IR 05000400/1980025
| ML18017B303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1980 |
| From: | Bryant J, Maxwell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B300 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-80-25, 50-401-80-23, 50-402-80-23, 50-403-80-23, NUDOCS 8012190385 | |
| Download: ML18017B303 (12) | |
Text
'l C
lp
+4
Cy p%
0O IVl
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N,W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,G EORG IA30303 Peport No.
50-400/80-25, 50-401/80-23, 50-402/80-23 and 50-403/80-23 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Paleigh, 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 Harr'is site ear Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector:
-'
Pic v -, ~
.
F.
Naxwel Approved by:
~
. m ~84/c'I J.
. Bryant, Section ief, RCES Branc SUMMARY Inspection on September 29 - October 31, 1980
//'-pc-g~
Date Signed
//- ~g-/y Areas Inspected This routine resident inspection involved 93 inspector-hours on site in the areas of concrete and soils, pipe and structural welding and equipment storage.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in one area; three items of noncompliance were found in two ar.eas (Deficiency - Failure to control outdated drawings; Deficiency - failure to provide instructions for verification data collection and reporting; Deficiency - failure to clearly establish duties and responsibilities for gA personnel).
8 012100
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
- A. M. Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
- G. L. Forehand, Principal OA Specialist
- C. M. Simpson, Principal Construction Inspector
- C.
R.
Osman, Project gA Specialist
- C. S. Hinnant, Resident Fngineer E.
E. Willett, Principal Mechanical Engineer
- R. Hanford, Principal Welding Fngineer Other licensee employees contacted included 38 construction craftsmen, 5 technicians, 1 operator, 3 mechanics, and 18 office personnel.
Other Organizations
- W. D.
Goodman, Project Manager, Daniel Construction Company
- B. B.
Isam, Daniel Construction tianager
- Attended exit interview 2.
Fxit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 3 and 30, 1980 those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Pipe and Structural Steel Welding and Installation
'a ~
Observed pre-heating, fit-up, in-process and final visual inspection of the following welds; as specified:
(1)
IFW-27 (field weld 500); observed pre-heat and in-process welding.
(2)
Weld joint between spool pieces A2-231-I-CC-164-6 and I-CC-164-5; observed fit-up, in-process welding and final visual inspection of the completed wel The site welder qualification status report indicated that the welders who were applying the welds noted above had current qualifications for the processes being applied.
b.
Selected ten drawings from a stick. of drawings which were located on a wor k bench in the common building for both reactor auxiliary building number I and 2.
Seven of the selected drawings were found not to be of the most cur rent revisions.
The inspector was informed by CP&L site gA that:
(I)
By further inspection CP&L has found that a total of 27 of the drawings which were on the drawing stick were not the most current revisions.
(2)
Only one of the outdated (27) drawings has been actually used to install safety-related materials, And that the 'revisions which were made to the drawing does not alter the materials (seismic
HVAC or Class 1E cable tray supports)
which have been installed.
( 3)
A survey was conducted by CP&L site AA to determine if there are other work groups at the site which are not correctly controlling outdated construction documents (reference OC field report 0-011).
The results of the survey indicated that of the document holders surveyed only one outdated drawing was not being properly controlled.
(4)
The outdated drawings, which were identified by OA personnel, have been replaced by current revisions.
( 5)
A letter was sent to field personnel, who are on distribution for drawings, reminding them of the requirements that only current drawings are to be used for construction.
Field personnel were also reminded of the need to control and identify outdated drawings (reference letters DC-2873 and TS-TS/A9.2/840).
Informed CP&L site management personnel that failure to require control of outdated drawings is contrary to Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, as implemented by CP&L's PSAR section 1.8.5.6, CP&L's Corporate OA Program Part I Section 8.3.5 and administrative procedure AP-IX-02 sections 3.6. 1.2 and 4.4.2.
This is an item of noncompliance; Failure to control outdated installation drawings (400/80-25-01; 401/80-23-01).
However, since sufficient action has been taken to indicate that outdated drawings are not being used to consturct at the Harris site, a
written response will not he required for this item.
c ~
Observed backfilling operations for portions of emergency service water lines identified on drawings 2Sl<-9, 2SM-R, 1SM-54 and 1SW-53.
Fvaluated the applicable four "buried pipe installation
forms" for the pipe spool pieces that are depicted on the aforementioned drawings.
Observed that the forms did not display any signatures or distinguishing marks to indicate that the pipe spool pieces had been checked or reviewed hy those responsible for:
(1)
Accepting completed weld connections (2)
Final acceptance for backfill was not signed by; (a)
Ouality Assurance (gA)
(b)
Construction Inspection (CI)
The inspector brought the above conditions to the attention of CP&L site management personnel.
As a result, CP&L OA and CI personnel conducted extensive reviews of all of the previously conducted site inspection records, as they relate to the use of work procedure (NP-102) form exhibit 1 noted above.
Documentary evidence was shown to the inspector which indicated that the welds had been accepted.
The applicable CI and AA inspections had been completed prior to the start of the backfill operation.
upon evaluating the'work procedure (WP-102), which contains the mentioned exhibit 1, observed a lack of the necessary instructions or guidance to determine how to properly implement the form.
Prior to the. end of this reporting period the necessary revisions were made to WP-102 to assure that required personnel have checked, reviewed and documented acceptance prior to burying safety-related piping.
Informed CP&L site management personnel that failure to provide procedures or insturctions with sufficient information, regarding the use of the applicable inspection forms, is contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, as implemented by CP&L's PSAR Sction 1.8.5.5 and CP&L's Corporate gA Program Part I Sections 6.2. l.c through 6.?.1.
e.
This is an item of noncompliance Failure to provide instructions for verifiction data collection and reporting (400;80-25-02; 401/80-23-02).
However since sufficient instructions have been provided to those implementing WP-102, prior to the end of this reporting period, a
written response will not be required for this item.
During a tour of reactor auxiliary common building number 1&2 the inspector observed a handful (about one pound) of E-7018 coated welding electrodes lying on the floor at elevation 286'.
Brought this unsatisfactory condition to the attention of responsible CP&L gA personnel.
Action was taken to dispose of these cold, unused welding electrodes.
The inspector informed CP&L manaqement personnel that failure to correctly control and store welding
electrodes is another example of the noncompliance identified by other RII ispection personnel as item 400/80-23-02.
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
6.
Equipment Storage and Protection Units 1-4 a.
Reviewed the field's working copy of the maintenance records for all safety-related equipment which has been released for installation.
b.
Selected five pumps, five motors and four heat exchangers to determine if they were being adequately protected and stored after being released for installation.
Observed the stored conditions of those selected:
(1)
The space heaters for each of the motors were found to be energized.
However the main terminal box cover for one of the motors safety charging pump motor 1C-SAB, was not placed over-and protecting the motor's power leads.
The inspector informed the maintenance foreman of this condition; the cover was immediately placed back over the power leads.
(2)
The pumps were covered to protect them from dust and debris.
The motors for component cooling water pumps 1C-SAB and 1A-SA were placed on supports adjacent to their pumps in llnit I reactor auxiliary building at elevation 236', near the southeast wall.
The motor shafts were covered with plastic covers.
(3)
The four heat exchanqers had pressure guages indicatina that they had been pressurized with gas.
The inspector was informed by CP&L personnel that nitrogen was used as the protective gas for storing the heat exchangers.
c.
Interviewed those personnel responsible for the maintenance of safety-related equipment that has been released for installation.
Also, interviewed CP8L electrical and mechanical OA personnel.
As a result of the interviews, reviews of gA surveillance reports related to storage and equipment that has been released for installation and review of the applicable procedures (COA-12, CgA-13, CgA-21 and COA-22); observed that the responsibilities for inspecting the stored condition and observation of maintenance on warehouse released equipment has not been clearly defined.
Failure to have these responsibilities clearly defined has resulted in:
no observation by either mechanical or electrical CP8L OA of such in-process maintenance activities as insulation resistance testing of Class 1F. warehouse released motors, shaft rotation of warehouse released safety-related pumps and motors,
changing of oil or lubrication of warehouse released safety-related pumps and or motors.
Prior to the end of this reporting period observed that CP8L has taken the following corrective actions relative to the above:
{1)
Revised the applicable CP8L procedure, COR-1P., to clearly require in-process observation of the maintenance being performed on warehouse released equipment, identifying those responsible f'r the in-process observation.
(2)
The responsible (}A personnel have established an inspection schedule to assure that the CP8L gA monitoring program will include in-process observation of the maintenance being performed on warehouse released equipment.
(3)
The responsible 9A personnel have commenced their observations of inprocess maintenance as it is being conducted on warehouse released materials.
(4)
The applicable work procedure
{MP-106) has been drafted to requir e maintenance personnel to closely coordinate their efforts with responsible gA personnel.
Informed CPSL site management personnel that failure to clearly establish the duties of those organizations responsible for in-process observation of maintenance activities is contrary to Ct iterion I of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8, as implemen'ted by CP8L's Corporate gA Program Part I Section 2.4. l.a.
This item is an item of noncompliance Failure to clearly establish duties and responsibilities for OA personnel (400/80-?5-03).
However since sufficient corrective action has been completed, prior to the end of this reporting period, a written response will not be required for this item.
Observed the stored condition of the reactor vessels for units 1, 2, 3, 4, Unit 1 steam generators and Unit 1 pressurizer.
Observed a "fire" brigade drill; a plant fire brigade drill was conducted at the North end of reactor auxiliary building number
sounded, within about four minutes, nine members of the fire brigade appeared at the drill location with the necessary equipment to control the "fire".
The fire brigade leader was present and maintained adequate communications to 'assure that the
"fire" was contained, controlled and extinguished within seven ml n m'nutes after the alarm was sounded.
Fire brigade members were cognizant fo the proper techniques and procedures to be employe d during the dril Fxcept as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
7.
Concrete and Soil a.
Observed portions of concrete pour s being made in: reactor building 1 (pour 1RAC028001), Unit 1 fuel handling building (pour 1HEPFF211097),
Unit 1 fuel handling building (patch 1FH1W257050A, P-5), Unit 1 and 2 reactor auxiliary common building (pour 1ACSL305011)
and Unit 1 containment building (pour 1CBXW252001).
Forms were tight, clean and level.
Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, free fall, consolidation and testing conformed to specification requirements.
Concrete placement activities were continuously monitored by inspection personnel.
The batch tickets indicated that the specififed design mixes were being delivered (reference CP8L PSAR section 5,
EBASCO specification CAR-SH-CH-6, procedures C(C-13, COA-6, WP-5, TP-15 and (CI 13.3).
b.
Observed soil samples being taken from a location W-1980, N265 at about 237'levation.
The samples were taken from soil that was removed from the West dam area and placed as filler material on top of service water pipe spool pieces which are listed on drawings numbered 2SW-9, 2SW-8, 1SW-54 and 1SW-53.
The soil was tested, by site inspection personnel, and found to meet the specified density requirements
- reference test procedure TP-02 and ASTH D-1556.
In the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.