IR 05000508/1986011

Insp Rept 50-508/86-11 on 861027-31.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Readiness Review Module C3-01 Re Earthwork,Inspector Followup Item & Site Tour.Inspector Questions Will Be Addressed in Module E3-02

ML20215C382
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	11/14/1986
From:	Peranich M, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215C362	List: IR 05000508/1986011 ML20215C358
References
50-508-86-11, NUDOCS 8612150117
Download: ML20215C382 (9)

Text

~

.,; -

,

, _ ,

'

'

0 s ,, ,

e .

_

+

r- . U.i-S. ! NUCLEAR REGULATORY: COMISSION ,

x ... -

"& . '

REGION V

+ ,>

'

1 Report'No t50_508/86-112

, iDocket'No.T50-508'

'y

JConstruction' Permit No. CPPR-154:

N '

'

~

jLicensee:~ Washkngton Pub 1lic Power Supply System:(WPPSS)'

.

P.O. Box 1223-

~ s '

.Elma,' Washington, ~98541 f

-

(Facility 'Name: ; Washington Euclear Project 3'(WNP-3). .

q

-[ ' Inspection Co'nducted: ~ 0ctober 27-31,:1986= .-

Insp'ector: i MA

~ Date Signed

_R()actorConst%ctionProgramsBranch,DI/IE-Phillipf/ Reactor Construdt Accompanying Personnel: 0. P. Mallon,fConsultant to ..

NRC, Reactor Construction Programs Branch, DI/IE

W. P. Ang, Project Inspector, RV A. D. Toth, Project Inspector, RV

'Ahprove'dBy: ////V/76

^

,

A

..W. Peranich,_Section Chief Date Signed

Reactor Construction Programs Branch, DI/IE Summary:

.

Inspection on October 27-31, 1986 (Report No. 50-508/86-11)

'

Areas Insaected: This special, announced inspection was conducted in the

, areas of leadiness Review Module C3-01 Earthwork, Inspector Followup Item (IFI)

'

and site tour.

'

.

Results: Of the areas inspected relative to the construction aspects of Module C3-01 Earthwork, no violations or deviations were identifie Regarding the engineering aspects, it was noted that limited informa-

. tion in the form of an excerpt from Module E3-02 Civil / Structural was F included in Module C3-0 Also, questions were raised by the NRC inspectors regarding the lack of data on measurements of in-situ rock

'

stresses and the resulting pressures on the exterior walls; the effect of the excavation for the circulating water system adjacent to i- the west wall of the Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) and the poten-l tial impact on the dynamic analysis and the soil structure inter-l:, *

i 8612150117 861126

! PDR ADOCK 05000500 l G PDR l,

! u

..

DETAILS Persons Contacted Washington Public Power Supply em Syst

• A. Carlyle Block, Readiness Review, Engineerin

• Sr. QA Engineer Coleman,, Licensing Manager g Assurance Program (EAP) Mar:

-'$

Coody, Project QA Manager * * Hulbert,

• Knawa Project Technical ger r ManaJ. Garvin, Readin

• * Love , Project Support ManagerReadiness Review, Con Monop,oli, Plant Manager E

M BR

• Olson, WNP-3 Program Director Stauffer, Plant QA/QC Manager * Ebasco Services, In * Pitman, QA Manager (Acting) R * Taylor, Project General eer r

ManageF. Teague, Civilg/

Bechtel Power Corporation .

T. McCormick, Readiness Review , Construction Ass, United Engineers and Constructors N. Amaria, Readiness Review

, Engineering Assurance ;

• Attended exit meeting L Readiness Background Review Module work C3-01 Earth y

O i

Module C3-01 Earthwork Washin e was transmitt d to the NRC by lett, 1986. gton Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) dated S en

.

Limited review and inspection relati subsequently conducted at the WNP-3 sitve to this Module were The results Report N of this inspection we e on September 15-19 2, 198 /86-10 transmitted tre documented by NRC Inspec,t deviations were identifiedWithin the scope of the inspectiono WPPSS by

-

.

, no violations or 50-508/86-10Following further review of Module C3 and other documentatio-01, NRC Inspection Report documentation and critical elementconduct n, it was considered desirabl additional s of earthwork.v ew applicable programmi site '

-1-

'

a

.-

, ._. .. =.

t

^ . . . . , s h

-

,

g 3 -

.: . -

'm.-

.. =, -

. . e

.

' t'

g *

a t ,

- ,, n. .: ., '

' ,

,

..t- .

._ a

-

. ..

.

,

,

, ,

, .

- _,- +

,

. . .

.

W actior .

~ .

~

4 :e . , . . It was. noted that Module E3-02 has not yet been completed .or ,

'

' *

-."

' '

-

submitted to the NRC fand the~ licensee. indicated-that.information *

/^

'

' 4 ~

. regarding these1ue'stions would be included.in Module E3-02.' Also, .

" ,a question was-raised'regarding the status-.of;FSAR changes, and thi , .

1was(referred.to NRR/ Licensing:for. consideratio '

'

1, c- .

<

'k -'

Y

, ,

,

'l ' '

.

.

=

',: >

b-

.

,

• a

, .!, , ~,. '~~

c,

,

s <

. .

t 3-

.

_ , ,,

~

? *

^ ~ ., n 'l

.4 4 <

't,

" fR_- a*g,;

'

_ , 5 ?* _

,

'

4 t i >=

~

W 'y j yi

'*.

'

• *

,. '. f _

~

,> -A

>

.[

' * 4

.g

-

,

e h

I l

l

!

j

!

i l

)

i s

J J

l

'

l

.-- - _ . , , _ _ , _ _ . ,

@ _jG

~

f% . E' n -. c ' e -

~

p_ v ' W .. s ?

a -

.

'

.

.' 7

+ . -

,,

^

,

.e .

,

.

a f ~ f, j 4 "

W#

,

+r

'

'

_ .. .r, #

, .i

.mr ~,, '

r.-i

• ' , .

-

- , *

,.@-

'

, ~

, ' , < + ~

+. +

'

. " '

-

~' iDETAILST

%s,~. +

,

.

>

,

.

-

-

, -

"

'

m

- ..

UQj *

> '4,

.

'..,. '

,.

m f ,..' ' '

, 5 -

. y

-

, c * -

-. - .~

.- ;% 1,'RPers'ons Cont'acthd

-

, - - -

~

^

aTL- 7/ . -

" ' '

,

'

- ,

[y[

_ Washington Public' Power' Supply System'

'

'

s

_ ,

'

. < .

.

.

.

. .

__ ~

-

. G.581ock, Readiness Review, Engineering Assurance * Program.(EAP) Manager 3 ,

r *A. : CarlyleT Sr. ;QA Enginee ' s j o

-*D.;Coleman

. , ',

'

2 ~

, iLicensing Managerg '

--

s ,

_

<*D.-Coody,lProject<QA Manager. .

• T l

. f J.: Garvin,1 Readiness : Review Program ~ Manager . _

_ l

'

. .'

,

• D.' Hulbert, Project Technical Manager .

.

'

.w  :*R. Knawa, Readiness ~ Review, Construction-Assurance' Program'(CAP)LManager: q , ,1*C.; Love, Project. Support. Manager

~

' '

'

tW - .

,

'

jam.-Monopoli, Plant Manager:

f ,' ' ' ,

~*P. Olson',.WNP-3 Program Director: . ,

.- *E4Stauffer,PlantQA/QC'ManagerJ l

1. .- -

._g 7, j - s '

': LA

• :bl. LEbasco' Services, Inc. e s

,

r ;g , . . ,

-

, -:e - '. .

V , ,

s*P; Pitman, QA Manager'(Acting) , ,

o -1

"

JF.gTeague, Civil / Structural Engineert

'

.

• , '-

Taylor; Project: General: Manager

>

. , -

.. A

"> * Jc. . Becht'el PowerTCorporation

.4 s ,.

. - , .- f ,e < McCormick, Readiness Review, Construction Assurance Program

~- .

~- x - .,y d.IONitedEngineers'andConstructors '

.

'

-

m ,

, _ w _

's, ~

f 1Ni Aniaria, Readiness ' Review, Engineering Assurance Program

' e .

i*AttEndedsefit' meeting

" Readiness Review Module C3-01-Earthwork Background

,

l Module C3-01 Earthwork was transmitted to the NRC by letter from_the L sWashington'Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) dated September 10, 198 ,

Limited review and inspection relative to this Module were

,. subsequently conducted at the WNP-3 site 'n o September 15-19, 198 ',

The results of this' inspection were documented by NRC Inspection

-

Report No. 50-508/86-10 transmitted to WPPSS by letter dated October 2, 1986. Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or 6 -deviations were identifie Following further review of Module C3-01, NRC Inspection Report N /86-10 and other documentation, it was considered desirable to

'

conduct additional l site inspection to review applicable programmatic documentation and critical elements of earthwor _--_ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _- _ _ - _ - _ _- - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - -

-

E r

[ It was noted that.the scope of Module C3-01 includes applicable

*

' Construction Assurance Program (CAP) information, and also~ limited

=

-

design information in the form of an excerpt from Module E3-02 Civil /

Structural of the Engineering Assurance Program (EAP). Since Module

_

E3-02 has not yet been completed or submitted to the NRC, it was

'

recognized that the NRC review and inspection of Module C3-01 b Earthwork is limited to the construction portion of the Module, and:

=

_

that further review and inspection of design information will be-i -

. required when more complete information is submitted in Module L -

E3-02 Civil / Structural.

E  ; , Inspection / Findings

P w ,(1) Programmatic Aspects Inspection -

'

5 ~

' Resumes of the five WPPSS Readiness Review Team members L '

for Module C3-01: T. McCormick, N. Blais, A. Cochran, L.

9 Fields and F. Teague were reviewed, and their qualifica-

'

-

tions were found to be reasonable and acceptabl '

'

[ Quality Assurance (QA) manuals and applicable Quality Control (QC) procedures for three contractors involved

-

'

E with earthwork: Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL),

k Associated Sand and Gravel Company (AS&G) and Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. (M-K) were reviewed and 7 found to be acceptable.

-

E Corrective actions pertaining to earthwork were reviewed.

F A total of 20 Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) were reviewed

[ and corrective actions / dispositions with proper signatures

, and approvals were found to be reasonable and acceptable, r

I Audit reports for 12 internal audits by three contractors j; involved with earthwork were reviewed: 6 by PTL, 4 by E AS&G and 2 by M-K. Also, three audits of the contractors

[ by WPPSS/Ebasco were reviewed: one each for PTL, AS&G and h M- It was found that findings and concerns revealed by p these audits were reasonably resolved and dispositioned.

L 2 Material Traceability and control records were reviewe Mill test reports for 9343 tons of cement (3 lots: #45,

1. 46 and #47) were examined and found acceptable. It was

! noted that records included a copy of the applicable mill ( test report for each truck load of cemen i f The control of Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) was reviewed. It was noted that PTL controlled the M&TE f{ applicable to earthwork activities of PTL, AS&G and M- Calibration records for 24 items of M&TE were reviewed and control was found to be acceptable. In one case, PP-10 l Automctic Soil Compactor, calibration was found to be

_

8.38% out of tolerance. A NCR was issued (#204-10) and appropriate evaluation and disposition of prior work was

performed. The control of M&TE was found to be reasonable j and acceptable.

e-2-I_

.

_

-

-unus---su u a u

. -

fyQ% 7 j;Q;w ~ }wD (- ;-yy > 3 ,; &n Q3 . 4 9;' n ..

, ) :.

(&; w ~

'

r y ,p - ,

.

,

+ "

,

,

,

, 7' ,, ,

_, .

,

w ~u v.i b 'st 1m .

> -

q - - ,

s -

) Lh

, _ ,

c -  ; + ; . , , .x . ~ , ~ , u :w; 4 re

'i

A

hy,

";Qf

% ,

'?'~

v_

"

< c w~ cg; 4 .5! ,' -

c(g;1 Aquestion;redardinglthestatus:ofsreq0iredchanges'to.the'.

,

U" , ' l _ _

,

,

gW Q ' -

FSAR asimentionedJin-Modul.e"C3-01"Earthwo.rk'was discussed.% Y 1e, + v JThe applicant' stated that four(changes had not been

Nn #~ N.. , , . o processed,through4 review and approval-cyclesn?However,; '

.

'

,

'ga, h ? v w;; 7 -

R ;';[p mN,e.:74 W ptheseeitems J General Tracking' wereSystem placedasJof;0ctoberJ29h1986i in:the Commitments 0n.The'WNP-3~ ll .

.

Y 2 !N . LIC-RRCA-00017-0002,-0003 ^and -0004. iThe1 applicant; stated

' "

,y bT V; f(V % .

L x r ,,ithat contents of the Tracking System were auditable. aTher

,

.

':

,

-

7 ' .- g

' WM yJN ;NRC Inspector stated?that this question would'be1 referred: -

+

~

,, ,sto'NRR/ Licensing _(Mr. George Dick) for consideration: '

- -

'

~

[ Roc regarding FSAR commitments. 1 %

-

-

a 1 t,

- a '

uww'N <w. . ;k ,

.m em

, ,. , . . . -

.y -

, . .

.-

.

m-

.

~i_J + cf. c ,u

.

Ingeneral','the, control <offprogrammatic,a, spec,ts.was; considered.to-be' Syn;

.

t 4 (T,#. reasonable.,and acceptable'. ~ >

'. -

r. e ' , ;p v- n_

~ mr p

! Technic'al'andCNtical'ElenAntsInspection

,

.

? -

'

' -

na uy]'w / k.?

• 1 (2) y _,-,'Toue r , ,

,

-

,

A # Site '

-c

.

.y

'-- 3""wQ! t;  %

, _

t s

..

.

.

.

c u^ upon arrival,.'the NRC inspectors conducted a Site Tour to

~

.

. ,

,

,

"

e i M sobserve general site conditions and to. inspect-the -t , *

. > - *o s interior face of the Reactor. Auxiliary Building (RAB)4 a' '

'

3:,i: exterior wall ~attthe basewhere mat level.'

groundThe inspectors ,

,

'

'

, .

<

observed two small areas water had seeped t ' f xinto the basement level.and the coating was peeling from-

'

e, ,

V

.

the wall. :Also, a rain leak.was'noted at an equipment ,

,; .

access-hatchLin the Reactor Building. Licensee personnel ' -

'

. stated that'the leak would be repaired and' routine tours

~

m cs ' , y .

- . . ,' would be conducted'to detect such leak w a;

, .

.'- . No significant items of noncompliance or deviations were

identifie g, *iN 4 - Construction Assurance Program --Earthwork Module Review f, ,

A review of the-Construction Assurance' Program - Earthwork Module was performed with emphasis'on critical elements of Earthwork which 'are soil-cement backfill and Class A-1-

>

'

>

backfill for safety-related applications. The following procedures, specifications and earthwork placement and compaction records were reviewed:

, .

Ebasco Specification WPPSS-3240-466-Soil Cement and Structural Backfill, Rev. 2 dated August 2, 1982

Ebasco Specification WPPSS-3240-466 Soil Cement Engineered Backfill for RAB Access Ramps and Adjacent

' Areas, Rev. 1 dated October 24, 1979

'

>

Ebasco Specification 3240-209 Supply and Delivery of Concrete, Rev. 16 dated March 2, 1982 I

,

__-

-3-

'

,

P '!

. m m m e ., - ,,

.weN ~; . mi w .. 2 - s -  :

k. ,M : Jm r , y- 2 - W L*+N *

' ' *

w

,

' ' RM' - " -

.

mn.;- ~- ^.,

-

mmq,gh

.wm r T

-

-

8 ' ' . .*

m:,:

. , + ~

+

m

,

u

~

c 27 .z

' '

Ji +g; )

5 -. Ei ~y% - .[

^

I25 ."'N ' ,* 'O'

y siA;. ,aS O f :E p2:N

N:n[, 4 . , ,

,

s .rL 3. - [N- O.rt$. , .L s: ,,is I Q- ' , , , - , , ., _ c

_

, _- '/ ,. - y u ,

-s o 4

, . , ,

EMofrison-Knudsen Co., Inc."CP 17/ Procedure-for"

, , ,

'

A

, ,- 4 m w: 4 --

. .

! Placing,1 Compacting,oCuring.and Inspection

of Soilt w-

'

'

f

" ~ '

,M

.

;o -

l l Cement and Class A-1= Structural.Fi31,oRev.*5Fdated V s v

~' [ -' -

-

3 -

, f , _ , , M , Mayi4,'1983. . The NRCinspector examined.the origiria13 * $ a-o7 y

g i P,-s  ; ,

-

y *y m Oand latest, revisions and'notedlthat the latesti~ -

M J irevisiontincluded minorfinprovements i in' definition of -

~

.X:

-

- *

, w, -

, . , ' - e.: -J work; contro , ", P "'

% r- 4

-

.

, ,

>

, sm

~o

, ,

a  ; x

, m IWoodward-C1,9de ' Report dated MarchL25/1981} Soil? " '

> (, ,

~

? i

, Coment Engineered Backfil1[ Design' Mix Test' Progra p i m > s; - -

,

y 1

. m c 7s , , s ., , ., .. , . ,. .. ., 3 , - .. . .

f^ ,

.

~

, . ~ *> y Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Procedure QC-ST-11 Soils - 3

' +

Inspection and Tests-Field,:Rev. 3 dated May'24;i197 'n i mr- ,

'. SThe.NRC; inspector examined the' original and. latest - 4 s

"~ +

,

'

' revisions and:noted that'the(latest' revision: included

, "minoriimprovements in definition of: work contro ,

m ~

~

-

n , y_ m

o

, ,

_~

"

a ,y sy P'lacement'andCompactihnrecords1forsoilrcementc . '

o'

<l ' "# "

-placec' in the RA8. access ramp between; June 2, 980 -e ~

.

-

, *

and June 16', 1980 c

' '

, ,

I 'a:

,

" ~

s<%

"

," '

Placement and Compaction" records 4 i for soil;cementt

'

.. . v_ wn

,

w ; y' ~

-

placedf,beneath-diesel' oil storage tank'- . ,

,. ,

-

qc >

c a,

, . .

w

.

.

t it ~ p Placemen.t?and compaction 1 records forisoil' cement:

's ' -

'

placed beneath dry cooling tower, electrical ~ vault-

'

M N: -

', -

'

,

,

-

N , .

, ., lg and-duct bank area-

.

~

.

, > > .

~

C '. O

'

'

I '

'

'-e' .

.

m

.

,'

.. iw(1)LSoil'-Cement' Backfill . ,.F ,

- ,

. ,

' t; ( M' I d..;%..

,

s 7:

'

1. . 4' ,' im  : Soil Cement Backfill was placed ,in the..RAB access- _

y f .l' % , ,*

,- f ramp area, below the dieselJstorage tankiA and under J '-

thatDry; Cooling Tower in the area of the electrical i X<_ {<-

'

vault and: duct banks.

." - , -

.

o ;

.

, L*. 4 40 >

,

/ Ahproximately'150compactionrecordswerereviewed

,M ,~

. -

? rand onlyione was slightly below the specified compad.

~

>

~

^

.o tion. The specification allows 10% of teststo bet 5% '

below specified compaction.'

,

'

o , ' Ten moisture contents _ exceeded specification limit ~

'

,

7 .

V < >These were accepted by Ebasco field personnel. ~The

specification and the procedure do not specifically,

' '

3/ < ~4

'

state that:the Ebasco field' personnel have this,

, authority. 'However, the.in place density tests were

-

a acceptable and,1th 'efore, the= moisture content

!"[ variations were not significan .

'

, The soil cement design mix was specified in Ebasco

. . 4- Specification.3240-209 and is basically 90% sand and l

, '10% cement. This is in agreement with the FSAR and 4- the Woodward-Clyde test report.

r L

"

.

k: ~

r f

s

'

.. -4

'

!

I

,

e e +-*.--+,,~e'. +,-+;.,m, . - ~ . , , , , . , ._.m2. ~ ,c., ,-,,.,--.-,..,wnm,,,,vr-,w,., ,w-w..,-.-m-,,~,,r.--e-yrmv-,.-- . :w ~ ,m , ..;

, , ;g . . -

n- ,- y- .

s,.

.. ~

.- :

y' 2 ja?

,

r >

,,

• ,

, . , ,

,_

.'

,

~ ' g' ' " ~ '

• .

~ ' '

I. y 1.p[ 1) Id 4

-t , ,}[. , J ,*

• .

,; &

.

'

.:4 : jy ,&

,

':, c . L' ~..' ,M c%. '

m

,

_ , , ~ ' - -n v;; . , ,

+ '

. ,

-

-

r m '

.

'. -

Q ,' h d,~

-

. .

~ ,

J>,h L Howe'verNringtheilacemen't(of.thesoil

' fill- theltype offsand was(changed twoutin$ ese This;cement-.  ;' Q .

,

s% m+

"

,

x, changed the.basicitest' acceptance 7 criteria,:that'is?

- -

< iNE

- ' J+

, _ ;  ?

., S;p the maximum. dry' unit weight and the' optimum * moistures w z. -  ;

,

m * .

, -

content. /The.three mixes'areias follows-

,

y v. ,

, - X

,

, ,

-; L . ;., *s ,.

. Lab t ,

>

'

,

,

. . w, M 4:~

'

y^

, ,

, . .

iTest? -' LMaximum Dry ~ Unit" q 0ptimumi

'

'

,

_

~z Moisture:.s ,

'

. iMixi

~__

'

r ,

,

~, u

'

.

-

LN : Weight #/C.F. s 'JContent-%s, >,

..~_

'

'

,,.%  ;- - 'T,"

W

% 4 q y__

.

_ , y +

"

j' ' .<  ; SO Cen t . (N/A -3119.9: A  % 1 :,g 2

" '

• %1

~

< t ,

- - Tt 50!Cem #1- 276':: L131.4i y < , 11.2 i

%%, # G1

& p, Lq, e .

' 7:

S0 Cem'#2- 277 y

124.6~

+

,

, '1 11.1~ i

-

,

1. M p

_

,@

_

fy 3. [ g' ~ 1, ,

'

.,' f It does not appear:that specific: acceptance criterial y;qfig;ff QC( g .

g.y.' 1

,&s 7was given to.the si.teLinspectors,' and_the.NRC inspec-itors wereEnot'able tofconfirm the' laboratory test 3

'W P

1.g.Qf < ~

,

'

<. V g^1 . number.from approximately 60% of;the inspectionsq. _c > '

AW . g, 4- - reports. ~The laboratory test number.is. listed'on>the "..-

~.4 M M Wyp J'[ .Lo

_

/: y

in place density tests;as N/A.J Thel specifications:are' "N

- not specific as to the type ofEsand,to be used. rThe i  ?-\ ywjJf  : specifications' state that the' sand shall befsimilar to~w

'

.:

v G,*... w : 9 ,1 Y I; 4 ' ", y

-

-the sand used in the, mixing of. concrete., However, 4as V y gg x +

review of-the records indicate that'the properimixes1 - ";

.i Q'

, ,

gs s 1 , ,

wereusedandevaluatedby;fieldinspectionpersonne '

'

,

,_ >_ . , --

'

.Three NCRs' were written by the_ CAP earthwork module- -

, team as -followsLand were dispositioned asfacceptable with.' appropriate. approvals:/

~

s

, .

-

. . ,

,

W * . ' ,p

',: INCR N Description? ,

~

e

'

20000- -Horizontal' location ofIsoil test's'

,

_ are notJidentified on the test report . .

, . .

.

. . . . x

, 20001 Weather data:isinot~ identified on soil test reports.: .

'

20002 Testing frequency for 28 lifts of, soil cement placed on RAB Access: Ramp wa ,

,

- ,

,

not.in accordance.with specificatio .

T '

~

In~ general, theisoil cement placement appeared to be ,

, ..' acceptable and no significant violations or-deviations were identifie ~

(2).l Class A-1 Backfill

. 1 Class A-1 Backfill was used as bedding and part of

',

' the' overburden for the ASME piping' south and east of .1 the RAB. This piping included chemical and' volume control systems, the component cooling water system and emergency generator syste '

.

,

I-5-l m  :

i l

__m, . -_ _..--- - . - -'

m - -

'

-,,

- y [.[4[y

- 1

+

ww a n -.m "" #

' ~- '

'& y- - N -

,

-

f '

_

'd ,

'

, . , x <- ^ w . -

"y-n, & W - ~ ' m

,

-

-E

,

t' ,

'

., -

~' '

>

'

e -

,

~

'

'

. .

'k ; f .9" '9:_

.

^ >

Ny , a: . q3

1. ^

4, , .- 4 ,,1 <- . .s , , , t 1 ~, ^

, f. ~ u -

.

,

.

-

'in ~

>,

< - 'Approximately 80 1ensityLtests results~we're' reviewed '

7 T'+ 3 ithfonly twoifalling!slightly~below the'sp'ecified4 i vf~ ^~ * Lainimum; dry' density. 7This as acceptable i in"accordance2 -- +

pj m - ,

, <

w

'

with~theEspecifications. , .

'

,

~

.: . a . . ,. 1

" The' horizontal location and weather ' data were not"

'

y .

S , . ,

"

fincorporated'intheLtestireportsias"specified}and were

~ '

,,. y, , ~d ispositioned-in NCRs;20000'and 20001.' , , y

_

-

'

~ '

' , J : , .

. .; .

.

,

. A- gThe Class' A-1 backfill ' appeared:to be'placed in a ~

- ~7 7. ay - .,

. controlled manner.~

,

- -

.,

[ , +b ""

- + -.

'

'

, ,

'

lNoviolations:orjdeviationswereidentifie' ,

~

, .

, ,

i -

'

'

'-

' Engineering" Assurance Program 4 c

>

,

g . . j .

. .i F

'

.

'

'Two' questions ~were raised by the NRC inspectors and will' a

'irequire;furt,her review and documentatio '

, + . . . ,

,

"

-: q%' :The-first' question deals with the design of.the RAB' exterior

~

,

, - 2s . wal1Jbelow grade. .The'~ excavation for the RAB-extended

-

^* ' ", iiapproximately 60Lfeet below' plan.t grade. :The sandstone

' >

.

rock was cut vertically and the exterioriwalls were poured *

directlyLagainst the excavated rock. Measurements taken by .

Ebasco indicate that-significant movement ofLthe rock.and-- '

.thusistress relief have taken place prior to the' walls

.

>

, beingJpoured against the rock. It appears that in-situ '

• ' -1 rock

'4

'

i *

stresses were not taken. Without in-situ rock stresses, it is impossible :to determine .the ' magnitude of -

' the stress exerted on the concrete walls. -While the roc i

= stress at the face'of'the excavation.has been relieved, the

~

,

' stresses will. tend to remobilize'as the rock some distance-

~

~back from the excavation tend to relieve or equalize their stresses with adjacent rock. The wall pressurris exerted by the rock stresses will tend to vary from a ninimum at the bottom of the excavation to a maximum ~at.the top. In

'the design of.the walls Ebasco used a K factor of .22. The '

pressure on the wall in this case would vary from a minimum

.

at the top to a maximum at the bottom of the excavatio The second question deals with the mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis. The model shows soil springs or noded points on the west wall of the RAB. Plant data indicate that this area had been excavated to a depth of 32 l feet for installation of the circulating water pipe The l

mathematical model should be consistent with the actual I

site condition.

. i The licensee indicated that these two questions would be addressed in the Engineering Assurance Program Module i- E3-02 Civil / Structural.

t

, -6-

.

-'

Y ae*=t=e-g) Twv- -pr"* er- um. wg-r--g-t?- 3

-

% g--- .,w-y-- g,, ? -,ww,e-,e arw w- .v..4 .g.r.-w.-g .avg v -+w -wwy-+ yy1e e -7

mm, *

v . ..

'

-

'

y- ~.

- w - : * '* '

4 < r ,g g , -

g* u , , ,

-.

[

r

=a4

-

t

"

.h _ + ' '

m

,

,

'-yt.

-

( c m <

-

p 4

' ,%

. n- >

~

,a

-: o  ; *

,

,

.,>

-

'

.

,

_

-

.

.

_ .

+ . . ,.2

?<c_'q_A n

-

- -

4 % e,M (3::/" Inspector' Followup' Item' :(IFI)i m - -

. , r1 .

.

-- -

e '

~ 3 - ww , ,,, JIFI86-01?"Enhancementof.QA~ Audits": ^

,

'

1. . .

, .

.

,

, ., 7_

-

.

y

,

'

The followupfiten noted a'need. for -furthsrfreview~ of licensee ^QA L gL , . activities;regarding extended constructio'n delay-preservationipro- ~-

x ' % ^

'

. grams. :.Duringithis inspection, theiinspector' discussed theilicen-~

'

, ,

, :see!s: corporate QA^auditsiof WNP-3:with the QA' manager of_ audit ~

+ g -

iThe-licensee ~statedthat-additionayemphasison' hardware' preservation ,

s _ o- 3would be considered for future corporate' audits. In. addi. tion ~,; during - 1

.

-

'

further review of;QA procedures by the-NRC inspector, Tit was noted ~ ,

s- i. - that Plant QA Procedure PQA-03.Rev. ;6; provided Ja programmatic.proce'-

'

.

<

'

[dureforschedulingandperformingisurveillanceof:variousplant> activities <'.inc Land-operational phase activitie The: licensee' initiated a change to:

~

~

PQA-03 to' clarify its ' applicability to construction delay activities- ,

>

_

-

performed by the plant. organization. 1The inspector closed'th .i  : followup ite ~

' '

'

,

.

~

No' violations or desiations here<identifle '

>

<

>

, 1

. ..

. .

, ,

> Exit Meeting

'

' ' 4.'

-

_

> -

.

-

,. .

,

'

' The ' inspection Hscope < add' findings werefsummarized onf 0ctober '31,1986,

~

with those persons indicated in paragraph-1. No dissenting comments were:

received from the license . n < _

'

.%

The li_censee stated that~wo d is proceeding on' CAP Module C3-02' Concrete / :

,Resteel/ Embeds l and.this will be~the next Readiness' Review Module to be

~

'

',

' '

submitted to the NRC.- LAlso, it was-stated that'workiis. proceeding.on EAP

~

. Modul,e _ E3-02TCivil/ Structura .

,

1 te,c - -

s t -

-

? *6 I

4 W

_

I ,

_

N4 t-

I g ,; .f j, ' (,

_ ,

,,' >. #

, a [*y- ;  ;

T(

'

{ --

,

.

,. .

,

.(

-

([ -

-

. ,

,

-

' '. ., _ ,

3 41f , ,

'

,

s +< g . '

-

, ,

'

i

'

.

r

..

'

.~ .

-7-

-

. d.