ML18004B842
| ML18004B842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1987 |
| From: | Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18004B841 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-77, NUDOCS 8706110187 | |
| Download: ML18004B842 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1
I NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power and Light Company Harris Docket No. 50-400 License No. NPF-63 During the Nuclear Regulatory Comfssfon (NRC) inspection conducted on September 9 - December 12,, 1986, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved (a) failure to implement adequate design control measures and (b) undersized welds on cable tray supports.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as implemented by the CPSL accepted gA Program (FSAR Chapter 17.2),
requires that design control measures provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design.
such as by the performance of design reviews, by use of alternative or simplified calculation methods, or by performance of a suitable testing program.
Contrary to the above, the licensee's design verification program was not adequately implemented in that:
1)
The inadequate design methodology used in the original design calculations for design of generic Detail G connection on Drawing CAR 2168-G-251-S01 and for the calculations for Field Modification FM-C-'CAR-2168-G-251-S01 were not identified dur fng the design verification process.
2)
Incorrect application of the AISC Ultimate Strength Method for weld design and use of incorrect allowable weld stress values in calculations for Field Change Request (FCR) AS-10360 for modification of the new.fuel pool rack support system were not identified during the design verification process.
3)
Use of an individual who had specified the design approach and had supervisory responsibility for the individuals performing the design to verify portions of the calculations for FCR AS-10360 in violation of CPSL Procedure 3.3, Design Verification.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,
as implemented by the CPSL accepted gA program (FSAR Chapter 17.2), requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by and accomplished in accordance with documented 870biiOi87 870b02 PDR ADOCX 05000OOO G
Carolina Power and Light Company Harris Docket No. 50-400 License No. NPF-63 instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Procedures were not followed for welding and inspection of welds on Detail G cable tray support connections as described below:
I)
CPSL Procedure Number MP-08; General Melding Procedure for Structural Steel and
- Hangers, requires craft to complete fillet welds to the size specified on the drawings.
Contrary to these requirements, 49 of 54 3/8 inch fillet welds required by field modification FM-C-CAR-2168-G-251-S01 (Detail G)
R-l, on the Detail G cable tray support connections were undersized.
2)
CPSL Procedure gCI-18.1, Seismic Structural Steel Inspection and Documentation
- System, requires the gA/gC inspectors to verify weld size and length is in accordance with drawing requirements.
Contrary to this requirement, licensee welding gA/gC inspectors failed to identify the undersized 3/8 inch fillet welds on the Detail G
cable tray support connections.
The undersized welds had been inspected and accepted by the gA/gC inspectors.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Carolina Power and Light is hereby required to submit to this Office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply including for each violation:
(I) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results
- achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is
- shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u,(8M Alan R. Herdt, Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Dated at~ Atlant
, Georgia this gray of w~c. 1987