ML20054G388

Final Deficiency Rept Re C-E Radiographic Test Indications, Safety Injection Tanks & Reactor Pump Supports.Deficiency Determined to Be Not Reportable Per 10CFR050.55(e)

ML20054G388
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	06/04/1982
From:	Leddick R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML20054G382	List: ML20054G381 ML20054G388
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, GO3-82-564, NUDOCS 8206210511
Download: ML20054G388 (3)

Text

.

Washington Public Power Supply System Box 1223 Elma, Washington 98541 (206)482-4428 Docket Numbers 50-508 and 50-509 June 4, 1982 G03-82-564 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,. Region V .

Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 260 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 Attention: Mr; T. W. Bishop Acting Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch

Subject:

PROJECT NOS. 3 AND 5 POTENTIAL 10CFR50.55(e) DEFICIENCY RT INDICATIONS, SAFETY INJECTION TANKS AND REACTOR PUMP SUPPORTS (D/N #23)

In accordance with the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e), Region V was noti-fied that the subject condition was potentially reportable. Subsequent investigation has determined that the deficiency is not significant and, were it to have remained uncorrected, it would not have adversely affected the safety of operations of the facility. Therefore, the deficiency is not reportable under 10CFR50.55(e).

Attached is the Supply System approved final report for the subject con-dition detailing a description of the deficiency, corrective /pteventive actions taken and a safety analysis.

Should you have any questions or desire further information, please con-tact me directly.

s L

R. S. Leddick, 760 Program Director, WNP-3 ,

DRC/tt Attachment cc: J. Adams - NESCO D. Smithpeter - BPA Ebasco - New York WNP-3/5 Files - Richland A. A. Tuzes - C-E Power Systems 8206210511 820614

{DRADOCKOSOOOg

Attachment to G03-82-564 June 4, 1982 1

1 Washington Public Pow:r Supply System

,, Potential 10CFR50.55(e) Deficiency j 3 Safety Injection Tank and Reactor Pump j Support RT Indications (D/N #23) i I

Abstract During the Ebasco on-site review of rad,iographs submitted by Combustion ,

Engineering for the Safety Injection. Tanks, Reactor Coolant Pump Volutes  !

and Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Supports, radiographic procedural devia-tions and apparently unacceptable film indications were noted. A Noncon-4 formance Report (NCR) was generated on April 10, 1981, documenting the above

, deficiencies. On April 28, 1981, the NRC was notified that the deficien-cies were potentially r'eportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e).

An evaluation of these conditions was performed by Combustion Engineering l and Ebasco. On July 6,1981, a plan of action was initiated to resolve the discrepancies. The resolution required the correction of paperwork errors, performance of additional radiography and visual weld inspection.

Upon completion of these required actions, the additional radiographs and documentation were reviewed. Upon review of this additional data, the discrepancies identified on the original Nonconformance Report were re-solvede i When re-radiography of the safe-end welds on the Safety Injection Tanks was performed, linear indications were found that were not evident in the i

original CE radiographic film. Combustion Engineering notified the NRC of this condition by CE letter LD-82-052, dated May 4, 1982. The eval-uation of these indications for reportability is not addressed in this report. CE will address this subject directly to the NRC. HowWer, the corrective action for the conditions found at WNP-3/5 will be discussed.

! Description of Problem a

The potential problem involves questionable indications on radiographic film of WNP-3 Safety Injection Tanks, Reactor Coolant Pump Volutes and the Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Supports. Failure of welds in these com-ponents could result in failure of the associated Class I systems to per-form their designed safety functions. The components and questionable film were supplied by Combustion Engineering. ,

Ebasco initiated a Nonconformance Report that identified all radiographs i found unacceptable due to improper radiographic technique, process and

documentation. Specifically, areas of concern were

l 1. Conflict between Ebasco and CE concerning code description of poro-

! sity vs. slag.

2. Incorrec' penetrameter used.

l 3. Reader sheet incorrect.

i i

, Attachment to G03-82-564 Page 2

, Juna 4, 1982 Description of Problem (Continued)

4. Geometric unsharpness.

5. Penetrameter not spaced per ASME V and portion of qualifying penetra-meter cut-off of film.

6. No penetrameter on repair film and questionable station markers on ,

weld. -

7. Penetrameter and location markers in weld and reader sheet incorrect.

Corrective Actions With the completion of the additional radiography and correction of the documentation errors, all welds were found acceptable with one exception.

Linear indications were four.d in the Safety Injection Tank safe-ends. As previously noted, these indications will be evaluated and reported to the NRC by CE. Combustion Engineering has committed to repair these welds on site. Additionally, aggregate slag found in a weld on a Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Support was subject to differing interpretations as to accept-ability to ASME Code Section III by Ebasco and CE NDE Level III's. How-ever, during the normal fabrication process, prior to re-radiography, a vent hole had been drilled that removed the indication. As a result, the difference in interpretation between Ebasco and CE is no longer relevant.

Since the indication has been removed, the hardware is considered accept-able and no corrective action is required.

Safety Implications Combustion Engineering will address the reportability of the Safety Injec-tion Tank safe-ends. All of the remaining discrepancies (previously iden-tifiedlin the " Description of Problem") were resolved by re-radiography and correction of documentation errors. No repairs were required for any of the remaining welds. Therefore, thesi. deficiencies would not adversely affect the safety of operations of the facility and are not reportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e).

.