IR 05000400/1986009
| ML18019A657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1986 |
| From: | Belisle G, Jackson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18019A656 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-09, 50-400-86-9, NUDOCS 8603210222 | |
| Download: ML18019A657 (12) | |
Text
~gR REGS, P0 pp p
+G
~0
~+*<<<<
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 License No.:
CPPR-158, at Signed Report No.:
50-400/86-09 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P.
Ot Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 t
I Facility Name:
Harris Unit
h Inspection Conducted:
-February
14, 1986, t
.l t Inspector:
L. H. Jac so Approved by:
G. A. 'Belisle, ing Section Chief Division of Reactor Safety D t Signed
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 35 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee management of gA activities.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
Saoi2i0m2 Boosted I
PDR ADQCK 05000400
'.
III fl A
I I'
jl J,
'I
E I',I
~ lilt
!
E E
'j
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"H.
J.
- N.
p.
- J A'G p.
- J
- T
- E
- K
- W.
B.
- J
- J
- D AC p.
- R.
- D
- G
- M
- E
- M.
- R
- D
- J
- L Bowles, Director, Operations Nuclear Station Bridges, Senior Engineer, Materials and Code Chiangi, Manager, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Harris Cook, Senior QA/QC Specialist Dority, Startup Supervisor Forehand, Director, QA/QC Construction Ganguly, Field Engineer Harness, Assi stant Plant Manager Harrington, Principal Buyer, Harris Project Harris, Jr., Principal Engineer, Harris Engineering Management Services Hate', Principal QA Engineer Hindman, Jr.,
Manager, Harris Project Administration Howe, Receiving Inspector Johnson, Principal Specialist, Document Services Kirk, Document Control, Project Administrator Lawrence, Technical, Assistant, Harris Plant Engineering Section (HPES)
Loflin, Manager, HPES McGaw, Superintendent QA McKenzie, Acting Director, QA/QC Operations McKinzie, Documentation Reviewer Stewart, Principal Engineer, HPES Mechanical Tibbitts, Acting Director, Regulatory Compliance Traplor, Startup Supervisor Vernon, Superintendent QC Wagner, Engineering Manager Wallace, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project Whitehead, Supervisor, QA Willis, Plant General Manager Woods, Startup Supervisor Other licensee employees=-contacted included engineers, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors AG
- S
- p Maxwell Burri s Tayl or
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 14, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected: and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
Licensee Management of QA Activities (35060)
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the status and effectiveness of licensee management and implementation of the corporate quality assurance program for ongoing activities of design, procurement, audits, and construction.
a
~
QA Program Changes I
The organizational structure of the Corporate QA Department has remained essentially the same since Region II's last inspection in this area (Inspection Report No. 50-400/85-21)
on May 20 24, 1985.
On July 31, 1985, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP5L) submitted changes to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) reflecting revisions to the Quality Assurance Program.
The significant change implemented by this submittal was the integration of the Construction Inspection (CI) Unit into the QA/QC Harris Plant Section.
The inspector held discussions with the Manager QA/QC Harris Plant Section and confirmed his knowledge and understanding of the QA program.
The CI Unit gained independence in their inspection function in that they no longer report to construction, but now report to QA.
Therefore, overall effectiveness and independence of this portion of the QA program has been strengthened.
The inspector reviewed the following procedures and verified that the latest changes implemented were approved at appropriate management levels and that document control requirements had been met:
Procedure Title CQA-2 CQA-4 CQA-7 QA Document Control Procurement Control, R8 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness, RI
Procedure Title CQAP-24 CQAP-3 HPES-3.1 HPES-3.2 HPES-3.3 HPES-3.4 HPES-7.2H HPES-7.2. I EI 3.3 EI 3.18 AP-IX-02 AP-IX-05 AP-IX-06 AP"IX-10 Procedure Control, R5 Design Control, New Plants and Nuclear Fuel, R8 Processing and Control of Design Change Notices (DCN's),
R22 Processing and Control of Field Modifications, R34 Processing and Control of FCR's/PW's Processing and Control of Nonconformances Design Guidelines, 79-14 Stress Analysis Verification of Safety-Related Piping Systems, R3 Design Guidelines for Piping Stress Analysis Processing and Control of Field Change Requests/Permanent Waivers (FCR's/PW's),
R19 Processing and Control of Inter-discipline Review Request, R36 Document Distribution and Control, R23 Field Change Request FCR/PW, R32 Handling of Nonconformances, R15 Specification for Site Procurement Use, R19 Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Procurement This inspection was conducted to determine whether procurement specifications include applicable QA and technical requirements identified in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and whether procurement activities were conducted in compliance with QA program requirements.
The inspector selected three procurement actions for review; two were initiated subsequent to the previous NRC corporate inspection and one was an ongoing procurement.
The inspector evaluated the following during this review:
Applicable regulatory requirements, design basis, and other requirements were included or referenced.
Scope of work to be performed by the vendor was identified.
Technical requirements referenced the appropriate documents.
Test, inspection, and acceptance criteria was identifie Vendors had a
documented QA program and were required to incorporate QA requirements in subcontract documents.
Special instructions/requirements were included for activities such as designing, identification, fabrication, cleaning, erecting, packaging, handling, shipping, and extended storage.
Documents were identified which required submittal to CP&L for review and approval.
Nonconformance reporting and control were specified.
The inspector selected the following specific procurement packages for review:
Purchase Order Material Vendor P.O.
H04780A Laboratory services to perform concrete mix design and qualifications of concrete materials Law Engineering Company P.O.
H64091 1 inch, schedule 80, 150lb, Kerotest Mfg.
Carpenter 20-351-CN-7M, Company check valve P.O.
H59869 Flexible Metal Hoses for Steam Generator Level-Monitors Metal Bellows Corporation Purchase Order H04780A required Law Engineering Company to test materials in accordance with Ebasco Specification CAR-SH-CH-6.
Specific samples and tests were defined and requirements to be met were specified.
Changes to the purchase order were reviewed and accepted by QA.
There have been eight changes to this purchase order since
CFR'art 21 was issued.
However, the licensee had not incorporated Part
requirements into this particular procurement document.
The licensee reviewed approximately 550 procurement documents subsequent to the inspector identifying inadequate incorporation of Part 21 into this purchase order.
The licensee only identified five documents which had failed to be updated as required by NUREG-0302, Remarks Presented At Public Regional Meetings To Discuss Regulations (10 CFR Part 21)
For Reporting Of Defects And Noncompliance, page 21.31-1.
This oversight on the part of the licensee was therefore considered to be isolated.
The licensee took corrective action to incorporate Part 21 requirements into these safety-related contracts.
Since the oversight by the licensee was considered to be isolated, a violation is not warrante C
Purchase Order H64091 required Kerotest Manufacturing Company to furnish
inch and 3/4 inch valves for the Radwaste System.
The inspector verified that appropriate gA requirements had been incorporated into the procurement document, appropriate specifications were listed in the Purchase Order and Certificates of Conformance were required to accompany shipment.
Purchase Order H59869 required Metal Bellows Corporation to furnish various sizes of metal flexible hoses for Steam Generator Level-Monitor connections.
These flexible hoses were designed to eliminate or lower nozzle loading on the Steam Generator.
The inspector confirmed that the hoses were requi red to be in conformance with Ebasco Specification CAR-SH-M030, R18, Appendix K.
The purchase order stated that
CFR 21 was applicable, right of access was specified, gA was required for lower tier suppliers, traceabi lity of parts was required, and packaging and shipping requirements were listed.
The vendors were listed on the-Approved Suppliers List.
Appropriate gA reviews had been performed, and engineering had incorporated and control'led interfaces with the manufacturer.
NCR-85-177D identified fai lure to perform radiography on fillet welds.
The resolution to this NCR was to return these hoses to the vendor for performance of adequate radiography (RT).
The manufacturer subsequently performed additional RT and the material was accepted by the licensee.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
C.
Design CPKL has continued to increase HPES design responsibilities with the intent that this section will eventually handle all design responsibility for the plant.
Approximately, 90% of Ebasco'
plant drawings have been turned over to CP&L to date.
The inspector selected four field change requests (FCRs P-4126, P-3664, P-4374 and P-4130), identified during the review of purchase orders, to determine the following:
Reason or need for the change.
If the changes compromise the original design intent The change was reviewed subject to controls commensurate with the original design and approved by personnel other than the originator.
Design drawings affected were updated or are in the process of being updated to reflect the design change as appropriat Q C
The inspector concluded the above design changes had been properly addressed and handled in accordance with CPKL's procedures and commitments.
d.
Control of Drawings The inspector interviewed supervisory and clerical personnel respon-sible for control and distribution of drawings and design changes to confirm that the drawing control system was adequate and provided the latest revisions of these documents to work locations.
The following drawings were reviewed in the Control Room:
CAR-2165-G-051 CAR-2165-G-052 CAR-2165-G-053 CAR-2165-G-055 CAR-2165-G-056 CAR-2165-G-057 CAR-2165-G-058 CAR-2165-G-061 CAR-2165-G-062 CAR-2165-S-0544 Flow Diagram Steam Generator Blowdown System, R10 Flow Diagram - Sampling System - Nuclear, R9 Flow Diagram Chemical Feed and Lube Oil System, R9 Fire Protection System Sheet 1,
R12 Fire Protection System Sheet 2,
R8 Fire Protection System - Sheet 3,
R7 Miscellaneous Gas Systems, R7 Fuel Pool Cleanup System, Sheet 1,
R12 Fuel Pool Cleanup System, Sheet 2,
R10 Simplified Flow Diagram - Feedwater System, R2 The inspector determined that the latest design documents were transmitted to the field for construction of the plant.
However, only one copy of drawing CPL-2165-S-0544, R3 had been transmitted to the Control Room.
This drawing had been placed on the file in the Clearance Center in lieu of the Control room.
Additional copies of the drawing had been requested to update the control room stick file.
Followup action was taken by the licensee and the control room stick file was updated.
The licensee verified that 1783 drawings were on file in the Clearance Center and Control Room.
Only 12 drawings were found to be non-current.
Therefore, it appears the licensee has implemented an effective drawing control program, and a violation was not issued for this error in drawing control.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.