IR 05000400/1980010
| ML18017B065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1980 |
| From: | Bradley R, Rausch J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B064 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-80-10, NUDOCS 8005190608 | |
| Download: ML18017B065 (4) | |
Text
~R REOII (4
+4 O
l ef
++*++
Report No. 50-400/80-10 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGiON II 101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 S Op5g9p gg3'icensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Facility:
Shearon Harris, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-400 License No.
CPPR-158 Meeting in Regi Inspector:
R. D. Br dl y ice in Atlanta, Georgia 6/so eo Date Signed Approved by: ~
J.
. Rausch, cting Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY
~
~
A corporate management meeting was held April 17, 1980, to discuss the circumstances surrounding the omission of reinforcement steel in the Unit 1 containment building exterior wall.
This meeting involved 16 inspector hour DETAILS l.
Attendees Licensee M. A. McDuffie, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Construction Group P.
W. Howe, Vice President, Technical Services S.
D. Smith, Vice President, Power Plant Construction A. M. tucas, Senior Resident Engineer A. B. Cutter, Manager, Nuclear Power Plant Engineering NRC
~
~
~
~
R. D. Bradley, Prx 2.
Management Meeting J.
P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II J.
C. Bryant, Acting Assistant to the Director Region II A. R. Herdt, Acting Chief, RECS Branch J.
K. Rausch, Acting Section Chief, RCES Branch T. Conlon, Section Chief, RCES Branch J. J. Lenahan, Reactor Inspector, RCES Branch
'ncipal Inspector, RCES Branch At the request of NRC Region II, representatives of Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) management met on April 17, 1980 with Region II personnel in Atlanta, Georgia to discuss a construction deficiency reported to the RII principal inspector on April 9, 1980.
The deficiency pertained to omission of twenty-five bars of reinforcement steel in the Unit 1 containment building exterior wall, adjacent to the construction opening for the equipment hatch.
GPSS'dvised that placement of concrete containing rebar in the containment exterior wall had been discontinued pending resolution of the deficiency and approval of the NRC to resume such placements.
In reply to the RII Confirmation of Action letter issued to CPSL on April 10, 1980, the licensee provided a written response and presented the following information during the meeting:
a ~
Investigative findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the reported omission of reinforcement steel.
b.
Results of an audit to identify similar rebar omissions which may have occurred during previous exterior wall concrete placements.
This audit utilized information developed from the above investigation.
C ~
Remedial actions to assure the exterior wall will be restored to'esign requirement d.
Preventive actions that will be taken to minimize the probability of recurrence in the future.
With regard to the preceding items, a. through d., the licensee concluded that:
a
~
Based on an intensive and comprehensive investigation, the root cause leading to the rebar omission was the unique notation referencing the
"additional steel" (25 bars)
on the main reinforcing drawing.
All other reinforcement bars were shown pictorially.
The significance of the notation was not fully recognized due to its location on the drawing and due to the complexity of the rebar design and its geometry.
The licensee is also of the opinion that lack of or lack of proper training were not contributing deficiency. It was pointed out that this is the penetration reinforcement bars extend beyond the reinforcing drawing.
technical competence, factors to this only case where blockout on a main b.
No omission of rebar was found during the audit of previous placements that would have compromised safety or structural integrity of the containment exterior wall.
C ~
Design requirements for the structural integrity of the containment exterior wall can be achieved by adding additional rebar and altering the configuration of replacement bars installed adjacent to the previous placement.
This method of repair has been approved by the licensee's architect-engineer, Ebasco.
d.
The omission of rebar from the exterior wall of the Unit No.
1 contain-ment building was a unique situation precipitated by an unusual mode of notation on the drawing and did not represent a breakdown in CPSL's program or controls.
The probability of a recurrence in the future will be minimal after full implementation of the following preventive actions on April 22, 1980:
(1)
Independent detailed tabulations of exterior wall bars by type and location will be prepared by field engineers and construction inspectors from the design drawings in advance of preplacement inspections.
Differences in tabulations will be resolved in advance of field inspection.
(2)
The area engineer for the exterior wall will be required to review the rebar drawing with the construction inspector before he signifies design approval of the concrete placement report.
This review will emphasize a search for details on referenced drawings that are obscure or unusual.
(3)
The equality Assurance field audit program will be modified to monitor a few of the more difficult details of placements rather
"3" than one hundred percent of selected placements.
Special emphasis will be placed on columns and "additional steel" of various types.
(4)
A drawing review will be conducted to identify similar potential problem areas on the exterior wall.
A field engineer responsible for rebar verification has been assigned to the exterior wall on a full time basis.
(6)
The area rebar superintendent has been instructed to closely coordinate the activities of crews working various portions of the exterior wall to ensure crews are aware of overlapping work.
(7)
Administrative action will be taken to ensure that first-line and second-line supervisors perform field audits on the people they supervise.
The performance of individuals doing field installations and inspections will be monitored.
(8)
Ebasco design engineers will review reinforcing drawings and problem areas with the area engineer.
Special emphasis will be given to rebar details that may be obscure'on the drawings, and more complicated or intricate areas of installation.
The items presented above were discussed at length with COL and they have committed to re-examining the preventive actions for possible implementation in other disciplines, and other areas that are highly stressed and/or complex.
The results of this re-examination will be documented in a supplemental response to RII.
NRC approval to resume placement of concrete in the exterior wall will be predicated on the acceptability of the licensee's supplemental response and examination of their actions during a subsequent civil inspection by Region II.