ML20003D094

Final Potential Significant Deficiency Rept Re Pipe SA-155 Kc 70,initially Reported on 801009.Pipe Acceptable as Delivered & Not Reportable Per 10CFR50.55e.Pipe Seam Porosity Repaired

ML20003D094
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, 05000355
Issue date:	01/27/1981
From:	Martin T Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Brier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8103190113
Download: ML20003D094 (2)

Text

~

.:'~ .

Thomes J. Martin Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 201/4304316 l Vic Prn4mt Engineering and Construction January 27, 1981 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

Dear Mr. Grier:

S'A-155 KC-70 PIPE, 30" X .375" 10CFR50.55(e), POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY NO. 1 AND 2 UNITS HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION On October 9, 1980 a verbal report was made to Region 1, Office of Inspection and Enforcement representative, Mr. J. Mattia, ad-vising of a potential significant item per the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e).

Interim written reports were provided to your office on November 10, 1980 and December 10, 1980. The following is the result of our investigation into this matter.

Our Architect Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation, ordered two pieces of 30-inch seamwelded pipe on Purchase Order (PO)

No. F-26180Q from LaBarge Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri. This PO specified the pipe to be supplied without radiography of the longitudinal weld in accordance with ASME Section III Code require-ments for the intended service. The~ vendor furnished this pipe in accordance with the PO requirements. Included in the procure-ment package, however, was a conflicting Bechtel piping class Specification Sheet which called.for radiography of the longitudinal weld. Inclusion of this conflicting class 8103190((19

lC '.

Boyce H. Grier 1/27/81 sheet led field personnel to assume the pipe was intended for a service requiring radiography of the pipe and, therefore,the pipes were considered nonconforming and returned to the vendor with instructions to radiograph the longitudinal weld.

Our original report to you was based on the assumption that this pipe was indeed intended for nuclear Class 2 service. Based on the subsequent investigation, the subject pipe was found to be intended for nuclear Class 3 and, therefore, was acceptable as delivered and was not reportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e).

In addition, porosity found during the requested radiography of the pipe seams has been repaired. No other seamwelded pipe has been purchased from this manufacturer for use at Hope Creek.

Should you have any further questions, we will be pleased to dis-cuss them with you.

Very truly yours, CC Office of Inspection & Enforcement Div. of Reactor Constructian Insp7ction Washington, DC

. - - _ . , - _ _