ML19308D593
| ML19308D593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1970 |
| From: | Bryant J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D591 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-70-02, 50-302-70-2, NUDOCS 8003040994 | |
| Download: ML19308D593 (7) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 7
/
OU U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
~
REGION II DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection CO Report No. 50-302/70-2 o.
Licens ee :
Florida Power Corporat ion Crystal River Unit 3 Licens e No. CPPR-51
. Category A Date of Inspection:
June 3-4, 1970 Date of Previous Inspection:
January 8-9 1970 Inspected By:
7///70 J. C. Bryant, Weactor Inspector
'Da't e (In C e)
I W
Ykffs
~
L. L.
ratan,VS ior Structural Engineer Date Reviewed By:
/!70 W. C. Seidle, fenior Reactor' Inspector Date Proprietary Information:
None SCOPE A routine announced inspection was made of Crystal River Unit 3, an 855 Mwe pressurized water reactor under construction near Crystal River, Florida.
The inspector was accompanied by L. L. Beratan, Senior Structural Engineer, Compliance, Headquarters.
SUMMARY
Safety Items - None Nonconformance Items - None
[G\\
Status of Previously Reported Problems - None N.
800304" $ Y N
i
q 1
\\s_s/
CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2 Other Significant Items - None Management Interview - Those present at the interview were Bennett and Pedrick. Sir; 2 no problem areas had been identified, the interview was a discussion af schedules, construction plans, and quality control. The following items were discussed:
1.
Construction status and schedule.
(See Section C.)
2.
Reinforcing steel-storage and testing.
(See Section D.)
3.
Concrete.
(See Section E.)
4 Work and QC procedures.
(See Sections F and C.)
S.
Primary pipe.
(See Section H.)
{
6.
Subsurface grouting.
(See Section I.)
1
-l
(
DETAILS A.
Persons Contacted H. L. Bennett - EPC (Florida Power Corporation), Manager, Power Construction D. W. Pedrick - FPC, Assistant Quality Engineer C. Eachos - FPC, Supervisor, Structural Cons truct ion D. Johnson - Gilbert Associates, Incorporated, Supervisor, Contract Crouting W. Hurst Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, Resident QC Chief Inspector B.
Organ izat ion Daniel W. Pedrick has been added to the FPC staff as Assistant Quality Engineer.
In 1964 he received a BS degree in marine engineering from the U. S. Merchant Marine Academy. He worked from 1964 to 1966 for Moore McCormick Lines, Incorporated, as a licensed marine engineer.
In 1966 to 1967 he worked for Philadelphia Cear Corporation as a design and test engineer.
In 1968 he went into business for himself as a home constructor.
For a time in 1968 to 1969 he worked for Culf Coast Transit Company as a marine engineer, and in March 1970 he joined FPC in his present condicion.
l C.
Construction Status
/N l
Ig
)
Subsurface grouting 'as been completed under the containment building and the reactor auxiliary building with the exception of the residual f
'3 f-
/
CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2 _
heat pit which is being maintained as a drain blanket.
During the inspection, subsurface grouting was in progress under the turbine building and control complex.
~
During the inspection, the first reinforcing steel was placed for the base mat and portions of the auxiliary building.
It was anticipated that erection of the steel for the first placement of the containment base mat would begin the week of June 8.
The predicted fuel loading date of September 1972 and commercial operation date of December 1972 have not changed.
D.
Reinforcing Steel (4605.04.a.6; 4605.05.a.1; 4605.06.a.8)
Reinforcing steel for the site is perchased from Florida Steel Corpora-tion, who produces all but the 18 S bar. The 18 S bar is purchased by Florida Steel from Bethlehem Steel Corporation. Mill certifications and users break test results were examined and found to conform ra ASTM 615 Grade 40.
FPC makes user's break tests at the site and requires two tests on each bar size from heats of 25 tons or less and additional tests if more s
I than 25 tons per heat is received.
In addition to breaking user's test g
's /'
bars, some bars are cut from stock for testing.
The rebar receiving yard was inspected. All rebar was found to be stored on dunnage and was segregated according to its assigned usage.
The receiving, storage, and handling procedure requires that the steel be delivered to its placement area still bound as received from Florida Steel Corporation. At this point, QC verifies mill certifications and break test results before the steel can be unbound.
Steel was being placed for the base cat of a portion of the auxiliary building. The area was clean, the steel was placed on concrete block, properly tied, and laps exceeded ACI 318 requirements. Placement records and break test results were available for the concrete block used.
The Forney testing machine purchased by FPC is rated at a 400,000-
~
pound capacity, but is giving some trouble and is not expected to give lasting service. The licensee reported that after breaking several 18 S bars, which approach the 400,000-pound breaking strength capacity, it is necessary to retighten portions of the machine. Bennett feels that it will be necessary to purchase a higher capacity machine or send the 18 S bar to the University of Florida for testing.
His preference is to purchase a higher capacity machine, but this has not been decided g "'S upon as yet.
e l
\\
)
x_ /
l i
l
CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2..
E.
Concrete (4605.04.b.1 and 2 : 4605.05.a.1 and 2, b.2, 3 and 7)
The ready-mix batch plant was reinspected. Scale calibrations were
~
up to date, aggregate separation was satisfactory, and coarse aggregate was being washed. The crushed 11merock ag8regate had a fair amount of loose material on it, but later examination of broken cylinders showed that the aggregate was, in most cases, broken.
There was no indication of cylinders that broke under strength. An icehouse has been built and the crusher installed. Bennett said that FPC found that they could buy ice cheaper than they could manuf acture it.
FPC has purchased twelve new nine-yard mixing trucks for use at the site. All equipment appeared to be clean and in good shape.
Two Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) men were at the plant. One was running moisture analyses, which he said he ran several times daily.
Bennett said that two PIL men were at the plant continuously during plant operations. Bennett said that FPC exercises direct centrol of all plant operations and that all operations are observed by PTL, even though it is still a West Coast Concrete plant and is manned by West Coast personnel.
bI FPC has decided to use only 3/4-inch coarsa aggregate in the structure rather than two coarse aggregates as previously planned. They have s-developed new design mixes and tested them using the 3/4-inch aggregate.
The 3,000 psi mix was designed by Law Engineering Testing Company and uses 5.5 bags of cement per yard and has an average 28-day strength of 4,820 ps i. Bennett said that he hoped to use a 5-1/4 bag per yard mix but has not yet been able to 8et a good workable mix within the other parameters. The 5,000 psi mix was designed by PTL and uses 6.75 bags per yard with a W/C ratio of 5 and a 3-inch slump. The 28-day break test results are not in, but the 7-day breaks were at 4,860 psi;'there-fore, there is little doubt that the 28-day strength will be adequate.
Batching, delivery, and placement QC records on concrete placed to date were complete and easily recoverable for any placement.
- Slump, air, and cylinder break tests were made according to requirements and all records met specifications.
Mill certifications on cement were examined and found to be acceptable.
At the exit interview, the inspector asked Bennett if he had considered getting a chloride analysis on the cement, even though it is not required by the specifications, since che question of chloride content might well arise at some later date. Bennett agreed that this might be a good idea, and in the inspector's presence, Pedrick called the cement supplier and requested that chloride analysis be added to the mill certifications.
C'N
('s-}
Bennett said that he was looking for a new source of fine aggrebate, other than that reported previously, but that as yet he has not found a satisfactory source.
~~
f3
(
I
\\~~/
CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2..
F.
Work Procedures FPC has identified areas requiring written work procedures and established a format and basic content which will be used in each procedure. A s um-mary of the requirements for writing these procedures and the use of them is as follows.
1.
It is the responsibility of the FEC quality engineer to provide the appropriate parties with the procedure and to verify that the require-ments are adhered to.
2.
The procedure will reference all applicable Gilbert Associates, Incorporated (GAI), specifications.
3.
The title page stil include the contractor's name and title, reference j
the GAI specification, procedure number, date of finalized issue, and date of latest addendum.
i l
4.
The first page will describe the purpose and scope.
/'~'}
5.
The first page will state by job title the person within the contracting
(
_,f organizat'on responsible for assuring that the procedure is implemented and adhered to.
It will also delineate by job title the person to whom reports are to be sent.
6.
Following the above shall be the start of instructions.
It is in this section that the contractor shall include detailed, logically sequenced steps for all operations covered in the scope of the proc edure.
7.
The work procedure will be written as instructions and not as a specification.
8.
For each operation, six things must be covered:
a.
The person by job title who will be responsible, b.
What preparat ion is necessary to be completed before the opera-tion can be started.
c.
Special tools required for the job.
d.
Unusual cautions to be taken to prevent damage to delicate or critical components.
/' 'h e.
Protection to be afforded to the finished product to prevent damage.
f.
Actual step-by-step routine for doing the work.
m
.s CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2,
To date, FPC has identified 41 work items requiring procedures.
Thirteen of these procedures have been completed and were examined to some extent by the inspector. These procedures met the require-ment for writing work procedures and seemed to be detailed and well done. The procedures completed included that work now in progress and that which may be expected to be done in the near future.
The list of procedures to be written and those completed is on file at Region II.
G.
Quality Control Procedures Quality control procedures are written as separate and distinct from work procedures. The control document for these procedures indicates I
that the quality control department is separate ani on an equal plane with the manufacturing operation. The quality control procedures com-1 pleted to date included the writing of QC procedures, excavation and i
placement of structural fill, furnishing, delivery, and placement of l
ready-mix grout, placing of reinforcing steel, nondestructive testing i
including PT, MT, RT, UT, and vacuum box testing, furnishing and delivery of structural concrete, Placement of structural concrete,
'~'
work stoppage tagging control, and reports of deficiency.
~
The tagging control procedure is for the handling of discrepant mat erial.
It describes authorities for tagging material, a deficiency report that must be written and the routing of this report, the
)
authorities for removal of the tags, and the action-taken report that must accompany removal of the tag.
i H.
Primary Pipe CO Report No. 50-302/70-1, Section F, discusses the residual heat removal pump suction lines which are to be embedded in the base mat
)
and which were not annealed after bending. This pipe has some dis-coloration at the bend.. USAS B31.7, paragraph 1-729.3.2.b states that austenitic stainless steel pipe that has been heated for bending may be used in the as-bent condition unless the design specification requires a postbending heat treatment. This heat treatment was not specified by FPC; however, it has been the intent to specify heat treatment.
It hes been decided that the pipe will be used as is and an engineering justification will be made.
The GAI report states that
. the pipe will be cleaned and will be coated with Thurmalox 70 silicon coating. The GAI report stated that the steel was not sens it ized.
t Pedrick could not say'how this had been determined.
The final engineering justification will be examined by the inspector
-whenIt is complete.
. ~
CO Rpt. No. 50-302/70-2._
I.
Subsurface Grouting and Foundations The inspectors examined records of chemical and concrete grouting and examined cores taken before and after grouting.
The inspec-tions indicated that this work was carried out in a competent manner.
Bennett said that final reports to FPC by their consultants would be available for CO examination.
For details of this inspection, see the attached feeder report from L. Beratan, CO Headquarters.
Attachment:
Feeder Report dated 6/23/70 -
L. L. Beratan (CO:HQ) l
- l l
\\
\\