ML20034B157
| ML20034B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Erin Kennedy SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B136 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, KENNEDY-900227, NUDOCS 9004260096 | |
| Download: ML20034B157 (5) | |
Text
- +
QUESTION 15.
AConstructionAssessmentTeam(CAT) Inspection (50-443/8407) conducted in May 1984 concluded the following with regard to non-destructive examination of welds:
l t
"In the area of nondestructive examination,.the NRC CAT inspectors
?
reviewed samples of radiographic film in final storage in the vault. As the ap,plicant's program does not provide for review of radiographs by the applicant's NDE organization prior to their storage in the vault, samples of film were selected that had not been reviewed by the applicant's organizations, as well as film l
that had not been reviewed prior to vault storage. No deficiencies were identified with the radiographs that had received the applicant's review; however, deficiencies were identified by the NRC CAT inspection with the radiographs which had not been reviewed by the applicant."
What was the nature of deficiencies identified in (a) radiographs e ich had not been reviewed by the applicant:
What corrective action was taken regarding such (b) l deficiencies?
s (c) -- What was the root cause of such deficiencies?
i (d) -- Where is the corrective action and root cause documented?
l i
QOO315 t
DEI -
E
, o
- i i
OVESTION15.(Continued) ;
i (e) -- Are these radiographs part of the same set examined by Mr. Wampler?
ANSWER.
(a) As stated in the inspection report, the deficiencies were discussed in the subsequent sections of the report. The deficiencies were:
1.
During the review of the radiographic film for the condensate storage tank (1-CS-TK-48), it was found that the repair radiographs for one weld (4H1) were missing (page V-5, paragraph 3.b.(2)).
2.
During the review of Dravo radiographs, one weld (weld t
141-8L-1MS-4001-41908) was found to display linear indications which t
did not meet the specified acceptance criteria (page Y-4 paragraph 1.b.(2)).
3.
During the review of radiographs, it was found that two welds identified as IF11300 to 1F1130B welds 1 and 2 were radiographed using-improper techniques which resulted in improper coverage of the weld area.
In addition, six welds did not identify the proper repair sequence; therefore, it could not be determined whether the correct weldhadbeenre-radiographed(pageV-8, paragraph 7.b.(2)).
l
QUESTION 15.(Continued) i 4
During the review of the Wooley's radiographs, the film displayed evidence of poor processing such as the presence of water, chemical stains and yellowing (page V-6, paragraph 3.b.(2)).
5.
During the review of General Electric radiographs, it was found that i
three reader sheets did not have the accept / reject disposition checked. Onewelddidnothavecompleteradiographiccoverage(page V-9, paragraph 9.b.)
i t
(b) The licensee documented the above listed findings within their corrective l
action system.
In every case, the licensee issued a Yankee Atomic Electric Company Nonconformance Report or a Deficiency Report. Depending on the contractor, the nature of the deficiency, and the corrective action warranted, the contractor may also have issued their own nonconformance j
(
report. Each deficiency was subsequently dispositioned as indicated in 15(d)below.
l l
t
(
(c) Every nonconformance report or deficiency report does not merit a root j
l cause analysis. A root cause analysis should be performed on complex matters for which the cause is not readily obvious and has a significant impact on the process or equipment.
In the case of the first finding, it l
was the simple matter that the radiographs for one weld could not be located. This does not imply the program for radiography suffered a major i
breakdown that warranted a detailed analysis. The solution in this-case j
was to re-radiograph the weld to replace the missing documentation.
t
r
,..o i
i OVEST10N15.(Continued) 4-1 1
In the remainder of the findings, the licensee was in the process of improving the quality of radiographic film review as evidenced by the 100%
weld radiography overview, and the corrective actions were already in progress for this previously identified problem. As stated in the report, the inspector did not find problems with the film the licensee's overview program had processed.
l (d) The corrective action for the five findings, as stated previously, were l
i all documented on the licensee's nonconformance or deficiency reporting system. The following list provides the finding and the associated corrective action system document number:
i FINDING CORRECTIVE ACTION I
- 1-CS-TK-4B YAEC NCR 82-268
- 141-8L-1MS-4001-41908 YAEC DR 654
- 4F1130B/4F1130D YAEC DR 653 l
UE&C NCR 74/2790
- Wooley RT Browning YAEC DR 662 4
l
- General Electric RT YAEC DR 661 Root cause analysis is discussed in paragraph 15 (c) above.
(e) It is unlikely any of the radiographs that were cited in this response were reviewed by Mr. Wampler considering the fact that they all deal with
-m.
l
.o 0
c 5-OVESTION 15.
(Continued) contractors other than Pullman-Higgins except for item number 2, which was a Dravo radiograph but was associated with a pipe spool that came under i
the jurisdiction of Pullman-Higgins.
i h
e i
e p
1 k
h 1
1
.. _, _