IR 05000400/1978007
| ML18003A323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Bradley R, Herdt A, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18003A319 | List: |
| References | |
| 05-402-78-07, 5-402-78-7, 50-400-78-07, 50-400-78-7, 50-401-78-07, 50-401-78-7, 50-403-78-07, 50-403-78-7, NUDOCS 7812210345 | |
| Download: ML18003A323 (8) | |
Text
C
~PS IIE00, P
~4
Cy O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 Docket Nos.:
50-400, 50-401, 50-402 and 50-403 License Nos.:
CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161 r
Categories:
A2, A2, A2, A2 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and
Inspection at; Carolina Power and Light Company, Headquarters Raleigh, North Carolina Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Wake and Chatham Counties North Carolina Inspection conducted:
October 26-27, 1978 Inspectors:
R.
DE Bradley C. E.
urp y
,/
Reviewed by:
A. R. Herdt, Chief Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
/i'o pg ate Ins ection Summa Ins ection on October 26-27 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-400/78-7 50-401/78-7 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 inspection findings, main dam, west auxiliary dam,power block area, yard storage; IE Circular 78-08, and construction deficiency reporting.
The inspection involved 31 inspector hours on-site by two inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
'l 818 g 1,0 (5
RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
R. D.
ra ey, Principa Inspector
.Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
/
o 8 Dates of Inspect'eviewed by:
0 tober 26-27, 1978 P3 7E A. R. Herdt, Chief Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch ate 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Carolina Power and Li ht Com an (CPRL)
M.
~R.
~N S.
G.
A.
AnL A. McDuffie, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Construction M. Parsons, Site Manager J. Chiangi, Manager, Engineering and Construction QA Zimmerman, Manager, Licensing and Siting L'. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist, Project Site M. Lucas, Resident Engineer E. Jones, Principal QA Specialist, Engineering QA b.
Daniel Construction Com an W. D. Goodman, Construction Manager
"Present at site exit interview.
~Present at corporate exit interview The inspectors also interviewed five other employees during the course of the inspection.
They included geologists, QA, and
'icensing personnel.
2.
Licensee Actions on Previous Ins ection Findin s
The following outstanding items were recorded in Regulatory Operations (RO) Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/72-2, and progress on their resolution was documented in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/73-1.
Although necessary corrective actions were concluded, they were not addressed as such by item numbers in subsequent RO inspection reports.
The inclusion of the following items in this inspection report provides clarification of the resolution obtained during subsequent inspections:
RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 I-2 a
~
(Closed)
Item 4 The Ebasco job engineer responsible for the review of specification CAR-SH-AS-1 (Containment Liner) was not utilizing or been issued all applicable procedures of the Ebasco Quality Program (EQP)
pertaining to his assigned program responsibilities.
Resolution The inspectors examined the reports of CPSL corporate QA audits QAA/70-1 conducted at Ebasco in September 1972 and audit QAA/70-2 performed in June 1973, and QA Survey No.
3 conducted in July 1973, by CPGL's Engineering and Construction QA Section.
The CPGL auditors had held discussions with personnel in the affected areas, reviewed QA Manual distribution lists, verified manuals had been issued, revision levels were current, and manuals were in use.
Corrective action for an item noted during the survey pertaining to acknowledgement of manual receipt was discussed
'ith Ebasco and they revised their follow-up tracking system as documented in their letter to CPSL in September 1973.
Ebasco EQP procedure QA-II-2,
"Document Control", establishes requirements for distribution and control of their Nuclear Quality Assurance Program Manual, and its modification and/or revision.
Updating Status Memoranda are published semi-annually by the Ebasco Quality Program Coordinator to summarize all revisions that have been made to the corporate QA Manual during the preceding six months.
This provides each manual holder with a, means of determining whether their manual is current.
b.
(Closed)
Item 28 The Ebasco QA program does not clearly provide the applicant (CPM,)
a means to measure the effectiveness of Ebasco QA systems or provide for adequate audit of addendum instructions applicable to this project.
Resolution As noted in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/72-2, CPM in response to this item, stated that their audit program would include engineering audits of Ebasco and that audit frequency and depth of audit would be commensurate with appropriate assurance that requirements would be met.
A follow-up inspection of CPM.
audit activities documented in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/73-1 noted that CPSL's audits of Ebasco indicate reasonable effectiveness but that audit frequency should be incgegqe RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 I-3 RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/74-1 reported that the frequency of CPM,'s audits and surveys had been increased and the depth of detail documented has, in general, improved. It was also noted that based on a review of a report of Ebasco (QAA/70-3),
a statement of program adequacy was not included.
In a subsequent follow-up inspection of CPM., Region II stated in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/74-3, that based on a review of current audit and survey reports, the agenda, checklist, informa-tion documentation, conclusions, and follow-up information is adequate and that a reasonable program was being implemented by CPSL.
Additionally, the RO report stated that audit agenda, checklists, and reports routinely provide for items that were deferred from a previous inspection and for unresolved items that were detailed in the comments developed by the audits.
C, (Closed)
Item 29 Recommendations of the (Ebasco)
QA Audit Committee appear incom-pletely resolved.
Resolution As stated in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/72-2, CPM, resolved that their audit activity would assure (Ebasco's)
timely response of unresolved items.
A follow-up inspection of CPSL's audit program in June 1973, recorded in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/73-1, disclosed that recent audit reporting had improved but the review of audit reports did not indicate that CPRL audits were systematic until report QAA/70-3.
As reported in RO Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, and 403/74-1, a review of two audit files including QAA/70-3 (previously reported as QAA/300-3), showed that they did identify the auditors, audit plan, summary results, follow-up action and final statement acknowledging corrective actions.
As pointed out in the second paragraph of the resolution for Item 28 above, a statement of program adequ'acy was lacking; however, as noted, subsequent Region II inspection verified that audit documentation was adequate and that a reasonable program was being implemented.
A review of CPM audit reports of Ebasco, QAA/70-3 and QAA/70-4, as well as Survey Report No. 8, disclosed no further problem with the timeli-ness of Ebasco's resolution of unresolved audit items.
These items are closed.
3.
Unresolved Items There were no unresolved items identified as a result of this inspectio RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 I-4 4.
Inde endent Ins ection Effort a.
General l
The inspectors performed a walk-through inspection of the site which included observaton of containment liner erection activities; power block area major excavation; field storage; and main and west auxiliary dam sites.
In the areas covered during this independent inspection effort, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
Cor orate Qualit Assurance Pro rams The licensee informed the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on October 16, 1978, that they intend to make minor changes in their Corporate Quality Assurance Program.
In discussions at the corporate office on October 27, 1978, it was determined that the functional responsibility for performance of quality assurance audits of the NSSS supplier, the architect-engineer, and each of their vendors as well as other outside contractors, will be shifted from the Corporate Nuclear Safety and Quality Assurance Audit Section to the Engineering and Construction Quality Assurance Section.
As described in the PSAR for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP), the functional responsibility for performance of quality assurance audits internally within CPSJ.
remains with the Corporate Nuclear Safety and Quality Assurance Audit Section.
These responsibility changes are effective October 31, 1978, and are being made to reduce a large amount of redundant surveys and audits presently conducted by both sections'Changes will be reflected through revision of the Corporate Quality Assurance Manual and incorporation into the SHNPP Final Safety Analysis Report.
c ~
Construction Deficienc Re ortin (10 CFR 50.55(e))
The inspectors reviewed revision 3 of the licensee's procedure,
"Evaluating Deficiencies in Accordance with
CFR 50.55(e)."
The procedure establishes responsibility for review of deficien-cies, notification to Region II, submission of written reports and guidance to assist applicable departments in evaluating deficiencies to determine reportability.
The inspectors were informed how the current system operates both at the site and at the corporate offices.
In continuing discussion the following responsiblities were covered in detail:
timely reporting of deficiencies which could eventually be determined as reportable; when the 30 day reporting timeframe co'mmences; and the requirements for written reports. It was agreed that Region II
RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-7, 50-401/78-7, 50-402/78-7 and 50-403/78-7 I-5 will be notified within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of any deficiency which is considered by CP&L to be significant and has the potential for being determined as reportable in accordance with the requirements of
CFR 50.55(e).
A written interim report will be submitted to Region II within 30 days after initial notification whenever the evaluation is incomplete and the deficiency remains potentially reportable.
The need to revise existing procedures for 55(e)
matters was brought to the attention of the licensee and is identified as Inspection Followup Item 50-400, 401, 402, 403/78-07-01.
CPM has subsequently agreed to revise their procedures to reflect the discussion outlined above.
d.
Ins ection and Enforcement Circular (IEC) 78-08
'he inspectors held discussions with CPSL Licensing and Siting management personnel regarding the planning for accomplishing the examination requested in IEC 78-08,
"Environmental qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at Nuclear Power Plants".
The architect-engineer, Ebasco, has been contacted and a program outlined for them to examine safety-related electrical equipment to ensure appropriate documentation of its qualification to function under postulated accident conditions.
Components and their respective systems will be selected on a random basis with Westinghouse providing assistance as required to complete the program.
A report will be prepared containing a detailed descrip-tion of the program with a listing of the selected components and systems.
The documentation available will be identified and a
statement as to its adequacy will be included by Ebasco.
5.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection at the site on October 26, 1978, and at the corporate offices on October 27, 1978.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as follows: site inspection, previous inspection findings, construction deficiency reporting, and IE Circular 78-08.
No items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identifie ~ g,~
\\
~l II