ML20098E570
| ML20098E570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 413-414-84-04, 413-414-84-4, NUDOCS 8410010053 | |
| Download: ML20098E570 (2) | |
Text
.....:, y i
DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Box 33180 CHARLOTTE, N.O. 28242
"*';.";."2'""
84 sui 4 e I. kdiber 6,1984 oW=,
9e
.---o-Mr.- James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and-50-414 Significant Deficiency No. 413-414/84-04
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Please find attached a final report on the subject deficiency concerning partial penetration welds. This work was completed for Unit 1 and Unit 2 as of July 12, 1984. We are now in full compliance for both Units on this item.
Very truly yours, kb.Y
/g Hal B. Tucker LTP: sib Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica P. O. Box 12097 Washington, D. C.
20555 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 NRC Resident Inspector Mr. Jesse L. Riley Catawba Nuclear Station Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Palmetto Alliance Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 21351 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 INP0 Records Center Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 OFFICI AL COPY '
8410010053 840906 "CM[
PDR ADOCK 05000413 S
PDR I
r.,
1
~
Significant Deficiency No. 413-414/84-04
~
Final Report September 6,1984 For Unit 1, the final ASME code. system was cleared on the problem on 5/13/84. The final Non-ASME code item was cleared 5/4/84, with the exception of.the 15 welds that were repaired on "G" auxiliary support frame.
For Unit 2, a review was performed on the Unit 2 ASME code systems.
There were no partial penetration welds that were within the scope of this problem. The ASME code fillet welds were reviewed for possible substituticn and no welds were found to be within the scope of this problem.
For the Unit 2 Non-ASME code welds, a statistical evaluation was per-formed on the tunnel and auxiliary support frames. For both groups of frames the welds within the scope of this-problem were identified and sampled. More than a 95% confidence that the welds were structurally adequate was achieved for both groups.
This resolves the partial penetration weld problem. We are now in full compliance for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
l
,__