ML20079D733

Expresses Concern That NRC Continues to Evade Confronting Consequences Resulting from Breakdown in Radiograph Insp Process That Occurred During Const of Seabrook Station

ML20079D733
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/24/1991
From:	Kostmayer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
To:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20079D708	List: ML20079D733
References
NUDOCS 9107240339
Download: ML20079D733 (2)

Text

=.

hIh'f,h',2,*,f" M.O. C0use OflepttWentatibe$

{"[* j.[,o L",'"?.'."

ria!='.==

Committee on 1==="

~

$$,:[,'i

'3nterior anb 3nsular 9tffairs y,yggg'.

~

w n= = =._

n o wn m n, m e 203is-o20t

= =:=.....

2"# :#,";,':.'.'#7;'

• 1"','*,,'.,c'lfal'."""'"

J.,',7. = i;" = "."**

• aTm."ol.'o eou':::a'J./.

We

• geysg~geoc on a

ma

. u.L.<.*.M. om&l;

~

UIf/lJE5 c.. uu co o oo g,1ggg'gr;-

= =

1. 1. ffJ""lL.uu.

.i~S:7 I.7&" cto.

O'#2.?*'

June 24, 1991 Honorable Kenneth-Carr

-Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to express concern that the NRC staff continues to evade confronting the serious consequences resulting from the breakdown in the radiograph inspection process that occurred during construction of the Seabrook Station.

My staff informs-me that at your briefing prior to last Friday's public meeting, Mr. Hodges announced his-intention to ignore a two-to-one majority established amongst your radiographic reviewers regarding'the compliance of several radiographs with the ASME Code.

He went on to say that he planned to inform the licensee that the only radiographs. that the NRC considered not to comply with the Code were the ones upon which all three. reviewers had reached agreement. Thus, instead of informing the licensee that there was a problem with,the radiographs of six welds,

_Mr. Hodges would have declared that the radiographs. of only _two welds constituted a problem.

Thankfully, Mr. Sniezek overruled this course of action and the licensee was informed of the true nature of the problem.

While I applaud the eventual outcome in this matter, I remain ccncerned regarding the institutional climate at the NRC uhich apparently fosters a belief in high-level of ficials such as Mr.-

Hodges that the highest imperative is to do all possible to avoid findings of potentially unsafe conditions if such findings might interfere with a licensee's operations.

In this climate, it is all-right to move to-reducing safety margins by overruling or simply ignoring the agency's own technical experts in matters critical to safe operation of nuclear facilities.

Moreover, on Saturday, June 23, the Associated Press (AP) carried a story relating to discussion at the Friday meeting between NRC and Seabrook licensee officials.

The AP story quoted Mr. Hodges, the NRC's Region I Director of Reactor Safety, as having said, with reference to the radiograph deficiencies,

.... it was a paperwork 9107240339 9.10717 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR i

g c

'llon. Kenneth Carr_ June 28, 1991 problem, not a safety problem."

Thus, Mr. Hodges, _in public, cut the -ground from exceedingly important findings made by highly qualified NRC staff.

Contrary to Mr. Hodges' statement, it is my understanding that the six' radiographs did not comply with applicable _ codes; therefore, the quality of the associated welds is indeterminate.

Whether the problem is one of paperwork or actual. safety can only be resolved by - taking new radiographs or by an engineering analysis _ (if NRC regulations allow such_an analysis in lieu of proper radiographs) demonstrating that notwithstanding the inadequate radiography, the welds are nevertheless capable of performing their intended

-functions.

I would appreciate your inftarning me as to whether -the AP cited Mr. Hodges correctly and, if so, what the basis was for his ~ determination that-- the radiograpt deficiencies did not represent a - safety problem.

Please proPw me the Commission's position. on the question of whether the radiogcaph deficiencies identified'at'Seabrook amount only to a " paperwork problem."

I am;also concerned _that the Mr._Hodges appears fo be content to consider these six welds as isolated cases which can be dealt with

~ by taking new radiographs of the six without conairteration of the generic _ implications of.the finding.

The fact is-that these six-welds were from a sample of _ approximately forty that, as far as I know, -was selected from a_ fairly large class of welds that might not have - been properly radiographed.

I believe, therefore, that the NRC has an obligation.to immediately expand the sample of forty

-to include at least an additional _eighty welds.

I have directed my Gtaff to provide to your staff recommendations for welds to be included-in the expanded sample.

This_ review should be conducted by NRC staff _who are currently certified for such activities.

LFinally, please inform as to whether the Commission intends to send

-the5Seabrook licensee an order to show cause why the Seabrook Station should be a31 owed to continue to operate in the face of a-finding that 15% of a sample of forty welds were of indeterminate quality.

'If the Commission does not intend to send the license such a Show Cause Order, I_would appreciate your providing me the commission's rationale for not doing so.

Please provide the information requested in this letter prior to July 4, 1991.

Sincerely,

} lfc FTL-l h er H.

Kostmayer chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment

.