ML20209A998

Notification of 861009 Enforcement Conference W/Util in Region II Ofc to Discuss Potential Deficiency in Const QA Program.Util Nonconformance Rept,List of Attendees & Util Presentation Viewgraphs Encl

ML20209A998
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/30/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20209A914	List: ML20209A909 ML20209A962 ML20209A998
References
FOIA-86-760 NUDOCS 8704280335
Download: ML20209A998 (25)

Text

__

(' ( g[0'/f

- UNITED STATES f neo g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j6 y ,

0 REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.

n f

O . ATL ANT A, GEORGl#. 30323

~

SEP 3 01986 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT MEETING, Name of Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company

. Name of Facility: Shearon Harris

' Docket No.: 50-400 Date and Time of Meeting: October 9, 1986, at 10:00 a.m.

Location of Meeting: Region II Office, Atlanta, Georgia Purpose of Meeting: Enforcement Conference to Discuss Potential Deficiency in Construction Quality Assurance Program NRC Attendees: J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator R. D. alker Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

A. . Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) t . R. Jenkins, Director, Enforcement and Investigations Coordination Staff D. M. Verre111, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, DRP P. F. Fredrickson, Chief, Section 2A, DRP A. R. Herdt, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS Licensee Attendees: E. E. Utley, Senior Executive Vice President, Power Supply and Engineering and Construction R. A. Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project M. A. McDuffie, Senior Vice President NOTE: Attendance by NRC personnel at this NRC/ Licensee meeting should be made known by 2:00 p.m., October 8, 1986, via telephone call to P. E. Fredrickson, FTS: 242-5649 J. H. Sniezek, DEDROGR  :

Distribution:  !

J. Lieberman, Director, AGCOE J. Taylor, Director, IE J. Axelrad, Director, Enforcement, '<E J. Partlow, Director, Division of '.nspection Programs T. Novak, Acting Director, Division of PWR Licensing-A, NRR B. Buckley, Project Manager, Harris 8704200335 070423 PDR FOIA MURPHY 86-760 PDR

[. e P *% .

B. w/ /%ALAJ u_ 4#ue@ a /ud) ya

D-

, QE b - 9 lLL*If.t" */UI '*] 9 AGE'/ OF ~Z CP&L NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) COAD i

ww. - PART I CORP. Q.A. OEPT h CLAS8: 26O FPQ O RWO O PsOOR8Q 08eO Oc^&, _07 LOCATION IN PLANT:

O" DESCRIPTION OF ITEM / ACTIVITY:, /g3/gc-ffd d/C fA /6 , 2$En 'GdY S2fMEtut.- A442 WAL1 SERIAL / HEAT /OTHER 10 NO.: '

QU AN TIT Y:

b 674c7'ciw c%/ousrs /4132d-564/4/32M .sS 0 2.

P .O. ANO ITEM NO.: SUPPLIER /MFR.: I b g/p b g/p M% CDDC l3(VQSNT2)(,(RpcQ,1 DOCUMENT (S) VIOLATED (SPEC.DWG, PROC.TS.OTHER):

4.4.2./ 7 )

C.'$f2 :2/66 04 0 $d 7F/24 4'SN' 7M/A3 Aw 3.4. A. I,* 7,P 47/A'// /,uu

@ No. HOLD TAGS o / LABELS APPLIED:

@ LIMITS OF HOLD: ab NONCONFORMING CONDITION DETAILS:

1

&85ElfOfd f* tv C. / ,4'ctStor A' dl*6 o/~ CD&Duir5 /6/3 2//-So.~$ l 4 /6 /32M .s8  :% sw-nod V/w ' Mods W'e d S "'O N*'T l Co,v't',rd w r;o J M c L4eM novs).

A 7'f * .At'.L. 618if 7' d*) 2 f CJTU3 t k/in' /JS 7;beld*Q 9lC/ 41;*c6*WO lA'ro< ra' 7;'.As*

/PetWM/y~ /~/G /JS/e'c-f/sd' l r:.. .

NTIATING GROUP: 00A OQc Gti OOTHER / M/ ~/ 5 NCR NT}d)frE BY DATE h ITEM NONCONFORMANCE CONFIRWED hYESCNo h PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CCNFlRWED h ONO-

@ITEw OuAuTY: buNaccEPTAatz O INDETEMNNATE O unArPECTED

@ REVIEW COutsEwis:

&gg: /3 g74 d//h C/ .

4 49*/4 9 % 7loSl%

h EVALUATION PHASE 1 O ENGINEERING kCONSTRUCTION O START-up OOPGATIONs O OTHER 4

gg n O PART 11 NOT REPORTA4LE PER RnPA g,IRTHG EVAL. REQ'O O PART so NOT REPORTASUL PER PARA DE DATE: ,

ONCR dlu/REVIEWf((w>VALU/TED

/ d '7-/5 8Y:16 @RFT/ 0 5 o. t- 5 5 hCORR CTIVEACTION REPORT REQulRED O YES NO

/

AUTHORITY d ~ ~

CATE '

h. .' PROCEDURE COA-3 EXHIBIT 3 PAGE I0F

• QA-13 CAROLINA FCWER & LIGHT COMPANY xhibit 8 3

2/81 CORPORATE QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT R.,.o 0 t .

QA/QC REPORT CONTINUATICN SHEET l Report No. ANE dT,-o#Z-Fage 2 ; of 2 i

0 /4/32 Al-$6 is s olo"Vawrfc8k'$ct Air & CC4A30 A 972c,l47s4 0 f6gp/

- f6N2 ,

& P6,443 '~

h O'-O' ldef l o'-5%~ &zn2. Gon 2?u*csco C4 Scd' tCesa j is 4) w ro ssa 41 4 47s*/922<-

h '

o-o' lcG T) c'-l(W he.It % Gvfbstb CA%f ku

/54k& t, Pea 42 447s/472.s i

I j

l @ /(o/32M S S I$ o'-o' deg-f k O'-BYi Y I2 StoM : C6 A 30. k 47~La>/4154

@ ' = - Ps8 4/

l@

4 R,s42

.1-

- Q P6A 43 l 1

lQ o'-o' deer f o'-7 ' Hoc 4 % Exposes csuc few

/S4/t.f ro P&6 42 A 4?s4 /4?ls, iQ o'-o' Vserl l I /WMot2 Aica Ey/o.wo Cdnu' AW i.s'4mc ro /sa 4z 4 47s4 /47zs

. I l

l l l

I 1

e,*., ':

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

T p:6 -S e-g w fdpM NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) piar 2 COAD coaa o^ ocar

.s----

fY WS[ l f tAl 4 U cc er wcs

@RESPdC SIBLE ORGANIZAf1CH: OISSUED TO8A4 '@ CUE v4 DATE: @EXTENSICN(S) a4 NO NOTE: IF YES, A CAR IS RECulRED h REPCRTED CONCITICN WAS GENERIC: C YES h DISPC31T1CN:O rutt O PAR 11AL O.REPAtR O RE;Ec7 (RETURN.TO VENDOR) O ACCEPT AS IS W) h'CISPCSITICN METHCO: OREWCRK O REJECT (SCRAP) O OTHER (CESCRtBE Er h DISPOSITICN CETAILS: .

l SUSMIT TED SY. DATE LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

AUTHORITY DATE DISPOSITION ACCEPTANCE, VERtFICATION, AND REVIEW COMMENTS:

i l

ACCEPTED BY: DATF4 VERtPED BY: 087E: HOLD TAGS / LABELS REMOVED ACCEPT TAGS /l.ABELS APPLE 3 REVIEWED SY: DATE: FINAL REVIEW BY: DATE:

PROCEDUR E 00A-3 EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 2 CF

,E,vi M co w xr 0 wrotfNc6 N#W

/o #1r .

C/*JA W^M" A rrswwr.s 4/sw7Xpcwr ~

4~vroncwxrSAetvAu17~ NAC,/favsv f

=

L= E.JML elf C p L. .

25e e. p'.p.

~

!2 Bws My. Cc,p,wte ()Af C/ L K. l7. l-lah, Prin c P T L-q A E aTv' J,%Isde _

xge ear 66s.. c~ < e, ,- o Aeteme 3. (5errrL kud Cenu IVEC IEE-

-l

'fA t.n b/ / C /\/ fSS .Cc c T"/t 14 C'~fr r~f h l$(.~- $ ~LA----

~S. ra o m/t. u.;. ;? ' f> ,.,j v p/c LC NA Vf. A A U C' Y Y

&.r. (ofud daz t.G<ma Awr- Eas. cpK 4.t. itkuw,  %. &s , Anc 4 CPIL Tir- c,9/cc Afras //on 2 L d.L. Mrc/w.n/_ C7/4 Georg e, $ l(,w.s. D;redr, s /c S .

g rr -

% -j ] e n y . c.. -e e . , .. - cm . yr m.

/,

,. , , - r.. s. .n.. ,- , .

f\ . .

(L' d l h C h. . t i k' t s . t ts e t I s k 4- g, k' . I- l C. ( ' O it' s i ;- C - I Td #2 ij vis k ke CS 0*ply:.x);A.. l AE

, ~ s .m .c ,

bit,d49

.,a

1

.a . .. 1 ..

A eI '.L DL r 7 s rm Q e T9" _

\ I x ,

s '

z. .

...Q..

'.p ..

. . . . . .. ~.

CP&L PRESENTATI.0N TO NRC OCTOBER 9, 1986 .

SUBJECT AREAS TO BE. COVERED:

~

ELECTRICAL SEPARATION

~ ~

~

STRUCTURAL STEEL UNAUTHORIZED WORK ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL PROJECT QUALITY CONCLUSIONS s

c:- -

.k2 . ,- '. Qs ' '-

j

~

OBJECTIVE OF THE PRESENTATION IS TO DEMONSTRATE:

HARRIS IS A WELL CONSTRUCTED PLANT WE HAVE AN EFFECTIVE QA PROGRAM

• ~

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A QA BREAKDOWN ..

ELECTRICAL SEPARATION IS AN ISOLATED ISSUE .

STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE TOTAL QUALITY PROGRAM WORKED HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH ELECTRICAL SEPARATION UNAUTHORIZED WORK IS OF LIMITED DIMENSION IMPACT OF UNAUTHORIZED WORK IS OF A MINOR NATURE

-Q q5':,. > -  :

. l 9

ELECTRICAL SEPARATION l

.mm JULY NRC INSPECTION IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES _

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SHOW NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE e

AUGUST CP&L SAMPLE INSPECTION --- -

CONFIRMED NRC CONCLUSIONS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SHOW NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE 0%

^ '

l

^

(.:

. ' (.;: . , . . .

CHRONOLOGY:

~

l

• QA PROCESS IDENTIFIED OVER 75,000 SEPARATION .

INTERACTIONS SINCE MAY 1985.

~

1985 - IDENTIFIED ADVERSE TRENDS IN ELECTRICAL RACEWAY l INSTALLATION.

~

PROJECT MANAGEMENT STOPPED WORK.

UPGRADED PROCEDURES TRAINED CRAFT .

ACTIONS HELPED REDUCE OVERALL REJECT RATES.

WAS NOT TOTALLY EFFECTIVE IN ELIMINATING SEPARATION DEVIATIONS.

MAJORITY OF IMPACT WAS FROM FIELD RUN CONDUIT LIMITED PRE-ENGINEERING

(,

p .-

(.o i

~

ROOTCAusEANALYSIS: ,

I PRIMARY CAUSE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA DEVIATIONS '

INSUFFICIENT PRE-ENGINEERING FOR FIELD RUN CONDUIT RESULTED IN SYSTEM OVERLOAD .

~

SECONDARY WEAKNESS . . _ . _

INEFFECTIVE TRENDING FOR SEPARATION NON-0PTIMAL INSPECTION PERFORMANCE l

j r

i 1

. ..: 61 .. -

G. ;_

l C0fiRECTIVEACTIONS:

• ~

ENGINEERING WALKDOWNS COMPLETE.

CORRECTIONS OF CRITERIA DEVIATIONS WELL ALONG.

~

WILL COMPLETE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON ESF SYSTEMS PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

WILL COMPLETE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON ALL SAFETY SYSTEMS PRIOR TO PLACING SYSTEM IN SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OR PRIOR TO EXCEEDING 5% -

WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.

l

1

. . qu -

-( . .

~

STRUCTURAL STEEL

~

NATURE OF ISSUE:

PORTI NS OF SEISMIC 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDS ON CONNECTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED WERE FOUND TO BE DEFICIENT.

RESULT OF NON-0PTIMAL CRAFT AND INSPECTION PERFORMANCE IN '80 '82 TIME FRAME.

THIS CONDITION, WERE IT TO HAVE REMAINED UNDETECTED, WOULD HAVE N0 IMPACT ON PLANT SAFETY.

'Q .fp

~

l

.e

=

~

DIMENSION OF SEISMIC I STRUCTURAL STEEL IN PLANT:

TOTAL NO. OF FIELD & SHOP CONNECTIONS (APPR0X.) = 4,200

• = 16,800 TOTAL NO. OF FIELD & SHOP WELDS (APPR0X.)

e 4.-, ~ ee- eeg-- m. e *me6* h W "

e# *W' J

, t --

Q .. . : .

Q. .

=

CHRON0 LOGY:

EFFEQTIVEACTIONWASTAKENTOUPGRADECRAFTAND

. INSPECTION PERFORMANCE. ('81/'82)

. RESULTS OF QA SURVEILLANCES ON MORE RECENT WORK SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION. _

THE QA PROGRAM THROUGH THE DOCUMENT REVIEW AND DA SURVEILLANCE PROCESS IDENTIFIED THIS WEAKNESS IN 1984.

CONDITIONS NOTED WERE NOT SAFETY SIGNIFICANT AND WERE OF A LIMITED DIMENSION TO NOT WARRANT REINSPECTION.

, THE 1986 INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED THROUGH THE QA PROCESS TO ASSURE, ONCE AGAIN. THAT THE PROBLEM WAS B0UNDED.

. RESULTS SHOW PROBLEM IS B0UNDED AND IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AND SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED IN

'84/'85.

ONCE AGAIN. NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WERE NOTED THORUGH THE ENGINEERING EVALUATION PROCESS.

1986 RESULTS VALIDATE OUR '84/'85 DECISION.

1

,e-- - n-,--- - --~

(;.

~

G.).  :,. ..

~

INVESTIGATION:

~

ENGINEERING IDENTIFIED 92 HIGHEST STRESSED BEAMS IN CONTAINMENT. BUILDING.

~

TOTAL OF 187 CONNECT. IONS COMPLETELY INSPECTED /AS-BUILT AND ANALYZED FOR ORIGINAL LOADS.

__ ,. .. e .. . - - - = = ,-== = ~ "

INCLUDED CONNECTION WELDS; BOTH SHOP AND FIELD.

NO WELD UNDERSIZE CONDITION WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN )

CONNECTION EXCEEDING CODE ALLOWABLE STRESS LEVELS FOR ORIGINAL LOAD CONDITIONS.

l l

l

Q

Q .

CONCLUSION:

IN '80 '82 TIME FRAME THERE WAS NON-0PTIMAL CRAFT AND INSPECTOR PERFORMANCE. .

I

• I QA PROGRAM IDENTIFIED THE WEAKNESS.

l PRUDENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WERE MADE TO ASSURE -  !

EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION OF THE WEAKNESSES. l

~

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF..THE HIGH STRESSED BEAMS lN THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING AND IN OTHER AREAS SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS '84/'85 DECISION TO NOT REINSPECT BASED ON LACK 0F TECHNICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ISSUE.

l CRAFT AND INSPECTOR PROFICIENCY HAVE STEADILY IMPROVED I

OVER THE YEARS.

N0 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE OVERALL STRUCTURAL WELD ISSUE.

l l

q. .

UNAUTHORIZED WORK (1.E. WORK DONE-WITHOUT PROPER PAPERWORK AND REQUIRED INSPECTIONS): _ .

WORK ON HARDWARE COULD HAVE BEEN PERFORMED CORRECTLY _

QA PROCESS DETECTED THIS WEAKNESS AND IDENTIFIED IT TO LINE MANAGEMENT. .

LINE MANAGEMENT TOOK ACTION ON POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.

~

NONCONFORMANCES WRITTEN AND ADVERSE TRENDS ISSUED.

LINE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ON THE LESS SIGNIFICANT. ISSUES WAS NOT COMPREHENSIVE.

IMPACT OF UNAUTHORIZED WORK IS OF AN EXTREMELY MINOR  ;

NATURE.

EVALUATION OF EACH NONCONFORMANCE SHOWS NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE.

ISSUE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE UTMOST MANAGEMENT ATTENTION.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING INCREASED CRAFT SUPERVISION ACCOUNTABILITY l

l

Q. y. ~ ,.

~

~

ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL PROJECT QUALITY e

l

• QUALITY PROGRAM STATEMENT:

PURPOSE OF.THE PROJECT QUALITY PROGRAM IS TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES, S0~AS TO HAVE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE END PRODUCT IS ACCEPTABLE.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM CAN BE MEASURED BY:

TECHNICAL ADEQUACY OF THE END PRODUCT THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE SYSTEM

, - -,-r - , n-

, Q.,

Q.

1 FLOW-PROCESS e

DESIGN 1 r ..

INSTALL 4 CHECKS AND BALANCES V _

INSPECT  ;

i l

CHECKS AND BALANCES PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS FLOW PROCESS.

l l

(

, 6 . ._

CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE FLOW PROCESS:

~

NONCONFORMANCEIDENTIFkCATION:REJECTRATES:

~

DOCUMENT REVIEW AND ASSEMBLY PROCESS .

_QA SURVEILLANCE . .

~

AUTHORIZED NUCLEAR INSPECTOR START-UP TESTS -

~

INTERNAL AUDITS .

ROVIINE NRC AUDITS SPECIAL NRC AUDITS (CAT, IDI)

OTHER THIRD PARTY AUDITS (ASME, INPO)

SYSTEM WALKDOWNS I

SPECIAL WALKDOWNS l

[ l QUAllTY CHECK PROGRAM

^

tS - @.

~

~

EXTENSION OF ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS:

AS A RESULT OF THE ELECTRICAL SEPARATION ISSUE AN EVALUATION WAS PERFORMED OF THE VARIOUS ON-SITE PROGRAMS TO ASSURE SIMILAR WEAKNESSES WERE NOT PRESENT IN OTHER

~ AREAS. - -

~

EVEN THOUGH THE EVALUATION WAS OF A SUBJECTIVE NATURE, DATA PROVIDED BY THE CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEMS FOR THE PROJECT WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT CONCLUSION.

CONCLUSION WAS THAT THERE WERE NO SPILL OVERS.  !

Q.: (w .

. NUMEROUS EXAMPLES EXIST WHERE THE CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM WORKED:

PIPE HANGERS .

l i

INSTRUMENTATION PIPING HVAC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.29

~ ~ ~

INTERDISCIlUNARECLEARANCES SIX MAN NRC TEAM STRUCTURAL STEEL ELECTRICAL SUPPORTS CAT ASME

. .. f

. CONCLUSION: .

WE HAVE AN EFFECTIVE QA PROGRAM,  !

_ THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A QA BREAKDO.WN. l

~

l ELECTRICAL SEPARATION IS AN ISOLATED ISSUE WHERE THE l LINE ORGANIZATION DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS OVALITY l 0BLIGATION IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER.

DEFICIENCY COVERS A VERY LIMITED DIMENSION OF THE ELECTRICAL PROGRAM

~

EXTENSIVE ACTION TAKEN TO UPGRADE PREFORMANCE' STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE TOTAL QUALITY PROGRAM WORKED.

WE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE WE TOOK CORRECTIVE ACTION REINSPECTION PROGRAM CONFIRMED PRUDENCY OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH ELECTRICAL SEPARATION

(f q5

~

CONCLUSION CONTINUED: .

UNAUTHORIZEDWORKISOFLIMITEbDIMENSION.

QA PROCESS DETECTED THE WEAKNESS LINE ORGANIZATION TOOK ACTION WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, IN HINDSIGHT, COMPREHENSIVE .-

IMPACT OF UNAUTHORIZED WORK IS OF A MINOR NATURE

-,e - - -=m O

l

9 ,

~

~_

SUMMARY

WEAKNESSES IN THE THREE AREAS EXAMINED ARE UNRELATED.

NO QUALITY BREAKDOWN OCCURED. CHECKS AND BALANCES LIMITED THE PROPAGATION OF WEAKNESSES.

~

ONLY MINOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEAKNESSES.

IN ALL CASES CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE.

THE TOTAL PROJECT QUALITY CONTINUES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH AN EXCELLENT HISTORY OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE

, CODES AND REGULATIONS.

l 1

_ _