IR 05000400/1981005
| ML18017B373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B371 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-81-05, 50-400-81-5, 50-401-81-05, 50-401-81-5, 50-402-81-05, 50-402-81-5, 50-403-81-05, 50-403-81-5, NUDOCS 8104220305 | |
| Download: ML18017B373 (6) | |
Text
~S RE0y~
fhO I
R.
t7 o~
+**++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 M<R gH >se Report Nos. 50-400/81-05, 50-401/81-05, 50-402/81-05 and 50-403/81-05 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 Shearon Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector:
J.
R. Harris Approved by:
T.
E. Conlon, Sec ion h f Engineering Inspe'ction ranch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division Date igned rP 8/
Date Signed SUMMARY Inspected on March 3-6, 1981 Areas Inspected.
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 31 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of structural concrete, foundations, lakes, dams and canals and previously identified items.
Results Of the.-four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8 >04320 90~
~,
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
'R.
M: Parsons, Site. Manager.
~G.
L. Forehand, Director of Quality Assurance
~E.
L. Kelly, Senior QA Specialist
- H. Casanova, Senior QA Specialist
"W. E. Seyler, Principal Engineer
- J. F. Nevill, Principal Engineer
"W. 0. Pridgen, Senior Civil Engineer
~L. I. Loflin, Nuclear Power Engineer
"A. B. Cutter, Manager Nuclear Power Engineering R. Marlar, Area Engineer, Main and W. Aux Dam Other licensee employees included two construction craftsmen and three technicians.
NRC Resident Ihspector
"G. Maxwell
~Attended exit interview Exit Interview The i'nspection scope and findings were summarized on March 10, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a
b.
(Closed) Infraction (400/80-15-02, 401/80-15-02, 402/80-15-02, 403/80-15-02)
Failure to follow reinforcing steel procedure.
The inspector examined the licensee's initial response dated, August 19, 1980, supple-mentary response dated December-23, 1980, and implementation of the responses.
Examination of storage facilities showed that permanent and temporary storage of reinforcing steel met procedural requirements.
Procedure AP-X-01 has been developed to control reinforcing steel in temporary storage.
Th'is item is closed.
'
(Open)
Unresolved Item (400/80-19-01, 401/80--17-01, 402/80-17-01 and 403/80-17-01) - Use of seeding for slope protection instead of riprap on emer gency intake canal slopes.
This item remains open pending review by the inspector of test data on earth fill materials in the intake channel.
Test data on the. earthfill material will be provided.
by the licensee to the NRC resident inspecto Qs 4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable-or may involve violations or devia-tions.
New-unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.
5.
Independent I'nspection Effort.
a.
The inspector examined the-following areas:
(1)
Results of concrete work in the Unit 1. power block (2)
Installation of reinforcing steel in the Unit
containment building.and auxiliary building (3)
Placing of Class IE electrical conduits and soil cement-.between manholes 70 to 71 (4)
Control,s on installation of strain gauges to be used in the structural integrity test for the Unit 1 containment (5)
Partial placement of pour number 1FH5C261041 in the fuel h'andling, building b.
Examination of the above items disclosed the following unresolved items:
(1)'s a result and subsequent to the: observations of strain gauge installation in the Unit 1 containment noted in RII. Reports 400/80-28, 401/402/403/80-26 the inspector examined controls on monitoring of strain gauges.
FSAR Section 3.8. 1.7;1, Structural Integrity Pressure: Test, indicates that while SHNPPs containment is a non-prototype containment, the structural. acceptance test is performed. in accordance with the procedures outlined in Article CC-6000 of the ASME Code Section III, Division 2/ACI 359 code for a. prototype-containment for Unit 1 and non-prototype containment for Units 2, 3 and 4.
Guidance in Article CC-6000 of the.
ASME Code and ACI-359 require strain gauges be used in the structural integrity test for-a prototype containment and allow the elimina-tion of strain gauges if the, containment is of a non-prototype design.
Discussions with responsible engineers and examination of internal correspondence indicate that site'gA is to be relieved of the strain gauge surveillance.
gA monitoring of strain gauge installation was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 400/81-05-01 pending NRC review of the licensee's official posi-tion on use of strain gauges in the structural integrity tes (2)
Discussions with responsible engineers disclosed that Class IE electrical condui'ts between manholes 70 and 71 do not provide for adequate water drainage.
During a test for adequacy of water drainage, of 50 gallons of water poured into a 4-inch diameter PVC conduit run with a capacity of 200 gallons, only one gallon of water drained out.
Drainage of Class IE conduits between, manholes 70 and 71 was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 400, 401/81-05-02 pending design clarification of need to have water-drainage in buried Class IE'conduits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Lakes, Dams and Canals Observation of Work and Work Activities Units 1, 2,
3 and 4 The inspector observed completed work on the main dam'nd west auxiliary dam.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear'in PSAR Appendix 2E, SER Section 2.7.and EBASCO specification CAR-SH-CH-4.
Work examined included, embankment slopes, slope protection, instrumentation and completed concrete work in the spillways.
No violations or deviations were identified.