ML20027B248

Interim Deficiency Rept Re Subsurface Indication Identified in Base Metal of Valve 1FW056.Initially Reported on 820806. Indication Removed from Valve & Major Weld Repair Performed

ML20027B248
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/03/1982
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, NUDOCS 8209160581
Download: ML20027B248 (3)

Text

. _ . . ._ _ . . - , - - . - . - - . . - _ _ - , - _ . .. -- . ~..- -. . . . , - - - _ _ . - - - - -- . -..

5 y

l .

Dunn POWEn Gomwxy

< I*.O. IM)X 331410 Clf AHI,OTTE, N.C. Ell 242 IIAI,11. TUCK ' Te terssome ww a r.e. esse.r (704)(173-45:38

..u....,..

i j

- Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator

)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11

- 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 i Atlanta, Georgia 30303 i

l Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-413 i

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

g ,

1 ro 'X.

I Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached Significant Deficiency Soport "(f SD 413/82-17 Q

$33 4a .

Very truly yours,  !"x a C$:

rat s&A-gg .-

.r ma a..

Hal B. Tucker to 5'*

RWO/php

• l Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.

Office of Inspection and Enforcen,ent Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314' Pall Hall Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident i nspector 2135 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 OFFICIAL COPY 8209160581 820903 sPDR ADOCM 05000413 #

eDe ,

Jfg a---,w.r,--mmg--,,nw v , en,--- n v ----r- ,m --,--,-,---w,,. n,n v w. en..e<----,--- e-- -~,--mr--- n n. + n = -vr--, .---n,-e +,-,--,we,-u,s-r-ar ee,--- -w

I A

DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY REPORT '. UMBER: SD 413/82-17 REPORT DATE: September 3, 1982 FACILITY: Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1

IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY: During review of supplemental field radiograph of pipe / valve weld area a subsurface Indication was identified in the base metal of valve IFWO56. The size and locatior of the Indication was verified by etching and liquid penetrant examinations during removal of the indication by grinding.

i e

INITIAL REPORT: Initial report was made to Mr. A. Ignatonis, Region ill NRC, on August 6, 1982 by Messrs. W. O. Henry, J. E. Cavender, and V. H. Shellhorse.

DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY: Duke nonconforming item report number 13187 docu-mented a difference in interpretation between the Duke Level ill RT inspector and the site authorized nuclear inspector. The site authorized inspector feels

! the indication is a crack that propagates from a porosity indication in the weld into the valve body. The Duke Level ill feels the indication is an inclusion i in the base material. The situation was discussed with Mr. J. L. Coley of the NRC during a November 2-6, 1981 site inspection and is documented in his report number 50-413-414/81-26, item 3. c. 2. The NRC inspector feels there are two indications; one indication is believed to be porosity in the weld and the I other an inclusion in the base material which starts below the porosity indication

and runs towards the valve body. It was agreed that supplemental RT examinations would be made by Duke. The piping system was drained in July 1982 to allow the supplemental radiography. This radiography revealed the indication to be near i the outside surface, but it was not determined if the indication was a single l Indication or two Indications, one in the weld and one in the valve. An ultrasonic examination was performed from the inside surface using both straight and angle beam techniques. The indication was not detected, even when the sensitivity of the UT equipment was increased to greater than 100% minimum sensitivity.

Exploration of the indication was performed by grinding. The indication was uncovered approximately 1/16 in, below the outside surface and was approximately 3/64 in. in diameter. Etching was performed and revealed the indication to be in the valve material approximately 1/32 in. from the weld fusion zone at O. D.

Further exploration by grinding was performed and also liquid penetrant examination performed af ter incremental grinding. This revealed that the indication was one single indication which extended approximately 1/2 the wall thickness in a direction essentially perpendicular to the outside surface and then sloped (angled) away from the weld joint towards the valve body and extended essentially through the wall (the Indication was approximately 9/16 in, from the weld on the inside surface). A large quantity of penetrant was applied during the exploration.

( 1-( ,

a S Pace 2  ; ' I

~

, b..

, ,? ]

There was no evidence of penetrant on the insida surface, ind(cating no leak path through the wall. The indication pedi evaluated to'be'an inclusion

~

in the base material which was not closed duri99 the forging piecess.

, , , .n <

The valve used in application IFWO56 (9D-212) is a'12 inch, 300# pressure class Westinghouse check valve with serial numuer 1200CS84000000005740008. The, valve was manufactured by the Westinghouse Electro-Mechanical Division. in .Cheswick, y Pennsylvania f rom forged SA182 type F316 material in accordance j with the 1974 /

edition of the ASME Section 111 Code, Class 1. The material was supplied by l Wymann Gordon with heat number 535062. l 'e The valve documentation package shows that Westinghouse. performed an ultrasonic examination on the valve and that no recordabic indications were found. i

/

ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATION: The inclusion did not compranise the pressure )

boundary integrity of the valve. First, the valve was in compliance with the liquid penetrant and ultrasonic testing acceptance criteria required by';Lub

)

ASME Code even though an indication which was difficult to interpre,t was noted "

during additional RT examinations. Second, the valve has passed the component hydrostatic test and the piping system hydrostatic test without leaks._ The ,r component hydrostatic test of 1181 psig is 2.6 times the maximum systen,' pressure of 450 psig. Third, the component hydrostatic pressure is based on a'ASME Code required minimum wall thickness of C.57 inch. According to the valve documen-tation package, the smallest actual minimum wall thickness is 1.492 inch whidh is 0.922 inch in excess of the required code minimum wall. , s' l e 9

CORRECTIVE ACTION: The indication has been removed from the# valve and's major weld repair was performed. ,e >

Westinghouse was contacted by telephone on August 5, 1982 ,to verify that,sim[l'dr /)/'

problems had not been reported by other customers. No other problems gery,known at that time; however, review as a possible 10CFR21 deficiency was initiated. F '.

In order to prevent reoccurrence of similar problems' Ye wi.ll rhemphasize the 2 need for conservative evaluations of base metal indications in TclosE, proximi ty to welds. Specific guidance will be developed by Novpmber 1, i382.' *

' i ' ,/ ./ ,

4 N

t I

e l ,a t

I ,

,A

s l

W r

_ >