ML19257C063
| ML19257C063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1979 |
| From: | Robert Carlson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257C064 | List: |
| References | |
| 79128, NUDOCS 8001240057 | |
| Download: ML19257C063 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000412/1979005
Text
e p nnto ,
T%
o
.
o
UNITED STATES
.
g
8j
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- "
- C
REGION I
E
O
631 PARK AVENUE
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
.....
Docket No. 50-412
E 2 8 WS
Duquesr.e Light Company
ATTN: Mr. E. J. Woolever
Vice President
435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 50-412/79-05
This refers to your letter dated October 17,1979, in response to our letter
dated September 17, 1979.
With regard to the questions raised in your response:
Item (1): The statement "despite the fact that specification 2 BVS-981
prescribed an inert gas atmosphere" identifies the discrepancy between the
requirements of specification 2 BVS-981 and Construction Procedure FCP-201
with respect to the requirements for an inert gas atmosphere.
Since the
Notice of Violation clearly states that FCP-201 is identified by 2 BVS-981
as applicable procedure; use of this procedure cannot be misconstrued as a
specification violation. The statement is intended to and does question
the adequacy of FCP-201 in prevention of damage or deterioration of the
components after their installation.
Your statement that the inert gas pressure was removed in January 1979 does
not agree with information obtained by our inspector from records and
discussions with licensee personnel during the inspection. This question will
be reviewed during our next inspection and the date will be corrected if
- 1ecessary.
Item (2): Your investigation of the rationale utilized by Engineering to
support their position that the requirements of FCP-201 are sufficient to
prevent damage or deterioration of the components may well represent a
theoretical basis for such a determination.
However; taking into account,
(a) the requirements of specification 2 BVS-981 for an inert gas atmosphere,
(b) the knowledge that the environment during in-place storage is obviously
more severe and presents a greater potential for corrosion than storage prior
to its installation during which time an inert gas atmosphere had been required,
(c) failure to provide alternate protective measures (other than capping open
pipe ends) and (d) failure to require inspection of the internal conditions
of the components; we do not agree that the requirements of FCP-201 are
sufficient to prevent damage or deterioration of the equipment. Therefore, it
! llb
8 001240 h
.
.
.
Duquesne Light Company
2
is our position that the noncompliance as previously cited is valid.
However,
we will review the results of your investigation and the referenced corrosion
report during a subsequent inspection.
In accordance with your request, we will correct Paragraph 11.b of the Inspec-
tion Report 50-412/79-05. The sentence in question will be revised to read
" ... Radiographic Interpretation sheets which showed repairs for the above welds
to be acceptable."
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
C
i, [!!/' ;,.-
M u. . ] '
u eJ
f Robert T. Carlson, Chief
-id/ Reactor Construction and Engineering
'
Support Branch
cc:
R. J. Washabaugh, Quality Assurance Manager
1777
119