ML20032D394

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Final Deficiency Rept Re Broken Fiber Contact Base on Armature of 4.16-kV Switchgear Relay,Initially Reported on 810521.Broken Base Replaced.Ge to Bechtel Power Corp Encl
ML20032D394
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 10/22/1981
From: Van Brunt E
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To: Faulkenberry B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, ANPP-19243-GHD, DER-81-11, NUDOCS 8111130731
Download: ML20032D394 (4)


Text

/

a e

I1 Docket Hos. 50-528/529/530 50 55(e) Report h

IFUJmMC GsLmffR7BDEn3 @@TlHP.Amr MBE3Mi3A

^

3003 p o,oox,,,,, _

pgoen,x,,n, zona,3o,,

STA.

October 22, 1981 ANPP-19243-GHD/BSK d

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

/

Region V h

j~1 'N Creekside Oaks Otfice Park h.

l 79 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 s

Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368

{; g12 6 j

Attention:

Mr. B. H. Faulkenberry, Chief L u.s.$NW Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

/

Subject:

Final Report - DER 81-11 A 50.55(e) Deficiency Evaluation Relating to a Broken Fiber Contact Base on the Armature of a Relay in the 4.16 KV Switchgear File: 81-019-026 D.4.33.2

Reference:

(A) Telephone Conversation between J. Eckhardt and B. S. Kaplan on F ay 21, 1981 (P) ANPP-18238, dated June 18, 1981 (Interim Report)

(C) Telephone Conversation between T. Bishop and G. H. Duckworth on October 15, 1981

Dear Sir:

The NRC, Region V, waspreviously notified by References (A) and (B) of a potentially reportable deficiency undergoing further

$h7 evaluation.

The subject deficiency was subsequently evaluated i

as Not Reportab;e under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e).

Mr. Bishop was informed of this evaluation by telephonc in

//

Reference (C), and he requested a letter showing this deficiency as Not Reportable to close out the file.

Attached, is our final written report showing this deficiency to be an isolated incident and not a significant safety condition.

Very truly yours,

? W.f?3;DEU O

C Clt L htLQ m 8111130731 811022 E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

4 PDR ADOCK 05000528

,,d 87,133 !UI APS Vice President S

PDR Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director m.2, EEVBJr/GHD:ske g.}g Attachment cc:

See Attached

--(I-AOR

{>

I" U. S. Nucl:ar Regulctory Commicc31on Attention:

Mr. B. II. Faulkenberry, Chief ANPP-19243-Gild /BSK October 22, 1981 Page 2 cc:

Victor Stello, Jr., Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D. C. 20555 J. A. Roedel D. B. Fasnacht G. C. Andognini F. W. Hartley J. M. Allen A. C. Rogers B. S. Kaplan W. E.

Ide J. Vorces J. A. Brand A. C. Gehr W. J. Stubblefield W. G. Bingham R. L. Patterson R. W. Welcher R. M. Grant D. R. Hawkinson L. E. Vorderbrueggen Ms. Par.ricia Lee llourihan 6413 South 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040

(/ ')

}

i,

l FINAL REPORT - DER 81-11 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55(e)

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)

PVNGS UNIT 1 I.

Description of Deficiency During preparation for a start-up bench test of a General Electric relay supplied as a component of the 4.16 KV switchgear, it was found that the relay had been delivered to the jobsite with the fiber contact base on the armature broken.

The relay is located in Cubicle E-PBB-SO4N of the subject equip-ment, and is an essential part of a safety-related system. A definitive reason for the breakage could not be determined.

The system had not been activated for testing or service.

II.

Analysis of Safety Implications A review of this deficiency by both Bechtel Engineering and General Electric has determined that the broken fiber contact base was probably caused due to improper handling of the relay while outside of the case and is considered to be an isolated incident.

This condition is evaluated as Not Reportable under the requirements and four reportability criteria of 10CFR50.55(e),

because (i) it is not a significant breakdown in any portion of the QA program, (ii) it is not a significant deficiency in the final design, (iii) it is not a sig-nificar.t deficiency in construction of, or significant damage to, a structure, system or component which will require extensive repair to meet adequacy of system function to perform its intended safety function, and (iv) it is not a significant deviation from the per-formance specification which requires extensive evalu-ation, redesign or repair to establish adequacy of the equipment to perform its intended safety function.

This defect would always be detected during any pre-energization start-up activity and would always be corrected during the normal testing operations, and could not remain undetected and/or uncorrected. Also, see attached letter, General Electric to Bechtel Power Corporation, dated September 4,1981.

III.

Corrective Action Replace the broken fiber contact base.

J

m u -_

,_m.,,,,,,,

, u, 7.

p

()

( ) tech ent to DER 81-11

,a(

.6, j

/

G EN ER AL h ELECTRIC etacraic uriury SALES DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,9350 E. FLAIR DR., EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91734 Phone: (213) 572-5200 MAILING ADORESS P.O. BOX 2830, TERMINAL ANNEX. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90051 Joe 2o4o7

_nte -

September 4,1981 i

5 10*81 n

Bechtel Pcwer Corporation Mve* n P.O. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Z

y n,,,

Los Angeles, California 90060 ma-sn r.nu.u,

    • t' Attention:

Mr. W. G. Bingham

]

Z

__ cam l Pt aject Engineering Manager Z

Nt n

Reference:

Arizona Nuclear Power Project

~

~nw ou.

Z Spec. 10407-EM-009 d'. s,,

G.E. Reg'n. 480-54640 c

G.E. Shop Order No. 929900 7c'."

~

Deficiency Evaluation Report 81-11 6-Z wrat s.-

e,w m2.r -

p., s,,

ci,7

Dear Mr. Bingham,

- 7,u We are submitting the follcwing comments in response to thh;fetcuud D.E.R.

Device Affected:

121FC53B1A Function Affected: Instantaneous Unit Problem: Fiber contact base on armature is broken We have investigated the problem as reported, and feel that the broken contact base is a chance occurence and not of a repetitive nature.

The most probable cause of the defect was improper handling of the relay while outside of the case.

It would be impossible to determine when or where the unit was damaged with any degree of reliability.

This type defect would be found during any pre-energization type of test, and as such, would not be considered a reportable (10CFR-21) incident.

If you have any questions or desire additional information, please call me.

Very truly ours, p..

W E. L. Phil ippi Customer Service Specialist ELP:lb

T7 '

A vF

>