IR 05000400/1980005
| ML18017B009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B007 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-80-05, 50-400-80-5, 50-401-80-05, 50-401-80-5, 50-402-80-05, 50-403-80-05, NUDOCS 8004070043 | |
| Download: ML18017B009 (6) | |
Text
, +i
~R REOII (4
~4
"o I'y 0O j
~v
+~
~0
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-400/80-05, 50-401/80-05, 50-402/80-05 and 50-403/80-05 Iicensee:
Carolina Power 8 Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, and 50-403 License Nos.
CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161 Inspection at Shearon Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector:
J.
arras 9$-
o Da e Signed Approved T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RCSES Branch-gp-ga Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on February 14-15, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 13 inspector-hours on site in the areas of structural concrete and lakes, dams and canals.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8 004 Ovo OqD
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
+R.
M. Parsons, Site Manager
+A. M. Lucas, Penior Resident Engineer
<G. L. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist W. 0. Pridgen, Civil Engineer D. S.
Canady, Geologist Other licensee employees contacted included 2 construction craftsmen and
QA specialists.
Other Organizations W. D.
Goodman, Project Manager, Daniel Construction Company I. Ciloglu, Geologist, Ebasco-Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 15, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection The inspector examined foundation mapping and curing of the concrete seal mat for the Unit 1 diesel generator building and ongoing repair operations to voids in the concrete around hot and cold leg penetrations in the Unit
containment primary shield wall.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie,
Lakes, Dams and Canals - Observation of Work and work Activities, Units 1, 2,
3 and
The inspector examined excavations and geologic mapping in the main dam core trench and spillway.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector were:
a.
PSAR, Section 2 and Appendix 2E b.
SER, Section 2.5 c.
CAR-SH-CH-4, Embankments and Dams, Dikes 'and Channels Observations included examination of final excavations, licensee identified faults and geologic mapping in the main dam core trench from stations 0+10 to 2+00 and final excavations and cleanup in the spillway invert from stations 9+80 to 10+20.
Preliminary mapping of the spillway invert was not completed during the inspection.
The inspector also examined final mapping and a preliminary geologic report on licensee reported anomalies in the east wall of the spillway between stations 11+50 and 12+18.
Excavations are in folded Pre-Triassic hornblende gneiss and gneissic granite with infolds of mica shist.
Observations of faults and mapping are as follows:
a
~
Main dam core trench, station 0+10 to 2+00 (1)
A6 strikes N40 degrees E, dips 70 degrees SE and is shown by Q-inch of right lateral separation of an epidote vein at dam station 1+89.
The fault crosses an apalite dike to the southeast and fault F to the northeast without offset.
(2)
G2 and G3 are subparallel faults at dam station 1+57 which strike N69 E and.N65 E respectively.
They are shown by 1 to lg inches of right lateral offset of a granite pegmatite dike.
The faults are crossed by several joints along strike without offset.
(3)
G bifurcates into two vertical faults striking N75 degrees E and N82 degrees E at dam stations 1+87 and 1+89.
Faulting is shown by 14 and 3 inches of left lateral offset respectively of an apalite dike.
The fault is crossed by an epidote vein without offset.
(4)
F5 strikes N65 degrees to N73 degrees E, dips vertical and is shown by 5 inches of left lateral separation of an epidote vein at dam station 1+74.
The fault is crossed along strike by several joints without offset.
(5)
H strikes N58 degrees W, has a vertical dip and is shown by 2 inches of right lateral offset of a 3 inch wide apalite dike at dam station 1+84.
The fault is infilled with epidote and is crossed without offset by a quartz filled fractur (6)
I strikes N57 degrees W, dips 82 degrees NE and is shown by 12 inches of left lateral separation of a granite pegmatite dike.
The fault is infilled with epidote and crosses fault G2-G3 without offset.
(7)
C2 strikes N15 degrees W, has a vertical dip and is shown by a 3/4 inch right lateral offset of a granite pegmatite at dam station 1+62.
The fault extends 7 inches along strike and crosses an apalite dike without offset.
b.
Spillway east wall, station 11+50 to 12+18 (1)
F4 strikes N60 degrees E, dips 50 degrees SE and is shown by 6 inches of left lateral offset of a 3 inch wide granite dike in the east spillway wall opposite spillway centerline station ll+90.
The fault is filled with quartz and terminates within four feet in a southeast direction.
(2)
Spillway features 1 and 2 occur in the east spillway wall opposite centerline station ll+59 and 12+02 respectively.
These features were originally reported as anomalies and now as a resut of detailed mapping are not considered to be faults.
This conclusion is based on observations which showed that apparent offsets are illusions created by intersection of joints with sudden widenings of granitic dikes.
Also the features are crossed along strike by fractures and joints without offset.
c.
Spillway invert, station 9+80 to 10+40 Excavations were completed in granite with infolds of mica shist from station 9+80 to 10+40.
Final cleanup was finished from station 9+80 to 10+20 and mapping operations were underway.
No faults were reported by the licensee or observed by the inspector.
Faulting is not antici-pated in this section as faults have not been commonly associated with the granite suite at this site.
Geologic mapping and site preparation were in accordance with NRC requirements.
Final geologic reports and mapping will be subm'itted to NRR for review.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie s e