IR 05000389/1980002
| ML17208A324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1980 |
| From: | Bryant J, Hunt M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17208A323 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-389-80-02, 50-389-80-2, NUDOCS 8003210030 | |
| Download: ML17208A324 (6) | |
Text
pe RE0y
~o Cy n
C O
iL
+n gO
++*++
uNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 FEB - 6 1980 Report No. 50-389/80-02 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
St. Lucie 2 Docket No. 50-389 License No.
CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, Florida D te Signed ing Branch Chief, RCES Branch Dat igned Inspector:
M. D. Hunt, Acting Sec ion Chief, RCES Branch Approved by:
J.
- Bryant, Inspection on January 17-18, 1980 Areas Inspected This special, unannounced inspection involved 14 inspector-hours on site in the areas of qualification of QC inspectors and observations of QC testing.
Results Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
SOOSS >003D
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Escue, Site Manager W. Sherman, QA Engineer I. Parker, Project QC Superintendent R. Pendland, Senior Engineer N. Robinson, Contract Administrator A. Thompson, Superintendent of Construction M. Hayward, Supervising Engineer QA Other licensee employees contacted included eight QC inspectors.
Other Organizations
+T. D. Geissinger, Assistant Project Manager, U. S. Testing Company (USTC)
H. E. Lindstrom, Training Coordinator, USTC
+Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 18, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection The inspector reviewed the certification records for ten QC inspectors, employees of U. S. Testing Company, who had been brought to the site to replace striking QC inspectors.
All had or were receiving orientation relating to the site QA/QC procedures.
The QC inspector certification requirements established by FPM,'s QA program were being used to certify the incoming QC inspectors.
The inspectors whose certifications were reviewed had had experience at other nuclear projects and had held certification levels equal to those
given at St.
Lucie.
In no case had any inspector been certified to a higher level than was held at the previous nuclear site.
Additionally, members of the supervisory staff for U. S. Testing Company were performing the QC inspections in the place of striking QC inspectors.
Within the areas examined, no item of noncompliance or deviation was identified.
6.
Observation of Backfill Placement RII had been contacted by an individual who expressed concern that backfill was being placed in an area north of the intake structure without adequate testing and in larger lifts than permitted. by procedures.
The inspector observed backfill operations in the intake structure.
All testing, compaction, and lifts were in accordance with construction QC Procedure (CQCP) 10.10, Soil Testing 6 Surveillance of Evacuating, Backfilling and Compacting Operations.
The moisture and compaction tests were conducted by certified QC inspectors.
e The area of backfill in question was not Class I backfill.
The backfill operation in that area was not in progress during this inspection.
The inspector was informed that both Class I and II backfill are tested and controlled in accordance with CQCP 10.10.
Class II backfill is not safety-related.
The inspector observed the QC testing of aggregates for moisture content prior to the daily operation of the batch plant.
Discussions with the QC inspector revealed that he was knowledgeable of the test procedures and why they were required.
This inspector had performed these tests at other nuclear sites and understood their importance.
During this inspection the inspector found no instances where QC inspections were not being performed as required.
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Site Status The inspector was informed that during the period of time that the QC inspectors had been on strike there had been instances where water had been poured on the QC supervisors while they were performing inspections.
There were other things brought to the inspector's attention such as moving an inspector's vehicle to another location on the site while the inspector was performing his inspection duties.
Discussions with several inspectors revealed that this form of harassment would not influence their judgment in the performance of their QC dutie However, in the early afternoon of January 18, 1980, a quantity of oil was dumped on a QC supervisor and another QC inspector with him.
As a result, management stopped all QC inspections in all areas, namely the auxiliary and reactor buildings, except the fab shop and the open field 'reas.
The licensee stated that work in the other areas was to stop when it reached the point requiring QC inspection.
After this incident some of the QC inspectors said they would be hesitant to go into closed areas and perform inspections.
At the exit meeting the licensee advised the inspector that careful checks would be made to insure that hold points were observed.
On January 18, 1980, after the IE inspector's departure, the licensee shut the job down, starting with the evening shift.
The licensee's personnel will perform the necessary routine storage and maintenance inspections.
Any material 'that can readily be handled will be received at the warehouse.
No large components are expected at the present time.
The licensee advised that FPSL will keep RII informed of the status of the job.