ML20126J118
| ML20126J118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1981 |
| From: | Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, SDR-27-1, NUDOCS 8104230693 | |
| Download: ML20126J118 (5) | |
Text
-_
l P00R ORIGINAL MA.
- ng[ p "
APn 2 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
%w4e,..
2301 M ARKET STREET Y',,
P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A PA.19101 APR 1.41981 i
JOHNS.KEMPER V4CE PRESIDENT j
sneemss aame aseo massancee Mr. P.oyce Crier. Director Office of Inspection and Yaforcement. Region I f
United States Suslear Regulatory Commission 631 Part Aventie King of Prussia, FA 19406 I
~~
Possible Significant Deficiency (SDR #27) l Subject; Irproper Velding of Reactor Pressure Vessel
}
Safe ?nda f
Limerick Cenerating Station, Units 1 and 2 i
NEC Construction Termits Nos. cPPR-106 and -107 i
zeferences:
a) elecen of necember 19, 1980, M.
W.
Valters i
(FECO) to J. Mattia (MRC) b) Interim Report of January 16, 1981, J.
S.
Kemper (PECO) to 3. Criar ('!3 C )
File:
M:AL 2-10-7 (CDn 827)
-l
Dear Pr. Grier:
In the two references we have p r evie tt s ly reported the i
nossibility of a significant deficiency in accordance with 10CF150.55(e).
It has now been determined that this condition is not a significant defielency.
l i
Attached for your information is a description of the condition and the actions taken to resolve the matter.
Aloe l
included is a description of the rationale as to why this matter l
1s set a significant deficiemey, j
If there are any questions en this mattar, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
l Sincerely, l
[4, gi JMC/ Bra l
Attachment
/
g l
Copy to:
Director of Inspection and Enforcement-D j
b United States 7aclear r.egulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
I(
i J. P. Durr, Resident NEC Inspector (Limerick)
I 810423 O lod
. ~.
_...... _. ~...,.. _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _.. _ _.. _. _.
Y F
r REPORT ON IMPROPER WELDING OF REACTUR PRESSURE VESSEL SAFE ENDS l
AT LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i-4 i
i Philadelphia Electric Company April, 1981 SDR-27-1 j
1 e
y
r p= '
t il 3 ;-
d 4
5 1
f.
TABLE OF CONTENTS l
t L
1.0
- INTRODUCTION f
f
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF PROBLEM c
3.0 ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS AND RATIONALE' FOR NONREPORTABILITY 4.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN i.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 4,
~
t 4
4 i
1 i
5 b
i I
l SDR-27-2 i
i i
e o. - - -
.,.-..m-.c
-4.
m.,,
,,..w.,
- s. m.m
.,ew.,
g 4-ow-,..w.,way-y---%,,y.
n
.y--,+--+-*r,
.~
p--
.o J
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 On December 17, 1980, Philadelphia Electric Company became aware that certain welds between the reactor l
pressure vessel nozzles and the reactor pressure vessel safe ends were welded using practices which apparently deviated from the approved installation procedures, i
1.2 At the time these conditions were identified, it could not immediately be determined whether there existed a detrimental affect resulting from these welding practices.
1.3 In compliance with 10CFR50.55(e) a possible reportable j
significant deficiency was reported via telecon to USNRC i
Region I on December.18, 1980.
1.4 In compliance with 10CFR50.55(e) an interim report-for the possible significant deficiency was submitted on January 16, 1981 describing the condition and the corrective actions taken as of the date of the interim report.
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF PROBLEM i
I 2.1 In several instances the welding was not performed in accordance with the approved welding procedures.
This included partial weld passes without feeding weld filler j
material (wash pass).
In some cases this was followed by a spray or mist application of water to accelerate the cooling process and thereby facilitate alignment.
2.2 It was determined that this practice was used on five welds.
There is also a possibility that this had occurred on up to thirty-five other Unit 1 and Unit 2
.RPV Safe End to Nozzle welds.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS AND RATIONALE FOR NONREPORTABILITY 3.1 This welding practics was described to General Electric Company Nuclear Power Systems Division and they determined that there was no detrimental affect from this process.
Furthermore, a) the use of a " wash pass" is neither an essential or non-essential variable and thereby falls within the limits of the weld procedure, and i
b) the application of water is not covered by the code and is not a deviation from General Electric Specification requirements.
l SDR-27-3 I
. iFE i
- i i
4.0-CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN I
4.1 Welds, including the welds which were possibly made using this practice, were identified on a Nonconformance Report-and. properly dispositioned Use-As-Is.
I t
4.2 The inspection procedures were revised to establish a Quality Control Hold Point for future control of welding used to. achieve alignment.
{
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 5.1.It is concluded that there was no detrimental affect j
from this velding practice.
However, to preclude a recurrence of this deficiency, the corrective actions described above will provide adequate controls.
l i
I l
h I
I l
t i
e i
1
)
i i
SDR-27-4 l
l
--.,y m.-
w.,,
--f n
3-
-w-'
,