ML20043B053
| ML20043B053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Carr, Roberts, Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043B050 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9005240126 | |
| Download: ML20043B053 (6) | |
Text
'
~
n i
L Y
p cro6g
- i g.i>
(j; 4,,.
UNITED STATES
-e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.o
'(.
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 16,1990 a
h j
MEMORANDUM F0P:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick FROM:
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs, GPA
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS-BY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF I am attaching documents requested by Dr. Henry Myers.
I intend to provide these without restriction this afternoon, May. 16 -1990, unless I hear otherwise.
Attachments:
As Stated
-Contact: -M.Callahan, X21776 cc: OGC SECY ED0
~IG 9005240126 900516 DR ADOCK 05000443 PDC
.m. v
' jQ' -
,1..?
t J.@l! '
m-a s.
,(
4
.J.
g g.
.5 g
P i
..c
@-s.
. As.' requested 'by Dr. Myers' May 14, 1990 note to Dennis Rathbun, attached is 3
the inspection: plan for. the assessment of weld' quality at Seabrook. 'The' y
targetdakeofMay4forcompibtingonsiteinspection'activitieshasbeen i
extended ab'out-2 weeks.:
s
'5 i
i
.l t
i k s'
}
t-4
c
.?
,l' k
i PLAN FOR TEAM INSPECTION AT SEABROOK Team Leader - Lee Spessard OVERVIEW:
An independent regulatory review team has been established to review certain pipe welding issues at Seabrook. The team was established under the direct authority of Jim Sniezek, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear
't
' Regulation, Regional Operations and Research.
TEAM:
Lee Spessard, Director, Division of Operational Assessment, AEOD, was named the team leader, and the team members are: Glenn Walton, Senior Resident Inspector at Watts Bar, Bill Crowley and Jim Coley, Region II Specialist in
-l NDE, and Brozia Clark, a consultant in nondestructive examination.
Two team members (Spessard & Walton) convened in the Rockville NRC office i.
on April 2,1990, and started reviewing the issues and developed the inspection plan provided below. Jim Sniezek and Lee Spessard met with Dr.
H. Mcyers'and other Congressional staff members on April 3,1990, to obtain j
the specific information regarding Congressional interest. On April 6 -12, 1990, the team will visit Seabrook and begin the inspection as outlined in i
the-plan. On April 24, 1990, Mr. Wampler will be interviewed at the NRC office in Rockville by the team members to obtain the details surrounding his welding issues at Seabrook. The team will then perform further inspections onsite commencing April 25,1990, to com)1ete the remaining portions of the The target-date for completing tie onsite work is May 4,1990. The plan.
team will convene in the Rockville office on May 7,1990, to complete the report.
PURPOSE:
The objective of the review is to provide an after-the-fact, independent assessment to determine whether or not the pipe welding /NDE activities 4
performed by Pullman-Higgins, including evaluation and disposition of nonconforming conditions were accomplished in accordance with applicable codes and NRC requirements, and to assess the issues involving Mr. Wampler, h
a Level III radiographer. employed by Pullman-Higgins.
INSPECTION PLAN:
The inspection plan, as described below, as well as the team composition, may be modified at the discretion of the team leader based on future discussions with Mr. Wampler and results of the team's inspection findings. The plan consists of the following:
(1) By telephone, if possible, interview Mr. Wampler regarding pipe welding and NDE issues at Seabrook (See Sniezek to Wampler letter dated March 30,1990). SPESSARD & WALTON i
{'
+
7:;
-e q
' i i
q (2) Obtain'and review the work packages for the 15 welds referenced in Senator Kennedy's. letter-to the NRC dated March 12, 1990. If work packages reference other documents, obtain and review those' documents.
WALTON
-(3) Review the radiographic film for the 15 welds referenced in Senator Kennedy's letter. Determine & record the following: Date original film was exposed, date it was reviewed and level' qualification
'l.
of reviewer, disposition of review, record repair date, if applicable and basis for repair, record the P-H Level III's overview date and results of the review, record the YAEC Level III's overview date and results'of the review.
CLARK & WALTON (4) Review the on-site data regarding Level III re-review of radiographs performed by Pullman-Higgins, and YAEC. Determine the following:
CROWLEY (a) Was a 100 percent review done by Pullman-Higgins and YAEC for all radiographs?
(b) Why was the review done?
(c) When did the review start?
(d) How long did the review continue?
-(e) What did the review find? Number of rejects, type of rejects, etc. How were the rejects handled; e.g., documented?
(f)- How many were rejected due to film quality?
(g) How many were rejected due to weld quality?
(h) Were all rejected welds accessible for repair and/or re-radiography? If not, what disposition was made ?
(i) Were all rejectable welds repaired? If not what disposition was made?
1 (j) Was the final disposition of all welds reviewed and accepted by the the utility.and the ANI? NOTE: Pay particular attention to welds that were inaccessible.
(k) Were any exceptions taken to the ASME code of record?
(5) During the time period before, during, and after Mr. Wampler was employed as a Level III radiographer at Seabrook, review the radio-graphic film for approximately 100 welds to ascertain code compliance.
Also determine if aging has affected the film quality.
In this review verify the following: film density, geometric unsharpness factor, technique, film speed, source location in proximity to film and penetrameter, sensitivity requirements; i.e., 2-2t, penetrameter size, number, location, and weld coverage. Review the technique sheet with each weld and determine if the documentation supports the condition.
s
y
. u;
- e 3-k z
q l
J Verify that acceptable indications are recorded on the reader sheet,.
sheet is dated and signed by at least a qualified Level II reviewer, a qualified RT procedure is referenced on each reader sheet, and each weld is properly dispositioned. Verify the Level III's involvement.
1 Record data as required by. paragraph 3.-
COLEY & CLARK
.(6) Review the radiographic film for at least 10 welds that Mr. Wampler had reviewed and determine the validity for his acceptance or rejection of the film. For those rejected, review the reshot and determine if repairs were. required and achieved. Record data as stated in paragraph 3.
j COLEY & CLARK
]
(7) Review the radiographic procedures for compliance with the ASME Code.
CROWLEY J
(8) Review several representative training and certification records for Pullman-Higgins Level 11 film interpreters. Review qualifications of P&H and YAEC Level III radiographers involved. Verify compliance with j
ASNT-TC-1A. CROWLEY (9) Review nonconformances (DR's, NCR's) associated with the P&H pipe welding program. Request a word search of " WELDS" and " NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION" from the computer system and determine if Wampler issued any of them or caused any of them to be issued. Review each non-conformance and verify it was dispositioned in compliance with the FSAR and ASME Section III code (1977 Edition, Winter' Addenda).
Determine if any of the DR's, NCR's were or should have been reported-to the NRC as required by 50.55(e).
WALTON (10) Determine if the licensee issued any 50.55(e) reports on P-H pipe welding or NDE issues during the construction phase.
WALTON (11) Review the licensee's employee concern program and determine if the I
licensee received any concerns about P-H's pipe welding and/or
~
nondestructive examination program.
CROWLEY (12) As discussed by Wampler in letter dated March 18, 1990 a P-H " Radio-l graphy Backlog" is discussed. Determine if such a list exists.
Evaluate it's contents for appropriateness for implementing this L
plan in terms of sample selection.
WALTON (13) Review any QA Audits conducted of the P-H pipe welding /NDE activities. Evaluate to assure weld and film quality findings were properly dispositioned.
'CROWLEY 1
l.
Yi g.
v-
-e?--mF
u.a : -
[.
l, ~
?
.e i
(14).0b'tain a legible copy of. each document reviewed as part of.this inspection for inclusion as an enclosure to the Inspection Report.
Specifically include all documents that purport to resolve any
-deficiencies identified during the review. Request clearance from the licensee that the information is not proprietary.
ALL MEMBERS Issue a detailed report which fully describes the extent of inspections f-performed and results of the review. The records collected will be included in the report as attachments.
Issue regulatory actions-if required.
SPESSARD/ALL MEMBERS Submitted by :> & M b YkhD LEE SPE5JARD Date Approved by MM' 8
90 IM SNIEZEK
()
Date 1
l l
i l
_.