ML19309G056

Final Deficiency Rept Re Possible Use of Noncode Matl in Certain Category I Component Supports.Twelve Stewart Mechanical Pipe Sleeves Were Suspect Due to ASME Audit. Eleven Are Acceptable.Stewart Is Correcting Twelfth

ML19309G056
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	04/25/1980
From:	Shields S PSI ENERGY, INC. A/K/A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF INDIANA
To:
References
0428804001, 428804001, NUDOCS 8005020282
Download: ML19309G056 (2)

Text

,

. .s 0428604001 6006020282 l:

i i

PUBLIC 1 SERVICE INDIANA S. W. Shields Vice President . Electric System April 25, 1980 Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Docket Nos.: STN 50-546 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission STN 50-547 Region III Construction Permit Nos.:

799 Roosevelt Road CPPR - 3 70 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 CPPR - 171 Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2

Dear Mr. Keppler:

On February 8, 1980, Mr. S. J. Brewer of Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (PSI) telephoned your office to notify you of a potentially reportable incident as required by 10CFR 50.55(e). Further on March 5,1980, PSI provided you with an interim report covering the possible use of non-Code material in certain Code, Category I component supports.

The re=ainder of this letter describes this problem and constitutes a final report under the Regulation.

In early February, 1980, PSI became aware, through an ASME audit, that some Category I component supports (pipe sleeves and their associated end seal plates) might have been fabricated by Stewart Mechanical from non-code material'. Subsequent investigations showed that twelve (12) pipe sleeves or their ring and bar lugs were in question; na=cly:

2RB 330 (ASME Class 1); 1AB 998M, LAB 999M, 2AB 998M, 2AB 999M, 2RB 70, 2RB 72, 2AB 68, LAB 74,1AB 114, 2AB 840, 2RB 79, (ASME Class 2 and 3).

The Class 1 sleeve had not been installed or delivered to the Marble Hill site, although nine (9) of the above Class 2 or 3 sleeves were already embedded or were in formwork. An investigation has determined that all items are in conformance with sub-section NF of the ASME Code, except for 2RB 330 which has been scrapped. It was further determined that for the above fabricated items, Stewart Mechanical had extended the NF Code boundary beyond that required in the design specification.

Stewart Mechanical had, in fact, fabricated the entire assembly to sub-section NF while the design intent was an NF Code boundary at the i surface of the concrete wall. PSI through its Architect-Engineer, h/7 SG

/k l

1000 East Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana 46163 317 . 839 .9611

~-. -

.,w..-

. ~ . . . - - . .~ mm. . - -

l

. i

.' s l l g PUBUC SERVICE INOtANA letter: Mr. James G. Keppler, April 25, 1980 4

1 Sargent & Lundy, modified the Design Drawings to concur with the more conservati.2 boundary interpretation of Stewart Mechanical, Future sleeves will be in agreement with the design drawing change.

While the documentation exists to show that the eleven (11) sleeves in question are acceptable, the Stewart Mechanical QA Program still contains the programatic deficiencies detected in the ASME audit of January 22-24, 1980. These deficiencies are being corrected by Stewart Mechanical by revisions to their QA Program. The schedule for completion of these revisions and the subccquent ASME resurvey is late August 1980.

Since the installed component supports meet or exceed both S&L and the ASME Code requirements and since they have the code boundry conservatively applied, no significant deficiency exists and the criteria for the reporr.able deficiency under 1CCFR 50.55(e) has not been met. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincer ,

/

S. W. Shields SJB/cg cc: Director of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 E. R. Schweibinz, P. E.

J. J. Harrison

~ _

__. _ , ,