ML20041F730
| ML20041F730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1982 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8203170351 | |
| Download: ML20041F730 (2) | |
Text
, - -_.
i
,, ~,,
't DUKE Powen COMPANY Powzu Ilustonwo I#
? !
42a Sourn Gnuncu STureT, CHARIDTTz, N. C. 282 32 1
t; l,
Vict PerstOENT C LC PMONE:ARE4704 sve. paooveno" February 26, 1982 373-4o83 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D
Region II O
101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 6
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 gg.,,
2 m a.,t rwg 2
Af/Jg
'[
Re: Catawba Nuc1 car Station
[d. Uc,,
/S$g Unit 2 a
M """ wpp Docket No. 50-414
,s 9
1;if' : rj ;
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
D y
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached a Supplemental-Response to Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-31.
Very truly yours, Md M-Villiam O. Parker, Jr RUO/php Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Office of Inspection & Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314 Pall Mall Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector 2135 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 I
I l
l i
1 8203170351 820226 OFFICIA L COPI-PDR ADOCK 05000414
---g 7
J S
, n
c.
DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION 9
Report Number: SD 414/81-31 Supplemental Response Date: February 26, 1982 The following is submitted to fulfill our obligation as' prescribed under Corrective Action in Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-31.
The fitting was returned to the manufacturer, Camco Fittings Company for testing and analysis.
The fitting was pressure tested with one 1" NPS x 3" long, Schedule 160, TP 304 pipe nipple socket welded in each end. The assembly was filled with hydraulic oil and pressurized to 10,000 psi for 15 minutes. There was no leakage or evidence of distortion. This test reinforces our position that had the defect gone undiscovered, there would have been no significant safety impact on the plant.
Following the pressure test, the fitting was examined by liquid penetrant u
on the O.D. surface. No additional linear indications were detected other than the one previously found and explored by grinding.
The manufacturer concludes that this indication is a seam which is either~
the result of an elongated blowhole or crack in the original ingot or a fold that formed during hot working. Their conclusion reinforces our original hypothesis that the indication is a very tight lap or tear.
- ~
n.
-,-