ML20044A650

NRC Response to Senator Kennedy Question 3 for 900518 Hearing

ML20044A650
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/18/1990
From:	NRC
To:	Erin Kennedy SENATE
Shared Package
ML20044A644	List: ML20044A643 ML20044A647 ML20044A648 ML20044A650
References
CCS, KENNEDY-900518, NUDOCS 9007020013
Download: ML20044A650 (1)

Text

.

, i: *.

OVESTION 3:

Please provide me with copies of all records required under Appendix B which document the specific nature of the problems.

identified and corrective actions periomed in connection with p

the following safety-significaN Seabrook welds, which I have reason to believe were rejected during initial review by a t

i competent Level III NDE technician:

t t.

ANSWER The requested records for the following wdlds, with the exception of the file radiographic films, were provided by the licensee and areLattached..

The radiographic films are pemanent plant recordsothat'are not easily reproduced i

and cannot be readily removed from the. protected storage. The films are i

available on site and can be reviewed there at your discretion.- In addition, J

because of the special interest expressed in.these welds, the NRC staff, during the interview with Mr. Wampler in the presence of Or'. Henry Myers and Mr. Christopher Paine on April 24, 1990, had the final radiographs of these welds at the interview and offered to review them with Mr. Wampler.

1-RC-3-01 F0102-1-MS-4013-02 F0201 1-RC-9-01 F0102 1-MS-4005-20.F2003 1-RC-10-01 F0101 1-MS-4005-22iF2204' L

1-RC-10-01 F0102 1-MS-4009-01 F0109' 1-RC-49-01 F0101 1-MS-4012-02 F0201~

1-RC-49-01 F0102 1-MS-4016-02 F0204*

1-RC-49-01 F0103 2-CBS-1214 F015 9007020013 900518 2-CBS-1214 F011 paa COMHS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC

'*TF request was for MS-4016-02F024 but there is no weld with that number.

Enclosed are the records for 1-MS-4016-02 F0204.

a.

/

.~

EDWARD M. KENNEDY 1

Eniteb 6tateg 6 enate WASHINGTON. DC 20510 l

March 12,1990 Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20555 j

Dear Chairman Carr:

Two weeks ago I sent you a letter outlining my concems regarding the high rejection rate for Seabrook weld radiographs experienced during the Level III review conducted by Joseph D.,

Wamplerin the period August 1983 through January 1984. Attached to this letter were 15 specific 1

quescons conceming the NRC's knowledge, documentation, and resolution of the deficiencies identified by Mr. Wampler.

1 3

1 asked that these c uestions be resolved in a manner that " fully and convincingly disposes of any threat to the public 1ealth and safety" before allowing the Licensmg Board's authorizauon of a full power license to become effective.

1 While declining to provide written answers to any of my specific Commission's March I affirmation session or at any time pnor to today, questions prior the NRC's Director of Congressional Affairs did promptly provide me with a copy of Mr. Taylor's Feb.28,1990 Memorandum to the Commission which concluded that "there are no new issues material to full

_ power licensing involved." I find that contention extraordinary in light of the inability of the NRC staff over the past two weeks to provide specific responses to questions regarding the nature, cause, or ultimate disposition of any of the deficiencies detected by Mr. Wampler. How is it possible to profess ignorance of Mr. Wampler's concerns, while also expressing confidence that they were not serious enough to affect licensing?

In support of his conclusion, the Executive Director for Operations enclosed a copy of a Feb. 28 memorandum (with enclosures) from William T. Russell, Region One Administrator, to Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation containing the results of an " expedited review" of the " Concerns of Former Seabrook Level III NDE Examiner." The memorandum referenced enclosure documents comprising several hundred pages which the author j

believed substantiated the conclusion that "no current conditions material to full power licensing arej involved."

Please be advised that a review of the Russell Memorandum by my staff reveals that a number of statements made in support of the above conclusion are not substantiated by the documents provided, and that some of these statements conflict with other credible sources of information. Among the questionable statements are the following:

j e -

"Our assessment is that a 20% reject rate of radiographs during the first review by a Level L

III examineris not unusual."

While finding no qualified source to corroborate this statement, I have found several expert

_l sources who have stated that a 20% reject rute is in fact unusual and indicative of serious problems with the NDE program, the welds themselves, or both, i

3

l

,e 2

l l

"Further, after the alleger departed the site, the licensee performed a 100 % check of the e

radiographs (Enclosure 8, pages 91 and 92) and required a re radiographing and rework as appropriate for any weld, regardless of who had previously reviewed it."

The documentary evidence cited in support of this statement does not in fact substantiate it, The referenced document,IR 90 80, merely states,"....as documented in CAT IR 84 07 and discussed in IR 85-31t the licensee conducted an independent third party review of all RT film stored onsite...."

However, IR 84 07 appears to lack any reference to "an independent third party review of all RT film stored onsite" and IR 85 31 does not say that the nameless " third party" performed a 100% check of radiographst rather, IR 85 3 ' states:

"The third party review involved a random selection of welds inspected by liquid penetrant, magnetic particle, and radiography."

" Inspection Report 50 443/83 22 (Enclosure 11, pages 4 and 5)... documented acceptable e

- completion of the last two NCRs generated by the examiner [i.e. Wampler). Further, the repomng inspector concluded that the concems of the Level III examiner were being properly handled by his.

successors based on a sampling inspection."

The referenced report does not document " acceptable completion of the last two NCRs generated " by Mr. Wampler -- it merely mentions them, and no mention is made of the 16..

NCRs Wampler told the resident inspector he was preparing at the time of his firing.

i Moreover, Mr. Wampler's successor reported for work the day the above cited investigation ended, making it impossible for the reporting inspector to certify legitimately that this gentleman was " properly" handling Mr. Wampler's concems.

As you know, according to Part 50, Appendix B, of the Commission's regulations, the licensee is required to establish measures which, "in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality...shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.... Records shall be identifiable and retrievable."

Given the inadequacy of the Commission's response to my Feb. 27 request when measured against the standard set by these Appendix B requirements, I ask that you provide me l

with certain additional quality assurance information conceming Seabrook as soon as possible.

1. If the "100% check" by "an independent third party" of "all RT film stored onsite" actually occurred in the cited timeframe (1984-85), why is this not mentioned in inspection reports prior to February,19907 i

2. According to a December 21,1983 " Final Report" from Yankee Atomic Electric Company on the disposition of the 2399 welds held to be suspect as a result of false NDE reports filed by a Pullman Higgins examiner named Padovano,193 " inaccessible items" were evaluated and -

" accepted on a case by case basis by UE&C engineering."

Please provide documents which show the complete record of NDE examinations and corrective actions,if any, for each of these " inaccessible items."

1 l

e t

}

V 3

i i

Which of these 193 " inaccessible items" can be classified as " safety significant ?"

i t

Before they became inaccessible, which of these items had been the subject of '

j l

l radiographs? Were these earlier radiographs reviewed for possible defects prior to :

1 acceptance of these items on a case by case basis? Which of these inaccessible items were' =

')

the, subject of radiographs that had been rejected during the initial Level 11 or Level III l

reviews.

u-Please provide copies of the records relating to the case by case reviews and '

1 acceptance of these 193 inaccessible items.

q y

I

3. Please provide me with copics ofall records required under Appendix B. which document th^e specific nature of the problems identified and corrective actions performed in connection with the I

following safety sigmficant Seabrook welds, which I have reason to believe were rejected during initial review by a competent level III NDE technician:

-i i

I I

RC 3 F0102 MS 4013 02 F0201 -

RC 9 F0102 MS-4005 20 F2003 4

RC 10 F0101 MS-4005 22 F2204 i

RC 10 F0102 MS 4009 01 F0109 1

RC 49 01 F0101 MS 4012 02 F0201 RC-49-01 F0102.

MS-4016-02 F024

(

RC 49-01 F0103 2 CBS 1214 F015 2-CBS-1214 F011 i

s Please provide the information sought in each of the above questions as soon as it is obtained, so that I may make my own evaluation of the NRC/ licensee ability to " identify and retrieve" the documentation required by Appendix B.

q l

- Sincerely.

we I

Edward M. Kennedy.

j I

i i

i l

l EMK:cp l

x j

a