ML20033F635

Requests Answers to Addl Questions Re Defects in Radiographs of Welds at Plant

ML20033F635
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/07/1990
From:	Kostmayer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
To:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19324G831	List: ML20012C801 ML20033F635
References
CON-#190-10029 OL, NUDOCS 9003230248
Download: ML20033F635 (8)

Text

_..

JOCKET NUMSER gg(/

[k-d[

,c PROD.& UTIL F&. _

uous n. voau. AnizoNA, CMAMAN

'"!!= =l""

.". E ^"'

""#' A*'EE

':,7/==,,:',r, T="'

,='t="-

COMM1TTEE ON ftWiMIOR s = c==*"

{ Q i, {,, "'~

{ ~ p'~"

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS "T.,0llgs,1,*,, c=

p

..o.

gg,,v=o,=4g gegs,mg U.S. HOUSE OF RgESgTg8 Pl2 :31 i

u avu g i,o,s,t g r,em ga

ggy, WASHINGTON, DC 20515 osmenAL cou.eset

.m.

EM$ 7S M.75'ka c0*M L*o' "i

o C'U"*"

['rriCE GF WCREiAiiV E U*E*L"nUllo I'u=*e=,

0cg1 m0I si eWICf.

eiue k..... ak_... _u..-

SERVED MAR - 8 1990,

yga,g w,pvo o.

March 7, 1990 Honorable Kenneth Carr Chairman i

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 l

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing about questions raised by Mr. Joseph D.

Wampler concerning defects in radiographs of welds at the Seabrook site.

Information provided the Subcommittee to date on this matter engenders the following additional questions.

I.

Seabrook IR 90-80 (p. 92) states'that "... as documented in CAT IR 84-07 and discussed in IR-85-31; the licensee conducted an independent third party review of all RT film stored

onsite, whether provided by vendors or shot by -site contractors."

A.

What findings or other events precipitated the review of radiographs referred to on page 92 of Seabrook IR 90-80?

i B.

Did employees of the licensee or its contractors prepare a nonconformance report that stated that such a review would constitute a corrective action resulting from deficiencies identified in the course of reviews by the licensee and/or its contractors?

If so, what nonconformance report led to this review?

C.

If no specific nonconformance report resulted in the radiograph review, what group of nonconformance or deficiency reports led to this review?

D.

What is the name of the entity that conducted the third party review of all RT film stored onsite, whether provided by vendors or shot by site contractors?

How 4

many person-months were expended upon this review?

On what date was the review initiated?

On what date was it completed?

Q3 y

e

+

m-

~<

1 E.

With regard to the licensee's third party review.of all RT film stored' onsite,' whether provided by vendors or

]

shot by site contractors, what did: the report - on this review state to be its purpose, objective, findings.and-conclusions?

F.

Please provide a copy 'of those portions-of Seabrook IR 84-07 which the staff believes documents the licensee's Q

third party review of All RT-film stored onsite',-whether provided by vendors or shot by site contractors.

l G.

With Irespect to the third party NDE review, the' report i

of inspection 85-31, conducted October 21 thru December' 6,

1985 states:

The inspector discussed the' licensee's third. party review of nondestructive examinations-for different fabricators onsite and also the licensee program.for.

. review of radiographic. film for vendor supplied l welds.

The third party ' review involved a random -

selection of welds inspected by. liquid penetrant, magnetic particle and radiography..

The licensee implemented this. program until approximately-April 1984 when it was -discontinued because. additional-problems were-not being found ' and : very little-activity requiring NDE remained to be: completed'.

l The inspector - also reviewed the tresults' of ' the I

licensee's overview of radiographic film for vendort supplied welds. To date, the ' licensee has performed '

an overview of-virtually. all vendor.' supplied radiographic film.

Where problems-were found, such as geometric unsharpness failing to meet the ASME L

Code, radiography was reperformed onsite and repairs were made, if necessary.

The inspector found all' areas of review acceptable.

No violations were identified L

- 1.

Why was :the foregoing discussion of the third party l

review not included in the report of CAT; inspection 84-07, conducted'in May'1984?

j' 2.

With - respect.- to the foregoing statement froan85-l 31:

1

a. what specific " problems were found?"

b. how many welds were re-radiographed?

i

c. how many weld repairs were made and what was-the nature of any such repairs? !

Y a

. +,,

es,-

s

I_

i l

H.

- While IR 90-80, _ citing!IR 84-07 and 85-31, implies that All radiographs of safety-related_ welds, including'the 4

Pullman-Higgins radiographs, were reviewed:- by Lan independent third party, it is_ unclear from the text _~of

'IR 84-07 and-IR 85-31.that All such radiographs were in fact reviewed by the third party.

Is it the NRC staff position that all-such radiographs were reviewed by the

. hat is-the - specific -

independent' third party?_ -

If~so,2 w text. in an inspection report upon which the"NRC staff bases this position?

II.

Please provide 'an enumeration of nuclear reactor projects wherein the first review by a Level III examiner (employed by' a major welding entity-on the site such as Pullman-Higgins at; Seabrook) resulted in a 20% reject' rate.

L' III. The February 28 memorandum from Mr. Russell to Mr. _ Murley 1

states in Item 4, that:-

On January 12, 1984,- - the examiner (i.e. Wampler) was advised... that the completion of those'NCRs would be I

reviewed during routine NRC inspection.

1 Was a review of Wampler's 16 incomplete NCRs conducted?

If not, why not?

Why did Seabrook IRL83-22-not mention the 16 incomplete NCRs which NRC of ficials,-- during the-period covered by IR 83-22, had stated would be the subject of! review?

IV.

The February 28 memorandum. from Mr. Russell ;to Mr. Murley states in Item 4 that Seabrook IR '83-22 :had " documented i --

acceptable completion of thellast two.NCRsJgenerated by the:

examiner."

This appears to be a reference to Wampler's last two nonconformance reports, NCR 5689 and-NCR 5773.. Inspection Report 83-22 stated that these'two NCRs'" initiated by'the departed Level III had been properly tracked and were already dispositioned."

The discussion of NRC 5689~and_NRC 5773 in Item 4 and IR 83-22 gives rise to the following' questions:

1 A.

What deficiencies were described in NCR 5689 and NCR 5773?

B.

What was-the root cause of the deficiencies described in NCR 5689 and NCR'5773?

C.

What corrective actions were specified to remedy r the deficiencies described in-NCR 5689 and NCR-5773?

D.

What did Item 4 in the February 28 memorandum mean when it stated that IR 83-22 had " documented acceptable

-l completion of the last two NCRs generated by the examiner?"

W T-y w

iw a--

ui-

+r

= ed si o

e w

• +--wr=%

w

+weW-4e

---

y

-uw-a

i L

E.

What did IR'83'-22' mean when it stated that NCR 5689 and NRC 5773 "had been properly - trackedi and were ' already dispositioned?"

V.

-To date, we have been provided no evidence that the review, which ~ NRC staff said would be conducted, of Wampler's 16 incomplete NCRs was ever conducted.

If this review was not conducted, do NRC _ officials know the substance. of the deficiencies described in L Mr.

Wampler's 16 not-completed nonconformance reports? -If so,'what is the-substance of the

~

deficiencies described in these 16 NCRs?

If not, what is the basis for. the implication in Mr.

Russell's February 28' memorandum to the effect that deficiencies identified by_Mr.

-[

Wampler had been corrected?-

VI.

Mr.

Russell's February = 28, 1990 memorandum leaves.the

{

impression that NRC staff have-confidence that Mr. Wampler's findings regarding radiographs-' and/or; welds had been recognized and the-deficiencies implicit therein corrected.

I This ' confidence, we infer, was. derived from a series of inspections.

Yet, the various inspection reports provided us to date (e.g. 82-06, 83-22, 84-07 and 90-80),- as far as we can tell, do not even' recognize that problems of the magnitude described by Wampler even occurred; nor do ~ these reports contain sufficient documentation -to _ enable an independent reviewer to determine the qualitative and quantitative nature l

-of deficiencies in activities carried out by the contractor responsible for a significant portion of the safety-related~

welding a Seabrook.

What then is the basis for NRC management and/or the Commission-to make a finding _ that _ safety-related -

welding _ activities at Seabrook-were conducted'in accord'with j

the Commission's regulations?

I have been informed that NRC staff'is seeking to.-int.erview Mr.

Wampler on or about March 13.

I would assume _that, prior _to any such interview,- the NRC interviewers would wish to be fully informed on this matter and would, therefore,_ have in. hand the.

information requested in this letter.

I would also assume'that the Commission had this information prior to making-its decision-to allow the Seabrook reactor to operate at full-power.

The commission's basis for.!inding that safety-related welds at Seabrook complied with NRC regulations will be oneeof the issues addressed at the Subcommitten's March 14. hearing on the Seabrook project.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your-providing prior to March 13, 1990 the answers to the-foregoing questions.- To provide the answers prior to March 13 should require no substantive effort :

~

^

~ ~

5

since, as I

have indicated. in'.the preceding paragraph, the commission presumably possessed the requested information before

' authorizing full power operation.

Thank you.

Sinperely,

~

r p.

VAA e

H. Kostmayer

+

hairman

()

.i Subcommittee on-General Oversight and Investigations-i s

9 7

b j.

I,

r

w UNITED STATE 8 OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I

I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW l

Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

I (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 l

L l

CERTIFICATE OF BERVICE

. 4 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LTR TO CARR RE WAMPLER QUEST.

have'been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first classi except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR'Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge-Administrative Judge' G. Paul Bollwerk, !!!

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Atomic Safety'and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionf

'U.S.

Nuclear Regu'latory Commission Washington, DC' 20555 Washington', DC 20555 Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber

' Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ivan W. Salth,: Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.' Nuclear' Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.Consission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative: Judge-Richard F. Cole Kenneth-A. McCollen-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosatssion Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC :20555 Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esquire James H.< Carpenter-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alternate Technical Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Mitzi A. Young Office of the Beneral Counsel Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coseission Washington, DC 20555 m-m-.

e r

n

~

.wn

a q

Docket No. (s)S0-443/444-0L

-LTR TO CARR RE WAMPLER QUEST.

i

-1 1

l Diane Curran, Esq.

Thomas.6. Dignan, Jr.i Esq.

~

.)

Harmon, Curran k Tousley Ropes k Gray

-l 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite'430 One International. Place-Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA 02110 l

l l

Robert A. Backus,_Esq.

P a'ul McEachern, Esq.

Backus, Meyer &. Solomon Shatnes h McEachern l

116 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood-Avenue, P.O. Box 360 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l

Bary W. Holmes, Esq.

Judith H. Misner i

Holmes & Ells Counsel for Newburyport=

-47 Winnacunnet Road 79 State Street Hampton, NH 03042' Newburyport, MA 01950 i

Suzanne P. Egan Jane Doherty

+

City Solicitor Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Lagoulis, Hill-Wilton and Rotondi 5 Market Strect 79 State Street Portsmouth, NH- 03801 Newburyport, MA 01950 George Iverson,. Director Ashed N. Amirian, Esq.

N. H. Office of Energency Management 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 30 State House Office Park South

.Bradford, MA 01830 107 Pleasant Street Concord,, NH 03301 George W. Watson, Esq.

Jack Dolan Federal Energency Management Agency Federal Energency Man 6gement Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) a Washington, DC 20472 Boston, MA 02109 Beorge D. Bisbee, Esq.

Suzanne Breiseth Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the Attorney Beneral Town of Hampton Falls 25 Capitol-Street Drinkwater Road Concord, NH 03301 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 t

l 7.. ' * '

I Docket No.(s)50-443/444 0L

'LTR TO CARR RE WAMPLER QUEST.

l

\\

4 l

J l

5 l

-John Traficonte, Esq.

Peter J. Brann, Esq.

Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Assistant Attorney Beneral Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General-1 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor State House Station, #6

)

l Boston, MA 02108 Augusta, ME 04333 i

l Allen Lampert Willias-Armstrong Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street l

Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter, NH 03833 Anne Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen Michael Santosucesci Chairman 13-15 Newmarket Road Board of Selectmen Durham, NH 03B24 South Hampton, NH 03027 sy l

l R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Stanley W. Knowles, Chatraan Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & McGuire Board of Selectmen 79 State Street P.O. Box 710 Newburyport,, MA 01950 North Hampton, NH 03862 1

l Norman C. Katner Sandra F. Mitchell Superintendent of-Schools Civil Defense Director School Administrative Unit No. 21

. Town of Kensington l

Alumni Drive Box 10, RR1 Hampton, NH 03842 East Kingston, NH.03927

.The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey ATTNi Janet Colt United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 8 day of March 1990 g

fehdl.44. h.................

Offic of the Secretary of the Commission l

l l

, _ _..