ML20054E516
| ML20054E516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1982 |
| 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 8206110298 | |
| Download: ML20054E516 (3) | |
Text
- _.
s f-a A%r3M.TA, osi:F^ W COMPANY b E p <;i t_
.~
Powsm uuri.nixo 422 Socin Cnuncn Srazzi, CHAnwitz, N. C. asa.m 82 Jt!N 3 A8: 03 WILLIAM O, PARMER,JR VeCr PattactNT ICL(PMONt; Anta 704 May 2'/, j$82 Segame PaoDUCTion 373-4083 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region ll 101 Harletta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and -414
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50 55e, please find attached Significant Deficiency Report SD 413-414/82-11.
Very truly yours, i
{
d, o _-
}
William 0. Parker, Jr.
RWO/php Attachment i
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 l
NRC Resident inspector 21351s Devine Street j
Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 SiCIALCOPL C' 6110298 820527 DR ADOCK 05000413
[L%f PDR
a CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION REPORT NO: SD 413-414/82-11 REPORT DATE: May 27, 1982 FACILITY:
Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY: The code required reinforcing fillet weld on pipe-to pipe nozzle welds was found to be undersized after prior inspection had warranted them acceptable.
INITIAL REPORT: On April 28, 1982, Mr J C Bryant of NRC Region 11, Atlanta, Georgia, was notified of this deficiency by Mr W 0 Henry and Mr L M Coggins of Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC 28242. This notification was in response to Non-Conforming item #14,524.
DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY:
During routine inspection of a piping system, the code required reinforcing f?llet weld on a branch connection was found to be undersized.
Subsequent investigation disclosed that other welds which had already beer. signed off were undersized also.
ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATION: At this time, three (3) factors have caused this item to be deemed reportable.
1.
The large diameter of some pipe-to pipe nozzles increases the consequences of a failure.
2.
In pipe-to pipe nozzle welds, there is no heavy coupling present with built in reinforcement.
3 The code rules for analysis of this type of branch connection does not take credit for the code specified reinforcing fillet welds. Thus, we have no readily available analytical tool to use to say that the undersize weld means lower strength, but it is still acceptable.
A list of all pipe-to pipe branch connnections is now being prepared.
Once this list is compiled, all ASME Code pipe-to pipe nozzle welds will be reinspected.
The fillet size will be measured and recorded. All recordings will be forwarded to Design Engineering for further investigation and analysis to justify or verify the acceptability of these welds, and the consequence of the undersi7e had they gone undetected.
CORRECTIVE ACTION: All craft and QC personnel have been retrained in the proper requirements for fillet size. This training has included a discussion of Construction Procedure 427 and drawing series CN-1676-1 which contain the necessary information on fillet weld size.
)
._A A_
~ _
a_,,
_,.4, a
L,,
c
-..M
- mSt i4 3
a mJ a.a s
2-Based upon the Design analysis, a decision will be made as to which welds require weld metal build-up.
All necessary weld build-up will be completed by November 1,1982.
The Design Engineering analysis of the consequences had this gone
]
undetected will be completed by December 1,1982.
t i
a
+
I i
l l
?
l
-7
=1"T-9 wa v
---5 gwp-y-p-e
-r y
veed
--wry
'r-wy-e e
,r-
---g---yev--y--
,e%9-y pg,,,.