IR 05000335/1981027
| ML17212B247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B246 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-27, 50-389-81-20, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8112230280 | |
| Download: ML17212B247 (13) | |
Text
~S REq(g~
++
.
~o b
0O I
C O~
0 +)t*++
t j
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REGION:II 101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-335/81-27 and 50-389/81-20 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Fl agl er Street Miami, FL 33103 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67 and CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, FL Inspector J. J.
Lenaha Approved b
.
T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
/z i gr Date Signed at Signed SUMMARY Inspection on October 21-23, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 18 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings, structural concrete quality records, and followup on IE Bulletin 80-11.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations wer e -identified.
psaassssss<>
pa~s00sssz PDR ADOCK 05000335
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees B. J.
Escue, Project Manager, Unit 2
- E. W. Sherman, QA Engineer
- "R. A. Symes, Senior QA Engineer
- J. L. Parker, Unit 2 QC Project Superivsor
- C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager, Unit 1
- G. E. Crowell, Site Engineer, Unit 2 J. Krumins, Site Engineer, Unit 1 H. Cairns, Unit 1 QC Project Supervisor
- R. Jennings, Technical Department Supervisor, Unit 1 Other Organizations
""G. H. Krauss, ESSE Project Engineer,. Unit 2, EBASCO
""V. J. Gerley, Civil Engineer, Unit 2, EBASCO T. Tarte, Project Engineer, Unit 2, EBASCO C. Engle, Senior QC Supervisor, Unit 1, U.S. Testing Company C. Miller, QC Supervisor, Unit 1, U.S. Testing Company NRC Resident Inspector I
- "*S. A. Elrod Senior Resident Inspector
- H. Bibb, Resident Inspector Attended Unit 1 exit interview
""Attended Unit 2 exit interview
- "Attended both exit interviews 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 23, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Vioaltion Item (389/81-04-02):
Failure to Follow Procedures in Peformance of Civil Quality Control Inspections.
This violation identified four examples of failure to follow civil inspection proce-dures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this viola-tion stated in FPEL's letter L-81-99, dated May 11, 1981.
The licensee's action to correct each of these items is discussed below:
( 1)
Failur'e to inspect concrete'epair activities as required by procedure QI 10.4.
The inspector reviewed inspection report numbers IR C-81-1432, C-81-1446, and C-81-1454.
These reports
document the removal (washing out) of the concrete, which had not been inspected from the forms, and inspection of new concrete which was placed in the area being repaired in the presence of gC inspectors.
Construction craft supervisors had been reinstructed in the gC hold point requirement for repair to concrete surfaces.
On March 12, 1981, during the inspection in which the violation was identified, the inspector examined the repair area in question and verified that the concrete which had not been inspected had been washed out of the forms.
(2)
(3)
Addition of water to a concrete batch after making in-process tests for slump, air, unit-weight and compressive strength.
The inspector reviewed inspection report number IR C-81-1496.
This IR documents the fai lure to repeat the in-process tests after the
'addition of water to the batch.
This IR was evaluated by engi-neering and properly dispositioned.
gC inspectors were briefed as the need to pay attention to gC inspector requi rements.
Improper testing of concrete cylinders.
The inspector discussed the licensee's action to correct, the application of the improper rate of loading during testing of concrete cylinders with the Civil (}C Supervisor and the Concrete gC Testing Supervisor.
These discussions disclosed that laboratory personnel have been instructed to apply the test load to the cylinder at the rate of 1000 pounds per second (35 psi per second).
This is the mid-range point of the ASTM C-39 requirement.
The Concrete gC Supervisor monitors cylinder testing to insure compliance with ASTM C-39 requirements.
(4)
Improper documentation of concrete post-placement inspection.
After this violation was identified, licensee gC personnel reviewed post-placement inspection report for all concrete pours which had been completed since October 23, 1980.
This review disclosed that the records for 6 pours did not properly document whether or not the concrete post-placement inspection had been completed in accordance with the procedure requirements.
These six. reports were retracted from the gA Records Vault and were reopened in order to properly document the post-placement inspection.
The Concrete gC Supervisor monitors the Post-Placement Inspection Log to verify post-placement inspections are completed and documented in accordance with periodic requirements.
The inspector reviewed the post-placement inspection log and several post-placement inspection reports to verify that the corrective action to resolve the problem was adequate.
Based on review by the inspector of the licensee's corrective action for the above four examples of failure to follow civil gC inspection procedures, this item is close b.
(Closed)
Violation Item (389/81-06-01):
Insufficient Procedure for Disposition of NCR's Within ESSE.
The inspector examined EBASCO procedure
"Guidelines for the Processing of Non-Conformance Reports by EBASCO Site Support Engineering".
This procedure delineates the requirements for revie'w and disposition of NCR's within the ESSE (EBASCO Site Support Engineering) Unit.
The inspector reviewed the NCR Log and several NCRs and verified that the pew procedure was being implemented.
This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved jtems are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devi'a-tions.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 5 and 7.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the following areas:
a.
Construction status of Unit 2.
b.
Concrete and soils laboratory and.currentness of calibration of labora-tory equipment.
c.
Performance of a field density test on backfill for a duct run adjacent to the south side of the auxiliary building.
d.
Survey settlement records for the period 1977 to date for the intake structure and the reactor building.
e.
Design calculations and construction drawing (Drawing number BCS-110-81.300, Pressurizer Valve Shield Wall) for extension of a shield wall adjacent to'the pressurizer in Unit 1.
Review of the construction drawing for the pressurizer shield wall extension disclosed the following unresolved item.
Drawing number BCS 110.81.300 indicated that there was an existing concrete masonry wall serving as a
biological shield wall near the Unit 1 pressurizer.
The licensee had implied in their response to IE Bulletin 80-11 and in previous discussions with the inspector that there were no masonry walls in the Unit 1 Reactor Building.
In previous discussions with the inspector, the licensee had indicated that a field walkdown had not been performed to identify masonry walls in the reactor building since the plant was operating.
The drawing review to determine if there were any masonry walls in the reactor building was limited to review of architectural drawings only, which indicated that there were none.
The drawing which indicates that a
masonry wall was constructed in the reactor building is a reinforced concrete detail drawing, not an architectural detail drawing.
The inspector discussed this problem
with licensee engineers.
The licensee engineer stated that a field walkdown inspection would be performed in the Unit 1 reactor building during the current refueling outage to determine if there are any other additional masonry walls in the structure which were not shown on the architectural drawings.
The apparent failure to identify masonry walls in the reactor building in the proximity of safety related equipment was identified to the licensee as unresolved item 335/81-27-01,
"IEB 80-11 Wall Identification Program" pending further review by the licensee and NRC
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) Review of Quality Records Unit 2 The inspector examined the following quality records for the Unit 2 contain-ment building concrete shield wall and dome:
a.
Nonconformance Report Numbers NCR 1803C, NCR 1871C and NCR 1886C b.
Defici ency Repor t Number DR -732C c.
Results of 7 day and 28 day unconfirmed compreh'ensive strength tests performed on concrete cylinders from dome pour numbers 6, 7, 8 and 10.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in PSAR Sections 3.8. 1 and 3.8.3, EBASCO Specification FL0-2990.743, FP8 L Site Quality Procedure SQP-2 and SQP-21, and FPKL Construction Quality Control Instruction QI 10.71.
No deviations or violations were identified.
(Open) 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 ( FP8 L) submitted its 60 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC for St.
Lucie Unit
on July 24, 1980.
In a
letter dated November 4, 1980, FP&L notified NRC that design reevalu-ation of the masonry walls required by IEB 80-11 would not be completed until February 9, 1981.
As a result of the design reevaluation, the licensee determined that several walls had to be modified in order to meet design criteria.
This was reported to NRC as Licensee Event Report (LER) Number 335-81-03 on January 23, 1981.
FP8L submitted a
day report for this LER to NRC on Feburary 6,
1981.
FPKL submitted a
revision to the 14-day LER report to NRC on March 20, 1981.
Upon completion of the masonry wall design reevaluation, FP5L submitted its 180 day response to the bulletin to NRC on February 11, 1981.
The results of a
previous inspection of the licensee's activities in response to IE Bulletin 80-11 is documented in NRC inspection report number 50-335/81-1 Review of Masonry Wall Repair Program The inspector examined procedures, design drawings, completed work, and quality records associated with repairs to masonry walls which were modified to meet design requirements.
As stated in the above para-graph, the necessity of modifying these walls was reported to NRC on January 23, 1981 as LER number 335-81-03.
Details of the inspection of the repair program are stated in the following paragraphs:
( 1)
Review of procedures for Accomplishment of Masonry Wall Repairs.
The inspector examined the following documents which control the masonry wall modification activities.
(a)
Plant Change Modification Number 9-81 and 11-81 (b)
EBASCO drawing numbers BCS 128.3.311, 4.312, 4.314 through 4.316, 4.318, 4.322 and 4.323 (c)
FP&L Quality Instruction QI 10.23, "Inspection and Testing of Expansion Anchors" (2)
Inspection of Completed Wall Modification (Repairs)
The inspector examined wall numbers 160, 163, and 174 in the auxiliary building.
The inspector compared the actual as-built modification details, with those shown on the design drawings and documented as QC inspection records.
Examination of the as-built wall modifications disclosed the, unresolved item discussed in the paragraph below.
(3)
Review of Quality Records Relating to Masonry Wall Modifications (Repairs)
The inspector examined the following quality records relating to the masonry walls modifications:
(a)
Weld inspection documentation for wall number 62A and 81 (b)
Inspection checklists for anchor bolts for wall numbers 8A, 11A, 62A, 81, 160, 163 and 174 (c)
General Inspection Reports which document thru-bolting of wall numbers 11A, 81, 82 163 and 1974 (d)
Nonconformance Report Number NCR 2/138-262M
\\
~
~
<
~
Comparison of the above inspection records with the as-built wall modifications and/or design drawings di sclosed that inspector records appeared to be either incomplete or missing.
The following problems were noted:
(a)
Anchor bolt inspection records for wa,ll number
were missing (b)
There were no records for inspection of grouting of wall number 160 (c)
The number of anchor bolts installed in the clip angles for wall 174 was not clear (d)
Field changes made to the modification details shown on the design drawings did not appear to be documented.
There was insufficient time during this inspection to make a
complete review of the above apparent problems.
This was identi-fied to the licensee as Unresolved Item 335/81-27-02, Masonry Mall Modification Records" pending further review by NRC.
IE Bulletin 80-11 remains open pending further review by NRC.
No violations or deviations were identifie *
~
I II I
T Ij