IR 05000382/1979011
| ML19210E685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Tapia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210E683 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-79-11, NUDOCS 7912050531 | |
| Download: ML19210E685 (6) | |
Text
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-382/79-11 Docket No. 50-382 Category A2
-
Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Inspection at: Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana Inspection Conducted:
September 17-21aqd24-25,1979
/ ~
/
Inspectors:
--
e et R.' C. StewartDeactor Inspector, Projects Section Ddte (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7)
l Y
J. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Englneering Support Date
'
Section (Paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and 7)
/8 7 7f Approved:
e W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date lY3Y }9 R. E. Itall,' Chief, Engineering Slpport Section Da'te '
1502 273 nuoso 53 /
.
Inspr.ction Su= mary:
Inspection on Septes."er 17-21 and 24-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-382/79-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities related to a follow-up review of a previous stop-work order initiated by the liccasce regarding concrete placement for the dome of the Containment Shield Building; c review of weld records and observation of work on safety-related piping; and participation in an NRC fuel load forecast panel. The inspection involved fifty-three inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1502 274
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees T. Gerrets, QA Manager
- B. Brown, QA Engineer
- C. Chatelain, QA Engineer
- J. Woods, QA Engineer
- C. Decareaux, Project Coordinator
- R. Gautreau, Project Coordinator
- T. Armington, Lead Start-up Engineer
- B. Toups, QA Engineer Technician
- P. Jackson, Construction Coordinator
- D. Pipkins, QA Engineer
- F. Drummond, Project Engineer Other Personnel
- J. Crnich, Site Manager, Ebasco
- R. Milhiser, Project Superintendent, Ebasco
- E. Breedlove, Tompkins-Peckwith (T-B)
- L. Richardson, QA Supervisor, T-B
- J. Gore, Site QA Manager T-B
- J. Gutierrez, Site QA Engineer, Ebasco T. Stuckey, QC Engineer, T-B C. Beatty, Project Superintendent, T-B R. Muenow, President, Muenow and Associates
>
N. Radabaugh, QA/QC Engineer, Fegles Power J. Ransom, Project Superintendent, Fegles Power Service Corp.
G. Warren, QA Engineer, Ebasco The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel including members of the engineering and QA/QC staffs.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
1502 275
2.
Site Tour The IE inspectors walked through various construction and storage areas to observe constraction activities in progress and to inspect the general state of cleanliness and adherence to housekeeping requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Welding Activities - Records Review
.
During this inspection the IE inspector conducted a follow-on review of pipe welding activities and QC records related to safety-related piping being maintained by Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B).
The IE inspector made a random selection of ccapleted record files that included both Class I and II ASME Code Systems.
The followina travelers and field welds were reviewed:
Traveler No. Q-1-RC-LW-3-RC6; Field Welds SW-18 and SW-19 Traveler No. Q-2-CH-IC-126; Field Welds FW-1 and FW-3 Traveler No. Q-2-CS-IC-24; Field Welds FW-3, FW-14, and FW-27 Traveler No. Q-3-SI-IC-101; Field Welds FW-3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 The review included weld procedure documentation, weld material control, preheat and interpass heat records, welder identification, repair records and applicable QC inspection sign-offs.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Welding Activities - In Process Welding During this inspection, the IE inspector conducted a follow-on observation of in process welding activities in the Pipe Fabrication Shop, the Reactor Containment Building and Auxiliary Building. At the time of the inspection, the pipe fabrication welding activities were limited to one safety-related pipe weld, SW-33, as identified on Traveler No. Q-142-RC and CH-LW3-RC-4.
In addition to observing welding parameters being performed, the IE inspector conducted a documentation review and " walk-through" of material traceability, pipe Heat No. 462222, which was traceable from the initiator (Ebasco warehouse) to the pipe fabrication storage area, and to the appli-cable drawing and spool piece identified in the traveler documenta-tion.
1502 276
'
.
Additional "in process' field welds were observed in the Reactor Con-tainment relating to Fw 3, Traveler No. Q-2-SI-1C-1; FW-5, Traveler No.
Q-2-SI-1C-48; and FW-6, Traveler No. Q-2-A/B-3-V141 in the Auxiliary Building.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Reactor Building Dome A review was conducted of the actions taken by the licensee and Fegles Power Service Corporation in response to the NRC Immediate Action Letter (IAL) dated August 20, 1979. The IAL was isstad to confirm the corrective actions required prior to further con-crete placements in order to decrease the probability of inadequate consolidation of concrete such as that which occurred in the first transition parapet from shield wall-to-dome placement. That construc-tion deficiency was reported to the on-site IE inspector and is identified in NRC Inspection Report 79-10, paragraph 5.
The correc-tive actions addressed in the IAL are delineated in the stop-work order issued to Fegles Power Service Corporation by the licensee on August 17, 1979. The IE inspector was r.cccmpanied by the cog-nizant licensee QA engineer in reviewing the corrective actions which were completed prior to subsequent placement of concrete by Fegles.
The corrective actions included:
a.
Indoctrination and training of Fegles personnel to the requirements of Ebasco Specification No. LOU-1564.472 for concrete placement with particular attention to lift height restrictions, vibration requirements, cold joint determination and subsequent action requirements.
b.
Specific training of vibrator operators in the use of vibrators and the proper method of vibration.
Acquiring an additional certified Level II concrete itsrector.
c.
d.
Modification of the concrete pump supply line to eliminate excessive bends and to increase diameter.
Acquisition of additional placement and backup equipment.
e.
f.
Discussion in etail of the plans for concrete placement at a preplacement meeting at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to the placement with Fegles, Ebasco and LP&L in attendance.
Concrete placement was resumed on September 18, 1979.
Placement No. 521-2A involved the third (west) quadrant of the transition parapet from shield wall-to-dome and occurred between azimuth 240 and 330, from elevation 179 to 190.5 feet.
1502 277
.
The IE inspector witnessed the entire placement and observed that proper consolidation techniques were used.
During the placement, air content, slump, unit weight and temperature determinations for concrete batch ticket No. 32165 were observed and the record of testing results (Field Concrete Inspection Data Sheets) for other tests performad during the placement were reviewed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Microseismic Evaluation of Concrete On September 24, 1979, the IE inspector observed microseicmic evaluation (pulse ccho method) of placement Nc. 521-1B being per-formed by Muenow and Associates, an independent materials and nondestructive testing agency. This sonic test method is being used to locate any areas of internal discontinuities in the concrete.
Photographs were being taken of all visual displays on the cathode ray tube. The photographs will be included in the final report along with a drawing showing the test grid pattern used. All areas where discontinuities are identified will be further investigated by taking cores.
The results of this testing program shall be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The IE inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 25, 1979.
The IE inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspec-tion and the findings.
l502 278
,
6