ML20069Q451
| ML20069Q451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1982 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, SD-414-81-30, NUDOCS 8212090079 | |
| Download: ML20069Q451 (3) | |
Text
e DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. HOx 331450 CHAHLOTTE. N.C. 28242 IIAL 15. TUCKEH teLernorrn vseerammenwr (704) 073-4538 November 29, 1982 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region Il
- g
.j, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100
/r Atlanta, Georgia 30003 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station
[
Unit 2 Docket No. 50-414
~.:
cr Deir Mr. O'Reilly:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached a second Supplemental Respcnse to Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-30.
Very truly yours, S
lQ llal B. Tucker RWO/php Attachment cc: Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 l
Palmetto Alliance l
2135's Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 l
15c?'(J)s1 sM s212090079 s21129 PDR ADOCK 05000414 S
PDR l
Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station Report Number: SD 414/81-30, Supplement 2 Report Date: November 29, 1982 Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Second Supplemental Response:
The following supplements our initial report SD 414/81-30 (December 31, 1981) and First Sqpplement (March 31, 1982) in regard to Swepco 8" schedule 40 min-wall violaticn. This report is based on information that has developed since our.
i last_ report.
A total of 14 Nonconforming Items (NCIs) have identified that six out of ten heat numbers received on this order had min-wall less than required by the ASME Code for 8" schedule 40 pipe. After extensive investigation, it has been concluded that these min-wall violations were order related (P.O. E3887-12, SO Release 608) rather than isolated to heat #181033.
The NCIs and Heat numbers are as follow:
NCI Heat #
13409 181033 9518 181032 l
281003 28569 9585 281002 9904 28569
-9905 281002 10058 281003 10380 28569 10477 281003 14779 281003 14793 28569 15396 281003 15425 2810G2 15442 281003 15504 181031 An engineering evaluation has been performed on all of the heats from this order. Our evaluation concludes that the pipe as found satisfies our design requirements. Based on this, the pipe will be used as installed.
Duke Power Company has required that Swepco and Gulf Alloy investigate the cause, extent and corrective action taken.
The results of their investigation only serve to fortify Duke's conclusion.
.=
SD 414/81-30, Supplement 2 Page 2 (1) The starting material was ordered below nominal wall by Swepco. Nominsi for 8" schedule 40 pipe is 0.322".
However, Swepco ordered 0.305"'+.007" starting material.
010" G') The controls for the sanding of the weld seam were misadjusted during the manufacturing of the pipe, causing over-sanding and subsequent below min-wall condition.
(3) Swepco's review of the inspection process revealed that wall thickness of the starting material was checked and found acceptable in all cases.
Apparently, the conditions exist because Swepco ordered materials below nominal wall; this coupled with the over-sanding caused the below min-wall condition.
Subsequent to this, as mentioned in the March 31. 1982 supplemental response, Swepco has provided for additional QC checks (i.e., UT thickness check of the weld and heat affected zone on both sides of the initial piece of pipe on every production run that would require flush grinding).
Duke Power has reviewed this situation from a generic point of view and finds no further evidence of a wide-spread significant problem.
l f
I i
2 1
-3~
~
n
-w
ev,e
--~w
-.--,-m
~ -,
,