IR 05000389/1976002
Text
N MTUE.F5fM3E5
,,
,
o, NUCLEAR CEGULATC~N COMMIS}
- ,.
.
n REolON ll
..
,..
g 330 PEAcHTREE STREET. N.W, SUITE S18 ',,
ff
'
ATLANTA;CEORGIA 30303
,
,
.
s
- e.e * $
.
r
...
a
.
.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-389/76-2
';
,
,.,. f.
.,
,
,
f.icensee Piorida Power and Light Company
'
P. O. Box 013100
,
.
Miami, Florida 33101
'
Pacility Name St. Lucia Unit 2 i
Docket No.:.
50-389 i
License No.:
Pending l
Category:
Al
]
Location:
Hutchinson Island, Floride,
.
l
,
l Type of Licenser, 800 Hwa (CE)
Type of Inspecti6nt Routine, Unannounced Construction Dates of Inspection:
September 22-24, 1976
,
'
Dates of Prev.ious Inspect 1on: July 28-30, 1976 Principal Inspector:
D. H. Danielson. Reactor Inspector Projects Section
'
'
.
- 1 Reactor Construction and Engineering
,,
~
Support Branch
<
Accompanying Inspector:
R. W. Wright, Reactor Inspector
.
,
i Engineering Support Section No. 1
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
.
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None Principal Inspectors
/ Y-Ftb LL
/od9/'1G
-
D. II. Danielson, Reactor Inppector l
Projects Section Date
'
Reactor Construction and Engineering
.
'
Support Branch
.
,
Reviewed By:
J
!
/s ink'9l%
'
J. C. Bryant, Chief ()
' 'Da te
'
i Projects Section
'
Reactor Construction and Engineering
,
Support Branch
,
.
t 0500150636 050703
'
,
,
,
,,
.
-
.
--
yy
,
..
.___ __.__-_.
-..-- -
i
.
- '*
IE Rpt. No. 50-7 /76-2-2-s
..
-
.
.
}
.
=
.
i
.
.
r-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
.
.
,
I.
Deviations
'
-
,
.
s.
g.
,
,
i j
None
'
'
.
,
.s
.
'
II. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Deviations
.
J None o
.
III. New Unresolved Items a
None
.
~
.
IV.-
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
.
None
-
,
.
,;
V.
Design Changes i
None d
~
VI. Unusual Occurrences.
<
m
v3 h'one
.
.
.,
.:)
,
i VII. Other Significant Findings l
.
- None
.
.
.
VIII. Management Interview On September 24, 1976, the inspectors met with Mr. B. J. Escue, Project Construction Superintendent, and members of the plant staff to review the scope and findings of the inspection.
It was noted that w'.thi'n the scope of the inspection we identified no significant deviations from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
....... -..
.
.
..... - - - - - -
..
- --
.
..
.. -
.
h um mi
i
.
.!..,
-
. n...,
,
'
,
.- O
..
-
.
,
.
,
,
'
,
s t
'g IE Ryt. No. 50-389/76-2 I-1
'
'
,
j
..-
.
.
.
,
'
DETAILS I
- Prepared by ma*
/
/#
f
'R.W. Wright,,ReactotIdspector/
Date
- *
j
.
- Engineering Support Section No. 1
- *
'
i
, Reactor Construction and Engineering '
'
Support Branch
'
.
W _'
!-
/627 /,
^
D. H. Danielson, Reactor Inspector
' Datie Projects Section
)
Reactor Construction and Engineering
.
.
l Suppor.t Branch l
_
Dates of Inspecti s' September 22-24, 1976
'
/N 74 1aviewed by h
-
,
T. E. Conlon, Chie'f
' Date
'
.
,1 Engineering Support Section No. I t
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
.
.
,
1.
Persons Contacted
.
a. *' Florida Power and Limht Comoany (FP&L)
/
B. J. Escue - Project Construction Superintendent N. T. Weems - Assistant QA Hanager, Construction A. M. Anderson - QA Engineer, Electrical
,
-
R. N. Roehn - QA Engineer
,
T. Fase - QA Engineer, Civil
,
D. R. Stone - Project QC Supervisor
-
R. G. Reesby - Area QC Supervisor (Civil)
G. L. Chibas - Receiving Inspection QC Supervisor C. Carlo - HQ QC Coordinator Construction (Civil)
'
b.
Contractor Ormaniastions
-
(),)
Ebasco Services. Inc. (Ebasco)
J. E. Ramondo - Project Superintendent
J. C. Murphy - Senior Resident Engineer G. F. Goodheart - Site Soils Engineer
(2)
Moretranch American Corporation (MAC)
C. L. W1111ans - Project Superintendent l
.
.
,
!
.
,
.. '.,.
,
-
.
.
_v-.- - - --- --.
._-,,,.,,.__,__.-._._____.--.-_.._..--r
.-_.,..,_,__<_r
_-m-,
-,. _ -.--,,___-_,, -
-
.
O
.Q
'
.i..-
. 50-389/76-2 I-2
-
..
IE Rpt. No.
$
,
.
-
,
.
.
.
.*
..
2.
Scope
'
-
.
\\
!
This inspection wad con' ducted t'o determine'the'licatus of the licensee's
!
LWA-2 construction. activities; to perform a fo3rlowon inspection of i
bis site preparation activities by observation of such functions and review of associated quality records.
i
..
j 3.
Status of Work i
l The contractor had excavated to within a few feet of grade (al-25.5) inside the reactor containment building (RCB) cofferdam.
The
'
'
final ring of the cofferdam has,bcen installed and scheduling personnel anticipate the 5-inch, mud mat will be poured around mid i
October. The first base mat pour is 'tenitively scheduled for mid November. The major emphasis has been placed on the RCB cofferdam excavation;* consequently minimal progress has been accomplished on
-
the intake structure cofferdam.
i
.
.
,
4.
Observation of Work Activities
-
.
!
'a.
Excavation
'
Final excavation was observed being accomplished with a bulldozer
.
working inside the RCB cofferdam loosening, shaping and piling (,
up the excess soil which was then loaded into a dump'. truck
'
with a crane operated clam shall bucket located outside the i
cofferdam.
The excavation material was then hauled to a spoil
'
area. The IE inspector observed QC soil inspectors employing a Troxler Model 3411 Hoisture-Density Cauge along the periphery
,
'
of the RCB cofferdam excavation.' Theexcavatiottsurfacewas at grade and the contractor wanted the costing accomplished (in-place soil moistura and density) in order to measure the
.
efficiency of a CM21 Wisconsin Vibro Plus compactor that was being used.
In addition to the in-placa moisture-density testing, bag samplos from the same soil testing location were taken for gradation and proctor testing.
Discussions with the QC soil supervisor revealed that adequate foundation soils would be confirmed by sufficient soils costing prior to the placing of any concrete.
b.
Davatoring_ System
-
o The proposed devatoring system was found complata and operational in accordance with specification FLO 2998.472 (Rev. 5) and Horetrench American (MAC) drawings.
Two functional piezometers (R and R ) worn installed on the insida of the RCD coffardam g
g next to the north and south facen of the aheat piling.
.
,
.
.
..
...
_ _ _
. _. _ _.. _.... _. _
., -
.
.
,,____
____ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
II Rpt. No. 50-
/76-2 I-3
-
-
....
.
.s
.
.
.
.
l
'
'
.
.
,
i Discussions were cond'ucted.with Ebsc'o's senior resident engineer, his site soils enginder and the MAC project superintendent concerning the daily monitoring, of piezomef;ers within the
l construction area.
Samples of recent readings taken, the
.
plotting of weekly piesometric surface profiles through,the
!
excavation examined and discussion with above personnel gave assurance that the actual field conditions were continually beina evaluated and compared to theoretical design conditions.
Piesometric readings taken to date did indicate the need for 4 additional wells to be installed outside the RCB cofferdam at
.
the south end. The dewatering contractor was in the process
'
of mobilizing his equipment for this purpose and he planned to install another piesometer between the RCB cofferdam and Unit
'
No." Lis., auxiliary building to be,tter define the pianometric
~
level in that area.
,
5.
Review of duality Records
,
,
-
.
l The following quality records were selected for review to ascertain that the work was being accomplished and documented in accordance with applicable codes, commitments and procedural requirements:
'
a.
Sot 1s - RCS Cofferdam Excavation
Excavation Work Packame 102A - Sample and Test for Classification
.
Line item 240 - 260, Sample El-2.0; Line item 250 - 260, Sample i
R1-9.5 and E1-11.0; Line item 260 - 270, Sample El-14.0 f
b.
Dewaterina System
,
-
.
(1)
Pumping test records for the following well numbers; 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 83, 85, 87,
'
89, 91, 93 to assure that the developed wells did not produce more than 5 ppe solids in a 2-hour pumping period.
(2)
Piezometer installation (R1 and R2) and testing records verifying their opernbility.
,
(,3)
Initial Surveillance Inspection Checklist for the dewatering system conducted August 27, 30, 1976.
.
'
(4) Monthly Inspection - Review of dewatering system main site.
.
'
-
$
.
.. _ _
..
-
.
.,.
.,...
.
.
.
..
..._..
..
'
i
.
'...
- *
h,
,
,
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-3 9/76-2 I-4
.
.
'
'
i
.
.*
..
Audit of Contractor's Operlating Procedure COP-2-1 Rev. 2 c.
I
.
.-
The IE inspector examined FP&L's QA chuck 1'ist of questions and
.
'
findings pertaining to an audit conducted' on September,15, 1976, on Raymond International's procedure entitled, " Sheet
,
i Pile and Excavation."
'
i
!
d.
Personnel records for several concrete - soils type QC inspectors
'
were examined for their work qualifications, certifications
,
and history of their jobsite training acquired.
6.
Nondirected Inspection Activity
.
-
.
.
a.
Training
-
Discudsions were conducted with the project QC supervisor and his truining coordinator to determine what training had been
accomplished to date, and what was ' planned for the future in the civil discipline area.
FP&L's site QC department has developed, on its own, a reference library of video tape recordings
,
'
'
for training on various concrete and soils subjects and testing
'
methods as precribed by acceptable ACI, ASTM or AASHTO standards.
The IE inspectors randomly selected three video tapes for j
showing and review of content.
They were ASTM-C-173. " Air Content of Concrete - Volumetric;" AASHTO-T-217. "Mof'sture i
j Content-Speedy;" and ASTM-A-615. " Steel Bars for Concrete
Placement." The majority of the subject tapes are all inclusive while some are supplemented by classroom lecture.
QC inspector comprehension of the subject matter is gauged by written i
examinations.
FP&L has developed a broad, three phase training program designed to handle a variety of job personnel situations and the program has definite training objects in mind.
.
-
b.
Rncoiving Inspnction The IE inspectors witnessed the receiving inspection of a truck load (containing 2-heats) of reinforcing steel shipped by Florida Steel Corporation.
The shipment was held in abeyance until the QC supervisor of receipt inspection completed a Receipt Inspection Report (RIR) which contained accept / reject critori'a in accordanca with requirements specified in the purchase order or specification.
Upon meeting the RIR acceptance criteria (proper identification and marking, manufacturer documentation, mill test reports of chemical and mechanical analysis, inspection for physical damage and dimensions, etc.),
a Iceter of release for storage was authorized by the project QC aupervisor.
The subject robar was observed being unloaded
.
.
.
.
.
..
...
.....
.
,
c7'
..
.
lI" -
' II Ityt. No. 50-389/76-2 *
I-5
. O O
..
.
,
,
,.
.
.
.
.
,
'
and placed in a "hola" storage area.
All rebar has been placed in a " hold" category pending sa.tisfactory tensile testing of the manufacturers representati,ve samples.
The tensile testing'1's being performed by an' independent testing laboratory.
FP&L does not have a tensile testing device installed on site to.date.
Within the scope of this inspection, no significant deviations from
'
the LW F 2 authorization were identified.
.
p e
!
.
.
I
,
.
.
O ee
.
'
.
(
I g
';
-
.
.
0
!
e
.
.
..
.
O I
e
$
f
.
S e
f
'
,,
.'
.
O e
e
- e
, e e
a
,
e. ese o e aanse e emme e==.
,
_...-.4.
y