ML20033E259
| ML20033E259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033E258 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003090523 | |
| Download: ML20033E259 (5) | |
Text
32/26/90 U. 37 tRC R1 DOCV NO.$65 P002
{
'.s IUNITOD STATS $
]
g NUCL8AR R'BoutATORY COMMISSION i
no oNi AP8lALLANDALS AGAD ee **
ecNO OF PAWeelA. PSNNeVLVANIA te400 kBl%W l
MCMDRANDUM FOR:
Dr. Inomas t:. Murley, U1 rector, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
WilliamT.! Russell,RegionalAdministrator
$UBJECT:
REGION I REVIEW 0F CONCERN $ OF FORMER $EABR00K LEVEL !!!
NDE EXAMINER i
RegionIhascompletedanexpeditedreviewoftheabovesubjectandconcluded that no current conditions material to full power licensing are involved. That conclusion is based on the foil,owingt 1.
A11esed Radiation Barrier Violations by Suoervisors This item refers to the al'leged violation of radiography radiation bar-i riers by construction conirector supervisors during plant construction.
The described purpose of the supervisory intrusion into the areas was to try to catch technicians asleep.
Since New Hampshire is an agreement State, this redisu on safety concern was handled by the State. A February 1,1964 lette
^V s ne state to the alleger (Enclosure 1) shows State knowledge of
- c*?ern.
1 Inasmuch as ns tw,y component inadequacy is stated or implied in this item, and NRC 1 m etion and licensee performance assessment have found an acceptable operational radiation protection program, our conclusion is that this was a $ tate matter which is not relevant to full power licensing.
2.
Alleged improper Termination for Beino a Whistleblower This examiner submitted a discrimination complaint to the U.$. Department of Labor on January 8, 1984 (Enclosure 2).
In this complaint, the ex-aminer stated that he was terminated for bringing a safety violation (the radiography barrier violations) to the attention of management. The com-plaint also identified the employer's stated rationale for the termination as being for improper conduct, i.e...ca ming dissension between management and technicians.
On February 7,1984, the Department of Labor informed the examiner in writing (Enclosure 3) that their investigation had disclosed that the ter-mination was due to the examiner's inability to maintain a satisfactory working relationship with other management employees.
The examiner appriiled t.his finding and, after one hearing day before an administrativo law judge, settled this matter with his employer. The settlement agree-mPnt fiid nnt deny NRC information on the examiner's concerns, tinco sc stated in the DOL transcript, he had already reported those concerns.
1 FNU i
P l
Eess M - TJir-~ w w g m rnem l
l m,. -
j 4
i Thomas E. Nurley 2
FES $ 8 390 i
2 i
The licensee's program for handling employee and contractor safety con-cerns has been reviewed -during several NRC inspections.
Specific examples are documented in Inspection Rennrts 50-443/08 07, lection 10, pov. 14 and 50-443/88-10, Section 9, page 29 (Enclosures 4 and 5). While no spectfic NRC requirements are placed on licensee programs for addressing employee toncernt. 000 Ongoing iMpection efforts have made us aware of instances l
of employee use of and satisfact19n with their ability to address safety concerns and get them resolved.
The examiner confirmed, as documented in the 00L transcript, that the only potential v4olation of any rule or procedure that was discussed with DOL was the " Barrier Safety" question.
Further, although he felt. pressure to complete his review and to disposition a backlog of weld radiograph pack-A0n, for which he folt ho' found excessive rejections, he maintained that he properly dispositioned 'the packages that he processed and made no alle gation of violations by himself or othtT8 in reviewin0 these flims (En=
2 closure b, pages 219,220).
Both the examiner's description of his ac-i tivities and his stated knowledge of the certainty of subsequent review by i
the licensee of his work were consistent with our expectations, based on our understanding of the licensee's quellty assurance program.
The Department of Labor issue was concluded by settlement between the ex-I aminer and the construction contractor who empicyed him.
No inadequacy in the present licensee program for responding to safety concerns has been identified. No current component condition that would impact operational safety was identified. The concern regarding alleged high rejection rate for radiographs is reviewed below. Therefore, any remaining matters here are not material to a full power licensing decision.
3.
Alleged High Re.iection Rate for Radicaraohs The examiner stated (Enclosure 6, page 74) that his review of backlogged weld radiograph packages identified an excessive 20% re,jeggjen rett for either film quality or weld indications, where his expectations would nor-mally be about 5%. -He indicated that he corrected paperwork errors, as he was expected to do, and wrote NCRs in every case where he was unable to conclude either that the flim was archival q'uality or that the weld was acceptable, as was expected by his employer s quality assurance program.
He stated (Enclosure 6, pages 219 and 220) that his identification of these items as NCRs was consistent with the program for resolving the re-jectable radiographs and that there was no concern about the functioning of the process; however, he did feel pressure to quickly complete his work (Enclosure 6, Pages 74-80). He-also specifically testified to the Depart-ment of Labor that there was no violation in having a backlog of films to be reviewed, that he was aware of no violation in the reviewing of the films by his employer, that he was not aware of any violations in revier ing the films at any other level at the site, that he was not alleging any violation in regard to radiographic films, that his complaint to the Oe-partment of Labor did not allege any such violations, and that the only potential violation invel,4d n e (liv " Barrier Safety" question.
i i
i.
I 02 28 90 a4 37 tac R1 DOCKET RC01 NO.925 P004 Thomas E. Murley 3
gggg 1
Our assessment is that a Pf* reject rate of radiographs during the first review by a Level !!! examiner is not unusual. The Level III NDE gg gjngt revie., fvilun the preliminary, tevel 11 review, and is much more thorough. Correcting paperwork errors and preparation of NCRs shows im-piementation of the licensee's program for resolving record deficiencies and indications of potential weld problems.
Further, after the alleger departed the site, the ligtnigg performed a 1005 rheck of the radiographs (Enclosure 8, pages 91 and g2) and required re-radiographing and rework as appropriate for any Wtld, regardless of whn had previously reviewod it.
l Our conclusion is that the alleged high reject rate for radiographs is not unusual, that the description of his activities and fiadings are evidence of good people making the process work and that the weld adequacy was assured by the normal program for resolving such items. An independent licensee recheck further assured the adequacy of the welding.
The NRC staff has also independently verified the acceptability of the welding and nondestructive examination programs at Seabrook. These pro-3 grams were regularly reviewed by resident and regiop44)ed inspectors throughout plant Construction. Adequacy of the welding process and mi rpinbility of a sample of woles was shown in 1902 by NRC Independent measurements inspection (Inspection Report 50-443/82-06, Enclosure 7).
A detailed review by an NRC Construction Assessment Team in 1984 (Inspec-tion Report 50-443/84-07 Enclosure 8) included examination of this con-struction contractor's welding and radiography. Also, the NRC's Mobile Nondestructive Examination Laboratory performed radio 9ttphic examinations curing its two other inspections at Seabrook.
During these inspections, a comparison of NRC radiographs to Itcensee file film was performed to assure that the associated welds were adequate, the radiographic program was being properly adminittered and that the fils quality complied ~with applicable ASME Code requirements. The results of these inspections, and the licensee's response to these results, provided this assurance; there-fore, this cuncern is not material to a full power licensing decision.
4.
Alleged Inadequacy of Nonconformance Report Resolution The examiner stated (Enclosu're g, page 1) a concern for resolution of the NCRs he had in preparation at the time he was terminated.
On January 12, 1984, the examiner was advised (Enclosure 10, page 1) that the completion of those NCRs would be reviewed during routine NRC inssec-tion.
Inspection Report 50-443/83-22 (Enclosure 11, pages 4 and 5) witch covered the period of time during which this review was completed, docu-mented acceptable completion of the last two NCRs generated by the exam-iner.
Further, the reporting inspector concluded that the concerns of the Level 111 examiner were being properly handled by his successors based on a sampling inspection.
1
02/28/90 14 CE tFC R1 DOCXET ROOM NO.925 '
CTS 3 ~ ~-- ~ - ------- ;
~
I e
4 Thomas E. Murley 4
FEB B 8 W I
The NCR process and its p_ roper functioning have been addressed during NRC inspections in many areas. The adequate functioning of that process was an essential ingredient of the NAC staff's conclusion that safety signi-ficant activities had been and were being acceptably performed and that an operating license could be issued.
In addition, as stated in Item 3 above, the licensee's subsequent independent review of the radiography provided an additional assurance of weld adequacy. This conclusion is further supported by multiple NRC inspections of welding activities.
Our conclusion is that the examiner's in-process concerns and nonconform-ance reports in question were acceptably resolved, and that no weld con-l dition which would adversely affect the decision to issue a full power license has been identified in this case.
Finally,wehavereviewedthefebruary 27, 1990 letter fr9m $gnator Kennedy to Chairu n Carr. Although we have not had time to develop detailed an-swers to the enntained 15 over.tinne,and ruerently l u k on.plete knowi6Jr of answers to who knew what when, we are confident, based on our extensive inspections and analysis, that Senator Kennedy has raised no new safety issue that has not been previously reviewed and resolved, or that is mate--
rial to the full power licensing of Seabrook.
lr 7
-~
t William T. Russell
[
Regional Administrator-
Enclosures:
See Attached List cc w/encis:
J. Tsylor, EDO
\\
l
_,. _ =._. ~,..,.__.,
03/25490.
'14:38 tRC R1 DOCKET ROOM NO.935 N
o UST OF [NCLOSURCS 1.
February 1,1984 Letter from State of.New Hampshire to Mr. Joseph Wampler 2.
January 8,1984ComplaintdromMr.JosephD.WamplertoU.S.Departmentof (ah9r' 3.
February 7,1984 U.S. Department of Labor-Letter to Mr. Joseph D. Wampler 4.
Excerpt from NRC Region ! Inspection Report 50-443/88-07 l
5.
Excerpt from NRC Region ! Inspection Report 50-443/88-10 6.
Excerpts from Hearing Testimony Before the U.S. Department of Labor 7.
NRC Region ! Inspection Report 50-443/82-06 i
8.
NRC Regten I Inspection Report 50-443/84-07 9.
Allegation Receipt Form from Mr. Wampler's Allegation to the Senior Resident Inspector
- 10. NRC Region I January 24, 1984 Allegation Acknowledgement Letter to the Alleger
- 11. Excerpt-from NRC Region ! Inspection Report 50-443/83-22 l
[ Enclosures to be furnished the: Commissioners by cob 2/28/90.]
l i
l 4
l
._.