IR 05000400/1981006
| ML18017B394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1981 |
| From: | Julian C, Maxwell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B390 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-81-06, 50-400-81-6, 50-401-81-06, 50-401-81-6, 50-402-81-06, 50-402-81-6, 50-403-81-06, 50-403-81-6, NUDOCS 8105200036 | |
| Download: ML18017B394 (7) | |
Text
~R RECT
~~Co r
Fp
~
+
OO UNITED'STATES'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RE(jION 1!
101 MARIETTAST:, N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 I
cA 0> ~
Y/+~
~0
++*+~
Report Nos.
50-400/81-06, 50-401/81-06, 50-402/81-06 and 50-403/81-06 Licensee.:
Carolina. Power and; Light Company 411. Fayettevi 1 1 e:
Street'a.l'e.i gh;. NC 27602 Faci'lity 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. F.
Maxw, 1, Seni Resident Inspector Approved'y:
C. A. Juli, Acting Section Chief, Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection SUMMARY 0 te.-
igned at Signed Inspection on February 20 March 20, 1981 Areas Inspected This'outine announced; resident. inspection involved 106 inspector-hours on site in the-areas of structural steel installation (Unit. 1),
welding (Unit 1),
concrete (Unit. 1), qualification of inspection personnel (All Units) and equip-ment storage (al'1 units)..
Results Of the five areas inspected, no, violations or deviations were identified in three areas; two violations were found in two areas (Violation Failure to require the designated site inspection personnel to perform inspections at designated hold points-see paragraph 6;. Violation Inadequate procedure for qualification of inspection personnel see paragraph.8).
t
DETAILS Persons.
Contacted'i cen see-Emp1 oyees
"H; R. Banks,; Corporate QA,Manager
"R. M'.. Parsons, Site Manager
"N;.,J.. Chiangi', Manager,. Engineering &:Construction QA/QC
"G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC
"R. Hanford, Principal Engineer Melding
- M. Thompson, Director, Contracts and Services
- A. M'. Lucas, Senior Resident. Engineer
"G.
M'. Simpson, Principal Construction Inspection Specialist
"A. M. Loflin, NPED
"A. B. Cutter, Manager, NPED
"M. E. Seyler-, Principal Civil Engineer.
"E. L. Kelly, Senior QA Specialist Other licensee employees contacted'ncluded 12 construction craftsmen,
technicians, 4 mechanics, and 22 office personnel.
Other Organizations
"M. D. Goodman, Project Manager-,. Daniel Construction Company
- J. Harris, USNRC. RII Inspector
"B. B. Isom;. Construction Manager,. Daniel Construction Company
"Attended exit interview Exit Interview.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 6, and"80,.
1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not; inspected.
Unresolved. Items:
Unresolved items were not identified:during-this inspection.
Structural'teel'
Unit. 1'.
The. inspector observed. preheat, fit-. up-and. in-process. welding activi-ties on the foundation steel structure for Unit 1. safety injection system accumulator number 1C-SA-.
During the observation, PSAR section 1,
table 1B.2.-1';
drawings CAR-2165-G-012, CAR-2168-G-220, sketch SK/C-G-1013 (revision 1 and 0); construction procedures CQC.-19 and
welding procedure.
AW1. were used as a reference.
As a result of the observation, the following were determined:
(1)
The: wel'ders had current qualifications to the-process being.
appl'ied;,
(2)
Welding; was: in..accordance.
with-: the': requirements"of construction:.
procedure AW1'.
'3)
The. weld data, report;(WDR) did not indicate that.. some of 'the. weld.
joints on the foundation will require post weld heat treatment (PWHT); reference SK/C-G-1013 revision 1.
The CP&L site. QA/QC Director stated, that the. above occurred because of an over-sight by the responsible welding engineering group.
b.
The above condition was discussed with the site. welding inspection personnel and the inspector was assured that no similar over-sights have occurred.
The craftsmen responsible for the welding activities on the accumulator foundation were aware that some of the welded joints require PWHT; although the WDR'id not show it as being required.
CP&L QA personnel required that the WDR be revised to indicate the PWHT requirements of the above sketch and CAR-2168-G-220.
The inspector has no further questions about this,.matter, at. this time; The: inspector selected."twelve; drawings,, which were being utilized by structural, steel workers inside Unit 1". containment,, for review.
Sufficient; detail could-be. gathered. from the drawings. to i'dentify the methods to, be, employed. in the erection of the. steel.
The drawings were.
found. to be-of'he most. current revisions as required by construction procedure.. AP-lX-02; In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were-identified:.
6.
.Welding Unit-l.
a
~
On February 25, 1981. the inspector observed welding activities on unit 1 reactor containment-liner penetration numbered M-108.
The welder who performed the-welding had maintained current qualifications for the process'eing applied; As; a. result of-the observation the following'ere determined:
(1).-.
Tlie-we Td; joint-observed. was. identi fied as Cl'-265;-M-108-AFPP.
(2)=
The weld'ocation was such that, it. was, considered to be a con-tainment. liner plate; boundry weld.
The" penetration i,tself will'rovide.
access for an-ASME. section III, Class 2 pipe to enter. the.
containment:building (auxiliary feed water penetration).
(3)
The weld, M-108-AFPP, should be treated as an MC weld-without the ASME stamp; reference PSAR section 1, table, 1B.2-1,.
(4)
The weld data report'(WDR), which was located near the weld and which was being used by the workers for a. guide. in making the, weld, had been witnessed:
and signed. by CP&L welding engineering'or QA hold. points 1. through 5;.
(5).
The WDR form which was being used is displayed as exhibit 1 in construction procedure-QCL-19..1, revision 0. Items 1 through 5 on the WDR'epresent QA installation hold points, for:.
1.. verifi-.
cation" of material's being joined, 2.
pre fit-up inspection, 3.
fit-up, inspection, 4'.
checking purge gas, 5'.
checking preheat temperatures.
b.
Neither the procedure which displayed the above WOR exhibit 1 or a
similar procedure, CQC-19, allow or make any provisions for anyone to witness and'ign off QA inspection hold points other than those who have been designated to conduct such inspections.
The inspector discussed the above with the CP&L site QA/QC Director and was informed
. that similiar conditions occurred on Unit 1 containment penetrations numbered M-109 and M-110. Further, the three penetration welds had been erroneously treated as nonsafety-related work not requiring QA inspections for WDR hold points 1 through 5.
CP&L QA personnel documented the above unsatisfactory conditions on defiency and dis-position report numbered DDR-536 dated March 2, 1981.
The inspector informed CP&L management.
that failure to require.
the designated QA inspection personnel to witness and inspect work activities at designated'A inspection hold'oints is contrary to. Criterion X of Appendix B to 10" CFR'0, as. implemented, by CP&L's PSAR section 1.8.5. 10; CP&L's Corporate QA Program Part I, section 8.3.4 and construction procedure.
QCI'-19.1, revision 0,, section 5.1. and 5'.l. l.
This, is a violation; failure to require the designated..site inspection. personnel to perform inspections at, designated hold points (400/81.-06'-01).
Except as noted, no other violations or deviations were identified in the.
areas inspected.
Concrete - Unit 1 The. inspector. observed portions'f. concrete.
placements being'ade in the Unit 1 reactor auxiliary building (pours numbered 1RAXW-301006 and 1RAXW.-301004),. the waste: process building pour numbered 1WPSL261004 and the unit 1 containment building west. refueling canal pour numbered 1CBIW271003B.
Forms. were tight, clean and. level.
Placement. activities pertaining to '.
delivery t.ime, free; fa.ll,. conso,lida.t.ion and, testing conformed. to spec.ifi-cati on requi rements.
Concrete.
pl'acement. activities were continuously monitored by inspection personnel, (reference 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.
Qualification of Inspection Personnel Units 1-4
~
~
'a ~
CP5L's implementation of committments. to Regulatory.
Guide 1.58 as described. in PSAR, section 1.4. page.. 1.4-30. was. evaluated.
The, evalu; ation. included,.the review of. construction procedures TP-40, CQA-1,. and QAI; 1:.2..-Qualification records for seven,CPAL QA'ersonnel'nd: twelve Construction. I'nspection.(CZ), personnel were:-reviewed.
b As a:result of the. eval'uation the following were-observed:
(I)
The procedure utilized by the site group for qualification requirements of inspection personnel, TP-40, does not provide sufficient detail for minimum education and experience require-ments.
The implementation of TP-40 has resulted in:
a.
CZ personnel with no prior directly related experience have been certified as. mechanical and/or electrical inspectors with no documented restrictions
. or ".I'jgijta6pns on their inspection functions in these two areas.
b..
There is no documentary evidence showing that CI mechanical or electrical inspectors.
were. given formal written exami-natio'ns or otherwise. thoroughly tested to determine their capabilities pr'ior'o.
being certified.,
Therefore, the certification of, mechanical and electrical inspectors has been based.
primari'ly on the responsible-CI supervisor 's opinion and.oral examination of the individuals capabilities.
c.
The.* CZ. supervisor responsible for. training and qualification of'he. mechanical. and.electrical inspectors has an associates'egree in'ivil engineering and background experience in civil'uncti'ons, i.e.;
concrete placement.,
surveying; road work.
(2)
Host of the mechanical and electrical activities which have been-inspected by the above personnel have been very limited.
The: construction. schedule has allowed. some of the site mechanical equipment. to be..'set in place and grouted, some class 1E:conduit to be.- installed and some.- class.
1E cable tray supports to be installed.
c.
The.- inspector discussed.
the above with CP&L, management and, as a. result.
observed".
(1)
TP-40 is. in the Process of be'ing: revised to provide specific requirements.
for education and.
experience.
required.
for CZ personnel and a more formal program for qualification and testing
'prior to certificatio (2)
The certifications of CI inspectors are being reviewed and revised as required" to place limitations on the activities which.
inspectors with'limited experience=may be-allowed to inspect..
CP&L management:
was. informed; that: failure. to: require.
procedures'o'ontain sufficient; detai,.l to. determine. the education and experience required'f CI. personnel is. contrary to. criterion. V of Appendix B to 10 CFR'0, as.
implemented" by.
CP&L's. PSAR. section-1..8.5.5, and'P&L.'s Corporate'A" Program, Part I, section 6.2. 1.,f.
This.. is a violation inadequate procedure for qualification of inspection personnel.
(400/81-06-02; 401., 402, 403/81-06"01').
Except.
as noted, no other violations or deviations were identified'n the
.areas. inspected.
9.
Equipment Storage - Units 1.-4 a.
The inspector observed the stored conditions of the reactor vessels and their internals for units 1, 2, 3, and, 4, the unit 1 steam generators and. the pressurizer
.
b.
The. inspector observed the housekeeping arid general storage conditions in the power block area; reference PSAR section 1.4, Regul.atory Guide.
1.39 and, ANSI N45.2.3.
In the areas, inspected;,
no violations. or deviations were identified.
10.
Additional A'ctivities, The: inspector participated:
in.- a. site. inspection conducted by another RII inspector..
The inspection involved, observation-of. the installed condition of a class 1E electrical duct, bank and follow-up on previously identified'tems.
The results of the inspection. are documented in RII reports numbered 50-400, 401,402', 403/81.-05.