ML20024C226
| ML20024C226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, SD-414-82-16, NUDOCS 8307120427 | |
| Download: ML20024C226 (3) | |
Text
O DUKE POWER GOMPShRC RE,G.D,gq* g' #
Nd P.O. DOX G3180 a
'd C1!AHLOTTE. N.C. 2824' HAL D. TUCKER Teternoxe June 30, 1983 (704) ara-4sa
== m.
'-^"~~~
83 Jim 4 A 9 : 'I 7 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2 Docket No. 50-414
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached a final response to Signifi-cant Deficiency Report SD 414/82-16.
Very truly yours, Af
/-LY Y
Hal B. Tucker RWO:scs Attachment (1) cc: Director Robert Guild, Esq.
Office of Inspection & Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12097 Washington, D. C.
20555 Charleston, S. C.
29412 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector 213515 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, S. C.
29205 INPO Records Center Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 qqtegCOPh l
-55 a7 8307120427 830630 PDR ADDCK 05000414 S
PDR II
.O T'
ATTACHMENT 1 JP0/RWO
\\
June 30, 1983 - Al DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION REPORT NUMBER: SD 414/82-16 INITIAL REPORT DATE: September 2, 1982 FINAL REPORT DATE: June 29, 1983 CORRECTIVE ACTION:
Borg-Warner has-evaluated the are strike on the subject valve (2NI162A) and takes the position that the are strike could not have been made at their facility. Attached '.s a letter from Borg-Warner stating reasons why they take this position.
Furtaer investigation by Duke has shown that the valve could have received the are strike while in the auxiliary building waiting for installation.
If the arc strike had gone undetected during installation, it would have been detected during the M-41 inspection of the piping system prior to its turnover to the Nuclear Production Department and would have been handled as an are strike incurred during installation.
From this investigation, it is determined that the are strike was not a vendor problem and therefore, was not reportable. The arc strike will be handled as an are strike received during field installation.
lM B:rg.WIrn;r Fluid Ccntrcis 7500 Tyrona Ava. Van tN s Cahforne,1 Al.10'l. Icirphone, 1 731..tc/Jn Maihng Acdrzss P O Don 2185. Van Nuys. C,shforn a. TWx 'O 19s 1726 e
- 1F~
May 25, 1983 In Reply Refer to:
LDT-83-128 f!r.H.Henkel Duke Power Company P.0, Box 33189 Cha'rlotte, North Carolina 28242
Subject:
Evaluation of Arc Strike on Valve
Reference:
Valve 9J-220 Serial Number 12378 BWFC Part Number 74370 Plant Release R06650 Dea'r Mr. Henkel:
Borg-Warner has evaluated the arc strike on the subject valve and takes the position that the arc strike could not have been made at our facility for the following reasons:
1.
The valve body assembly is 100% liquid penetrant examined after fabrication welding and does not return to our weld shop.
2.
The valve is 100% visually inspected just prior to shipment by our inspector and your source inspector (the arc strike is in a very visible location near the weld prep and therefor subject to visual detection).
3.
Mr. W. Klenner, our representative, examined the arc strike at your facility in July 1982, upon your request, and observed that the arc strike was immedi-ately adjacent to the completed field weld (welding of the valve into the piping system).
If there are any further questions concerning this matter please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, BORG-WARNER FLUID CONTROLS Q
3 L. D. Tomlinson Manager, Customer Service LDT:sh cc:
R. F. Hollis W. Klenner
.