IR 05000400/1981009
| ML18017B438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1981 |
| From: | Merriweather N, Upright C, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B434 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-81-09, 50-400-81-9, 50-401-81-09, 50-401-81-9, 50-402-81-09, 50-402-81-9, 50-403-81-09, 50-403-81-9, NUDOCS 8108040344 | |
| Download: ML18017B438 (20) | |
Text
~8'8 Egy
+
~
P~
Cy A.0
~O
++*++
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-400/81-09, 50-401/81-09, 50-402/81-09, and 50-403/81-09 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 Harris site near Raleigh, NC Inspectors:
R.
W. Wright M b/
// 8/
Date Signed 4 <</Bl N. Mer riw her Approved by: C.. Upr1ght, S
1on ef Engineering In ction ranch Engineering an Technical Inspection Division Date Signed t
Signed SUMMARY Inspection on May 11-15, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 70 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee actions on previous inspection findings; site procurement; receiving, storage and maintenance; QA inspection of civil work performance (concrete); onsite design activities.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four areas; one item of violation was found in the civi'l, work area (Failure to keep abreast
"of procedural revisions in areas of inspector certification - paragraph 7 c (3)).
8108040344 810724 PDR
- DOCK 05000400t
PDR,"
, REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
~H. R. Banks, Manager, Corporate QA
'G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC
"A. M. Lucas, Senior, Resident Engineer
"G. N. Simpson, Principal Construction Inspection Specialist
~D. C. Whitehead, Senior QA Specialist E. L. Kelly, Senior QA Specialist, Civil
"W. P. Tomlinson, NPE, Principal Engineer Mechanical W. E. Sryler, Principal Civil Engineer L. I.. Loflin, Manager Engineering G. White, Project Engineer - Mechanical
'T. L.'Harrington, Director of Site Procurement L. Denson, Supervisor of Warehouse Inspectors D. Whitehead, Supervisor, Receiving Inspection QA R. Narlar, Lead Area Engineer D. Hudson, Batch Plant QA Inspector J. Gates, Laboratory QA Inspector Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, QA/QC inspectors, construction inspectors, and office personnel.
Other Organizations
- W. D. Goodman, Daniel Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector
- G. Maxwell Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 15, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Cl osed)
Violation 400/80-27-01, 401,402,403/80-25-01:
Fai lure to take effective corrective action for reinforcing steel storage.
CP&L's letter of response dated March 11, 1981 has been reviewed and determined to be accept-able by Region II.
The inspector held discussions with responsible storage
(I
personnel, examined field laydown areas, the power block, intake structure and fuel building rebar-embed staging areas and found them acceptable in accordance with revised administrative procedure AP-X-01, "Temporary Storage of'Reinforcing Steel and Embeds".
The inspector concluded that the licensee has perfor'med the necessary followup actions to correct the nonconforming condition and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Site Procurement a.
Documents Examined (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(12)
) (i3)
(i4)
SAR Section 1.7, Identification of Contractors, SAR Section 1.8, Quality Assurance Program CPKL Corporate QA Program dated 4/28/81 Section 2 -Organization and Responsibilities Section 4 - Procurement Control
.ProcedUre CQA-24, Procurement Control Procedure AP-IX-10, Specification for Site Procurement Use Procedure AP-IX-16, SHNPP Site Processing of Items in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e)
and 10 CFR 21 Site Purchase Order No, H-31726 Site Specification No.
21, Rev.
7, Purchasing Welding Materials for Permanent Plant Construction Site Purchase Order No. H-17259 EBASCO Specification CAR-SH-AS-48, Rev.
1, Special Doors Non-Nuclear Safety Class, Seismic Category I EBASCO Specification CAR-SH-ME-15, Rev.
1, General Welding Require-ments EBASCO Coating Guide CP-43
-, Instructions for Application of Inorganic Zinc Coatings to Metal Surface Corporate Audits QAA 81-13 QAA 81-14 QAA 81"15 Receiving Inspection Records for:
PO ¹200906 - SIS Accumulator PO ¹435089-29 - Relief Valve (15)
Procedure AP-XIII-01, Warehousing Procurement Documents Filing System
.
b.
Quality Assurance Program In Section 1.8 of the SAR CPEL commits to implement ANSI N45.2. 13 (Draft 2, Revision 2, October 1973) for control of procurement of
equipment, materials and services.
Site construction procurement is the responsibility of the Manager - Construction Procurement and Contracting who accomplishes this task by assigning and directing these activities to the onsite Director of Site Procurement.
Site procure-ment per'sonnel utilize EBA'SCO's Approved List of Vendors when appli-cable or CPS L QA/QC personnel perform vendor surveys as required.
c.
Implementation The inspector reviewed the documents listed above and discussed procurement functions and audits conducted of procurement activities w'ith responsible CP&L personnel at the site.
The inspector selected two.<site procurement specifications and respective purchase orders (Purchasing Welding Materials and Special Doors Seismic Category I) for,review to determine the following:
that specified design. parameters we'e in accordance with SAR or'ther AE/licensee specifications the procurement specifications identify applicable codes and standards 10 CFR 21 requirements were imposed the supplier was on the approved list of suppliers appl'icable QA requirements were, imposed if source inspections were required the information required by the licensee to be documented on Certificates of Conformance was acceptable.
The inspector conducted discussions with selected CPKL personnel concerning procurement procedures to 'verify that they were know-ledgeable of their responsibilities and duties.
No items of violation or deviations were identified in the procurement area.
6.
Receiving Inspection, Storage and Maintenance a
~
Documents Examined (1)
Procedure AP XIII-02, Material and Equipment Receiving (2)
Procedure AP XIII-03, Receiving Identification and Inspection (3)
Procedure AP XIII-04, Receiving Discrepancy (4)
Procedure AP XIII-05, Material Storage (5)
Porcedure PGD-001, Material.and Equipment Storage Requirements
II
(6)
Procedure AP XIII-06, Receiving Reports and Documentation (7)
Procedure AP XIII-07, In-Storage Inspections and Maintenance (8)
Procedure PGD-002, Material Maintenance Requirements During Storage for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP)
(9)
Procedure AP X-01, Temporary Storage of Reinforcing Steel and Embeds.
(10)
Procedure CQA-21, Storage Control Surveillance b.
Quality Assurance Program PSAR Section 1.8. 1 states that the program will meet Regulatory Guide 1.38 which endorses ANSI N4S.2.2-1972.
The licensee receives, stores and handles equipment at the site for items procured by either CP&L or its contractors.
C.
Implementation The inspector examined the licensee's system established as detailed in the above listed procedures for conducting receiving inspections, handling, storage and maintenance of materials and equipment.
The facilities utilized were examined; hoisting, rigging, tools and equip-ment employed observed, typical documentation for several receiving packages to include receiving inspection reports, suppliers certi-ficates of conformance, materials test reports, quality releases were checked for acceptability, legibility, completeness and for review by QA.
The inspector conducted discussions with responsible (CP&L-EBASCO)
materials supervisors, QA/QC receiving inspectors, and maintenance crew personnel pertaining to their procedural responsi-bilities and found them competent, knowledgeable and experienced in their respective duties performed.
Several certificates of conformance were chosen at random for examination and were found to properly identify the purchased items, identified specific requirements the items met or did not meet, and were signed by an appropriate member of the suppliers QA organization.
The inspector examined the storage facilities of warehouses 1,
2,
(Level B'nd B),
warehouse
(Level B -
hazardous materials),
warehouse 6 (level C), various field laydown yards and staging storage areas (Level D).
Random items and materials selected in these areas were found to be stored in their proper environment as described in Procedure PGD-001.
The subject storage facilities were examined for proper controlled access, that protection from damage during storage was adequate, cleanliness, proper stacking, and cribbing of items, proper control of items in storage to include identification and marking, proper use of desiccant humidity indicators and purging systems for required equipment, that the shelf life of materials was adequately controlled, and that records were being maintained of storage conditions and were curren The inspector examined the weekly
"Storage Inspection Reports" performed by QA for the period 4/13/81 through 5/4/81.
The inspector also examined
"QA Receiving Inspection Monitoring of Storage Reports";
R816 - Maintenance Records, R834 and R849 - Maintenance Witnessed, R855 - Shelf Life Surveillance, and R848 -
Warehouse Calibration.
These reports reflect that receiving, storage and maintenance conditions were being met and that any discrepancies noted received proper, timely corrective action.
No violations or deviations were identified in the receiving inspection, storage and maintenance areas.
7.
QA Inspection of Civil Work Performance (Concrete)
The inspector observed the partial placement, inspection and field testing of pour number MDS 292, the East-wall retaining wall footer for the main dam spillway.
This inspect'ion was performed to determine" whether site work is being performed in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments; the QA/QC program is functioning in a manner to assure requirements and commitments are met, and that prompt and effective action is taken to achieve permanent corrective action on significant discrepancies.
The following areas were examined to verify the inspection objectives:
'a ~
Field Drawings and Procedures (1)
EBASCO Specifications CAR-SH-CH-6, "Concrete" CAR-SH-CH-7A, "Concrete Reinforcing Steel" (2)
CPKL Work Procedures WP-03, Rev.
WP-04, Rev.'P-05,Rev.
WP-11, Rev.
WP-17, Rev.
WP-22, Rev.
5, "Concrete Materials Handling" 8, "Concrete Production and Delivery" 18, "Concrete Placement" 8, "Fabrication and Installation of Rebar" 7, "Concrete Curing" 4, "Formwork Design and Erection" (3)
CP&L Technical Procedures TP-15, Rev.
TP-17, Rev.
TP-22, Rev.
TP-40, Rev.
7, "Concrete Placement Inspection",
5, "Construction Inspection Non-Conformance Control" 7, Inspection of Rebar Installation" 0, "Training and Qualification of Construction Inspection Personnel"
(4)
CP&L Corporate Quality Assurance Procedure CQA-1, Rev.
1, "Personnel Training and Qualification" CQA-6, Rev. 0, "Concrete Monitoring" (5)
Construction Drawings 2167-G-6253, Rev.
>>Masonry 2167-G-6380, Rev. 3, "Reinforcing" 2167-B-9000, Rev.
9, "Bar Bending" The inspector reviewed the above listed acceptance criteria utilized
,for the subject concrete placement to determine if the latest revisions were employed and in agreement with the SAR, to determine if these documents adequately describe critical points and methods of installa-tion as well as inspection and test hold points - to properly reflect design intent.
b.
Field Inspection P
(1)
(2)
The RII inspector found the forms to be tight, clean and level.
Rebar was properly installed and clean.
Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, 'free fall, flow distance, layer thickness and consolidation conformed to specification.
Concrete placement activities were continuously monitored by a construction QC inspector.
Examination of batch tickets indicated that the specified design mix was being delivered.
Samples.
of plastic concrete were obtained from the truck's discharge and tested in accordance with specification requirements.
The RII inspector interviewed craftsmen and foremen associated with the subject concrete placement and determined their level of knowledge was adequate to provide required quality of workmanship.
C.
Quality Control (1)
K (2)
The RII inspector reviewed the following inspection records associated with the subject concrete placement to determine their adequacy, whether deficiencies submitted by QC inspectors received proper corrective action where applicable; and if work and work controls were adequate; the concrete placement report, field inspection report for reinforcing steel, placement checklist, field fabrication rebar inspection, batch tickets, design change notification (DCN 550-520), field change report (FCR C-1502),
and discrepancy report (DR C-1093).
The RII inspector reviewed the applicable QA/QC procedures (para-graph 7a.)
to determine if the frequency, timing and acceptance criteria for the inspections are adequat Ll
,
(3)
Discussions were conducted with randomly selected batch plant, laboratory testing and placement inspectors to determine if their knowledge of the activities they were observed inspecting was adequate, and to determine whether they felt their findings received proper management attention.
Examination of the subject inspectors training and qualification records revealed they were qualified in the duties they performed for the subject placement.
However, while looking further into the training and qualification of civil gA personnel the RII inspector found that these same inspectors were currently certified in many concrete inspection activities in addition to the activity they were observed performing during this inspection for concrete placement MDS 292.
Although certified to perform concrete placement inspections, two of three gA inspectors were found to be remiss in keeping up with procedural revisions affecting this inspection activity.
Revision 18 to WP-5,
"Concrete Placement is current and revision
was documented as having been the last revi sion read by the inspec-tors.
Additionally, one of threeinspectors certified to perform concrete curing inspections last read revision 4 to WP-17,
"Concrete Curing"; whereas, revision 7 is currently in use.
The above two examples of "Failure to keep abreast of procedural revisions in areas of inspector certification" was identified to the l,icensee as violation 50-400,401,402,403/81-09-01.
d.
Nonconforming Items Reports (NCRs)
The RII inspector'eviewed selected reports of concrete construction discrepancies to verify that:
(1)
the action taken corrected the items (2)
the items were considered for reportability to NRC (3)
the instituted effective action prevented recurrence'CRs reviewed included the following:
NCR C-424 Concrete Curing Temperature NCR C-420 - ¹4 Stone Contamination NCR C-405 - Storage Location Bentonite NCR C-404 - Rate of Rise of Concrete Placement NCR C-393 - Exceeded and Omitted Test Frequency NCR C-386 - Concrete Placing NCR C-372 - Concrete Test Specimen e.
Materials and Equipment Examination of the batch plant indicated materials were being con-trolled and accurate batch records were being generated.
Storage of
materials (aggregates, cement and admixtures)
were observed to be in accordance with specification requirements.
Batch plant activities were monitored by QA/QC inspectors.
The RII inspector noted the central mixer and truck mixer clean-up operations prior to the start of the days work.
Various laboratory testing equipment, concrete curing'oom temperature humidity gages, plastic concrete testing equipment and batch plant scales were examined for current calibration evidence.
f.
Audits The RII inspector reviewed the below listed corporate and site QA audits performed on various phases of concrete activities:
Cor orate A Audits QAA 81"13 QAA 81-14 Site A Audits Daily Batch Plant Reports Period 4/1/81 5/11/81 Batch Plant Equipment and Materials Reports - Weeks of 4/3/81-5/8/81 The above audits were examined to determine if they were meaningful, effective, reflect quality performance and whether corrective actions taken as a result of audit findings were proper, timely and complete.
Within the above areas of concrete placement activities examined, no devia-tions were identified; one,violation, "Failure to keep abreast of procedural revisions in areas of inspector certification" (paragraph 7.c.(3))
was identified and acknowledged by the licensee.
8.
Onsite Design Activities a.
Functional Responsibilities for Onsite Design The inspector talked to several responsible licensee representatives to determine what organizations were performing onsite design activities affecting safety-related structures or systems.
The licensee stated that the only safety-related design performed onsite at this time is conducted by the Mechanical Pipe Hanger Section.
This section is performing redesign work on
"Field Change Requests" (FCR)
and
"Permanent Wavers" for pipe hangers.
b.
Design Procedure Review The following documents were reviewed to assure compliance with regulatory requirements and the SA.
(1)
(2)
(3)
"Carolina Power and Light Corporate gA Manual"
"Nuclear Power Engr',neering Department (NPED) Procedure Manual"
"External Interface Document for Pipe Hanger Site Engineering"
.
C.
The inspector interviewed.several personnel in the Mechanical Engineering Section to determine whether.they were knowledgeable of the requirements specified in the gA manual procedures.
The inspector also reviewed the controlled documents list to assure that the organizations performing design activities had the latest revision of procedures.
Design Changes (1)
FCRs Revi ewed:
(a)
FCR-H-383 (b)
FCR-H-384 (c)
FCR-H-385 (d)
FCR-H-386 (e)
FCR-H-367 (f)
FCR-H-375 (2)
The inspector reviewed the above FCRs to determine:
(a) whether the reason/need for the change was adequate; (b) change did not appear to compromise the original design intent; (c)
change was reviewed and approved by "other than originator" and review did consider impact on overall design; (d)
design drawings are revised; and (e) design calculations were independently verified.
(3)
The inspector reviewed the design input criteria, specifications and calculations with designers to ascertain whether the onsite designers were knowledgeable of the original design intent and had access to controlled documents in the work areas.
d.
Drawing Control Drawings Reviewed:
(1) '-4-236-1-RH-.H-'B; Rev. 4/C (2)
A-1-190-1-RH-H-17, Rev. 4/C (3)
A-l-190-1-RH-H-18, Rev. 7/D (4)
A-1-216-RH-H-24, Rev. 4/C (5)
A-1-190-1-RH-H-25, Rev. 7/E (6)
A-1-190-1-RH-H-31, Rev. 6/C (7)
A-1-190-1-RH-H-49, Rev. 5/C (8)
A-1-190-1-RH-H-53, Rev.
A (9)
A-1-216-RH-H-58, Rev. 11/F The inspector reviewed the above pipe hanger drawings to determine whether the latest revision was being issued to the field:
The
'
4 inspector discussed the procedur e requirements for drawing control with responsible licensee representatives and also toured the document control facility.
Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identifie I t
'0