ML20094N206
| ML20094N206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1984 |
| From: | Carr A DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Foster R, Kelley J, Purdom R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8408160121 | |
| Download: ML20094N206 (4) | |
Text
.
. s - jY RELATED CORRESPUhDMCE DUKE POWER GOMPANY" ctcvc c onirrits. sn.
' LEGAL DEPARTMENT s "# & 'R"."' "' '"
E o. Box aatso -
OWo"o't"!d."s..
CHARLOTTE N. G. 28242
... = 2570
"" tar"";#o"4"s".
s cocHErce M*"*f",'*1
\\
usNac
. g&*;"yo;;* d"-
August 13, 1984
- 5
$""hjh"f"".s.
'84 AGO 15 Pl2:03
.FFE J OF E. :O CCCUTI'." A m James L. Kelley, Chairman RE Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Fostar Dr. Paul Purdom Administrative Judge Administrative Judge P. O. Box 4263 235 Columbia Drive Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Decatur, GA 30030 Re:
Duke Power Company, et al.
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 O l _
Gentlemen:
In our' transmittal of August 3, 1984, Attachment A,Section VII, REPAIR OF DRILL HOLES, was inadvertently omitted. That section is attached.
We would like to also correct errors as noted below:
Section/Page/Line Reads should Read Table of Contents E.
Concerns Regarding E.
Non-Safety Related Non-Safety Related Concerns Equipment Page 8, Line 22 unnecessary necessary Page 5, Line 5 selected identified i
Page 5, Line 6 at Catawba to interview:
at Catawba:
Page 15, Line 8 equipment hardware Page 15, Line 12 equipment hardware Page 18, Line 18 type and batch of type of Page 24, Line 23 they raised only specific they raised few specific instances instances (discussed in Attachments) 8408160121 840813 PDR ADOCK 05000413 Q
PDR I
e
y 4-O l
ATTACHMENT A I-3, Line 19 it was difficult to, it was difficult to weld.
I-5, Line 21 sensitization area.
sensitization.
I-8, Line 12 welding welder II-1, Line 24 cold springing pipe pulling III-2,-Line 20 workers workers' V-1, Line 9 valve value ATTACHf1ENT B I-3, Line 10 reinforce include the reinforce the II-3, Line 12 If residual stresses If stresses VII-2, Line 12 than 1982; than 1982, VII-2, Line 21 been fusion and been lack of fusion and X-1, Line 19 specific area specific joint, X-1, Line 19 the joint, was the area, was X-2, Line 25 violations violation XI-2, Line 20 areas area XI-2, Line 25 valves valve's XI-3, Line 1 areas area XI-4, Line 11 areas area XI-4, Line 26 Unit 1 teflon seated Unit 1 plug plug XII-2, Line 17 the gap is an order the maximum allowable gap is an order XVII-2, Line 2 not nor Sincere Albert V. Ca
, Jr.
Attachment c: Service List James P. O'Reilly
(
o VII.
REPAIR OF DRILL HOLES A.
Statement of Concern One instrument craftsman alleged that a hanger craf tsman related the following incident:
the hanger craftsman was allegedly directed by his foreman to violate the procedure for permitting drill-hole repairs in concrete to cure.
B.
Investigation An instrument craftsman stated that in a conversation with a hanger craftsman, the hanger craftsman was complaining that his supervisor had told him to install a concrete anchor in a repaired hole in concrete that had been filled on the previous day.
This would violate Construction Procedure 830, which requires that the compound used to fill unused drill holes be allowed to cure for seven days. The instrument craftsman did not see whether the hanger craftsman ever did install the concrete anchor as allegedly directed, nor did he know either the hanger craftsman's name or the location of the hole. The instrument craftsman stated that this was the only time he had heard of an incident such as this and thus it was probably an isolated case.
C.
Resolution Construction Procedure 830 restricts drilling within 1/2 inch or one hole diameter of a repaired hole before the repaired hole has cured for seven days.
This requirement was self-imposed by the Construction Department to give the repair ample time to reach a sufficient ' strength to allow the anchor to be
- set, Construction Procedure 830 requires seven days for the filled hole to i
cure so that under even adverse conditions the grout would be set allowing the
{
anchors to be set.
Depending on the conditions actually present at the time VII-1 k
r s
c of this alleged incident, the filled hole could reach the appropriate strength in one day so that the anchor could be installed and set appropriately.
If the repaired area had not cured sufficiently and the hanger -craftsman nonetheless installed the anchor, the anchor would come out when torque was
- applied during the course of installation. Additionally, QC inspectors check torque on every concrete anchor to see that it is set properly.
Thus, no defective, undetected condition would result from the situation alleged.
In any event, the instrument craftsman who raised this issued said if this event did in fact occur it was an isolated case.
D.
Conclusion If the unidentified hanger craftsman's unidentified foreman did indeed ask the craftsman to violate CP-830, this act is impermissible. Because it is apparently an isolated incident and further identification of the individuals implicated is not possible, specific corrective personnel action is not possible.
The general instructions to craftsmen and their supervisors described in Section VI is the only practical corrective personnel action.
Because all of the anchor bolts are torqued by the craftsmen as well as subsequently inspected by QC, no corrective action is necessary from a technical standpoint.
l i
VII-2 Y
i