GO2-82-992, Forwards Final Rept on Onsite Review of Radiographs,Per IE Bulletin 82-01,Rev 1, Alterations of Radiographs of Welds in Piping Subassemblies. All Corrective Action Completed

Forwards Final Rept on Onsite Review of Radiographs,Per IE Bulletin 82-01,Rev 1, Alterations of Radiographs of Welds in Piping Subassemblies. All Corrective Action Completed

ML20064C129
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/21/1982
From:	Matlock R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
REF-SSINS-6820 GO2-82-992, IEB-82-01, IEB-82-1, NUDOCS 8301040329
Download: ML20064C129 (4)

Text

.-

Docket No. 50-397

.. .< p Bulletin Reply 8/-01 RECElVED Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWashingtonWay Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 Docket No. 50-397 GE2 DEC 27 RI12: 31 December 21, 1982 G02-82-992 IIEGIUM!"E Mr. R. H. Engelken Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596

Subject:

NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 IE BULLETIN 82-01, REV. 1, ALTERATIONS OF RADIOGRAPHS OF WELDS IN PIPING SUBASSEMBLIES

References:

a) IE Bulletin 82-01, Rev. 1, Alterations of Radiographs of Welds in Piping Subassemblies, dated May 7, 1982.

b) Letter No. G02-82-554, R.G. Matlock to R.H. Engelken, dated June 22, 1982, same subject.

c) Letter No. G02-82-902, R.G. Matlock to R.H. Engelken, dated November 11, 1982, same subject.

The above referenced IE Bulletin required applicants for on Operations License or holders of Construction Permits (group 1, table 1) to indepen-dently reverify that the examined welds of the subassemblies fabricated by AP&E are acceptable for plant service.

Attachment 2 provides our final report describing the findings and cor-rective actions taken, signed under affirmation under the provisions of Section 182a, Atomic Energy Act of 1954. .

If there are any questions regarding this item, please contact Roger Johnson at (509) 377-2501, extension 2712.

R.

a

. Matlock ub Program Director, WNP-2 LCF/kd Attachments: 1. Affidavit

2. Final Report cc: W.S. Chin, BPA l A. Forrest, Burns and Roe - HAPO N.D. Lewis, NRC  ;

J. Plunkett, NUS Corp. #

l R.E. Snaith, Burns and Roe - NY l A. Toth, NRC Resident Inspector (917Q) 7  !

Document Control Desk, NRC

, 8301040329 821221 PDR ADOCK 05000397 PDR

_ O. ~ _ _ _ _.- . . _ _ . _ _ __ . . _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ .

ATTAC K NT 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON )

)

COUNTY OF BENTON )

ROBERT G. MATLOCK, Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the WNP-2 Program Director of the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the permit holder herein; that he is authorized to submit the foregoing on behalf of said permit holder; that he has read the fore-going and attachments listed therein and knows the contents thereof; and believes the same to be true to the best of his knowledge.

DATED: %d _ go , 1982 MMa4A R.f.MATLOCK On this day personally appeared before me R. G. Matlock to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

GIVEN under my hand and seal thisc pg dayofhp , 1982.

f@Q n and for the State of W4shington kesiding at _

- a~ .

ATTACHMENT 2 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 DOCKET NO. CPPR-93 IE BULLETIN 82-01, REVISION 1 RADIOGRAPHS OF WELDS IN AP&E PIPING SUBASSEMBLIES FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND As discussed in the interim reports, the results of the on-site review of the AP&E radiographs as required by IE Bulletin 82-01, Revision 1, were:

1. Total nuaber of welds with reviewed 1,682

2. Number of welds with less than 2-4T sensitivity 96

3. Number of welds with altered film 15

4. Nunber of welds with incomplete signatures on the RT reader sheets 51

5. Number of welds which did not meet ASME Section III weld quality 1 Of the 96 welds rejected with less than 2-4T sensitivity, 93 were for no 4T hold visible, 2 for the wrong size penetrameter, and 1 for no penetrameter outline visi-ble.

For the 15 welds rejected for altered film, 3 were for alterations by scratches, 11 for alterations oy pencil, and 1 with a cut hole making a light leak.

There were 51 welds with incomplete signatures on the RT reader sheets, and in every case, only the Authorized Nuclear Inspector's signature was missing. How-ever, it is neither a Code requirement nor a WNP-2 specification requirement that the ANI sign the RT data sheet.

In regard to the one (1) weld which did not meet ASME Section III weld quality, the defect is very small, difficult to interpret, and therefore, is conceivably a legitimate oversight rather than an intentional disregard of Code requirements.

FINAL DISPOSIT;6iiS The final disposition for each of the above listed discrepancies was as follows:

No.'s 2 & 3 The companion film held by AP&E for the welds with less than the required sensiti-vity and altered film were subjected to a comparison review with the unacceptable project held film by Bechtel's level II RT technician. If the AP&E filu was found acceptable, it was substituted for tne unacceptable film and made the radiographs of record for the project, and fileo in the jobsite QA records vault. Following this comparison review, No.'s 2 & 3 were reduced to:

2. Number of welds with less than 2-4T sensitivity 21

3. Number of welds with altered film 1

. ss .

A'ttachment 2 Page 2 t

The above 22 welds with unsatisfactory radiographs were documented on two noncon-formance reports. These two nonconformance reports were both dispositioned "re-work", i.e., reradiograph to obtain satisfactory film quality.

All 22 of these welds have had the dispositions accomplished. Sixteen (16) of 22 have been reradiographed and determined to be acceptable. Four (4) of the 22 could not be reradiographed because the welds had been previously removed by the Mechanical Contractor. One (1) weld had been cut out and replaced and the remain-ing weld was deleted when a piping subassembly was replaced.

No. 4 The 51 welos without an ANI signature on the RT reader sheet did not require any corrective action as this is neither a r deo nor project specification " violation."

i No. 5 The one weld with a radiograph interpreted as containing a defect not meeting mini-mum Code requirements was documented on a nonconformance report. The nonconformance report was dispositioned " repair", i.e., repair the defect and reradiograph the repair weld. The weld has been repsired, radiographed and found acceptable.

STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION All corrective action has been completed.

s.

't

--._m _

.m . . _ . . ~y _ _.-,.,_.. . . ___ _ . -_ _ . .-

1. _ _ _ - . - - -_