ML20072E321
| ML20072E321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| 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-413-82-17, NUDOCS 8303210640 | |
| Download: ML20072E321 (2) | |
Text
.
\\ ;,. fh,-,
p.
DUKE Powen GOMPANY P.O. nox 338tM)
CitAH1.orrE. N.C. 249242 NAL H. Tt!CKEN Trupuoxs a rakar**** -
(704) 07a-4tuu
...'w....
February 28, 198')
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100
-Atlanta, Georgia 30303 cm Re: Catawba Nucicar Station W
L I-Unit 1 Z
[2 Docket No. 50-413 t,f.3
.a o
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
~N ON$
D
. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached a Supplemental Response-to
$' 3-Significant Deficiency Report SD 413/82-17.
- d W
'S u Very truly yours,
~
e c' A e
m i
Hal B. Tucker RWO/php Attachment cc: Pirector Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Office of Inspection & Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12097 Washington, D. C. 20555 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector 2135 Devine Street Catawba Nucicar Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 UFhiCIAL COPY,j'
~'~
8303210640 830228 PDR ADOCK 05000413 7-
~O:
_.f L Af 1
r
~
p DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION Supplemental Report on Significant Deficiency SD 413/82-17 The following Information supplements our report dated September 3, 1982.
This information is submitted in order to address the possibility that similar defects could have gone undetected.
Duke's past practice was to evaluate base metal indications to verify that such indications met the requirements of the material specification and ASME Section lli base metal standards. When indications were deter-mined to be within acceptance standards for the required NDE method, they were accepted as meeting Code.
In addition, when unusual conditions were discovered in base materials, the film reviewers practice was to consult the Level 111 Examiner for nuidance.
In this particular instance, Duke considered the indication to be acceptable under these guidelines; however, Duke Interpreted the indication to be less severe than the interpretation by the ANI and NRC. At the request of thm AH1 and NRC, Duke continued the evaluation to the point of completely removing the indication. Upon re-moval of the indication, it became evident that the indication was more extensive than originally determined by Duke. As a result, Duke insti-tuted a more conservative approach.to evaluation of base metal indications detected by radiography. This method of evaluation has been added to radiography procedures and radiographic examiners have been instructed in its use, in addition, Duke contracted a consultant to perform an independent evalu-ation. The evaluation describes the condition as being extremely unusual and concludes that the indication would not be expected to result in valve failure.
Further, under extreme conditions, if failure had occurred, the failure mode would have been one of leakage as opposed to catastrophic failure.
Based on our past practice, the unusuainess of the indication, and the corrective actions already undertaken, Duke concludes that no significant defects exist in the erected plant and the review of previously accepted radiographs is not necessary.