IR 05000400/1985006
| ML18003B101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1985 |
| From: | Ang W, Blake J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18003B100 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-85-06, 50-400-85-6, NUDOCS 8504160443 | |
| Download: ML18003B101 (10) | |
Text
~p,g 4Eqy, tp0 Cy nO IVl g
~0
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report No.:
50-400/85-06 Docket No.:
50-400~,i Facility Name:
Harris
Inspection Conducted:
February 5-8, 1985 Inspector:
License No.:
CPPR-158 W.
Approved by.
J.
J.
B e, Section Chief E gi eering Branch ivision of Reactor Safety Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 z-z.~-
ss'ateSigned 3l bs-Date Signed k
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours on site in the areas of safety-related pipe support and restraint systems, housekeeping
", and storage.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8504i60443 850306'.
PDR ADQCK 05000400
P.DR
\\
n
~W
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. A. Watson, Vice President, Harris Project A. Cutter, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Licensing (HELD)
- R. M. Parsons, Project General Manager
- N. J. Chiangi, Manager QA/QC
- E. J.
Wagner, Engineering General Manager
- G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC
- A. H. Rager, Manager, Construction Inspection W. P. Tomlinson, Principal Engineer, NELD
- P.
W. Howard, Senior Engineer
- Hanger A. Fuller, Senior Engineer - Hanger
- D. C. Whitehead, QA Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, construction inspectors, QC inspector s, QA inspectors and office personnel.
Other Organization Daniel Construction
- C. L. McDonald, Resident Hanger Engineer NRC Resident Inspectors
- R. L. Prevatte, Senior Resident Inspector, Construction
- G. F. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 8, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Inspector Follow-up Item 400/85-06-01, Removal of Temporary Pipe Supports (paragraph 6.c).
Inspector Follow-up Item 400/85-06-02, SG
"C" Surface Discontinuities (paragraph 5).
The licensee did not identify any material inspected and used in this report as proprietary materia lu>>
D e",l D
l
"'f)>
~,,',
1, '
k ), 'k I')DI II ff D"
l
+'&)>>k ),)>>1
~
ff f
D
))D k>>
f
u D+
fu
~
g k.
ku I I
"Dci I')D) r'll,>>' +>> f
. >>(D,'), )D, )').'
)
>>D D
u QQ f I
Jl I
I )
uu>>II ff
, I l
') ",. ]r )
) ).'<<0k:
k D
f lu
'l uf>>kf"
"
-
)
'llr'D" +
"
ff Z ')S>A~
Ik
,)) j r)r),
"
~ >>j
"lf)('ruf
"Df ))c
"
~
)
D r ff'>>
~ ~ 'f
~
u)'u)!k)u'" u) D>> ">>
",
!ly'f','>> Jk iQ$
)')pr) r i5"D
. p>>
') kk
')) ! ff)) 8', ""1) t fu lf 1
'I ~ >>
j) )
k<~+>>k)
~
"))
~ (tf, )g
) DD'~'>>
'1 ',,l'
ff p>> )f f,f'
~ f*,
l 'ffb,v<<) '
"'i'(
.'I )!)f""<<
ff ) I
.ufff)ku) j,>>
),
'j(jQ'I
~ g)) Dj'>>
1'.I',
~
I 1, ')
~
I',">>,)"I, )
y )J
)f a,'",>'f, k)r 't'u,"
fk )krwff
'I II kk
'I u>>
fkkf>>
f p )
lf k ),, f>>k 'I u, "p p,l" 5 1'
'I >> k
>>'kf u
~
f~
>>) f N
.,
~
D
'C
)>> uy>>D fflk
~
k
)( k)>>uu'
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items
-
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector conducted a general inspection of the containment building, the auxiliary building and the pipe support storage warehouse area to observe construction progress and construction activities such as welding, material handling and control, housekeeping and storage.
Approximately ten pipe support material routing forms were observed by the inspector in a
thrash barrel outside the pipe support storage warehouse.
Subsequent licensee review revealed that the forms were not gA controlled documents and duplicate copies of the forms were on file in the warehouse.
During the inspection of the containment building, the inspector noted several surface discontinuities on the "C" steam generator located at approximately 266 ft.
elevation, 27 ft. radius at approximate 135'-140'zimuth.
One of the surface marks was approximately 3 feet long.
No sharp edges or bottom were observed.
The inspector was unable to obtain the acceptance criteria for surface discontinuities on the SG.
Pending further inspection and comparison with an acceptance criteria, this was identified as Inspector Follow-up Item 400/85-06-02, SG "C" surface discontinuities.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Safety-Related Pipe Support and Restraint Systems a.
Corporate Office Engineering Activities An inspection was performed to determine the extent of pipe support design and piping analysis being performed and to verify licensee compliance with FSAR commitments.
The Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Department (HELD) projects list was reviewed.
The listing indicated that NELD was not performing any safety-related piping analysis of pipe support design for the Harris Project.
The listing was discussed with the Engineering Support-Nuclear PlantsSection II, Mechanical Unit I Principal Engineer.
The Principal Engineer confirmed that no safety-related piping analysis or pipe support design was being performed by NELD for Harris.
How-ever, minor safety-related piping analysis work is being performed for Robinson and Brunswick.
A "Pipe Stress Analysis Technical Guide" and a design basis document had been prepared for H.
B. Robinson and Brunswic ~
~
~ >>
WING)
)
yh Wf'I II I
<<
44 ~ t'>>
'll 4 'I
'
f,"l $
.>>'tf,'
11,
'I
<< lff r '"'f4 1)
W<<v)
I
1 t
~
'fh ti
)
1 'f ". t 4t, '), "I "" 1
'>>4)
I 4'
4
t tt ft 4 )if)'
fl
'J r
t)4
'
$
tt f )fr,t t
t gh,'Ih,h I
",
tf
t.
Il fth
'l
, ff 4)1
)
'f 'off<<$ .'4 f I
C
'\\I~ 4 f vip hh I
hll
~
lt
)4
'r)
'l i
'I)
4$
IP I
~
I
f
- ?;,
<<ffht )",1.)
',
fv f
1 )
. <<;)fj
~
~,fr I v I ll,i h
v
'
~,
w 4 g)
~ h,l
')
'4 r)
~ c,)
)
it
'I
'1)
ftl
4 fi fh C 'ill I
~
h Whhh h
t<<
<<
~,
ill
<<
It fi tlt>> '
) 'w" CItl e
'
l)
f
"
tv
li lt P'l f Ih t
t W
vt tflhl
<<tl
~
~
f II I"
'I I
'If 'f.)
~
I,
<< I 4 fht r'4 lf f'th
V
'I t[
P f f 4 till+
ttft jf f
~ 'f
It
I II'tfl r
Ir
) '0 W
$
t I',ll
. W)
I
'4'
'
b.
C, The project engineer responsible for piping analysis was on leave and was not interviewed; however, all three engineers working for him who actually perform the analysis, were interviewed.
The personnel employment and experience records for the project engineer and three engineers working for him were reviewed.
The records indicate that previous employment history were verified for the above noted individuals.
However, experience stated on their applications could not be verified by the licensee in all cases.
Discussions with the three engineers indicated that ANSI N45.2.11 requirements regarding independent verification were being complied with by implementation of NELD procedure 3.3 - Design Verification.
The discussions further indicated that independent design verification was being performed by one of the three engineers and not the supervisor in accordance with paragraph 3.3.3 of NELD procedure 3.3.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Pipe Support/Restraint Meld Deficiency and Disposition Reports (DDR)
DDR 1775 and 1795 were reviewed for adequacy of weld deficiency corrective action.
DDR 1775 did not identify a weld deficiency.
DDR 1795 identified discrepancies with weld symbols on pipe support/
restraint drawings and revisions.
DDR 1795 indicated that drawings were incorrectly identifying field welds versus shop welds; all around fillet versus flare bevel; all around fillet versus all around fillet with flare bevel on two sides.
Two specific pipe support drawings with these problems were listed as examples.
In addition the DDR indicated that changes to drawings were not being clearly identified.
Corrective action for DDR 1795 was provided on March 20, 1984 and closed March 28, 1984.
The DDR 1795 disposition provided for the specific pipe support examples identified and provided general corrective action for future work.
Discussions with the licensee indicated that DDR 1795 was one of the nonconformances that precipitated a review of the pipe support inspection program and resulted in the reinspection program for pipe supports initiated in November, 1983.
DDR 1795 corrective action did not clearly indicate the corrective action for pipe supports that had been accepted prior to November 1983, although it had been provided for by the reinspection program.
The licensee added a clarification to the DDR 1795 corrective action to record the above noted disposition for pipe supports that had been accepted prior to November 1983.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Temporary Pipe Supports An inspection was performed to determine the adequacy of licensee controls regarding installation and removal of temporary pipe supports.
WP-110 Rev.
12, change 2 installation of Q and non-Q pipe hangers and
H,N H
'll (I t H H
W
~
I r
I H
\\
.
J 1I li M M
I 1 Ifr<<tj
I, I
'H1 I Il t
'
M h"
t M
W" at (
E I
~ 'r'HM tf
<<
<<r lr~
IN,N
~
3 f
'(<<
hf I ii N
'I ith I lk
'I J
I'
I Nft<<II <<
It'MI w
~ N h
rh HWHI H)
i Ni~
t
<<
Itt W
r M
tit lh It
<<ill fti H
I"
tt
<<
~ f"<<
I H
N) MII N
)Hk(<<<<'I E 1
~
~
h,t fl k
Ht ii 1 ~ M I r
~-
t M
U,<<r h
I'M g
,h If tl l'
tt
'
M
~
M H
It Ht V If t
k M'.f N(H(
M rhil <<M.
r
<<Mff NM ~
I HEI M
Hhl <<F
)
.
=>c rh"
, ((h<<MH W ~
'.j twh, M
H
<<hh Hff Iti 1'
)ki il r I V
HE WWI h '
H'
'
Nl If) If
h'I'I It If HI
,
M IV () r Mi k l.<<EN
"<<3 E Ihr(h Nfir P
, ilf'h,',f, il'
h tf Ml
~
M
<<'I'w'I ( I
'HMNP 'I
~ 'I h',
I
'
'ttw
<<r
'V 'MHN N'lr
'Url EH ~
rr EI1 ',,Mt\\f'f'
r II t
1" II M
g, i
I
'r i>> <<rI
'I il 'i N
U l yr H
MN, I
g M
V Mlt ~ 1
~,lt M lhh H
h Hk MN it I
O'M'
I I
d.
supports, paragraph 3.7.4 allows installation of temporary pipe supports.
The procedure also provides tagging and control requirements for removal from systems that are
"ready for turnover".
Exhibit 2, pipe walkdown checklist, or WP-141, Revision 1,
as constructed pipe, requires verification of removal of all temporary supports.
The inspector however, did not see a work procedure that had specific
.requirements to remove all temporary pipe supports when no longer needed.
Pending review of a procedure for,removal of temporary pipe supports, this was identified as Inspector Follow-up Item 400/85-06-01, Removal of Temporary Pipe Supports.
Pipe Support Inspection Activities An inspection was performed to review the training and qualifications of construction inspectors in the Mechanical Inspection Group, specifically the Seismic Pipe Hanger Group.
Pipe support inspection training and certification records were reviewed for a total of seven lead inspectors and construction inspectors.
No discrepancies were noted.
Five construction inspectors, a
lead inspector, and the supervisor were interviewed.
The inspectors interviewed in general had previous pipe support inspection experience at other Daniel Construc-tion Nuclear Projects.
Four of the inspectors interviewed had been on site from one month to eight months.
The remainder had been working in the pipe support inspection group for 1.5 to 2 years.
None of the inspectors interviewed expressed a concern regarding supervisor/
management harassment or intimidation of inspectors at the Harris site.
None of the inspectors interviewed stated that they had been instructed to overlook problems if the problem was not in the inspectors area of responsibility or had previously been inspected during an earlier phase of construction at the Harris site.
e.
Pipe Support/Restraint Installation and Inspection A
sample of pipe supports/restraints that had been inspected by construction inspection within a
week of this NRC inspection were selected by the NRC inspector.
The following pipe supports, located inside the containment building, were inspected for compliance with installation and inspection procedures and drawings.
1-CC-H-834 - Rigid Strut 1-CS-H-4478 - Rigid Strut I-SI-H-950 - Rigid Strut 1-SI-H-672 - Box Type Restraint No discrepancies were identified.
No violations or deviations were identified in the paragraph 6.A, B, C, D,
E inspection areas noted abov I wl WI h
'W'IW I
~ f WJI<<
~
W Mw
+
tll<<
',
4W>>,
f
"I w
Wr
~
>> w,f+
M
JM
"<<F, J "4 w
'ff f t<<
IIM '
F,j 1 ~,
fM
~ p w
w
f W'
>>
M I),
"'erit w<<
ll
'
<<4 'l 7 tfr
<<
f<<WF)
)
f w ') I4)],
'ww", ~ )
"It I li'MMM
.
[Mf 'l I
I II
)
r I u W
ll
>><<lt
$ 'J)g w
I It)
W I4 I
I Ww W I
.'IA) w Fwww I
M.>>f
",
'1 M ~
'f w
'IM.
wf w,
MMM"
+
'l II MM w
'w't4 4$ Mlf, II
I Ilff'f h <>
Ww',uw
ll MM h>>EII If'I 'g, wr tilt II I
Q rw Mriu rf wj
>
I I
Il
'll
)<<ttwtk:,
E
4 lilt >>ll
,tJMX""
"I l,
'
'I'I
~
)
II
\\h tt r r
~
It
~
At,
I 4 'r
4
<<
IEM,II
)
P
'I M
w