ML19253D006
| ML19253D006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Kirsch D, Shackleton O NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253D004 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-79-09, 50-508-79-9, NUDOCS 7912120505 | |
| Download: ML19253D006 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000508/1979007
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFoRCEMEhT
REGION V
Report No.
-
! ~
50-508
CPPR-154
Docket No.
tie,ns, no,
safeguards croup
Washington Public Power Supply System
Licensee:
P. O. Box 468
Richland, Washington 99352
Facility Name:
WilP-3
Wi!P-3 and Wi!P-5 Site (Satsop)
Inves,tigation at:
.
ober M , y
Investigation conduct
ad
.h
)
g._ f gn pf/
Inspectors:
D. F.
irschpeactorInspector
Date signed
/> AU
/A-j9 4 9
0. C. Shahkleton, Investigator
Date Signed
Date Signed
Approved By:
-/
/8 - 27 - 7f
Date signed
'
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Support Section,
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
sumary:
Investigation during period of October 3-11, 1979 (Report tio. 50-508/79-09)
Areas Investigated: An unannounced investigation was conducted of the
allegation that a radiograph purported to be of a repaired weld was
taken of a different weld than the original, before repair, radiograph
depicted. The alleger was interviewed and supplied a signed statement.
The investigation involved 9 nan-hours by one flRC inspector and one
f1RC investigator.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Form 719 (7)
So 6
7912120
1541
131
DETAILS
1.
Individuals Contacted
a.
Washington Public Power Supplv System (WPPSS)
J. C. Lockhart, QA Manager
R. M. Simons, Senior Project Quality Engineer
b.
Ebasco Services, Inc.
A. M. Cutrona, Deputy QA tianager
W. J. Lear, Level III NDE Examiner
~
c.
-
J. W. Cain, Project Welding and QA Superintendent
d.
Other Personnel
S. D. Bos, Sr., Alleger
2.
Background
On September 28, 1979, Region 5 was notified by IE:HQ that an allegation
had been received by the Headquarters staff. The allegation implied that
radiographs of Unit 3 containment vessel seam T20c, increment 11-12,
before and after repair, were not taken of the same weld area. A
regional inspector was dispatched to the site on October 3,1979, in
response to IE:HQ request, with instructions to review licensee audit
report 79-116 and seal the radiographs in question.
During a routine inspection at the WilP 3/5 site on August 27-30, 1979
the licensee notified the inspector that they had received allegations
to the effect that the radiograph after repair, taken of Unit 3 con-
tainment vessel weld seam T20c, increment 11-12, did not depict the
same weld as that of the original radiograph of Seam T20c, increment
11-12, which showed a slag inclusion.
The licensee investigated the allegation and determined that the radio-
graphs of Seam T20c, increment 11-12, both before and after repair,
depicted the same weld area.
The results of the NRC inspector's examination of that allegation
during that inspection is documented in IE Inspection Report flo.
50-508/79-07, paragraph 7.
154\\ $
.
-2-
3.
flRC Investication and Action
The allegation was not substantiated during this or the previous
examination.
The fiRC inspector examined the following documentation, radiographic
film and weld:
-
a.
CBI drawing R12, Rev. I showing weld seam T20c and documenting welder
traceability,
b.
CBI Record Drawing Table R12, sheet 31, documenting CBI welding
activities on Seam T20c.
.
c.
CBI Record Drawing Table R12, sheet 31A, documenting CBI repair
-
welding activities on seam T20c.
d.
CBI Report of Radiography (for seam T20c, increments 11-12 (before repair
radiograph) and 11-12 R1 after repair radiograph).
License QA audit rep (which was the only finding addressing radiography).
ort No.79-116 and Quality Finding Report
e.
(QFR) No. 30 of 43
f.
IOM QA-35-79-687 documenting licensee action to resolve QFR-30 of 43.
g.
IOM QAE-79-026 documenting the resu% of the licensee's review of
radiographs taken of seam T20c, increment 11-12, both before and
after repair, in response to the allegation.
h.
Radiographic film of seam T20c, increment 11-12, taken on .ty 1,
1979 before repair.
i. Radiographic film of seam T20c, increment 11-12, taken on flay 21,
1979 after repair.
j. Radiographic film of seam T20c, increment 11-12, taken on August
24, 1979.
Radiography shots had been taken of the subject area
from both the inside and outside of the plate.
k.
Radiographic film of seam T20c, increments 10-11 and 12-13.
1.
Visual examination of seam T20c, increment 11-12.
The licensee's Audit Report No.79-116 was examined for background
information as requested by IE:HQ. The allegation was not identified
by this audit.
However, QFR No. 30 of 43 in the audit report ident-
ified that special process records (radiographs and microfilm) were
in a vault which did not appear to have been checked for temperature
\\Sh\\
\\33
.
.
-3-
and humidity as required by licensee procedures.
The Licensee stated
that their alleger had been hired to sample and examine radiographs
and microfilm, which were stored in the vault during the period in
question, for damage, mildew and fungus.
flo deficiencies were ident-
ified by the licensee's sampling and examination of radiographs and
microfilm.
The inspector's examination of the radiographs and weld area of seam
T20c, increment 11-12, established that a surface blemish exists on the
inside containment surface near weld T20c increment mark 11 which was
discernable on the radiographs identified as those depicting weld
T20c, increment 11-12, taken both before and after repair.
Evidence
of repair was aisc apparent cn the outside containment surface of
the increment in question. All radiographs were double film shots.
-
The inspector subsequently sealed, in the-presence of licensee
personnel, the documentation and radiographs identified by items b,
'-
c, d, h, i, j and k, above.
4.
Interview of Alleger
The alleger was interviewed by a regional-based inspector and
investigator on October 10, 1979 in Portland, Oregon.
He furnished
the following information:
a.
He was working for a job shop, Power Engineering Corp.,15 South
Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055 on or about July 1,1979
when his employer contracted for him to work for WPPSS at kNP-3
as a Records Analyst.
b.
His job assignment at WNP-3 required that he review all documen-
tation on the contract between WPPSS and Chicago Bridge and Iron
(CBI), Contract #3420-213.
c.
To the best of his recollection six or seven days prior to July
30, 1979, while reviewing documents on the CBI contracts in response
to a licensee audit finding, he examined two radiographs.
d.
These radiographs were of welding done on the heavy steel plates
for the Unit 3 containment vessel and were designated as T20c
increment 11 through 12.
e.
One of the radiographs was for the original weld and designated as
T20c increment 11 through 12.
The other radiograph was designated
as T20c increment 11 through 12 R1. The R1 meaning a radiograph
of a repaired weld.
1541
134
..
.
_4
f.
He placed these two radiographs on a viewer to check them for
possible damage while in storage in an uncontrolled environment.
When he looked at them he noticed what he thought was a deficiency.
In his opinion the weld in one radiograph did not match the weld
in the other radiograph. The contours of the welds in the films
did not match.
He stated that a Level III Technician told him no
matter how the radiograph was taken the weld would look the same.
His lead person saw the film and agreed with him that the films did
not look like they were of the same weld. However, his lead person
said he was not a qualified interpreter.
9
He reported his concerns to his supervision with a recommendation
that an investigation be conducted of the weld in question to
make certain the weld had been properly repaired.
h.
~
He stated he does not consider himself an expert radiograph interpreter and
could be wrong concerning the film in question.
He was formerly
~
certified as a Level II RT film reader in accordance with SNT-
TC-1A and B31.1, ASME on 5/31/78 while working for another firm.
He stated that the examination for this certification was done at
the Peabody Laboratories in the San Francisco Bay area.
i.
He did not participate in the WPPSS investigation of the questioned
weld and radiographs. The investigation was done by people who
performed the QC surveillance on the weld when the work was orig-
inally performed.
He did not consider this proper from his
experience on other job sites where the investigation would
have been done by a separate group not originally involved with
the work in question.
(NRC Finding: The investigation was per-
formed by the licensee's QA/QC group and complies with the QA
program and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requirements.)
j. A few days later he was told that CBI had told the investigating
team that they had taken the repair film with the source positioned
on the opposite side of the weld from the side that the original
shot had been taken.
k.
He told his supervisor he did not think that shooting the shot from
the opposite side was right. He told him that it was common
practice in the trade that the film of the repair be shot from
the same side as the rejected film.
His supervisor asked him if
this was in any of the codes or standards that CBI was working under.
He told him he did not think so.
code does not require that radiographs of repair welds be taken
from the same side as the original, before repair, shot.)
1541
155
._
,.
.
-5-
1.
The only other concern he has from his experience at WMP-3 is that
the contract with CBI does not require CBI to furnish WPPSS with
film of rejected welds.
His experience on other construction jobs
was that contractors were required to furnish the owner film of
rejected welds.
His supervisor told him to review the codes and
standards to see if there was anything to force CBI to turn over
rejected film.
(NRC Finding: The ASME B&PV code doesn't require
a contractor to turn over rejected film.
Discussion with licensee
personnel indicate that CBI does turn over to the licensee all
rejected film even though this is not required.)
m.
A few days later, on 7/30/79, while he was still reviewing the
codes and standards, he was terminated,
n.
The only radiographs he saw while working on the WPPSS project were
-
the two described above.
__.
o.
He has no objections to his identity being used in NRC reports on
this matter,
p.
The alleger stated he was satisfied after being informed by the
reactor inspector who conducted the NRC investigation concerning
the two radiographs that the weld volume disclosed by the two
radiographs appeared to be of the same weld.
He said that he could
not in good conscience let the question on the radiographs and
the weld go by without the matter being properly resolved since
it related to a safety structure.
(See Appendix A for his signed statement covering his concerns over the
radiographs for the weld designated as T20c, increments 11 and 12.)
5.
Exit Interview
The inspector discussed the investigation status and results with the
licensee's QA Manager by telephone on October. 15, 1979.
\\Sh\\ W