IR 05000400/1980021
| ML18017B240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1980 |
| From: | Bryant J, Maxwell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B239 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-80-21, 50-401-80-19, 50-402-80-19, 50-403-80-19, NUDOCS 8010080226 | |
| Download: ML18017B240 (11) | |
Text
~R AEoo
+
A
'. e
~O (
++*++
'Zn Reply Refer To:
RII:GFM.
50"400/80"21 50-401/80"19 50-402/80-19 50-403/80"19 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 RFp f 9 1980 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: J. A. 'Jones Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by G. F. Maxwell of this office on August 18 through 29, 1980 of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos.
CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160, and CPPR-161 for the Shearon Harris facility, and to the discussion of our findings held with R. Parsons at the conclusion of the inspection.
~
~
~
~
With'in the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclosed.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice",
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure.
Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report willbe placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, C. E. Murphy, Chic Reactor Construction and Engineering
'upport Branch
Enclosure:
See Page
so>oooo Qpt'
f v
I P
Carolina Fower and Light Company SEP f2 ~eso Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos. 50-400/80-21, 50-401/80-19, 50-402/80-19, and 50-403/80-19
REGION II==
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-400/80-21, 50-401/80-19, 50-402/80-19 and 50-403/80-19 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402 and 50-403 License Nos.
CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161 Inspection at Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector:
G.
.
axwel ate Signed Approved by:
J
. Bryant ection Chief, RCES Branch SUHHARY Inspection on August 18-29, 1980 Areas Inspected ate Signed This routine resident inspection involved 56 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Handling and storage, soils campaction and testing, concrete placement and testing, and fire prevention and protection.
Results Of the 4 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
+A.M.'Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
""G. L. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist-W. E. Seyler, Project Civil Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included 10 construction craftsmen,
technicians, 2 mechanics and 7 office personnel.
Other Organizations B. B. Isom, Daniel Construction Manager
.
Other NRC Personnel-J.
C. Bryant, NRC Region II Section Chief-Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 28, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved Items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Handling and Storage - Unit 1 a ~
Evaluated a special instruction, SI8, which CBSI planned to use for guidance during a move of Unit 1 containment dome.
The dome was moved by a special method which utilized low pressure air as the transporting medium.
The dome was then directed to another location, over a distance of about 250 yards, by the use of an attached caterpillar.
The first attempt to move the dome was not successful.
However, after re-loca-ting the attached low pressure blowers, which supplied the low pressure air, the move was successfully completed.
b.
Toured the outside storage areas and the reactor auxiliary building l.
Observed numerous seismic I pipe hanger parts piled in at least five places at elevation 236'.
Some of the piles had other materials and
e
debris laying under on and round the hanger parts.
The other materials and debris consisted of:
conduit, wood, food, paper and an electrical cable tray.
The inspector brought this concern to the attention of CPSI, management.
Immediate corrective was taken to relocate and properly store the hanger parts to reduce the possibility of them being lost or damaged.
The responsible Daniel supervisory personnel were reminded, by CPSL, of the intent of work procedure WP-110 as it applies to the placement of warehouse issued pipe hangers into "desig-nated storage areas".
The inspector has no further questions about
'this matter, at this time.
c ~
Evaluate the drawings and procedures which were to be used for the lifting and setting of Unit
containment dome.
The drawings and procedures included CPRL procedure WP-07, 960-30; CB&I procedure SI-9, drawings ER-17 and ER-18.
Observed the assembly of the rigging equip-ment that was
,used during the lifting of the dome (turn-buckels, lifting slings, fastening of the dome lifting adapter).
Observed the lifting and placement of the dome onto the containment liner.
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
6.
Soils Compaction and Testing - Units 1-4 Observed the placement, compaction and testing of some of the soil (transi-tion filter) 1,ocated at station 4 + 00 on the west auxiliary dam, reference drawing CAR-2167-G-6272.
The tests observed, relative density, revealed that the particular lifts which had been placed at or near elevation 243'ad inadequate density (less than 80-90$ ).
Subsequently, the soil required additional compaction prior to allowing any further placement in the affected areas.
The test (sand cone)
sample was taken in accordance with ASTM C-136 and C117 requirements.
In the areas inspected, no i.tems of noncompliance or deviation were observed.
7.
Concrete Placement and Testing - Unit 1-4 a ~
Observed pre-placement condition of the west auxiliary dam spillway concrete pour numbered WADST101.
Observed the placement and consoli-dation of the concrete at pour number WADST102, another west auxiliary dam spillway pour.
The on-going work was found to be in accordance with ACI 304, Section 6.4 and ACI 309, Section 7.1.
Design mix M-56 was the designated mix for both of the above pours, requiring a maximum temperature of 90 degrees F and slump of zero to four inches.
b.
Observed the testing of the concrete which was to be used during a
patch (P5) for concrete located at-pour number 1FHSL261037.
The concrete slump, air and temperature were found to meet the design requirements (design mix M-56).
As a result; observed that the concrete air meter which was being used to check the air content displayed the incorrect calibration control serial number.
The inspector informed the responsible test personnel of this conditio Immediate corrective action was'aken to attain the correct calibration control number for the air meter.. The inspector has no further questions about this matter, at this time.
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
8.
Zire Prevention and Protection - Units 1-4 a.,
Evaluated the training records for the members of the first and second shift fire brigade.
Observed that both shifts have a designated fire brigade leader and the required number of members.
Training sessions have been conducted at the frequencies required'y Procedure AP-VII-05.
b.
Evaluated the inspection records for the fire houses, fire extinguishers, the semi-annual inspections of the fire protection system and the annual inspection of the fire protection pumps.
As a result of the evaluation and observation of the operation of the fire pumps, the inspector observed:
(1)
The discharge pressure reading at the pressure guage, located adjacent to the fire pumps, displayed a pressure reading of 270-290 psig.
(2)
The applicable procedure, AP-VII-05 paragraph 4.1.3, requires that none of the fire pumps should be running after a pressure of 158 psi has been attained.
(3)
The 7 1/2 HP and 40 HP fire pumps were cycling on and off between 210 and 290 psig.
/
(4)
Procedure AP-VII-05 requires that these pumps cycle on and off between 103 PSi and 123 psi for the 7 1/2 HP pump and 93 psi and 148 psi for the 40 HP pump.
The inspector discussed the above observations with the responsible Daniel personnel.
As a result:
the pressure guage was found to indicate erroneous pressure readings and was replaced and adjustments were made to require the fire pumps to cycle on and off correctly.
The inspector has no further questions about this matter, at this time.
c d.
The inspector observed the stored condition of approximately 25 portable fire extinguishers located throughout the plant site.
Each extinguisher displayed tags indicating that they had been recently inspected and each displayed a breakable lock to further assure and show that they had been inspected and should work.
Observed burning and welding activities at eight locations throughout the plant; portable fire extinguishers were located in the proximimity of the affected work areas.
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.