ML20080M231

Final Deficiency Rept,Item 105 Re Auxiliary Relay Cabinets Supplied by Sys Control Corp.Vendor Supplied Revised Drawings W/Critical Welds Identified & Has Completed Seismic Analysis to Determine Structural Integrity

ML20080M231
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/21/1983
From:	Parsons R CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
CON-NRC-119 105, 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8310030526
Download: ML20080M231 (4)

Text

.

^

• Q l/co Vo/

C  !

cg g @o ught company gt _.m ma P. O. Box 101, New Hill, N. C. 27562 September 21,1983 Mr. James P. O'Reilly NRC-Il9 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Northwest (Suite 2900)

- Atlanta, Georgia 30303 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1986 900,000 KW - UNITS 1 & 2 AUXILIARY RELAY CABINETS, PURCHASE ORDER NY-435246, ITEM 105

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Attached is the final report on the subject item which was deemed reportable per the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e), on April 28,1983. With this report, Carolina Power and Light Company considers this matter closed.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours very truly,

pgPf C 49 R. M. Parsons Project General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant RMP/sh Attachment ec: Messrs. G. Maxwell /R. Prevatte (NRC-SHNPP)

Mr. R. C. DeYoung (NRC)

F310030526 830921 PDR ADOCK 05000400

' dbD E b g S PDR (( J [ g

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON IIARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO 1 FINAL REPORT AUXILIARY RELAY CABINETS ITEM 105 SEPTEMBER 21,1983 l .

l REPORTABLE UNDER 10CFR50.55(e) l k-I r

i-f-

SUBJECT:

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1,10CFR50.55(e) reportable deficiency in auxiliary relay cabinets supplied under Purchase Order NY-

'435246.

ITEM: Structural Welding SUPPLIED BY: Systems Control Corporation, Iron Mountain, Michigan NATURE OF DEFICIENCY: The subject Unit 1 equipment has been received at the site.

Weld deficiencies were noted when compared to the vendor's welding criteria.

DATE PROBLEM OCCURRED: The problem was identified during a CP&L, vendor, and Ebasco meeting / inspection at the site on October 21,1982.

-DATE PROBLEM "EPORTED: On November 1,1982, CP&L (N. J. Chiangi) notified the NRC (A. Hardin) that this item was potentially reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) but not 10CFR, Part 21. On November 30,1982, CP&L (R. M. Parsons) notified the NRC (J. P. O'Reilly) that this item was, after further evaluation, potentially reportable under 10CFR21 also.

More recent evaluation has determined that since CP&L QA did not accept the equipment through our QA program, it is potentially reportable only 10CFR50.55(e). On April 28,1983 CP&L (N. J. Chiangi) notified the NRC (A. Hardin) that this item is reportable.

SCOPE OF .

PROBLEM: The deficiency involves the following relay cabinets supplied under this purchase order:

lA-SA, IB-SB, 2A-SA, 2B-SB, 3A-SA, 3B-SB, 4A-S A, 4B-SB,19 A-SA, 19B-SB.

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS: Seismic qualification of the cabinets is required to assure structural integrity during a seismic event. Safety-related components are located in the cabinets; thus, structural failure would jeopardize operation of safety-related equipment.

REASONS DEFICIENCY IS REPORTABLE: The cabinets were inspected on site. Harris Plant Engineering Section (HPES) evaluated these defects and identified 16 as being potentially significant to the structural integrity of the equipment pertaining to seismic qualification.

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

CORRECTIVE ACTION: 1. The vendor supplied revised drawings with critical welds identified.

2. The vendor has done a seismic analysis (shake test) to determine structural integrity of the cabinets 1&4A-SA and 1&4B-SB as built.

The report of this analysis has been received and reviewed. Based on this report and testing and HPES evaluation of apparent weld deficiencies, the cabinets are judged acceptable and seismically qualified.

3. HPES issued FCR-AS-2919 to correct deficiencies identified by HPES. The welds have been reworked and accepted.

4. HPES requested the vendor to evaluate the repaired welds and deficiencies as identified by tha DDR and the HPES analysis, and to submit this evaluation for HPES review and approval. The vendor has supplied the analysis as requested. This analysis was evaluated by HPES and compared to existing and repaired welds on the auxiliary relay cabinets. All deficiencies reported ori the cabinets and the repaired welds met with the vendor's reanalysis requirements.

PREVENTATIVE ACTION: The vendor has been informed of and has acknowledged the present problem. He has been advised to rigorously follow his QA manual for future SHNPP equipment.