ML20107C500
| ML20107C500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1985 |
| From: | Foster D GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| REF-PT21-85, REF-PT21-85-100-000 GN-513, PT21-85-100, PT21-85-100-000, NUDOCS 8502210345 | |
| Download: ML20107C500 (5) | |
Text
', ~,.
,g'}
t i Georgia Power company
- i. :
Route 2, Box 299A 1 Wayresboro. Georgia 30830
. Telephone 404 554-9961; Ext. 3360 404 724 8114. Ext 3360 f. 36 9
.Vic Pres e t and Project General Manager the soutten elecyc system January 17, 1985 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Inspection and Enforcement File: X78G03-M52 Region II.. Suite 2900 Log:
GN-513 101 Marietta Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Reference:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Units 1 and 2, 50-424, 50-425; Quality of Welds and Radiographs Pullman Power Products; also
-GN-425, dated October 1,1984.
Attention: Mr. James P. O'Reilly
'In our previous correspondence on this subject, Georgia Power
- Company indicated that a final report on this concern would be submitted by January.18.--1985.
Georgia Power Company has comleted its evaluation of radiographs provided by vendors supplying safety-related components for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.. These vendors include Anchor Darling,~ Chicago
- BridgeJand Iron,.CVI, Pullman -Power Products,. Richmond Engineering Company Westinghouse, and subvendors to Westinghouse.
The evaluation has. concluded that a reportable condition pursuant to the criteria. of 10 CFR 21 and - 10 CFR 50.55(e) could exist only in' the case of some radiographs provided by Pullman Power Products. -
A.
summary of the evaluation for this case is attached..
Supporting records.for the entire evaluation are ' available for-
- review at the'jobsite..
This response contains no proprietary information'and may 'be placed p-
.insthe NRC Public Document-Room upon receipt.
Your truly,
/
o o
. 0. Fost REF/DOF/tdm 1
Attachment (See Page Two for Distribution)
DFFICIAIVUPl N Eh4 d54
- i
~
';p f, ; w.
- .' _f.. ~
T Page_Two Distribution:
m a.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission xc:
-Document Control Desk 3
Washington, D. C.
20555 R..J. Kelly-J. A. Bailey G. Bockhold
+
R. E. Conway-
- 0. Batum P. D. Rice G. F. Head H. H. Gregory C. S. McCall (OPC)
J. T. Beckham W. T. Nickerson E. L. Blake, Jr.
R.' A. Thomas D.-R. Altman (Shaw, et. al.)
D. E. Dutton D. L. Kinnsch (BPC)
J. E. Joiner W.'F. Sanders (NRC)
J. L. Vota (W)
(Troutman, et. al.)
R. H. Pinson L. T. Gucwa D. C. Teper (GANE)
B. M. Guthrie C. E. Belflower L. Fowler (LEAF) 3 E. D. Groover M. Malcom (BPC)
T. Johnson (ECPG)-
R. W. McManus-I t
r i
5 r
{
e i<
V t
i M
i -
b i
1 L
'f l,.
l' f
-d
EVALUATION FOR A REPORTABLE CONDITION Initial Re mrt: On October 27, 1983, Mr. C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality Assurance 4anager, reported a potential deficiency to Mr. John Rogge of the USNRC, Region II. The subject of this potential deficiency was the quality of ws'ds and radiographs.
This report reviews concerns asso-ciated w!th the radiographs of pipe spools supplied by Pullman Power Products.
Background Information:
Radiographic films of pipe spools manuftetured by Pullman Power Products were reviewed by Georgia Power Compan' after receipt of the components at the jobsite.
Indications were found which had not been noted or reported in the Pullman Power Product radiographic inspection reports.. The examination by Georgia Power Company also detected. violations of ASME code radiographic techniques.
Radiographic examiners from Bechtel Power Corporation confirmed Georgia
. Power Company's findings. Georgia Power Company contracted BESTC0 (Brand Examination Services Testing Company) to review the radiographs that had been received on site. A total of 30,826 film intervals representing 7,210 welds were eventually reviewed.
_. Meetings were periodically held with Pullman Power Products to review the findings of the radiographic review. Additionally, questionable radio-graphs were reviewed by qualified examiners of Georgia Power Company, Bechtel. Power Corporation, and Pullman Power Products to determine the proper disposition of the radiographs.
Radiographic film discrepancies that were not resolved by ihe radiographic examiners were sent to Bechtel Power Corporation for further review.
It should be noted that technical differences over the interpre-tation'of these discrepancies can exist.
Engineering Evaluation: An evaluation of each weld discrepancy was con-ducted to determine the metallurgical characteristics of the discrepan-cies. This information was used to evaluate the potential for-propaga-tion _and enlargement of the deficiency. _If:the deviation _ report did not contain sufficient dimensional data to fully characterize the de--
ficiency, the potential for propagation was assumed. These potentially propagating. weld discrepancies.were analyzed for impact upon plant safety. -It was conservatively assumed that had the discrepancy gone
-uncorrected, the discrepancy could have propagated and caused a pipe spool weld-failure during plant operation.
~ Affacilityresponseanalysiswasconductedtodeterminetheeffect's "of'the assumed pipe failure. This analysis conservatively assumed the pre-existence of a-defective pipe spool in-one_ train, rendering the' i
~
. train inoperable (due to tne discrepancy propagation and subsequent
- failure of the pipe), con
- :urrent _with the 'most. limiting single. active
- failure following the onset of a transient or accident condition that required a response from that-system.
i iThe results of the engineering evaluation indicated that some weld l discrepancies could:have compromised. system functional performance (see
~ ).s It-should also.be noted that an extensive engineering L
p
- evaluation utilizing fracture mechanics techniques has not been-l 1 performed. ;If these. techniques were to be used, the possibility does exist that some.of.the' weld. discrepancies could be shown not to have an adverse effectiupon plant safety.-
~
- VO
= + - -,
e
+
e y+*+--
e p
, t w 6-r-**F*
- -TN--W--
v--M*
- WWL--n----Me ' p w t'gg em W ' W<=.gv+f y rgrw1-r'V g yy v %=r'Tv w -T991 -yTV'**'w'WT v 9 M w's-gr y-~ gWwmugvy wy-w
Evaluation of Breakdown of Quality Assurance Program:
It has been concluded that a significant breakdown of the Quality Assurance Program
- of Pullman Power Products did not occur. The discrepancies in the pipe spool in Attachment I represents only a small fraction of the total of pieces shipped.
==
Conclusion:==
Georgia-Power Company has concluded that the discrepancies in the weld radiographs of the spool pieces supplied by Pullman Power Products could constitute a reportable condition as defined by the re-porting criteria of Part 10CFR21 and 10CFR50.55(e).
Based on NRC guide-lines in NUREG-0302 Rev. I and other documents, Georgia Power Company
- is reporting this concern per the criteria.of 10CFR50.55(e). Again, it should be emphasized that conservative methods were employed in the analysis. More exact methods may have resulted in a determination of non-reportability for this subject.
Corrective Action:. Weld. intervals containing radiographic technique deficiencies will be re-radiographed and evaluated for acceptability of weld quality.
All weld discrepancies will be reworked or repaired and then rein-spected in accordance with applicable code and specification requirements to confirm their acceptability.
b Lh y
pr
?
mWv y
r*mi' i.
ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of Weld Discrepancies PIPE SPOOL AND WELD DR NO.
DISCREPANCY SYSTEM 1-1204-5-01-B 3318 Slag Safety Injection 1-1204-006-5-07-A 3318 Incomplete Fusion 1-1204-007-5-05-C 3318 Incomplete Fusion 1-1205-003-5-08-D 3468 Root Concavity Residual Heat Removal 1-1205-006-5-05-13 3565
~
.1-1205-006-5-05-F 3565 1-1205-007-5-04-C 3565 1-1206-006-5-19-A~
3940 Root Concavity.
.1-1206-007-05-04-B 3940 Incomplete Fusion 1-1206-007-5-13-A 3941
. Root Concavity.
~1-1206-040-5-02-A 3941
. Incomplete Penetration.
2-1208-141'-5-05-K 5596_
Elongated LChemicaland
-Indication' Volume Control k
w W
~#
,p~,,,,,,,,,
>c-