|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:. | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| CP&L Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 101, New Hill, N. C. 27562 October 8, 1982 co .
| |
| N . C o r- to O 1> Z Mr. James P. O'Reilly NRC-13 H z p)
| |
| United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission G d* o
| |
| - T Region II ~
| |
| C;$
| |
| i 101 Marietta Street, Northwest (Suite 3100)
| |
| Atlanta, Georgia 30303 gO '[l o2 , E*3 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY CO' a M $h ;
| |
| SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT b 1985 900,000 KW - UNITS 1 & 2 CONCRETE-GROUT INTERFACE FAILURE OF .
| |
| EMBED FRAME - ITDI 99
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. 0 % illy:==
| |
| | |
| Attached is the final 10CFR50.55(e) report on the subject deficiency which describes the problem and the corrective action taken. With this report, I,
| |
| Carolina Power & Light Company considers this matter closed.
| |
| If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
| |
| Yours very truly, 2 : ;: 3 R. M. Parsons Project General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant RMP/bs Attachment cc: Mr. G. Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP)
| |
| Mr. V. Stello (NRC) e gyFICig,CO yAHE*SE!!8 _
| |
| 7e27 y'-
| |
| | |
| CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 1 CONCRETE-GROUT INTERFACE FAILURE OF EMBED FRAME Final Report October 8, 1982 Reportable Under 10CFR50.55(e)
| |
| : r
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant - Unit No. 1 10CFR50.55(e) Reportable Deficiency Grout-Concrete Interface Failure On An Equipment Pad ITEM: Grout to concrete bond under an equipment pad frame failed after having welding performed on it.
| |
| SUPPLIED BY: N/A - It was not a failure of vendor material.
| |
| NATURE OF DEFICIENCY: Embedded equipment frame was noticed to move when the welder performing the welding was stenciling his identification mark on the frame.
| |
| DATE PROBLEM OCCURRED: September 4, 1982 DATE PROBLEM REPORTED: September 9,1982 - CP&L (Mr. N. J. Chiangi) notified the NRC Region II (Mr. A. Hardin) that this item was reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
| |
| SCOPE OF PROBLEM: The problem involved one equipment foundation on which DC panel 1A-2 was to set. The problem occurred while welding shim plates on the embedded steel frame so the panel could be set.
| |
| SAFETY IMPLICATION': Although the DC panel is not nuclear safety related, it is mounted seismically since it sets in such close proximity to some nuclear related panels. If the failure of the pad had gone un-detected, it would have resulted in the DC panel falling into-and possibly damaging a piece of safety related equipment during a seismic event.
| |
| REASON DEFICIENCY IS REPORTABLE: If left uncorrected, the DC panel would not have sufficient anchorage to prevent it from falling into a safety related piece of electrical equipment and thereby jeopardize the safe shutdown of the plant during a seismic event.
| |
| | |
| ; L' CORRECTIVE ACTION: Embed frame was removed, concrete curb was chipped completely out and the curb and frame were replaced. In addition equipment foundation on the same elevation (286 elevation of F .eactor Auxiliary Building) placed at the same time and hm:ing similar welding details for mounting equipment were tested. The test consisted of welding studs to the tops of the frames and applying a tensile force equal to the allowable load of the nelson studs welded to the embed frames and embedded in concrete. Five such tests were conducted with no failures and no evidence of distress occurring in the foundation. In addition, due to the uncertainty of how or why the failure occurred, two other equipment foundations, the auxiliary control panel and the engineering safeguards sequencer panel, which were placed at the same time as the DC panel foundation was completely removed and replaced.
| |
| Prior to their replacement, a tensile test as described above was performed on the sequencer panel foundation, this time loading the pad to failure. Failure of the system occurred in the high-strength studs attached to_the pad used to apply 'the tensile load. Again, no visible distress occurred in the foundation. The load at failure was approximately two times the allowable design load for the embedded nelson stud.
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| i i
| |
| l l
| |
| L1 _ _-.}}
| |
