ML20059F526
| ML20059F526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1982 |
| From: | Cerne A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F510 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9009110241 | |
| Download: ML20059F526 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _
ATTACHMENT 6 l
[,,,,,..,%,
UNITeO STAfet NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.P' i
neoloN I es1 Paan AveNus o
g No op PausstA, PENNsVI.VANIA 19408 January 18,1982 l
m MEMORANDUM FOR:
Case File 81-66 k"" /D THRU:
R.M.Gallo, Chief, RPS 1A, D I
E.J.Brunner, Chief. PB#2, DR&PI // 9 FROM:
A.C.Cerne Sr. Resident Inspector, Seabrook
~
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS - EXCES$!VE RCS LOOP P!PE WELDING REPAIRS Two previous memos to Case File 81-66 written by the Seabrook SRI (November 2 and November 6,1991) document the concerns of Mr. Henry Demers as communicated in meetings with the SRI on October 30,1981 and with the i
SRI and Mr. S. Reynolds (Region I) on November 5,1981.
On November 3,1981 Mr. Reynolds with the aid of the SRI initiated an unannounced inspection (IR 50-443/81-13) at Seabrook Station Unit 1, of procedures, work activities, and records relative to the machine-orbiting, gas tungsten arc (GTA) butt welding process being utilized to weld the Class 1, reactor coolant system pipe and components.
Concurrent with this independent NRC inspection, the licensee issued a memorandum from PSNH Construction to YAEC QA (Enclosure 1) to summarize the history to date of corrective actions relative to the subject welding letter to the Royal Insurance Company (Enclosure 2) gins responded by defects.
Subsequent to tha inspection, Pullman-Hig i
in answer to Mr. Damers' ANIrequestfora"completeassessmentoftheproblem"(Enclosure 3).
Additionally, the position and actions taken by representatives of the Royal Insurance Company are documented in Enclosures 4 and 5.
-By letters written to Mr. Reynolds, addressed to the NRC Region 1 Office and dated November 5 and 6,1981, Mr. Demers essentially withdrew his i
l interest in the allegations and indicated that he no longer had any desire for an NRC investigator to take a written statement from him. The content of a transcript of a celephone conversation initiated by Mr. Demers to l
Mr.A.Morrongiello(IEHQsDutyOfficer)onNovember5,1981 confirmed Mr. Demers' intent to withdraw his allegations.
Since that time, the NRC has had no consnunications with'Mr. Demers.
L NRC Inspection Report 50-443/81-13 was issued on December 29,1981.
L The inspection was conducted by two NRC inspectors independent of licensee /
l' contractor actions and was documented without regard to Mr. Demers' withdrawal of his allegations. No items of noncompliance were identified.
CONCLUSION: While at the essence of Mr. Demers' concerns are issues of NRC interest, the actual allegations raised by Mr. Demers are items which extensive NRC inspection could not substantiate.
Previous NRC U
t
.,.,, +. -,.
.a.--..
a,,
~
1 R.M.Gallo E.J.Brunner 2
1/18/82 inspections into the area of automatic GTA welding of RCPB loop piping (eg: 50-443/81-08) had already established an interest in the results of this process during its inceptive stages.
The licensee thru independent actions (eg: a limited stoppage of two shift production welding from October 14-26,1981) has exhibited apparent concern and comensurate cerrective action for the level of identified defects and required repairs.
l The governing ASME B&PV Code is not being violated and no facts indicate i
either disregard of quality considerationc by the licensee or an intent to hide any problems associated with the Dimetrics welding process from either the ANI or the NRC.
Based upon the results of the NRC inspection into this matter, the licensee's own actions independent of NRC interest, and Mr. Demers' l
decision, after apparently having time to consider all relevant facts, that "the situation is being handled properly by the existing situation" (reference: transcript of tel conversation Demers/Morrongiello on November 5,1981), the SRI recomends that this case file be closed and that future inspection of this issue be handled by routine, programmatic means.
w&,
Antone C. Cerne Sr. Resident Inspector 5
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
L. Tripp R.-Gallo R.LCarlson E. Brunner S. Reynolds N A. Corne w NW I4 lilf gg pe ason.A G : M**
pg e n:M 9,e.1sn K pqPD Myn
. /18 i
7
.;, MEMORANDUM.
, 'c% m.. ' ).. '
- y YAEC - oA wove ber 5.,1981
' ' To J.v. sincleto,
.1
..--.m 1..
b Ftore
.f. H. H e rr in -
P s NH.....,...
File sn 1.3.6
$Ub}ect
$1' WARY OF COPMCTIVE ACTION REPORT RELATIVE TO PEACTOR con ANT tirt MNr per* Pts Va b'egan welding on the reactor coolaut system piping on July 6,1981.
Prior to this date we had purchased 6 Dimetries velding machines, trained 2 instructors, trained 1 maintenance person, trained 12 welders, established In addition to this pre-qualified procedures and qualified the 12 weldars.
11minary work we hired 4 experienced welder / instructors from Dimetries to These Dimatric i
augeant our program during the initial period of operation.
personnel were present during the last week of our training period and during
[
the first month of welding on the reactor coolant system to assure that we got started correctly.
i During the :nonths of July and August the program ran with an acceptable nc=ber of defects.
The welding proceeded on 2 - 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> shif ts with radt-og,raphy being done between shif ts.
The training program ran simultaneously and we had developed a total of 16 welders by the end of August. During
[
this period we purchased an additional 2 Dimetrics machines resulting in a _
Six of these machines were used on the reactor coolant total of 8 machines.
pipe and 2 machines were used for training.
During the month of September and early October the number of defects i
began to increase to what was considered to be approaching an unacceptable level by Pu11ran-Higgins and UE&c. On October,5,1981 Pullman-Higgins sub-mitted NCR 1388 concerned with grinding into the steam generator nozzle base Pullman-Higgins conducted an 1.nternal meeting on-October l
metal on loop B.
7,1981 to evaluate the overall situation and on october.9.1981 they began
~
f a tradiography indoctrination program and a Dimetrics retraining program.
L on ' October 13, 1981, Pullman-Higgins recommended to cease two shif t produc-On October 14th a tion welding for a limited, specified period of time.
, meeting was held between Pullman-Riggins, UE&C, YAEC-QA and PSNH and Pullman-
.;Eiggihs summarised their nituation and the recommendation that they wanted to L
i.' limit. production welding.with the mechanised equipment on the. RCS to one.-
A formal stop work was not in-
- *shif t* operation and evaluate the situation.
h.itiated or considered necessary at that time because the quality control l
system and the actual welding.procesa control system were functioning corr-ectly.
A system breakdown had not occurred. The main concern was that the l'
f number of defects were approaching an unacceptable level.
Pullman-Higgins plan to evaluate and rectify the situation was as follows:
To'stop two shif t production welding and carry out repair work, and 1.
Repair work (grinding and manual weld-welding on a limited basis.
ing) vas to be conducted on the first 'shif t and mechanized welding was to be only permitted on the second shilt utiliaing the most capable operators.
To cycle all the machine welders back through an upgrading. program 2.
for the purpose of finding any bad welding techniques that existed and to reconfirm good welding techniques.
To indoctrinate the welders on the kind of problems that were de-3.
veloping and how these were shown on radiograph.
- z. d b-B-
- 7......._ _ _
y
!(l Y
'4 Pullman-Higgins w:s to, r; view their r:diogreps techniqua.
[
During this evaluation process repair work continu:d en the RCS on a 5.
single shif t basis using the top rated machine welder.
. This recommendatica of Pullman-Higgins was' carried out and production velding resumed on October 26, 1981.
At the present time the number of defects have sig-1 nit'icantly been reduced.
From October 21 through Novamber 3 the welding progressed wita only one radiographic reject involving two viewing areas.
In addition to the above items, YAEC QA made a request at the October 14 meeting I
Pullman-Higgins is that ultrasonic examination technique be used on these defects.
presently developing Ultrasonic Examination Technique for locating indications during The weld geometry makes the feasibility of angle beam dif ficult during veld weldout.Straight beam _ examination had limited results, mainly dun to surf ace conditions out.
i
- and depth of indications. YAEC will follow this development of Ultrasonic Examinatic l'
Technique.
1981, PSNH, L'E&C and YAEC QA had a meet Following the =eeting on October 14, on October 22, 1981 with NDE and inservice inspection personnel from YAEC to eval-usta this problem.
The following two action items were addressed:
It was felt that Westinghouse experience was needed f rom c*,her sites with 1.
the same RCS configuration as Seabrook Station.
Westinghouse was contacted and will provide their NDE Sracialist from Westinghouse headquarters during the we6w ! Movember 16, 1981.
He will review our entire NDE and welding pre gram.
i The radiographic technique being used by Pullman-Higgine was reviewed and 1
2.
discussed relative to experience at other Yankaa plants.
One problem that.
had occurred at Seabrook Station was the defects were sometimes found on
' hots which resulted in substantial excavation for the repair.
succeedi The method s - ' by Pullman-Higgins is 'a panoramic technique f rom the pipe ID using an ir.atum source.
It was decided that Pullman-Higgins would be requested to take some shots from the 0.D and evaluate the results on or about November 4, 1981.
r
/
'11A John H. Barrin Site Manager JEH JAPrkla ec:
3.B. Beckley R.P. Pizzuti J. DeVincentis i
-.~
i c,
,.s
~ '
,8 u. s.0 i
th.
Pu:Iman-Higgins..
,5, a m.
... a-,.n... m,
...e,e <m, m. w November 6, 1981 t
1 Royal Insurance ;o=pany United Engineers & Contractors P.O. Box 700
.Seabrook, NH 03874 Attentient Clyde O'Sullivan, Authorized Nuclear inspection Superviser tesr Sir:
/.i ;;emo dated 10-30-81. To:
R. G. Davis, Trom:
Henry Damers Pullman-Higgins has evaluated our QA program relative to control of repair weld repairs on Reactor Coolant Loop Piping.
We find the program to be in complete complianc6 with the requirements of ASME Secti6n III W77 Addenda, thus we can see no ' i viable reason to consider reporting a significant defect under 10CTR50.55(e).
Pullman-Higgins developed Tield Instruction 132 which requires inspections and non-destructive testing far beyond Code requirements.
A review of our records show.
that to data more than 200 radiographs have been taken on the twenty (10) welds in process.
These radiographs have been utilized to evaluate quality of workmanship on_each veld at intermediate levels of weldout.
These intermediate radiographs have resulted in 35 in process weld repairs, all of which have been fully documented in accordance with Pullman Procedure JS-IX-14.
l The above mentioned radiographs are not required by code, but are i= posed by Pullman internal restriction to assume in process control over the welding process.-
I If you require any further information, please contact me at your earliest convenience..
t Yours truly,
(
Richwd G. Davis, QA Hanager Pullman-Higgins L
ce mc Calder L
A. Eck E. Gervin s
t 2-
- c
\\
Pullman.Higgins.. a Joint Venture of J C. Higgins company,Inc.
L
.P"!!ra.a, Power Proeucts. Omsion of Puttnaan incorporated 25 Foronam Ficao Beste... IAassacnus,tts 02'34
(-
.u 4e 3300, W.P.amscon Pennsyisania t Frot 1
- ~ '
)
(.
e-i OFFICE MEMORANDUM g*
- II arbon cop / accenpanies this memorandum, please tw it for reply.
sies l
V Dole To: (Department or branch eden)
Nov. 16, 1981 New England Engineering-Div.
Frome (Deparuannt or branch omee)
Anention Of:
ASHI Code Supervisor j
A. J. Frisch, Manager i
x..
34,,,
Henry G.' Demers, ANI
- 1. Unit - Seabrook Site 10/30/81.-
l Reference Henry G. Damers' memo to Pullman Higgins dated The following is a summary of the actions I took as ASME code supervisor relative to the repairs of RC loop piping welds at J
Seabrook.
1 I conducted an in depth review of the ANI's log book for any _
indication of open items or concerns of the ANI's as to the method i
i of handling these repairs.
There was no indication in the log i
of either open items or concerns in this area.
f I talked at lepgth with the two Senior ANI's as to their concerns-or feelings about the rathods being used to control weld repairs.
They both felt they are being handled adequately.
I reviewed both Code and Program requirements-relative to handling weld repairs and found no evidence of non-compliance.
i l:
I reviewed a tabulation of weld repairs on RC loop piping run by L
This tabulation indicated that there were only
(-
Pullman Higgins.
l 35 repair welds not the 125 as mentioned in H. Demers' memo l
dealing with this subject.
i It is my opinion that there is no lack of control on weld repairs and that the method being used meets code requirements.
3 C. T. O'Su livan ASME Code Supervisor 6
e nd
.m,
____._....~,.___.mm.,._,m.--...__..
,-s..
._,......m__
e' l
i:
.l,
} Q "gn
/
\\
J
\\
l November 17, 1981 o'
Mr. D. C, t.ambert, FSQA
)
United Engineers & Constructors Inc.
Seabrook station Field Office Post Office Box 700 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
Dear Mr. I,
ambertt i
Re:
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
- '/
Seabrook Station Allegation to NEC We, the Royal Insurance companies, were extremely concerned l
i when we learned of the allegations made by our ANI at 'the time l.
of his resignation.
-First, I instructed Clyde.0'Sullivan, the ASME code supervisor, to fully investigate the allegations and. submit a reptert of his
+
findings to me. -Enclosed is his report of investigation and i
,a s
~
.e' t..e.. m.,
conclusion In addition on Monday, November 2,-I visited the seabrook site N,
for my own Investigation.
I interviewed Senior.ABI's J. Anzivino ti and G. Voishnis and reviewed the ANI's Division I log for the
~~._
period of September 1 to cetober 28.
There is no indication of improper activity.
l-On Wednesday, November 4, I inter: viewed Henry Demers about his 1
allegations.. He' spoke in generalities and had no basis 1
for the allegation regarding the 125 repairs.
9 bC/
7
..,vv4...,i-.,---..-.-.~.,,-----_--.,..
.f
3-i
., l.
i l
i P
t t
l I fully concur witit Supervisor C. O'Sullivan that Pullman i
Higgins has the required controls and the welds on the RC loop adhere to the required ASME code.
Very truly yours, l
I r.: *..
(
j Alfred J. Frisch, PE, CSP Manager Nmt England Engineering Division ja attach.
cc. with attacht M. McLaughlin G.F. Cole D.E. McGarrigan R.A. Rabel J.W. Singleton /
l G.F. Mcdonald C.D. Scull I
i
..,e 1'
- %,s v.
- h g'.
p s
a e
i 9
e s
-=w--
--w, o~
)
t J
.O L.
MEMORAN00M FOR:
Case File 81-66 THRU:
E. J. Brunne RobertM.Ga11h FROM:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION - EXCESSIVE REACTOR C001. ANT SYSTEM PIPE
. WELDING REPAIRS AT SEABROOK The following is a transcript of a telephone conversation between Mr. Henry Demers and Mr. Al Morrengiello, HQ: Duty Officer.
The phone call was received at 1837 on November 5, 1981 by the HQ Outy Officer.
Mr. Demers:
My name is Henry Demers, I'm a au.horized nuclear inspector National Board Number 7131.
I had a discussion with a Mr. Samuel D. Reynolds this morning.
I'd like to leave _a message for him. The message is that I have considered the matter and I've contacted the site this afternoon.
And I'm withdrawing my allegations in the memo and in addition, I'm withdrawing any other allegations in regards to the situation and it will not be necessary for him or for another investigator to contact me in New Jersey and that's the extent of the message.
I also spoke to a Mr. Cernan (Carne),
T HQ Outy Officer:
Could you spell the second name?
(
Mr. Demers:
C-E-R-N-A-N The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, field man who's permanently assigned to the Nuclear I
site.
HQ Outy Officery Sam Reynolds Jr., he's also NRC7 Mr. Demers:
Samuel D. Reynolds Jr. Reactor Inspector, his address is 631 3
Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
I have copies of a memo that I wrote to Pullman-Higgins.
I'm going to put l-
-those in a envelope with a note, a explanatory note that I've received information that makes it advisable to withdraw the allegation and I'll mail it to him. OK? That's just a message for Mr. Samuel Reynolds.
HQ 00:
That's Seabrook.
I L
Ob x
~__.___ _._
t c
Memorandum for File:
2
-Mr. Demers:
They're both at Seabrook now looking into the situation.
All right?
HQ DO:
OK i
Mr. Demers:
What is your name Sir?
HQ 00:
I'm 3till working.on " withdraw all allegations," allegations concerning that one topic, the one memo that you wrote?
Mr. Demersi.
Yes and any others that I brought out which had no bearing on f
their investigation, HQ 00:
CK i
Mr. Demers:
The reason is that I've received information from another ANI (Authorized Nuclear Inspector) on the site that leads me to the understanding that the situation is being handled properly by the existing system.
HQ 00:
Ok Mr. Demers:
The problem arose pernaps from my inexperience in the field.
HQ 00:
Yeah, OK Mr. Demers:
It would be embarassing to have-this turned into a full. blown
-i investigation, not only for myself but for my employer Royal
~
Insurance Company in Boston.
HQ 00:
Right Mr. Demers:
So I think for everybody all the way around it would be best to l
simply to handle this in 'the usual way end not require an "
investigator visit me in New Jersey.
Uniass of course they-feel l'
L it's necessary.
I-recently, I've been thinking about it and I discussed with someone on the site and I don't feel it's o
necessary.
4 I'll pass that on.
That's going to be up to them.
HQ 00:
Mr. Demers:
Of course.
HQ 00:
Whatever they think.
l L
l,
i t..
y 3
Memorandum for File:
When I put that memo in, it unfortunately went into the Public Mr. Demers:
Document Room and it appears that the situation was being handled in a way that I was not made aware of. My ignorance perhaps con-tributed-to the situation.
But for my employer's. sake and of course the future of atomic energy I think that both be handled in the usual way and routine investigations and routine audits.
Now what is your name?
HQ 00:
My last name is spelled M-0-R-R-0-N-G-I-E-L-L-0.
OK, Mr. Morrongeillo if you would give Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Cernan Mr. Demers:
(Carne) the message tommorrow morning when they check into the office or wnenever they have the habit of checking for information, for memos, and I'll mail my copies of the memoranda, all my information to Reynolds in King of Prussia, the office in Pennsylvania with an explanation.
Si.nilar to the one I gave you.
'Mr. Demers:
Ok, Thank you very much HQ 00:
Good night i
Mr. Demers:
Good night.
()
Robert
. Ga lo, Chief Reactor Projects Section, IA Oivision of Resident and Project Inspection l
cc:
R. Carlson i
R. Carne L
E. Brunner L. Tripp R. Gallo i
l l
.