ML17208A589
| ML17208A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1980 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17208A588 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005190296 | |
| Download: ML17208A589 (5) | |
Text
~
~
., Interim Deficiency Report" Door Frame Nelson Stud, Failures Name of'tation:
0>oner:
Architect/Engineer:
Date of Def'iciency:
NRC Not'ification:
":.~ Interim Repor t Filed:
St. Lucie Plant - Onit 2 Florida Power
& Light Company Ebasco Services, Incorporated l~iarch 1/,
1980 blarch 20, lg80 April 21, 1980
On March 17, 1980, Florida Power 8 Light's (FPL) Construction ()uality Control Department issued a nonconformance report that identified a problem with Nelson studs connected to to> nado resistant door frames.,
. Apparently, some studs were improperly-welded to the frame,-and as a result, failed at the weld during installation of the frame.
Per tne requirements of 10CFR50.55(e),
the event-was deemed potentially reportable and per teleco'n, FPL notified tne NRC on blarch 20, 1980.
This interim report is being submitted to advise the NRC of the statu" of our review.
1.
~D 4
A Project Specification (FLO-2998-7693) was prepared by the Architect/
Engin. er to purchase Tornado Resistant Doors for installation in the Diesel Generator Building, Component Cooling locator Building and Diesel Oil Storage Tank Building.
A purchase order (NY-422669) was placed with R
V Harty Co. to supply the subject doors.
The door frames were received onsi te, inspected and released to the field.
Due to rebar interference, some of the Nelson studs were bent according to procedure and subsequently failed at the weld.
FPI equality Control personnel then performed a detailed visual inspection an'd.'approximately 37 percent (365 out of 996) of t;he welds were rejected.
The doors affected are as follows:
Component Cooling hater Bldg.
Diesel Generator Bldg.
Diesel Oil 'Storage Tank Bldg.
CC1',
CCZ~
- DG1, DG2,
- DG3, DGO,
- DG5, DG6
- D04, D05
- The doors CC1 and CC2 have the bottom section embedded in concrete.
According to requirements of AMS D 1.1, a specification requirement, the welded studs should have been able to withstand a
15 degree bend
'and still retain structural adequacy.
In addi tion, general require-
- ments, workmansh'ip, inspection and testing are required to be in accordance with AMS D 1. 1, Section 4.
Contrary to the above, door frame studs were easily removed before 15 degrees could be reached.
The site visu<al inspection revealed that studs were found to have no 360 degree tlash, blowouts at the side of studs, shrink fissures and in some cases, nonfusion clearly seen at the base of.the stud to the side of the fram The vendor, R
V Harty Co.
has been contacted and requested to supply an explanation as to why the stud welds have failed.
This information will be supplied in the final report.
l
III. Corrective Action The door frames that had unacceptable studs were eitner repaired or had studs replaced and subsequently passed inspection.
To account for the possible deficient welded studs in the bottom
. portion.of doors CC1 and CC2 (embedded in concrete), five additional Nelson studs were added to each vertical side of both-frames. -
tiore 'specific information regarding repair/replacement procedures will be =supplied in the final report.
IV.
Safety Im lications This deficiency, found in construction, could have adversely affected the safety of operation of the plant during its 40 year life ifit were to have remained uncorrected.
It represents a
significant deviation from performance specifications which will require repairs to establish the adequacy of the component to perform its intended safety function.
V.
Conclusion A final report will be submitted by July 31.,
1980, with the results of our review and necessary actions taken.
I