IR 05000395/1979016
| ML19248D505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1979 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A, Van Doorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19248D491 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-79-16, NUDOCS 7908160341 | |
| Download: ML19248D505 (7) | |
Text
.
.
,tma Mcg
.
UNITED STATES 8 '
_ g'%
'%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$.'
' 'f
$
REGION 11
'
0, y
[
101 MARIETT A sT., N.W., sulT E 3100
'
[
ATL ANT A, GEORGI A 3 a03
.....
Report No. 50-395/79-16 Licensee:
South Carolina Electric & Gas Columbia, South Carolina 29218 Facility Name:
V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-395 License No. t,PPR-94 Inspection at:
Fairfield County, South Carolina e
$
'I/79 Inspectors:
/
tl'tk
Dhte Signed P. K. Van Doorn
/
,
481 l
_d //h !7)
y B. R Crowl'y
/
Dhte Signed Approved by:
[
/[
d /[' 7f
=
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on May 21-24, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 51 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of safety-related pipe welding; followup on a Licensee Identified Item (50.55(e)).
Results Of the two areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
7 9 0 810 0=>4 \\
u J. S.4 d5.%
<.
o c
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. F. Alga r, Site Manager
- D. A. Nauman, QA Manager
- D.
R. Moore, Director, Surveillance Services
- A.
A. Smith, Site QA Coordinator
- T.
A. McAlister, QA Surveillance Specialist J. L. Gypin, QA Level III Examiner Daniel Construction Company (DCC)
- W.
L. West, Project QA Manager
- G.
R. Curtis, Mechanical QC Supervisor
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings weie summarized by R. J. Hardwick on May 25, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findiugs Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 6.f.
5.
Independent Inspection F.f f ort The inspectors conducted a general inspection of the containment and a 2xiliary building to observe construction progress and construction activities such as.elding, material handling and protection, housekeeping and pipe storage During this inspection the inspectors speci f ically observed Weld No. FL 10CJ of Drawing No. E-304-671 for conformance to procedure and Code (ASME 1971 through 1973 Summer Addenda) requirements.
This is a 3 1/2" x
.43t",
stainless steel Class 2 weld.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
g.
><1 _i r <3 v J.,. A.La
.
-2-
6.
Licensee Identified Items (50.55(e))
(0 pen) Item 395/79-05-02: ASME Code Radiography.
This item was reported to Region II on February 8, 1979.
The licensee reported paper concerns, inadequate technique and potential relevant defects in ASME Section III radiography of pipe welds which had been previously accepted by three radiographic interpreters. SCE&G, in a letter to RII dated March 12, 1979, reported that preliminary evaluation indicated that the questionable radio-graphs were the results of " pressure on interpreters to not fall behind" and "a film type that provided marginal sensitivity."
Radiography is being performed in accordance with the ASME Boiler and a.
Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1971 edition plus addenda through the summer of 1973. Conam Inspection Division of Nuclear Engineering Services (Conam) is performing radiography and providing results to the constructor, Daniels Construction Company (DCC). DCC reviews the radiographs and approves the resultc The radiographs are also subject to the review of the ASME Authorized Inspector, (AI).
In early 1979 SCE&G began a review of the then approximately 1100 radiographs contained in the records vault which had been accepted by the three levels of review delineated above. Since this review disclosed an unacceptable number of questionable radiographs, SCE&G decided to review all accepted radiographs. SCE&G contracted Law Engineering Company (law) to aseist in this review. Prior to this time period SCE&G had reviewed approxi-mately 100 radiographs, including all reactor coolant loop joints, leaving approximately 1000 radiographs to be reviewed.
During this initial review period (here in af ter called first review) approximately 730 radiographs were reviewed.
A total of 237 were identified as question Ale. Radiographs were questioned f or technique, documentation, and possible defects. All questionable radiographs were subjected to a joint review of the SCE&G Level III inspector and a DCC Level III inspector.
Some were accepted by review only, many were reshot and accepted and eight were rejected. None of the rejects were for major discontinuities.
SCE&G has cont racted Cor.am to provide a corporate Level III re"iew of the unreviewe6 radiographs remaining from the initial 1000 plus an additional 179 radiographs which entered the vault during the first review period (approximately 450 total). SCEhG
.ntends to review all radiographs questioned by the Conam Level 111 and 20% of radiographs accepted by the Conam Level III to establish confidence in the Conam review and verify sufficient independence from other Conam personnel. SCE&G is also reviewing all radiographs accepted af ter the first revtew period.
b.
This inspection was conducted with the following objectives:
(1) Verify that personnel accepting and reviewing radiographic film (AI (xcepted) were qualified in accordance with the applicable inspector qualification program.
(2) Determine, based on a limited film review, if SCE&G and contracted personnel appeared to be maintaining an appropriately conservative approach to review of accepted radiographs.
dMM
.
.
-3-
(3) Determine why many radiographs questioned had been accepted through three levels of interpretation.
(4) Determine, based on a limited film review, if more recent radiographs appear to have improved quality.
c.
Regarding objective no.
(1), the inspectors reviewed qualification records for a total of 14 personnel f rom SCE&G, Conam and DCC. Records showed personnel to be appropriately qualified with one possible exception (see paragraph 6.
f.
below).
d.
The inspectors reviewed a total of 63 radiographs in various categories in order to obtain objectives no.
(2) and (4).
All reviews include film for the entire weld, i.e.
both accepted and questioned / rejected areas.
Radiographs for the following welds were reviewed:
(1) Rejects Resulting f rom First Review:
Size (lach)
Class DE-RC-420-P FW-1R1 10 x 0.593 MC DE-CN-101-P FW-2R2 3.6 x 0.484
SE-FW-15 FW-7R1 18 x 1.156
SE-RH-05 FW-4CIR2 10 x 0.365
SE-BD-12 FW-2C1 2.375 x 0.218 2 DE-FS-404-D FW-2 12 x 0.631 MC SE-MS-17 FW-10 32 x 1.084
SE-IA-08 FW-1 6 x.280
(2) Radiographs Questioned for Technique only from First Review:
Size (Inch)
Class SE-CS-12 FW-14 3.5 x 0.216
SE-CC-47 FW-8C1 8 x 0.322
SE-SF-19 FW-5 10.75 x 0.365 2 SE-CS-12 FW-10R1 3.5 x 0.216
DE-CN-402 FW-4R3 36 x 0.484
SE-CS-15 FW-Il 3.5 x 0.438
DE-SS-225-P FW-2R1 10 x 0.539 MC SE-CS-40 FW-11C1R1 3.5 x 0.438
')
3.5 x 0.216
SE-CS-05 FW-2 6.625 x 0.280 2 DE-CS-409-P FW-2 10 x 0.649 MC DE-MS-428-P NCN-0547R1 56 x 1.234
SE-CS-15 FW-5 3.5 x 0.438
BOOM 8
.
.
-4-
-
(3) Radiographs Questioned for Indications from First Review:
Size (Inch)
Class SE-CS-01 FW-8R2 8 x 0.322
SE-BD-12 FW-8 3.5 x 0.300
DE-CC-330-P FW-1 12.75 x 0.621 MC DE-SS-411-P FW-1 10 x 0.539 MC DE-CN-402-P FW-2R5 42 x 0.734 MC SE-MS-06 FW-9R1 32 x 1.100
SE-BD-12 FW-6C1 2.375 x 0.218 2 SE-RH-01 FW-7C2R2 12 x 0.375
SE-MS-07 FW-1 32 x 1.084
SE-CS-30 FW-10 3.5 x 0.216
SE-CS-51 FW-2C2 3 x 0.216
DE-CS-229-P FW-1 10 x 0.640 MC SE-CS-72 FW-8 3 x 0.216
SE-RH-10 FW-6R1 12 x 0.375
SE-FW-13 FW-5 18 x 1.156
(4) Radiographs Accepted by SCE&G from First Review:
Size (Inch)
Class SE-SI-22 FW-2 6 x 0.719
SE-SP-15 FW-2 8 x 0.322
SE-MS-09 FW-10R1 30 x 1.125
(5)
Radiographs Accepted by Law from First Review:
Size (Inch)
Class SE-CS-60 FW-3 3 x 0.216
DE-CN-101-P FW-4R2 36 x 0.484
SE-CC-47 FW-5 8 x 0.322
SE-CS-50 FW-4C2 3 x 0.216
SE-BD-13 FW-12 3.5 x 0.300
(6)
Radiographs Questioned by Conam Coporate Level 111:
Size (Inch)
Class S E-R!!- 0 5 FW-6C2 10.75 x 0.365
FW-10R1 14 x 0.375
SE-SI-05 FW-2R1 14 x 0.375
SE-cs-60 FW-6R3 3 x 0.zl6
SE-MS-06 FW-4 32 x 1.800
6 stcvi : e u s * u.L G 4,3
.
.
.
-5-
(7) Radiographs Accepted by Conam Copccate Level III (Except SFA pipe size incorrect)
Size (Inch)
Class SE-RH-04 FW-4 10 x 0.365
SE-M06 FW-9R1 32 x 1.100
SE-CS-01 FW-5 8 x 1.100
SE-SI-34 FW-6 12 x 1.125
SE-SI-34 FW-12 12 x 1.125
(8)
Radiographs Recently Reviewed by SCE&G ISO Weld No.
Size (Inch)
Class DE-CS-03 FW-10 3.5 x 0.404
SE-FW-13 FW-19 3.5 x 0.300
SE-FW-15 FW-16C1 3.5 x 0.300
SE-SI-22 FW-IR6 6 x 0.719
SE-SI-37 FW-2C1 2 x 0.344
SE-FS-20 FW-2R2 4.5 x 0.237
SE-BD-11 FW-11R1 3.5 x 0.283
e.
Results of the above radiograph review are as follows:
(1) One radiograph (FW-11CR1 of ISO SE-CS-40) was identified by the NRC inspector as having borderline maximum density acceptance.
This weld was reshot during the inspection resulting in an acceptable radiograph.
(2) One weld radiograph (FW-10 of 150 SCS-30) appeared to have an indication resulting f rom a surf ace discontinuty. This indication was not noted on the radiographic interpretation sheet. The NRC inspector along with SCE&G personnel verified by visual inspection that the indication was caused by an acceptable surf ace condition.
(3) The NRC inspectors noted that many radiographic technique sheets contained minor errors and that some radiographic interpretation sheets did not list all acceptable indications along with unacceptable indications as is normal practice in radiography.
SCE&G informed the inspectors that these general problems had been identified to DCC and Conam.
(6) The NRC inspectors did note the marginal quality exhibited by some of the earlier radiographs, i.e fuzziness / film graininess and dif ficulty seeing the required image quality indicator hole Since interpretation of radiographs does rely heavily on the skill of the interpreter it would be expected that these marginal radiographs would result in differences of opinions among inter-preters.
The NRC inspectors did note some improvement in the more recent radiographs considered to be partly caused by the use of more sensitive film.
(a,931$
.
.
'
-6-(5)
The NRC inspectors noted that SCE&G had questioned four areas on radiographs rejected by Law which were not the same areas as tho se for which the film was rejected by Law.
Two of these radiographs resulted in rej ects (FW-10 of ISO SE - MS-17 and FW-1 of ISO SE-IA-08).
In this regaro, SCE&G agreed to review at least 20% of radiographs totally accepted by Law to establish a confidence level in this area.
(6)
SCE&G and contracted personnel appear to be maintaining a conserva-tive approach to review of accepted radiographs.
(7)
It was not determined during the course of the inspection why the questioned radiographs had been accepted through three levels of interpretation.
SCE&G has requested DCC, Conam and the AI to address this question and at the time of this inspection had not received answer acceptable to SCESG.
This area will be subject to future review by NRC when examining this 10 CFR 50.55(e) item.
f.
One unresolved item was identified as follows:
DCC CP procedure AP-VI-06, " Training and Qualification of NDE personnel,"
paragraph 3.5 requires that level I and 11 Personnel be able to distin-guish between colors."
DCC corporate procedure 7.1,
" Training and Qualification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel" does not contain color requirements. One DCC level 11 inspector records indicated that he had failed his eye test for colors. Tnis item will remain unresolved until it can be determined whether this eye test failure has resulted in noncompliance to a procedure requirement.
" Color test requirement s for eye examinations of NDE examiners."This is item 39 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Gvf.,M c.s q
..y v s- -