IR 05000400/1985033
| ML18019A418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1985 |
| From: | Burris S, Frederickson P, Fredrickson P, Maxwell G, Prevatte R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18019A417 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-85-33, NUDOCS 8510090333 | |
| Download: ML18019A418 (12) | |
Text
gpR REGS, (4 tp0 Cy nO i7 ~+*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report No.:
50-400/85-33 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P.
0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 Facility Name:
Harris Unit 1 Inspection Con c e
ust 20 - Septe ber 20, 1985 Inspectors:
G.
~ R.
evatt
~S..
is Approved by:
P.
. Fredrickson, Section Chief Division of Reactor Projects License No.:
CPPR-158 te S gned D te S gned ate Signed D
e S gned SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection involved 214 (resident)
inspector-hours on site in the areas of Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Items; Inspector Follow-up Items; Licensee Identified Items; Preoperational Test Program; Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning; and Electrical.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
One Unresolved Item was found in one area ("Installation of Safety-related Equipment",
paragraph 8 l
fr
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees N. J. Chiangi, Manager, QA/QC Harris Plant J.
M. Collins, Manager, Operations G.
L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC J.
L. Harness, Assistant Plant General Manager, Operations C.
S. Hinnant, Manager, Start-up L. I. Loflin, Manager, Harris Plant Engineering Support D.
A.
McGaw, Superintendent QA C.
L. McKenzie, Acting Director, Operations QA/QC G.
A. Myer, General Manager, Milestone Completion R.
M. Parsons, Project General Manager, Construction Confi Completion M. Thompson, Jr.,
Manager, Engineering Management D.
L. Tibbitts, Director, Regulatory Compliance B.
Van Metre, Manager, Harris Plant Maintenance M.
D. Vernon, Superintendent QC E. J.
Wagner, Manager, Engineering C.
C. Wagoner, Project General Manager, Construction R.
A. Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project J
~
L. Willis, Plant General Manager, Operations rmation Other licensee employees contacted included two construction craftsmen, six technicians, ten operators, four security force members, and ten engineering personnel.
- Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 20, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
No written material was provided to the licensee by the resident inspectors during this reporting period.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the resident inspectors during this inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Items (92702)
a 0 (Closed)
Violation 400/85-12-01
"Failure to Retrieve QC Inspection Report for Work Performed on MCC 1A34-SA".
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated June 8, 1984, and determined it to be accept-able.
The, inspector verified that the corrective action stated in the response had been accomplished by reviewing the exhibit 6 for MCC lA34-SA dated April 18, 1984, and instructions to the electrical CI supervisor dated May 30, 1984.
Part of the corrective action directed the responsible supervisor to remind inspection personnel of the importance of expeditiously processing inspection documentation to avoid misplacing it.
The direction included reminding inspectors that
all future work would not be inspected unless the work and inspection activity is controlled by a traveler, exhibit, card or package covered by existing procedure.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Violation 400/83-25-06
"Inadequate Reactor Internals Storage".
The inspector reviewed CP&L's responses dated November 18, 1983, and February
.7, 1984, and determined them to be acceptable.
As part of the routine monthly inspections of the housekeeping requirements, the inspector has observed improvements with regards to CP&L's control of equipment openings.
The reactor vessel internals have been. cleaned and have been kept clean.
The vessel head has been set into place as preventive access to the internals.
An enclosure was placed around the entire vessel, vessel head and the control rod mechanisms.
CP&L management has put additional emphasis on placing covers over accesses to equipment and piping systems.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Violation 400/84-27-01,
"Inadequate gA Interface Procedures Between Harris Plant Engineering and CP&L's Transmission Department for the Development and Distribution of Protective Relay Settings".
The inspector reviewed CP&L response dated September 27, 1984, and found it to be acceptable.
While conducting subsequent routine preoperational inspections, the inspector found that engineering has been providing the Instrumentation and Controls personnel with the required data to allow proper adjustment of the equipment relays.
The inspector reviewed the documents being utilized by the personnel who were making the relay adjustments and found them to be design documents which had been processed, reviewed, approved and released in accordance with design document control procedures.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Violation 400/84-02-04
"Reactor Vessel Nozzle Support Nuts Missing or Loose",
The inspector reviewed CP&L's responses dated March 16, 1984, and April 30, 1984, and found them acceptable.
Site construction procedures WP-121 and TP-28 have been revised to address equipment setting, grouting and post grouting activities.
The proce-dure revisions have provided requirements to assure that final bolting and bolting inspection for the reactor vessel and pressurizer is satisfactorily accomplished.
All equipment installation records were reviewed by CP&L Construction Inspection (CI) personnel and the inspection requirements were revised or repeated as required to make sure that bolting inspections were completed using the attributes in the latest revision of TP-28.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Violation 400/82-06-01
"Failure to Follow Visual Procedure (NDEP-601)
for visual examination of Pipe Welds".
The inspector reviewed CP&L's response dated April 23, 1982, and found it acceptable.
All pipe welds which were accepted by the individual who initially accepted them have been reinspected.
Additional training was provided to assure that welders properly mark pipe pieces which will be joined by socket welds.
The Nonconformance Report (NCR-W-324)
which was written to document the conditions identified in the violation have been satisfactorily resolved.
This item is close f.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 400/82-23-01
"Adequacy of Hanger Inspection Documentation Program.
The inspector evaluated a CP8L Nonconformance Report (DDR-885) which identified instances where welding inspectors had applied another inspector's initials to indicate acceptance or rejection of field welds.
CP8L required all gC and engineering pipe hanger packages to be reviewed for questionable initials. If there were any questions about the authenticity of the initials, the welds were reinspected or the appropriate inspector was requested to apply his initials to the applicable section of the pipe hanger weld document.
The inspector interviewed CP8 L inspection personnel associated with the initiation and resolution of DDR 885.
The inspector was informed by those involved that welding inspectors who had placed another welding inspector's initials on a hanger weld data package had not done so with the intent of being deceptive, but rather as a matter of making sure that the inspection records reflected the initials of the person who conducted the inspection.
It was apparent that deception had not been attempted; the initials were not applied in the same style as was utilized by the individual to whom they belonged.
CP8L management directed all gA/gC personnel for all future work not to place another inspector s initials on inspection documents.
This item is closed.
4.
Inspector Follow-up Item (92701)
(Closed)
Inspector Follow-up Item 400/82-34-01
"Review Seismic Test Reports for Transfer Panels (1A-SA and 1B-SB) and Containment Coolers (AH-1, AH-2, AH-3 and AH-4)".
This item was identified due to the seismic test reports not being available at the site for review.
The inspector was shown corre-spondence which indicates that the seismic reports for the above equipment have been reviewed by EBASCO and are available at the site for NRC to review.
This item is closed.
5.
Licensee Identified Items (92700)
Prior to this inspection period, the licensee identified the following items under
CFR 50.55(e):
a 0 (Closed)
400/CDR81-61 "Defective Valve Springs on Diesel Engines".
On July 30, 1981, the licensee notified Region II of a 10 CFR 50.55(e)
and
CFR
item concerning diesel generator valve springs not being properly heat treated during their manufacturing process.
Transamerica Delaval Inc.,
has replaced the defective valve springs with springs which have been properly heat treated.
The final reports to Region II were submitted on September 7,
1984, The reports were reviewed and found acceptable.
This item is close b.
(Closed)
400/CDR82-101
"Defective Diesel Generator Governor Drive Coupling".
On September 9, 1982, the licensee notified Region II of a
CFR 50.55(e)
and
CFR 21 item concerning the emergency diesel generators governor drive couplings made from isoprene.
Isoprene is not suitable for use in the high temperature, oil atmosphere encountered in the engine gear cases.
The couplings have been replaced with material made from neoprene.
The neoprene couplings are suitable for the environment within the gear cases.
This item is closed.
C.
(Closed)
400/CDR82-110
"Potential Defect in Piston Skirt Castings on the Emergency Diesel Engine Generator Sets".
On December 16, 1982, the licensee notified Region II of a
CFR 50.55(e)
and
CFR 21 item concerning the piston skirt casings for the emergency diesel engines.
The piston skirts (type AN) were not properly heat treated during their manufacturing process.
The improper heat treatment may have resulted in undue stress being applied to the piston skirts during engine operation.
The type
"AN" skirts were replaced with type "AE" skirts.
The new piston skirts were properly manufactured for the engines used at the Harris Site.
This item is closed.
The inspectors evaluated CPAL's method of processing the documents which are used to initiate reporting defective conditions or materials under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e)
or 10 CFR 21.
The evaluation included reviewing the procedures for processing Nonconformances (NCRs),
Work Requests and Authorizations (WRMs),
and randomly selecting eight "poten-tially reportable" Construction Deficiencies (CDRs).
The review encompassed approximately 10K of the potentially reportable CDRs.
These CDRs were consequently determined not to be reportable by CP8L.
The inspectors reviewed the selected packages and conducted interviews of the responsible engineering personnel.
Documentation clearly showed the specific reasons which allowed the licensee to deem these items nonreport-able.
All CDRs reviewed were accompanied by a Nonconformance Report which had been satisfactorily resolved and sufficient corrective action taken, as required.
The CDRs were evaluated to verify compliance with Construction equality Assurance (CgA) Part 3, Section 8; those evaluated include the following potentially reportable CDRs:
80-39, 82-68, 82-85,82-109, 83-134,83-145, 84-163,84-197 and 85-210.
6.
Preoperational Test Program (71302, 42400B)
a ~
The inspectors conducted tours of the various plant areas.
The following items were observed and assessed during the tours to assure compliance with requirements:
(1)
The general condition of the plant's housekeeping and the overall condition of equipment were observe (2)
The plant was found to be free of any major fire hazards.
Fire extinguishing equipment was readily available, and flammable materials were being protected from ignition sources and were being controlled in accordance with site administrative proce-dures.
(3)
The inspectors observed electrical personnel placing cables in their respective cable trays and conduits.
Sufficient care was being taken to prevent damage to the cables being placed and to cables which had already been installed.
(4)
The inspectors looked for uncontrolled openings in previously cleaned or flushed systems or components.
Where system openings were identified, cleanness controls were established during flushing.
(5)
The inspectors observed instances in which construction personnel were working on equipment which had already been turned over to the start-up group.
The work was being accomplished under the proper administrative controls provided in the Start-up Manual.
b.
The inspectors observed operations personnel deenergizing electrical components as required by the clearance program when equipment is being placed out of commission for repairs, tests or rework.
c.
The inspectors observed operations personnel deenergizing electrical components as required by the clearance program when equipment is being placed out of commission for repairs, tests or rework.
d.
The inspectors reviewed log books maintained by the test group to identify problems or plant activities that may be appropriate for additional follow-up.
e.
The inspectors evaluated the activities being conducted by the CP8 L operations gA surveillance personnel.
gA surveillance personnel were present and observed the major preoperational tests conducted during this reporting period.
The results of their observations were promptly documented and distributed to those responsible for the activities which were observed.
f.
During the week of September 16, 1985, the inspectors observed an in-process operations maintenance calibration test on the 1B 125V battery charger.
The work was accomplished under direction of a Work Request and Authorization.
The test was being conducted in accordance with Maintenance Procedure PIC E050.
g.
During this inspection period the inspectors observed a test performed on the lA-SA diesel generator.
This testing was controlled by test procedure 1-5095-0-03,
"Diesel Generator 1S-SA Initial Run".
The inspectors witnessed selected portions of this. test, w'hich included the conduct of five sequential air starts without use of recharging the air
banks.
The licensee performed this test after conducting the required
hour run period.
Although this evolution was performed in accordance with a test procedure, the licensee stated that they would conduct the required five air starts under a later test from a cold engine condition.
The inspectors reviewed the test procedure and witnessed selected portions to verify:
(1)
The latest revision was used by test personnel.
(2)
The test prerequisites were met.
(3)
The required plant systems for this test were in operation.
(4)
The special test equipment and special valve or component lineups were completed or calibrated.
(5)
Test personnel were available and briefed with an approved proce-dure.
(6)
Data were collected by the proper test personnel and any identified discrepancies were noted and resolved in accordance with the applicable plant procedures.
In addition to this review, the inspectors have observed licensee and technical representatives during the owners group inspection.
This inspection is in progress to provide a baseline data for service after the initial run of the lA-SA diesel.
The inspectors witnessed these personnel perform thrust bearing checks on the left bank turbo charger turbine blade.
The licensee has replaced this bearing and rechecked the running surface to insure it meets the required specifications.
The inspectors reviewed and witnessed portions of test procedure 1-5145-P-Ol, section 6, "Start-up, Unit Auxiliary, and Main Transformer Preoperational Test" which was conducted during this inspection period.
This inspection included the review and observation of test personnel to verify:
(1)
An approved test procedure was available and in use by the test personnel; (2)
Test equipment being used was calibrated and any jumpers installed were controlle'd by the applicable administrative procedures; (3)
Changes to the procedure were documented in accordance with administrative procedures; (4)
The minimum number of test personnel were stationed to accomplish the test; (5)
Any identified discrepancy was identified and corrective actions was initiated;
(6)
Test personnel were qualified to perform their required section of the test.
The inspectors noted that all portions of the test observed during this inspection period were accomplished in a professional manner.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
7.
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems (HVAC)
(50100)
During the week of September 16, 1985, the inspectors evaluated an in-process surveillance which was conducted by site gA surveillance personnel.
The surveillance required a
review of the training records for the construction inspectors that have been assigned to inspect HVAC hanger and HVAC ductwork.
Ten out of a possible 23 inspectors were selected for the review.
The records were evaluated for the following:
a.
Inspectors'isual acuity; b.
Inspectors'raining exams; c.
Experience of inspection personnel; d.
On the job training, if applicable; e.
Special training as listed in procedure TP-40 for ductwork/HVAC hanger inspections;
'f.
Welding inspection training records for structural and miscellaneous steel.
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were noted.
8.
Electrical (510638, 510658)
a 0 The inspectors evaluated the installed condition associated with lE cables identified as:
12212A-SB (power cable for "8" emergency service water pump motor);
10941A-SA (power cable for "A" component cooling water pump motor);
13261A-SA (power cable for "A" emergency diesel generator exhaust fan);
FPl-48 (power cable for the motor driven fire protection pump);
10941F-SA (control cable for the
"A" component cooling water pump);
13261C-SA (control cable for the
"A" emergency diesel generator exhaust fan);
and 12212D-SB (control cable for the "8" emergency service water pump).
The following criteria were used during the evaluation:
(1)
The size and type cable was correct; (2)
The cable identification (cable number and color code)
was correct;
(3)
The correct bending radius was applied; (4)
The cable routing was correct; (5)
The cables were protected from damage; (6)
gualified electrical inspection personnel were monitoring the installation activities; (7)
Approved drawings and specifications were being used; (8)
Approved materials were being used; (9)
Cleanness; (10) Approved work and inspection procedures were being used; (ll) Documentation of inspections and nonconformances.
During the inspection tour the inspectors identified that the gasket for the termination junction box cover on the side of the "8" emergency service water (ESW)
pump was missing.
The inspectors pointed this out to the accompanying CP&L supervisor prior to the removal of the terminal box cover, because the inspectors were able to easily see completely through the gap between the cover and box.
After removal of the cover, the inspectors identified that in addition to the gasket missing from the terminal box cover, the sealing material between the termination box and pump housing had been perforated with an extra hole.
The licensee has identified this item under control of a Work Request and Authorization to replace the missing gasket as required in the ESW pump technical manual.
This item is identified as an Unresolved Item
"Installation of Safety-Related Equipment" 400/85-33-01 pending further review of vendor supplied information by both the licensee and the resident inspectors.
The inspectors evaluated the gA records as they relate to the above listed power and control cables.
The records were evaluated to deter-mine the effectiveness of the licensee's established procedures and work requirements for cable receipt inspection, release, installation, installation inspection and testing.
(1)
The inspectors reviewed the site receipt inspection records and found them to be in accordance with procedure and purchase order requirements.
(2)
The installation and installation inspection records showed that the cables were routed, labeled, sized, supported, anchored and terminated as require ~
e
'
t (3)
Test records verified that the cables have undergone the required insulation and continuity tests.
No violations or deviations were noted in the areas inspected.