ML20031D240
| ML20031D240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, RDC-36(81), NUDOCS 8110130176 | |
| Download: ML20031D240 (2) | |
Text
-
8 2s 5 0. 6 5 (s
~
f THE CL EVELAND ELECT RIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY P o BOX 5000 e CLEVELAND. OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 e ILLUMINATINo BLDG.
e 55 PUPLICSoUARE emng The Best Location in the Nation Datwyn R. Davidson ViCE PRE $4 DENT SYSTEU ENGtNEERING AND CONSTRUCitoN I
September 30, 1981 v.
OCT Mr.. Tames G. Keppler 6
- se 8eata IA Director, Region III g
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
(%
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road 6. _ xQ-Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
- 8 F \\
RE:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Possible Minimum Wall Violation of Installed Pipe Spools
[RDC 36(81)]
l I
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This letter serves as an Interim Report in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) concerning possible minimum wall violation of installed pipe spools due to excessive interior sandblasting. This was first reported to Mr. L. McGregor of your of fice on August 31, 1981, by Mr. W. Kacer of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. This subject was also discussed today with Mr. E.
Schweibinz of your office by Messrs. E. Riley and G. Leidich of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
This report includes a description of the identified nonconformance and the methods to be used to complete our avaluation of significance pursuant to 10CFR50. 55 (e).
Description of Deficiency Five violations of minimum wall thickness were identified prior to installation by Ultrasonic Examinattra. All these violations were found on pipe, both safety and nonsafety, which had been sandblasted during a limited time period by our Piping installation contractor, Pullman Po'/er Products. This noncon-formance is described here to explain why a potential deficiency with installed piping was suspected to exist.
Af ter identification of the nonconforming pipe spools as described abc,ve, a field inspection was conducted on some installed piping and possible exterior heat affected zones were identified on several pipe elbows. When these installed pipe spools were ultrasonically inspected it was found that all suspect areas exceeded nominal wall thickness.
-Q7 S
//O 8110130176 B10930 PDR ADOCK 05000440
5 1981
Mr. James G. Keppler September 30, 1981 Method of Evaluation A review of installed piping has been undertaken and an initial sample of 23 pipe spools from a population of approximately 900 sandblasted spools has been ultrasonically inspected by PNPP Project Organization and found acceptable.
To provide a higher 1cvel of confidence that only acceptable pipe has been installed, the sample inspected will be increased to 80 The additional inspection will be conducted by Pullman Power Products, and we anticipate that our evaluatian will be completed by January 11, 1982 Because it is necessary to conduct additional examination to establish a icvel of confidence in the acceptability of the installed piping, we are providing a summary of the information presently available to remain in compliance with the reporting requirements established by 10CFR50.55(e).
Please call if there are any questions.
Very truly yours, Mp7 W
p1 Dalwyn' Davidson Vice President System Engineering and Construction DRD:pab cc: USNRC - Site Mr. Victor Stello, Director Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Document Management Branch Washington, D.C.
20555
_ -