Text

Partially Withheld Ltr Summarizing 780919 Meeting Re Concerns About Const Practices.Exam Findings:Inspectors Found Some Tolerances Not Met But Field Change Requests Initiated,Evaluated & Adequate Corrective Action Taken
	ML20199E809
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/02/1978
From:	Annast M; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	; AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20199E778	List: IA-85-358, Partially Withheld Ltr Summarizing 780919 Meeting Re Concerns About Const Practices.Exam Findings:Inspectors Found Some Tolerances Not Met But Field Change Requests Initiated,Evaluated & Adequate Corrective Action Taken; ML20199E776; ML20199E791; ML20199E809;
References
	FOIA-85-358 NUDOCS 8603270450
	Download: ML20199E809 (11)
	v • d • e

.

I i

October 2, 1978

., e.us. ; --

v-This refsea to our meeting om September 19, 1978, during which you expressed concerns about certain construction practices at Carolina Power and Light Company's Shearon Harris Ilmelear Flaat.

We have eempleted our amamination of these matters. Messrs. Bradley and Swee, two of our construction inspectors, interviewed workers, checked records and viewed the locations which you identified. Our findings are sa follows:

i w

I I

1.

Incorrect robar placement tolerances - The inspectors found

/'

l that some tolerances had not been met but in each case a field change request was initiated, evaluated and adequate i

corrective action was taken.

2.

Small crack in the fill concrete - The six-inch long crack in the fuel handling building floor, which allowed water seepage, has been covered and sealed by plastic membranes and structural concrete. This is a standard procedure. The finished floor does not present a safety problem.

3.

Misplaced control monuments - The apparent error in the alignment of the centerline of Unit 1 containment was probably caused by construction activities such as binating and other major excavation activities which can result in minor disturbance of the nearby original reference monuments. The sinor error, which you dis-covered, was previously noted in the survey field books and appropriate corrective actions were taken to insure proper align-most of the building.

4.

Misplaced anchor bolts - The two-inch offset of the anchor bolts which you discussed,.had been identified by a field change request and corrective action was taken by repositioning the pipes to as-built location. No safety problems resulted from this change.

T DlS E

Contain tity of Con ential f; 1 f 8603270450 860214 h7 PDR FOIA

. P r/

.g BELL 85-358 PDR l

l

c' 2

' M.i

.unil G22A) La the waste processing build 4== - The 2.1-f -W found that the wall is, in fact, positioned 13/8" This condition was

$ y. g g eth of the original locatism.

afastifled in a field change regnest and evaluated. A study of spees stilisation shoves the well to be acceptable as built.

6.

Cold joints in camerate - Possible cold jefats, which you felt any have resulted becanoe of an interruptima of one hour in the pouring of concrete, due to a local strika, were essaiand by the inspectors. They found that the interruption did not create a problem. Tha~ retardants present la the eencrete mix and use of additierni J-bars insured as adequate joint.

This aa=ald a= sur activities regarding this matter. We appreciate your conceras about the quality of constructies at meclear pesar l

plants. The anclear Regulatory h iamism is em==itted to assure that all construction procedures are strictly fo11aved to protect l

the health and safety of the public.

n We feel that our actions have been responsive to year conceras. Y O"2 c..

Flasse contact us should you desire further informatiam en this' Y M #.

matter.

.j p

,p Sincerely, Michael V. Anaast Regional Investigator bec: George O. Cover, IOOS i

Case file II-C46 l

J k

RI RII RII II i

RI WS,dnM BBradley AHerdt CEAlderson 10/2/78 10/2/78 1/j/78 10/ 1/78 10/ ' /78

$5 i

(

$,fk N $hIJb k f h NMI bk[NDUid..Thi(CE M [ikk h h h h h h h rP]

? #-

' eT F d 2 9 'ig g; g,.Y

M~

maa v caeaar s % p *. e x., ( p, p@r L. 4. g..

v:,

vl+p cn neone w ce,y^ #

tres actwm

,mdp cA w-

/~' v.

rW -

e&

T*-

p w!awelly Willf amsoni. NickiiEconomen. ' and *...,".

t V.. A JJ.

,~.

oar.a 4 4 % aW M

g.

A. n g w to cas navan / marust; 5

- &.. $ ~G,n':anonyhousf allege [.~R'). f, $u..gh&jwQ,'..

w s.

W &M orun Y:A.

.,..- w. s,

m..,_.,,,...,.; n us.. m.,. u. e.>,.-4 3

5:N cowrocxmurir: aseussiss-::/ *stser ms: 4 -1. 41## 11iS6"a.m..WMB

y. _'

f '.

? ?h,

.f NS )k k hi

'h h;pm fhf k

. EIS ' received a.n anonymous telephone call 11 10y1155;n.m..:.

/8t,e eging a

p

,m A

, :..ygs w p1 4'1 v n. ;

,b m. :.

.... su n n e..

4..,

y= g n.

.r.

m.x,icaihiilds at.Shearon Harris nucleardillastk9.pjpg

y... a r.

c a.

p

.impropar

)

j

$W'

~

E

'4A '

'i -

p g*6c ?

. 4.u3p

_x

+

be

" caller infonned me that our conversation was$115fW*

9 M

"Y;:-$$c -

.l W dw ' -

% 'n % w

~s ws,

..v s.-g.-A+y st j

st-a w.

(p wy s

?y..,c,+I.e ~. - -

m.

~2

- y.\\

. p w,m.gy:w;. m. v:;;

.mk,qw

w..,. r e.. p 2 1

,. : a

+

w.

-..:w-

.e e m. v n,.

-.g: rs 1

E; 4 The alleger (a' male sounding voice)~;re'fusedW;J 1Mese

.,.x y

f/,

r

. ~.

~.

.9

~

A..m;

%. 4 g.

7.

did state that' he is currently a' welder.f.,or Da.n,$.e.. ts.,

2.-%n..,'.

.G. 3 n

Co.. tr -

a

% ' A,..

l ns L

u;n

,. l, -g2, m.,

g o%

(,

gy e

M 5HNP. He continued by saying* that he; represent $;

4 1

i.

c Q h. )$$

?

% QIX.

y

'. ' W who have "made ' bad rebar cadwelds in the'contaf '

M il

. z

u. s; g:

Ax tw+

aq.se pyn.ynas!.

' performed th construction at SHNP.

He stated that each ; individual;.in.m s

m;yy v.- ag,.,m.

p

.< n improper and unsafe welds.

In response to questionskthe-alleger / stated?4hatQNl

. u #ni WN%. W..- t.E;di %..

+. m h

the welders acter' individually, in some cases simply taking shortcuts /toJet@A ;* -

Wy2p v ?

the jcb done faster.

However, many individuals in the grJup h'av fbecome' fearful - @

-n. A y m:, e:.;n%*si^.W ' 7.gY " ^.

.,L' t*. ' er

?

that so r.any improper welds have been made that it may constitute a serious j

g n,/f

^ ' ; ---

s g

He stated thagthere was no management complicity and he is g.

u safety problem.

1.,

Certain that management personnel are not aware of the seriousness of the N

. i L..

u,.,.j_:#

problem.

[,.

~ 7_ paea I or 2

_h' pr.cpante ay uta n e

J. C. Howell 6/23/81' l$'

4 b

'1

^5 AICt D N 4 E QU1 AE D Ou em u -

b b d l

tM e.cLa 4%-

J urna I

\\

Rg n

00 NOT DISCLOSE

% ]

n oc ce av ura 7

7 a M 1_

k ch>iclAL USE ONLY a;

T, n

room *II-Tis an a

.;t'

s.

g l

l ll

$ 565"E

~

G ]l

=

f g

n >. s, m >.,; 3,.g. y,x -.

. ~..

., ua.w.,..,. p'

< 9,bv y:p yn W.tt nsww 3 ;

Ai

.w s,tatedhhltsagat

- eelytitereg,lsynogf re%$$

kM~ kD N NESk e

}.-dEdE*gl06

- ~ '

si rapw.y.pand%.?+.'?

kn&QN M's.t.h_'e-we. m 4

g erl

(

itl-w..ris'pe F

ot;chec, kin

'c..fini',,..

..w y 7..

M[IFM,~. g e.4,q ',My..k. -f m,p x_

.e

{

Ni!D TM.U?iWdM@9

~ PMMUM@

d' h.,e JM,.n m. M, b;. u. a., ~

g g.:

atta yf g ni

.s..o.metime po

.L

, s.

.g

~

,S.gm..,

-Y.f W,...

Y >.-

n k.Y-j. AY

' ' V'.~

5-ffH: -.:

u.g....a,Ln... /, >,

~

w e.n

-w~

.e4 Nk, e m.'.sw s. v.

&V%y.,wg:.nd,4... p m t.n'.

' : Ef-wnhr v

.g

-m d} $

f y'%p my e$a MegesTsta'ted7/iit lieits&q uitti ig;fd s:J obEs co 2...,,, -

. ~ f.

)

v

}{e;p

,9

%.! r c.?^*:2.W'ymi '.:,. :,;pt'.X*gv < -stated 7thatihesandiother.;membetsdofg the group;ateiconvi

{} ~ we[- % -

Y mi%<:mmw me t

ose -

, t2

$.gfVjt.f'"-#.^"C~.) $ @ M g Q..

pl S; k y

s". management-discovers howttheyshavele

.. Q $ l.3 9 M M / 6 -

p.lheir? jobs-if. Daniel [N.M15@

d M

3.a N

.. M.;n w:&'? N Rh y

L

... - 2:1,n:p y +y

%.v,,Jr this~.reasn%they all' prefer.jto Iemain anonymousggg%g.dhtt.w ub m%

3 4c

.c.-

gy,

.b

.,..u..,.

7a 4g'f -s]zy(p %d,g.~

y g

for.

g x.

& w :.. 's.. -

c.,3 : x :~ Q ::..y,

,,-L.; wgn:qg^

v e m.;.:; m :,.g p:M d'Q".g.

- iy.4;p.( @d

, y+g/;.3 pp y g

gsq-7 x;;L m; p

, Wh:F '-

v_: e.; v q ;ya W :+ @

e

...,,. m R. lc.

c,

. p. -

n

9g.

. -

3.y?.wm

~w g:WF 4_s ~ -? When requested' to, provide spe'cific; locations and dates:of;fmproper$pid

,e.g.Pg vd

.p.

0$

,e; p.c,r.v,:. 4t,pW%

Q y

. w; -

.4 g+*;,2"-

allegeransweredonlyingeneraltermssayingthattheyarey"everywkfreer,eyon.v,3

p' q;j t

-. Yl%,

7

. m -r.~

.~s. -

tnat "all of then are bad" He stated that there is an.individuanwhdcijhen,'

d A f.* N l

1 l

L r.ws to pctness a lis t :md sketch that ref lect tne-loca tion of " bad. we.lds".

p He s u ted that he v.as ring to approach ais individual and encourage.him to j

~~*act z si*n :nis inf w > tion.

He ro* i "d to divui<;" ine other individuals l

ted to prosiA ce ;peci f1 r inforration.

He N in rne a l l e <:e r w n

i r, ; i r, t N

t r.

+^ rM ore to

r<

ther < O rs in his group and u,.3. ", ;,

n r.n + W <p n I I E.15 by l e t te r

<>,.,j.,s,,

tyr*,.

.s;

one'

' 'h:

mv" ret:cn.

He stated that nti f n>

...+n n +;mn

n.,,tiq. tors at that time.

.j i

l l

rat ae o

a r r Tmr

- GE 2

c'

/

I

, v.

11

'l r, a.n OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT OlSCLOSE 3b 3,

no==

m-risa a., i

s J%

. ~ =rn

.. ~ %4'.:hdh4.

NMEst w:.MR a$@43 jNI.%.

s.vs NkkNkMMkiBEMdNdhhUkjfd(CASEJILED f h D I5h.5 k fpij @ h k..

Y0Y9

-~

y[- r "..**%

S R d6 M 4 @ W ~ia.l. y g y,

mm e

7 2

.h a

Q-M-,: n.,. w:

- eres. w: n.o..nene'ow n c.1 tmis(wyeenew

."CCHowell 7W:

9 wq

- '8 e-

!. 00$eWWe

&pi#.

Y-k

Q.., $?: !-

J

~ys M fy((@ M 4 0 N,. eE muti

.l.,T.

9 s,.

?

War.ns*r.5,'.,~ n +. &C -

., r>

a s,.

,c ~ k b, z

$,s:. 6. m t+b ns..M

M45tionehformation has been received from the alleger.

..f;'

. JM; '

,q

?

g ff

~,. e a u

.o mme:n yp

' * ;11cwinig-kformation was obtained on July

-e 22-23," 198L from pertinentv P

/E h hk Mvy4 Q N'.ie.%q u

. m'W}k... - te ;3 j

WN3 ties d

I to ascertain previous NRC. actions; and.

w

$~ @?~", nding{s@/fa ividuals!within' Regio

' W

.M Q V q}.f;$gy % :.

j

" %,%U. i

@y ;,

'j a,:;N f f...

pga: y y,

,L-%ths;& %

h M;. a.

~

%'y S q h nus'd,f d 5; *.

A regarding cadwelds at Harris; yf 1

i hi

.Y' '

.,m

[

~

Y A.

s:

1.ca,@:. V.- w.-EPOSe w r

t c *' C - M.. s i

. - n:,

u.s n

-[h D (Th[ '

,h p,

d hNd f;

.A#;w.w w a.wcw q

3-l... -#y.N s,,,~d y

I

c,

%., t j q q z - yg.,

g w

q~,y m y,e.w y g..

2 s -

>s p

i

@i645.e.L. Opefational Support.Section - Contacted D. Price,' A6 tin ~g ChiefC'Has

. &j - m ;

v. -

,g.,

.y

.. ~...

t related that this area has not been given specific, attention thrc;.a..cf m.

w

..f a nwp;m.

3 N

i SALP and no cadwelds problems have been brought to his attention.

L

..; m,,. w,....

an;;,

s

v pp - -

,g Bulletins, Circulars, Notices - Contacted Bruce Cochran.

He stated that r

.c he does not have any Construction Deficiency Reports (CDR) on file

+

regarding cadwelds at Harris.

e

.Q

)

N 1 or3 I

mer PKEPAAED SY OATE J. C. H ell 7/27/81 ACTION REQUIRED DATE RtyltwtD SY DO NOT DISCLOSE M

OFFICIAL USE ONLY P08MI AZZ-fle me,t

G30W1CI A VU$ C ONt.YClwx nw K

? AM "9MS&LMWy y %, Q W W QGPy g % NC W 'a;?:

MWMW

'MM A&M W'W%*W Ad 'm'Y - '

^ ' ~: j nam new:mpamp:, :y:%%ap' WT@

9MiM Y":yV?O.V 'f

' f W A R Q ?'23:

?1'

$M?MIk.'dd. EM,dH5ID.,U$$T6YCA$d, 5iLE9;C04Thi,UATION' 'SUEEID F.$$ M ~ '

M e

w.

m_ m r+

~r c.

- o

.g

,; ~-

. 7:.

A

s. L?:Wi,y % t.'*, M;,:m., < ;,

^

i

. Jw,, p ey m.

~'

-.c

,,y,.

>,v ~ W

.pl x m.-

+.

3.

. wmgyp.%(;w.. s..-;

c, u

. -m, x.

.n xqt:w n-

u.

~.

< >.' ".. ':m y;, gf, :;;m.. yu' ' ;% : d p;,a-

.ALy:

~

'A.,.

l;' '..' t.W.

.C

-.. c

..' }. ;T k, c

w

,g.% c k f

yy ' '

,..: ~-',

4y

'cm

'Materf arr' nd Process Sectica Contacted Al Herdt',.Cnief. His section

p,.

., q s r

_y.

a

~

1

..(

2.s,

. + :4

, p.

.'u ~'.Q: inspectsTtf0ctural. welds. only.and has. not noted any; signt ficant problem -

3,

<, 1 0-;, :-

u.w r

c

/ >' iddring their inspections.

Cadwelds.are inspected by Plant Systems (..

+h

=.

,.v,

...r..

S

,z s

u.

un v

'. n q,;-,., :7 x

s e

.. w m.,

e..~..

c S; ;gmL h;-

~3 y,:p.u g. 3. ~ v q r.;;

r-

.fqq - c

.c

.~.

~,

T,vp> ant Systcrs Section - Contacted. Tec'Conien, Chief,'and Joe'Lehana

'3

-", f. M. H -

R1

+

z ng g = y..g..g 4.v,.g.

m v.

...y z.

w r.

. p i '. Inspector'. x This section does have a CDR 'en file',f tri CarcTina Ecwer an.d fi

~

(

. Je

..I.

a.

+,

.n I-

-light dated Deceder IU9 which references defective cadwclds that were!'

9'.z F.

- w, n

a

.. c accepted by QC.

Cenicn states that tne probles crisir;ated with, two. J, a

z:

.y specific CPSL QC insp& tars who accepted welds that should'have ':een

~

,~

.- 4 i ' i ',1

's.

'~y

.s n

rejected.

Cenicr s 3

es t%t corrective acMon was taken' by CP&L.

The il cs: y ";

2 e,

c y &g cacwelds reflects f

~

}

1 -

has scheduied an inspection 5,

l r-m: 1,--

n r-c r

i'

'I 3

d

{

h.

t j'jr s

I

'r

j f

u

*ir;g d',9*,

d n.(

c o

5*.1:95

.Te*

i-

r

' e, r.;, teu:

[

2 7

'A, 5

i

.u3 J

i A

s.

c'

, qs i i l

i I

h l

4 s '

, } r' * > v 4

- - ' ~ ~

.-.-..,.__.-----.-.--.--<(

,' f

}

1

.e t

.r a ut

=. s t

/

4

- - - ~ - - - - - -

. - -~-_.-.._ _

-~.-.

---~~A l

OfrCML sSE :NL' 30 NOT Di3CLOSE 3)

.2 80*w e :I ' ga e,,

(

- -- -~'

-~

\\

I^

1

=d gew%"tqppfL. - -,... -.

i

~

w.

r p

g g g g g g$d5-relecte tj ip W no

^

~

&?bW$,

Y bh f []

4.y4 : 7 a, s_.

s.

y 3;g s

um xwe

seesanorpro scadwe

)

,b e ec.c m w we,ary;c

<+,

s l

w

.w s g.yg y

1.w a'th$k[ sib'CDZk@t

~' s

[' -

Y MF r Y'

~

l'"'

E'"

'~

l 2

..f%l4%.

%5WaQ=n

+. 7d

-~

q l.:

7,45' t?!!M.p,htM:.MS En 9,

N EbYh

?htyn

~"h'hhkkE;h$khYf.'

Y f.N't'anceM

,x 1

% ft.hfe._

Ydiscussing,;this ;aMegatio l

a.g

w. Aer s v.g +<.

.c

-.w~

mm t

- c.:

?

s,

$: --3%.c.7 va ced1hig.R$p,i'ni;on:

y'L ?. C O':.a 7.:.:.

F l h, M=

s

^

~

op-tha b '

ggg. g,. gw j

73 w

.- on.n heidtth TevesVt 3

i:: QT6aW7 n

(

ggg z.-

v i

ShNNkM.5.I kPa rep m :.

hh resen e

f

, g.y > c

~:

w:. n.

.,.:.~ v r..

. c l.

i

>#? i.#,u.5. ITiff.n.f.~omed Maxwell that

[

M 'd 2 M _f f

<*hb@kWd - :

r J

_ dt h.

EP8Egexpected %

R I

. ^t G W'J u

n

~ - p,;.".y.pp gg95:,y.yg m:,; cup hre

.. -.:ax

?swz +

~.o w, - r.. dg,.y...,ew"s allegations of an u;nspec,;i.re.

=,

.c."... : NRC wi th.

aue e

b

. + 2.<..,4r 3

a c.r.

y,, G-

.W...-Z.a.t= p.:;:/.,

' w, ',t, '

.. E.

..+...g:9 r.-

7,.

.e r

.n 2

7. + -. v9;,.

p,..

_ :te.

B a.,,,. r.y.

.s $~1,'%

s.az miu.,

., yrw -: M*

B'ge;-52 9'

~

A case revie i discussion between Alderson/fiowe,.+D. on July 27,-198 att. s

.coiic.......is.v:

,vist w :.

1:

4 in view of acticns/findinas previously conducted by Region I' nd>ofi th'e;w.+wr,a ly wo pendilig' ::.i

" y,' j.

..'?I ETI ins;ectir, 3t O rris, it is not necessary to pursue

ne alleger's'TdebtI.tyl W'

.y,,

.~3 3

l 4

?

r.

.I

^

T ild E CATE pgqg y

,"8 0

/ / / /,j,

l 3

FILE c

7_ p p.j e)

]/

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE 37 j'

s'i l

' O # te RII-Ti9 A 4 rv i

, hff Mk-f*

OFFICIAL USE..ONLY I '

MEMORANDUM TO. CASE FILE TYPE ACTION PARTICIPANTS FIL E MO-Alderson pgy

<x) RCcono or coNvEnsATeoM OATE

( ) cast RCv Cw / status 7/29/81

< )

,,,c, TIME

~

cQNrf0CNTIAUTY REQUESTED YEs NO 9:57 a.m.

SUMetARY M

call the office and wanted to talk to Mr. O'Reilly. He refused to give his name to the secretary and did not wish to speak to an investigator.

The secretary passed the information on to me, I returned the call and asked if the individual would speak to me. He agreed to do so and provided the following information. He had just left employment with Daniels Construction W

ft e made.the following allegations:

?

1.

On the 211-Elevation in the core key area of containment against the primary, wall, protective coating \\were being applied. Water was coming out of cracks and construction joints in the concrete.

Allegedly a substance referred to as "concresive" (pou nf,ma+c) which was described as a combination of epoxy and sand was used to fill the cracks.. Even though there continued to be some amount of water sea ch,theeleven-Scoatingwasputonanyway.

There are three concerns relhted to this-t I

The alleger believes that the (concresive) is not to be used below the a.

246-elevation.

b.

The alleger believes he saw a letter from the project engineer to the resident inspector or directly to the NRC dihich said that,qg,1

,,(

OATE PREPARED SY C. E. Alderson 7/29/81 ACTION REQUIRED 1.-

b#Aw 0 (%

'2.

a ELY Yt G c ow C.C-bitAdd

>N~

3 CLA.R. YvdLrvto b

.k}h-DATE EtVIEWED SY 12/3/b e

l 3h OFFIC)AL USE ONLY 00 NOT OlSCLOSE M

rCGMs RZZ-Tis Res.t l

b' WR R W.

I IAL 3rr ~,.- %q.. g4

. 4pi:e

~

n..

q,,,

h.*.,[M$EMORANDUM TO ' CASE FILE CONTINUATION SHEET

.-s p.

.PN.

'q'5pISpoxy was used below the 246-elevation.

? ' 3;; fp The alleger does not believe that the 11S coating will cure pro'perly c.

when applied over. moisture.

1 The alleger stated that dnd the know that the epoxy was used.

He further last name unknown) and the concrete -

stated that the finishers (names unknown) would be' aware of this.

~

2.

In Zones 3 and 4 dry pack (or, dry patch) was used to patch." bug hole's" 3

(areaswhereplacementformthrodshadbeencutoff). This material &

)

6 started crumbling and a CP im;;crained L inspecto checked it-and i

had the workis' topped. The had.to writ 6 '

I

~

a report on this matter.

The was instructed by an individual name and another individual name to get a hold.of the inspector and use anything short of physical l

force to get him not to document this problem. According to the alleger, the deficient material was eventually covered with grout and the surface Buh4 was coated.

is believed to be working for bat +1 at a nuclear, facility in Louisanna at this time.

3.

The resident inspector (George Maxwell) came.on site at approximately 1:00 a.m. to inspect coating application.

The resident inspector over heard a CP&L construction inspector and a jinaheated discussion regarding instructions not be cl ea*r.

The re;ident inspector allegedly stayed all night and then went to the the next morning and told him painters had complained about i

vague instructions which resulted in poor workmanship. The alleger is j

concerned that the whole crew was in trouble because of this.

FILE NO.

DATE TIME

t 2

0F 4

7/29/81 9:57 a.m.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE M

3p coao azz-riu n.

,,,, ?h W k W $ ! O W l Ci A C.'U S k h f W

- &gy &

3le% R l;$ l n

7

.. i p..

Y MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE CONTINUATION SHEET j}

g. 7,(

35 4.

The'sl[le'gerstatedthatwheneveraproblemisfound,ratherthangoback h I and cSrrect it a Field Change Request (FCR) is issued to avoid the y

original specification.

Some of these are taken care of onsite rather than going back to the person or organization that approved the original specification.

5.

Waterproofing had been applied to the side of the turbine building and the area backfield when it was necessary to dig up part_of the area to~

j

~

put in some conduit, thus exposing the waterproofing.

Water;got behind g

the vinyl liner and ordered tcfr ace the I

vinyl liner that day.

explained that it Gould be.done in one

]

day and then told him to cut holes in the vinyl :litier.and drainT4. _. M

. s,w, -

.y the water, and then to put masticeover the holes. M,. mallegedly 3 9 7 i

refused to do so without some sort of written authori.zati J

wrote an FCR'and did the work.

LateranindividualNent-t and said that he had to get the FCR back or there would be trouble.

returned the document but supposedly retained a copy.

1

~

6.

Approximately lb years ago on the second shift a concrete placement of approximately three thousand yards was being made on reactor building.

no. 2 at the.211-elevation in the core key area.

A cold joint developed

_ CP&L) and th

(

and told to put concrete over the joint.

The alleger stated that the I

concrete was hard and told him to put a vibrator on it and blend it.

The alleger identified the following individuals as witnesses:

l

and aniels inspector (name unknown).

7.

Non-seismic gate guides were used at the intake structure when seismicall'y' qualified gate guides were required.

The alleger believed that an FCR may have been issued on this.

FILE NO.

DATE Tied C 7/29/81 9:57 a.m.

- 3 4

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE 38 F@#ts RII. flS A Rev. I

. w.. _.

~

t 0FFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE CONTINUATION SHEET

)

l 8.

Concrete was poured over an area wh ch had not been clear in accordance with procedures prior to the-+puuA.,

ere.

According to the alleger this occurred'in an exterior wall in the fuel handling area and involved an area of approximately 3 to 4 square feet from which dirt had not been cleaned prior to the pour.

A concrete inspector was alleged to have been aware of this; however no name was provided.

9.

On the 236-elevation in the Northeast corner of the fuel handling building in the wall between the fuel handling building and,the comening building sheet metal welded to seismic plates are touching reinforcing bar which j

coGa u.,

-may lead to damage of the reinforcement due to pathic action.

Y 10.

On the 236-elevation of the RAB building there are series of small rooms with motors inside.

Sandblasting was perfonned in these areas 'without i

sufficient protection of the motors and they now have sand inside them.

During the conversation the alleger also addressed a concern related to movement of gama radiography equipment by the radiography technicians.

Specifically-the camera had been lower on a rope some 30 or 40 feet passed workers and the alleger felt that they may have been exposed.

I explained the operation of radiography camera to the alleger specifically with regard to the stored position of the source.

He had no further concern regarding this matter after hearing my explanation.

Throughout the conversation the alleger repeatedly reouested confidentiality in this matter; however, he indicated that if criminal charges arosed from this matter, he would testify if he had to.

n't"*-

^"

7/29/81 9:57 a.m.

"" 4 4

3 ['.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE 3$

, m. z z.1,...,

In Reply Refq M -

,l.S-August 12, 1981 To:

JYY2F035

%. # s-s

.c' This refers to your telephone conversation with Mr. C. E. Alderson of this office on July 29, 1981, in which you expressed concerns related to j

construction practices at Carolina Power and Light Company's Harris nuclear power plant site.

l, An enclosure to this letter documents your concerns as I understand them l'

based on my conversation with Mr. C. E. Alderson. We have initiated an i

inquiry regarding this matter; therefore, if the enclosure does not completely =and' accurately reflect all of your concerns, please contact me as soon as possible at (404) 221-5507 so that we can assure that they-( M.-x are adequately addressed during our inquiry. If you should call and I

'n happen not to be available, please ask to speak to another investigator or leave a message so that I can call you back.

i Regarding your request for confidentiality, let me assure you that we will make every attempt to handle this matter in such a way as to maintain your anonymity.

In this respect, I would like to point out that licensee sometimes correctly guess the identity of the individual providing information to us.

In such cases our policy is to neither confirn nor deny the accuracy of their guess.

In closing, we a;preciate your bringing your concerns to our attention.

If you have additional questions, or if I.can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, N

)

).. ~

~

p.

James Y. Vorse Regional Investigator

Enclosure:

Statement of Concerns-2F035 I

RII:EISks gf RII:EIS JYVorse: cmc CEAldersont g

8/ /81 8/g/81 q

39

j'.

EtiCLOSURE STATEMENT OF C0f4CERf4S-2F035 1.

Concern A prohibited substance was used to repair cracks and fill construction joints inside the containment building.

Additional Details i

y According to the alleger a substance referred to as "concresive" was used to repair cracks and construction joints to stop water in-leakage on the 211-elevation in the " core key" area of containment.

It was alleged that the repair substance contained epoxy which was not supposed to be used below the 246-elevation because of possible radiation affects he epoxy.

Acc ding to the allege the the I

and t were a i aware o

nis, as were the e concrete finishers who performed the work.

2.

Concern l

A letter was provided to the 11RC which erroneously stated that no epoxy was used in containment below the 246-elevation.

t 3.

Concern Prctective coatings were improperly applied and may not adhere properly.

Additional Details According to the alleger, the repairs referred tg in 1 above, did not completely stop the water in-leakage, but the "ll-S" coatings were applied anyway.

The alleger does not believe the coatings will cure properly because of the moisture present.

4.

Concern Areas in concrete where placement form tie rods had been cut of'f

(" bug holes") were not properly repaired.

' Additional Details According to the alleger, " dry patch" which was.used to repair holes in concrete in Zones 3 and 4 began to crumble.

A CP&L inspectorW allegedly stopped the work because of this; however, the deficient material was subsequently covered with grout and protective coatings were applied over the surface.

5.

Concern When problems are found, Field Change Requests (FCRs) are issued to avoid the original specifications.

Additional Details flo specific examples were given; however, the alleger stated that some of the FCRs are "taken care of onsite" rather than going back to the person or organization which approved the original specifica-tions.

6.

Concern A cold joint exists on the 211-elevation in the " core key" area of the Unit 2 containment building.

Additional Details

.iccording to the alleger, about 113 years ago a concrete placement of approximately 3,000 yards was being made when a cold joint developed. Allegedly, (CP&L) and M (Daniels) were overheard telling (Daniels) to put concrete over the i

joint and blend it with a vi rator.

The alleger stated tha ther witnesses included and aniels inspector (name unknown).

7.

Concern flon-seismically-qualified gate guides were used at the intake structure when seismically qualified gate guides.were required.

Additional Details The alleger belicves that an FCR may have been issued on this change.

8.

Concern Concrete was poured even though preparations for the pour were l

known to be inadequate.

3

I,,.. ".

Additional Details According to the alleger, an exterior wall in the fuel handling area was poured over a surface that had not been properly cleaned.

Dirt had not been cleaned from an area of approximately 3 to 4 square feet.

A concrete inspector was alleged to have been aware of this; however, the alleger could not provide the inspector's name.

9.

Concera Sheet metal welded to seismic plates is touching reinforcing bar which may lead to damage to the reinforcement due to cathodic action.

Additional Details This condition allegedly exists on the 236-elevation in the northeast corner of the fuel handling building-(FHB) in the wall between the FHB and the " common building".

10.

Concern Installed motors were improperly protected during sandblasting operations and now have sand inside them.

Additional Details The alleger was unable to identify the motors, but said they are located in a series of small rooms on the 236-elevation in the "RAB building.

11.

Concern Waterproofing on the below grade on tion of the turbine building wall was damaged and improp:rb rer,lred.

Additional Details According to the alleger,it became necessary to dig up part of the backfill next to the turbine building to install conduit, thus exposing the waterproofing.

Water allegedly got behind the vinyl liner and holes'were cut in the liner to drain off the water.

The holes were then covered with mastic.

The alleger stated that M and were aware of this and an FCR was written, but the C may have been destroyed.

4 a

3>ff 39 l

In Reply Refer To:

JYV2F035 DEC 071941 This refers to our letter to you dated August 12, 1981 wn:-h indicated that we had initiated an inquiry into your concerns regarding construc-i tion practices at Carolina Power and Light Company's Harris nuclear i

power plant site as documented in the enclosure to that letter.

Our special inspection regarding this matter has been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosed report.

One item, pertaining to epoxy grout, outlined on Page 3 of the enclosed report is still open and will be addressed by our inspectors during a future upcoming inspection.

As you will notice, this iten has been assigned a specific number and it has been included in our computer tracking system which will ensure adecuate resolution is obtained.

With regards to the violation identified during the inspection, Carolina e

Power and Light Conpany is required to infom us in writing of the corrective actions they have taken or plan to take and our inspectors will continue to follow such actions to ensure proper resolution.

I would like to explain that the finding " unsubstantiated" does not necessarily mean that we find the facts as you stated then to be untrue, ratner it means only that we were unable to obtain objective evidence to corroborate your statements through interviews, document reviews, and/or direct observations.

This concludes the Enforcement and Investigation Staff's activities i

regarding this matter. We appreciate your informing us of your concerns and feel that our actions have been responsive to those concerns; however, should you have further questions regarding this natter, please contact Please be assured that we will continue to perform inspections to ne.

ensure that construction procedures are properly followed at nuclear power plants to protect the public health and safoty.

Sincerely, lo (f9 [

James Y. Vorse Regional Investigator

\\

Enclosure:

IE Report No. 50-400/81-18 k

fp JYVorsg: cmc

{Aldeg%on RII:EIS RII:EIS 3g 12/ /1 l'//

.T~

' ^

UNITED STATES' I:

y mee p

o.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

l_"

J l*

REGION 11

+

n 101 MARIETTA STIEET, N.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 1.,,****%/

OCT 2 31978 1

SSINS 5050 y

. e,.,

'a.

MEMORANDUM-FOR: ~ Files l

THRU:

Charles E. Murphy, Chief is

[f Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch Alan R. Herdt, Chief Projects Section Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch FROM:

Robert D. Bradley, Principal Inspector-Projects Section

~ Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch

SUBJECT:

SU)DL-\\RY OF ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED SEPTEMBER 12 THROUGH AN OCTOBER 2, 1978 PERTAINING TO ALLEGATIONS AFFECTING D c THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

'WA' u,

s.-

On Septesber 12, 1978, M. V. Annast requested a meeting with C. E. Murphy, V. L. Brownlee and myself to discuss a telephone call he had just received concerning the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. The. caller was a Daniel Construction surveyor who requested that his name not be disclosed; however, he did want to meet with members of the Region II staff concerning safety-related structures and activities at the CP&L site. In general, the concerns involved re-bar tolerancing, concrete repair, survey nonument changes, and misplaced anchor bolt mounting pads. As an inspection was already scheduled the following week, it was agreed that a meeting would be held with the caller at that time.

Late in the evening on September 19, 1978, M. V. Annast, W. B. Swan, and myself met with the Daniel employee in Raleigh, North Carolina.

He inforced us that through a misunderstanding, he was no longer e= ployed by Daniel. He then proceeded'to describe in detail six areas of concern he had in the fuel handling building, vaste processing building,_and unit 1 containment.

Between W. B. Swan and myself, each of the areas were examined, documentation was reviewed, and discussions were held wit.h personnel knowledgeable in those areas. Care was taken not to draw any attention to our activities as it was determined that the licensae would not be informed unless the allegations were substantiated.

'D

'i h)W

-W

.'a 4

le

s

Memo for Files The results of our examination, as well as the specific areas in question, can be found in the letter prepared by M. V. Annast to the concerned individua' dated.0ctober 2,1978 (reference Case File II-C46).

Inspection Report 50-400, 401, 402, 403/78-05 will provide additional information on these matters and the basis for these findings.

In summary, there were no areas examined which were not adequately identified, documented, investigated, evaluated, and appropriate action taken.

!'QV Robert D. Bradley, Principal Inspector Projects Section Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch cc:

M. V. Annast AL

y e s: 9 "

F/

A e

V y-na n

.g INVESTIGATIVE lj MATERIAL i9 0

y

$-l THIS FOLDER CONTAINS MATERIAL RELATED TO AN OFFICIAL NRC h

WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION TO ONE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE DISCLOSURE PURSUANT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS INCLUDING SECTIONS 2.790, 9.5, 19.16 AND 21.2.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY Yi$-

%.,49.,

7.-

a, SPECIAL HANDLING s

"w.

l REQUIRED

)'

~

THIS FOLDER MUST BE LOCKED IN A DESK, FILE CABINET OR SAFE

[

WHEN NOT PERSONALLY ATTENDED.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION CON-i

$~

TAINED HEREIN IS LIMITED TO THE REGION !!

I NVE ST ! G AT :E G,~. STAFF AND THEIR SUPERVISION. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMAT10it-iv UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION. 7 /l n

f UNITE 3 STATES amee: [ [m .dCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o O ~,$ RE % ION ll h 101 M ARIETTA sTr.EET. N.W. ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 a, e %,.... f 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05, 50-403/78-05 Report No.: Docket No.: -50~-400, 50-401, 50-(.02, 50-403 CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160, CPPR-161 License No.: Categories: A2, A2, A2, A2 Carolina Power and Light Company Licensee: 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Shearon Harris. Nuclear Power Plant Facility Name: Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 Carolina Power and Light Company, Headquarters Inspection at: Raleigh, North Carolina Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Vake and Chatham Counties North Carolina ( Inspection Conducted: September 19-22, 1978 Inspectors: R. D. Bradley V. L. Brownlee W. . Spa 7[ /[ Reviewed by: Dat'e A. R. Herdt, Chief Frojects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Inspection Su::snary Inspection on Septe:nber 19-22, 1978 (Report No. 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05, 50-403/78-05 inspection of licensee aci. ion on Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced previous inspection -findings, main dam, west auxiliary dem, excavation-in power block areas; unit I centaiseent backfill and concrete placement liner; construction housekeeping and warehousing; QA records; facilities; inspection involved 70_ inspector-hours on-site by and IE Bulletins. The three inspectors.No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Results: 1 AM /t3 fh

l3p' RII. Report Nos.: 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, '(' 50-402/78-05, and 50-403/78-05 DETAILS I Prepared by: b n1L% /C[?f[7[ R. D. Bradley, Jr., Principal anspector Date ~ i Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch l.. $zx JOf2IhY V. L. Brownlee, Principal Inspector Date' Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Dates of Inspecti S ptember 19-22, 1978 f f/ Reviewed by: / Y4 A. R. Herdt, Chief Date Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch 9 1. Persons Contacted Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) a.

P. W. Howe, Vice President Technical Services
R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
N. J. Chiangi, Manager Engineering and Construction QA
G. L. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist
A. Lucas, Resident Engineer R. G. Black, Project Licensing Engineer R. D. Brown, Of fice Engineer b.

Daniel Construction Company (DCC) P. K. Harris, Document Control Supervisor

Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.

The inspectors also interviewed eleven other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included concrete foremen, QA/QC inspectors, of fice engineers and contractor personnel. l 'j A3 og A

P' g 4 i ( RII. Report Nos.: 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05, and 50-403/78-05 ' 1 ) 2. Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings o (Closed) Noncompliance No.' 400/78-04-01, Document Control' - CP&L's d letter of response dated September 5, 1978, for Infraction A has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by IE II. The inspectors held discussions with the Principal QA Specialist, Office Manager, and Document Control Supervisor and examined the ~ corrective actions as stated in the letter of response. The ir.spectors concluded that CP&L i sanagement had understood the full extent of this particular noncompliance, the performed the necessary audits and follow-up actions to correct conditions and. developed the necessary corrective actions to present The corrective actions preclude recurrence of similar circumstances. identified in the letter of response are being implemented. 3. Unresolved Items-There were no unresolved items identified as a result of this inspection. 4. Independent Inspection Effort a. General / This -inspection was performed for the purpose' of transferring Principal Inspector responsibilities from V. L. Brownlee to R. D. Bradley. The inspectors performed walk-through inspections of site f acilities and held meetings at the site and at the corporate offices in Raleigh, North Carolina,.to acquaint the_ newly assigned principal inspector with CP&L management personnel and functional relationships. b. Concrete During walk-through inspection of the Fuel Handling Building, the inspector witnessed interior wall concrete. placements IFHIW 226013 (elevation 226) and IFHIV 232005 (elevation 231.5). Placement activities were in progress 1 utilizing one pump with test samples being taken at pump discharge. During subsequent testing, it was noted that air content had shifted below specified limits. Quality inspection personnel promptly-rejected the. remaining truck yardage. The inspectors monitored CP&L con-struction and quality inspection personnel and verified that test results were being documented and coordinated with the field engineer. and batch plant personnel for. proper six adjustment prior to continuing placenient activities. Additional test cylinders were made to later assess strength results of the last batch placed prior to rejection (i.e.,15 percent of the truck f e A5

.w -( ~ ( RII. Report Nos.: 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, '50-402/78-05, and 50-403/78-05 load is placed before a sample is taken). Vibrators were contin ~ually used until placement was resumed. The inspectors monitored DCC. personnel activities on the forms to assure vibrators did penetrate through into _ the previous layer.of concrete. A review of the applicable Concrete Placement Report, Field Inspection Report for Embedded Plates, Penetrations and Anchor Bolts, Field Inspection Report for Reinforcing Steel and. the Congrete Test Reports, indicates they were properly completed. c. Procedure Review - QA Records S Section 1.8 and Table 1.8-5 of the PSAR set forth the commitments for collection, storage and maintenance.of Quality Assurance (QA) records. The SAR specifies that CP&I.'s QA record program will be structured in accordance with ANSI N45.2.9 (draft 11, Revision 0) dated January 17, 1973, and the applicable Regulatory Staff coments in Section D of the " Grey Book" dated June 7,:1973, with the clarifications and alternatives-outlined in the above referenced table. [ The inspector reviewed Revision 4 of Section.12 of CP&I.'s Corporate Quality Assurance Program Manual (revision 7, dated February 15,197S) and Revision 2 of QA procedure CQA-4 of the SENPP Construction Site QA Unit Manual of Procedures (revision 1, dated January 10, 1978) and verified that QA record storage requirements were consistent with PSAR comitments. d. Administration, Construction Supervision, Engineering and QA/QC Facilities The inspectors observed additional warehousing facilities, a new radiographic storage building under construction, the nev QA building for NDE activities, as well. as the large additional floor space allocated for the Document Control section for more systematic and organized document processing. These facilities were previously discussed in'IE Report Nos. 50-400, 401, 402, 403/77-4, which identified a need for facility expansion, improvement and rearrangement. The actions taken on this matter of concern are presently considered adequate to support the personnel and records for. work in the subject areas. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within l the areas examined ' 5. IE Bulletins (IEB) (Closed) IEB 78-06, " Defective Cutter-Hammer Type M Relays with J a. DC Coils", Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. hb l

i.t.,.. / l . 11, i-RII. Report Nos.: 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05, and 50-403/78-05, ~' The licensee's letter of July 31, 1978, has been reviewed'and it has been determined that there are no DC relays of this type in use in safety-related systems. b. (Closed) IEB 78-10, "Bergen-Patterson Hydraulic Shock Suppressor Accumulator Spring Coils", Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. CP&I.'s letter of August 21, 1978, states that their review of this matter determined that there are no Bergen-Patterson hydraul'ic snubbers planned for use at SHNPP. 6. Exit Interview The inspectors net with licensee representativies (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 22, 1978. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection ~as follows: principal inspector. turnover, site inspection, closecut of infraction 400/78-04-01, and IE Bulletins. / s o A1 e O

A 41 t; ;

\\

RII R pert N:s. 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, II-1 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78-05 1 I*!!1 78 M DETAILS II' Prepared by: Date W.B. Swan,CFvilEnginep Engineering Support Section No. 1 JReactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Datesofinspection: September 19-22, 1978 10 l9 78 b, bw Reviewed by: Date J. C.~Bryantf, Chief G 1 Engineering Support Section No. Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch 1. Persons Contacted Carolina Power and light Company (CP&L) a.

P. W. Howe, Vice President, Technica'. Services S. D. Smith, Manager of Power Plant Construction 3.

i

R. M. Parsons, Site Manager
N. J. Chiangi, Manager of Engineering and Construction QA

(

G. L. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist

(

A. M. Lucas, Resident Engineer E.~L. Kelley, Senior QA Specialist, CivilCivil (second shift)

V. Safarian, Senior QA Specialist, R. Black, Licensing J. Nevill, Civil Engineer W. Johnson, Geologist A. Fuller, Site Representative, Dams D. Canady, Geologist C'. Hall, Area Engineer b. Contractor Organizations ERASCO Division of ENSERCH (Ebasco) (1) I. Ciloglu, Geologist N. Tilford, Geotechnical Engineer, Eartb Sciences M. Hayes, Geotechnical Engineer, Earth Sciences D. Johnson, Geotechnical Engineer, Earth Sciences (2) Daniel Construction Co. (Daniel)

W.

B~. Goodman, Project Manager J. Latham, Area Superintendent, Waterproofing and Concrete t o ^X Ay_ u

1.II t-RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78-05 II-2 C. Pait, General Concrete Superintendent, Day Shift

y. Robinson, Night Superintendent R. Carlon, Survey Party Chief, Fuel Handling Building (3) Chicago Bridge an'd Iron Co. (CB&I)

R. Lerch, Construction Superintendent A. Thompson, Leadman, Welding E. C. Dengler, Welding and QA Superintendent (4) NRC Headquarters Personnel L. W. Heller, D.S.E. O. Thompson, D.S.E. A. T. Cardone, Geologist, D.S.E.

Participated in management interview.

2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings / (Closed) Infraction 400-78-04-02: Sampling for Pumped Concrete. The licensee had provided for sampling of concrete at end of the pump ~ Itce to supplement sa:pling of concrete moved by crane bucket and Revision 2 to Procedure GPC-13 was issued to clarify cretercrane. sa:pling requirements. Sampling frequencies are proportional to the amount of concrete moved by each method. 3. Unresolved Ite=s There were no new unresolved items identified during this inspection. 4. Independent Inspection Effort The licensee's file of Field Change Requests (FCRs) generated a. since mid July, 1978 to September 20, 1978, pertaining to rein-forced concrete items and equipment mounting were reviewed as to disposition or directed disposition. b. Preparation for concrete placements were observed in the south wall of the vaste processing building and the west wall of the fuel handling building opposite Unit I containment. Sboring being installed in the fuel handling building, to support as 11 foot thick upper slab placement, was inspected. The start of placement of concrete by pumping in a thick wall section of the reactor auxiliary building wall north of the Unit I containment-was observed. As W-

F i i A RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-05, ) 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78-05 II-3 1 Controlled compaction of earth fill outside the south wall and c. southeast corner of the waste processing building was inspected. d. Backfilling around concrete shielded CCW recirculation pipes at the southeast quadrant of the power block area was observed. A discussion was held with the site manager concerning the control e. of storm water and the absence of ground water in the power block excavations. Cleaning of the south section of the rock f'loor of the excavation f. for Unit 4 was inspected. Construction housekeeping in all areas was noted. g. h. Storage yard cenditions were noted. An additional warehouse was being completed and a metal shed has been provided for storage of combustibles. i. Discussions were held with the site manager and resident engineer concerning dimensional problems which occur due to sometimes- \\ cumulative ef fect from tolerances allowed in manufacture, fabrica-tion and placement.of heavy reinforcement steel. The licensee is consulting with EBASCO concerning proposed relief of unnecessarily restrictive di=ensions shown on rebar installation drawings. The inspector reviewed the licensee's file of field change requests (FCRs) concerning rebar placement dimensional discrepancies. In each case an engineering evaluation had been made and disposition directed. For example, FCR/PW C-258 vritten September 1, 1978 stated that an error in placement of dowels in Column 1 and J-l would cause proposed wall 22A in. the waste processing building to be 1 3/8" too far south. Evaluation of adjacent space utilization found no problem from this minor shifting of the wall. The change is to be noted on asbuilt drawings. FCR C-203 was written concerning misalignment of the north face of the shear wall along Column line M-37 in the fuel handling. building. The former had bent during placement IFHW234002. The worst displacement was 1 1/4 inch off the next line. The evaluation was "No detrimental effect on vall strength". Review of the file identified no noncompliance with quality requirements. During these independent inspection efforts no noncompliances with quality or safety requirements were identified. i A3 4 = n

j;,-u-j y.y w q l C RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78 II-4 Lakes, Dans and Canals - Observation of Work and Work Activities 5. On Septembe'r 19, 1978, geologists and geotechnical engineers of the licensee, EBASCO, Law Engineering and NRC-DSE beld a conference in the site headquarters building concerning work in progress for evaluation of the foundation rock at the main das and west auxiliary dam. The inspector accompanied these representatives to the das sites and examined exposed cleaned rock surfaces. Exploratory drilling of the foundation rock by Law Engineering Company was proceeding and core drilling to evaluate the borrow area was being performed above the southwesterly end of the main dam. Construction drawings and geologic maps of the exposed rock were examined in the damsite trailer. The proposed dass and reservoir soil work are shown on swings CAR-2167 (G-6240), " Reservoir, Main Dam-General Plan," CAR-2167 (1-6020), " General Plan, Reservoir Area," and CAR-2167 (G-6270)," Reservoir, West Auxiliary Dam, General Plan." Requirements for investigation drilling and foundation evaluation are detailed in ERASCO specifications CAR-SH-CH-01, -02, -03, -06, -08, / and -11, and in PSAR section 2.6.2.6, " Hydraulic Structures," and i Section 2.7, " Subsurface and Foundations". Applicable implementing documents are CQA-9, " Soil Control"; Law Engineering field procedures; and EEASCO geologic mapping procedures. In the areas examined the inspector found no noncompliance with perti-nest requirements. 6. Containment (Structural concrete 1) - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Unit 1 Basement Concrete installation work for the Unit I basemat had been completed except for repair of surface honeycomb voids on the side near the bottom of the last placement..The completed work was inspected and the QC records for the final placement were reviewed. These records and the controlling documents are discussed in the next paragraph. Review of these records and observation of Category I concrete placement in adjacent structures during this inspection and inspection 78-04 in July 1978 led to the conclusion that adequate quality control had been -imposed during the work of installing'the containment basemat. 7. Containment (Structural Concrete 1) - Review of Quality Records - Unit I Review of the quality records for the basemat was completed during this follow-on review by study of the records for_the final concrete f 9 ,,n- ,y,,-. g -e ~

, $$k c. '!NN[l 1 u g e, 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, RII Report Nos. II-5 50-402/7.8-05 and 50-403/78-05 aeg. i'.w,, ~ ' placement, placement ICBSL216002, consis b-t- s Mix M-56; 4000 at the surface of the previous placement. 341 batches of concrete were delivered and 49 sets o Tests The water to cement ratio averaged 0.40. 1978. for temperature, slump and entrained air were made at specifi cylinders were cast. Discrepancy reports-(DR) were written by a fied No batch was: rejected. civil engineer whenever the slump or entr d air. values; 4 inch maximum for slump, 6 percent maximum entraineMinim Minimum acceptable slump was 2 inches. The DR's were all cleared by the results of compressive tests of cylinders: Batch 309, slump 6.0": 5',550 psi at 28 days Batch 329, slump 1.25": 5,770 psi at 28 days Batch 339, slump 4.75": 5,090 psi at 28 days (. Ticket 15460, air 3.81: 5,100 psi at 28 days Ticket 15495, air 7.0%: 5,300 psi at 28 days Ticket 15545, air 6.81: 5,785 psi at 28 days Only 17 of 49 cylinders tested at 7. days failed to meet 28 d Cylinders tested at 28 days gave compressive strengths between 4,740 psi and 6,610 psi, with an average of about 5,600 re uirements. 40* above required strength. Records reviewed covered work increments between forming and They included: placement on through curing. Concrete Placement Report Concrete Test Report Preplacenent Checklist Placement Checklist Post Placement Checklist _ Batch Plant Tschets 28 Day Concrete Test Report FIR for Vaterstop and Waterproofing Tield Inspector Report TIR for Reinforcing Steel Quality Control Field Report During the records review the inspector followed resolution o t change requests (FCRs) pertaining to discrepanc It was left in found to be two inches above the drawing dimension. dimensaons. place with the cover concrete also two inches high since a placement above it could be adjusted to compensate. /kib ________________L__1________________.__-_--__~K

~' ;; g e, i RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, II-6 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78-05 'Another FCR concerned protrusion of rebar, including the ends of #18 bars,' which violated tight dimensional requirements of the drawings The around the periphery of the tubing chase pit in the basemat.inches of asbuilt locations were accepted by engineering since eight concrete were to be poured between the involved wall surface and the steel liner of the pit. Structural integrity was not compromised by either of the resolutions. In the QC records reviewed no noncompliance or deficiencies were identified. Containment (Structural Concrete 1) - Observation of Work and 8. Work Activities - Ucit 2 Basemat a The placement of seal and fill concrete under the proposed basemat for Unit 2 was complete. Drainage channels had been formed into the fill 4r concrete to carry off any intruding water after the containment's,truc-z tural base is cast..The inspector observed the installation of an water proof membrane over the fill concrete to protect the basematwN :, )- j By the end of the inspection no Category I concrete had been placed, / i however, the inspector observed in place initial forming and rebar at the lowest edge of base =at foundation, inspected a completed Category I placement in the southeast corner of the ten feet thick base for the Unit 2 section of the auxiliary building, and observed rebar installa-tica and cadwelding in the second elevation of Unit 1 auxiliary building and for the basemat of Unit 2. ~ During inspection of the completed work and work in progress, no-noncompliance was identified. (Structural Steel Welding) - Observation of Work and 9 Containment Werm Activities - Unit 1 Liner Erection As discussed at length in paragraph 5 of Details I of Report No. 50-400/78-04, materials for the containment liners for Units 1 and 2 CB&I is under were fabricated and furnished by Graver Tank Cospany. contract to the licensee to refurbish these previously supplied materials and to erect, inspect and test the containment liners for Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. Subsection 5.5.1.2 of Appendix'5H of the PSAR stipulates that work now underway is to be accomplished in accordance with Section III, Division 2 (Winter 1975 Addenda) of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. i ( i 4 I f

E)p.iIV % ', 3 : 5 ,) i RII Report Nos. 50-400/78-05,50-401/78-05, II-7 50-402/78-05 and 50-403/78-05 N w,.. 2 )a EBASCO Specification CAR-SH,CH-20, Construction Specification - Concrete, Steel Lined ~. Containment and Associated Materials, Parts, Appertenances and Auxiliary Systems, dated February 24, 1978, appears not to have It references in Section XI, paragraph 2.5, been approved as yet. Revision 7 to this specification is specification CAR-AS-01," Liner". Referenced specifications for work underw now in effect.~ approved. The inspector found that CB&I had completed approximately 70% of installation of the floor liner plate on Unit I basemat. Velding of plates to embedded anchors and welding of leak chases over the seam welds were observed by the inspector. Welding of a transition strip CB&I to the outer perimeter of the floor liner plate was observed. had fit up eight of thirteen sheets for the first liner wall ring. These sheets were tack welded to back up strips and to the transition The joint preparations for welding the eight sheets to each strip. other were examined. The top and bottom frames and backup strips were being installed in the instrumentation tubing raceway pit in the. contain:nent base in preparation for installation of the pit linerf, Electrodes were being stored in a heated, locked oven and issues were / controlled. Discussions were held with the CB&I site manager and welding leadman. Both were experienced at previous nuclear plants. During observation of floor liner plate installation and wall panel fitup work no noncompliances were identified. CB&I Nuclear QA Manual for ASME Section III products, issue number 7, was approved for use by CP&L on March 29, 1978. It was reviewed by NRC-IE during inspection 78-04 in July, 1978 and is apparently adequate for quality assurance. CB&I provides QC inspection witt CP&L providing project surveillance. i

10. Exit Interview An exit interview was held with P. W. Howe, Vice President of Technical Services, the site manager, R. M. Parsons and members of site staffs.

l The inspector outlined the scope of the inspection of das foundation 1 containment exploration, concrete in power block structures, and Unit In su:nmation the inspector stated that no concompliances had liner. been identified and no new unresolved item had been identified and J that Infraction 400-78-04-02 on sampling of pumped concrete, would be

closed, h3 l

CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION CASE N0.: OPENED CLOSED: .lL-C% \\ )'2. k1 E % Q ] h5W bh Mio O b fl4E kth - b b N M 6

SUBJECT:

DATE TIME ACTIVITY r e, _ g b, 4 % (.c) R :' E - W2.) 18 u.20s e. e \\.3 9\\w,)11 3: 91 e.w y c, - coAb =\\b. A% q qa k - d m.% Dm~ eb % Tog. ~ II - coddd edw.e s1 91N 18 g n q.- ~\\\\yw. Q. %w uk R. t%.b p <ew w4. t_.Ad ,,La.d-, m . rc + e..en.)(q %)\\d y._ d,. T n), a 8 : nh M\\ Mod owe u,d,o jl ' 10\\ M'T L - h \\.\\s h v b cdy. loin 73 M - wswo nog w aa w e< i o Rowe,r t \\9 LA. lY TOSP6 c.xs od 1 6 6, DR M 'd T ~ l ACTIVITY CODES: II = Investigative Interview TC = Telephone call L/M = Letter or Memo SI = Special Inspection MTG = Meeting RI = Routine Inspection 4 DO NOT DISCLOSE Ag This document may contain infomation exempt from public disclosure. Ah Fom RII Tig t 'j

~, UNITE 3 STATES gan me4 i NUCLEAR REGULATr.RY COMMISSION ,og 'es CEistN tt 101 M AalETT A STREET. N w. f ATLANTA, GEORclA 30303

o

%,***** f OCT 2 61978 In Reply Refer To: RII:RDB 50-400/78-5. 50-401/78-5 50-402/78-5 50-403/78-5 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. J. A. Jones Executive Vice President Engineering, Construction and Operation 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. D. Bradley of this 19-22, 1978, of activities authorized by NRC office on on Septe=ber Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160, and CPPR-161 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with the conclusion of the inspection. Mr. R. M. Parsons at Areas exa=ined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in Within these areas, the inspection the enclosed inspection report. consisted of selective exa=inations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors. Within the acope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were ~ disclosed. Ve have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously These are discussed in the enclosed identified enforcement catters. inspection report. In acco'rdance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and Part the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public contains any information that you (or Document Roo=. If this report your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this of fice to withhold $( I A4 t b

r f l OCT 2 6 B78 .( ; -( Carolina Power and l Light Company l such information fro: public disclosure. Any such application cust include a full statenent of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the infor=ation is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary infor=ation identified in the application is contained If we do not hear from you in this in a separate part of the document. regard within the specified period, the report vill be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we vill be glad to discuss them with you. ~ Sincerely, y Charles E. Murphy, Chief v Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

Enclosure:

I Inspection Report Nos. 50-400/78-05, 50-401/78-5, 50-402/73-5, 50-403/78-5 cc v/anc1: Mr. Ecland Parsons, Site Manager Shearon Barris Nutlear Power Plant P. O. Box 101 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 i A+ L Ff --C

?lllkVSlllllYlllllll l 6m vu zu 1 d1 INVESTIGATIVE l MATERIAL E THIS FOLDER CONTAINS MATERIAL RELATED TO AN OFFICIAL NRC INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO ONE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE '4, OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS INCLUDING SECTIONS 2.790, 9.5, 19.16 I AND 21.2. l OFFICIAL USE ONLY l l CASE N0. 2F029 DOCKET $"#-g4d FAC1LITY: b A stf $ L YJIduY \\

SUBJECT:

7 M fg og Reame/C.-nemur 3/oc SPECIAL HANDLING REQUIRED ~ THIS FOLDER MUST BE LOCKED IN A DESK, FILE CABINET OR SAFE WHEN NOT PERSONALLY ATTENDED. ACCESS TO INFORMATION CON-TAINED HEREIN IS LIMITED TO THE REGION !! INVESTIGATIVE STAFF AND THEIR SUPERVISION. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION. I Af A7

i, ". R@"fgf. A:$y~nt.*i=+%&htp&. 7,6*FFICfAL USE 081 lyt my;;";f p 1.yt &o 1 a. ~T.6ST H 'C ; 3.>< n W }{,p:. W.<; N,g; a c h y %n: g'

r

'" % V~;\\,y; W M p W # ' ','

~ yp. %; f . an ve @ w 4;-sf W M " a; o."-

;.y#, "

Q 9 N s ~ f ? -O ~ / i,Ati(59Pyg J W ' sg.4g: / 6 W L /' $ m,._. W.. c - 1~;~ D-9", ' .:p",: I'a' y(.,. -.* ._r. ~.,i MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE i i typs Acriam ._s..,. e, -i y. s paaricipants raz no. (JC ' necono 'or comwansation pgp [ [hg ,dlI cAsanavptA[D oart (~I sterse . can,g W C'~ ~~ 640) g) einen Tilst ComPTOENTIALITY MEOUESTED YES NO. 3:@P4 suasmany i /$C645& - - W /Af M $ V84/ Y h d Y. Y S. $$$ Ogg3 & .weownm>nssyaa,s/ ma g ig~~-na 7-a. 9.. .M.-- ._..-.h.._. ' : w -- : ^ S l$#5 & 4Y/ W /Z Y &CA&p. $

i. N.

&MJ ? ~ . k.. n.r m.n.a n, e w exx MfWigQ* ' = l W/M4 oF M Jy M H. W S W anD M M' , Q1 n-wn: ?. .. t.1 '. e y s 3 , p., .c. < tni,g:. .,a v L, K_; _ n ')Q.Q t e .,',o V ?,. % ~ 5 1. ~ y,_ , 'p 4 ., 7 { ' N. '. ,,t ', - g_ j _

__A,.

+.. _.. 's s. f JA - w / 4 PAGE / OF [

eEPa*E3 er gaft w'

7- / ~ 9/ ACTION 4 E Quiet D o ? 1 o rey 4tWEC 9Y DATE OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE hh* WORu agg.Tlq n,g e ,,4.,,-,-,--,.-,-----en.-,..-,,.-n. --n.- ,.~,,--,,.-.,. _._,.,,,,- ,--,m,--e,..,-.--,-m -m--,..- ,,,---.,---.,.r---ve-.,.---,-,.--, wen-,

1.,. xd' *., fj; }... I .y

- yph n..

ern.cq ,ga ..g4ppf' - %N *. 9*V o ~ [= I 3 M Jllt. 3 0 1881 k ~ vs 4 u-js. ~ MMORANDUM FOR: A. F. Gibson, Acting Director, Division of: Engineering i and Technical Inspection l FROM: J. C. Howell, Regional Investigator d

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT: IMPROPER CAWELDS (REFERENCECASE2F029) ~; k. ? U, On June 22, 1981, the Enforcement and Investigation Staff (515) a telephone call from an anonymous alleger expressing's concern of k: improper cadwelds as identified in the enclosure. [ p i Preliminary discussions with T. Conlon, Chief, Plant Systems Secti and G. Maxwell, Resident Inspector, have indicated that thejallagetten may be unfounded; however, it is our understanding that a routine inspection of cadwelds will be conducted in September 1981. We would like to emphasize that the a11eger states he is voicing the concerns of i a " group of welders" and we suggest tLt the inspectors perfom several informal interviews regarding individual concerns of weld integrity. Please provide EIS with one copy of the inspection report and the names of individuals interviewed. Jerry C. Howell En of h' RII:EIS%cht h i RII:EIS JCHowel : cmc CEAlders 7/Jc/81 7/p/81 +.k W1

.s. JUL 6.. Iset i ENCLOSURE 1 STATEMENT OF CONCERN-2F029 Improper rebar cadwelds have been perfonned by several welders throuhh-out the containment building. i 3 a 4 I l i l l l ) i f i l 1 l i i i i i i I j [ i

$p N A) 'e, q ';NC.Le $7 ATE ,a f l.;q , y'g; NUCLEAR 32GULAiGrlY CC"'M.3S3 s, 2 7.W b i REGION li l '. *Mb P

101 MARIETT A ST, r4 W., SU.!E ;100 jf ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 l

~ r AU9 n 51981 \\ Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. J. A. Jones, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Report Nos. 6 50-401/81-14, 50-402/81-14, and 50-403/81-14 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. G. F. Maxwell, of this office on June 20 through July 20, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Licensq Nos. CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161' for the Harris facility. Our preliminary findings were discussed with Mr. R. M. Parson, Site Manager at the conclusion of the inspection. Areas examined during.the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirements. This item and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in Appendix A. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Comission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If the report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from dis-closure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you: (a) notify this office by telephone within ten days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within twenty-five days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such informa-tion. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than seven days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1), such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part thereof sought to be withheld, and a full statement of the reasons on the' basis of which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.- If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be W placed in the Public Document Room. 5 ,Y Qof$ 5 ,a

'i ? L* AU9051999 2 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, S.C. R. C. . D rector s Divis on of Resident and Reacto: Project Inspection

Enclosure:

1. Appendix A Notice of Violation cc w/ encl: R. Parsons, Site Manager w

g .j e APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-400 License No. CPPR 158 Harris 1 As a result of the inspection conducted on June 20 through July 20, 1981 and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), the following violation was identified. 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, criterion XVII as implemented by PSAR Section 1.8.5.17 and Carolina Power and Light's Corporate QA Program Part I, Section 8.2.2 requires that the results of inspections be properly documented. Contrary to the above, the result's of inspections were not _ umented, in that, on July 6,1981, a Unit 1 containment building, numbered 032S on drawing 8099 sheet 17A was found not to have the results of the installation inspection recorded and on June 30, 1981, the weld data report for ASME class 3 weld joint 2-SW-207-FW 459 was found not to identify the correct welder who had applied the tack weld. This is a Severity Level VI Violation (Supplement II.F). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tion; (2) the reasons for the' violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps. which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.. Date: 8"4 n 5 mR1 3 $)Y 1 I y

l t%Q -L p. 3 a' ~,J.4 94~Q ,o,

b. J UN'TED STATES

+ I h. -, d,. /,c'k ' s NUCLEAR R GULATORY C'?? MICE:ON T nEGION fl

[

101 MARIETT A ST., N.W. IUITE 310C o, '.,(' a g.* j ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 Report Nos. 50-400/81-14, 50-401/81-14, 50-402/81-14 and 50-403/81-14 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 Shearon Harris site near'Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector: [' \\ni 4 S G. F. Maxwell, Sr. Resident Inspector Date Signed g h. Approved by: C d+ - C. A. Juliani' Acting Section Chief Division of Date Signed Resident and Reactor Project. Inspection SUPMARY Inspection on June 20 through July 20, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine resident inspection' involved 96 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins, concrete-units 1 and 2, welding-units 1 and 2, equipment handling and storage and control of nonconformances. 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 provide records of the results of inspection and monitoring of work performance). y+ tk t (9 a a AW A b y

IP .j DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

R. M. Parsons, Site Manager -
N. J. Chiangi, Manager of E&C QA/QC
A. M. Lucas Senior Resident Engineer
G. L. Forehand, Director-QA/QC
B. Seyler, Principal Civil Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included 22 construction craftsmen, four operators, and 20 office personnel.

Other Organizations W. D. Goodman, Project Manager. Qaniel Construction Company

Attended exit interview 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on July 20, 1981 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. During the exit meeting the items identified in Appendix "A" of this report were discussed in detail with those present. Upon completion of the discussion, licensee personnel clearly understood the violation and stated that they would look into the effect that the inaccurate and missing records may, have on the quality of the job. 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected. 4. Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection. 5. Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins, Units 1-4 a. (Closed) IEB 80-20, " Failures to Westinghouse type W-2 spring return to neutral control switches." Bulletin IEB 80-20 is closed based on notification by responsible USNRC Region II personnel that Carolina Power and Lights letter to Region II, dated September 12, 1980, appropriately addressed the concerns noted in the bulletin. b. (Closed) IEB 80-23, " Failures of solenoid valves manufactured by Valcor Engineering Corporation." Bulletin IEB 80-23 is closed based on Carolina Power and Light's letter to Region II, dated December 24, 1980 and discussions with responsible Region II personnel. A%

e O r 2 6. Concrete Units 1 and 2 a. The inspector observed portions of concrete placements being made in: Unit 1 containment building (pour number 1CBXW245001); Unit 1 fuel handling building (pour number 1FHXW224016); Units 1 and 2 reactor auxiliary coninon building (pour number 1ACIW247049). The concrete forms were tight, clean and level. The placement activities pertaining to delivery time, free fall and testing conformed to specification requirements and concrete activities were continuously monitored by inspection personnel. l b. The inspector requested the inspection data attained b Carolina Power and Light Mechanical QA personnel that d3 associated with concrete pour 1CBXW245001 (listed above). As a result of the request and subsequent reviews by the Carolina Power and Light responsible personnel and the inspector, the following were observed (1) The pour contained 152 cadwelds applied over a sixteen month period of time. (2) The cadwelds were applied by twenty-six cadwelders and the inspections were conducted by approximately six different inspectors utilizing construction procedures WP-01, WP-15 and CQC-15. (3) Approximately 50 percent of the cadwelds were applied in the diagonal position, 25 percent in the horizontal position and 25 percent in the vertical position. (4) On July 6,1981 the inspector observed and was infomed that the responsible Carolina Power and Light inspection personnel had failed to document the inspection of one of the cadwelds, as required by construction procedure CQC-15 section 6.5.1, on the cadweld field log. The drawing associated with the cadweld, drawing 8099 sheet 17A, reflected that the cadweld had been installed. The inspector discussed the above unsatisfactory condition with Carolina Power and Light management personnel and informed them that failure to document the results of inspections is contrary to Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, as implemented by Carolina Power and Light's PSAR section 1.8.5.17 and Carolina Power and Light's Corporate QA program Part I, section 8.2.2. This is aMelatiow; failure to provide records of the results of inspections or monitoring of work perfomance (400/81-14-01). The above mentioned unsatisfactory condition has been identified by Carolina Power and Light QA personnel on Deficiency and Dis-position Report (DDR) number 612 dated July 7,1981. A8 ~ -o

p \\ ( 3 c. The inspector 6 activities and the applied to Unit 1 containment penetration MS. applie penetration MS-2. Except as noted, no violations or deviations were identified in the area inspected. 7. Welding - Units 1 and 2 a. The inspector observed in process work activities and inspections being performed on the following weld joints: ICC-169-FW472 (observed preparation) 25W-207-1-FW459 (observed final _ visual) ISW-520-1-FW1775 (observed final visual) (4) ISW-40-5-FW-78 (observed repair) The inspector interviewed the welder that was identified as the one responsible for the application of the final weld on weld joint .T 2SW-207-1-FW459. The interview occurred on June 30, 1981. The inspection results, documented on " Weld Data Report" (WDR) white copy indicated that the weld joint had received final visual inspection, initialed as such and was dated ~ June 29, 1981. Part II of the WDR indicated that welder symbol D-30 had applied the tack weld and that welder D-7 applied the root, intermediate and final weld. The ~ Region II inspector was accompained by the responsible Carolina Power and Light welding inspector and the site Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) during the interview with welder D-7. As result of the inter-view, review of the yellow copy of the WDR and inspection of the weld joint it was determined that the white copy of the WDR (the copy retained as'the official QA record) incorrectly indicated that the tack weld had been applied by Welder D-30. Further inquiry revealed that both welder D-30 and D-7 have current qualifications for the process applied during the tack weld of materials such as those for weld joint 2SW-207-FW459. After the interview, the responsible Carolina Power and Light welding inspector made changes on.the official QA copy of the WDR to reflect that welder D-7 was the only welder associated with the application of the tack, root, intermediate and final weld of the afore mentioned weld joint. The inspector informed Carolina Power and Light management personnel that the above discrepancy is another example of. failure to document inspection results identified as a violation in section 6.b of this report. b. The inspector participated in a site inspection conducted by another Region II inspector; the inspection involved observation of in-process welding on reactor coolant spool pieces, in-core instrumentation spool pieces, storage 'of ASitE pipe spool pieces and the qualification and training of Carolina Power and Light QA welding. inspectors. The results of the inspection are documented in reports numbered 50-400, 401, 402, 403/81-13. AS (

f (,, 4 Except as noted, no violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected. 8. Equipment Handling and Storage Units 1-4 a. The inspector observed the stored conditions of the reactor vessels and their internals for units 1-4, the steam generators for units 1 and 2 and unit 1 pressurizer. b. The inspector' observed portions of the rigging into place of the reactor coolant loop C pump casing. During the movement and placement of the casing, the presence of responsible Westinghouse advisory personnel in and around the associated work areas was observed. 9. Other Areas Inspected Units 1-4 a. The inspector selected 95 Carolina Power and Light nonconformance reports (NCRs), 41 deficiency and disposition reports (DDRs) and 48 discrepancy reports (DRs) for review and evaluation. b. As part'of the review and evaluation of the above reports the inspector interviewed the Carolina Power and Light QA supervisors responsible for mechanical, welding, receipt inspection. and civil projects. It was determined that: (1) On occasions, DDRs have been returned to the initiators for grammar corrections. (2) NCRs are being written by the inspection personnel associated with the above supervisors, as applicable, if nonconfoming conditions are observed relative to incorrect hardware and or documentation, e.g. NCR M-098 dated July 6,1981. (3) The inspector was informed during the above interviews and by other Carolina Power and Light QA personnel interviewed that if QA personnel discover questionable work practices during their routine inspections, the condit' ion is either documented by those findings the condition or other QA personnel are made aware of the condition for evaluation as appropriate. ^ In the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified. At -y,., .I-y ,,,,I, ,.-e .,,y,-

f ?,*l r ; h-f,' /],p, y,;W.. .,.s V, 5.-v Y

-nnl;, ^ 72 c epip-sY w ' O* X,;v\\a w..L: ? ! '

f;f '; n !-$ 0 0 . A,-- o,'.'s- ~5 v.a w'. "W % ; n -s T ~ m y e ^; 1 - 0FFICIAL USE}ONLY/ ]cf } ( } ^X 4 -q MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE f f TYPE ACTION PARTlCIPANTS FILE NO. ( ) REcoRo or convensaflom dFOR9 "E ( CASE Rgystw / 8747W3 4./C fjogg4/_. _ _., _ ~ ( ) OTHER f. Tlue C O NF10EN TI ALITY RE00ESTED TES NO 1

SUMMARY

0 DAAE6 j Nk3 $ soc 2,i %OC)$..)9o n s s s o s y s o Y Zftwsp-lA/s & kYO&- kl. O Al". fl'l kl. 8/l W Of-S EA) 444 f,, YObW&A/Y A,/ /U JON OI A $/ LOW 8 Adol $bbkJ3-/N KCY/ E os n-paus woe as ws/4s or coy /enn w&-- { n u n a a g &A*lE.,28$ MY.$l)$$?NY)$NOaouesw .$kDE4/& $8$. s-D. /f (CrM 5 b 'rH YM L. S ~L$@ [W) Yom NstMC, /Nutcit>T2) /9 CONY /A/un/G /Nspechoa CFroAT YO &NSO Yys mysggi .6f c.gDa S.. ^ b k & W. k&Nr.U] hA/ON A10l/j JyA,/D WO ff}R Yg & & Q gS GAEA/C{ /s it EJg virtE O. ksccanewo. ' rainy >WU C esG 25t. cs/astc- [ OF [ PAGE PREPARED BY DATE udf/ //-%7rY ACTION REQUIRED k btwtm - bwa bc AEviEwE0 87 DATE w II-lo - k l /.h' ' OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT DISCLOSE M rCRW R 21-719 Rev 2

7 Of7tCIAL. USE ONLY e CASE CHRONOLOGY OPEpp BY $ FILE NUMSER DATE OPENED Mwa RFC 29 6-as-S/ DATE ACTivlTY 6 ~ 2 3-9/ tc: Anw $/ ban ra EZWM -dd 6 ~ 33-H Mrs: Yawn 09 dhe><~3 4-n-si nrs: H--e#bouan R.L-- 6 fa -F/ Nts ! _d- #v. 8Mee-7~ 3/-N Af!G : Awll+ A/wNa $mheN.-su

I-37-?/

Af7G' A wN//+ blA>A - $7 811,< $svira '1 % 9 l-/m : l-/owsllis 8 $iMod ~ 9-10-&-1 RE$ ' &l-IV. SR 2~ l0 Jo-8'I RCP' 8-1-Ik & F //-5'~- V/ 0 nsr N$1netJ 7-/9 O n.u _ d o d - O f h d k 11-Io - 41 l / 'LCTIVITY CODES L/W s LETTER OR WEWO TC e TELEPHONE CALL INSP s INSPECTIO N MTG e WEETING INV a INVESTIGATION RE P-REPORT ISSUED l \\

O Aff OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT DISCLOSE Agp FCC M RZ;*Tle R ew. 2

\\ {at Pi INVESTIGATIVE MATERIAL i i i w THIS FOLDER CONTAINS MATERIAL RELATED TO AN OFFICIAL NRC 4 a INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC G 4 DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO ONE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE 0F FEDERAL REGULATIONS INCLUDING SECTIONS 2.790, 9.5, 19.16 AND 21.2. J' 4 OFFICIAL USE ONLY L A$ ~3 b .n CASE NO. 2Fp35 DOCKET 70-4/00 f kh$f FACILITY: /7 A',t/f i. "?' l

SUBJECT:

U S g, o n h p R.o p 0.ucrun ou pswm/s auo PAner,<-1 < ~=i cf SPECIAL HANDLING (? REQUIRED 'l l THIS FOLDER MUST BE LOCKED IN A DLSK, FILE CABINET OR SAFE l WHEN NOT PERSONALLY ATTENDED. ACCESS TO INFORMATION CON-TAINED HEREIN IS LIMITED TO THE REGION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF AND THEIR SUPERVISION. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION. Il f (( Ml hy g _.. T;i

i 'b 0FFICIAL USE ONLY 4 MEMORANDUM' TO CASE FILE FNE NO. TYPE A TION PARTICIPANTS ( RECORO OF CONVERSATION-mY/7_'7[ ( ') CASE REVIEW / STAfgg. DATE OI'//~ 20! ( ) OTNER Tiest CONFIDENTIALITY RE0uttTED YES NO L suasesART I [DDte_ '7o" YM [+A fo L M /1l Xlnksf /M *bl/ Wetff kt f LT 0f [O/1 C/~/* . N KNU/ sew Y$4Y $rl' N4 M/1 b>> // bf G Ofsi d f fkedPost ANL ( n fAe Axst tue e A-of fe> ren b e e 14 P/ an d to,// ddres_r f/e >_(vu e r. 9 f)A t /WA ffolV f Wens /1 Wbe $2/ Al/1 /1 M /A L/U'77MYW ff>> /l A _Cl e M b 4 A 24 /M t h

i: .}

? ) .g .l-e l PAGE OF PCEPAR p Y OATE @itr/ o r-n -f) ACTION REQUIRED f.EVIEWED SY DATE DO NOT DISCLOSE [l1 A 0FFICIAL USE ONLY FC';2 RZZ= Tit Rev. 2

l' p-l',. I AU G 1 /1981 c Q.:u:3l MEMORANDUM FOR: T. Conlon, Chief, Plant Systems _Section THRU: A. F. Gibson, Acting Director, ETI FROM: J. Y. Vorse, Regional Investigator, EIS

SUBJECT:

IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND PRACTICES, SHEARON HARRIS (REFERENCE CASE 2F035) On July 29, 1981, an alleger called and spoke with Carl Alderson wherein he expressed concerns regarding improper construction materials and practices as indicated in the enclosed Statement of Concerns. (, 1 It is my understanding, based on my conversation with T. Conlon on

- ; 4

~,! August 13 and 17, 1981, that J. R. Harris will address the concerns . " ' ' ' ' ~ during a routine inspection scheduled sometime in early September 1981. Regarding Concern No. 6, it is requested that a review of documentation ' be conducted by Mr. Harris. If the pro'olem was NCRed, Mr. Harris should address the concern. However, if there is no documentation reporting this incident, it is anticipated that an investigation will be conducted by the EIS and Mr. Harris should not discuss it with licensee personnel. Please ensure that EIS is included on the concurrence list of the report and placed on special distribution for two copies of the report. l James Y. Vorse

Enclosure:

Statement of Concerns-2F035 l i r Al 1 JYVorse: cmc CEAlderson\\ h([' RII:EIS RII:EI5 6 j 8/./81 8/d/81 c d6

OFFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE FRE NO. TYPE AC N PARTICIPANTS Q f()fq-( W RECORD or ConvtRSAfl0N ( s Cast REvlsw I sTArus '//!"3r ///Whte_ DATE / (W-/?> P/ < > orNER Tilst CO MPIDENTI ALITY RCOUESTED YES NO j >g SUAsesARY $r /llt O r*

ra /A*.~/ 'AW /e/r t)

Me e twf p 'fE" }l/2 er-r.,// // 9 /. / /' Iess/, / fn a//n / sad b siw M J 7C A A,,,L+ A & m % > sO / / erf nin. Nerf-ls e sedc+sse r e

A'endi<aln ei cente m ar /

6 nii_eA e,/ 'Z~~ / / / / f.L'n r n e f A tuar / p M d W tes e ARV-W b s e /sto M ?Y$ mv 1 /,s e eIn stien-o '6/ As nb?ce!,e</s,/eFrss' Asom e/9 L -d-7% AJ/P Q 11,f sxs j'ss yv b,/ A m in, J Aeloco 72' 2 W s/ eon-tin <1 e o, /sinin,s s La re/ son r~siso -n / / +r/ n //<, e/ J e/a t e d o o 7" TA x + h v/n Lau d-)-fo Ln fhe/ ud see>>euad Lr evee/ rad 1, Au rw TL-f 16 L// c&so! A - c/ ~~ / e cJ~ Asv/n! rimde,/ onc/ &cre,/ so!/> /s seu,-Aswa. //js ren sush sn / 7 FrR asJ -rc hernsiin., em o/os e /wns, +/e to.<s-o / 7L + wns,, As < /s.i tes e er c&e/ 79-lx e-/non -fWW$[ Ai,-/- As-b,, ' wi c Ac /( llf C 1 PAsE OF PIEPAR D 9Y DATE' )

Verle 0,f- / 2

._sa t ..a. - a\\ +W rk td,' i

AL

'a-s W % eN [ a.- ' U dL. ~ hoe v mv 78 b h_ Q 1 lb d h, i < e %.__ CD W__ M_. _...S Y.1w %-_t3__ 3(__ d I S.._C. td%'JLnm e LVJA ta-C 12 ( q..-_Yk - _.. -.b_. _.._ d.. -V S_, %_. _.b_dWo L_ Vs.ow.t.,) _%.__.mh_wcf F ( C.C W 4 4 ?I 0 k)W ~ W f.Ilb ;. --* . ___9 / ch _... _ ~ L %.K, __.. ta.s w Ii _ _O q_ p ]__,___) ~ v s c r DG NOT DISCLOSE

ll~Y&

Contains Idantity oy l Confident _laf Source PHOIIE CALL RECORD DATE: TIME: CALL: in C out { INDIVIDUAL CALLED: ' UfDIVIDUAL CALLII:G: ( Phone Ho. Pnone lio. EUBJECT OF CALL: et_AtAkbe 3\\ ,, u W _ _nq n C L . 4 4 k E 1_!s mLiJ - Lexts & Lms G v_,, AF h el:s LAJuem., L' 9 ? i l \\ I -t- / lW ~, l .?. i SUMARY OF INVESTIGATION-RELATED CONVERSATION CASE NO.- DATE: I TlHE INITIATED: TIME COMPLETED: T-C t4 (. 9 k 7? E: 4 8 P.4 T : 6 LP.k. IYPE: TELEPHONE CALL ( ) MIETING ( ) INTERVIEW ( ) OTHER PARTICIPANTS: g g, Q e Su MARY: g g h3Q _IOb

LIC, M Pol LTTWE T

To k 0: 25 T t=JeEW u G mv 9 I IG 71 Toth +4 1% idGn- \\M L%OL) % G-4"T T\\d E E S k.R S Mit1 id @@ c=- y Q. C,, \\ n \\ n \\ g n i DATE: REVIEnED BY: DO NOT DISCLOSE D This document may contain infomation which is exer pt from public disclosure.3 2. M FC-P!!.T19 '5Sffffffffffff////////////////////b SUWARY OF INVESTIGATM-RELATED CONVERSATION CASE & : CATE: g i TIME INITIATED: TIME COMPLETED: n - c_,q r, 9 \\M \\M R: 15 p 2:60p.%. [YPE: ( ) TELEPHONE CALL ( ) MEETING k INTERVIEW ( ) OTHER PA M k d u pat-hsNTe c qvn e_ C emua u s es) LEc2m Q.SuaJ h h. b e., ant et Tee \\gt..T TuspEttn o \\ u { L,, ]\\, c {,_, v w, l S M RY: g{ n i E! W. W. @ M. i I 1 eb w tmw b ira c_v 's 4eba.. e a s b name .a Noa ~u m L,.3.' W. .s i T ~~ g u 4 w' Y v,w ka. et. e u s>_v - s' s l 3 v 6e sn u o i=- ens n _ _i a s A Lwo h k e sa L% A e n.u 1\\Y s 4' l. ct/ cy#i 7 i_t'seko1on, IA woudu u 4 e ty:Lua-e T ~ h6s 0 J *F m AL. U l m A.L 6n mmAm-aa m s JL ? it i % -... i , A J. A e m ; ~a.A R Y4 Cam w wwh. C Swb> YVVnkd b k k% MAb .[re [ v b / REVIEWED BY: DATE: D0 h3T DISCLOSE "A This document may contain information which is exempt from public disclosure. ( Fe-PII.T19 SNS////////ff$ mocosocoooc o - - - - - -- - - - - SUt?.ARY OF INVESTIGATION-RELATED CONVERSATION CASE.NO. y CATE: TIME INITIATED: TIME COMPLETED: N' b b li k TYPE: ( ) TELEPHONE CALL ( ) MEETING % INTERVIEW( ) OTHER PARTICIPA*4TS: 'T b. is '. b AD w.- ud4L _====* c. n e tw Lo L4 omnewa ut wt b..!s ma b ( OO u a m EuAn e ka evous owl fL c o en u.L L e ex u s D_ W % QM k I 9 4 %. _ dk w mt-mod. A L mum: d n $ca s_ m O_ n } e.a owS L kWw k s n* i 6v A. o WM __ b Ls.) 44 ms L om L,L,dt I = I col a O go _r f u d ovCA o v-pai cm4ch 4. l \\ l RE'IEaED BY: CATE: E2.'Gi DISCLOSE J This doceent tr.ay contain infomation whicn is exer;:t f ror. public disclosure. 3r 33 f F - !!-T!c 'ffffffffffff/////[////////////////b y}}

ML20199E809

Contents

Text

Enclosure:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

ML20199E809

Text

Enclosure:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search