IR 05000335/1982001

IE Insp Repts 50-335/82-01 & 50-389/82-01 on 820309-12. Noncompliance Noted:Installation of Masonry Wall Expansion Anchors Inadequately Inspected

ML20054K244
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/02/1982
From:	Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054K218	List: IR 05000335/1982001 L-82-189, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-335/82-01.Corrective Actions:Qc Inspectors Reinstructed in Requirement of Quality Instructions 10.5 & 10.23 ML20054K217 ML20054K233 ML20054K237
References
50-335-82-01, 50-335-82-1, 50-389-82-01, 50-389-82-1, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8207010329
Download: ML20054K244 (7)

Text

- -

. .

rrry og UNITED STATES 8 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ 2E REGION 11 o - 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W., SUITE 3100 k s ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

Report Nos. 50-335/82-01 and 50-389/82-01 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33103 Facility Name: St. Lucie Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 License Nos. DPR-67 and CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie s te near Ft. Pierce, Florida Inspector: #s L/f'

Date Signed J.J.gahan Approved by: M e v Y .7 - Ph T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on March 9-12, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 22 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection finding, IE Bulletin 80-11, IE Circular 81-08, and the Unit 2 concrete repair progra Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in three areas; one violation was found in one area (inadequate inspection of masonry wall modification paragraph 3).

,

6207010329 820622 PDR ADOCK 05000335 0 PDR

I

.

• -

l . .

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• H. W. Cairns, Unit 1 QC Supervisor

• J. Krumins, Site Engineer, Unit 1

• P. Carier, Licensing Engineer

• R.' A. Symes, Supervising QA Engineer

• C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager, Unit 1

• B. J. Escue, Site Manager, Unit 2

• J. L. Parker Unit 2, QC Supervision

• E. W. Sherman, QA Engineer T. Geissinger, Civil QC Supervisor Other Organizations

• R. A. Garramore, Senior Resident Engineer, EBASCO

• G. H. Krauss, ESSE Project Engineer, EBASCO V. J. Gerley, ESSE Civil Engineer, EBASCO C. Engle, Senior QC Supervisor, Unit 1, U.S. Testing T. Karan, ESSE Structural Engineer, EBASCO NRC Resident Inspector

• S. A. Elrod

• H. E. Bibb

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 12, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The violation deccribed in paragraph 3 was discusse . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (335/81-27-01): IEB 80-11 Wall Identification Program. During inspection 81-27 (October 21-23, 1981), the inspector reviewed a construction drawing (number BCS 110.81.300) which indicated that there was an existing masonry wall constructed near the pressur-izer in the Unit 1 containment buildin This wall had not been previously identified by the licensee in his response to IEB 80-1 Subsequent to the referenced inspection, EBASCO site engineers per-formed a walkdown inspection in the Unit 1 containment building and verified that there were no other masonry walls in that structur . . . )

' . .

. .

.

i '

'

The inspector reviewed EBASCO letter number 0575, dated November 9, 1981 which documents the results of the walkdown inspection. As-built drawings were prepared of the masonry wall near the pressurize. (this wall was divided into two walls for purposes of design evaluation) and submitted to design engineering to be analyzed in accordance with IEB 80-11 requirements. The results of the design analysis demonstrated that this wall met design requirements and required no modificatio In a letter dated December 7,1981, the licensee submitted Addendum A

'

to its IEB 80-11 Final Report-to NRC Region II. Addendum A discusses the design evaluation of the masonry wall in the Unit I containment structur Since the as-constructed wall was adequate, the failure to identify this wall for the original IEB 80-11 submittal had no safety significanc This item is close The inspector made a detailed review of the masonry wall identification program in all structures with safety related equipment except for the containment building during a previous inspection (Inspection 81-10, May 4-7, 1981). The inspector concluded at this time that the licensee's program to identify masonry walls in the proximity of safety related equipment in these structures was adequat (Closed) Unresolved Item (335/81-27-02): Masonry Wall Modification Record Prior to reviewing licensee records documenting QC inspec-tion of masonry wall modifications during NRC inspection number 81-27 (October 21-23, 1981), the NRC inspector discussed the status of masonry wall modifications with U. S. Testing and Licensee QC Inspection Supervisor The QC Supervisors indicated that this inspection effort had been completed and the majority of these records had been reviewed and signed by the FP&L QC Superviso i Review of the QC records during the referenced inspection disclosed the following apparent discrepancies:

(1) Expansion anchor inspection records for wall number 82 were missing (2) There were no records for inspection of grouting in the gap

,

between wall 160 and the beam at the top of the wall (3) The number of expansion anchors installed in the clip angles for wall 174 was not clear

(4) Field changes which were made to the modification details shown on the design drawings did not appear to be documente Af ter the NRC inspector had identified the above apparent discrepan-cies, the licensee performed a detailed reinspection of the completed work to determine if the inspection records were complete and accu-rate. This reinspection disclosed that some of the work had not been

,

i

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

_ - . _ _ - .

. .

,

completed, and that modification to several walls had not been accomplished in accordance with the design drawing Specific examples are as follow:

(1) Drawing number BCS 128-4.311 requires clip angles to be installed using 3/4 inch diameter expansion anchors at the top of both sides of wall number 82. The reinspection of the expansion anchor installation, which was documented on licensee Inspection Report numbers 6138-078 and 6138-079. disclosed that 1/2 inch diameter expansion anchors were installed in the clip angle on one side of the wall while 3/4 inch diameter expansion anchors were installed in the clip angle on the other side of the wall. The 3/4 inch diameter anchors were only torque tested to 75 foot pound Specification FLO-9110-AS-13, " Drilled-In Expansion Type Anchors in Concrete," requires 3/4 inch diameter expansion anchors to be torque tested to 200 foot pounds. Procedure QI 10.23, Inspec-tion and Testing of Expansion Anchors, requires QC inspectors to verify proper size expansion anchors are installed and torque tested to the minimum torque valve specified in the applicable design documents (Specification FLO 9110-AS-13). This was not accomplished during the original inspection of the expansion anchor installatio (2) The grouting at the top of wall number 160 required by drawing BCS 128-4.312 had not been accomplished. The inspection of the modifications to wall number 160 by the QC inspectors failed to detect this problem. Procedure number QI 10.1, General Instruc-tions for the Conduct of Inspections, requires QC inspectors to perform a thorough inspection of completed work to verify that the work is accomplished in accordance with the design document This was not accomplished during the original inspection of the wall modification (3) Expansion anchors were not installed in the clip angles for walls 74 and 174 on the 2'-0" center to center spacing as required by the design drawing. Procedure QI 10.23, " Inspection and Testing of Expansion Anchors" requires inspectors to verify that expansion anchors are installed at the specing shown on the design drawing This was not accomplished during the original inspection of the wall modification (4) Structural steel members (clip angles) on wall numbers 81,165, 200, 202 and 205 were not installed in accordance with the details shown of the design drawings. Procedure 10.15, " Structural Steel Inspection," requires inspectors to verify that structural steel members are installed in accordance with the details shown as the design drawings. This was not accomplished during the original inspection of the wall modificatio . . . -

- - . .

]

.

,

t The above example of failure to perform inspections in accordance with QC inspection procedures was identified to the licensee as a violatio Unresolved Item 335/81-27-02 is closed and upgraded to violation item

j 335/82-01-01" Inadequate Inspection of Masonry Wall Modifications."

l Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Independent Inspection Effort j The inspector examined the following areas:

, Partial placement of a shield wall extensior. at azimuth 60 , from

~

elevation 14 to 31, on the exterior of the con".ainment building shield wall Inspection of bolting of the structural steel crane support structure

for the fuel handling building

! Nonconformance report numbers NCR 1312C, NRC 1366C, and NRC 1523C'.

These nonconformances document spalling of concrete around steel i embedment plates due to expansion of the plates by heating during i welding. Review of the above NCRs and discussion with licensee engineers disclosed that a repair procedure has been written and that some repairs have been completed. The inspector reviewed the repair procedure and concluded that the proposed repair method appeared to be adequate to effectively repair the spalled concrete. The above refer-

,

ence NCRs remain open pending completion of the work. The inspector

! will review the status of the NCRs in a future inspection to verify

[ that the repairs have been completed in accordance with the repair procedure and that the repair method was effective in repairing the spalled concrete. This .was identified to the licensee as Inspector Follow-up Item . 389/82-01-01, " Repair of Spalled Concrete Around Embeds."

No violations or deviations were identifie . (0 pen) IE Circular 81-08: Foundation Materials (Unit 2)

,

The licensee has received and reviewed IEC 81-0 The licensee is cur-

! rently evaluating the applicability of this circular to Unit The

,

inspector reviewed an FP&L letter to the Architect-Engineer, EBASCO, l

dated February 18, 1982, requesting information from EBASCO to assist

! in this evaluatio IEC 81-08 remains open pending completion of the

'

licensee's evaluation and review of the licensee's evaluation by NR No violations or deviations were identified.

i l

,

e l-

..- __ _ __ _

! .- . . ,

!

5 (0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, Unit 2 IE Bulletin 80-11 was issued to St. Lucie Unit 2 and other construction l sites for information only. This bulletin was received by the licensee and

+

is presently being evaluated by the licensee and EBASCO, the Architect-Engineer, in order to respond to an NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion (NRR) information request. The information request was transmitted

,

to all licensees with plants under construction in a letter from NRR dated April 21, 1980. This information request asked for data on the design and

'

construction of Category I masonry walls in plants under constructio The inspector discussed the status of the review of the masonry wall construction program in Unit 2 with engineers from the EBASCO Site Support Engineering (ESSE) group. The inspector reviewed procedure number 2-ESSE /

AS-001, " Procedure for Inspection of Concrete Masonry Walls." This proce-dure addresses the methods to be used to identify masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment, preparation of as-built drawings of

,

masonry walls, and documentation of the field inspection effor ESSE engineers have completed a detailed review of general arrangement drawings-i to identify masonry walls which have been or will be constructed in Unit The engineers have completed a walkdown inspection in the plant structures and have verified that no additional masonry walls other than those currently shown on the drawings have been constructe During the walk-down inspections, ESSE engineers used an electronic rebar detector to verify that reinforcing steel and durowall reinforcing wire had been installed in the masonry walls. The ESSE engineers are currently preparing

,

as-built drawings of masonry walls in proximity of safety-related equipmen The as-built drawings show the location of attachments to the walls and indicate the method of attachment. The as-built drawings will be forwarded to EBASCO design engineers for their use when they perform the design eval-

! uation of the masonry walls.

f The inspector made a walkdown inspection of the Reactor Auxiliary Building,

'

Elevations - 0.50 and 43.0, and verified that all masonry walls which have been constructed to date had been identified by ESSE engineers during their drawing review and field walkdown inspecto The inspector noted that installation of attachments to the masonry walls is still in progress at the site. The inspector discussed the program for control and identifica-tion of attachments which are placed on walls after the as built drawings (and possibly the design evaluations) have been completed with the ESSE

'

lead structural engineer. The ESSE structural engineer stated that a memo l' has been written to the EBASCO senior construction engineer requesting the ESSE be notified via a field change request whenever an attachment is placed or a masonry wall after January 20, 1982, the date the as-built drawing preparation was started. The ESSE structural engineer also stated that the

, as-built drawings will be checked against the as-constructed masonry walls

! after construction is completed. The inspector reviewed this memo, dated i January 19, 1982, subject "As Built Block Walls."

!

i

_ _ . . .

.. . .. .

.

IE Bulletin 80-11 remains open pending completion of the licensee response to the NRR information request and further review by NR t No violations or deviations were identified.