IR 05000400/1981002
| ML18017B351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1981 |
| From: | Bryant J, Maxwell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B346 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-81-02, 50-400-81-2, 50-401-81-02, 50-401-81-2, 50-402-81-02, 50-403-81-02, NUDOCS 8103260552 | |
| Download: ML18017B351 (12) | |
Text
~gAS RINGO
~c~
p
~
O~
Cy
- nO
<<0 v'y
+~
~O
++*<<+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II ~
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-400/81-02, 50-401/81-02, 50-402/81-02 and 50-403/81-02 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 I
Facility Name:
Shearon Harris
'ocket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402 and 50-403
License Nos. CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161 Inspection at S
aron H
's site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspec
.
~
.
-
~~a'
F. Max
Approved by:
.
c c-
. Bryant, ction Chief, RC& S Branch SUMMARY Inspection on December 29, 1980 - January 30, 1981 Areas Inspected
<</p <<Pf Date Signed g,-ro "l'~
Date Signed This routine resident inspection involved 96 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee identified items, electrical, concrete, equipment storage, welding, audits and coatings.
Results Of the seven areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in six areas; one item of violation was found in one area (Violation - Failure to require activities affecting quality to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or instructions).
II
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"S. D. Smith, Vice President Construction
"R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
"A. M. Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
"G. L. Forehand, Director of QA/QC C. S. Hinnant, Resident Electrical Engineer
"A. Cockeri 11, Electrical Engineer
"G. M. Simpson, Principal Construction Inspection Specialist Other. licensee employees contacted included 27 construction craftsmen, and 12 office personnel.
Other Organizations
- W. D. Goodman, Project Manager, Daniel Construction. Company
"Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview 3.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 30, 1981 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Prevfous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Licensee Identified Items (Closed)
Omission of rebar in Unit 1 reactor building 400/80-16-01.
Reviewed an evaluation which was conducted by CP&L concerning this item.
Discussed the correspondence which related to the evaluation with RII supervisory personnel (CP&L letter to M. A. McDuffie from S.
D. Smith/P.
W.
Howe dated December 31, 1980; CP&L letter of S.
D.
Smith from R.
M.
Parsons dated December 1,
1980 and CP&L letter to R.
M. Parsons from A.
M.
Lucas dated November 21, 1980).
Based on the low rate of rebar omission versus the total rebar installed during the evaluation period, review and discussions of the omissions with RII supervision; this item is close.
Electri ca 1 Unit 1 a
On January 6,
1981 observed the installed condition of a class 1E conduit box which was located in reactor building number 1 at elevation 240 feet column 36,
"C" line.
The box, numbered B1482-SB, was installed by welding and through the use of expansion anchor bolts.
The nuts which were used to fasten the box to the anchor bolts were found not to be sufficiently engaged; lacked approximately 1/4" from being fully seated.
As a result of the observations and further inquiry, the following were determined:
(1)
The inspector was informed by CP&L management personnel that electrical craft personnel were 'not authorized to install 1E conduit boxes with the installation configuration of the afore-mentioned box.
(2)
EBASCO (the architechtural engineer)
had not provided the detailed design documents to indicate the configuration that was utilized by the electrical craftsmen for the fastening of box B1482-SB to the Seismic I concrete column.
(3)
There have been approximately 36 Class 1E conduit boxes installed without having the required installation design details (boxes with configurations similar to the above conduit box).
(4)
The installation inspections of the above conduit boxes had not yet been conducted.
However, probability is that the unauthorized installations would have been found by CP&L personnel du~ing scheduled inspections.
b.
As a result of the observations and discussions with CP&L management personnel, concerning the above, the following actions have been taken:
(1)
CP&L QA generated a "Deficiency and Disposition Report" (DDR)
numbered DDR-512 and a
"Corrective Action Report" requiring corrective action for the aforementioned concerns.
(2)
After CP&L management was made aware of the unsatisfactory conditions noted in 7.a, 7.a.(1)
and 7.a.(2)
above; electrical craft personnel were ordered by site management to discontinue the installation of Class lE conduit boxes until the required instal-lation details have been attained.
(3)
All of the Class 1E conduit boxes listed in DDR-512, including box B1482-SB, were required to be removed from their installed conditions.
(4)
The electrical craft supervisory personnel were instructed in the use of lE conduit box details and cautioned that 1E conduit boxes
are not to be installed without first having the required instal-lation details.
c.
CP&L management personnel informed the inspector that the following additional corrective steps will be taken to avoid further violation.
(1)
A field design change request was initiated to attain the required design configuration needed for the installation of Class 1E conduit boxes that are to be mounted on columns.
(2)
The CP&L procedure for "Installation of Seismic Class I Electrical Cable Tray, Tray supports, Conduit and Conduit Supports" WP-203 is being revised to include electrical conduit boxes and box supports.
(3)
The CP&L procedure for "Documentation and Control of the Instal-lation of Conduit and Cable Tray",
WP-205, is being revisedto include utilizing conduit pull box cards for the inspection of each box and its mounting.
d.
Informed CP&L management personnel that failure to prescribe in detailed drawings specifications, procedures or instructions the method(s)
to be employed during the installation of Class 1E seismic I mounted conduit boxes onto Seismic I columns is contrary to Criterion V
of Appendix B to
CFR 50, as implemented by CP&L's PSAR Section 1.8,5,5, and CP&L's Corporate QA Program Part I, section 8.2. 1.
This is a violation; failure to require activities affecting quality to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings.
(400/81"02-01).
Except as noted, no violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
7.
Concrete - Units 1-4
'a ~
Observed the condition of the batch plant central mixing equipment and the storage practices associated with aggregate and cement.
Observed that batch plant equipment and materials are being inspected and maintained, reference construction procedures WP-09 and CQC-13.
b.
Observed portions of concrete placements being made in:
Unit 1 reactor auxiliary common building (pours numbered 1AC1W32001 and 1ACSL305005).
Unit 1 containment wall pour numbered 1CBXWZZ6003 and Unit 1 reactor auxiliary building pour numbered 1RAIW278011.
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, (reference CP&L PSAR section 5,
EBASCO specification CAR-SH-CH-6, procedures CQC-13, CQA-6, WP-5, TP-15 and QCI-13.3).
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie.
Equipment Storage and Protection Units 1-4 a
b.
Observed the stored condition of the reactor vessels for units 2, 3, 4, Unit
steam generators and unit 1 pressurizer.
As a result, found eighteen pipe caps missing from the instrumentation tubes which penetrate the bottom of Unit 2 reactor vessel.
Informed CP&L manage-ment personnel of the afore noted condition, the caps were immediately placed back over the ends of the instrumentation tubes.
The inspector has no further questions about this matter, at this time.
Toured the rebar storage areas surrounding the power block on ten different days.
During the tours no debar was found to be improperly
'stored or protected, reference CP&L Procedure AP-X-01
"Temporary Storage of Reinforcing Steel".
Observed CP&L QA personnel conducting routine housekeeping inspections throughout this reporting period.
Some CP&L nonconformance reports have resulted from the routine inspections; reference CP&L NCR's numbered E-80-05, E-80-04 and E-80"02.
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Welding Units 1-4 b.
Observed the in-process welder qualification tests being admninistered and monitored, by the CP&L welding engineering sub-unit, for six craft personnel.
Four of the six were being tested for the 2G and 5G positions utilizing carbon steel pipe to implement welding procedure 1BA1.
The remaining two personnel were being tested for the 2G, 3G and 4G positions utilizing (P-8) steel plate to implem'ent welding procedure 8A1, for welder identified as32-118; welder identified as32-438 was using carbon steel plate to implement procedure 1A2.
The CP&L pro-cedure used for reference was MP-02 inc'luding deviations numbered 1 and 2 to revision 6 of the procedure.
I Observed rigging and handling operations associated with the off-loading and movement of piping spool pieces numbered A2-236-1-CC-158-3, A2-236-1-CC-139-1, A2-236-2-SW-100-1 and A2-236-1-CC"158-1.
c.
Observed the re-fit-up inspection of weld joint numbered A2-236-1CC-161-FW-403.
The inspections were conducted by responsible
,QA personnel, in accordance with QCI-19. 1.
d.
Observed burning and welding at seven different locat'ions throughout the plant; portable fire extinguishers were located in the proximity of the affected work areas.
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie.
Other Areas Units 1-4
a.
Attended a
CPKL Cor'porate QA pre-audit meeting on January 19, 1981.
During the meeting the following were observed:
(1)
The meeting was attended by CPKL site management personnel.
(2)
The audit team had been originally designated to have four auditors; however only three auditors could be made available to participate.
(3)
The lead auditor announced:
the purpose of the audit, the activities to be audited, auditors designated for the activities to be audited and disseminated the audit checklists which were perpared for the audit.
(4)
The duration of the audit was from January 19-23, 1981.
b.
On January 29, 1981 the inspector discussed the results and details of the above audit with responsible CP&L management personnel.
The following points were noted:
(1)
The audit covered eleven general activities consisting of twenty-three sub-divisions.
(2)
The audit checklists contained 216 checkpoints. Thrity-four of the checkpoints were not addressed during the audit for various reasons.
(3)
The audit covered 64 procedures, standards or commitments which CPKL has made to the USNRC.
(4)
The audit resulted in six findings and nine concerns.
c.
Observed the in-process qualification examinations being administered by the coatings supplier for seven coatings personnel, reference EBASCO specification CAR-SH-COR-2.
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie I >>