ML20076J918
| ML20076J918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1983 |
| From: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-82-03, IEB-82-3, NUDOCS 8309070372 | |
| Download: ML20076J918 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ -.
a-T GPU Nuclear QQ gf P.O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 609-693-6000 Writer's Direct Dial Number.
August 15, 1983 1
l Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Administrator l
Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue l
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Dr. Murley:
Subj ect:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 l
Recirculation System Piping (IE Bulletin 82-03)
During the week of July 11, 1983, your staf f conducted an unannounced inspection of the Oyster Creek Recirculation System Piping Inspection Program. During the exit interview for that inspection, it was stated that a NRC team would be visiting the site to conduct an independent confirmatory l
inspection of selected welds.
Since that time there has been a continuing I
dialogue between your staf f and my staff. Most recently, on July 26, 1983, at a meeting held at Oyster Creek, members of your staf f identified several areas where their interpretation of the recirculation loop inspection data dif fered from ours. On July 29, 1983, in a meeting with the resident inspectors, I described our proposed program to resolve these dif ferences.
The purpose of this letter is to document to you the program that was described in that meeting and certain other actions subsequently taken.
The program consists of two steps. The first step was to bring in outside parties to independently evaluate our data.
Mr. Ted G. Lambert, PE, of the consulting firm Lambert, MacGill, Thomas, Inc. was at Oyster Creek on July 29 and 30, 1983 to carry out this evaluatics. Ebasco, Inc. also reviewed the data during the weet of August 1, 1983.
The second step of our progi m is to proceed with p'cetrant testi ng (PT) of portions of selected welds. Originally, as stated in the July 29, 1983 meeting, this step was to consist of tests on NG-B-5 and NG-D-4.
Ilter further consideration, GPUN has decided to proceed with tests on portions of m-B-5, NC-D-11 and NG-A-14.
The portions of the welds to 'rAergo PT were selected based on minimization of irrelevant indication and the preliminary findings of the outside parties mentioned above. We performed the PT on NG-B-5 over the weekend of July 30 and 31,1983 and the results reveal no relevant indications; we expect to perform the test on NG-D-11 during the week of August 15, 1983, and the test on NG-A-14 during the week of August 22, 1983.
\\
8309070372 830815
@h PDR ADOCK 05000219
/
0 PDR GPU Nuclear is a pad of the General Pubhc Utihties System
/
S i
Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Administrator August 15, 1983.
Page 2 We' have chosen to follow a two-step program of evaluation and testing in order to resolve any differences in interpreting the inspection data on recirculation system piping at Oyster Creek. Our position is that if the PT of these welds does not identify relevant indications where the UT identified possible Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC), that this will satisfactorily demonstrate that GPUN staff has properly characterized the UT indications and no further PT examinations need be performed.
The results of our program will be included in our final submittal under IE Bulletin 82-03.
If you have any questions on this subject, please contact me or Mr. Michael Laggart of my staff at (609) 971-4643.
Very truly yours, jL A A sw w d(w Peter B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF:ja1 cc:
Mr. J. Lombardo U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MA 20014 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731
..