ML20043B088
| ML20043B088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005240170 | |
| Download: ML20043B088 (13) | |
Text
l
.. %'9, UNITED STATES l
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINOTON, D. C. 20096
- ~
- t
/-
May 11, 1990 i
1 i
I The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives j
Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed are answers to questions received from Dr. Henry 84yers of your
]
staff concerning the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Sincerely, A
~
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: The Honorable Don Young l
t gr g//:M 9005240170 900511 h
[
~PDR ADOCK 05000443 MS U
PDC I
O
<8 j i
L
r Resoonse to Dr. H. Myers' Recuests of Aoril 9, 1990 Reauest 1:
To the extent that YAEC Seacrook Station Procedure #5 Rev. 5 (dated January 24,1986) cif fers from Revision 0 (dated May 14,1984), please provide it to us along with the following documents to which Procedure #5, Revision 5 i
refers:
A.
Radiographic Review Summaries, YRT-2 Form 6.2 which documented the film reviews by YAEC. ( According to Procedure #5 - Revision 5, YRT-2 documents were controlled per Procedure 11.)
l B.
Quality Activities Reports (QARs), Form 9.5, Procedure 9, summarizing the l
YAEC NDE review group activities.
C.
Documentation of deficiencies handled per Procedure No.10.
l 0.
Copies of the Archival Quality Log Book (Form 5.3) for the period 1982 through 1985.
l
Response
The requested YAEC Quality Engineering Group (CEG) Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Review Group Procedure 5, Rev. 5, along with all earlier revisions of this YAEC procedure, was prnvided to Dr. Myers in response to his request of March 28, 1990.
The documents requested in Items A & D above were determined by the licensee not to represent quality records.
Therefore, retention in the Seabrook docu-ment control center records file was not required and no official record copies of the requested documents are available.
As a result of a search by the licensee of reasonably available documents retained by individual YAEC i
employees, some YRT-2 Forms and an Archival Quality Log Book were located.
Copies of these unofficial documents were express-mailed to the NRC EDO office for scheduled arrival on April 19, 1990.
The documents requested in Items B & C above (i.e., QARs and ors written per Procedure No. 10) were express-mailed to the NRC E00 of fice for scheduled arrival of all the requested documents on April 20, 1990.
\\
L
t a.
(.i c;
viu 2
3 k
Recuest 2:
v With reference to NCR 5773 (requested per my March 28 memorandum), please pro-vide prior to COB, Friday,> April 13, 1990 the following:
i A.
YAEC DR 544twhich is referenced in Item 7 of NCR 5773.
B.
Radiographic Inspection Reports for radiography performed on MS 4001 F0102.
on or before January 23,1984 (following unsuccessful ' repair) and on or about February 10,1984 (as indicated on Inspection Control Sheet).
h
)
C.
Radiographic Inspection Reports for radiography performed on MS 4001 F0102 prior to January 3.-1984
Response
a The documents. requested in Items A, B & C above were express-mailed to the NRC EDO. office for scheduled arrival on April 13, 1990.
The Radiographic Inspection Report for the radiography conducted on or about January 23, 1984
. was not provided because it was not available.in the licensee record file for the' subject weld.
The reason for the unavailability of this ' specific
' Radiographic Inspection Report was that it did not represent a quality record i
requiring retention.
The basis for this determination, as provided by the i
licensee, was. that, since the radiography in question resulted in a "RT REJECT," only the Weld Repair Order (which detailed the rejectable indication
.j and.was provided with the requested records) required retention as a-quality i
record.
j 1
5 l
i i
i I;
59
-l r
3 1
Reouest 3:
l (paraphrased) With regard to the following welds, please provide prior to CCB, Friday, April 13.-1990 (1) all Weld Repair Orders, (2) all Radiographic Inspec-tion Reports (RIRs) and (3) al1 nonconformance reperts (i.e., the nonconform-ance report which includes a description of the nonconformance, the cause of the nonconformance, the proposed disposition, and steps _ to prevent recurrence) minus-attachments prepared and/or compiled pursuant to the corrective action with such nonconformance reports:
A.
RC-3 F0101-B.
RC-3 F0102 C,
RC-4 F0101 0,
RC-9 F0102 E.
. RC-10 F0102 F.
RC-91 F0002 (RC F-410005 F00002)
Response
The documents requested for the velds identified in Items A-F above were express-mailed to the NRC E00 office for scheduled arrival on April 20, 1990.
Y
(
1 A Reouest 4:
Please provide a listing-of 50.55(e) reports, filed by the Seabrook. licensee since 1981, that pertain - to deficiencies in the production and inspection (including NDE) of pipe welds at Seabrook.
Response.
A review of 10 CFR 50.55(e) report files identified six potential or. actual Construction Deficiency Reports pertaining to the activities described in the above request. The licensee's final 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports (or in one case, a telephone report where no written report was required) for these six deficien-cies, along with NRC inspection report excerpts documenting closure of all six items, were express-mailed to the NRC EDO of fice for scheduled arrival on April 19, 1990.
e a
a.
5 Request 5:
If Pre Service Inspection (PSI) was performed on the welds in the primary cool-ant loops (-i.e.,'the welds in the large diameter piping connecting the pressure
~
vessel with the steam generators), please provide a summary that describes the' ultrasonic (UT) and/or other test results for these welds.
e
Response
Excerpts' from the Preservice Inspection Summary Report for Seabrook Station Unit 1, along with excerpts from NUREG-0396, Supplement 5 (Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Seabrook. Station), which together provide the summary description requested above, were express-mailed to the NRC EDO office for scheduled arrival on April 19, 1990.
P 9
)
h
't m
v
~
ce
' RESPONSE TO OR. H. MYERS' REQUESTS OF APRIL 12. 1990 Reouest 1:
Please provide, (1) all Weld Repair Orders, (2) all Radiographic Inspection Reports (RIR) and (3) all nonconformance reports (i.e. the nonconformance re-port itself which includes a description of the nonconformance, the cause of the nonconformance, the proposed disposition, and steps to prevent recurrence) minus attacnments prepared and/or compiled pursuant to the corrective action with such nonconformance reports:
- A.
RC-7 F0102 (See Weld Repair Order 2181.)
B.
RC-10 F0101 (See Weld Repair Orders 235,771,883.)
C; RC-45 F0107 (See Weld Repair Orders 2087,2155.)
Response 1:
The weld packages-for'the three welds identified in this request were express-f mailed to the NRC EDO office for scheduled arrival on April 27, 1990.
These
- packages contain the requested documents, as available in the Seabrook Document Control Center records file.
On April 20, 1990 the licensee responded to NRC Region I letters, dated April 4
& 13, 1990, asking questions related to Congressional staff concerns. Enclo-sure 2 to the licensee's response letter of April 20, 1990 addresses a question relating to the quality record status of the types of documents specified in Request 1 aoove. The NRC's question and the licensee's response are provided below:
Are the following documents quality records?
Weld Repair Orders Radiographic Inspection Reports l
Nonconformance Reports l'
Licensee Response Final Radiographic Inspection Reports (RIRs), which provide the basis for final weld acceptance, and Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) are Quality Assur-ance records pursuant to ANSI N.45.2.9.
Weld Repair Orders (WR0s) are not classified as QA records. However, they are included as supporting infor-mation where appropriate in documentation packages associated with RIRs and NCRs.
l l
L m
V.
i 2
Since Weld' Repair Orders are not classified as QA records and only final Radio-graphic Inspection Reports are classified as QA records, the weld packages pro-vided in response to Request 1 may net contain "all" the requested documents.
The existence of Weld Repair Orders and Radiographic Inspection Reports for.
f other than. final RT shots is dependent upon whether these documents were con-sidered ' supporting documentation and therefore included in the weld packages.
The weld packages mailed to the NRC EDO office for the three above welds do provide the-identified weld quality records and supporting documentation.
Thus, the known available records of the specific documents which were re-quested have been provided for transmittal to Dr. Myers.
1
1:l
,c 3
Request 2:
Please provide Weld Repair Orders 3088 and 3090 and Radiographic Inspection Reports and nonconformance reports associated with Weld Repair Orders 3038 and 3090.
Response 2:
A review of the Pullman-Higgins Repair Order Control Log, dated March 13,-1986, which was previously provided to Dr. Myers, indicates that neither Repair Order 3088 nor 3090 is associated with a weld.
Repair Order 3088 resulted from the identification by visual examination of an " Arc Strike on Spool," while Repair Order 3090 involved a base metal repair (BMR).
If these repairs had been con-ducted in the proximity of an existing field weld, or if welding had been re-quired for the repair-process, a weld number would have been identified.
Since no weld number is documented on the Repair Order Control Log, a records search by weld number cannot be conducted to determine whether the requested Repair Orders exist in the quality records file. As noted in the response to Request 1, Repair Orders are not considered quality documents.
Since the h
existence of record copies ~of Repair Orders 3088 and 3090 is currently unknown, i
the licensee has been: asked to determine the feasibility of a search of the records ~ for the entire, pipe line represented by the documented isometric draw-
)
g ing.1 umber. Whether such a search is feasible is being reviewed with the lic-ensee. The two Repair Orders ard their associated documents will be provided f
if they are found.
y i
l 1
l~
l l.
l' 1
I
v
~J
,r i-P 4
Recuest 3:
We have information indicating that nonconformance reports have been written on a reactor pressure vessel nozzle and a steam generator nozzle involving RC-10, welds F0101 and F0102. Were nonconformance reports prepared concerning these nozzles to which RC-10 is attached?
If so please provide such nonconformance reports and Weld Repair Orders.
Response 3:
Nonconformance reports associated with RC-10 field welds F0101 & F0102 were in the field weld packages express-mailed to the NRC EDO office for scheduled arrival on April 23, 1990.
These welds were two of the fifteen welds for which Senator Kennedy had requested records..
Additionally, nonconformance reports which were identified to be associated with the reactor pressure vessel nozzle and steam generator nozzle which are joined by the above field welds to the.RC-10 hot leg piping were express-mailed to the NRC EDO office for scheduled arrival en April 27, 1990. A dccument search found no Weld Repair Order documents other than those included in the field weld document packages and nonconformance reports provided.
e J
-'8 r
- .J r 1
u
.' p ?
]
'~
' - 4, d
g
)
' i Request 4:
i Please provide the following Deficiency Reports. and Nonconformance Reports listed in Question 1, attached to the April 6, 1990 memorandum from Thomas Martin to-you:
A.
YAEC NCR 82-268 B.
'YAEC DR 654-C.
~YAEC DR 653
)
D.
UE&C NCR 74/2790 E.
YAEC DR 662 F.
YAEC 661 Response 4:
The documents listed above and referenced in the Region I response to Dr. Myers'
- Question 1 of March 15, 1990, have already been provided.
These documents were:
. express-mailed from the NRC Resident Office at Seabrook to arrive separately, in support of the Region I response of April 6,:1990, to Dr. Myers' questions
-of March _ 15, 1990.
1 f
k 9
t I
p'i
,,e s
m m
2
~
+
w p
1 f.
6' i
t Request 5:
On March 15,. I requested a log of nonconformance reports relating to Pullman-
-Higgins-(PH) activities at Seabrook.
This log was discussed in the March:23 telephone conversation with Region I at which time, with the assistance of Region I staff, the request was made more specific and we inferred.that the log (covering the period 1982 through 1985) could be extracted from the licensee's computer._' Item III in my March 28 memorandum reiterates the requests for this log. 'The April 4,1990 letter from Region I to the Seabrook licensee is am-biguous.with regard to whether the NRC expects the licensee to provide the NRC with these-logs.
In any case, as of this date, more than three weeks since we inferred the documents were available and would be provided to us, we have not
- received them.
Response'5:
The former NRC Senior. Resident Inspector during the construction of Seabrook Station recalls the existence of a hand-written log book documenting the status of Pullman-Higgins nonconformance reports. This log book was kept and con-trolled by the Pullman-Higgins QA staff, but was not retained as a quality record.
The Region I letter of April 4, 1990, referenced above, asked the lic-ensee the following question in order to determine the availability of non-conformance report information which would be responsive to Dr. Myers' request:
2.
In regard to Pullman-Higgins:
a.
What Nonconformance Repor+.s (NCRs) or other similar deficiency -
l:
or corrective action reports were generated by or against Pullman-Higgins ducir.g the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985?
When the licensee determined that they -could provide information responsive to this NRC question from computer files, an NRC site representative requested that such a-listing be provided with the licensee's response.
On April 20, 1990, the licensee responded to the referenced request with listings of Pullman-Higgins nonconformance reports, United-Engineers & Constructors non-conformance reports, Yankee. Atomic Electric Company deficiency reports, and similar documents. These listings were provided to Dr. Myers, but he has since l
indicated that they 'are not responsive to his request.
This issue is the sub-ject of an April 23, 1990, memorandum (from Dr. Myers) for which Region I will be providing a separate response.
Based upon Dr. Myers' request for additional information in the area of non-L conformance reports generated by or against Pullman-Higgins, the licensee has j
been asked to check the cata that their computer system can provide in this y
regard and determine the scope of the associated documents.
Based upon a determination of what can be provided by the licensee in response to the request for more information, Region I intends to obtain the requested computer printouts and provide them to the NRC E00 office, when they become available after review by the licensee.
l-
e.=.
Lj.
?:
s
? :f
. 4
^:o 5'
7-
,s n~~
With regard to the requested " log of nonconformance reports relating to Pullman-Higgins-(PH) activities at Seabrook," Region I has determir:ed that the hand-written." log." which the NRC Senior Resident Inspector recalls as existing at one time during construction, cannot be found and is therefore not avail-
- able. With respect to'what information regarding Pullman-Higgins nonconform-ante reports is currently available and readily retrievable from licensee com-
. puter files, Region I is still pursuing this request with the licensee, is p
l O
k
+#