ML16341C120

Forwards Preliminary Comments & Questions Derived from Review of Draft Insp Rept 83-37.Comments Welcomed

ML16341C120
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/22/1984
From:	Myers H HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
To:	Eisenhut D, Rehm T NRC
Shared Package
ML16340E249	List: DCL-84-067, Forwards Response to NRC Request to Identify & Provide Basis for Acceptance of Welded ASTM A-325 Bolting in Pipe Support Design,Per 840119 Site Visit DCL-84-078, Forwards Addl Info Supplementing 840217 Response to NRC Request for Info Re Use of Welded ASTM A-325 Bolting in Pipe Support Design ML16340E248 ML16341C111 ML16341C120
References
NUDOCS 8404050307
Download: ML16341C120 (26)

Text

UNITED TA I~ CONGR~S COMMI'PiiON I~slOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REI'RESEMTATlVES March 22

, 19 TO Tom Rehm/Darrell Zisennut FROM:

Ben~ Mye s Attached he eto are prel'dna~

comments and cuestions de ived rom my review of 83-37 and 'ts draf Z would welcome you comments; Pqp 0 5000 8qp330 pgg ADDCK 0 P

P

r<rf I <rt

~ I IS

'! J k !@at REV ~

/ ~ (<< /rt 4

<<t/ '>>/ C't

/ ~,, /P%(

k

~ r)/0

(

Set<el 1 c Comment ' K X )

)=C-.l.

~ s<<a<<ement ta the fal 1 owing eTf ect mad=, repeaiedl v respec <<<<O

<<he 'RegiOn V method Ueed ia t nqu-: re

.lc

~ics: he 'spec <<af 5 awol each to l 25ql vlrio th': 'sue was Ia -seesc the val i di y of the I"v'SC finding arid I=' '<T) =Ini resounse.

afld 2va 'ate the i~RC T ind Aus far conf crmancc i)i h Lh2 sDecif ied

,>>"ll'ian proc. am."

(c.. g. S:-'7.

tern 24. )

Thi'e implie iha<<

thieF 2 1 5 5 documented F'Ul '

ceo nee ta. the I'4SI A<Pl Ag ~

t.

~ g ~

~ >Ie'

'ensee conducted an audi t of F/ul 1 man.

du. i AL-he er1ud QT April

" 'rough June 1,

1978, n re5Donse tu the t".SC audi t and he.='ull man

. esponse."

See DraTt S~-"7,

p. "7:h' s<<atem2fit does not appear in the Final 8 '-Z7. 3 Where i s f 'hat

- ri<<ervi cws were conducted with

<RB';cE, Pul 1 man.

and iv'SC pas<<an<d pr esen personnel ia he cuurse of preparinig 8: 7 f Haw were such 'teryi ews documented f

Where i 5 'he dGcLlmicntati ari?

GC-=.. Xnspecti on Report S i-,Ã7 'r 2Ters ta cor-.

ri veepafl52

<<Q tfIe gSC audt <<T t e unc'l ear a

iu whether thie correc-'ive actions were tai:

inert de,'ienc's

<<hat 2/. i 5 'ed oricr ta the aud 2>: eri<<d d iiie correcii've actions involve a

iAadequate workmanshi p di d nat escape detecti QT he L4 deT'c'ncies that 2:

sted

p. ior tu CCt.'>> act'ns taken A veri~i Ai 'si-AC-c A

w1 tkl 25Dec <<ci an as a

IL.

~ Ia/

II (2 I(I<<kL Coil i 2GLlef<Le-audi L Ly 2 ~ I't ta Ik/hell iu insure that e

I L<a -<< t

. fl pic <.

.0 d y wel def Do S2S 'n?

de.'1 enc1 2 on n

<Report 8.-Z7 conta's sevel a

~ ref ereri log.

DG25 the t~RC have the lug tn ot., is it readi lv acce sible?

<ere, 1

st'n this lug vis-a-v'=- the tjt e

I I 4, I (I ie k k<

k SL

. ~

'5pect.

QA Repol I<<S

<<(7 tates 1 A F'ullman oractices were "consistent" with "consistent" mean "in comp'iance with"-.

that wherever "cons1 sI<<ent" i =- Used

<<i"Iat i cGff<p' ance with"?

sevet al

< -'ce that

(,

q ~ ~

<>

(",r(L O(a '.

<<(n ma<)k bc vep

-Ic d by A

k t ~

GC-5.. There i s no 'indi'cati Gn of Regi on V havinig suuoht he viewc of NSC ei <<her to el -borate on the 17//

T ndinLE Qr tu

\\ Qmllient ani the Tindings and conclusions of the Region V inquiry.

CC. o F age wel ds w>>}

w'ere Sel eC<<

ed e QLl ac v t da<<2s wE) E adequate e<<

the draft s<<ates d for delta Te. ri verify f'aid weld s the basis for s wel ds pf Gduccd f ca 1

- amp 1 2?

OT Salk(p(1 2 ed

<<u

'At iat i these I't e<<1 Ol kk ee I

~

(

1 Gg.'p! (

1 el'I Un Nha'-eeenan a samol C

GT

~ Sta and hat 1<.l<.)

l (Iid ar d in pcc <<i un rev el ecting these we Dt d theee wel ds

. l-eo k

I p

t Li t t f Qn 1

I Lk r<udi <<Finding.'..Final p.

~.

a, i.

~

~

~

-occ'. 'at ions, I<<X rpet cannel wri <<i nel

<<Ac ';

perf Qrmino wel dino ena neer i Ao k

Ulic <<1 G. <5 ~

arid

pp. Ql lnig weg engilieel ing Appendi.:: reauiremenis r

~ s s

I

~

r r<

astl I I ih iL 0 'J C

1 'n 4

~

Cri ieri on II.

NSC Audit r inding (Firial p. 4-.

l I ~ft, p. =-

. ):

15 t the NRC co icll'5 on ha uaaer management er formed SC>>eduled reviews Of nOnCOnfarmanCe repOr S,

perSCnnel qua'caticns, and corrective ac lons as I equil ed by NRC regulatians

-.or ihe time periods adc. 2552d, bv ihe NSC audit.-

Na e

handwt it ien not at ion in dt aT t report:

" n conclusi on, fac iual I Ecol ds dp not suppart ihe iNSC Tind'g. "

The carr esponding s atement in the final report is:

"The inspector concludes the historical records of coporate managemeni audits do provide 2vl dencB that I evl ews QT nonconT al mance I Bpl at5 personnel qualiTications and corrective act'ms were perTQrmed."

!late cumment T inal report:

"In addi iion, Pul lman Power Praduc is hia5 since proved programmatic improvements..." etc.

Mha was the program prior to the improvements-.

Mhat was ii aTte.

the impr o~/ements 'were 'sti iuted Criterion V, NSC Audit Findinig 1

(Final p

a, Dt aft, p ~9-40 ):

P r NSC stal Bd:

"There '

no reauireriient that aciivitiE'5 a

~

. Bc lng qual'ty sh-'1 be pr esc. ibed bv documented instruciians.

pracedures, and drawings. " Reg or: 'i'

ates, apparcnitl v in reTerence ta fabrication QT p'p'ng assemblies arid erection'QT pipe in the plant. that KFP-8 cstabl'shied appropriate "nstructi ons and procedures.

Reg on 0 seeriis ia imp 1 y that KFP,. -7 E5tabl i 5hed pl Qcedul es T Ql pi pe sup pof 7 s ~

KF, '8 /

hQL'lever ~

was not 'Ssued unt'1 December 177..

Merc the QA procedu.

Bs far insial lat.ian o.

- pipe procedures pre5c. BbldEd b'/ documienieci instructi on procedur es etc. priar io December 1c'7:

Noruever, the dra t 5tate5 that ESD

~ ~

daied +/15/78 pl ovided a 5peciTlc procedur e "to implement prec.'21 / ihe GA pl"Ggl am 21cmicnts QT KFP8 and KFPS 7 ~ "

I he 1 a iiEI statEiTient does riot appeal l n 'ie T inal report.

In ihat thc spec' ic procedures fo.

implement. ng "precisely the QA proaram elements of KFP-8 and KFPS-7" were apparently not promulgated until only September 1..

1~;3 what i 5 thie basi s Tol" assurance that KFP8 and KFPS /

wet 2 adequate implemented pr or to Scotember 1978.

Cri ieri on L).

NSC audi t Find n

=.

(Fi rial p.

5-~.,

Dr aft, Q. -,i.'I-~1):

NSC states that hanger pacl'age r2vl E'w was nat descl 1 bcd in procedures.

Reg on

'L/ states ihai hc.ngel pac) agE' revi ew was described in K."."=- ~ dated December

~ ~a

'77 and h~ 't upp '2n al reqLL r em2n 5

wEI 2 incurpcrai Ed l n o

ESD

~~ dated Dec embel

/.".

Mi"Iat wa5 ihc ba i s fQl revl BHE canductud p.'

Gt G

DE 2Qbef he dr- "

but nc" I

LB ='-- '=-Gr"

"--2

p. Gvided addi t'nal etai

. Ed 'ifQrmat:on concern ng h-noer dr-wing conirol s.

What is ihe dai.e GT g,

D Is i i

~

~

c'

~ g- ~

<< ~1 i ii.t ia iae Qa i aae, QV ew Wa d

C 3O i' mannier th>at. corn 1 ed wi th the Append'::

~. I-equiremen

=-.ar oar'ds covcre<NSC.'audi t?

5 ai es that othel acti Y3 i es icludcd

'I cheat'a

~ ot wel d'>'

ces, and main enance of Fi e ls '" +}>e.NRC' posi tor> that a11 procedures in a manner that

'i I e oui t ciiicins

. Gl al 1 pel iods cov not descr'ed in procedures Usc of Note-G-Grams.

us=

."-'e i =-

c d Qual' cnspcctor Da'ly L as.

such act3 v3 t'3 e wel e dcscr

~ea comp 1 i ed w'i the Append ':;

crea bv Yhe NSP audk t?

Criter on 0, NSC Audit Fin<<fin@

(Fi nal p.. 6-'7, Draft. p. 41-4-)

3 i 'SC found t.ha+

som>etr ic descr ibsd.

The

d. af t of

=SD- "a4 (is5Ued 5/6>f7')

au de -.or review of isom I eport adds theat Nay 6t found for FSD-=54 and th bE:n corn'pl eted prior to

-. i Aa colTiD et E document perfo. ned afier =SD-254 pac!:aae revi ew was not suffici ently S~-~7 states thai "F'ld procedure appears to provide an.adequate out ine e r c drawina abaci:aaes.

The final 1-.75 was the ear 1 i est date th-t coul d be at while mos piping'nstallatiors had

>1ay 1 F75 the 3 nspector found hc:+

he rev'w Of

Sometr C

d. awin>a paC!:aaes were

wa5, n E'f. eCt

~

Cl tel ion I ~ t NSC rlud' 1

~

gJ ~ Jt) 0<<

~ r

'dina 10h. '0i.

<Final p.

--=;. Draft

he

d. aft focuses on question as to w>h>ether aud'ore'bserva ions need'e recur ded on the "Process sheet or t!-e

nspectors'ail v wor><<sheet. ":he draft does not 'id'cit 'l the 3 nspectol eNaliilAed silE wc1 der audi i

5> Ieets I ile - 3 nal dcES st te that the inSpeCtor eyamined wel d<r aud3

~hee 5 but does not ind cate the peri cd covered by thc e.amina> i or..

T:ie.inal versi on of S '- 'i states in 10hi that the wel acr audi ts we. e "a -.

F ul 'an program requ rement ln e::ce55 of the AStlF coae requirements" and twice in 10i that the pr oar am requi. ements

"-ppear ed" in e;:ce55 of codE reou<<rements The ID..'AFT d3d nc't rienti on that he code d <<! not requ'e a wel de.

audi ~.

D, aft 10i (p. 15) says "..records of the a/7:" rev3sio i and

'1 /7 i mplemented procedure are not, available."

Finial drops th's par standi ng (p. -=.)

"The November '7. revi si on apparentl r was

Ssue<d 'p 1 emented be@i rn in@ in November

'.97...

wc 1 det aUC'heets indicate that thie requ'ed wcldel aud37=

we. c p

I fGI" >T>e>

beainnin>a Novembe.

1, 177."

Tiie fol 'wing

-ateff>e,.~

=ppear

>> ie draf t bUt Aot thic f'>c'; i ic we Qet aud 3 i.

EI ieet -

e I <<l>>3, ieo

'idicate the fel

~ 'e contt o'iieas'Uf eiiients wcl c pet fGt iied Gn 4elds bv the audi tore. "

Mhv was tiiis statement drop" ed?

l s thc

-sta<<ment accura e f 4la there a requirefrent to miai;e f=r. i ie co-troi mcasur ements:

, ~ ~

J I >a

~

r>>>'

>e'n3 f 3caflc of

~ ai 1 ifia to,dni I

code"'- es not reouit c we

~

t<<oi

~ r

~ oG1 e 1 'Wina Stai eiiieli> 'i dt a

~ t CCC= not

=.

~ peal" 3ri 0

='rice ttie record of the i c> Gec ior CGU d nat dete I Ip 1 EIT>en at i on and;

~ thus 5i ate>Tiel it it>at ihc S2Dt 2 tiic aLldlting D

~

wel del 5 ~

'spec Gr-was not abl =-

."-ul 1 man was in non-compl months."

7/

/>>'m'ne was mb EI-ll G corr i ance I Ev 5

ol>

15 l

val l able wiien ihie rccedure was aopruvEC fGr riot ab 2 to corroborate the Pu'man

. -vision w-s Tiadc a ini "i-te c

dl aft arid

. Iial 5 iaie t>)at the obarate the NSC Statement that with the procedure for aboui he 5ia.'

'riclUSiarl tha licither Item 10h nor ItcTi 101 wel 2 1 deri ifi ab1 e i tems Gf nuncompl iancE Dt uevl a 1 on rest an thE assumptioo ihat welders'udiis wer e not required by ihe ASIDE cuder Cr iteri on IX, NSC Audit Find'g 10j.

(Final p. "~-24, Draft

p. 1c)-18. ),:

Note change from draf t which r 1

Ed on the 2":aminaiion GT =5 welds io find ihat, ".. ihere is a high probabiliiv that oiher stainle s stceel welds installed in the plant camply wiih Cel ta.err-te acceptance criteri a. "

The final repor i ci Es. a ar)dom sa>Tipl 2 Gf 5

ta nl 25 5 cc we ds" as "an addi ti o'na'hecl:."

Primary rel'ance for the final

. Eport'5 conclusiDn tliat "the inspectar was not abl E tG col I

bol atE hat PUl imari was '

noncompliance with this pr ocedure reauirement Tor 1" man"hs" was ba ed Qn the a sumpt1Qn t Iai sta1fi 2 5 5tee we' no aid not begin until early 177".

If ii is true that on-site Siainless

=-. eel wcl ding di d not, begin unti 1 19'7 ", what i s the rel cvance of ihe e:lamination of the

=5 i~elds Since tie NSC -.'nding applied to the Qle

/>>>> put 1od7 Is +h2. c a documented basi s for the statement "Based an di scussi Gns with -PGi~E personne't appears ihat siainl ess hsteel welding On Si te began in Eal

) v 1. 7< r" Cri "Erion IX, NSC Audit Find'na 10l:.

(Final p. >4-=,

Graft

p. 1=0-1

~ 1. /:

The NSC.',ding that "Hanuers arc not welded Pacif ic Gas

'.~ El 2'1ectri c Compan, requ rencnts Did NSC crr in observ-'ng that hangers were we sicel Dr., the wrong si de of +he bracket'P

'At>at response to "he NSC firding.-

Mould NSC auree tiiis l:ind waul d b2 rliade iri the audi t vias an dciermine whether he i>angers miuht have been ihE aUd1 t r 1n accordance w1 h

was not cor.f irmed.

lded to struc"ur-1 was Pul'man'5 iha+>>

afl cl <<DI of 27 T Gl i. made c

mod) fi ed fGl1owinu Cr. "Er Gn P

"~)>> l N-C Audi F'iding

0n.

ri~

p.

HSI fGLInd I t >E

d. BT T.

the t xther 2 wc.s fio p) Gcedure I cpa) t (p

1 )

5 ate tiiat a

52<<1 pre. >Eat1nu cs cf wel d WCI d IG1nts

~

P r Gc ECLIre

C>e>> '

i t =PilGEt aiL1

~ Ir'Ea s a nio or Escr i be app1 'ab1 c.b OL' 3 r>>a werE: nat ti Qn"=

I>ta-.

c:: am ned

- nc ';

=.- ac."i

=on

=. ried'n ad

~ua'l G-.

! Eheat', ',pas

!tel d, i>eat treatment and i nterpass I

t Aes.,;.'"

face

~ dl aTt.al s I s o.

2".,tha ilt

-D S:.r QE weld" Pr2hiC at Trea I.ment

. 'r QCEdur 2)

<<ae revi Eev

'/ Lc/77,t G

'pr cheat

. Eouirements. -rid 'd',c -

=- preheat"

~

c ty. "

rin c>dj acent handwri ten comment

<p

)

asl s

'/ ~ lc procedure descr bed iri thE second par-araph Qli with rtppendi::

3?

What was the basi s Tor the acided there di scussi on with Pu} 1 man Qr PSI <I-Gn thi s poi which occurred dur'g thie inspecti o-i that, ended an 1aw lie pl Ehieat

~

egE ctc ~

Dl d Pr,

'7 cGmPl lal>guage?

!AiaS nt beyond that T\\Lcemb2l 7 ~

The penul imate oaragraph an thi s it arid sPeci-.i c Preccdure for Preheat 1n

'r ta December "0 ~

1-.77, preheat i c>dequat 21 y prescr c bed bv Lhe we di ng dOCuriiented by S'ncctul 2,O i the WE' sheet

~

whi ch speci-.'i ed the appl c cab'1 th '

in comol i arice w th Appendi::

3?

em stat2s 1>hi 1'

~ IQ Q

Q~ <<el d joints Evi st na re oui rEmenit s we.

pl QcedLIl E speci

. -'a'ti ng bl ack GT the

. aces 2 wel dire procedure.

P aate EPt Qns and IAas Criteri on IX, l r r

S Ur)

NSC Audit Find 'a 1OG ~

<F nal p.. 7-.>0.

DraT I lI!SC statecl that

>> h>2

~ n ti al>.r.esul ts e-.'el ainu

=-.udi ina

<T%arii i';QVEmber U ~

1'?7 'I ta Febt uary 1 T 7 <<) indiCated he er:i StenCa QT 7 pl ab1 Ellis whc ch

~ i T thev di d EY 1 st t t"ai sed Quest 1 G I aba>Jt wcl d-qual ity.

NSC concluded an the basi s QT a revi ew QT hese audi "=-

th -t ".. there i s na con

. iderice ti i -t wc 1 di na dane pri or to '74 was per-. Qr med in accor dance with wel di nu speci-.' cat. cri reoui. Ements. "

The I'>!RC'nspector scii d 'he

> iad "c. itical 1 v 2>: am. ned the rccot ds QT

- we'er audi ts per", ormed bctweEn iI!Qvember 1,

1>? r

~ and Apri'

>?7' On the basi s oT an Ex ami nat ian QT 1 S:> audi t records T. Qm th' peri od, the NRC in pectot concl uded tl-at he "agar euate G.

p, Obl em areaS i 2 ria SO perVaSiVe LIC>h tha u""Ort Can be Qi rLcin i a the NSC coric1 usi Gn" that ther E is no con

. i dence "hat pre-we

~

nu had been pel armed 1 n c;ecol o wi h

I"Eo'L11 t Eme.

3 i- '7 states that ih>

Se wet C-i>!ISC T '1 I id1

~

I'ia' G r aLldl1 t're'gra>li

~

Ir>eai;r ESSES

and,

.=. OVi d i-ases QT 21 te>>

1 ='i n

=.LIQ) ts I 2; ct.:d tc> bv

~,

I,AI

.'Ea 1 Gl I L

I.>nder '. il 'af ov t>>>> 'de) were net important to but wel 2 1>>s h

c>h wc. UE"=>1 v pr Qmpt car. Ect acti vi cvr 'I>

w he I. glen "

1 I>

1I. 1 above t G d

1n1 c 'ted Lllit1 1 that none r

dc Ect prar =r i Gn dLIr i na Ell!

1 2

\\ hA> I

\\ I I Ec Gun tLC>>aLi - 1 ned tG Q

~ r >I>ai I C>m I at C. \\

2 orob eet

~

QL'

~ A

~

c I

'ih'h I J>>'--

-2Gl'IO <at Was I

IIIOLIr I"Ed

'I!C YeiiIUI I T

I >>'

.r

~ 1 ~

~

-. 'idlric n "he pc.

l iGL'I CGU Etcct wel i

g

~

~

P J r j

e J

iae IM>>

L audi s aal e'

~ iai

.-'U '

man'Uc',s cundUcted 1

I ual y~ lc7

}

ThcT E GI 2 oori which Reai Qn 0 rel

>> es "d

and provi dc oromct correc site wcl dirig"

>> -, the aud j p

IT(b2 I 1 Q7

~r t'Ev>> Cw GT 5 wet e

'Ud 1 d thc.

eJ ~

1 r/~'o Cina or dur=na s n'ot pt Qa we a twraill ~

U nesses VC aCT. >> Ol i roaram wa IJ1 ia525 GT UriZ>> -

MOVE Ja Qm Nuvemb t

aud

Qat am Earl v

~

~ >> \\ 'v in sum.

the NSL

-. ndi ig, based Qn.'idings obtained

-.rom a revi ew c'Ud t.

conduct cd a TiEr Nuvemb E."

1>> '7 'i w

5 i

ilcI 2 i e nu conf i cicnce that weld'g done pri Gr to Earl y 1974 was Cone i'n accurdance with wel dina speci fi cat>>i uris. "

Regi on V, on the

Other, hand.

based on a review Qf audit reports prepared durina essenti al y the same peri Gd as the reports revi ewed by NS(:

E arid ignorina the

~bove noted Tindina (Tinal. p.

2) that "the required wel der audits werc perTGrmed beg>> nning November 1.177."3 concludes "rro support can bc given the Eabove quoted" NSC concl usion."

Region V docs not deal with neither (0} thc fact of "here having been no welder audits prior to November 1 + / 'ell (3} tilE questi on GT whc'ther the tvpes GT dE ici encv

¹ Scovered in the initial auci ts 2~: issued in o.%'r years.

EAt the Harch iS':cmmi s ion meezirig.

macie to the ETTect that audits other the FSI1-21'P

p. Ggr an were ccriducted p.

So wet 2 tile Tind'as OT such audi ts

Ãhv wc. 2 thE5E T indings, rather than 197 'cl'd, Usecl io I ETUtc the NSI r

I at Emef it Wel 2 app al Crit

'ilafl

' iose that pul 5Uant to ior tu Novenber lT7 d'-cussed 8>>-:-7 t Whet-2 r 7 hue e X ri the Oue i. NGVCmbCr

indings-.3 Cr

~ ter>> Cn iX NSi Hud3. t

~

>> ndhng lOQ>>

tern 1

!FLnal p

r

. Dr "..

o

~.>>. ):

gp

~l 4 ~ V 7i The draft.

wi hou citina documents.

appears tu

. El v Qn the flow bcina "near the 20 cTm requiremcr.t"

-.or i 5 ccricl usi un that d'2, ecLi ve wel ds miaht have resul

>> ed from inadeauate eh'1 diria and pus a jna I iie dr aTt States that 2~>>tceesj vel v huw

.Gw have been man'fest iri unac eotab

~ 2 pot"ositv which wGU'd <<av2 Jcen detec ed bv NDE; the draft does not indicate the el<tent tu which Unaccep tab 1 2 porusi ty was -.ound.

The T inal dGES nQt state that the f1 uw was near thc 70 cf m requirment,'

t does state tjjat T>>le Vast majol i tV QT Saf 2t J t E'>> 2d 5tainl 255 5teel Weld=-.

Wel 2 radi oar aphi cal 1 v, 2;lamined and ihe fi lm was rev EL<ed arid accep Ed bv a.

QUal i.'ci in.>> erpr eter T or cGde comp 1 i ance. "

How many wc's WEI 2 nGt

~ adi Ga. c:phi cal 1 v c'I mi ned7 How many werc =:.: m-ned:

<<hosE>> liat wer 2 2 Iamined, what percen>> age 2>>! h>> b j Ed Ep, cessi ve pol uei ty7 What was done tu deterrriine whether ehi el di na arid out a'.ia dE

~ -'c-eflci 25 that niaht:iave 2:. i Bted ot 't Q

'lc t

Liel ~ er aUdi t.

Aisat wa duli G corre t.

~ Gr SUch dc

" Elic'5.

rt-iteri On

>>'J l,'>> ~

NSL riudit.=Lridxr.g lt.lu, item

0

t >,'~~

p

s. tc J

~ i

~i!

~ tgi

I',"'.Ig s

~'.

5 '.,= Si unl

~ 'af ice CT

' r't 0 '

v '1 au ': quent' v'iriu

'I

'e>-5 d'

. ioi-,havE temo T 1 ci"5 t1'B01,0n i 5 Lc te hc c - se h -.-'

= wel-d~ri.was;-.'Gund

.no Lo 'have a temp'.'t i ck;; Qne

~r Gv ~ ded.

i"hiat >>aS done LO CC Ler m1 rie Ltie Bxten L tO whi Ch

>>C hove "Bmcil SLicks pr.Gr L0 Niovember 1, /

?

Does the

-'0>> '

El-pa temperature ref irements to be met bv t."iE a

vesumpi on 0-. >>Bldina rel ave@. Un 31.the>>e14er "can uc I

>>Bld:"

The dra-.t, but riot the

.nal.

sLates thai "Temp

~ I 5L

'5ed bv >>el del 5'n the Va m

Qrity OT Case'5

~

'blha L Co 15 L 'uiCS c:

. VaSt, rsiaj Qv'?t Ahai >>aS dot ie 0 di t=l m'le whether ther=

was a tempil stick problem prior Noveriiber 1

ec Ch was s!

ds

~

Cod.

'ck rs Is st Criterion IX, INDUC Audit,Find'na 100.Item (Final p. 'B. DraTt The

d. aTt s ates that in 4..out GT '1B instances where amperaoes were not, within the welding procedure'spcilic'ot:Gn limit, Lhe welder.corvected his amperaoe seL ino.

The dr a".t s opoed iheve.

IhL

~ 'a adds SLatemenis 0" t.ie e. TEci that, dcT cts

~ e U

3 ho Qm 3 mpt opel afllpct aL:e

>>GU d be

. QU Id dLlt 'Li nspcc L Gn5 ~

i It-.

onall al sG odds o St aiemel I L tho

~ ofllpet aoe 3 5 Iioi on E'n La3 1 Vcir3 ab 1 C 5peC T ed by tive A++i ~

Code

~

~

Does it I 3 5 mean Lhiat

>>el ds produced with imp'rope.

-ripe. aces coul d Eti '

be '

compl1 ance wi Lh the code t LIlhat about impropev amper aL-BS Lhat m3 Qi it have been U ed pl 3, Gl G Novembel 1'77:;

Cr'er'n IX, NBC Aud t,

~L ~ )

F'dlnL",

f.lo ItBm (Final p ~

M t

~

~ ~

,',"j";!i

'sip s'

7 5 ates conc UdES the Yasi ma 'l Ql ity QT wel det

= Used weld'o procedure=-

and knew where to ob airi them.

Tho e

hat di d noi have them we. = tol d to Lfei theni.

'ose ii-Iat di d i.ot know were they cot ld be -.Qund>>erc ai ven "ari evplaraLi on cr the 1 ocati on Trom ~here thev ccul d be obta'ed.

Thi 5 -.'d nu was ba5Ed on wel der audi L5 cos ldUc i ed aT ter Noveiiiuel 1. 7v ~

w', iciL Beg'n V. s pcsition with reoard to those not members oT the

"{}gBest 'll'ia HAGI

'?

Nha L 3 5 P.BLi Qf i O'

posi t.3 Qn w'h t BLal d tG Lhe ovai '.abi1 ity GT pr ocedures and welders

'knowl edge o-.

wiiere procedures could be Obtained in the period prior to November 1f-.7:

4

~

+ av1 Gn P

. ~

I stl.s t (F nial p. =-,.

Dra.'-

~

'g"s i lsl C

-. GLInd Cosevel: 3 VC raV Lha I t.he 6e I-' 0 I i 3 ng3 Ca1 E 0::;u en an a 1 y" =- I-

'stt CCsnCI Ude'5 i.Iai d

o Ol Qb 1 CPi'i3 i+I by

~.BO3 Gl i cic 5 dGne to de LB. cii" ne

'= -.'dino

='nd c:: 1m3ned?

r C LIiT>C I i La ~ 3 0 I I war

"'Cr anCv 't>>een ncL ci>> I 'c ris ~ Vs rs

~ Iso tS, ut,

~

1 I

s c'I c Trs

~ IL 'sa T

> L r.a rsvp C',

~II

I Isss L

s

~

i.iv I ~III, I

-<< - >> ri 3 T '

ani "Jh at wc;5

~ lot avai 1 ab'1 e ol cnl

..~ One 0-.

Lhc

}

~

M ~

!-'SC concludep iha "Gven r pd temperature was noi moni iored bv was del

'stanccs whE't 2 rod oven temperaiU es wel 2 'wE'.

titian ihios vll I

E I ecu I Ep

~ I I IG i E'n thie dl aT i st cites A1 ih i h 5

mani l aud

.'dingc the rod even tempe. aiu.

E-mUs i have be I I Qo 1 ow muc 1 0-.'he iime. "

The NRC concl udes tl-Iat "The IlSC

-. 'dino that rod oven tempef attire was not monitored hv

~ he welders is not supoc,

=d hv ihe aU 1 i-i al ihoUoh 'ol aied instarlccs ov Gvelis bc'g be'il temperature were identi-.ied by the audits."

15 ii correct that 14 QUt QT 1S~ conati tUiBs isol aied instances

~

Illhat 5 ihE-NIRC posi+'ion vlith reoard io teITipe. ature control durino the period prior o the initial >>elders'udit..

Criterion IX, NSC audit Finding 1!Io, Item 7.

(.-inal p. "V. Dra~t

p. =5.

The NSC SI

\\

o hai

"!'lany we'der did noi undersi-nid theil du es

-nd resconsb lities."

R o'on 0 st-"es th-t "DW tl-e 'S i =udits f Bived, iive vlel der. audi is 'diGated l.hai the we 1 der Guest ipn did not understand tiheir'sic) duties and resoonsibilities."

The

. inal bUt not ihc d! a Fi, conta1ns a sentence Th2 NRC cons der 5 that the

. eaSOn heSB Welder al' is WErE'One WaS io identi-.y such

' nstances and provi de correct'e acti Gn ~

I I ie dr av t and v inal r Bpc. t state tha

":n each case the wclder I-as reinst!-ucted by the Cli"-I incpec i ~

auc,'

ino ihie welding.."

S '-~7 doe5 rlGt address the pr 2-!november '7: peri od pur i no whi ch audi ts were noi ccnducied.

Whai mieciianisn 2>:=:.Sted pri r to November 1%i~ to identify ituations whc. 2 welders did noi nderstand "heir duties and

. espcns bilities'7 Ahat 15

\\ he ba cr assurance

that, pr ior to November 1;r =..

wcl dErs understood ihei.

duties and responsibilit.'25..

Cr ter i on ',

NSC Audit Findino 5 6.

(Final p. "0-:-.1. DraT t

p. "6-.8. )

NSC T ound that thie in5pec is)n pl oces5 general 1 y 1n I 'd tab 1 2 Gn the ground that there were acceptance signitures iha+ d' nict perrfii i a deierminati on o~ whether the 'di vidual -'spectiof.

I"epuirelllcnt 5 "w2! E vLtl-. '

1 Bd Rco1 on

~'

iat Bd that

>>.ccepial ice

~l oce55 ski ets 'plliir 1 ed th2 pt GcedI 25 fl sar'o

~el ol par iicul ar irispect'n and hc he accpc

-nce 5 gni-.iures were SU T c 2nt documen I ai on QT ihE'se pl ocedLII EE i iavino, been vo 1 Owed.

The sinai repot t, bu nioi.

he d! a-i st -ies tIIa Gr ac

-'ce was 1n accol dance vll h 5 i ~ndat d '

dLIE'it v ~r act cc and in ompl i ance I i -h I.SM code I EOL i I emen 5..

W=I ihl 5' c

2 empt yed ai Giher pl anis under cons ructi ot;. dur rip thii 5 oer -'d D4 Il'.. ldev li a~.l ti -.e l

~ <'I I t,

~,llh'h lr I

1 l Iiower

~ 'All de 'k I t l a t I

~

wl ill~

~ ~t Iici w I

~ I l

I I I I ioc

'Ahai w-5

.">>u iman

.. resp nsei

>>>e ri a<<r api i

<<> a ~

pt

}'f a>>m>>at c

di scrcp cd

<<o C

.r, 't

~

I<<'r>4 have b as i taken.

L"

'<<> I>> ~

mCl <<<<} t 4I

<<hcse di sc QJ Ts

~> ~ <<<<

et eo by

<<h I icab' NF.'ov app t<<~<<Ji>

a

. <<>:lt=aU'.

! I

~

r I1 tt li 4!1x'

+ "l i-'

i

.riu: iaf )<la[ e d

'> - c, er~ anc'~

ancies i::!as t>>e. c a

~ eauircmer:<<

that

<<he't

=et PW i ~ 5 -. c, col iclUdinr 'that >: PPrc'cl ate col ~ Bc ve ac <<Qn i)}Gi.e i i ic l e. ercf1C to the nspecL<ha <<was tlie naL<<U <<;ssions -.'Q itritL<<en =-ummari =-=- o-. these di sc>uss~ Q nevi on '- posi 'n that -.Qf he entire period c ii c, audit, u ~ mian was 'n c'cnpI'ricr= t>> Lh C r equirements pertainini~ to hand> in'l Qcedure=. Cr'er i Qn ):IV,, NSC audi t Find'G po G7 OOo ) -1 1 ~ ~ iFina p ~ <<'<l 5 thiat valet"= SQ>Tie nc pe is the bas docu>Tieri i 5 documen' everal instances, thc NSC report de c'n <<as a t esUI c-. cha.ioes ~ in Larices Inspection .'-.eport niot ~ irid thie uocur>iel its to be is -.Qr the NRC inspec ors having c round bv NSC to be e-. i c-crit. ver ev.aiaiined by NSC.>> po 7CII ) at Es o ~ CIUd 2 u<fl on to docume. its tz n-, etc. ri hat th Hl C ot der. What ed that the L~ '1 <<-Ca <<G.<<>ie

~" ~ ) V ~l '~ 1 ~.J "J II old-4a-l cVL I/~5cg C0~~ ~> 4 1 II Il. H)mrs 4

5. E;sg L

b e<cuA. ~ z( gq l l I 4)

>'e 3: DIABPNAT.MSS 3/17/84, Rev. 3/18/84, 3/19/84, 3/20/84, 3/22/84 0 4 Generic Comments (GC-X) '.'. GC-1. A statement,'o ~ the following effect is made repeatedly."'-'-'- 'ith respect to the Region V method used to inquire into the NSC'".';=,- findings: "The inspector*s approach to resolving this issue was to assess. the validity of,'the NSC.finding and Pullman response,"'.-'-.>P'.-.". ,. and evaluate the NRC,.',findings for conformance with the'specified='"~'-.:,.""

,'.

.:.'." ~.,'

Pullman progr am."" (E.g. 83-37, Item 24. ) 'This implies that ther e is a documented Pullman response to.the NSC finding. CE.g. "The licensee conducted an avidi t of Pullman, during the period of ~...,.,~ '> gpss~~-"~ '.=",".~=,',Apri1,- 2 'throu'gh June 1" -"1978,".<in.'cres'ponse 'o the"NSC "audi> t '.and.'='jt~~i.

-..-=-'"'.<< -

.':".:::the. Pullman'.resp'onse.':.-..'See.":Draf t'3-37 p'"..37-

. This statement."-.=;~"+'1 j~+.i~~~:,~ "'does not-,appear,."in',.'the,'Final:,83-~7,.3 Where is the Pul lman ":-=';=" '=".-".$<+<<%~"

=~<"@~..+'

=-..; --: response? -- What intervi'ews 'were conducted with PGSE,

Pullman, and".""~~""i NSC past and present" personnel in, the course of preparing 83-37?s>4X-:-"

How were such interviews documented? Where is the documentation?.:--" '.'i GC-2 ""'nspection Repor t *83-37 re'fers to corrective actions taken"',:>~ in response to the NBC, audit. It is unclear in certain instances --r',,-. as to'whether the corrective actions were taken with respect to QA deficiencies that e>.'isted prior to the audit; e.g. to what . e>,'tent did the corrective actions involve activi ty to insure that.~~ '-.!-"'~".> " inadequate workmanship di d not escape detection as a consequence of the QA deficiencies that e>:isted prior to the NSC audit, ,. GC-3. Inspection Report, 83-37 contains several references.to the '90 day"welders' log..'oes the NRC have the log in its ."possession. If not, is it readily accessible? Where is it? .What ..".. deficiencies e>:ist in..this log vis-a-vis the ASME.code? - eyp ( )g~) Qgy~~g(gg~p'~yy(v jt'g q<z~ >+~~wf+w~g>~+~>~<( iH~~g~ vyP+i~~'+~X "j> V' ~ 'tat+ i~> "$~: ~b'~~ ~ '".'4" 's~ ~

~gggjg'; q..~j~-.'consistent" mean "in"compliance'- with'."P. - Is i't'"'the.NRC position >..~~+~

., ~;-'.-;;j-.';,', -"', GC-S.'"-..-':There is.'no'ndication of.Region V having sought the.views-.. .'of NSC e'xther,'to elabor ate'n the,1977 findings oi'to'commentan'.-.'.,'.P;, " '""the findings and conclusions of the Region V,,inquiry.. -.',.-:-)<<.. GC-6..--.Page 3 of'he"'draft states a sample of 25 stainless" sterol welds were sampled for delta ferrite and that 100 radiogr'aphs:,; were selected to verify field weld and inspection review adequacy. What is the basis for selecting these welds? "-Qn what dates were these welds produ<ed? ~ Did these welds repres'ent an <<g><.j.'-- - adequate statistical 'sample? ~ ~ Criterion I,'SC Audit Finding 3.,(Final p.3, Draft, o.2-5.'):'":~~'q ~ Did the fact,"of QA personnel writing and approving Engineering Speci f cations, performing welding engineering functions "",.and'"."..

approving welding engineering changes constitute a violation of Appendi >: 3 requirements'? \\ ~e~ Criterion II, NSC Audit Finding 4. <Final p.4-5, Draft', p.2-5. ): . Is it the NRC conclusion.that upper management. performed scheduled reviews 'of nonconformance

reports, personnel qualifications, 'and corrective action as required by NRC regulations for the time periods addressed by the NSC audit7 Notc'.--'.'..'

handwritten'otation in draft report: "In conclusion, factual 'a"::.//+F='.-':..-'~rds do not suppor t the NSC finding. '. = eThe corresponding .; -,;,~'+p

.,~i'.~,""+-.:.":.:,:..';;statementin the final report is:."The inspector" con'eludes the'.'".'+~~d-66 s

~ =j~-.<u~."..p,';:-';.~"'historical ~ records of.coporate management audits do provide '".l g<ij;.=-g<~-'=.

.,Z~Wj<<,:,;-'.> ', evidence that. revi ews'f nonconformance reprots "personnel

.'";jr-';-.~)~~1~~" = "~i '-";,qualifications and corrective actions were performed." Not comment in final report: "In addition, Pullman Power Products'has,P:P since proved programmatic improvements, " etc. What was the ".program prior'to-the improvements? 'hat was it after the improvements were instituted7 .'- '.:t::,.- "';-'::,-:'".'.";.: '-.'".:.".";"~'i::". Criterion V, NSC Audit Finding 1. (Final p. 5, Draft, "- p.'39-40. ): ~ ~ ~ )a NSC stated : "There ' no requi rement th at, act ivities affecting 'ual ity shal 1 be prescribed by documented instruct ions, procedure es, and drawings." Region V states, apparently in reference to fabrication of piping assemblies and erection of pipe in the plant,. that KFP-8 established appropriate instructions and procedures. 'egion V seems'to imply that KFPS-7 established procedures for,pipe supports.. KFPS-7, however,,. was .'=~.;",p;';:P':;"".,.';not issued until December".197~.

,.'Were the GA procedures for,.';:;;".:,;i.'"~~;";~

...-'.,~~i.,::.='.'..',~,',,',installation.of.'.'pipe" procedures prescrebided by.'documented;.~-"..:.'-."'.";"$~o,".," .--~%~V/-:;.""='~'.~instruct ion,""'pr'oc'edures "etc."'.pr'ior 'to "December "197$gc '.,:;Noroever "-'-4<P'4~ -:: +-.'j!-":;.",-':,'the 'draft states 'that EDD-e64, dati d e/iD/78,'ji avoided a speeiii cga%'t "..'i:-> -.=~~~d-.;.-~'...',;,'- pr ocedure.<'to.,implement'precisely,'"the,. QA "program el einents .'of >~'~'~~+ -~ 9:":.>~~ '-"-,'-,'.'-,~,~'KFP-.8 sind KFPS-.7.".'-.'~+The "latter "stateament; does riot appear,-"in-the ,; ':;i-+P,. -"~; ~"'"-..'gfi'naleport.'P<ln "tthat /thea 'tspecif ic 'procedures for implementing...:..= ".-.':~";~<.=. ~9g:;-i"r-:~,::.:-"preci sely the QA program~elements 'of KFP-8 and KFPS-7". were"..-"'~~ 6 ~ 'apparently not '-.promulgated until only September 15,,1978, w*hat -'..""PP'~~/'.::") "".'.":." i"'"='; is the basis for assurance".that. KFP-8 and KFPS-7 were 'adequately 'gr~+~,"" "".j'.~a,"D~!':,, . implemented pri;Or ';-tO" September--1'978.': ":.-.""""'-':"'-'"' ""'='>"'-'~~'-'<"'.""'->>.~ Criterion V, NSC Audit Finding 2. (Final P. 5-6, Draft, -p ~ 40-41): ',<,.-", .;:..~ NSC states that hanger,packa~y review was not described, in ":;i:=.-"-::-~a~',~~)7i<<-':;:s 'rocedures. Region V states that hanger package r eview was'..':;.-".t'~".-:.::-,';~.";,. described in KFPS-2,dated December 3s 197~ and that supplementary "..',+.";.-..'zp4.':,.,:. requirements were incorporated into ESD-254 dated December'.0; 1977. What was the basis for reviews conducted prior toDecember,.;".;46~'.<<.~ 3, 1973. The draft, but not the. final report, states.that.....,:-..'.;,;. 'j -'-.-":.=="-="'* ESD-257 provided additional detailed information concerning hanger drawing controls. What is the date of ESD 25~~, Zs eI ', '.~' a" ' ~ . / ~ ~ ~ 's' ~ < ~ %

n," ~1 ~ew 1% i L i NRC's position that hanger package review was described in a 'anner that complied with the Appendi:< B requirements for all ~ periods covered by the NSC audit> ~ =\\ 'SC states that other acti vities not described in procedures included preheating for welding, use af Note-O-Grams, use Rejectio Nati ces, and maintenance of Fi el d Qual ity Inspector Dai 1 y Logs.- Cs it',the NRC-s pn5itinn'-that all-such: activities-were described:=': in-procedures in" a manner that complied with the 'Appendi~ B -. requiremetns for al} periods covered by the NSC audit'? 4 ~ ' ~ ~ .':-'.-,";=-'"-':.".'-;:."'.'riterion V,"-'NSC Audit Finding'3; (Final'"p.: 6-8, "Draft,'p.41-42):. ' .- ~:,;";....-,, ';.-..'",<<q-'r, NSC. faund,that: isom'etr ic',package. revi ew was nat suffici.entl y'.""..;=='"=,+ -. '.;..;'~.'-.-'..-.'.-'-:-~-'escribed. >'~ The draft-af 83-37 -states that "Field procedure'SD-254 (i ssued 5/6/75) appears to provide an adequate outl ine guide for.review of isometric drawing packages." --The final '.": report"-'adds that 'Nay 6, 1975 was the earliest date'hat cauld be -found for ESD-254 and that"while most piping installatians had been completed prior to Nay 19?5, the inspector found that the final complete document r eview of isametric drawing packages were. performed after 'ESD-254 was-in effect. ~.

• \\

~ w Nate that draft states that post heat treatment requirements are prescribed in ESD-218. "" The draft daes not indicate that ESD-218 ';"'.: was issued in October 1977. The f'inal r'epart states'hat post weld heat treatment requirements "were always prescribed'.by weld..:,;i ...procedure 'peci ficati ons. " . The final report does not refer to

-, 'pecif ic procedures in effect prior to ESD-218.

- Nhat is the '.; -',, ';. basis f'r.the conclusion,that, post weld heat treaitment.---..-.'...~'~>>::;=';~@'.-'-.';:,, .":, =',.'-.-".~;:.'-".:-'requirements were.,in, campli ance with Appendi >c B prior to x ssuance .*-';<-'"'~.'~='- of,ESD-218-'in"-October.,'1977?w.~-"h=.i-"r~~-.>= ~~~~";~.~~~~~'~'~<~ xn e mme erma encom asse -",-;;=-'" -...'.-.:"."'"; by'.the NSC"audit;:~ non-conformance'eporting "requiremen't's c:omplied ".'"=w'ith:.,the requ1rements-of -;Appendi::,.-8?.y~~~-;~+~.:~<z~~+f ~~=~~+-.:.='~~ "~..g~.-";:.~:-'=::8~-~7 states'hat the ';.'interna}:audit program, implemented"=; ~=.';.-.'=-'~". =.

="by on-site personnel,-:<prior to 1978) wa's determin'ed ta',be'"af

,:.>=--'=,"'< .- "'marginal 'quality,'= a redundant program of comprehensive, 'qua'lity.,,"~~~~p:": was perfarmed cancurrrently.," 'The redundant pragram appea'rs to"-.',",';":-.>" have been one "directed and condcuted by carporate'anagement personnel-". Did the redundant program find the that the internal".'::.:-.~ audit. program, implemented by on-site personnel ta be af "marginal quality?" -. Did the,corporate audits encompass involve ""..-"".-:. r eview of weld and welder qu(Q ity, and Q.A. programs applied 'to'=..-.=.'.":=.- "" me} d and wel der qual ity? Qn what dates were the corporate audi ts canducted and what were,their findings? g~f i

• pÃ4 ACti I ]

~ Regions u.concluded that'~'- notwithsanding the deficiencies:.in -:the internal audit program and the*failure af the corporate audit program to discover these deficiencies in a timely manner-(e-g-;=.'.=.=;:~" they appear nu'c to have been corrected until 1978) 8 -~?. '-'-'-'- =.~-!'~. ~.... i Ref

~ Il.i.i ':Slill concludes that "no major breakdown of the Quality Assurance program had occurred, nor had any signficiant problems gone undetected, due to deficiencies identified with the internal I~ i] - auditing program. " Is it the NRC position that the NSC f'indings . do not indicate that "significant problems Chad3 gone undetected";- .= until 1974 and, to a lesser

extent, between 1974 and 1977'PI' i

l \\','r 1 terio>>n 'VI, NSC Audit Finding 9a. (Final p. $-9, Draft, p." 54-55): ' P">> ~ I ~ ~0 NSC stated that a Process Sheet for Isometrir 2-14-77 was changed',."".: appro>;imately 19 months after the work was done. Region V states";i ",-.;..:.. >:.-" ".'that the 'process

sheet, (which Region V states should should have'.;;'":'i,

=,,",-';p-',.: ~'.>'-."'-~'",)>been in reference to "2-14-.47)..'that.I "no evidence could be "found to

.-,.;<<i":.;; 'QXndi cate" that there 'had 'been an 'attempt to alter '.the dates 'or I-"-'<<'i ~ ""= *'-: ~.--" ':-',' signatures on either, or both these'ocuments." .,Does NRC believe,.:,'.>;-.;- the NSC finding to have been in errors How does NSC e.".plain'the apparent discrepancy'etween its findings and those of the NRCr,.,i ~,~'-'-'--! How does Region V know that. the sheets it e~amined were in fact the same sheets ev.amined by NSC7 I 'I I I I Criterion VI, NSC Audit Finding 9b. (Final p. 9-11. Draft, p.61-64>: NSC concluded that FW-167K was performed without normal controls. Region V stated in the draft, that, "although it was 'not the usual practice" the we)d was carried out in accordance with the then e:;isting design change control system. Is, it.,the NRC position that ~ this departure from the usual practice did not.,i'i';;-". -viola"e the NRC's QA requirements7 What ' NSC"s response to the .NRC finding'P ,.-.,'.;-'-.;:...,.:,'-.':,,, ..'.Criter ion VI, NSC Audit,Finding

10. '<Final -'p. 1~-,15, 'Draft "'p.'38-~9):,'i

'-.<',;",.-.~i."-.=,";.'.;:-NSC;found 'that no proc'edure or" requirement. prohibits changing *or.-;~~~~<-.' ...; -':-:;;.'":~"-';~ii> -,-'.-:.~alteration'of records and.'documetns ne'cessary',to track wor k.'-'->>'"-"-",, '- ~.-',~.,'<,:, ~;~',<<':;.'egi on .V,Ptated:that.,pri or,':to';1977 .'.;insufficient.-.requir ements '--'"-'-~'

. ;,=-.~; '.

~~~ ~)-<,""e>;isted tc'i 'cbntrol the changing ',oi, alt'eration of 'quality.i ecords."'-".

@~'.,:,,':,'; -and documents. ".Region V also'.'concluded in the final report;that. ~~ith~r NSC~ nor NRC nor "Pullman audits had ".identified any ',-," 'unapproved techni cal changes, or. other substanti ve'hanges",l'shich '~>.~j--"~,'~@, " ";-'would have'adveisely affected construction quality. " 'hat 'was," "..".:".;..l.-" r'."'- done to reach this conclusion'P Note that the conclusion as stated in the draft was less fir m; it said: "Pullman's corrective",...~':.",",'= action is complete and appears to be effective. Previous inadequacy of management policy or written instructions in. this area is not considered to hai!e resulted in any adverse impact on'uality related activities." I -i~'." I Criterion

VIII, NSC Audit Finding 12.

<Final p. 14-15. Draft

p. 59>

~ NSC stated that, ESD-22~ did not give adequate instructions for'.:.'=.i,'"-'- the identification'nd control of Class I, pipe supports....Region'..:...=.-:. ( 'I

P 1 tr r r= rl a ,) >I r Pr1 r V reviewed ESD-223 and stated that'pecific revisions were dated ~ "'-;."" November 11, 1975 and Nay 25, 1976. Region V stated that the procedure revisions contained adquate QA/QC instructions for,the control and identification of Class I pipe supports. Is it. the NRC position that the instructions were adequate prior to the 1975 and 1976 revisions? . Nhat is'he basis for confidence in 'he adequacy of instructions prior to the "19?5 and 1976 revisions -"..'i:.';.; ~ ~ ~ Criterion IX,'SC 'Audit Finding 10b. (Final p. 17-18, Draft ~ ='><~",=,'; -. NSC found that,.fram August..1972 through December;i972 a ninety ..:~--~.';,='"-:;-":c;.day'el ders'*.Log'as.not"maintained:nor 'di d a Meekly'. Qual ified -'-'p~~":'>>. i ->-y~g",.r~'~"." Nelders.;-'Last exist'~for.that.time.'.-.:Region'V agreed there was'no:::=:;;=;

-:.':-"."':<~'.'"~".-'.-'-' weekly log but=-that -a"'90- day log "did"exist

. Did"Region V seek to

. -;"'.."",-',... '-.=determine the reason:"for'the discrepant findings.-:.'-,

~ ~1 - '" ".:.'- Cr iterion IX,. NSC Audit Finding 10c.. (Final p. 18-19, Draft W ~.hA 1 NSC found that the Ninety Day Nelders" Log was not sufficiently detailed to determine" if the welder was qualfiied to perform c'ertain procedures.'he draft stated that the "90 day qualified 'welders'og was sufficiently detailed to determine whether a welder was quali fied to perf orm certain procedures." The draft did not state that the 90 day welders'og complied with applicable code requir ements. 'The final report, states,'.; ~ depending" upon.,the manner, in, which a sentence is interpreted, either that the log complied with the code or, alternatively,

- ",that the welder.complied with the code requirements.

. Is it.the.~- '::-'.";~-'-',-<i',".--;:-NRC position. that..-'for the period.c1overed by the NSC audit.that "-,;:--"-:-".'~<.'.=-'.the:90 day'.welders'-<log was.in.compliance, with code requirements>-.-'~-. o e'"a so.that',Reg~orn .v.:.'based its conclusion in'",part upo =::~~,~ ".'r2-,--': discussions..wit/ the:,.f ormer;.'.Authori-ed. Inspector.'.;;'=Does 'a'."rec r d -.'~~".

,.'of..these,'.di scussi ons, equi st'2 j~What;was.;the;substance of

shuch,

,

; Cr i alerion "IX,.-NSC:Audit Finding 10d. "(Final p'9-20, 'raft'!"'=.:.-'".'::"l+

~.'.'SC states that no procedure stated what the Field Quality...'---';*.::.-';. Assurance Inspector"was to use as the primary means.to determine welder qualification. Region V appears to agree that.a pr'oc dure ..'id not e":ist but,that weld filler metal withdrawal sheets and welder qualification recor ds,vere used to determine welder----...-.'.:~.:;!. '- qualification and that thi method satisfied code requirements7 ',"'-=";.'-',.-.. Is it the NRC staff,, position that, the absence of a specific '-.'."...-"-'"..". pr ocedure notwithstanding, the method used by inspectors to'scertain welder..qual.ifications complied with code requir em'ants'?;~:;. 1 ~ ~ ~ J Cri ter.';on XbSC.Audi t. Fi nd'g 10h, 10i.. (Final p.22-23 Draf t-;=-;~~.-". -:-- rr ~ \\ h

h noncompliance with this procedure requirement for 12 manths" was based on the assumption that stainless steel welding did not begin until early 197~ ~ If it is true that on-site stainless steel ":: welding did not begin until 1973, what is the r elevance of the lamination of the 25 welds since the NSC finding applied to the '.i....". pre 1973 period? Is ther e a documented.basis, far the. statement "Based an,'.:.-",.'.-$.'-'.,,:.'; - discussians with PGi~<E personnel it appears that stainless steel;,"'~":.=.;". Welding an site began in"early 197 ?" 'P ,"."":.,"-'";""'....::;.;-'... Criterion'X, NSC Audit. 'Finding'10k. "(Final p.24-25'raft,,;"""-;~;::-':-'~ '...-:-'.The NSC"finding'-that--"Hangers are not'welded in accordance with ...'",.'.';'~ Pacific Gas...Z~'lelectric Company requirements" was not confirmed.'-.";";,'id NSC err in "abser ving that hangers were welded to structural '"'teel on the wrong side of the 'bracket'? What was Pullman's response to the NSC finding? Would NSC agree that an error'of this kind would be made in the audit? Was an effort made ta determine whether the hangers might have been modified fallowing the audit'? 1 Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10n. (Final p.26-27, Draft

p. 20-21. )

t NSC found'that there was no procedure for preheating weld joint The draft report. (p.21) states that a series of weld procedure specif ications was e>:amined and,that, each contained "an.,adequate,,:: "'def inition - of preheat, postwel d.'heat-treatment. and interpass

,...,

~:

';,:.-;;.-- temperatures.." .:The. draft al so states 'that:;"ESD->18.(Postwel d;".-"'~i'-'-><'",'"'. -""-= -: -':".'- - ";;Heat. and Pr cheat Treatment Procedure) . Ass. revised 12/30/?7.,to,~

.'.,'-<!.',~""-'".-':~rescri'be'"prehea't'". i"dquiremenrts" a'nd..indicate preh'eat.<<'--"i =..'.-":-."; -:; ".-"~~",.-~:~~

.-'. applicabi lity.'!',An-adjacent.,handwritte'n:"comment': (p.21),'asks,.".Ha '..--.about.: b/f'6 '/ZO/77?,.,;-.Daes-:thi s mrean that., the procedures.'w'ere.ar'3~+4'g ."..:; '2 i--':"'.'. '"'.rwere"nat "adequate prior 'to "12/ 0/77? . The final report.;(p. 7) ~ contains an additional statement'tro'he '>.'-.=:,.::, effect that prior to early 1978, compliance with the preheat requirement..was dependent upon the welder',knawldege-etc...Did the procedure described in the second paragraph on p. 27 comply with Appendiy. B? What was'the basis far the added language? Was there discussion with Pullman or PGGE an this paint beyond that. which occurred during the inspection that ended on December 9, 198K? ~ r ~ ~ The penultimate paragraph on. this item states "while;no sepaat and specific precedure far preheating of weld joints e-ist d priar to December., ZO, ~;1977, preheating requirements-were '": "~~"4'r'p'=",," adequately prescribed by the welding procedure specifications and.~ documented by signature an the welding black of the process .':r f4,'- sheet,. which spec'fie+ the applicable welding pracedure. ".. Was h ~ J r.d ~" r ~.

this in compliance with Appendix 8'? ,4 Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10o. (Final p.27-ZO. Draft p.21-26.) NSC stated that the initial results of welding auditing (from November 5, 197~ to February 1974) indicated the existence of 7 problems which, if they did exist, raised question about weld quality. NSC concluded on the basis of a 'review of these-audits that "..there is no confidence that welding done prior to 1974 was performed in accordance with welding specification .-:.';~;,~g'>..:,>.-.'-'.~ The NRC inspector said he had "critically examined the records of,-..'~,.-"-',-: welder audits performed between November 1, 197~ and April 1 1974." On the'basis of an examination of 187 audit. records from this period, the NRC inspector concluded that the "aggregate of problem areas is not so pervasive such that support, can be given to the NSC conclusion" that there is 'no confidence that pre-1974 welding had been performed in accord with requirements. '..gal C4 /j \\r) ,p j ,a r 8~-Z7 states that "It is important to recogni"e that none of these were NSC fi'ndings, but were instead findings of the Pullman welder audit program, which was designed to detect prorgram weaknesses and provide prompt corrective action during the ear ly phases of site welding activity." The problem is that the welder -:-';:." audits referred to by the Region V inspector (which were found by.'..:.;;., Region V under 10h and 1Oi above to be beyond what was required by the cade) were not initiated until November 1977. In

addition, the NSC audit states that its findings were based on a =,,".rj>.

.. review of Pullman's audits conducted in the period "from November..-'- ..5, 1)73 to February,.1974).',i Therefore, how could the audit ';=.-'-";!~~>~-i-'.~'-~-"?='-;

• ",'."'."program~ upon 'which 'egi on V.rel ies ",detect wel ding pr'ogram

'-',=-: j;-'. '"";".'"~;weaknesses and provide p'r ompt corrective" action 'during earl '-':~+'-.~X~>P:!=4 = ='=i~~;-.-'-. -'"-'-'-phases of site welding". if the audit program was not.initiated ',."".~~~is.'.- .In sum@he NSC finding, based on 'findings obtained from 'a'review "~." of audits conducted after November 1,

1973, was that.

"... there is no confidence that welding done prior to early 1974 was done in accordance with welding specifications." Region V, on the other hand based on a review of audit reports prepared during essentially the same period as the reports reviewed by NSC Land ignoring the above noted finding (final, p. 2~) that "the required welder audits were performed beginning November 1 197~"3 concludes "no suppoi;t can be given the Labove quoted'SC conclusion." Region V does not deal with neither (A) the fact of there having been no welder audits pr ior to November 1973 nor (8) the question of whether the types of deficiency discovered in the initial audits existed in prior years. CAt the March 19 Commission meeting, statements were apparently

c "-..':

made to the effect that audits other than=tho e tI aw pul su 1st o ~ Y

. ~ I i I I S I i the ESD-219 program were conducted prior to November 197:. If so, were the findings of such audits discussed in 8~-Z7? Where? Why were these findings, rather than those in the post November 1977 period, used to refute the NSC findings? 3 I Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10o, Item 1. (Final p-28. Draft P s Da) ~ r a I'9

• 1 The draftwithout citing documents, appears to rely on Ne gas flow being "near the 20 cfm requirement" far its conclusion that defective welds might have resulted from inadequate shielding and

. =:.. purging. "The draft states-that excessively how flow rates would .."=,: have 'been manifest in unacceptable porosity which wauld have been ".:-.-.. -"-.'. detected by NDE the draft does not indicate the extent to which unacceptable porosity-was found. The final dies not state that the flow was near the 20 cfm requirment; it does state that "The vast majority af safety related stainless steel welds were radiographically examined and the film was reviewed and accepted by a qualified interpreter for code campliance." How many welds were nat radiographically examined? How many were examined? Of those that were examined, what percentage exhibited excessive porosity: What was dane to determine whether shielding and purging deficiencies that might have existed prior to the first welder audit? What was dane to correct for such deficiencies? i ~ ~ pl I. Ig4 i 1 14 Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10o, Item 2. (Final p.28.'raft

p. 23-24. )

i ~ ~mI >- ~ What is the significance af 14 aut of 18~ audits identifying that.":- welders did not have tempil sticks? "Region V states that in each .-."'"'=case that a"welder was found not to have a-tempil,stick, 'one was ":.=-'.!..: .- provided.;:"What 'was'done to determine th'- extent ta iwhich welders

.= di.d'ot=have tempil 'sticks pr i,ar 'to November 197'?

< Does the cade "'4:,-:- ~ ' ".allow interpass,temperature requirements ta be met 'by the a'::"'g+".= iesumptionI of. welding del ayed until the 'welder "can touch...the weld?" 'The draft,'ut. not the finalstates that."Tempil sticks', -~~>.;.: were used by welders 'in the'vast majarity of cases." 'What =.-'-': constitutes a "vast majority?" What was done to determine whether there was a tempil stick problem prior to November 197>? Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10o, Item Z. (Final p.28. Draft ~ p.24- ) ~P The draft states that in 4 atilt of 18~ instances where amperages ',-".'ere not within the welding procedure spcification limit, the welder corrected his amperage setting. The draft stopped there. The final adds statements to the effect that, defects resulting from improper amperages would be found during inspections.'he final alsu adds a statement that "..amperage is not. an essentail variable specified by the ASthE code.." Does this mean that a ~ ."~ . ~ ~ weld produced with imprap~.r ampcrag s could still be in ~ ~ I ~

~ 4 I'43$ ,k 4 +k'ampl i ance with the cade? Nhat abaut improper amper ages that might have been used prior ta November }97 ? Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10u, Item 4. (Final p. 28-29. Draft

p. 24. )

l

• e k

BZ-37 states cancludes the "vast majarity" af welder s used welding procedures and knew where to obtain them. Those that did not have them were tald to get them. Those that did not 'know were they coul d be found were given "an e::planation of the location frum where they could be obtained. " This finding wa

, based an welder audi ts conducted after November

}977. Nhat is..'-~:y:... "Region V*s position with regard to those nat members af the

• ",'.->~;".'~'.

'-'-':.;-'"-','great majority.", Nhat is Regian V's position with regard to thi availability af procedures and welders" knowledge af where procedures could be obtained in the period prior to November }973? Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10o, Item 5. (Final p.29. Draft p.24.) li C j..klk,g \\ kkk 1', - NSC found that the o>:ygen analy".er was not available ar not, aper ative. Region V cuncludes that only ane af the }8> audits reviewed "indicated a problem with the o>:ygen analy"er." Nhat was dane by Region V tu determine the basis far the significant discrpancy between its finding and those af NSC? Nhat documentation was examined? ~ k Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10u, Item 6. <Final p.29. Draft r " NSC concluded that "Oven rad temperature was nat monitoredby th

"~'="welders."

. B~-37 states that }4 af'BZ audits identified;-.-'-"" -- '~,-.~; instances where rad oven temperatures were lower than thase which=>>'~~~~~', .-'. '-.',.;. -"'.-;.,,"., were r'equired. ' note on the draft states: "Nith this many aud t-'"-'~'";, findings the rod oven temperature must have been toa low much uf.+ "-"~;",'- he time;" The NRC concludes that "The NSC finding that rod oven temperature was not monitored by the welders is. nat supported by;-.'=~...' the audits, although isolated instances of ovens being belaw temperature were identified by the audits." Is it correct that 14 aut af }8~ constitutes "isolated instances?" Nhat is the NRC position with regard to temperature control during'the period prior ta the initial welders'udit'? 1 k , ~ '1 Criterion IX, NSC Audit Finding 10a, Item 7. <Final p-29. Draft p.25.) k The NSC stated that'Many welders did not understand their duties and respansibilities." Region V states that "Of the }83 audits reived, five welder audits indicated that the welder in question -..~ did not understand their (sic) duti es an~ re-:.pcnsibilxties." The,="--,-'='

h V '1 V \\ V V = V ~ ~ ggl 'gP(Pi( iv 0;$ij'I) final, but. not the dr aft, contains a sentence: "The NRC considers that the reason these welder audits were done was to identify such instances and provide corrective action." The draft and final report state that "In each case the welder was reinstructed by the QA inspector auditing the welding.." 8Z-37 does not address the pre-November 1973 period during which audits ~ were not conducted. What mechanism e>:isted prior to November 1973 to identify situati.ons where welders did not understand their duties and r esponsibilities? Nhat is the basis for assurance that, prior to November

1973, welders understood their'-

duties and responsibilities?

-~+~;::.:- ",.'. Criterio'n 'X,NSC Audit,Finding 5,h. '.(Final p.ZO.-.,Z1. Draft:":

~ ~ . NSC found that the.inspection process is generall.y inauditable on '- 'he ground that there were acceptance signitures that did,not permit a determination of whether the individual inspection , requirements were fulfilled. Region V stated that acceptance process sheets identified the procedures necessary to perform a particular inspection and the the accpetance signatures were sufficient documentation of these procedures having been fol lowed. The final report, but not the draft, states that this practice was "in accordance with standard industry practice, and in compliance with ASME code requirements.-." Nas this practice employed at other plants under construction during this period? Did NSC consider this practice in compliance with the ASME code? What was Pullman's response? I ~ V Criter ion X, NSC Audit Finding 7. "(Final p.31. Draft p.28-29. ) ;".'NBC found that a."large number of.welds,'.*... were.accepted for~;:;-".,' "',- 'vi'seal;-e>aminati'on 'nd thereaf ter'ccpeted .on surf ace NDE:;-:- - " "=-"=-~'~-" v ~ V,", ~.'.-.',z.-'-'-.", v",.'.-..'inspection.-:;.;--'Visual.e>:amination of..those welds.indicates that -'~~'.">"

, the surf ace..is"'not.ac:ceptable for.. performance of.'..,sue face. NDE -..-=<<..""-"; '~

~-.'. -'-~"- -'" .". inspection. '..-.'3he 'final. report., but not the draft "'states.':-".The- .-'-'~.":~".".= inspector 'concludes

thatthe, NBC.finding (that. the surface of the welds was not acceptable for surface NDE inspection) was in..

error." What is the basis for these contradictory conclusions? .::.',:".'id NSC and NRC inspect the same surfaces? What evidence e~ists..'.: to demonstrate that remedial work was not carried out in the time -.;.'etween the NSC and NRC inspections? Criterion X, NSC Audit Findirxg 9. (Final p.~1-32. Draft p.28-29. )'": .V. ~t The NRC disagreed with the NSC implied finding that inking "Ri" onto a radiograph was not permitted by the code. NRC also 'isagreed with NSC 'that FN-83 cont ained a surf ace def ect, "that, is Questionable for acceptance under visual standar ds." Does'NSC agree with NRC's findings?

~ ) Criterion X, NSC Audit Finding 10a. (Final p.32-3~. Draft p.2S-29. ) II NSC found that "Records of welder qualification prior to 1972 are not available."

Thus, the inspector was not able to verify the validity of the Pullman response to the NSC audit finding."

Region V found that 20 welders were qualified prior to 1972. Region V also found that the 90 day qualified welders log was started "at the beginning of 1972-" The draft r eport, but not the final, states: "The inspector was not able to determihe when the first production welding was performed or on what system the first wel d was accompli shed. " The final report, but not the draft states: "The inspector concludes that records of welder ~ ! qualification prior to 1972 were available and in acceptable;,;;.'~ i7.".>'. Does Region V now know when the first production welding was performed and on what system? In light of NRC having found records for 20 welder s, has NSC been asked why they found that records were not available'? Does Region V believe that, the welder qualification records for this period are are complete'? How many active welder= are shown on the initial 90 day qua)ified welders log? Is this log consistent with Region V' findings r'egarding the 20 -welders? Crite. ion XIII, NSC Audit, Finding 5. (Final p.~5-ZB. Draft p.Z1-37.) ~'"g'" l Criterion XIV, NSC Audit Finding

p. 59-60.):

Note that )ast paragraph on Draft, p. 37 was dropped. The dropped paragraph mentions a PG8<E auit of Pullman which identified programmatic and hardware discrepancies'? What is the nature of ., these discrepancies'? Was there a requirement that they be ""..reported to the NRC'? Were they r'eported to the NRC'? . Does Region .'...~..'-",".,V, have a basis for concluding that rappropriate corrective, actions'.-', '- -,...:were taken." Note the r eference 'to the inspector having discussed ';->~this matter with Pullman and PGSE personnel. What was the 'nature

,""of these discussions'?

Do-written summaries of these discussions egist~ Is 'it Region V's position that for the entire period covered by the NSC audit, Pullman was in compliance with .,'"~i=:-;". ~ applicable NRC requirements pertaining to handling procedures? ~ 'I (Final p. 38-Z9. Draft NSC stated that the Field Process Sheet was inadequate 'Region *V reached a contrary conclusion. What is the basis for the discrepant findings'? Is it the NRC staff position that the Field,.. Process Sheet adequately controlled and specified required work activities'? Criterion XV. NSC Audit Report,

p. 36:

v f t. If f r I I, l P~> 'fmf"fg N a u h ff NSC found, among other things, that "Systems that circumvent the nonconformance system have been established." This finding was not addressed in 8i-37. lJhat is the NRC's response o is ~ % finding? Criterion XVI, NSC Audit Finding 2. (Final p.Z9. Draft 60-ai.): NSC stated that it appeared that a corrective action y not been operative.'egion V cited. e>:amples where corrective h d been taken in response to audits. Was N 's J '., ~:i ~. ac I.lons a d to Bncom ass e to a corrective actions system intended to p reference o mance re orts? Are trate that the s cited by F Bgion V sufficient to demons s stem? "-.; Pullman,did have an opet atlvB col I Bc'tive ac ion 'I I ~ I I... f D ft 45 Criterion. XVEII, NSC Audit Finding Z. (Final p. Z9-40, Draft p.45 '=,'r- -46. >: NSC t t that management. audits were ineffectual. Region V 5 a es were stated that "there is no basis to suggest these audits ineffectual." Nhy did NSC and Region V reach such disparate.. e'".'",",.;.- conclusions? ~ f ~ 'I~ ~ ~f ~ I 'I P f.fjf4~,p'). ,I I' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~, f I f f I I

• NIJ I

I I f ..l~

v}}