ML17333B050
| ML17333B050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1997 |
| From: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:1273, NUDOCS 9710010324 | |
| Download: ML17333B050 (7) | |
Text
CATEGORY 1 REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9710010324 DOC.DATE: 97/09/18 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana M
05000315 5e-316.Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M
05000316 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION FITZPATRICK,E.
Indiana Michigan power Co. (formerly Indiana a Michigan Ele RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION GROBE,J.A.
Region 3 (Post 820201)
SUBJECT:
Responds to NRC 970805 re notice of allegation re 1988 SG replacement welding project. Review of applicable codes used during Unit 2
SG replacement refutes allegations
& no corrective actions're necessary.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response NOTES:
E RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-3 PD INTERNAL:. AEOD/SPD/RAB DEDRO NRR/DISP/PIPB NRR/DRPM/PECB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS2 EXTERNAL: LITCO BRYCEiJ H NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME HICKMANiJ AEON%~
ILE CENTER R DRC HHFB NRR/DRPM/PERB OE DIR RGN3 FILE 01 NOAC NUDOCS FULLTEXT COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
R D
0 E
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTETH TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD)
ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 18 ENCL 18
Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Buchanan. MI 49107 1395 i~
~ Pe t rl~
+i/
~~-.
h
!>> ~hi hltl i
+
'V i
II INDIANA NICHIGAN POWER 9~'c.
September 18, 1997 AEP: NRC: 1273 Mr. J.
A. Grobe U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801,Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351
Dear Mr. Grobe:
Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
RESPONSE
TO NOTICE OF ALLEGATION 1988 STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT WELDING This is in response to your letter dated August 5,
- 1997, that forwarded a notice of an allegation regarding welding activities at Cook Nuclear Plant during the unit 2 steam generator replacement outage in 1988.
The attachment to this letter details our review and disposition of the allegations.
The attachment contains no personal,
- private, proprietary, or safeguards information, and can be released to the public and placed in the NRC public document room.
Sincerely, E.
E. Fitzpatrick Vice President vlb Attachment A. A. Blind A. B. Beach MDEQ -
DW 6c RPD NRC Resident Inspector J.
R. Padgett 97i00i0324 9709i8 PDR ADQCK 050003i5 8
PDR llllllllllllllllllllllflllllllllllllllll
ATTACHMENT TO AEP:NRC: 1273
RESPONSE
TO NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS 1988 STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT WELDING
Attachment to AEP:NRC:1273 Page 1
The investigation discussed below was prepared by'he current performance assurance, plant and supplier performance group manager and the current site cognizant engineer
-, welding.
To ensure independence, neither of these two personnel were involved in the unit 2 steam generator replacement (SGR) project.
The cognizant engineer
- welding was not an employee of any company within the American Electric Power System in 1988 at the time of the unit 2
SGR.
We did experience difficultywith some welds during the SGR project that were resolved with a NRC Region IZZ representative.
We were not aware of later allegations regarding the potential quality assurance problems with the welds since completion of the unit 2
SGR prior to receipt of your letter.
After receiving your letter, we contacted Morrison-Knudsen and Ferguson, hereinafter referred to as MKF, and determined that there had been some on-going internal communication regarding the welding procedures used at Cook Nuclear Plant during the unit 2
SGR.
After reviewing the MKF documents, we conducted our own independent investigation of our records regarding the allegations you presented.
'he NRC correspondence requests that we evaluate an allegation that the welding procedures used on the unit 2
SGR were not in compliance with regulations at the time of construction.
Furthermore, it was concluded in the allegation that these non-compliant welding procedures raise safety concerns regarding our SGR in 1988.
In 1988, MKF was awarded the contract to perform services related to the welding activities for the unit 2 SGR.
Several MKF welding procedures were used, including the welding procedures to join the main feedwater and main steam systems to each steam generator.
The allegation suggests the welding procedure specifications (WPS) and the qualifying procedure qualification records (PQR) were not appropriate for the service intended.
This was apparently based on the assumption
- that, the WPS that was used specified a welding material of a specific ASME Section II American Welding Society (AWS) classification different from that actually used in the PQR test for the WPS.
Znveeti ation The table below summarizes the variables in question from MKF's WPSs and PQRs used for the unit 2
SGR main steam and feedwater connections.
The table also references the associated ASME Section ZX paragraphs.
The PQRs in question were qualified with a weld filler material, AWS classification (E7018A1, SFA-5.5), that is different from that specified in the WPSs (E7018, SFA-5.1).
ASME Section IX, 1986
- Edition, "Welding and Brazing Qualification", states in table QW-'53 for the shielded metal-arc welding (SMAW) process that a change in the AWS classification is a supplementary essential variable.
Zt appears to us that the allegation is founded in the presumption that we used ASME Section IIZ for our construction code where impact properties are mandatory.
Under ASME Section IZZ, a change in the weld material classification, an essential
- variable, would indeed have constituted a
change in the welding procedure
Attachment to AEP:NRC:1273 Page 2
specification, or a requalification of a procedure qualification test.
- However, ASME Section III was not the construction code used for the unit 2 SGR welding of the main feedwater and main steam piping systems.
The welds for both the main steam and feedwater piping systems were made at pipe to elbow (main steam) and pipe to reducer (main feedwater) joints for each steam generator.
The forged nozzle to elbow welds were left intact, and no welding was performed on the vessel for these connections.
The original construction code for piping welds is ANSI B31.1, 1967 Edition, and we maintained the ANSI B31.1 code requirements during the steam generator replacement for the applicable pipe to pipe and pipe to fitting welds.
Our engineering specification, DCC-AE-100-QCN, was used to procure materials and services for the unit 2
- SGR, and was used by MKF during the replacement.
DCC-AE-100-QCN references DCC-PV-109-QCN, revision 3, "Installation and Erection of Nuclear Piping Systems for the Cook Nuclear Plant", that specifically takes exception to impact properties for piping welds for the unit 2
SGR.
It is, therefore, concluded that the welding for these piping welds need only meet the requirements of ASME Section IX, and ANSI B31.1.
Because the AWS classification is not an essential variable for welding applications where impact property performance is not
- required, we find both the WPSs and PQRs acceptable, and in compliance with the governing codes as they were applied during
. the SGR.
Summary WPS and PQR Data for Unit 2 SGR Piller Metal Class-ification On WPS MKP PQR¹ SMAW Only Piller Metal Classi-fication On PQR Piller Metal AWS No.
On PQR UTS+
(PSI)
M-1-1-AB or M-1-1"BA SFA-5.1 (E-7018) 1"117 SFA-5.5 E-7018 A1 67900 M-1-1-AB or M-1-1-BA SFA-5.1 (E-7018) 1-124 SFA-5.5 E-7018 A1 78100 ASME Section IX 1986 Ed.
QW-404 QW-2253 QW-404.12 65000
- U timate tensile strengt reporte on PQR.
Conclusion Our review of the applicable codes used during the unit 2
SGR refutes the allegations as stated in your letter dated August 5, 1997.
We are confident that the WPSs used were relevant and met quality assurance standards and ASME code requirements.
There is no 10 CFR Part 21 issue, nor are any corrective actions necessary.