IR 05000397/1983036
| ML20024F376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1983 |
| From: | Albert W, Dodds R, Herring K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F373 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-83-36, NUDOCS 8309090324 | |
| Download: ML20024F376 (4) | |
Text
.
O
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION.V Report No. 50-397/83-36
'
DScket No. 50-397 License No. CPPR-93 Safeguards Group
,
Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System i
P.:O.jBox:968
Richland, Washington 99352
,
'
~
- ' Facility Name: WNP-2
,
'
Inspection at: Construction Site-Inspection conducted: July 25-27, 1983
A Inspectors:
W. G. Albert, Senior Resident Inspection, WNP-3 D6te/ Signed
.
^
d2 00rArtn y}</c1 K. E. Herring, IE '
Da'te / Signed Approved by:
[r!/f f)
R. Mdds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1 Date Signed Summary:
Inspection During the Period of July 25-27, 1983 (Report No. 50-397/83-36)
Area Inspected: Nonroutine, announced inspection of activities being performed by the licensee to resolve outstanding items related to concrete structures.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified within the scope of this i
inspection. However, the inspection was a follow-up on a previously identified item of noncompliance and a significant finding of the Construction Assessment Team (CAT).
8309090324 030816 PDR ADOCK 05000397 G
. ;
-
,,
- - -
-
.,-.
- - -
- -. -
- _ - -
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _.
'
N r
'.
. s.
DETAILS
,
'
-1.
Persons' Contacted The inspecto5hinterviewed various engineering, management, inspection and
'
.
construction personnel of the organizations listed below. Key personnel,
'
all of whom' attended the exit interview, are specifically identified below:
,
';
.
.
-
..
a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (Licensee or Supply System)
,
H.~ Crisp, Construction ~ Manager
'
~
e
. b.
Burns'and Roe (AE or B&R)
v
~
I t.
..
,
f N-J. Richardson', Assistant Chief Civil Engineer s4 R. Sanan, Civil Enginee, ring Group Supervisor S.' Shah, Civil Engineer
,
'
[
c.
Westinghouse (Consultaht)
R. Orr, Manager,' Structural Analysis 2.
. Action-on Previously Unresolved, Follow-up, and Enforcement Items (Open)' Enforcement Item (50-397/83-13-03) - Improper Concrete Repairs Inspection Report 50-397/83-14 discusses an NRC finding with regard to inadequate bonding of repaired concrete and a concern regarding the presence of " honeycomb" concrete in the areas which had to be repaired again. This " honeycomb" indicated that concrete had not initially been
~
-excavated to sound concrete prior to making the initial repair, as required by the ACI Code.
=The concern' expressed by the Region V resident inspector in Inspection Report 50-397/83-14~was amplified during examination of the problem by
-
the NRC Construction Assessment Team (CAT) which found that reinforcing steel,in certain concrete beams did not show placement in accordance with-the design and ACI Codes. These additional concerns are discussed in CAT
-
- Inspection Report 50-397/83-29.
-During and following the CAT inspection described in NRC Inspection i
Report'50-397/83-29, the licensee had made a total of 23 excavation in 17 different plant areas of structures in an effort to establish that:
- a.
Honeycomb was not a prevalent plant condition and was evidenced by surface condition where it did exist.
.b.
Rebars were not missing.
c.
1Rebar placement was satisfactory.
In addition,Lthe AE had made calculations of minimum required rebars for design loads after' construction.
.. -....
...
J_-___-_-_____
_
'..,.
-
.
L
-
y.
"
,
.
.
,
-,
.
v
-
,
...
'
r 1In this inspection, the NRC inspectorsmexamined the most recent concrete excavations and~ discussed the resolution of concerns with the licensee
~
and AE. The NRC found that:,,
~
a.
The reinforcing, steel in Beam l2B5 did-meet.the requirement of the
. design as far as size 'and quantity! The licensee's recent excavations,showed three layers of rebars;in the bottom of the beam arranged in a. 5-5-4 configuration rather. than a 7-7 configuration as shown on~the designe
'
b.'
The rebar dowels missing in beams 2B11 and 3B18 were not evident.in
.the further excavation performed.
'
c.
The as-built sketches of the 17 excavated areas were not completely accurate in two. areas. Significant inaccuracies were evident in the sketch for a recent excavation into the fuel pool vall.
'
d.
. Consolidation did appear satisfactory in those areas recently
'
excavated to establish the absence of " honeycomb" in non-beam structures.
ee.
The splices in a through-wall excavation made for.a ventilation duct
.in the east exterior wall of the reactor building (line 3.4 8' north of line N) did not appear to meet design requirements for staggered
'
splices in the horizontal rebars. The licensee's position was that an extra rebar: had been added to compensate for accumulat.;d differences in spacing between the wall bars and the column dowels to which the wall bars were. spliced. Thus the licensee's position was:that there is no reason to believe that the splices were not staggered as required.
An' approved design change for the use of such extra bars had been made and this was examined by the NRC.
The NRC inspectors questioned the need for the design change and
'whether-it was actually-used because the required spacing could be
- maintained-between the-lapped bars in any event.
f.
Design drawings and detail drawings showed significant-differences in the arrangement-and amount.of steel re' quired at the construction joint which was located at the excavation into the pool wall. The
,
extent'to which this location had been excavated was insufficient to
- establish that the detail' design had.been met.
g.
. Bethlehem Drawing BS-RB-33 designated a' lap splice as "C-2."
L However, this detail-and the design did not depict a Class C splice per se but rather an overlap C-2 in length with approximately a one t'
foot spacing.
,.
L 3.
Exit Meeting-
.On July 27, 1983, the NRC inspectors. met.with the individuals listed in paragraph 1..The NRC explained their. concerns regarding the following:
L
-
4.
.
- , 7
_
The-as-built / sketches for the excavated areas where not' completely a.
'
,
correct.
l'
_
.
..
<
>,
,
,
,
.
,
,
'
L
- a
,
.
.
,
?
-
7
-
,
L
__ _
,
.
th,
~
'
,
'
w
--e m ; ~
.
,,
'
'
..
,
-
'
L,
.
,
.
.
<
b.
The as-built sketches prepared were referenced to design
.. descriptions which had not been thoroughly researched. For instance,-twice during the course of this inspection, RFIs (field design change documents) had to be retrieved from archives to establish that observations of the inspectors were not discrepancies from design.
In one case the detail drawing represented a
"
significant change from the design drawings, but only the design drawing was presented.
~
,
'c.
The excavation of the fuel pool wall was inadequate to establish the presence of the required three layers of number 10 rebar.
d.
The control between detail drawings and the design drawings is not fully understood and the NRC wishes to establish what the B&R procedures have been in this regard.
In the specific instance of the fuel pool wall, the NRC is requesting the documentation supporting the design change review which had to have taken place when a less conservative configuration of rebar than that shown on the design drawing was adopted by the detail drawings.
The licensee stated that they were continuing with their examination of areas which were visually or sonically suspicious and that an examination of noncomformance reports dealing with concrete repairs would be made for evidence of significant honeycomb defects. Further, in response to the NRC concerns stated above, the following would be done:
a.
All as-built sketches would be reviewed.
b.
All applicable RFIs pertaining to the structures under examination would be retrieved and compared to the as-built design sketches.
c.
Further excavation of the fuel pool wall vill be considered.
However, in all cases of concrete excavation, the licensee has expressed reservations regarding the need for such action, pointing out that many partial-excavations only give rise to further questions which cannot be answered without successively greater excavations.
d.
B&R will provide the procedures governing the control of changes to the design when detail drawings are generated. Also, the calculations performed at the time the design of the fuel pool wall was changed by the detail drawings will be provided.
i e.
A third party audit was being conducted on how the NRC's concerns with concrete-structures were being resolved.
.
,
I r
a-
-
4