ML19343A948

Final Deficiency Rept Re ASME Code Pipe Radiographs, Initially Reported on 790312.All Accepted safety-related Radiographic Film Packets Reviewed.Reshots Taken Using More Sensitive Film.Weld Discrepancies Are Being Repaired

ML19343A948
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	11/12/1980
From:	Nichols T SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8011240329
Download: ML19343A948 (3)

Text

-

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC a gas COMPANY

.o s , c . ,,e r .o . m.

Co ttim eia. SouT M C4ncuna aseta T c. mesots.;a m.

m i a.,, .u . . n m. t .. we.

m .. c .. ..w ,

Noveaber 12, 1980 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION Region II 101 Marietta Street, N . 'i .

Atlanta, GA 30303 ATTENTION: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Subj ec t : V.C. Surmer Nuclear Station Unit #1 License CPRP-94, Reportable Item in Accordmace with 10CFR50.55(e),.tS"E Code 'ipe Radiographs, Final Report Ref. (1) SCEEG Letter to Region II, Reportable Item in Accordance with ICCFR50.55(e),

dated Mere!' 12, 1979 (2) SCE&G Letter to Region II, Reportable Items in Acccrdance with 10CFR50.55(e),

dated June 18, 1979 Gentlemen:

SCE5G transmitted to Pegion II the reference (1) letter noting radiography con-cerns identified during an SCE&G/0A surveillance of radiographic filr packets generated by our contractor, Daniels Construction Ccapany (DCC) . Specifically, a number of packets were found which the SCESG Level III NDE examiner evaluated as unacceptable because of documentation errors, technique or sensitivity problems

..nd potential weld quality preblems. As an irmediate corrective action, SCESC/0A initiated a review of the film pachets and out of 500 packets reviewed as of March 12, 1979, found slightly over 25% of the packets questionable for techr.icue, sensitivity or potential weld quality. As a part of the long-term corrective action, SCEEC/0A ccmmitted to reviewing 100% of all accepted safety related radiographic film packets with the SCESC/0A Level III film interpreter makine the final decision as to acceptance of the film packet to include the film and docu-mentation therein. Also, any reshots mandated by the SCEEG/0A review would be radiographed on more sensitive film. On June 18, 1979 we transmitted the refer-ence (2) letter to Region II which referenced the initiation of a systematic review of the remaining film packets and a subsequent final report to Recien II upon ccm-pletion.

At this time, the subject film packet review performed by SCESG/0A is practically cceplete with approximately 20 weld joints remaining to be radiographed. SCE5G/

QA Level III has reviewed approximately 1696 filn packets to date and has rejected G welds which either have been or will be repaired. L'e a re in the process of closing our Corrective Action Recuest (CAR 49) issued to DCC on February 5, 1979 1

I '

D i

8011240 3 8 t abh j

USNRC Page 2 ,

11/12/80 as a result of our concern pending resolution of a documentation concern which should not af fect the applicable weld. We will reivew the film packets for the remaining RT welds (approximately 20) and any additional construction welds.

This will complete .our commitment of the 1007. RT film path _: review.

Cause The specific casue remains as defined in our March 12, 1979 letter that the condition was the result of the level of pipe welding at this point on the project together with a higher than desired number of repair radio-graphs resulting in pressure on interpreters to not fall behind. We also consider the selection of a filn type that provide! marginal sensitivity a strong contributor even though the film selected always met code require-ments. In relation to the programmatic cause, it is now clear that the magnitude of less than expected performance on the part of the ASME code stamp holdar and QC organization began te emerge in late 1978 and early 1979. Identification of the radiographic concerns tcgether with other items variously reported to you was instrumental in establishing the root cause and assuring complete resolution.

Safety Implications To determine exact safety implicatir ,, Engineering would need to evaluate each specific weld defect identified by the SCEEG Level III as it related to its effect on the system. Rather than performing an Engineering evalu-ation, the decision we made to repair the weld defects noted by the SCE&G Level III. For this reason, the conditions remain conservatively classified as a potential significant deficiency and will be corrected to remove any doubt as to piping acceptability.

Actions to Correct Conditions As committed in our March 12. 1979 letter, SCESG has performed virtually a 1007. of all accepted safety related radiographic film packets. Reshots have been, and are being taken using more sensitive film. Documentation in-consistences are either being corrected or evaluaced by SCE&G for acceptance "as is".

Any weld discrepancies noted have been or are being repaired. Corrective action has been pursued with DCC and the DCC RT site subcontractor (Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.) for providing a higher cuality of film, film review and film documentation. Efforts extended by these organizations since our interim reports have shown marked improvement in quality of RT within the last year.

Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence In relation to - the overall concern, SCEIG has taken over direct control of code areas where possible. Where code constraints prevent this, extensive ,

over check programs with which you are familiar have been implemented. Our I 1007. review of all past and future safety related pipe weld radiographs is one example 'of this. We continue to work with the corporate office of the code stamp holder and his subcontracted authorized Nuclear Inspector to determine the best method to preclude recurrence in ;he future.

USNRC

?:?

11/12/80 Based on the above facts, SCEEG considers this a final report on this subject.

Region II has performed follow-up on this iten during routine inspections at the construction site already, but all information relative to this item will rennin at the site f or ft:rther review as desired A > the NEC. Should any question arise relative to this subject please contact us.

Very truly yours, fD. / .

T. C. Nichols, Jr.

/#

DRM:TCN :j f r cc: B. A. Bursey V. C. Summer G. H. Fischer W. A. Williams E. H. Crews D. A. Nauman O. S. 3radham O. W. Dixon J. O. Knutts Ron Clary ISE (Washington)

Document Managenent 3 ranch (55e/21/LER only)

SPCF/Whitaker J. L. Skolds File

.