ML19340A187
| ML19340A187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1973 |
| From: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140788 | |
| Download: ML19340A187 (1) | |
Text
~
i' 7 ann PONER Gourway I'owzn Burunwo 422 Sourn Cuuncu Srnrer, C..mntorTE,N. C. 2eroi P.o. u ene
^ c ' Hits -
schion vice PassecaNT PRODUC T sO N AND TR AN%ess55 TON
' November 16, 1973 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region II - Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RO:II:FJ 50-270/73-14
Dear Mr. Moseley:
RO Inspection Report 50-270/73-14, which reports the inspection conducted by Mr. Frank Jape of your office on October 3-5 and October 8-11, 1973, states that the failure to provide procedures to maintain control of air flow between the turbine building and the atailiary building appears to be in violation of Criterion V, " Instruct 4_ons, Procedures, and Drawings,"
of Appendix B to 10CFR50. As noted in the inspection report, immediate corrective action was taken to establish correct air flow between the auxiliary building and the turbine building. In addition to these irmediate corrective actions, the Operating Engineer has instituted a check each shif t to verify that air flow is into the atxiliary building.
Instructions have been issued for actions to be taken to maintain proper air flow. All' auxiliary building exhaust fans have been placed in service,
~
and turbine building exhaust fans have been taken out of service to prevent their reducing the pressure in the turbine building.
The instructions issued by the Operating Engineer should be adequate for l
the control of air flow between-the auxiliary building and turbine building.
However, a review of the existing 'equipaent and its capabuity tri perform as required has been initir.ted. Based on the results of this review, appropriate codifications will be made and procedures developed to ensure proper air flow between the buildings.
[nspection Report 50-270/73-14 has been reviewed, and Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained therein to be proprietary.
i-l Very truly yours, 8.C.7d/hs
'd J
A. C. Thies ACT:vr.
8001140YN
m.
., cj,,
e P
d' w'.
s DUKE PowEn CoMPX
~
t yd; y POWER BUILDING j
g 4cn SocTir Ciruncu SrazzT. GruntoTT( j.
C A
e-Ragulatory We_ g' th w#. : -
muru o. p^aa ta. sa.
December 17, 1975
/4
~
_.,,,,,c,,,,,,,c.
AC C PoESI C E**t ICQ 373 4cg3
$?tAan AaCDvCTO*e
',((
'k
/
Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director
,e U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'?~
< ~. '
t-
'\\
Suite 818
'C
' d-
/ ;,
O D.'
230 Peachtree Street, Northwest
[
3
., ' C ' 3
- lJ Atlanta, Georgia 30303 C}
- , y
- : fw:n,Q Re: Oconee Unit 3
.Q I '
s,
- .sJ.A' ~
Docket No. 50-287 s
Dear Mr. Moseley:
My letter of November 13, 1975, transmitted Unusual Event Report UE-287/
75-10, concerning a weld failure on a sample line from the 3A Low Pressure Injection System Cooler. The following provides additional information relating to this incident and associated corrective action.
The Corrective Action Section of UE-287/75-10 specified that representa-tive welds in each Oconee unit would be dye penetrant tested to deter-tine deleterious effects which may have been caused by vibration in the LPI trains.
The welds listed in Units 1 and 2 were determined to be acceptable. For Unit 3, nine welds were tested, including one in each plane that would be affected by vibration, and the welds were determined to be acceptable with one exception. This weld had previously failed (refer to Abnormal Occurrence Report A0-237/74-6) and was on the same 3/4" sample line as the weld failure addressed by UE-287/75-10.
Subse-quently, this weld, and its adjacent line and valve, into which the crack extended, were replaced.
Very truly yours, j
' D;,Mwr, k
,i
- L
William O. Parker, Jr. /
c.,
< --$ ;CM~
EDB:ge cc:
Mr. Benard C. Rusche 186