ML17138B290
| ML17138B290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1980 |
| From: | Robert Carlson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005120178 | |
| Download: ML17138B290 (3) | |
Text
~8 860',
(4 9p
+4 0
+~*~4 Docket No. 50-387 UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 661 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA19406 y("SPA>
80 IIS1 so I qg Pennyslvania Power and Light Company ATTN:
Nr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President Engineering and Construction (N-4) 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennys1 vani a 18101 Gentlemen:
This office recently received an allegation about the CRD housing to stub tube welds at Susquehanna, Unit l.
In pursuing this allegation, we examined the UT data for these welds during a site visit on March 4-7, 1980, and participated in telephone conversations with General Electric Company (GE) personnel responsible for performing these examinations and evaluating this data (P. Flaharty and W. Miller).
These discussions were for the purpose of enabling us to understand the raw UT data.
Our examination of this data indicates that there are crack-like indications within the body of these welds.
This is based on the length and orientation of the reflectors.
We understand that these are partial penetration welds for which the ASh1E
- Code, requires only a surface examination.
Furthermore, we understand that the UT procedure and acceptance criteria used by GE were for the purpose of measuring the degree of'eld attachment to the CRD housing.
Thus,, we understand that these UT indications may not violate the particular ASME Code or GE acceptance
'riteria employed.
We are concerned, however, that once these crack-like indi-cations were encountered, they apparently did not receive engineering evaluation by GE or PP8L regardless of how they were discovered.
As discussed by L. E.
Tripp of this office with A.
R.
Sabol of your staff on April 7, 1980, the fol-lowing questions summarize these concerns.
1.
Was an engineering evaluation of these UT indications performed before these welds were accepted?.
If not, why?
Assuming the answer to question number 1 is no, we also have the following questi'ons:
2.
Do the contruction gA/gC program and practices at the Susquehanna site require conditions possibly adverse to quality such as the above to be.
subjected to prompt identification, evaluation by the proper personnel (engineering) and correction as needed?
If not, why?
<~.".'
c.() <i
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 3.
He request that an engineering evaluation of these indications be made and the results be made available to us.
If this evaluation results in the decision to accept the welds as is, what is the basis for that acceptance?
If,not accepted as is, what further repair actions and/or evaluation(s) are planned?
After PP8L has an opportunity to gather all pertinent information applicable to the above concerns, we plan to return to the Susquehanna site to discuss the answers to these questions as a part of our continuing investigation.
In ad-dition to the appropriate PPSL staff members, we suggest that you may want to have appropriate GE personnel available for these di.scussions.
Please inform us when PPSL has gathered the above information so that we schedule the continua-tion of our site investigative effort.
Sincerely,,
Robert T. Carlson, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support. Branch CC:
A.
R. Sabol, Manager, Nuclear.guality Assurance W.
E. Barberich, Licensing Engineer, S.
H. Cantone, Superintendent of Plant