ML20039D076

Responds to NRC 811112 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-413/81-24 & 50-414/81-24.Corrective Actions:Qa & Const Personnel Have Been Advised of Proper Steps to Follow in Evaluating Rejectable Defects

ML20039D076
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/09/1981
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20039D071	List: ML20039D076
References
NUDOCS 8112310292
Download: ML20039D076 (2)

Text

-

_. v

. 3.= . .

USNRC REGION ATL A NTA, GEOP C 3-DUKE - POWER COMPANY Powna Dust.niwo -

422 Sourri Causcu Sid$drMMrrkh.D.

WI LLI AM 0, PA R K ER, J R.

Vice Patsiormt TELgm ome AmtA 704 seca Paoouct'o" 373 4083 December 9, 1981 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II

'101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:PkY 50-413/81-24 50-414/81-24

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Please find attached a response to Infraction No. 413/81-24-02 as identified in the above. referenced Inspection Report. Duke Power Company does not con- .

' sider 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, (A, N.

William O. Parker, Jr.

RWO/php Attachment cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station 1-8112310292 011222 PDR ADOCK 05000413 PDR _.

G.

_ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _.___._ _ ______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

n . o DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION USNRC IE REPORTS 50-413/81-24 50-414/81-24 Violation As a result of the inspection conducted on September 26 - October 25, 1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), the following violation was identified.

10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Topical Report Duke 1-A, Section 17, paragraph 17.15 requires that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with established procedures. Licensee procedure Ql, Rev 15 requires proper technical evaluations for nonconforming conditions.

Contrary to the above, a proper technical evaluation was not accomplished on September 18, 1981 for Class B weld INV 177-8 in that a rejectable lack of fusion defect was accepted by licensee personnel. This acceptance was documented on Nonconforming item Report No. 12682.

This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement l l .E.) .

Res ponse

1. We admit the violation.

2. The reason the violation occurred is that Construction Department personnel could not find the reported defect and concluded that it did not exist. Quality Assurance personnel then incorrectly allowed the conclusion to s tand. The proper course of action was to contact the welding inspector who discovered the exact location and extent.

3 The corrective steps which have been taken are:

a. Quality Assurance and Construction personnel have been advised of the proper steps to follow in evaluation of rejectable defects,

b. The weld in question was repaired.

c. Construction personnel have instituted a method of evaluating nonconformances of this type which will ensure proper evaluation.

4. No additional corrective action is planned.

5. Full compliance has now been achieved.