ML20038D159

Responds to NRC 811026 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-413/81-22 & 50-414/81-22.Corrective Actions:Cable Installation Verified Per Revised Spec on 811027.Personnel Training Completed on 811022

ML20038D159
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/25/1981
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20038D148	List: ML20038D159
References
NUDOCS 8112160116
Download: ML20038D159 (4)

Text

.

o US DUKE Powun CoupAxi %yggf, 7n. REGQ',-

Li c (' -

POW zu UUII. Dmo 402 Socru Cnuncu Srazer, CnAutorre, . m l' l P2, u wl L LI AM O. PA R M E R, J R.

• • Ttttencws: Ant A 704 SYtana PpoDvCYvow ''

November 25, 1981 i

Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:PkT 50-413/81-22 50-414/81-22

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Please find attached a response to Infraction Nos. 413-414/81-22-01, 413-414/

81-22-03 and 413/81-22-05, as identified in the above referenced Inspection Report. Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained in this inspection report to be proprietary.

I declare under penalty of perjury, that the statements set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Very,truly yours, o_ . a d. L ,

3 William O. Parker, Jr.

RWO/php Attachment cc: NRC Resident Inspector Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.

Catawba Nuclear Station Attorney-at-Law 314 Pall Mall Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Palmetto Alliance 2135 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 8112160116 811208 - r~

PDR ADOCK 05000413 O PDR ~00FICIAL COPye.

DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION VIOLATION:

As a result of the inspection conducted on August 26 - September 25, 1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7, 1980), the following violation (50-413, 414/81-22-01) was identified:

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Topical Report Duke 1-A, Section 17, paragraph 17.1.5 requires that instructions include appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.

Contrary to the above, instructions did not contain appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria on June 9, 1981, in-that the specification for installa-tion of electrical power cables, Specification No. 1390.01-00-0022, did not clearly delineate requirements for separation between adjacent power cables.

This resulted in numerous power cables being installed in contact for a greater length than that which was later determined to be acceptable.

RESPONSE

(1) The specification for installation of electric power cables, Specification No. 1390.01-00-0022, stated that where possible adjacent power cables should be spaced approximately one quarter of the diameter of the larger cable; however, the allowable length of contact between cables in thd event they do touch was not specified.

(2) The original intent of the specification was to require a minimum cable spacing of approximately one quarter of the cable diameter over the entire cable run. The specification was worded such that it could be interpreted to allow some contact between cables. Because of this ambiguity and upon reconsideration of the problems involved in maintaining this spacing d.tring construction, the specification was revised to allow contact between cables for a distance not to exceed two feet. Subsequent reinspection of the installed cable identified contact between cables for distances greater than two feet.

(3) All cable installations subject to this specification were reinspected (re, NCI 12489) and all nonconformances corrected.

(4) All affected craft and quality control personnel were provided training on the revised specification.

(5) Cable installation was verified to be in compliance with the revised specification on October 27, 1981.

Personnel training was completed on October 22, 1981.

~

..= ..

DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION INFRACTION:

B. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Topical Report Duke 1-A, Section 17, paragraph 17.1.5 requires that instructions include appropriate qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished. The applicable code for Class B safety-related piping; ASME,Section III, paragraph NC-2539.4; requires liquid penetrant inspection of base metal weld repairs.

Contrary to the above, instructions did not contain appropriate qualita- ]

tive acceptance criteria on September 18, 1981, in that instructions provided on Nonconforming Item Report No. 12454 for weld repair of piping adjacent Class B weld no. 1FW22-6 did not require liquid penetrant inspec-tion of the weld repair.

RESPONSE

Item B of Appendix A, " Notice of Violation," did occur as stated by Inspector P. K. Van Doorn. This problem was detected by the Quality Control Inspector, and NCIR 12,454 was originated.

The problem occurred due to the welder having insufficient knowledge of the process control requirements for welds and base metal repairs. The weld

' edge was~ continually rejected by inspection for being below minimum thick-ness requirements. The welder repaired this problem by adding more weld metal which increased the weld width. When he welded past the "one-half inch zone" which separates a weid repair from a base metal repair, he neglected to obtain new process control.

All welders were trained the week of September 21 to obtain proper process control when welding the one-half inch or more away from the weld edge.

This training has been documented on V-1A forms. Since this training, no further problems have been encountered in differentiating between veld repairs and base metal repairs. Process control for the veld in question (lFW-22-6) was revised to provide for proper documentation of the weld and adjoining base metal repair.

The Construction Department has initiated a revision to Quality Assurance Procedure F-9 to clearly define the difference between weld and base metal repairs. This revision will preclude any confusion from arising in the field.

Full implementation vill be achieved by January 11, 1982.

INFRACTION:

C. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Topical Report Duke 1-A, Section 17, paragraph 17.1.5 requires that activities affecting quality be accomplishedjin accordance with established procedures.

Licensee procedure-CP-479, Rev. 4 prohibits masking tape from being applied to the surface of safety-related stainless steel piping.

• • • - . DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION Contrary to the above, activities were not accomplished in accordance with established procedures on September 17, 1981 in that Shufords-Shurtape General Purpose Crepe Paper Tape (a brand of masking tape) was applied to stainless steel piping associated with Class B weld Nos.

1BB52-13 and 1BB52-14.

RESPONSE

Item C of Appendix A did occur as indicated by Mr. Van Doorn and is documented on NCIR 12,812. The welding superintendent and welding general foreman investigated this incident and found it to be an isolated casc. The welding craf tsman that used Shufords Shurtape General Purpose Crepe Paper Tape on the stainless steel welds 1BB52-13 and 14 misinterpreted the specifics of Construction Procedure 479. The craftsman erroneously coneidered Shufords Shurtape and Suretape PC-622 which is approved for use on stainless steel to be the same.

The welding superintendent cautioned the welding general foremen on September 18, 1981 that particular attention should be given to the specifics of Construction Procedure 479 to assure that only the approved tapes be used on stainless steel materials. The welding general foreman in turn cautioned the individual welding craftsman as to these requirements.

Full-compliance has been achieved.