. Brystrzycki, Project Superintendent, Quality Control
!
+
- B.-Desai, Superintendent, Mechanical Engineering-T. Winberg,-Civi1LConstruction Superintendent W. Findlay, Electri_ cal ~ Construction Superintendent
]
W.- Chaney, Civil. Quality Control-Flour-Daniel
,+
'
- B. Stuart; Civil / Structural Engineer
.
'
- Denotes those' persons attending exit interview.
i
,
12.
Observation of Work.
j i
The. inspector observedi he placement of reinforcing steel _(rebar) fori n
t
~
a.;
the 687 foot elevation base mat.
Reinforcement'for~the base mat
'
.
~i-generally ' consisted of four. layers,of #11 ASTM 615; Grade 60 rebar with LI two. perpendicular; layers in the upper and lower portions of;the base j
'
mat as-shown_on drawing 116992.
Rebar spacing was verified to be as
'
shown on the' applicable drawing.-lIn this-installation,.the licensee
-
is using lap splices with the-#11 bar. The lap splices meet or exceed the length requirements ofLthe American Concrete' Institute (ACI):
Standard =349 and splices in adjacent bars were correctly-staggered.-
Q
~
,
Quality control inspectors.were present during the rebar installation d
and when all rebar for.the scheduled concrete placement-was complete, j
quality control verified that there were no missing bars in the
4 placement, that the bars were properly spaced and that all bcrs were
securely tied.-
'
b.
The inspector'_observ'ed the installation of embed. plates in the concrete m
placement area prior to placing the concrete. Quality controliinspectors
verified that each embed was at the proper location and elevation.- The-
inspector examined stud welds on-several embeds prior-to the licensee's
installing the embeds for concrete' placement.
- !
O'
c.
The' inspector observed concrete placement activities for the first placement at the 687 foot level base mat.
Licensee quality control and construction personnel performed a preplacement walkdown inspection j
H of_ the placement. area.
No foreign material was observed in the place-ment area after completion of.the licensee's inspection.
To facilitate
,
concrete placement, the licensee used a concrete pump placed outside the
'
security fence to move the fluid concrete to the forms. The concrete
r
,
,
Y
-:
l A
-.<
..,
'*-
-
,
~:,4 [
was trucked from a dedicated batch )lant about 40 minutes from the -
_ placement site and transferred to tie concrete pump, then pumped to the forms._ The licensee's quality control inspectors were present at the batch plant and the placement site.
Concrete tests and inspections-performed dur.ing placement included slump tests, air content tests, drum revolution counter inspection and the preparation of standard 6 X 12 test cylinders-for compression tests.
!
,
No: violations or deviations were identified during work observations.
3.
Review of Documentation i
a.
The inspector reviewed-Quality Assurance surveillance documentation of activities involving the SB0/ESU modification. The surveillance j
,
reports reviewed were:
SR-PI-3435, Rebar Traceability SR-PI-3437, Concrete Testing
b.
The inspector reviewed concrete mix design and trial batch test data, d
The licensee mixed three trial batches, each with a slightly different'
l water cement ratio (WCR) for the designed 540 pounds of cement per
cubic yard of concrete. WCRs used for the trial batches were 0.39, 0.40:and 0.41 percents. The average 28-day cylinder break strength (compression) for each WCR was 0.39-6613 psi, 0.40-6700-psi and'
O.41-6323Lpsi. These mixes meet or exceed specifications for safety--
related concrete to be used in the_SB0/ESU modification.
'
,
c..
The. inspector reviewed design and procurement specifications for
'k electrical, control and instrument cables to be used in the'modifica-tions...The specifications-included environmental exposure-requirements and conductor,-insulation, filler, jacket and shielding specifications.
The specifications also included color or number coding, factory
]
electrical tests and prototype qualification tests and documentation-
requirements.
-
-
No violations or' deviations were-identified during the documentation reviews.
.j 4.
. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings
.
of the inspection. 'The inspector discussed the likely informational content I
of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by
]
the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any
.
.such documents or processes as. proprietary.
'
i
!
r
,
'