IR 05000335/1981010
| ML20009D728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009D717 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-10, 50-389-81-06, 50-389-81-6, NUDOCS 8107240296 | |
| Download: ML20009D728 (9) | |
Text
r
.
-
.
m%
UNITED STATES
,
8'
-
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
a[E REGION ll e,
101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W.. SUITE 3100
@
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-335/81-10 and 50-389/81-06 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami,-FL 33101 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Docket Nos. 50-335 and -50-389 License Nos. OPR-67 and CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, FL Inspector: M/b F,7
/////r /
J.y.Lenahan D'ats Signed Approved by:
- 1t h J - /- f l T. E. Conlon', Section Chief Date Signed Engineering. Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on May 4-7, 1981 Areas Inspected This special, announced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in the l
areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings, structural concrete, j
levels B, C, and D storage, licensee identified items and followup on IE Bulletin 80-11.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four areas; one violation was found in one area (Insufficient procedures for dispo-sition of NCRs within ESSE'
paragraph 3).
8107240296 810713 PDR ADOCK 05000389 G
-
,
, - _ -
.
-
-
,__. --
.-...-.
_..
. -., _
F
{
l-
.
-
..
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
!
- B. J. Escue, Project Manager, Unit-2 W.- Hayward, QA Construction Supervisor
- E. W. Sherman, QA Engineer C. M. Wethy, Plan _t Manager, Unit 1 C. Hamilton, Unit 1 QC Supervisor J. Krumins, Site Engineer, Unit 1
'
Other licensee employees contacted included 6 civil QC inspectors.
Other Organizations (EBASCO)
- G. H. Krauss, ESSE Project Engineer, Unit 2
- V. J. Gerley, Civil Engineer, Unit 2
- R. A. Garramore. Senior Resident Engineer, Unit 2 T. Tarte, Project Engineer, Unit 1 D. Cacoilo, Civil Engineer, Unit 1 NRC Resident Inspector
- S.- A. Elrod, Senior Resident Inspector
- P. Bibb, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized by the inspector on Fay 7, 1981 with those Unit 2 personnel indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The violation described 'in paragraph 3 was discussed.
The Unit 1 inspection scope and findings were discussed by the NRC senior resident inspector with the Uni +.1 plant manager on May 8,1981.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Infraction Item (335/77-10-01):
Failure to Update As-Built Detail Drawings with Latest Computer Design Loads; Infraction Item (335/77-10-02):
Failure to Install Pipe Support Anchor Bolts in Accordance with Requirements of Design Drawings; and Infraction Item (335/77-10-03):
Failure of Pipe Support Inspection Program to Identify Inadequate Boltin r
,
's
.
These infractions were identified during an investigation of the Unit 1 anchor bolt and pipe support / restraint installation program.
The problems identified during this investigation concerning anchor bolt installation contributed to issuance of IE Bulletin 79-02.
The licensee's corrective actionr, which are stated in FP&L's letters to NRC Region II dated September 7, 1977, October 7, 1977, November 30, 1977, and December 8, 1977, were reviewed and accepted by Region II inspectors during onsite inspections of activities associated with IE Bulletin 79-02. These items are closed, b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (335/79-18-01): Documentation for Barrier Dam Compaction Piles. This unresolved item was applicable to Units 1 and 2.
The Unit 2 unresolved item (item number 389/79-10-01) was closed out during an inspection conducted on September 5-6, 1979 (See RII IE Report No. 50-389/79-15). Based on the documentation reviewed during the September 5-6, 1979 inspection, Unit 1 Unresolved Item 335/79-18-01 is closed.
c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (335/81-04-01): ESSE NCR control Procedures.
-The inspector discussed procedures for control and jisposition of NCR's
-
(nonconformances) within the EBASCO Site Support Engineering group (ESSE) with licensee and EBASCO engineers. These discussions disclosed that there is not a documented procedure within the ESSE group which meets the requirements of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B for control and disposition cf site generated nonconformances by ESSE.
This item is closed as an unresolved item and upgraded to violation item 389/81-06-01, " Insufficient Procedure for Disposition of NCRs
- within ESSE".
d.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (389/81-04-03):
Soil Testing Methods.
The inspector examined Revision 1 to FCR 2-058. This revision voided the original FCR which deleted the requirement of Note 2 to ASTM D1557.
Note 2 to ASTM D 1557 calls for replacing the plus 3/4 inch material with #4 to 3/4 inch material in performance of modified proctor tests.
The inspector discussed the reason for voiding FCR 2-058 with the EBASCO civil engineer. These discussions disclosed that Note 2 is an optional testing requirement, and since it was not specified in EBASCO specification number FLO-2998.471, " Excavation and Backfill", there was no need to write an FCR (number 2-058) to delete the requirements of Note 2.
Thus FCR 2-058 was voided.
Further discussions with the EBASCO civil engineer disclosed that the testing methods specified in Note 2 to ASTM D 1557 were not made a requirement in order to obtain good correlation between the proctor curve, in place field density tests, and relative density tests. The inspector reviewed EBASCO memo dated April 30, 1981, subject "FP&L St. Lucie Plant - Unit No. 2, Relative Density Determinations".
This memo describes in detail the method used in performance of relative density tests.
It also stated that at the beginning of the laboratory testing program for Unit 1, the relative density tests were performed by the wet and dry methods, and
-
_
'
.s
.
1 that the dry method yielded the highest density requirements.
Since the Class I backfill requirements for Unit 2 are the same as for Unit 1, there was no need to perform the relative density test by both the wet and dry methods.
The inspector reviewed relative density tests performed by both the wet and dry method as Unit 1 Class 1 backfill.
These results showed that determination of relative density tests by the dry method yielded the highest maximum density test results.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time. This item is closed.
e.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 389/81-05-04: Spacing of Reinforcing Steel.
The inspector. discussed with the licensee and EBASCO engineers, the reasons for groups of three to five reinforcing bars with clear distance between bars of less than one inch in the containment building shield wall at the maintenance hatch opening and penetration 43.
These discussicns disclosed that additional bars were placed in areas where restrictions or congestion did not permit' placement of reinfor-cing steel with the minimum splice lengths required by Section 7 of ACI 318-71. This resulted in a few groups of three to five rebars in the containment building shield wall penetration areas.
EBASCO engineering approval of the placement of additional bars at locations where the minimum splice length could not be obtained is shown in Field Change Request number 2-154. The placemen.t of these additional bars is not in conflict with the requirements of paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.4.5 of ACI 318-71. This item is closed.
I 4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the following areas:
a.
Construction status of Unit 2 b.
Unit 2 B, C, and D storage areas c.
Concrete and soils laboratory and currentness of calibration of laboratory equipment.
No deviations or violations were identified.
.6.
Containment (Structural Concrete II)
Observation of Work and Work
-
Activities, Unit 2 The - inspector observed partial placement, inspection and curing of poa number 3B for the Unit 2 reactor building dome.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector were as follows:
a.
PSAR Sections 3.8.1 and 3. %
r
's
,
..
b.
EBASCO specification FLO-2998.473, " Concrete" FP&L site quality procedure SQP-2, " Concrete and Grout Placement" c.
d.
FP&L Construction Quality Control Instructions QI 10.3, QI 10.4, QI 10.70 and QI 10.71.
e.
EBASCO drawing numbers 2998-G-511, 512, and 513.
Forms were tight and clean, rebar was properly installed and clean.
Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, free fall, flow distance and consolidation cor, formed to specification requirements.
Concrete placement activities were monitored by QC inspectors.
Samples of plastic concrete were tested in accordance with specification requirements. The test results indicated that the concrete being placed met the specification requirements for slump, air content, and temperatures.
Following completion of the pour on May 4, the inspector examined post placement inspection activities (curing) on May 5 and 6,1981. The curing was being accomplished in accordance with specification requirements.
No deviations or violations were identified.
7.
Licensee Identified Items (LER) (0 pen) LER (335-81-03) Masonry Walls
-
Performance of the masonry wall design re-evaluation required by IE Bulletin 80-11 disclosed that 3 walls had local stresses above the code allowable values upon application of seismic loads.
In addition, it was also deter-mined during the design re-evaluation that the support angles at the tops of the walls which attach the walls to the building structure had to be modified on approximately 20 walls to accommodate the calculated seismic reactions. The licensee's actions to correct this problem are discussed ir.
paragraph 8 of this inspection report.
The inspector examined the licensee's justification for continued operation of the plant in view of the problems identified with the walls.
The
' justification for continued plant operation is documented in the minutes of the Facility Review Group Meeting of January 23, 1981, and in FP&L letter number PRN-81-64 dated February 6,1980 to NRC Region II. The justification is based on the probability that, in the event of a LOCA or seismic event, the failure mode of the wall is most likely to be cracking of various degrees rather than total collapse. Also for the three walls which had local stresses above the code allowable upon application of seismic loads, the safety related equipment in proximity of the walls, either penetrates the walls at or near the top, or run vertically adjacent to the wall. This equipment was not supported by the walls. Therefore, total collapse of the walls in question would not result in failure of the equipment.
No deviations or violations were identified.
.
' a.
.
8.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, Unit 1 a.
Summary of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) submitted its 60 day IE Bulletin 80--11 response to NRC Region II for St. Lucie Unit 1 on July 24, 1980.
This response discussed the number of masonry walls in the plant and b;iefly summarized the prioritized program of field inspections to identify which walls were in the proximity of safety related equipment.
The response stated that identification of safety-related equipment in the proximity of masonry walls would be completed by October 1, 1980.
In a letter to NRC Region II dated October 1,1980, the licensee stated that the detailed identification of safety-related equipment in the proximity of masonry walls would not be completed until October 20, 1980.
Region II was notified of a delay in completion of the design re-evaluation of the masonry walls in a letter from FP&L dated November 4, 1980. The letter stated that the field inspection of the masonry walls had been completed and the walls in proximity of safety related equipment had been identified. This letter stated that the design re-evaluation of the masonry walls in proximity of safety related
>
equipment was scheduled to be completed by February 9,1981.
FP&L submitted its 180 day IE Bulletin'80-11 response to NRC Region II for St. Lucie Unit 1 on February 11, 1981.
The 180 day response sur..marized the approach used to identify masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment and the methods used in design re-evaluation of the masonry walls, described the function and configu-ration of the walls, discussed the construction practices and materials
,
used in erecting the walls, and presented the results of the design re evaluation.
As a result _ of the design re-evaluation, it was determined that several walls had to be modified in order to meet design criteria..
As discussed in paragraph 7 of this report, this was reported to NRC Region II as Licensee Event Report (LER) Number 335-81-03 on January 23, 1981.
b.
Review of Procedures for Accomplishment of IE Bulletin 80-11 Require-ments The inspector examined the following procedures which address the requirements for accomplishment of IEB 80-11 field inspection activi-ties:
(1) Procedure number FLO 128-4.800, " Procedure for Inspection of Concrete Masonry Walls"
. - _ _
__
'
s,
..
,
.
(2) Procedure number FLO 128-4.801, " Quality Assurance Procedure for Compliance with NRC IE Bulletin 80-11"
-(3) Procedure number FLO 128-4.802, " Procedure for Verification of Concrete Masonry Wall Design" These procedures address the - field surveillance requirements to identify masonry walls in the proximity of Esafety-related equipment, preparation of masonry wall as-built drawings, documentation of the field inspection effort, QA review of the field inspection results and documentation, and the method to be used to verify the design adequacy of existing concrete masonry walls.
c.
Field Walkdown in Safety Related Areas to Identify Masonry Walls The inspector, accompanied by licensee and EBASCO engineers, walked down the Reactor Auxiliary Building on floor elevations -0.5,19.5, 43.0, and 62.0 to verify that all masonry walls in the proximity of safety related equipment had been identified for design re-analysis in accordance with IEB 80-11 requirements and the licensee's responses.
-
- No additional masonry walls were identified by the inspector during this inspection.
The inspector also toured the diesel generator building to confirm that there were no masonry walls in this structure.
The field surveys performed by EBASCO engineers appears to have been adequate to identify all masonry walls in the proximity of safety related equipment.
d.
Review of Quality Records Related to IE Bulletin 80-11 The inspector = examined the following quality records relating to IEB 80-11:
(1) General Arrangement Drawings, Reactor Auxiliary Building, drawing numbers 8770-G-069, 070, 071, and 072
,
(2) Documentation of training received by personnel performing the masonry wall inspections (3) Memos documenting results of QA audits of IEB 80-11 activities.
These audits were made by EBASCO engineers (4) Masonry wall inspection data sheets and as-built drawings showing locations of equipment attached to the walls which results in significant' loads acting on the walls. Records examined were wall numbers 34, 35, 62, 72, 74, 76, 80, 114, 123, 124, 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 174, 201, 202, and 203. These records were reviewed by the inspector during the field walkdown discussed in paragraph 8.c to verify the accuracy of the inspection data sheets and as-built
. drawings.
,
..
-
. - _. _ - - -
..
--
-
-.
,
- - -. - -,..-
.
--
_
,4,.
,
..
(5) Computations of loads acting on walls from attached equipment.
These loads are indicated on the as-built drawings. The inspector made independent checks of these computations and verified that the load computations had been checked.
e.
Review of Masonry Wall Repair Program The inspector examined procedures, design drawings, quality records and the completed work associated with maso"ry walls which were modified to meet design requirements.
A summary of the repair program and the details of the inspection of the repair program are stated in the following paragraphs:
(1) Summary of Masonry Wall Repair Program During the early stages of the Bulletin 80-11 masonry wall evaluation program, the masonry walls in Unit I were inspected to verify that they had baen built in accordance with the design drawings. During this initial inspection, it was discovered that 14 walls did not have clip angles installed which were to tie them to surrounding structural members. The missing clip angles were installed prior to the start of the design re-evaluation.
After the analysis was completed, it was shown that these walls could not meet the re-evaluation criteria without having the angles installed.
This was asio reported to NRC Region II by the licensee under LER 335-81-03. The design re-evaluation disclosed that three walls had local stresses above code allowable values and would require field modification.
These modifications consisted of attachment of various types of structural steel supports to the walls in order to provide additional support to the walls and reduce the local stresses in the walls to below the code allowable values.
After the design re-evaluation was completed, the reactions at the tops of the walls were used to evaluate the adequacy of the supporting (clip) angles.
A review of this portion of the wall design indicated that 20 walls had to be modified in order to meet the safety factors specified in IE Bulletin 79-02 for the anchor bolts which attach the clip angles to the surrounding structural members.
These modifications consisted of installation of additional anchor bolts in the clip angle supports and/or thru bolting of clip angles on either side of the walls.
(2)- Review of Procedures for Accomplishment of Masonry Wall Repair The inspector examined the following documents which control the masonry walls modification activities:
(a)
Plant Change Modification numbers 9-81 and 11-81
.
r
-
,
./ s c.
(b) EBASCO drawing numbers BCS 128-4.307, 4.308, and 4.309 (c) EBASCO let.ter SL BF-81-042, dated r bruary 5, 1981, and e
attachments to letter, Subject:
St. Lucie Plant Unit No.1 -
Backfit Program Masonry Wall Design (d)
FP&L Quality Instruction QI 10.23, " Inspection and Testing of Expansion Anchors" (3)
Inspection of Completed Wall Modifications The inspector examined the walls listed below and compared the modification which had been made to the walls with the details shown on the design documents.
Walls examined were as follows:
34, 74,114,123,124,159,174, and 203.
(4) Review of Quality Records Relating to Masonry Wall Modifications.
The inspector examined the following quality records relating to the masonry wall modification (repair) program:
,
(a)
Inspection Checklists for Anchor Bolts for Wall numbers 114, 123,124,125,159, and 203 (b) Weld Inspection Documentation for Wall Numbers 114, 123, 124, and 125 (c) General Inspection Report Number IR 2/138-045 and IR 2/138-045. These reports document inspection of structural steel erection thru-bolting.
(d) Nonconformance Report Numbers 2/138-211 R and 2/138-241 C.
IE Bulletin 80-11 remains open pending completion of review of the licensee's response by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
No deviations or violations were identified.
I