ML20076H891
| ML20076H891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1983 |
| From: | Parsons R CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-80 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8306200200 | |
| Download: ML20076H891 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _.
& et/M s/D.L CP&L Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 101, New Hill, N. C.
27562 June 9, 1983
}
DC r-@
c Mr. James P. O'Reilly NRC-8b jU United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission J>%
Region 11 101 Marietta Street, Northwest (Suite 2900) o Atlanta, Georgia 30303 15 3
$u5 m
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY M
3 *,.;
l' SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1986 900,000 KW - UNITS 1 & 2 LAMINATION IN MAINTENANCE RAIL SUPPORT PLATES ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO FINAL REPORT - ITEM 28 Dear Mr. O'Reilly Attached is Addendum No.1 to the Final 10CFR50.55(e) Report issued to the NRC on February 20, 1980 for the above subject deficiency. This addendum addresses the concern identified in Inspection Report RII: WPK 50-400/83-03.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
- 2- &
g R. M. Parsons Project General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant RMP/sh Attachment cc: Mr. G. Maxwell (NRD-SUMPP)
Mr. R. Prevatte (NRC-SHNPP)
Mr. V. Stello (NRC) 4 C
4 Sv?
4 sao62ooaoo e30609 754/ij PDR ADOCK 05000400 g
- e s
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 1 LAMINATION IN MAINTENANCE RAIL SUPPORT PLATES ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO FINAL REPORT - ITEM 28 ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 1980 June 9, 1953 During an audit by the NRC of our 10CFR50.55(e) files, a question was raised in regard to the above subject. The NRC inspector apparently requested justification in regard to why additional inspection of other similar material was not conducted to see if this material may have exhibited the same problem. Our response to this is that plate material in general has the potential to have laminations as a result of the manufacturing process. Standard general plate manufacturing specifi-cations of ASTM A6 and A20 both acknowledge presence of plate edge laminar indications and address acceptable sizes which can remain without repair by the mill. These types of indications are inherent to the plate and shape rolling processes. This is one reason the design engineer is only allowed to use a certain percentage of the material yield strength in performing the design analysis. In particular, when through-plate loading is encountered, only 50% of the allowable tension stress is allowed.
In addition, the material specification (ASTM classification) only requires a visual inspection of the material which, in some instances, will not reveal the extent of laminations. These laminations are normally only discovered when the heat input from welding is applied to the material. When a discontinuity or lamination is discovered, procedures are in place for providing directions to craf t personnel on how to handle the situation (e.g., buff area; if discontinuity is still present, contact Welding Engineering for further instructions).
For the above-mentioned reasons, we could see no reason for doing any further investigations. The rail support plates were investigated and we determined it was prudent to replace them.
Hopefully, this information will clear up any misunderstanding that may l
exist on this subject.
l i