IR 05000400/1982021
| ML20027B225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1982 |
| From: | Burger C, Maxwell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B197 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-82-21, 50-401-82-21, NUDOCS 8209160551 | |
| Download: ML20027B225 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ ._
a %,$ UNITED STATES p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION < o E REGION il 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 $, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report Nos. 50-400/82-21 and 50-401/82-21 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name: Shearon Harris Docket Nos. 50-400 and 50-401 License Nos. CPPR-158 and CPPR-159 Inspection at the Shearon Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector: [[ w/m 4_ / [8 L G. F. Maxwell
Date Signed /,ur#< > [ 4% Approved by: - C. W. B~ urger, Se Chief, Division of Project Aate/ Signed and Resident P rams SUMMARY Inspection on May 20 - June 20, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 71 inspector-hours on site in the areas of CP&L Corporate audits, electrical, concrete, CP&L activities, other activities.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four areas; one violation was found in one area (Violation - Failure to require class IE equipment to be installed and inspected in accordance with established procedures and instructions).
8209160551 820903 PDR ADOCK 05000400 G PDR +-
y 's \\ . . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- N. J. Chiangi, Manager Engineering and Construction QA/QC
- P. D. Morris, Harris Plant Engineering Section
- G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC
- A. M. Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
- G. M. Simpson, Principal Construction Specialist
- E. E. Willett, Resident Engineer Mechanical
- B. Seyler, Principal Civil Engineer
- A. Cockerill, Senior Electrical Engineer
- D. C. Whitehead, QA Supervisor
- C. R. Osman, Principal QA/QC Specialist Other Organizations
- W. D. Goodman, Daniel Construction Company, Project Manager
- B. B. Isom, Daniel Construction Company, Construction Manager
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 20, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviations. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is dicussed in paragraph 5.b 5.
CP&L Corporate Audit - Units 1 and 2 a.
The inspector participated, as an observer, during a site audit which , was conducted by CP&L corporate audit personnel. The lead auditor held the pre-audit meeting with the concerned site management personnel on May 24, 1982.
During the meeting the audit agenda was reviewed and the names of the site contacts were given to the auditors; the daily routine schedule of the audit and the auditors responsible were identified. The audit team established the date for the exit meeting.
The areas of the audit were prescsted as follows: general housekeeping
. _. !
. . .
tour, concrete production and testing, concrete placement, grout placement, reinforcing steel, cadwelding, concrete protective coatings, mechanical equipment installation and follow-up on previous open audit findings.
b.
The inspector participated in the. audit, as an observer, when the mechanical equipment installation section was being audited. During the observations the inspector inquired as to how CP&L inspectors assure the traceability of stud materials and that sleeve nuts are the required materials. The equipment installation which was being observed was identified as air handlers numbered 17-1A and 1B located in the Unit 1 fuel handling building. Sleeve nuts and short studs had been utilized by the millwrights to repair two embedded anchor bolts which had been broken off below the equipment foundation surface. As a result of the inquiry and the observations made by the inspector and documented in the detail section 7.a of RII report 82-17, CP&L is conducting an overall evaluation of the controls of fastening hardware.
CP&L has written a nonconformance report to assure that sufficient corrective action is taken to maintain traceability of bolting materials. This item is identified as an Unresolved Item, " Material Control of Bolting Materials" (400/82-21-02) and will be either closed or upgraded pending the resolution of the nonconformance report.
No violations or deviations were noted in the areas inspected.
6.
Electrical-Unit 1 a.
The inspector observed the rigging and handling of one section of the main control room electrical consoles. The console, identified on the applicable drawing as 1B1 and 1B2, was received at the site on or about June 2,1982 and rigged into the vicinity of the console equipment foundation on the same day.
b.
On June 2,1982 the inspector observed a welder anchor welding some of the emergency diesel generator switchgear cubicles to the embedded steel plates under the cubicles. The affected cubicles are a part of the 6.9KV emergency switchgear identified as 1A-SA which is located at the south end of the switchgear room at elevation 286' in Unit 1 reactor auxiliary building. Upon inquiry and evaluation of the equipment installation traveler (exhibit 4 to WP-105) the inspector observed the welder was working out of sequence, i.e., the sequence of actions required by others was not shown as having been completed.
The sequence of actions which were shown as not having been completed were: mechanical / millwright superintendent had not signed the traveler showing that the equipment set inspection had been completed; also Construction Inspection (CI) had not signed the traveler to indicate that the equipment set inspection had been completed. The sequence of-work and inspection events on the exhibit 4 (traveler) for equipment installation and inspection requires that equipment set inspections be conducted prior to the equipment anchor welds being made.
The NRC inspector brought this to the attention of CP&L CI and QA personnel on
_
. . .
June 2, 1982. On June 3, 1982 CI documented the unsatisfactory condition on a nonconformance report numbered DR-M-268 which stated in part that "the switchgear was not ready for sign-off" by the millwright superintendent or CI. About 12:00 noon on June 4, 1982 the NRC inspector was informed that the millwright superintendent had signed the traveler showing that the equipment set inspection was acceptable.
CP&L supervisory personnel. explained to the NRC inspector that block numbered 5 on the traveler has a section which requires that equipment be ched.ed, (prior to signing block 6 which indicates equipment set inspections) to assure and show the equipment to be in the correct location, leveled and in satisfactory alignment (plumb). The inspector ( was further informed, at that time, that the sign-off by the millwright superinte.. dent for block 6 (equipment set inspection) was probably done af ter June 2,1982 and does indicate, in writing, that those checks and inspections previously required by block 5 (level, plumb, location, etc.) are satisfied and acceptable. At about 1:15 p.m. on June 4, 1982 the NRC inspector requested that CI assist in spot checking the installed cordition of the switchgear 1A-SA. The points which were evaluated and measured by the inspector included the following: (1) The location and approximate elevation of the switchgear.
(2) The switchgear was evaluated and found to have three out of four cubicles not plumb or level (exceeded the manufacturer's required tolerances).
Note: Switchgear 1A-SA has thirteen cubicles c.
The inspector discussed each of the above unsatisfactory conditions with the CP&L Project General Manager and the responsible QA personnel on June 4, 1982. The above unsatisfactory conditions indicate failure to install and inspect class IE equipment in accordance with the requirements of established procedures and instructions. The above.
conditions are contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by PSAR section 1.8.5 and CP&L's Corporate QA Program Section 6.2.5.
This is a violation " Failure to require class IE equipment to be installed and inspected in accordance with established procedures and instructions" 400/82-21-01. The above switchgear (1A-SA) has two previously identified outstanding NRC violations , against it. The violations are associated with failure to identify and document unsatisfactory shop welds and unsatisfactory site storage practices. These violations were identified in RII reports 400/82-02 and 400/82-05 as items 400/82-02-01 and 400/82-05-01 respectively.
d.
During tours of the reactor auxiliary building at elevation 286' and 305', the inspector observed the following conditions: (1) Two problems were observed concerning class IE cable trays.
(a) Cable tray P1800SB at plan point 3021 was found to be within one inch of a non-safety related cable tray. This is not an
'a . .. .
acceptable physical separation as required by site specifi-cation B-060 sheet 7E. CP&L QA documen+2d this condition on a nonconformance report QA-28.
(b) Class IE cable tray C1807 SB at plan point 3059 is missing a support rib. This is not in accordance with site specifi-cation 8060 or QAI 13.1.
CP&L QA documented this condition on a nonconformance report QA-30.
(2) The inspector observed that the name plates and cable identifi-cation color codes that are currently utilized on the main control consoles are not the same as those specified in the FSAR.
For example, some cables are identified with a brown color code tab, and this color is not mentioned in the FSAR as one of the unique identifying color codes for class IE cables. CP&L QA, engineerng, and Westinghouse personnel are discussing this condition and a nonconformance report has been written.
The inspector has no further questions about the above conditions, however, during subsequent inspections other NRC personnel and the resident inspector will evaluate corrective actions taken by CP&L to determine if they are sufficient.
During the above inspection the following were referred to for requirements: PSAR section 1.7, 1.8, 7.0 through 7.10 and 8.0 through 8.3; specification CAR-2166-B-060; construction procedures QAI 13.1, TP-28 and WP-105.
Except as noted, no violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
7.
Concrete - Unit 1 a.
The inspector observed portions of concrete placements being made in unit 1 fuel handling building (pours numbered IFHSL236018, 019 and 1FHXW301040). The observations included the following.
(1) The condition of the concrete forms was inspected for cleanliness, level and tightness.
(2) Concrete placement activities were inspected as they pertained to delivery time, rate of rise, free fall and testing of the concrete at the point of delivery and consolidation.
(3) Construction inspection personnel were present to assure compliance with the specification and procedural requirements.
(4) Suitable weather protection was provided, as applicable.
(5) Surveillance of the pre-placement activities was conducted by responsible CP&L QA personne,
,. .. .
b.
While observing the pour numbered 1FHXW301040, the inspector saw a black rubber glove and a 2"x4"x1'3" piece of wood, located on the cured surface and encased in the concrete for an adjacent, previously placed concrete pour numbered 1FHXW310018. The glove and wood were very obvious to anyone who may be walking by the area. The inspector contacted the responsible CP&L Construction Inspection (CI) personnel and a nonconformance report was written to document the condition, DR-1561. The inspector noted and was informed that the concrete placement for pour numbered 1FHXW310018 was made on or about March 26, 1982. Also, the post placement inspection was not performed prior to the NRC inspector notifying CP&L about the above glove and wood on May 26, 1982.
c.
During the observations of the concrete pours numbered 1FHXSL236018 and 1FHSL236019 the inspector and CP&L QA personnel observed that two cadwelds and not been inspected prior to the concrete placement being allowed to start.
The CP&L QA personnel informed the responsible CP&L QC inspectors of the unsatisfactory condition prior to the c'dwelds being encased in concrete. The responsible QC inspector inspected and accepted the cadwelds within minutes af ter their being notified and prior to the cadwelds being encased in concrete. As a result, a nonconformance report was written by CP&L personnel (DDR-943) to document the unsatisfactory condition, d.
The inspector interviewed the cadwelders that were identified in RII report 400, 401/82-17 detail section 6.c.
The interviews were conducted to determine whether the cadwelders sufficiently understand the requirements of the construction orocedure for cadwelding, as it applies to them.
The following were referenced during the above observations: PSAR section 1.4,1.8; design specification CAR-SH-CH-6 and CAR-SH-CH-8; construction procedures WP-01, WP-05, WP-15, CQA-6, TP-15, TP-17 and TP-02.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
8.
CP&L Activities - Units 1 and 2 a.
On May 28, 1982 between 11:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. the inspector partici-pated in a management meeting between senior management from NRC and CP&L.
The purpose of the meeting was to review the results of the first phase of the annual NRC appraisal conducted of CP&L's regulatory performance which will form a part of the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance program (SALP). The SALP report which contained the overall comments concerning CP&L's performance had been transmitted earlier to CP&L for their review prior to the meeting.
Certain points of the report, as they affect the Harris site, were discussed between the inspector and RII senior management on June 9, 1982 in the RII regional offic L - . .. .
b.
CP&L is a participant in the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). A team representing INP0 arrived at the site on June 14, 1982 for the purpose of ossessing the quality of utility management of the Harris construction activities in select areas.
Earlier in 1982 INPO provided CP&L and other participating utilities draft copies of the objectives and criteria to be used for evaluations of construction programs. The various utilities provided their comments on the objectives and criteria, as applicable, to INPO for incorporation and/or consideration.
Currently the INP0 team, consisting of about 30 members, has scheduled its closing exit meeting with CP&L on June 29, 1982.
The general areas which are being assessed are as follows: design control, construction control, organization and administration, and project support.
Each of the areas was assigned a team and a team laader for assessment. The inspector inquired and was informed that it is unknown whether the overall results of the assessment, as they affect the Harris site construction activities, will be published.
No violations or deviations were noted in the areas inspected.
9.
Other Areas Inspected - Units 1 and 2 a.
During this reporting period the inspector participated in portions of two inspections conducted by other regional personnel and one Region II investigation at the site.
The results of the inspections will be documented in reports 400, 401/82-18 and 400, 401/82-19. The areas covered by the inspections included welding and welding procedure reviews and procedures for safety-related components.
b.
During a tour of the reactor building of Unit 1 at elevation 236', the inspector observed work being performed on the auxiliary feedwater pumps for Unit 1.
The workers were utilizing a petroleum based lubricant on the "0" rings which were a part of the pump. The inspector asked if such lubricants are allowed, and was informed that petroleum based lubricants on "0" rings are not allowed, as they may degrade the "0" rings.
Further, CP&L maintenance personnel stated that the "0" rings which had petroleum based lubricant on them would be discarded prior to placing the pumps in service. Harris Plant j Engineering Section, as recommended by the manufacturer of the pumps, stated that Mazola brand corn oil could be used instead of petroleum based lubricants on the auxiliary feedwater pump "0" rings. The inspector asked if the site maintenance program included Mazola brand corn oil as a lubricant to be utilized on "0" rings and further if CP&L has considered the effects of such lubricants if they should become a part of the feedwater system. The inspector was informed that an approved lubricant list is being worked on by CP&L which would include recommended types of lubricants for "0" rings.
This is another example of unsatisfactory maintenance practices that are identified in IE inspection report 400/82-05 as item number 02.
This item will be further evaluated when the NRC does a follow-up on item 400/82-05-0. _ - - - _ - - - , .. o
Except as noted, no violations or deviations were noted in the areas inspected. }}