IR 05000400/1981003
| ML18017B361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1981 |
| From: | Economos N, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B359 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-81-03, 50-400-81-3, 50-401-81-03, 50-401-81-3, 50-402-81-03, 50-402-81-3, 50-403-81-03, 50-403-81-3, NUDOCS 8104210241 | |
| Download: ML18017B361 (10) | |
Text
<ev ~
gp,R REMI
~o co C
ee Y
+~
~O
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.
50-400/81-03, 50-401/81-03, 50-402/81-03 and 50-403/81-03 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Nuclear 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, Inspect
< N.
Econ mos Approved by:
/
A.
R. Herdt, Chief, MP Section Engineering Inspection Branch SUMMARY North Carolina 3/3 8/
Date Signed 3/<3 Zl Date Signed Inspection on February 18-20, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 22.5 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of observation including record review of welding activities relative to other safety-related piping, interviews and licensee actions on previous inspection findings.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
lS!X0;42 10 oI//
~+
I l
( lf
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee, Empl oyees
- S.
D. Smith, Vice President Nuclear Plant Construction
- R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
- A. M. Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
- H. R. Banks, Corporate QA Manager
- G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- G. F. Maxwell
"Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 20, 1981 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The inspector identified the areas inspected which included; observa-tion of welding activities; licensee action of previous inspection findings, interviews and records review.
The inspector discussed the inspector followup item concerning the documentation of welders and welding materials.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed)
Infraction 400/80-18-01, Failure to Follow Proce-dures - Housekeeping, Storage and Document Control.
CPSL's letter of response dated September 19, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II'he inspector held discussions with Director QA/QC and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector concluded that CPSL had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
b.
(Closed)
Infraction 400/80-15-01, Fabricator and Contractor Undercut.
CPSL letter of response dated August 19, 1980 has been review and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspector held discussions with Director QA/QC and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector'oncluded that CPEL had determined the full
~~
extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
(Closed), Infraction 400/80-23-01; 401/402/403/80-21-01 Failure of Magnetic Particle Examination to comply with ASME Code Requirements.
CP&L letter of response dated December 11, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be accpetable by Region II.
The inspector held discussions with Director QA/QC and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector concluded that CP&L had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in'he letter of response have been implemented.
(Closed)
Infraction 400/80-23-02; 401/402/403/80-21-02, Wel d Rod Control.
CP&L letter of response dated December 11, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspector held discussions with Director QA/QC and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector concluded that CP&L had, determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
(Closed)
Deficiency 400/80-23-03; 401/402/403/80-21-03, QA Documentation Control.
CP&L letter of response dated December ll, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspector held discussions with Director QA/QC and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector concluded that CP&L had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 400/80-23-05; 401/402/403/80-21-05, Verify Color Preception of Liquid Penetrant/Magnetic Particle Examination.
By discussions and record review, the inspector ascertained that the examiner in question had demonstrated his ability to distinguish and differentiate contrasts for the colors involved in the liquid penetrant and magnetic particle examinations.
A memorandum from the site Level III examiner attesting the individual's demonstrated ability has been added to the fil.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified dgring this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort (Unit I)
a ~
The inspector conducted a general inspection of various work areas to interview craft and QA/QC personnel and, observe pipe handling, storage, installation, weld material control.
General housekeeping and cleanliness in and around work/
storage areas were observed.
b.
Inspection Records of Equipment Installation Installation of certain mechanical components where a series of milestones are involved is performed in accordance with site approved procedures which provide for QC participation and verification of procedural compliance.
Through review and interviews with cognizant personnel the inspector ascertained that the check off sheets used by QC to document/verify that installation was in compliance with applicable drawings, pro-cedures specifications etc.,
was too broad in scope in that important milestones of the installation process were not highlighted and/or signed off by QC. Instead the reviewed, records identified the components, referenced the applicable drawings, specs
, etc.,
and the signature of the cognizant QA/QC inspector.
The inspector stated that the checkoff sheets now in use lacked the necessary detail to provide objective evidence that signficant milestones were witnessed and found to be in com-pliance with applicable requirements.
The licensee agreed to review this area and to develop a more suitable program.'his matter has been identified as inspector followup item 400-403/81-03-02, Inspection Records of Equipment Installation.
Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identifie.
Safety Related Piping (Welding).- Observation of Work and Work Related Activities (Unit 1)
The inspector observed field welding of safety-related piping outside the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
The applicable Code for safety-related p'ipe welding is the ASME Code,Section III, 1974 Edition including Winter 1976 addenda.
Observation Observation of field welding activities included, the follow-ing areas as applicable; weld identification and location, joint preparation and welding, specified weld procedure, specified temperature (pre-heat and interpass).,
procedure welding variables adherence, evidence of inprocess gC verifi-cation.
Weld No.
ISO Size Condition FW-288 FW-60 FW-384 b.
Record Review 1-SW-62 1-CC-64
. 1-CC-139 14"x'.375" 8"x
.322"'8"x.375" Fit-up Fit-up Flt-up In addition the inspector requested and the licensee provided for review quality records for welding consumables; spool pieces joined by these welds; welder performance qualification records and current updates.
These records were reviewed for code compliance, completeness and accuracy.
Within these areas the inspector made the following observations:
(1)
The existing program does not require that welders assigned to work on a field weld to have their identification (stencil/name)
recorded on the field copy (yellow} of the weld data report (WDR) prior to, or at the time they
'start to weld.
Instead, this information is noted on the rod issue slip and on informal note pads kept by gA/gC inspectors.
After weld inspection and/or upon weld completion, inspectors are required to retrieve and assimilate this information from the aforementioned sour ces and transpose it on the white record copy of the WDR which is kept in the office.
In response to inquiries the staff stated that in many cases this is done after the fact, that is long after the weld is completed and the weld has been accepted.
This same practice is followed for the documentation of electrodes used on a field weld.
The NRC inspector stated that while this system may suffice in instances where limited activity is anticipated, requiring one or
~'e
-5-(2).
two welders and an inspector, its success and effective-ness on a project of this magnitude was questionable in that it provides many opportuni ties for error.
Some of the examples sited included; material issued for, but not used on a weld without voiding the rod issue slip; th'
converse could also happen; substitution and/or addition of welders on a weld after fitup and before final inspection; especially in the case where the foreman inadvertently neglects to alert the inspector(s);
loss of rod issue slip'and/or note pads; human error in transposing informa-.
tion, etc.
As a result of these discussions site management agreed to review and revise existing procedures so as to require craft or craft supervision e;-g., welding foreman, to record welder and electrode information on the field (yellow) copy of the WDR during weld fabrication and thereby provide a field record with up to date in-process information and a means of checking the information entered on the record copy of the WDR.
In a related matter the inspector noted that the field copy of the WDR does not identify the heat numbers of spools on adjoining sides of a weld, nor does the weld package include the material requisition slips.
Hence at the time of inspection, the inspector has no means of verifying that spools/components about to be welded comply with the information in the vendor's data package stored in the vault.
Under the present system material verification is obtained after the prefitup inspection has been signed off.
This requires that inspectors make a record of component/spool piece heat number(s)
and subsequently check them against the official records in the vault as time and/or memory permits.
As before the inspector stated that the system relies heavily on the individual's initiative and is therefore proned to error.
The inspector stated that the matters discussed under b(1)
and b(2) of this paragraph would be identified as inspector followup item 400/401/402/403/81-03-01, In Process Weld Fabrication Records.
7.
Inspector Followup Item (Closed)
Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 400-403/80-03-01 Welding Material Control.
Revision 10 of the applicable procedure HP-03 now precludes issuance of welding materials for ASME Code work in pouches.
In cases where pouches are permitted only three (3}
pounds of coated electrodes may be issued each time.