IR 05000206/1981030
| ML20031A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1981 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson, Joukoff P, Wagner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031A377 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-81-30, NUDOCS 8109230439 | |
| Download: ML20031A378 (18) | |
Text
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-206/81-30 Docket No.
50-206 License No.
DPR-13 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company P. O. _ J0, 2444 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station - Unit 1 Investigation:
San Diego, El Cajon, and Camp Pendleton, California Investigation conducted:
June 29-30, July 1-2, 8-10, 31, 1981 Investigators:
Y 7~ M' 8/
W6J. Wagner, y act Inspector ate Signed f
f*//* 9/
P. V. Joukoff,..
,
Date Signed stigator
/
Date Signed
-
M f / FI Approved By:
.
X. D. Johryton, Director Date' Signed
'
Enforcem t and Investigations Summary:
Investigation on June 29-30, July 1-2, 8-10, 31,1981 (Report 50-206/81-30)
L Areas Investigated: Alleged " shoddy" work, drug usuage, and over exposure of personnel to radiation during the recent outage for repairs of the steam generators. The investigation involved 78 investigation hours by the two member investigation team.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
_
l
!
0109230439 810914 PDR ADOCK 05000206
-
i O
PDR RV Fonn 219 (2)
,
, _.
.
.
.
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Southern California Edison Co. (SCE)
J. M. Curran, Plant Manager H. B. Rey, Project Manager, Sleeving Project B. L. Curtis, Asst. Project Manager, Sleeving Project W. Schwab, Construction Su~erintendent, Sleeving Project M. Short, Project Engineer, Sleeving Project J. Dobson, Health Physicist K. Rustad, Lead Shift Coordinator, Sleeving Project C. Holcomb, Shift Coordinator, Sleeving Project G. Noel, Nuclear Training Administrator S. Medling, Supervisor Health Physics Bechtel Power Corporation C. Taylor, Safety Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.
L. Chandler, Counselor,,0ffice'of the Executive Legal Director (0.E.L.D), NRC, H.Q. i s-v<
+<
J. Hanchett, Public Affairs Officer, Region V
_~.
L. Miller, Resident Reactor: Inspector, San Onofre Unitl1.
^
G. Yuhas, Radiation Specialist, Region V u
>
,
Allegers
.
M. Manning, Former Steam Generator.Technicit a (" Jumper,"),
Atlantic Nuclear? Services (A.N.S.)
.
..
D. Pierce, Former Steam Generator Technician (" Jumper"),.
Atlantic Nuclear Services (A.N.S.)
>
Other Persons Contacted:
,
J. Dorencott, Community Energy Action Network T. Winter, Community Energy Action Network R. Roberts, Former Steam Generator Technician (" Jumper"),
,
Atlantic Nuclear Services (A.N.S.)
'
l
2.
Receipt of Allegations by NRC.
On Saturday June 27, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
!
(ASLB) meeting in San Diego, California, held a public comment session. This session was a part of the hearings on the granting of operating licenses to San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 which are now approaching completion.
During this public comment session three former steam generator technicians (" Jumpers") employed at SONGS Unit 1 by Atlantic Nuclear Services (ANS) during the steam generator repair c"tage appeared l
before the board. The three individuals alleged that work done on
,
[
the steam generators was " shoddy", that drug use was wide spread by l
- - -
- -
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
- - -
- -
-
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
,
.
"
l
_2_
workers, and that some workers received radiation overdoses. As a result of this testimony Judge James Kelley of the ASLB ordered a investigation to be initiated.,
Directly after the above session the three allegers were contacted by J. Hanchett, Public Affairs Officer, NRC RV, who was present at
the hearing. The three allegers provided Hanchett with their
'
names, addresses, and telephone. numbers so that they could be contacted by a Region V investigation team.
In addition, a fourth alleger who did not appear before the board, John Budaska, contacted Har.chett and also provided his name, address, and telephone number.
'
3.
Contact of Allegers'by' Region V On Monday, June 29, 1981', Region V initiated an' investigation into the allegations. A Region V investigator made numerous attempts to contact the four allegers:by telephone with negative results.
It was determined that two o,f the four -telephone numbers provided were incorrect.
- On the evening of June'29, 1981, telephone contact was made with alleger Manning who advised he wanted to meet with a NRC investiga-tion team. Manning stated, that he knew the other allegers and could locate them easily for interviews with the NRC.
Manning added that a number of the allegers were " street people" who lived on the beach or in their cars making them difficult to contact by other than people who know them.
Manning finished the telephone contact by advising that he could no longer be contacted at that telephone number as he was moving and would be living on the beach but coulc' be contacted through Tanya Winter of the Community Energy Action Network.
4.
Interview of Allegers and other workers a.
Interview of alleger Manning in San Diego, California.
On Tuesday, June 30, 1981, alleger Max E. Manning was inter-viewed ;nder oath by the investigation team, W. J. Wagner, Reactor Inspector, and P. V. Joukoff, Investigator, in San Diego, California. At :4anning's request, Tanya Winter and James Dorenkott of the Community Energy Action Network were present for the interview.
Manning advised that his prior >:ork experience involved working in various areas of general construction and as a stage hand and special effects man for various Hollywood Studios. Other-than working at SONGS Unit 1 for six (6) days as a steam generator technician (Jumper) for A.N.S. Manning advised of having no other nuclear industry experienc,
._
-_ ______
____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
,
.
'
-3-During the course of his intervie.s, Manning made the following allegations regarding repairs dor : co the steam generators at SONGS Unit 1, other activities at SONGS, and the nuclear industry in general; 1.
Some of the steam gcnerator tube sleeves were improperly installed due to hydraulic equipment malfunction and
" shoddy" workmanship.
2.
Failure of hydraulic equipment resulted in a number of sleeves not being inserted all the way into the tube sheet.
3.
A cold chisel and sledge haniner were used to " beat in" sleeves that did not fit into the tubes.
4.
The use of narcotics and alcohol was prevalent among ANS employees at the SONGS Unit 1 site.
5.
From working inside the steam generators and seeing their
~
construction Manning felt they may not,be.able to withstand a seismic event and/or an accident situation.
.
.. ~,
.
,
6.
A quantity of materials which were stored at the " mesa" area adjacent'to the'ANS"tr'ailers where the workers stayed while waiting to work were later packed into 55 gallon drums and removed. Manning was concerned about radiation exposure from this material..(Note: The
" mesa" was a staging area located near the SONGS site where ANS employees were trained and waited to go to the site for work.)
7.
While working in one of..the steam generators Manning suffered a fainting spell and feels that he was not given a radiation scan prior to being taken to the hospital.
Manning also stated that a possibly contaminated gloved hand was put in his mouth and no bioassay was done to check for internal radioactive contamination.
8.
Only approx. 6 feet of each steam generator tube were worked on or inspected which raises questions about the condition of the remaining portions of the tubes.
9.
Fiberscopes used to examine sleeves in place inside tubes may have been inserted into the wrong' tube or a tube known to be " good" in order to pass inspection.
-
10.
Training hando'its provided to steam generator repair workers (jumpers) had pages missing from them.
Particularly, Manning's handout was missing two pages pertaining to biological effects of radiation.
.
-
. -. -
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _
_
)
.
.
.
,
-4-11.
On June 26 or 27, 1981, Ken Baskin, SCE, made a statement that 20-40 percent of the steam generator repair had to be " Reworked".
In light of time availability and the fact that the plant is now running again, this is not possible.
12.
A number of the steam generator tubes were eventually
" plugged" and now there may be insufficient heat transfer surface availabie to remove reactor heat.
During the course of his interview Manning also expressed concern about neutron embrittlement of reactor vessels which he understood applies to the SONCS 1 reactor.
Manning was advised by the investigation team that embrittle-ment of reactor vessels was presently being studied by NRC.
At the close of his interview, Manning stated that he never received a whole body count upon termination from the site.
Manning advised he did not get a whole body count as he did not want to turn in his SONGS Unit 1 identification badge so he could use it to prove that he worked at the site.
Addition-ally, Manning showed the investigation team a letter dated May 14, 1981 from ANS to Manning reouesting he contact ANS in order to make arrangements for a whole body count.
Manning was told by the investigation team that it was in his best interests to obtain a whole body count and, if necessary, the investigation team would assist Manning in doing so. The investigation team stressed that obtaining a whole body count should be especially important to Manning in light.of his allegation (above) about possible internal contamination.
Manning stated he would obtain a whole body count now that he had testified before the ASLB.,.
,
-
.-
Prior to leaving Manriing advised that he coul'd:make contact
'
with numerous other former steam generator. jumpers" who would provide the ' investigation t'eam with mor'e information. Manning stated he-could easily cont'act these people as they lived "on
'
the beach".
-
,.
,
,,
On Wednesday, July 1, ^ 1981, $he investigation team waited the entire day in San Diego for contact!by additional " jumpers".
Although a number of telephone'c6ntacts were made with alleger Manning requesting he.have other " jumpers" contact the invest-igators, no bther fonner " jumpers" were brought forth by Manning for' interview."
~
.
. -..
--
~
.
, -
,
,
, ~ ~
> ~
.
<
.
.
.
.
,
..
,
(
-
.
.
--:5 -
'
On the evening 'of. Wednesday, July 1, 1981, Manning was presented
~
~
a sworn statement incorporating his oral testimony prepared by the investigation team for his review, possible' modification, and signature. At tnis time Manning refused to sign the statement as written and agreed to modify the statement as soon as he had time. After modification, Manning agreed to submit the statement to the investigation team. As of the
'
date of this report, no statement has been received.
b.
Interview of alleger Pierce in San Diego, California.
<
On< Thursday, July 2, 1981, alleger David A. Pierce was interviewed under oath by the investigation team, W. J. Wagner, reactor inspector, and P. V. Joukoff, investigator, in San Diego, CA.
At P;erce's request Tanya Winter and James Dorenlott were also present for this interview.
Pierce stated,. that he worked at SONGS Unit '1, as a steam generator technician (jumper) for ANS on three different occassions, November-13-25, 1980, February 1 - March 15, 1981, and April 3-8, 1981. Other than this employment Pierce advised of having no prior nuclear industry experience.
Pierce stated that his. prior work experience was predominantly in elm.ronics and machine manufacturing and operating a punch press.
During the course of his interview, Pierce made the following allegations concerning repairs done to the steam generators at SONGS Unit 1.
1.
The tools utilized in the steam generator repair were always breaking leading to some tubes being improperly installed and " shoddy" workmanship.
2.
The " jumpers" were predominantly " street people" that were not properly trained and approximately 50 percent didn't know what they were doing.
Some workers would sit in the steam generator and say on the microphones connected to the control trailer that they were working when they actually were not.
J 4.
The use of narcotics and alcohol was prevalent on both the bus transporting workers from San Diego to the " mesa" and also at the " mesa".
5.
A number of sleeves were pounded into place with a hammer and cold chisel when they would not fit.
6.
A number of the workers could not read the templates set up in the steam generator and thus inserted sleeves into the wrong tubes.
i
"
'
w.
g
'.g*
d r
-
-
..,
s
-
.. '
~
'y.
,
" '
(4
.
s
e
- '
.
.
~
.
-6-1.
Ultrasonic testing of sleeve brazing indicated approxi -
mately 50 percent of the brazes to be unacceptable.
8.
A number of workers were granted a work extension to receive an additional dose, over 1800 Mrem, as they were good workers.
Pierce, on'his last tour of work, April 3-8,1981, received 1950 Mrem which he felt was excessive.
9.
Rubber suits worn by the workers for radiation protection were prone to tearing or ripping while working in the steam generators. This condition lead to unneccessary exposures of workers to radiation.
r
.+
-
_
No other former steam generator-technicians'(Jumpers)
were located or. brought; forward!by Manning and. Pierce for interviews.7 y j';
~
.,5i, c.
Interview of Rickey-L.sRobnts*irf El Cajon, California
'
.. -
. - ~.
_
.,
On July 6,1981 the investigation = team was contacted by L.
Chandler, 0.E.L.D., who advised that"on.the evening July 1, 1981 another individual, Rick L. Roberts, came to the ASLB hearings and requested to speak with the investigation team.
On Thursday, July 9, 1981, Rickey L. Roberts was interviewed under oath by P.V. Joukoff, investigator, in El Cajon, Calif-ornia. Roberts advised that he worked at SONGS Unit 1 as a steam generator technician (" Jumper") for ANS from March 18-25, 1981 and for approximately 8 days in April 1981.
Roberts stated his prior work experience was as a handyman, finish carpenter, langshoreman, and as a chainsaw bar repairman.
'
Roberts advised of having no prior nuclear industry experience.
. During his employment at SONGS Unit 1 Roberts stated that he both inserted sleeves into tubes and also expanded the inserted sleeves with a hydraulic gun.
Roberts advised that of the approximately 15-20 sleeves he inserted and expanded, two did not expand properly.
In each case, Roberts remembered that the control trailer asked him twice the " address" (i.e.,
template location - row and column) of the unexpanded sleeves so they could be recorded for further work.
Roberts further advised that he "hard rolled" a number of sleeves in placc and had no problems with the equipment or procedures.
In reference to sleeves not being inserted all the way into the tube sheet, Roberts stated he never observed any such conditions. Robe.ts further stated that he never observed nor heard of anyone using a sledge hammer and cold chisel to " beat in" sleeves that did not fit into the tubes.
Roberts was questioned about alcohol'and/or drug useage by the ANS workers at SONGS Unit 1.
He stated that he observed marijuana being smoked both on the bus transporting workers
.
,
--
.
.
-
.-
.
.
. -,.
.
.
.
,
-7-from San Diego to the site or " mesa and also at the " mesa" in d
the trailers and portable " outhouses". Additionally, Roberts advised he observed marijuana being smoked on the bus transport-ing workers from the " mesa" to the SONGS site. When questioned about on site use of narcotics, Roberts stated he smelled the odor of marijuana, which he is familiar with from his experiences in the United States Marine Corps, in the restroom of the ANS trailer located on the SONGS site inside the protected area.
Roberts remembered that ANS issued a memo to workers which stated that drug / alcohol useage is prohibited.
In reference to alcohol useage by ANS employees, Roberts stated that he observed workers drinking beer and hard liquor at the " mesa".
In fact, Roberts advised that while he was working at SONGS Unit 1 he collected aluminium cans from the garbage "dumpsters" at the " mesa" and earned approximately
$16.00 from selling the aluminium. Of the cans he collected, Roberts stated most were empty beer cans.
Roberts was questioned about the rubber suits worn by the
" jumpers" for radiation protection and the allegation the suits were prone to tearing.
Roberts advised that one of the suits he wore tore,in the " crotch" area. When this occurred, Roberts advised he was immediately removed from the steam generator and " frisked" multiple times,by-hsalth physics personnel to check for possible. contamination, none was detected.
Roberts stated he observed other workers whose suits were also tearing.
In closing'his interview; Roberts stated he felt that ANS, Westinghouse, and SCE did a < good job on 'the steam generator -
repair project.. He advised that the training was good and that the instructors would review the material a multiple of times to assist workers having troubles. LDuring the times he worked at the site, Rob:
stated that the; tools and procedures being used were ' regularly being modified a~nd updated to make the finished job better.
5.
On Site Technical Investigation
!
l The inspector discussed the sleeving operations and the problems I
encountered during the steam generator repair project with licensee
personnel. Sleeves are installed as an alternate method to tube (
plugging and as a corrective action taken where steam. generator j
tube wall degradation has been identified. Inc ? 2eving concept l
consists of (a) decontaminating the steam generah channel head surfaces and segments of the tube to be sleeved, (M installing,
'
inside the steam generator tube, a smaller. diameter tube (sleeve)
l to span the degraded area, and (c) hydraulic expansion of the
!
inserted sleeve to fonn an interference fit with the steam generator tube.
l
,
l
. -.
..
.
,.
-
- -.
-.
-
.
-
,
-
.
_
-
..,
.
,
,
-
-
-8-The installation and expansion of the sleeves are performed by a channel head worker, more commonly known as a " jumper". Approximately 1500 jumpers were utilized during the sleeving project.
Allegation:
Failure of hydraulic equipment resulted in a number of sleeves not being inserted all the way into.the tube sheet.
Source:
Alleger Manning NRC Finding:
This allegation was substantiated.
Interviews with sleeving project personnel revealed that in less than 10 cases the jumpers could not insert the sleeve all the way up for various reasons. Some of these tubes hung down as much as 6 inches. However, this was anticipated and procedures for corrective action were developed. The tube was either cut off and plugged, or a slide hammer utilized to impact the extended tube into place. The slide hammer method was developed so that a predatermined maximum impact force could not be exceeded causing tube damage. Therefore, although this allegation was substan-tiated, there is no safety significance, since this satisfactory corrective action was taken.
Allegation:
Some of the steam generator tube sleeves were improperly installed due to hydraulic equipment malfunction and
.
" shoddy" workmanship.
!
Source:
Allegers Manning and Pierce
>
NRC Finding:
The allegation was not substantiated. Shoddy workmanship was not admitted to nor was it witnessed by the two individuals making the allegation. A third individual, t
during an interview conducted under oath stated that the training and workmanship performed during the sleeving project was very good.
Equipment r.;alfunctions (misfiring)
did occur and may have prevented sleeves from being properly installed; however, these tubes were plugged to prevent any. risk of tube cracking during operation.
Therefore, while the allegation was partially true, the safety significance of the. allegation is minimal.
Allegation:
A cold chisel and sledge hammer were used to " beat in" sleeves that did not fit into the tubes.
[
l Source:
Allegers Manning and Pierce l
~
~
l NRC Finding:
The allegation was not substantiated.
The sleeving
operations do not' have a, procedure-calling,for the utiliza-l tion of a sledge hammer.and cold. chisel'
Project personnel
.
interviewed kne, the po;ssibility; for ~such use was suggested w of no incident where these tools were
,
used.
However,;
I
- .
,
'
'
- ,
j.
-
. _
t
. -
-
m
&
b J
!
^ _-
-
_____-___________ ___ __
_ _ _ _.
.
.
,
-9-by licensee personnel interviewed.that is, in the case when an inserted sleeve could have slipped down requiring a mechanical plug to be inserted and, maybe, a regular hammer plus another sleeve used to ime the inserted sleeve up until the plug was flush with the tube sheet.
There appears to be no, documented evidence that this was done. Due to the lack of space and the restriction of movement in the channel head it appears.unlikely a sledge hammer could _ affectively be used.- The inspector is satisfied that the quality'of' repair work would not have
~
been adversely affected if, in fact, these repair tools were used.
.
,
'
Allegation:
The use of narcotics. and' alcohol' was prevalenti among ANS employees at 'the SONGS Unit 1 site.
Source:
Allegers Manning & Pierce
-
'
NRC Finding:
The Allegation was partially substantiated.
During interviews of the two allegers (Manning and Pierce) and worker Roberts, all three individuals stated that alcohol and narcotics useage was observed at the " mesa" and on transport buses. Roberts further stated that he smelled the odor of marijuana on the SONGS site in the ANS trailer, but did not see any individuals actually using narcotics
,
on the site.
Since the " mesa" area is not within the SONGS protected area, security at this location was minimal as compared to the required nuclear security at the site.
Consequently, it was much easier for ANS employees who so desired to use narcotics and alcohol at the " mesa" and on the transport buses.
In order to gain access to the site, however, workers had to pass through site security measures which include metal detectors and spot body searches making it much more difficult to conceal narcotics and alcohol.
Licensee personnel were contacted in reference to this allegation and advised that ANS management was aware of this problem during the repair project. As a result, ANS issued a memorandum to its employees prohibiting alcohol /
narcotics useage during employment hours and also placed
. supervisors on the transport buses to watch-for alcohol /
narcotics. Additionally, ANS and licensee management.
personnel initiated spot checks of the " mesa" area to watch for alcohol / narcotics useage.
-
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _
'
.
- 30 -
Although it was substantiated that alcohol / narcotics useage did occur at the " mesa", licensee personnel stated that workers on site doing steam generator repair work could not have been under the influence of alcohol / narcotics.
The licensee personnel stated that they are confident of '
this as workers had to go through approximately 18 check-points which were manned by employees and supervisors of-4 different companies from the time thy entered the site until they actually did work in the sts..m generators.
In going through these checkpoints, the workers were required to put on radiation protection clothing and to go through other procedures which would be e_xtremely difficult to perform if one was under the. influence of narcotics and/or drugs.
Consequently, the allegation although substantiated, has minimal safety significance.
Allegation:
From working inside the. steam generators and seeing their construction Manning felt they may not be able to withstand a-seismic event and/or an accident situation.
'
Source:
Alleger Manning
'
~
NRC Finding:
The ability of the ' steam generat' ors at SONGS Unit 1 to withstand seismic events and/or accident' conditions has previously beentqualified'and studied in depth by Westinghouse, the. steam generator manufacturer, and the office of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation, US NRC. These
_
~
studies concluded the steam generators are safe as designed and installed.
(
,
..
Allegation:
A quantity of materials which were stored at the " mesa" area adjacent to the ANS trailers where the workers
,
stayed while waiting to work were later packed into 55
!
gallon drums and removed. Manning was concerned about l
radiation exposure from this material.
(note: the " mesa" l
was a staging area located near the SONGS site where ANS employees were trained and waited to go to the site for work)
,
I Source:
Alleger Manning l
NRC Finding:
This particular material and the circumstances surrounding it was previously identified and investigated by radiation specialist G. Yuhas, NRC. Region V.
The results of inquiry by Yuhas have been documented in US NRC Region V
,
l reports 50-206/80-33, 50-206/81-02, and a July 12, 1981 l
letter to the licensee. No items of non-compliance were issued.
I I
l-
.. _ _
_
_. _, _. _
-
,_
'
-
.
- 11 -
)
Allegation:
While working in one of the steam generators Manning suffered a fainting spell and feels that he was not given a radiation scan prior to being taken to the hospital.
Source:
A11eger Manning NRC Findings: This allegation was not substantiated. The inspector was able to interview the shift coordinator who was in the-l control trailer at the time of the alleger's incident, and the safety engineer (nurse) administering first aid.
Both inosviduals attested to the fact that the alleger was given a radiation survey by a health physics person (HP) prior to being transfered to the ambulance. The HP also accompanied Manning to the. hospital. The inspector also reviewed the' health physics foreman's log for the date in question, May 3,'1981, and located documentation that a radiation survey,was performed prior to' transporta-tion to the hospital.~
_
,
-
.
Allegation:
Only approx. 6' feet'of.each~' steam generator tube were worked on or inspected which raises.q'uestions about the condition of thef remaining port, ions.of the ' tubes.
i
^
Scurce:
Alleger Manning 1
/
NRC Findings: This allegation was not substantiated. The sleeving of
-
tubes is limited to the region near the top of the tube sheet because this is where major degradation of the tube occurs. A certain percentage of tubes are required to be 100 percent (hot leg side to cold leg side) inspected after each refueling outage.
Durim the latest tube inspectton, eduy current testing rt ad indications of circumferential degradation at the top of the tube sheet.
These indications did not occur on the cold leg side.
This resulted in a 100 percent eddy current examination of tubes on tne hot leg side in each steam generator.
The sleeving project was then initiated to repair the degraded tubes. Upon completion of the sleeving process a 100 percent eddy current examination was performed on all sleeved tubes.
The inspector also examined the reports of the three pressure tests performed on the steam generators after sleevir.g to detect leakages. The first hydrostatic test was perfomed in accordance with the ASME. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (B&PV).Section XI requirements.
This was a secondary side to primary side leakage test required by the code after steam generator repair. The results showed the hot and cold legs of steam generator A and B to be satisfactory. Steam generator C revealed leaks in two hot leg tubes. This condition was docu-mented on a nonconformance report and dispositioned by i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
- 12 -
removing the tubes from servce by plugging. The second test performed was a primary to secondary differential pressure test.
This test, designed to put pressure on the tubes from the primary side during actual reactor
operation, showed satisfactory results. The third hydrostatic test of the steam generators was a repeat of the first test performed. This test was not required by ASME B&PV Code but was initiated by the licensee to provide additional confidence in the integrity of the sleeving operation..The results were that two leaking tubes and three potential: leak'ng~ tubes were taken out of service by plugging. The. inspector feels confident that the steam geparator tubes were inspected from hot leg to cold leg, and that.the repairs (sleeving project) of the tubes in the tubesheet region, were performed satisfactory.
'
Allegation:
Fiberscopes used.to examine sleeves in place inside
,
tubes may have beea inserted into the wrong. tube or a tube known.to be " good", in order to pass' inspection.
, -
~
Source:
Alleger Manning,'i
. :
.
.
. s.
.
^
t'RC Findings: This allegation was'not substantiated.
Fiberscope usage during he time of' concern wis' to look at the inside diameter of the' sleeves to determine the cause of brazing failures. The allegation is based'on two assumptions which the inspector determiried to be incorrect. The first is that the fiberscope is.used as an inspection tool. Actually the fiberscope was used as an 'i_nvestigative tool to obtain information as to why some tubes failed to braze properly.
Final inspection of'all sleeved tubes was perforned by eddy current testing which was not performed by ANS. The second assumption implies that the
"jungers" had control over which tubes the fiberscope was being inserted.
Inspector interviews with sleeving project personnel revealed that the jumper would place the flexible conduit containing the fiberscope over the tube end and, then, the control trailer would inform the jumper whether or not the fiberscope was inserted into the right tube. That is, the jumper would not know what tube was being investiaated as this operation was the function of personnel viewing from the control trailer.
Allegation:
Training handouts provided to steam generator repair workers (jumpers) had pages missing from them. Particu-larly, Manning's handout was missing two pages pertaining to biological effects of radiation.
.
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
.
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
-
r>-
-
y n,
.
seu a
.
- - - - - - - -
- - - - -
-
-
-
,
-
.
.
13 -
-
Source:
Alleger Manning NRC Finding:
The allegation was not substantiated.
Licensee personnel were guestioned about this allenation and provided the investigation team with copies of radiation handouts which contained all of the pages.
Information in the handouts was also covered in clasiroom instruction to the workers so any information on the alleged missing pages was presented.
Licensee personnel stated that the alleger had only to ask for the missing pages and they would have been provided.
Allegation:
On G ne 26 or 27, 1981, Ken Baskin, SCE, made a statement that 20-40 percent of the steam generator repair had to be " Reworked".
In light of time availability and the fact that the plant is now running again, this is not possible.
Source:
Alleger Manning NRC Finding:
The allegation was not substantiated.
Licensee ersonnel interviewed advised that the statement by Ken Basiin
-
refered to the total amount of rework which was p u formed during the entire sleeving project, a period of approximately 10 months. A number of procedures initially utilized in the repair project later had to be abandoned which resulted in rework.
It is incorrect to assume that all the rework was done at the end of the project.
Allegation:
A number of the steam generator tubes were eventually
" plugged" and now there may be insufficient heat transfer surface available to remove reactor heat.
Source:
Alleger Manning NRC Findings: This allegation was not substantiated. Loss of heat transfer surface is considered in final analysis prior to start-up. At SONGS Unit 1 there is a 20 percent margin in steam generator in excess of heat transfer surface.
Also, in order to minimize intergranular attack of the tubesinthetubesheetregiontheaveragereactorcoolant system temperature was reduced from 575 F to 555 F.
Therefore, due to the combination of plugging plus reducing Tave the pla'nt is limited to operating ~ at 90 percent full power.
-
Allegation:
The " jumpers",were predominantly " street pecple" that were not properly trained and approximately '50 percent didn't know'what they w'ere'doing.
'
.
,
-
-
I
.. K
\\ ~
, j
'
.s>
.
,
E
- - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.
.
-
.
,
,
- i4 -
,
Source:
A11eger Pierce,
.-
..
1,
NRC Finding:
The allegation was not substantiated.
Licensee personnel interviewed stated that the " jumpers" represented a cross section of society and included teachers, students, and other unemployed trade people in addition -to what the allegers refer to as " street people".-
The training program which was used to train' the " jumpers" was reviewed and approved by both the US NRC and the State of California, Office of Occupational Health and Safety. Additionally, the in progress training sessions were spot checked by one of the US NRC resident inspectors, L. Miller. No problems were identified.
Allegation:
Some workers would sit in the steam generator and say on the microphones connected to the control trailer that they were working when they actually were not.
Sources:
A11eger Pierce NRC Finding:
The allegation has no safety related significance. All of work done by the " jumpers" was later inspected by eddy current testing which determined that the tubes which needed sleeving were sleeved and the sleeves were expanded.
<
If, in fact, some workers did not perform their work, it was identified and corrected by later inspection which led to the extensive rework mentioned in a previous allegation.
(see also next allegation for related finding)
Allegation:
A number of the workers could not read the templates set up in the steam generator and thus inserted sleeves into the wrong tubes.
Source:
A11eger Pierce NRC Finding:
The allegation was substantiated.
Licensee personnel interviewed stated that a number of sleeves were found by inspections conducted by Westinghouse personnel and eddy l
current testing to have been inserted into the wrong tubes. These inspections also identified some tubes from (
which required sleeves were omitted.
l It could not be determined if this condition was a result of the templates or of some the workers not doing their work as stated in the previous allegation.
Licensee personnel stated that the conditions were corrected whatever the cause.
>
- - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
.
-
.
,
- 15 -
Allegation:
Ultrasonic testing of sleeve brazing indicated approxim-ately 50 percent of the brazes to be unacceptable.
,
Source:
Alleger Pierce NRC Finding:
The allegation was substantiated. Licensee personnel interviewed stated that the brazing procedure wac not successful and had to be abandoned.
Instead of brazing, a mechanical hard rolling of the sleeves approved by US NRC, was conducted to hold the sleeves in place.
This change necessiated a large portion of rework mentioned
,
in a earlier allegation.
Allegation:
A number of workers were granted a work extension to
>
receive an additional dose, over 1800 Mrem, as they were good workers.
Pierce, on his last tour of work, April 3-8,1981, received 1950 Mrem, which he felt was excessive.
Source:
Alleger Pierce
NRC Findings: This allegation was not substantiated.
Inspector interview with health physics personnel (HP) revealed that individual radiation exposure limits or cut-offs were established at 900,1500,1800 and 2500 mrems, respectively, per quarter.
These cut-offs are administrative stopping points where additional information such as complete exposure history including current reading on TLD and pocket dosimeter are required before extension is granted. Granting an extension beyond 1800 mrem is done as follows:
(a) Westinghouse management request people for. extension beyond this value, (b) the sleeving project HP inquires as to why these individuals are needed and why someone else could not be used to do the job, (c) HP grants approval if the individual has a critical job specific skill (only person qualified), his. record, dose is current and exposure history up-to-date.
The radiation. exposures received by," jumpers" have been reviewed by US NRC inspectors and were found to be with-in US NRC regulatory statutes.
.
Allegation:
Rubber suits' worn by the workers for radia' tion ~ protection
^
were prone to tearing or ripping while working in the steam generators. This condition lead to unneccessary exposures of workers.to radiation.
'
'
'
'
Source:
Alleger Pierce
-
-
-
m
..
'4^
.,
- -
.
.
- -
.
-
-.
.
.
.
..
~
'
- 16 -
'
NRC Findihg: Tne allegation was partially substantiated.
Interviews with " jumpers" and licensee personnel determined that some rubber suits did tear while workers were inside the
)
steam generators. This was due to the tight working
}
conditions. However, no workers received excessive radiation doses from this problem.
6.
Interview of L. Miller, US NRC resident inspector, SONGS Unit 1.
On Friday July 10, 1981, resident inspector L. Miller was interviewed at the SONGS site by P. V. Joukoff, Investigator.
Miller advised that he monitored and inspected the sleeving project and documented the results in his monthly reports (see 50-206/80-19, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34 and 50-206/81-4, 8, 10, 15, 18, 24). Additionally, on most mornings Miller attended the sleeving project briefings and on 5 or 6 occassions went to the " mesa" and observed training of workers. Additionally, Miller stated he' on numerous occassions talked with " jumpers" on an informal basis and found no areas of Concern.
Miller advised that since this is the first. time steam generator sleeving has been attempted the project had many technical dif-ficulties which had to be, and were, finally dispositioned. Through his inspection program Miller could find no areas of concern that weie not finally dispositioned, and advised he witnessed part of the final steam generator hydro tests which were used for final project acceptance.
'
.
Miller stated that since the reactor was returne'd to service, approximately 3 weeks prior to this interview, he has monitored the primary to secondary steam generator leakage tests done daily and found the cross leakage to be below detectable-limits.
Miller stated that the sleeving-project at this time appears to have been successful and he will continue to monitor the daily leakage tests. Additionally, Miller advised that after 6 months of operation the reactor will be shut down for inspection of the steam generators and he will monitor this inspection.
7.
Investigation of further allegations by alleger Manning.
Subsequent to the on site investigation alleger Manning appeared again before the ASLB and made allegations. Manning alleged that SCE nad sent him a letter stating he had received a whole body count upon termination from the site when he had not.
On July 31, 1981, radiation specialist G. Yuhas, US NRC Regirn V, investigated this allegation while at the SONGS Unit I site. Yuhas determined that the letter had been sent in error and that although a whole body count was performed upon initial employment, a termina-tion whole body count was not.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
....
..
..
- 17 -
Additional investigation into the matter by Yuhas and Joukoff determined that on May 3, 1981, Manning, as previously stated, was
transported from the SONGS Unit 1 site to the hospital by ambulance.
At the hospital Manning was examined by a doctor who diagnosed that Manning had fainted due to hyperventilation. While at the hospital, Manning stated to the doctor and ANS nurse P. Goodwin that he had
. smoked marijuana on that morning.at approximately 6:00 am while on the way to work.
,
Based on this information William Holloran,' ANS Manager, tenninated
~
Manning on May 3, 1981; for violation ofl company; regulations.
Approximately 4 or 5 days later-Manning telephoned Holloran.and asked when he could return to work. At that time Manning was advised he was not eligible 7 for, rehire ind should'ccme to the
" mesa" to obtain a whole body. count and his final pay check.
Approximately 3 or 4 days lated'Hanning again telephoned the site and spoke with an ANS Supervisor and told him a gloved hand had l
been put in his mouth when he fainted on May 3 and'that now he was sterile. Manning was. told again at this time to come to the " mesa" for a whole body count which would detect internal contamination.
"
On May 14, 1981, ANS sent a certifie'd letter to Manning asking him to come in for a whole body count for which he would be compensated.
Manning signed for the letter on May 20, 1981 and on June 30, 1981 i
showed the same letter to Investigator Joukoff in San Diego. As mentioned earlier, Joukoff at that time urged Manning to obtain the whole body count and offered assistance if necessary.
As a result of Yuhas' on site inquiry on July 31, 1981, SCE, on August 4, 1981, sent Manning another certified letter asking him to come to the site for a whole body count. SCE further offered to compensate Manning for his time. On August 7, 1981, Manning signed for the letter and, to the date of this report, has not contacted SCE or NRC Region V about this matter.
i
- - -
. - - - -