ML20072V013
| ML20072V013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1991 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072U998 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9104190378 | |
| Download: ML20072V013 (82) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ 013 .\ A OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MeDCy U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission
Title:
tiew !!ampshire Yankee Presentation to 11RC Staff on Pullman-lliggins Field Weld Records Re-Verification Project Docket No. LOCA110N: Rockville, Maryland DATL Wednesday, April 10, 1991 PAGIL 1 - 53 ANN RILEY & ASSOCINTES, LTD. 1612 K St. RW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C 20006 (202) 293-3950 hD DD ) 43 T PDR
M a 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 4 5 ----- 6 7 NEW HAMPSilIRE YANKEE 8 Presentation to NRC Staff 9 on 10 Pullman-liiggins Field Weld 11 Records Re-Verification Project 12 13 April 10, 1991 14 15 ----- 16 17 NRC 18 One White Flint North 19 Room 16 B 11 20 11555 Rockville Pike 21 Rockville, Maryland 20852 22 23 The conference in the above matter convened at 24 1:02 p.m. 25 l l
. _ _ . . . . _. .. . . . _ _ . - . - _ = - _ - . . . _ . . . % 4 3
1 PRESENT FOR Tile NRC STAFF 2 3 J. Snietek 4 T. Martin 2 5 J. Partlow 6 G. Edison 7 R. Wessman 8 W. Bateman 9 T. Corno 10 E. McCabe 11 L. Chandler 12 13 PRESENT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE: 14 15 N. Pillsbury 16 T. Feigenbaum 17 T. liarpster 18 E.Desmarais 19 00 21 l 22 23 24 25
._ ~. . . . , - . _ _ _ , , _ _ _ - , _. _ _ _ -
r S 3 1 PROCEEDING S 2 HR. SHIEZEK My name is Jim Snietek. I am the 3 Deputy Executor for Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Regional 4 Operation and Research. 5 The purpose of this meeting is for the NRC Staff 6 to discuss and develop a good understanding of the New 7 Hampshire Yankee plans to conduct a re-review of the 8 quality records associated with the Pullman-Higgins field 9 welds at Seabrook Nuclear Plant. 10 I'm speaking of those wolds which require 11 radiography pursuant to the industry codes. 12 Because of the recent discovery that some require 13 radiograph records or portions thereof were missing, the NR 14 Staff determined that this re-review is necessary in order 15 to conclusively determine whether all the code required 16 radiographs and radiograph inspection records for Pullman-17 Higgins field wolds have been fully processed and retained 18 as quality records. 19 This re-review was requested by NRC letter dated 20 March 19, 1991. By letter dated March 25th, 1991, New 21 Hampshire Yankee committed to complete the effort by August 22 31st of this year. 23 I should also mention that this meeting is being 24 transcribed. Therefore, it is requested that all speakers 25 identify themselves.
e i 4 1 I will now turn the meeting over to Tim Martin, 2 the regional administrator for Region I. 3 MR. MARTIN: Ted, the purpose of the meeting is 4 really to have you describe the activity that you are going 5 to engage in to confirm that the radiographic packages and 6 review forms that you have are really a comprehensive set 7 that cover all the required radiographs. 8 I'm going to turn it over to you for the 9 presentation. However, at some point during this 1 10 discussion, we will want to discuss some additional ,- 11 commitments that I am going t7 seek from you relative to
-12 reporting identified deficiencies in real time as they are 13 discovered.
14 So we will not finish up until that has occurred. 15 But I guess if there are no other comments, I-would ask you-16 to get on with the presentation. 17 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Thank you, Tim. 18 Good afternoon. -I am'Ted Feigenbaum, and I am th 19 President and Chief Executive Officer of'New Hampshire . 20 Yankee, and New Hampshire Yankee-is the managing agent for 21 the Seabrook Station. 22 With me this afternoon are Neal Pillsbury on my 23 right. Jie-is-the Director of Quality Programs. Terry l 24 Harpster on ny left here, who is the Director of Licensing i: . . H2 5 Services at Seabrook. And Ed Desmarais on my:far left, who-l l
e i 5 1 is the Manager of our Independent Review Team. 2 We appreciate this opportunity to summarize for 3 you today the welding records reverification project which 4 we recently have begun. 5 The goal of this project is to ensure that this 6 recounting of code and regulatory required documentation is 7 completed using a process that will leave no doubt about th 8 completeness of final weld records and their acceptability. 9 Through the quality assurance programs that were 10 in place during the construction and testing of+Seabrook 11 Station, a great deal of emphasis was directed at assuring 12 that Pullman-Higgins nuclear safety-related field selds met 13 or exceeded the code and regulatory requirements. 14 Basad on our knowledge of these programs and the 15 extensive reviews and investigations conducted to date, we 16 .are confident that the Welds in question meet technical 17 requirements. 18 We fully appreciate, however, the importance of 10 your request that we re-verify the existence of certain 20 radiographic examination quality documents against the 21 master list of welds which requires such' documentation. 22 This document and reverification effort will' 23 enable us to reconfirm the associated record set and fully 24 evaluate any record discrepancy that may need further l 25 anaAysis.
6 i To accomplish this project in e comprehensive, 2 efficient and expeditious manner, we have assigned some of 3 our most capable personnel to work on this project. In a 4 moment I will turn this presentation over to the assigned 5 project manager, Ed Desmarais, who will be summarizing the 6 scope of the work, the selection of an independent 7 contractor, the methodology for the reverification of 8 records, and the project schedule. 9 Before Ed begins his presentation, I would just 10 like to take a minute to explain how Ed's position fits int 11 the New Hampshire Yankee organization. 12 Ed is the manager of our Independent Review Team. 13 In summary, the Independent Review Team is a small, multi-14 disciplined team of highly qualified professionals, who 15 independently evaluate and report on issues of importance t 16 New Hampshire Yankee senior management. They are 17 independent of any New Hampshire Yankee line organization, 18 such as Production, Engineering, and Quality Assurance. 19 They are flexibic in composition, in that they accomplish 20 their evaluations using the most highly qualified resources 21 that can be made available to carry out any given, in-depth 22 assignment. 23 For example, in the case of the records 24 reverification project, I directed Ed to solicit bids from 25 three highly qualified nuclear industry contractors. From
e . 7
- 1 that project specification, bid solicitation and bid 2 submittal analysis process, a single vendor, Nuclear Energy 3 Services, Inc., was awarded a contract recently to perform i
4 this reverification under Ed's administrative coordination 5 and facilitation. 6 We have been very careful in selecting potential : 7 contractors to work on this project. Among the requirement 8 we irposed or the reverification was that the contractor ha 9 had no prior responsibilities over these Pu11uan-Higgins 10 field weld programs; and we insisted that the contractor 11 supply personnel who had not had any Seabrook Station or 12 Yankee Atomic Electric Company quality assurance 13 .responsibilitics over these construction welding programs o 14 records, 15 During the course of this reverification, Ed 16 Desmarais will follow all New Hampshire Yankee reporting 17 procedures for both internal and external communications. 18 LIf a contractor identifies an issue for further analysis, E 19 is going to be responsible for facilitating and coordinatin 20 the accomplishment of that analysis and any documentation 21 required. 22 Any formal licensee to NRC reporting requirements 23 will-be carried out-in accordance with our normal operating 24 procedures and programs. 25 We expect to have a final report completed on or __ . ~ . ~ . _ _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . .__ .- . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ , ._ _ ,.___ _ . _ _
e . 8 1 before August 31st, 1991, and throughout this project Ed 2 will report directly to Heal Pillsbury, who in turn reports 3 directly to me. 4 We assure you that this project team has the 5 -resources necessary to accomplish the project scope and 6- schedule which1Ed is now prepared to summarize for you. 7 Ed, I will turn it over to you. 8 MR. DESMARAIS: Thank you, Ted. 9 I am Ed Desmarais. I am the Independent Review 10 Team manager and also the Project Manager for this 11 reveri~fication effort.
-12 Let me get this set up and I will continue.
13 our presentation today will outline our efforts i 14 response to the NRC's March 19th letter. Specifically I 15 will discuss the purpose, the scope, the approach, with 16 examples, the schedule, and the outline of what our final 17 report contents will entail. 18- I would ask that you hold questions-until I finis
-19 ry presentation, because I anticipate that some of'them wil 20 be answered as I go along.
21 This is the purpose. The first effort is to 22 identify all Pullman-Higgins field welds that require 23 radiography by code. 24 I will refer to this particular report as Task No 25 1 as-I get further into the presentation.
+, ~
l 9 1 1 The second effort is to verify that New Hampshire 2 Yankee has the quality documents, the radiographic 3 inspection reports, or RIRs, and the radiographs. 4 As part of that verification effort, we will also 5 confirm the Yankee radiograph review. 6 The third part of this effort will include the 7 identification of YAEC radiograph review. 8 (Pause.) 9 MR. DESMARAISt I think I am still on Item No. 4. 10 That is to identify and report records anomalies that may 11 arise as a result of either the Task 1 or Task 2 afforts. 12 That process I will describo during the course of the 13 presentation. 14 And the last of the purpose of this project will 15 be to report on the results of this overall effort. 16 The scope of Task I begins with the applicable 17 codes requiring radiography, and those are the American 18 Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American National 19 Standards Institute B 31.1 for piping. 20 Both codes that are applicable to Seabrook are th 21 1977 edition, winter of '77 addenda. 22 As an example of the type of requirements from th 23 ASME Code, radiography requirements, that apply for piping, 24 specifically, are extracted from these particular sections 25 of the code which indicate the requirements for RT for thes
10 i specific classes of welds, ASME classes, and the weld join 2 configuration. 3 The radiography requirments for B 31.1 are of a , 4 similar nature, but there are two separate classifications 5 one with systems that are greater than 750 degrees 6 Fahrenhalti-- again,-you have got the same weld joint-7 configuration that, would determine the radiography 8 requirements -- and the second criteria, systems with 9 temperatures, design temperatures greater than 350 degrees 10 Fahrenheit, but less than or equal to 750 degrees 11 Fahrenheit, and a design pressure greater than 1025 PSIG. 13 our approach to this effort covers five lead 13 points, the first being independence. We have selected, as 14 Ted has mentioned, a contractor that has had no. prior. 15 Pullman-Higgins welding experience or during the 16 construction of Seabrook. l 17 In addition to that, we have specified that the 18 personnel that the contractor would supply for the project 19 also have no direct experience with the welding that was 20 done at Seabrook by Pullman-Higgins. i 21 In addition to that, the third facet of !
'22 independence is that this particular contractor is separate 23- and distinct-from the previous New Hampshire Yankee efforts 24 that reviewed the radiography documentation _and the 25 engineering efforts.
1 11 1 The second factor is accuracy and control. The 2 contractor is preparing three separate procedures to govern 3 the separate tasks of work that they will be performing. 4 New Hampshire Yankee will be reviewing and approving those 5 procedures prior to the contractor starting work. 6 The contractor for each of the tasks will leave a 7 fully auditable record documentation. 8 In addition, the contractor is supplying 9 independent quality assurance oversight, as is New Hampshir ' 10 Yankee, and the contractor is working under the New 11 Hampshire Yankee quality assurance program. 12 MR. SNIEZEK Just a second. 13 (Pause.) 14 MR. DESMARAIS: I am just going to pick up where 15 left off at No. 2. 16 How No. 3, the qualifications. 17 In selecting the contractors and the personnel wh 18 were assiened., we recognize engineering, quality assurance, 19 and nondestructive examination experience, specifically wit 20 ISI programs in welding, and the engineering that supports 21 that. 22 The fourth bullet addresses reporting. In any 23 time during this effort, either the Task 1, 2 or 3 efforts 24 by the contractor, there may be items that arise. Our 25 approach will be to have the contractor document those, i 1
1 6 i 10 1 formally transmit those to New Hampshire Yankee, using the 2 existing mechanisms that we have in-house. 3 For example, we have a request for engineering 4 services procedure. During the field weld tabulation, if a 5 anomaly arises, the contractor will document that on the 6 RES, the request for engineering services, and we will 7 formally transmit that to -- that request to engineering fo 8 disposition. 9 New Hampshire Yankee will have the responsibility 10 for dispositioning that request. 11 The fifth area addresses checks and balances, in 12 that each task internal to the task performance itself has 13 check and balance, and Task 1 and 2 serve as checks and 14 balances on themselves. For Tank 3, New Hampshira Yankee 15 will perform a separate check and balance for the 16 contractor's effort on Task 3. 17 This slide shows the methodology that we will be l 18 using for the performance of this effort. 19 There are three separate tasks that are shown l 20 here; Task 1, which is on the left-hand column; Task 2 here l l 21 and Task 3 in the center. 22 I will cover each task separately. I am coming l 23 back to this slide as I go through the examples. I 24 What I would like to do is to cover Task i first, 25 recognizing that Task 1 and Task 2 will be performed in
13 i i parallel for the system list, so that we will select one 2 particular system, and Task 1 and Task 2 in parallel with 3 perform their respective efforts for those tasks. 4 This overhead is one half of an isometric that wa 6 used during the construction of Seabrook. I have the other 6 half which I will put up in a minute. 7 This is a particularly good starting point for th 8 field weld tabuletion, in that this, along with the 9 engineering changa documents that were used during the 10 construction of the project, is the manner in which the 11 field welds were themselves tracked and accounted for 12 throughout the effort. 13 The second factor is that this is the as-built 14 isometric at the time at which Pullman-Higgins finished 15 their effort and in essence submitted the N-5 data report. 16 The recond half of this isometric shows the field o 17 weld tabulation, and specifically it shows which ones would 18 require RT. In this particular case it says 100 percent 19 field weld radiography required, for the following specific 1 20 field weld, and it gives the reason why. These are butt 21 welds. 22 In addition to that, although it is not entirely 23- legible by virtue of the reproduction of the overheads, thi 24 _ indicates which field welds would require liquid penetrant 25 examination, and this corresponds to the radiography
1 l . . i f 14 , 1 requirements as determined by code and as indicated on one 2 of the prior slides. 3 Now going back to this isometric, what I have don 4 is indicate that field welds would require radiography are 5 the ones that are highlighted in yellow. And the field
~ 6 welds that would require liquid penetrant examination are 7 the ones that are circled in blue.
8 The contractor will go through each isometric, 9 including the appropriate -- the outstanding change 10- documents,'and-list all of the field welds on each 11 isometric. 12 In addition to that, they~will specify~which fiel 13' welds require radiography and the requirement applicable'to 14 field-welds that do not require radiography. So that in th 15 case of field weld-109, it would indicate that it did not 16 require radiography because it was a fillet weld. 17 Now the method;of an internal check and balance
' 18 for'this field weld tabulation will be to do a line segment
. 19 confirmation. Each isometric captures one specific line 20 segment, on our design level P& ids, as a. separate.chenk an 21 balance for the-field weld tabuAation, to be sure'that we
. 22 have covered all the line segments, we will highlight -- an 23 Lthis refers to the-segment -- the line segment -- we will
-24 . highlight on the design-level-P& ids the boundaries that are 25 ' covered by this isometric. So that although I showed an RH e+Im
+-,-..
15 1 isometric, and this is a CDs system graphic representation,- 2 if this was an RHR line, what we would show is that this 3 particular isometric line shown by coloring this in, and 4 then the line segment -- in this manner, by going through b all of the D level P&ID's, we will ensure that we will cove 6 all of the line segments captured between the code breaks. 7 In confirming all of the line segments, the 8 contractor will be responsible for providing Yankee with a 9 list of the field welds for that particular system. 10 New Hampshire Yankee, in turn, will enter that 11 data into an electronic data base for subsequent effort, 12 which is -- will be Task 3. I'll cover that in a minute. 13 They will retain their original data extraction s 14 that they in turn will be able to perform Task 3 separately 15 and independently from New Hampshire Yankee. 16 I will now move on to Task 2, recognizing that 17 Task 2 is being performed in parallel with -- by the 18 contractor, using a separate set of people. This entails 19 the radiographic inspection report review, and confirming 20 that the radiographs were on file. 21 This is a reproduction of an original radiograph 22 inspection report from Seabrook generated by Pullman-23 Higgins. The information that we will capture from these 24 RIRs will include the system, the line number, the isometri 25 number and, again, this line number and isometric number l
. o i 16 1 correspond directly to the isometric that I showed 2 ' previously.
3 MR. pARTLOW s Point to them again, please. 4 MR. DESMARAIS: The system number? okay. - The 5 line number and ISO numbers. The line number and the Iso 6 number refer-specifically to -- they will correlate direct 1 ] 7 with that ISO number, so that the -- if I can overlay these 8 together -- the line number and ISO number correlate 9 directly with the isometric reference number. We have-the 10 - line-number here and then the segment number: 11 MR. PARTLOWs Okay. 12 MR. DESMARAIS: Okay. And that also corresponda 13 - with this number right here, shown on the D-level P& ids. 14' In addition to capturing the field weld number an 15 its revision level, we will capture the specification, 16 whether it's ASME B 31.1 or ASME Section 8, we will capture J 17 ; the date of the exposure tar the radiograph. We will also 18 capture the. station number,-whether it was accepted or 19- rejected,-whether it was.within code, and we will 20 specifically capture -- I'll move-th!.s up, so you can see 21 that -- we-will capture Pullman-Higgins signatures and in 22- this particular case,-there is one, two, three Pullman-23 Higgins signatures and thefdates at which it-was-reviewed b 24~ Pullman-Higgias.. 25- We will also capture the review and approval by
. ' . , .,..p ..~.,e. .,m# , ,,...U,- - ,-,,,,.m..._, , . . , - .
. o 17 1 the authorized nuclear inspector which would be in this 2 particular block here, and we will capture the Yankee Atomi 3 signature and the date of approval.
4 The station number specifically -- let me explain 5 what that is for those who are familiar with radiography. 6 Looking at the panoramic view right here, on this 7 RAR, this specifically covers the review and approval of a 8 radiograph for stations 2 through 3, and 3 to zero. So tha 9 the zero position will be at the top, there will be a 1, 2, 10 3, and back to nero. C 11 In this particular case, we have 2 to 3 and 3 to 12 zero radiograph covered by this particular RAR. We will 13 capture each radiograph inspection report in this fashion. 14 Now as a check and balance on the radiograph 15 inspection report,. separate and distinct from that effort, 16 we will go through all of the flim packages and verify that 17 we have the radiographs that cover the stations that were
- 18. approved by -- as indicated by the radiograph inspection 19 report.
20 The radiograph film package shows the field' weld 21 number, and the date that it was shot, which corresponds to 22- the information that goes -- that was captured on the RAR. 23 Upon completing the data package for a given 24 system, again the contractor will provide a data package 25 tabulation to-New Hampshire Yankoo -- will provide a copy o
I 18 ' 1- that data package tabulation to New Hampshire Yankee, and 2 New Hampshire Yankee will then enter into a data base, as 3 will the contractor, and we will independently do a match-u 4 of the two data bases. So that from Task No. 1, we have a 5 list of the field welds that require radiography, and from 6 Task No. 2, we have confirmation that we have the 7 radiographs for.those field welds requiring radiography. 8 The last slide that I have shows the schedule for 9 this effort. 10 As Ted indicated, we have awarded a contract to 11 Nuclear Energy Services. That was done last Friday, on 12 April 5th. The contractor arrived on site this past Monday 13 Their initial efforts over the upcoming weeks will be to go 14 through site orientation, which they have already completed 15 We are also in the process of writing procedures
- 16. for subsequent review and approval by New Hampshire Yankee, 17 and they are beginning to assemble all of the data packages 18 so that they will be able to do their weld tabulation.
19 New Hampshire Yankee is committed to review and t 20 approval procedures by April 19th. The contractor will 21 . start work after those-procedures are approved. 22 We anticipate that the contractor will actually 23 begin Task 1, which is the weld tabulation, and Task 2, 24 which is the RAR and radiograph film package review on Apri 25 22nd.
.,--,e - - - ,- .- ,.---, -,,-,,~r w .. m< - ww--, - - - - ~ -
i . , 19 I 1 By May 30th, we propose to a status report on thi 2 project to'the NRC, specifically to the residents on site. 3 And on June 28th, we anticipate that the 4 contractor will have completed the weld tabulation and the 5 RAR review. 6 That is again Task 1 and Task 2, 7 The contractor will finish the comparison of the 1 8 weld data list from each system and the RARs on July 5th, 9 and they will provide their report to us on July 31st. 10 We propose to have a second status report meeting 11 on July 31st. 12 As required, New Hampshire Yankee will complete a 13 root cause analysis for those anomalies that may have come 14 up as a result of these efforts, and we propose to complete 15 that by J.ugust 23rd, in order to include that as part of th 1 16 _ final report on August 30th, 1991. 17 That report will cover the results of the field. 18 weld tabulation, results of the RAR document review, the , 19 results of the radiograph coda inspection review 20 verification, and it will also cover records' anomalies as s 31 necessary, specifically addressing the resolution, the root l t 22 cause analysis, and the safety implications that it may 23 indicate, and plan for completing compensatoi'y actions and, 24 Lif necessary, a schedule for the completion of compensatory 25 actions.
.v,- - - - - , - -- - , - . , . - - - - - . . , , - , , - . , - - , - - , . - . n -
e . . , - , , - - - ~-a - -- .r .
s . 20 1 I will now entertain any questions that you might 2 have related to this effort. 3 MR. PARTLOWs If this is primarily a records chec 4 then -- 5 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes, sir. 6 MR. PARTLOWs -- if there is a case out there 7 where the wrong shot got taken, or for some reason it isn't 8 really the weld radiograph in the package that the records 9 seem to say it is, this is not going to catch that. Is tha 10 right? 11 Let's say for some reason back in 1984, they went 12 out and mis-shot the wrong weld. They meant to go out and 13 do F-1025 and they went out and did F-1026, and it didn't 14 get caught, and so far there's never been a real look at F-15 1025, but this one got filed as F-1025. 16 MR. DESMARAIS: I'm not sure I understand your 17 question. 18 MR. PARTLOW: Okay. Let me -- I envision this as 19 a file, and Task 1 will say you should have 5000 files. 20 MR. DESMARAIS: Okay. 21 MR. PARTLOWs And so now you are going to go cut 22 and look, and if there is something in each of these files, 23 no empty files, then you say okay, we must have done 100 24 percent of our -- we have radiographed everything that we l 25 should have. l
.. - . . . . - - - - . . . - - . . - . - ~ _. - _ - . - - . - . - . _ . _
.. o 21 :
1 I'm asking, does this task cover such things that 2 could happen as having the wrong information in file No. . 3 30007 For example, shooting the wrong veld. Shooting that 4 pipe over there when it was supposed to make a record of 5 this pipe over here. 6 Does that help? 7 MR. DESMARAIS: Not exactly. How would the 8 radiograph of field weld 0104 be identified as the 9 radiograph of field weld 104 when it's in the package? How 10 ' do you know that that's the right radiograph from that 11 packagn? 12 MR. PILLSBURY: Neal Pillsbury, Director of 13 Quality Programs.
~14 When you look at the radiograph, there are lead 15 block numbers and date information and station start to 16 station finish information directly on the radiograph, and -
17 that is information that will be taken off. 18, Now if that information is incorrect, this proces 19 will not discover that. However, you would have to have a' 20 number of errors occur for that to occur. And we feel that 21- this is a reasonable starting point, because that was 22 checked at multiple levels of-QA and QC over the 23 construction project to ensure that that information was q 24 accurately captured on the radiograph. 25 MR. PARTLOW: Okay. So a simple misfiling will
..-.,--.,_.-.,-.--,,-y, - -
_---,,--e .me-- - - , , . . - . -
l l 22 1 get caught, then? 2 MR. PI LLS BURY : Absolutely. 3 MR. PARTLOWs Okay. I understand. 4 MR. SNIEZEK Jim Sniezek. I have a couple of 5 questions. 6 You talked about qualifications. Would you run 7 through again what the contractor's qualification critoria 8 are they have to meet? 9 MR. DESMARAIS: We specifically, in our bid 10 specification, requested that the personnel that they suppl 11 have code experience, nondestructive examination experience 12 both technical knowledge, as well as professional working 13 experience in that field. 14 MR. SNIEZEK: Would they essentially meet the 15 level of qualification equivalent? Do they need to be a QA 16 inspector in those areas that they are going to be 17 examining? I'm looking to understand a little more clearly 18 exactly what the qualifications are. 19 MR. DESMARAIS: Some of.the people that the 20 contractor is proposing satisfy the SNTC criteria. 21 MR. SNIEZEK: Okay. But you are really not askin 22 for NDE Level 3s, or anything like that, because they will 23 not be interpreting radiographs; is that correct? 24 MR. DESMARAIS: They will not be interpreting 25 radiographs. But we do want them to have an appreciation o
e 23 1 the significance of the material that they are dealing with 2 and that is one of the reasons why we impose that criteria 3 on the contractor. 4 MR. SNIEZEK The question on the methodology. 5 When we looked at the second isometric, the one that had th 6 verbiage on it, when the contractor picks the welds that-7 requirs radiography, are they just taking the weld numbers 8 off the ISO sheet as they are listed? 9 For example, on your viewgraph, you list F0101, 10 102, 103, 104, and 106, and the reason is butt welds. 11 Are they just going to pick that off, or is there 12 a different way in which they are going to construct the 13 record of welds that require radiography? 14 MR.~DESMARAIS The contractor's procedure is not 15 finalized, and I am speculating to a certain extent on what 16 their efforts will entail. But they will take the isometri 17 and they will take the field welds, all of the-field welds 18 off a given isometric. 19 MR. SNIEZEK Okay. 20 MR. DESMARAIS: They will also review any design 21 change' documentation that has not been incorporated in a 22 particular isometric. 23 For example, there may be an engineering change 24 authorization that has not been incorporated in one of the 25 revisions. They will review all the outstanding design 1 1
24 1 change documents that existed against this document, the 2 isometric, at the time Lt was turned over for completion of 3 the N-5 process. 4 From that, all of that design and engineering 5 information, they will come up with a list of all the field 6 welds. Separate and distinct from that,-they will identify 7- which field weld would require radiography. 8 MR. SNIEZEKI How how will they do that?
-9 MR. DESMARAIS They will do that, one, from the 10 -- one method will be to do it through this process right 11 here, which ones are butt welds and which ones are field 12 welds. There are other means-available to them.
13 MR. SNIEZEKI So you'd be going based on whoever 14 made that classification iso originally, you'd be taking 15 that-as gospel, is what I hear you saying. 15 MR. DESMARAIS In'some instances, yes. 17 MR. CERNE Was there intent to go back to the 18 slides, to go back to your slide that says the type of weld 19 that required radiography, and balance those welds against l .20 =those requirements to determine what required radiography? 21 In other words, not just rely on the isometric specificatio
-22 of what was required, but whether the code actually require 23 it?
24 MR. BATEMANI In other words, the four welds that 25 were listed there as not required, are those going to be l
25 1 verified that that was an accurate assessment? That that i 2 true, yes, those weren't required when that decision was 3 made? 4 MR. DESMARAIS That is not our intent at this 5 time.
~6 Now we will -- when this information is not 7 specified, and in some cases, specific information such as 8 fillet welds is not always indicated on these isometries.
9 And in those particular instances, ;e will have to go back 10 and verify the joint configuration to ensure that it does - 11 meet this criteria. 12 Now there is another data package that I use as 13 part of my initial scoping efforts with the contractor, tha 14 goes back to the ring haader for the CBS system, and 15 specifically.the nozzles that are shown on the isometric 16 indicate that they do not require radiography. 17 There is a separate reference to a Pullman-Higgin 18 field procedure that indicates that that is a socket weld. 19 And in that particular instance, none of the nozzles that
- 20 are shown on the ring headers would have required 21 radiography.
22 So there are instances in our generic application 23 that would not be listed specifically on eur isometric, but 24 you would have to go to some other design document that 25 would indicate how the requirements were developed and then
-4 -,1- w, - > r,_, - - . , , - -ve--,i
26 1 subsequently imposed. 2 MR. CERNE: Could you be t. little more specific? 3 The contractors are knowledgeable people, and they 4 understand fillet welds don't reqc. ire radiography and they 5 understand circumferential butt welds do require 6 radiography. If, for example, a circumferential butt weld 7 or a piece of piping is listed, but didn't require 8 radiography, they will or will not investigate? 9 MR. DESMARAIS: We will investigate that, and tha E 10 is one of the tyre of anomalies that can come up'where the 11 contractor may not have sufficient informatio.s to come to a 12 conclusive determination that radiography was or was not 13 appropriately a'pplicd. 14 In that particular instance, he would document 15 that situation on a request for engineering services, 16 transmit it to New Hampshire engineering for resolution. 17 MR. CERNE: Okay. So going back to Mr. Sniezek's 18 question, they are in fact looking at not only the Isos 19 forward, but the ISOs back? In other words, if the Isos ar 20 specifying the correct type of NDE or the type of weld that 21 is listed? 22 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. 23 MR. BATEMAN: I'm confused. It's my understandin 24 that your ISO has specified on it -- Bill Bateman, hRC -- 25 that your isometric has specified on it the field welds tha
. _ - . . - . ~ . . . - . _ _ . _ . ._ .
O,, .- 27-1 are butt welds-and the_ field welds that are fillet welds, 2 and you won't be doing any research to verify whether those 3 classifications are correct. The only time you will be 4 doing any research to determine if there was a question is 5 if those specifications weren't on the ISO? 6 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. 7 MR. BATEMAN: Okay. So I think the answer to Mr. 8 Sniezek's question is for those ISOs that have the 9 information on!them, you're not going to be verifying that
- 10. the information is accurate? '
11 MR. DESMARAIS: Well, we won't be reverifying tha-12 the information is accurate, because this information was 13 -captured as part of the review and approval process -- 14 MR. BATEMAN:- Oh, I understand. 15 MR. DESMARAIS: -- for the drawing. So we are no
'16 going to repeat - - -
17 MR. BATEMAN: What percentage of your;ISos don't
' 18 - have that type of information on-them, do you know?
19 MR. DESMARAIS: I don't know that. 20 MR. SNIEZEK: Those are the only questions I have 21 so far. 22 MR. BATEMAN: I have one question. Bill Bateman, 23 NRC. 24 You showed an RAR up there which only was a 25 partial, indicated- a partial RT of that par ticu3ar joint. I {l [
O 38 1 Now there were two stations that were not RT'd, that's 2 indicated on that RAR. How do you keep track to know that 3 you have all the RARs together for a particular weld before 4 you check that veld package off? 5 It's not going to be a simple match-up of one RAR 6 per field weld. You know, you're not going to have 5001 7 field welds and then 5001 RARs. You don't know how many 8 RARs you're going to have. So my qusetion is how do you 9 know when you have all the RARs together for a given field 10 weld? How do you keep track of that? 11 MR. DESMARAIS: The tracking mechanism is by fiel 12 weld, so that you would have -- for a given field weld, 13 there may be five stations. 14 What we will do as part of-this review effort, an 15 the RIR review specifically, is to ensure that we have -- w 16 will capture all of the existing RARs, regardless of how 17 many, whether there was a Rev Zero or Rev 1, or how many 10 times that particu.ar weld or station was re-shot. We will 19 capture all of those. 20 The intent is that at Task Step No. 3, which is 21 the comparison, that we indeed have radiograph inspection 22 report and film that shows an approved radiograph for each 23 station on that weld. 24 .MR . BATEMAN: That RAR only has half the wold. A 25 I right? 1
. I
29
-1 MR. DES!!ARAIS : Yes.
2- MR. BATEMAN: The way I read that? Okay. 3- So you've got to have another RAR that will have 4 different identification' number or something on it. 5 MR. DESMARAIS:- It's captured by the field weld 6 number. 7 MR. BATEMAN: Yes, but that's a separate piece of 8 -paper. 9 MR.-DESMARAIS: That'is true. 10 MR. BATEMAN:t So my question is, how are you goin 11 to keep track of the fact that you've got all the RARs_you-P 12 need for a given weld before you say, okay, I've got all th 13' paper for-that= weld? 14 MR. DESMARAIS: Go ahesd. 15 .MR. PILLSBURY: Neal Pillsbury, New Hampshire __ 16 : Yankee.
~ 17 We will capture nhe information off of each RAR 18 that pertains to that particular field weld. We will also 19 capture the information off of the radiographic' film itself
-20 and use the electronic data base to sort out that we hava l
21 all the acceptance stations that we need for that particula 22 weld. And there is also a total index of what we have for-t 23 RAR and radiographic film in our records-vault, some of-l 24 which is not required. But we will be able to sort out tha l 25 we have acceptance shots accepted by the piping contractor, { :
30 1 accepted by A&I, if applicable, accepted by Yankee Atomic, 2 if applicable. 3- MR. BATEMAN: Are all your RARs filed by field 4 weld number? 5 MR.-PILLSBURY: That is correct. 6 MR. BATEMAN: So if you pull a file for a field 7 weld, you will have -- you may have three or four RARs, 8 which should add up to the -- 9 MR. PILLSBURY: Yes. We may have several more 10 than are required to meet the code. 11 MP. BATEMAN: Well, will you know if you don't 12 have any? 13- MR. PILLSBURY: Yes, because we will be missing. 14 an acceptance shot for-station.X-Y. 15 MR. BATEMAN: So somebody will be checking off th 16 - station locations to verify that they have got radiographs-17 per station? 18 .. MR. PILLSBURY: Yes, and we-cre simply using the 19 computer as:an electronic sort of mechanism, an indexing 20 mechanism, and-to be able to cross-check against the list o 21 welds that require radiography. 22- MR. BATEMAN: My question is I just want to be 23 sure you have some way you are keeping track of each_statio 24 that-you are supposed to radiograph? 25 MR. PILLSBURY: Yes. When you do the two
o 31 1 electronic list comparisons, you will come up with a 2 potential number of anomalies. In other words -- 3 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I think what they are talking 4 about, I think the question is how will you know you've got 5 the total number of stations that are required for a 6 particular weld? 7 MR. PILLSBURY: Because that's stated on Rev Zero 6 of the RAR which has to be there, and it will reflect 9 whether there are two stations to this particular weld, or 10 three or five or 10. 11 MR. BATEMAN: So Rev Zero then will have all 12 stations on it? 13 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. i 14 MR. BATEMAN: In other words, you have Zero to 1, 15 1 to 2 -- 16 MR. DESMARAIS: 2 to 3. 17 MR. BATEMAN: And 3 to 4. 18 MR. .DESMARAIS: 3 to Zero. You always return bac 19 to the Zero. 20 MR. BATEMAN: So this is a Rev 1, it will have al 21 stations, and that eventually will be -- will have an 22 acceptance check fo_ all stations by the time you have the 23 Rev Zero or -- 24 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. 25 MR. B5 "EMAN : -- with the acceptable data on all
hh i I stations? l l 2 MR. DESMARAIS: That is correct, and that is che 3 ' internal check and balance for Task No. 2. So that after 4 going through the radiegraphs, the inspection reports, and l
-5 listing all-the stations, separate and distinct from that, 6 there will be reviewing of the film packages, ensuring that 7 they have'an acceptable film for each one of the stations 8 that was approved. And the information that you extract 9 from the- film itself indicates the field' weld number and th 10 date it was shot. So you have information that should' 11 correspond.
12 MR. CHANDLER: Excuse me, Larry Chandler, OGC.
- 13 Are your-efforts going to include reviewing the 14 radiograph quality as well?
'15 MR. DESMARAIS: We are reviewing the films to 16 ensure that we have:the radiograph that was shot-that
- 17 corresponds with this inspection report.
.18 MR. CHANDLER: You used-the word " acceptable."
19 That's why I was raising it. 20 MR. DESMARAIS: We are:not reinterpreting the film.- 22 MR. BATEMAN: Are you checking the film? 23 MR. DESMARAIS: We are not -- we are only 24 extracting information from the film that indicates the 25 station number, the field weld number, and the date it was I 1
,7 :.
33-1 shot. 2 MR. CHANDLER: " Acceptable," then, in those terms 3 MR. DESMARAIS: .Yes. We are just idsntifying 4 information that is on the films. 5 MR. CERNE: Let me make a statement. You can 6 correct it if it is wrong. I want to clarify one of Mr. 7 .Bateman's questions. 8 The radiograph you have up there may be an exampi 9 of a re-shot of two sections of that weld that had to be 10 done over. So the original RAR would show station Zero tol 11 1 to 2, and 2 to 3, nou 3 to Zero. Two of those shots may 12 have been rejected, and repairs Liay have had-to have been
'13 done,.and now this is the re-shot of two of those stations.
14- So the final vault records would be not a correction'to the 15 original RAR, but this, in addition to the-original RAR, 16- . showing-that you have complete coverage of the weld; is my
~
17 understanding correct? 18 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. 191 'MR . PILLSBURY: 'That's correct.- 20- MR. DESMARAIS: Yes, and-as we go through, we wil
- . 21 also be capturing which stations were rejected .aus a means o i
L 22 . signaling that we should be looking for another radiograph 23 inspection report that shows an acceptance for a particular 24 station. 25 For example, if this was Rev Zero and it indicate i
34 1 that stations 2 to 3 and 3 to-Zero were rejected, 2 hypothetically if that's the casa, we would have to be 3 looking for this particular radiograph-inspection report 4 which shows that those stations were re-shot, and that the i 5 film was reviewed and approved by the appropriate people.
-6 MR. BATEMAN: At a later date?
7 MR. DESMARAIS:~ At a later date. 8 MR. BATEMAN: And you would also verify you have 9 the film? 10 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes. 11 MR. WESSMAN: Ted, let me pursue your Task 3 and 12 its electronic mate'11ng. I'm Dick Wessman from NRR. 13 Is the Task 3 done by the contractor and the 14 electronic matching constitute a check and balance to be 15 sure that the contractor has done everything, and that your 16 data base captures everything? Is that what that really_ 17 amounts to? 18 MR. DESMARAIS: New Hampshire Yankee will be doin , 19 electronic matching of the information from both tasks,' 20 separate and distinct from the contractor's effort. That i 21 a way of having a redundant check on their efforts of
-2 2 - comparinon.
lt 23 MR. WESSMAN: What is the difference between what l l -24 New Hampshire Yankee is doing electronically in the Task 37 25 They sound-like kind of the same thing, one' being done by
35 1 New Hampshire Yankee, and one being done by the contractor. 2 MR. DESMARAIS: They are reGundant. 3- MR. . WESSMAN: Okay. 4 MR. PILLSBURY: If I can answer that. Neal 5 Pillsbury. 6 The other thing is we are specifying how weLare 7 doing it, but we are not-specifying for the contractor how 8 he will do-it. We will approve his process, because he's 9 going to specify that to us in his procedure. But we don't 10 have any.other influence over how he chooses to do that 11 comparison, 12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: They may choose to do it manuall 13 as opposed to electronically.
-14 MR. PILLCBURY: And because, you know, data entry
-15 into an electronic program is a system that may be prone to 16 error, it.is felt to be prudent-to go back twice,.have them 17 build.it, we will build it, compare the results.
18 MR. EDISON: I would like to ask you what you
-19 . anticipate you are-going to find when this is all over.
I
-20 [ Laughter.)
l I 21. MR. EDISON: What scale do you expect ---more 22 missing films, more missing signatures, how many?- Ball 23 park, what.do you think you are going to find when you dig 24 into this?. L 25 MR. FEIGENBAUM:- Well, we'll certainly find out, l l-
. +
36 1 but we have every confidence in our programs, that we 2 captured the records that were necessary. Now there are 3 thousands and thousands of documents, obviously, and-you ca 4 see each weld has separate stations. There are multiple 5- documents required for each weld. 6 It is quite possible we may find a few other 7 discrepancies, but as far as the technical adequacy of the 8 weld and the quality of the whole plant, I don't expect to-9 find any problems. 10 There may'be a small number of missing records 11 that we will have to take care of and disposition, but I'm 12 not concerned about the technical adequacy cf any of the 13 welds 4 14 MR. CHANDLER: Larry Chandler again, 15 In connection with reporting, you indicated that 16 NES might make requests to you. - Is there a feedback
-17 mechanism for that in.the contract?
18 MR. DESMARAIS: The RES process, as an example, 19 where the contractor sends the request out to New Hampshire Yankee, that request has to be answered by New Hampshire 21 Yankee. As part of the final reporting mechan}sm, that wil i. 22 remain an outstanding anomaly until New Hampshire Yankee l 23 completes that resolution. All of the RES's that may be 24 generated will be included as part of tne contractor's fina 25 report and turned over to New Hampshire Yankee, so we have I e
37 1 document trail that clearly develops and establishes the 2 types of questions that were asked and their resolution for 3 each weld. 4 MR. CHANDLER: So the contractor doesn't 5 necessarily know what ultimate disposition is made by New 6 Hampshire Yankee? 7 MR. DESMARAIS: No, they don't. They will when v 8 complete the resolution and get it back to them. 9 MR. BATEMAN: Bill Bateman, NRC, again. 10 What confidence do you have, and what is the basi 11 for 'your confidence, that you accurately know the as-built 12 condition of your plant? 13 The reason I ask the question is the ISos will be 14 out of your files, and any design modifications-that were 15 made, your assumption is that what you have before-you 16 accurately represents the as-built condition? 17 So my question is, what is your confidence that 18 you really know the as-built condition, and what is that 19 confidence based on? 20 MR. PILLSBURY: I can start, but you can chime in 21 if I don't cover it all. Noel Pillsbury, New Hampshire 22 Yankee. 23 At the cornlusion of the construction and piping 24 installation process, there were formal walkdown processes 25 where they went hand over hand the entire pipe and l
38 1 determined final dimensional configuration of that pipe, an 2 that went through independent engineering reconciliation 3 processes, and ultimate sign-off. The PAPSCOTT effort was 4 involved there, the piping and pipe support close-out, as-5 built effort, and that was, as Ed has already mentioned in 6 his presentation, that was after the Pullman-Higgins 7 organization, as the piping installation contractor, was 8 entirely done with the plant. In other words, many, many 9 checks and balances, many controls were placed on that 10 particular effort, which in turn led up to the N-5 reportin 11 process. 12 So our confidence is very high that that is a goo 13 place and a prudent place to start the effort to look for 14 the welding documentation. 15 Did I miss anything? 16 Does that satisfy your question? 17 MR. BATEMAN: I just asked you what you did to 18 assure your confidence that what you're going to be looking 19 at represents the as-built condition of the plant. A lot o 20 plants have problems with that and they end up having to 21 reconstitute thejr design basis, their drawings. Hopefully 22 you do have a good as-built record of your plant. 23 MR. PARTLOW: Jim Partlow, NRC. 24 What is the magnitude of this thing in terms of 25 man-days or dollars? How -- I
39 l 1 MR. DESMARAIS: We're not speaking in man-days. 2 We're speaking in man-months. We're on the order of 12 man 3 months right now, specifically to the contractor. New 4 Hampshire Yankee labor is above and beyond that. 5 MR. PARTLOW: This is only the equivalent of one 6 person for a year? It sounded much bigger than that to me. 7 MR. DESMARAIS: Again, this is only for the 8 contractor. 9 MR. PARTLOW: Yes. v 10 MR. DESMARAIS: New Hampshire Yankee will have --
-11 will have spent a considerable number of resources for thei 12 portion of this effort.
13 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Ted Feigenbaum. 14 Since we started this, responding to questions 15 regarding welds and records, since 1989, we have spent 16 hundreds of thousands of dollars on this effort, and this 17 will probably be close to double to what we have already 18 spent in terms of dollars. 19 MR. PARTLOW: I see. 20 MR. FEIGENBAUM: It is an extensive effort. One 21 of the reasons we are going through an independent 22 contractor is certainly the independence aspect of it, but 23 because of the manpower required te do it in a relatively 24 short period of time, we didn't have the resources on-site 25 to do it, and still be able to eccomplish our other tasks.
40 1 MR. SHIEZEKt Are there any otner questions on-th 2 presentation? 3 'MR. MARTIN: Yes. We need to discuss some of the 4 reporting aspects. I understand the points where you are-5 getting formal reports from your contractor, but we also
'6 need some reports of ongoing activities, and I need to get 7 your commitment to give those kinds of reports.
8 The first one is that if you identify either a 9 weld quality prchlem or a rect Yd that is not complete, then 10 we would request that you give us a prompt telephone call, 11 within 24 hours of the identification, to the section chief 12 or Bob, if he is not available.k 13 If it happens to be on-a weekend,.then a call to-
- 14. the incident response center, they will be able to put you
~15 .in touch with the section chief.
16 If it is a weld quality question, you don't have 17 information on the weld quality, or missing the radiograph, 18' then we need a written report. and we request that written J19- report be made-to us within 72 hours of identification,'and 20 it'be to tho document control desk, with copies to the 21 senior resident. inspector, the project manager, and the j 22 section chief. 23 It should include in there -- 24 MR. HARPSTER: Excuse me, can I slow you down jus 25 a second? I lost track. A written report within 72 hours.
41 l l 1 MR. MARTIN: Right. To the document control desk 2 with copies to the senior resident, the project manager, an ,
-3 the section chief.
4 That should-identify the deficiency, the 5 justification for continued operations, and any short and 6 long term corrective action. 7 If either one of those reports'happens to be 8 duplicative of your reporting requirements under the tech 9 specs-or 10'CFR, and you have already made the report, 10 obviously you don't need to make another report. So any 11 existing reporting requirements that exist in your license 12 or in the-regulations, if you have already made those 17 : reports,-and they encompass this, then no additional report-14 is required. 15- We would also request that on a monthly basis, we 16 get'a-written status report to the regional administrator, 17- with-copies to the senior resident inspector and-the projec-
~18 manager, which would document progress to date, any 19 deficiencies identified, corrective actions implemented, art 20 any future plans.
21 Recognizing the timing of your work activities, 22- you didn't expect the first report until the 1st of June-an-23 the second one, the 1st of July, and the third one, the 1st 24- of August, and if there-is a need for it, the 1st of 25 September. '
42 1 The-final item, for your final report, we also 2 need to have the contractor's report to you along with your ! l 3' report and conclusions. 4 Any questions on that? 5 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Yes, Tim, I've got one question. 6 When they went throut.h the process and tko methodology, you 7 ' indicated that the contractor may at times ask questions, i 8 something doesn't look right or he doesn't understand, 9 because they are independent, and they weren't involved in 10 the initial work. ' 11 If the contractor asks us a question through the 12 RES process that Ed described, you don't consider that a 13 . discrepancy until you confirm that,.in fact, we can't--- 14 that, in fact, there really is a discrepancy. There really 15 is an issue, whether it be a quality issue or otherwise. 16 So that woul'd be the point where we determine 17 that, in fact, there is an issuefand a discrepancy, a true L ~18 discrepancy, versus just a question. L L 19 MR. MARTIN: It_says the contractor is not a L 20 licensee, and you are. It's when_you make the determinatio 1 2 11 there is a weld quality problem or a records problem. 22 -That's when the clock starts. 23 MR. PARTLOW: I take it there is little chance -- 24 Partlow, NRC -- little chance of that happening until' Phase 1 25 III; is that right -- when you bounce one list off the O __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - .--_ ___--- -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - -
43 other?
'A MR. FEIGENBAUM: Not necessarily.
3 MR. PARTLOWs Okay. 4 MR. PILLSBURY: Not -- 5 MR. SH7,E7EK: Wait a minute. Why don't you 6 identify yourself? 7 MR. PILLSBURY: Heal Pillsbury, New Hampshire 8 Yankee. 9 Phase III occurred sequentially throughout the 10 process, because Test 1 and Test 2 were running in parallel 11 so when we have Test 1 and Test 2 completed for a particula 12 system, that occurs. 13 MR. PARTLOW: Okay. 14 MR. SNIEZEK: Okay. Jim, I would like to caucus 15 before we close out the meeting. y 16 MR. PARTLOW: Okay. Why don't we take a ten-17 minute break, and NRC Staf f, why don't we go into another
/
18 room? 19- (Recess.) 20 MR. SNIEZEK: Okay, are we ready to go back on th 21 record? 22 There is one area t:iat I want to make sure we 23 thoroughly understand that wasn't quite certain from the 24 presentation, and so I'm asking Tony Corne to recapitulate 25 what we thought we heard, or at least what we would have _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - - . _ _ . - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - ~ - - -
- . . _ . -. -- - . . . - - . . _ . . ~ . . - .. . ._, . .- 9 44 1 liked to have' heard if it's not exactly what we thought we 2 heard, and I want to make sure that we have a common 3 understanding, and if our understanding is wrong, let us-4 know. 5' Tony? 6 MR. CERNE: Okay, yes. Tony Cerne, Region I. Th-
.7 ' area'is sort of divided into two questions.
8 The first has to do with weld identification. If 9 I understood Mr. Pillsbury correctly, when the TASK 2 peopl 10 go to the records and pull out individual film to look at 11 the station markers, they will also be looking at-the weld
; 12- ID on that film to match it up with the weld, in fact, that 13 they're investigating; is that. correct?
14 MR. PILLSBURY: That's' correct. 15 MR. CERNE: Okay. The second-point is a little
- 1 <6 - more comp 1icated. It1has to do with the TASK 1 effort, and '
17 . talking abou't starting.with the isometric drawings. 18 When people -- when.the~ TASK 1 contractor 19 researches isometric 1 drawings, willithey be using only the 20 material in~the blocks that designate the field welds, or-21 will they instead start with the actual line designations', 22 the piping drawing, counting the welds, and then 23 determining,1for example, there are ten welds in this 24 system, looking-at line sizes to see if it makes sense with 25 respect to the Code, that these are fillets, that these are
i 45 1 circumferential butt velds, look on the other side of the 2- isometric drawing,.looking at the blocks to determine, yes, 3 ten are accounted for. It makes sense that six of these ar 4 circumferential butt welds that require radiography or ' 5 tillet welds-that logically were socket welds of a two-inch 6 size or any other anomalies that might need to be addressed 7 or looked at and researched. 8- Is that our understanding, 7r is it just -- 9 MR. DESMARAIS: It would be starting with the 10 isometric configuration showing the actual line and field 11 welds and the outstanding design or engineering 12 documentation that-hasn't been incorporated. So it's a 13 combination of those two-products-that they start with, and !
.14 then subsequent to that, confirm that the requirements for 15' radiography have been fulfilled properly.
16 MR. CERNE: .Okay. 17 MR. .DESMARAIS: The only thing that is.somewhat ' 18 different from your understanding is the fact that they l 19 'would'also use outstanding design change documents. 20 MR. CERNE: Tony Cerne again. Maybe I need to 4
.21 clarify. What I hear you say is that you will be verifying
- 22. that the code requirements are correctly specified by that 23 iso, to the extent that it doesn't require field --
24 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Ed, what I think -- Ted l 25 Feigenbaum -- what I think Tony is asking is when you do th i
,-- +
46 1 takeoffs or the contractor does the takeoffs on an iso, wil 2 they. reverify the code requirements for non-destructive 3 examination for each weld?. 4 MR. CERNE: Correct. Minus the necessity to walk 5 the field. In other words, from whatever is available on 6 the iso, that they will be able to determine the NDE, tho
- 7 radiography that vesn't required has been exempted for a 8 proper reason.
9 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That wasn't the initial scope of 10 the effort. In terms of looking at the iso -- you can 11 answer the question, but I understood that if the Pullman-12 Higgins had. indicated a weld as a butt weld,.that was our
=13 starting point, unless.something didn't make sense or the 14 'information was'not there.
.15 ; MR. DESMARAIS: The starting point would be the-16 ' isometric, the actual configuration of the piping as 17 depicted on-the drawing.
18 The second step would be to review any outstandin 19- and varying documentation that exists that hasn't been 20 incorporated on the drawing. 21 From that, those first two steps, the contractor 22 .will develop a list of field welds for that line segment.
~23 The-fourth step would be to use existing 24 information that currently exists on the isometric and/or i
- 25 the design change documents that would indicate the type of-
w ' 47 l 1 radiography requirements that may be or may not be invoked 2 - for instance, the non-destructive examination requirement 3 for the welds, staying squarely within the four corners of l 4 the isometric and existing change documents. { 5- MR. CERNE: Well, I guess the question comaa up, 6 if,-you know, the purpose of the charts showing that what ! 7 the code requires radiography is meaningless to these ' 8 individuals, that all they have to do is look at the 9 Pulmann-Higgins block and say this is what requires I 10 radiography, knowledgeable people, we would assume, would b
-11 able to determine where they have before them the contract 12 requirements and the code requirements, and they are 13- knowledgcable, they-would be able to determine where the 11 4 isometric drawings may be in error, minus a field walkdown.
15 If a person is unable to determine from the 16- isometric drawings, that's one thing, but-if somebody shows 17 a'six-inch weld at'the socket weld or the fillet weld where 18 there's a six-inch pipe, then we would expect knowledgeable 19 people--to question.that. 20 I mean, is that unreasonable? 21 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That's not unreasonable. Nc. it 22- would be questioned, and that would be part of the effort. 23 And certainly if1there is no -- the type of weld was not 24 specified, there-would be a thorough review back through th
'25 code requirement as to what weld' type was required and
-,. ~ . . . _
o 48 1 whether radiography was required. 2 MR. CERNE: I guess what we're trying to elicit 3 from-you is some specific statement or commitment that this 4 TASK-1 review is not a rote acceptance of documented welds 5 that required radiography per the isos. As we understood 1 6 it, it would be a look into the codes to see that the code 7 requirements had been met. l 8 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Could we take a minute? 9 MR. SNIEZEK! Sure, go ahead. There's a room 10 right next door. 11 (Recess.) 12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Okay, Jim, I'm going to-ask you 13 -first that' question from Tony. We-appreciate the 14 sensitivity of the question, and I hope that we can answer 15 it crisply and concisely. 16 In our interpretation of your March 19th letter t 17 au s , it was our understanding that you are requesting us to 18 ' confirm the records for the Pullman-Higgins field welds 19 requiring radiography by code. , 20- Now we had to, in order to estimate the scope of L l that effort-for ourselves and for any other contractor, we 22 had to choose a starting line and a finish line to propose
- 23. -to that contractor and to propose to our own materials and i 24 resources estimation inside, inside our own-organization.
25 We chose as a starting point the as-built
o 49 1 engineering records, which we feel have been through more 2 than adequate numbers of reviews during the construction an 3 close-out process, and we have every confidence that those 4 are based on valid as. uilt efforts, the 7914 efforts, the 5 Papscott efforts, the PSI efforts, and a multiple number of 6 reviews from Pullman-Higgins, through the walkdowns, 7 dimensional considerations, engineering reconciliations, 8 UE&C Engineering's part, Westinghouse Engineering's part, 9 the Yankee engineering oversight and licensee oversight. , 10 ' Now in having an independent contractor, 11 contractors actually, go through the process, a Request for 12 a Proposal process and the bid solicitation process and so 13 forth, we feel comfortable that we have a highly manageable 14 independent contractor and highly manageable people that 15 they have supplied that will be pulling the data off of the 16 as-built engineering documents. 17 And in the process of pulling that data, they wil 18 be confirming that the field joint configuration and 19 radiographic requirements are consistent with applied 20 engineering principles and practices. 21 If there is any doubt, it will be clear in their 22 procedures, and it is clear in our expectations to that ; 23 contractor today that they are to take the conservative 24 approach and document through us the request that we resolv 25 that question, or if they are interpreting it as not i 1
- 50 1
conservative in accordance with applied engineering 2 principles and practicos, then they are going to document and we are going to have to resolve 3 the question to us, 4 that. then that particular Once that has occurred, 5 6 question and resolution is going to be tracked to the following resolution and will be demonstrated in the final { 7 8 report. I hope that answers the question, i 9 l MR. SHIEZEK: I don't know -- Jim Sniezek -- I . 10 It 11 don't know if we're saying the same thing or not. saying the same thing in 12 sounded, by what you said, we were 13 difft. rent words. I had that impression when Mr. 14 MR. PILLSBURY: it's a very sensitive issue, 15 Cerne was talking before, but 16 because we have very precisely scoped this to the 17 independent contractor. MR. SNIEZEK: Well, I understand that, and if our 18 that's one o 19 letter to you wasn't clear and unierstandable, to make sure we'r 20 the reasons why we're having the meeting, so that when we get done, we 21 all talking the same thing, You didn't do 22 don't say, well, that's not what we wanted. 23 what we expected you to do. Because that would be the wors 24 of both worlds. Let me repeat back what I heard you say in my 25
51 1 words. 2 Your indeperdent contractor is going to start wit 3 isometric, and he identifies the welds from isometric using 4 the engineering principles, the engineering judgment. He'l 5 make a determination whether or not what may be on his part 6 of the isometric is consistent with what the contractor 7 should be on here. And if anything looks fishy, he's going 8 to identify it as a question for resolution. 9 So you're basic starting point will be actually 10 the piping portion of the isometric for identification of 11 the field welds. 12 Now that's what I believe that we asked for in ou 13 letter, and that's what I hear you, in my own words, saying 14 that you intend to do. 15 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Yes. Now in cases, you know, 1 16 would try to say, in cases where the type of joint is not 17 clear, not specified, then that would certainly be an RES t 18 Engineering, to New Hampshire Yankee to resolve. 19 MR. SNIEZEK: I understand. And if it looks like 20 it's a six-inch circumferential joint, and it's not listed 21 on here as requiring radiography, that would be the type of 22 thing that your contractor would raise a question on? 23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Yes. 24 MR. SNIEZEK: And say, what's going on? 25 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That's correct.
52 l' 1 MR. SNIEZEK: All right. Are there any other 2 questions that the NRC Staff has on that point's 3 MR. MARTIN: Not on that point. 4 MR. SNIEZEK How the question on the reporting. 5 Are you prepared to agree that you would report under the 6 conditions that Mr. Martin laid out? 7 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I have a comment on that. Yes, 8 we are prepared to agree to those reporting requirements, 9 but we have two requests. 10 one is that we would like a copy of the transcrip 11 as soon as possible. As much as I trust Mr. Harpster as my 12 scribe, we may have missed a point or a number, so I think 13 it's important that we have that as soon as possible. 14 MR. SNIEZEK: That's agreed upon, yes. You
- 15. definitely will.
16 Mb. FEIGENBAUM: The second -- 17 MR. HARPSTER: You think I'm untrustworthy? 18 MR. SNIEZEK: I won't comment on that. 19 MR. FEIGENBAUM: The second clarification I have 20 is that I inferred from what was said, Tim, that these 21 special reporting requirements are for the duration of this 22 project only. 23 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 24 MR. FEIGENBAUM: They are above normal reporting 25 requirements. With that understanding, yes, we accept that
l 53 1 MR. SHIEZEKt Does anyone on the NRC Staff have 1 2 anything else they would like to add? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. SNIEZEK Does New Hampshire have anything 5 they would like to add? 6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: No. 7 MR. SNIEZEK: Okay. I want to thank you for 8 coming in. I think we both have a common understanding of 9 what now is going to be done, and I appreciate it. 10 Thank you very much. This closes the meeting. ' 11 (Whereupon, at 3:10 o' clock, p.m., the meeting wa 12 adjourned.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35
i- REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
- Thie.is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of NAME OF PROCEEDING: New Hampshire Yankee DOCKET NUMBER:
. PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, Maryland were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United S,tates Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewrit,ing by-me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
YkfhflFG f
j -- / Official Repor er Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. i 9
NE% HAMPSHIRE YANKEE PRESENTATION TO NRC ON PULLMAN-HIGGINS FIELD WELD RECORDS RE-VERIFICATION PROJECT APRIL 10, 1991
-_______________._____m_ ________m_____
i l RECORDS REVERIFICATION i Purpose
- 1. Identify all Pullman-Higgins field welds that require radiography by code l
- 2. Verify that NHY has the documents (RIR's and radiographs)
- 3. Confirm evidence of YAEC radiograph review
- 4. Identify-and report records anomall'ec ~
- 5. Report on the results of this effort '
- - - m,.__s
, b RECORDS REVERIFICATION Scope Applicable codes: 1977 edition, winter 1977 addenda ASME SectionIII Piping Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Supports Class 1 ASME Section HI ANSI B 31.1
, o RECORDS RuYERIFICATION l ASME Radiography Requirements ASME ASME Applicable Type of Welds Class RT ASME Code Paragraph 1.
Circumferential 1 X NB 5222 Butt Weld 2 X NC 5222 Joints 3 - ND 5222 2. Branch Piping 1 > 4'NPS NB 5242 Butt Welded 2 >4'NPS NC 5242 Joints 3 - ND 5242
- 3. >
Branch Piping 1 >4'NPS NB 5243 Corner Welded 2 >4*NPS NC 5242 Joints and Oblique 3 - ND 5242 Piping Connections 4. Fillet and Socket 1 - NB-5260 Welds (excluding 2 - NC-5260 Name Plate Welds) 3 - ND 5222
. r l
l RECORDS REVERIFICATION ANSI B 31.1 Radiography Requirements ; Systems With Temperatures Systems With Between 350*F and 750*F Inclusive ASME Temperatures And All Pressures Type of Welds Over 750'F Over 1025 PSIG Butt Welds (Girth RT For NPS Over Fo v and Longitudinal) g hh c ness 2 Inches Over 3/4 inch Welded Branch RT For NPS Over Fo B h Over 4 Inches Connections g d c 4 Inches of Branch Over 3/4 Inch Fillet, Socket Welds, Deposited Weld Metal None None - as Reinforcement l r l f
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Approach
- 1. Independence
- 2. Accuracy and Control
- 3. Qualifications
- 4. Reporting
- 5. Checks and Balances l
p.
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Methodology TASK 1 Isometric Rwiew g Field We4 s Tabulated gr Report Rwn nsWm o y Field Weld RadiograptV Requirements Confirmed Confirm That The Radiographs Are On File u 9 Co rm g , TASK 3 Dita P7cgos Tabulated Field Weld Tabulation Compared
- Wdh Radiograph Data *
' Package Tabulation v
q Cortractor Provdes Cottractor Provides Field Wold Radiograph Data Contractor Package Tabulation Scope Ust To NHf
' To NHY r, l
l I NHY Electroricalty k " NHY Entm Matchee The Wold NHY Enters Datainto e NHY Ust & Radiograph Data into Scope A Data Base Data Packages A Data Base 1
, w
.~~ ....-.w,, ,
A / N - arse:
. .m _ \ ,, 5 N t !.
, ' ?',;, . i
/ /s \s. ..rwy ei f S p' u .
E* 23R 'nt E$ $ g r. eg ;
/ /
- o x i
vb :i{Q o z i ,. S i i % 5 ft. L l /)
/*
)4
/#p#
- d. M 3 p* k',
s i s) n j
- gg gf?L $7 e-4 ,2 ;;3 1 , w- 9 3 '
) .
.w 4
.; 2 m 1 .;
s \/ a e tr i / h,JB,grik F
- A
% \d .=
(
/
/fF . 1pp vi3 b, .
- p. F j$'d
- 5. ', ;
ir. e
- (<
I i N h<je ,< [s $o T" b t bg$ i l' '[/ _m Si gh, f a -m
~
,/ ,). Q/ i i i
y y,v.s 4 p. ! d3 :_ ,
/ .*
- I:2 p(
s "T.Ji dh c, 5 3 (
'.. 8%kp/ ,/ .
[ gi 'p g [ l' {e % 8 a 9 t & 4% YNDy '[/f(j/ e!SjY *. * \ v- s} a.<
' \.
'/w7 '8 g (4
\'2 /\ e k.-/
3
/
-W 5 >
,*\ 'x /M@'$
ps h w /s '
% fA
?
\ y,.lf
&ajP 2. y s.. p (y '
I is P 't /
%j l+ '
OR k /* qv' m ng~ n sH 5 Lp 4 W / . g? catu m ieces cattM PER. REN f)yf.. - .,.
~3 .
2 N..ig ,h lh j a U E 4 C X, AS OF EE 9/f' {'t ;
'n
- <7nu.s. r Stos >
JOB NO.7035
, ,, , ,4 gpMhNYko n. us n.t tect onumra try ?m ~t ns,.ommsuos*S",y*!?g,7/;.
.c,um%s.v.cosaoe fgg4 '.M innq{g h r p HFg fN Pu A cece ~ n 4sjsg.cW (4Accre'umalfu m'a'** g . c m ye,5 0 6 m d8
'*^""*Z p A m so p r5++.st,to M I g ",.
m , 'rp ,p tic) .. se0 RH.146.Oltslnn
,dh
^ ~ ~ ~
t s a ( ena== j :=* I aan SEABROOK ST ATION M "Iona,mo p isoug3,ic ' " f M'*rr+rtitMMOJEL " "" at uio Mf PUBLIC SERVICE of OtlWNR ft.q jeg a ff ffM NEYi HAMPSHIRE avj $A11 f By 5
, s l ....
.! sill OF MATERIAL l t B
>{i4::,H iai .nc .. m p ,,,'y w m. i .. . . , .x, . r , u . n. . , a
,s m. , 4... ! . . ~m,3 . . . . ,m . , . . u. m . , ,s.,
w
~
?wr ?i 5 A~ L A _ Lt l Qc ,s, o e
,hff,L
_ m z ., sveci,qeccc nrruge%I$d($d ]kLht;pim UQ.Lg s vitn 29 TL na i c.D rn Le R n . Lm ,64
- 6 t\_
& y'yg,,Q*y" h
ys yga gg
} '$ . g ^ ;i t" *!? ? J th E_Nuft abl9 s Gt 1,n L-v1+.it it.No _A/4 i i i i! , t-* i Pita w *r m . frre i ,,c;p.,,.,.,m m ,
i ' I , t l MT w at " tv3. _/v/n _ i i i , { ; - i t ,
^
k a f et: . et. A/A. .. m LW^tJQlaL PClD.'Vinig
. i ,
raros
*} ! '
c3Grr w e i.h i j- _ S e w.
-i _.
; , , , see +a ~-
t _
'
- nean t
er 9, r 2
; ee n %, l.'
.t i . i i i i _
*= a N0 l # NO V A L V E eto. Olti L t TY!T t w
- f
- . s, . .
1 c . o. ., s m r.~ ,1 m
" I, 'Jh .***
- N*,*2 d$O 8 UI
'C .) sc2 co <
5 :r .sa.r , E < 1 j 6 i i 1 . k' i A t
*< n In> T' VR 2 '!C .,' lI.
MG'ntStdTM'OtOI '* t rirr AL : wtto 1.n rh* ' ** *. s'c owv e es. c m. r, - ,
.u.n sv.- ..rton .""f *fP '
-o ep= . tv p:, . . nu .0v1 [ * E'; -
b R c" G u t i . 6, .* ks%W AL L,,2 \ 3 'D* l1 N>y . I
. m,w w
,i .
E'
! .- n. rt m. U a_ ,
O-{
'5 "CIATthfD A3 aulti" ~ **:- d ' * **
! CD.- tm t1 g asseco f ,5 se p g,,,J4 1dtf l
- ' Aaf' ro/o y warsu AL mu-- c A< _
d/k-
' MAllt - > tA't 'f /J M*
4
^
FI L L E T* N CL.D g i .r 'S % ~~
^ Lrtso! cal *[a--'e nN.,,4f/1h_ -o g -
/2 i*e ir .?2 aw a
?
I
, str 2 !! msg $a A
,, _" #?O WV ! E 12A lAIE P-H
$ e s w **,e3 ees formfrfcecTir40'%
X ner.owcs.
* &T*' ' '*C O N N "'" JOB NO. 7035 gggQgryng c'*C Era *S/%4/,,A ,ggg( :s,scow i
e tvtit u 1 11
'DOWMMELEA*
* *
- iso e \ * . si W r!?,inxv w.E W L.riuA11AS**ECTOJ sisv OR Avo n10 3 iW MS iso A j ee pr.K#rese evita t rtwo Ex% t71 eu j c e e a, e
. , . . s:! . ,, , , . . , ,, , , . , . m , , , . SEABROOK STATION Ma.*'**=P"'****
i l. otscmon PUBLIC SERVICE of iscut7mic 08 awing NEW HAMPSHIRE , i _ __ __ ___ _ - ____-___-__ - - '~
RECORDS REVERIFICATION : Line Segment Confirmation l t 1225-84 77 122$*l* 381 6' SPRAY p()R, NO. 3) N0ZZLES till NO22.1 1225 96 1
!(TYPJ 6' s .
i ;214 09 __
. - _ " - /
1214I S 391 $' " " < e IMOR. NO 11 l 1214-10 1 (88 NO22J I '23**8 8 * -I
~
C ' 6' ' j JL /
' ~
< ;214 97 I ,
i 1 1225 87 I 6' I \ :225 01 1 :225 P2 1 1 12,4. x ( =00.s, m i226+=i 68 i
'" (HDR.NO.2) 1 87 , ggg$
i 1214 05 % N gg;4 6'381 4 (162 222J
' 6' 1226 e4 1
, l C8 1214*2-381 8'
/ i, ., g , q l 1226 86 H , 4' H i226-95 1 ,
' 1216 5 381 4' 1 (K)R. NO. 4 6 -
I
=
12:6 08 1 (36 N022.1 l l I 1216 07 . da i I
# A
- 1226 02 1 i 1226-07 6, CB -
l g , g ,7,g , -
- g. 4' 1226 91 1
; N 1216 6*391 6' _ _
, i 1216-95 F
~
h- x 14 01 . j
-l 1216 94 M l"
@ '2;...N im 2.w1..'-
1214 t) i v1 y- CONTAINMENT BLDG x 14 m - 214 3 301 2* y22'nI V23 LO -ns i214 14 1 a y 4 , l
- 5. l 2
1 l l 1
. ._ ~. . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .. ___ _ _ - ,, a HADIOGRAPHIC Pullman Power Ptuuucts INSPECTION ""*"""*" !
REPORT *n5
= =<1 statsu 6,= t = 0 l
iso wo. 1 M /21sf sieka wea ma
.,n.8"en.
.4.muu , rw.c . n asa .ca .m me on nea u.. ant p A t '~
f65*/2 2-1
,3)p 382 wa C . mm c 4aevon ., 6 . p
.are $3 y wa mewov'J O bw 49944 M weC sn w rare = g i (A>- i tocate=
LC M OmatSSAM C_ { cua O etwee a=* e at t C et on some savaren dSes 7- .$ */ ~ / einer..o.m*fnic paos.me Q an cf a (an*** Ds a e
**oo=6,O oan os sanomma weans e
/cd ' f I
~ca ave 6 i !
smaa aau O
/ -/2-4t/ 6 r>pj /' 9 coa 6s wau y sme6s mau O *a=onaa.c
. Q co,eu wau C Q
O i,( ) a: /
, , l\ ,
~ ~ 3 ~ ~ +, ,
- w. - 8-Q- ._ _ i -
e k' - l!
- ~
_3 RAOlATION SOURCE l FIUit DATA l INTENSIFYING SCREENS 8" *2' 00" C 1*' C \ ,",.*b ',", g ,7 .ws O '"*"'~W ' is e "" a O cuaits y wA av lsas.sar C eweioa"4 weir Q otutAu.ao aAcsun g neo . txacsume rius. / , , , gjy siwviewwo. sinod V cowmosite C ttAc*s ustoh .vo pocAt spot sas. , j g *, g., e sinou wAu view =o cy' oounswan Q PENETRAMETER DATA sounca tc>stw oestAuca; g,gy* ['g'g*""* y ,,,y g sua. pg saiw ,y watsmiAu3/g
*T*acetoumaix-av-/ - *nngv y PROCESSING DATA tea. /2. swiwi d ( ""1 // f acetat. stAno ate tx st f -annev. 7 autowAricy mano C asusy;,,oewsm sti C 24t V
/ / / e -oo, /
/ s
+f/ <,,/fr///s /' * / #' /. / //h* / / "
...re.
/=j l bdd"1 i I I I**"I M M iiik
//W // e,'s /// /
1~n 1*" if o l V' ' t f g[, T", , , 3 fly /// / *//, y9 f i 1 M/ I 1 rn
- 6 i i t i i j i i i e i t i i >
f i t i t I i i t I j i i i t i 6 . e t 1 j i i i i i i e i i : i { t i i 4 4 i i i i t i 1 i e i )
! 1 ( l l I i i i I 4 t 4 i ' i 6 )
4 6 i ) i. # 1
)
i i i f ! i i i t i I I i i i
) i i i i
! i i t i i ! ) i i
-l i i I i t i i i j j i i l l l i i I I I ! l l l t
t l . 4 / l i i r .] l i
' I I I I I i e4,oston. tM2u4x4 / ! MA .J 7 r y." v </
accum.a V )0y nac 2 - .es-oor a l 4X .ananarn$a g l7.,g.74 o r.
~ . a .m .,. . .
w
~~w~ m ,
nt x ,.~, 7 s..g,,,g,... ... m
...s I
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Schedule April 5,1991 Contract Awarded April 8,1991 Contractor Arrives on Site April 19,1991 Contractor's Procedures Approved April 22,1991 Weld Tabulation (TASK 1) and RlR Review (TASK 2) Begins May 30,1991 Project Status Report (Verbal) June 28,1991 Weld Tabulation and RIR Review Completed July 5,1991 Weld Tabulation and RIR Review Comparison (TASK 3) Completed July 31,1991 Contractor Submits Report to NHY July 31,1991 Project Status Report (Verbal) August 23,1991 NHY Completes Root Cause Analysis (as Required) August 30,1991 NHY Submits Final Report to NRC
my -- u .. s -p a. -.~ w w r. > - ~ . - a ~ usa,- a-uns a.s m - a..a..,~.ws.ea.;*-.sw.--su.auna.>-~~a..wx,u---+, n u r -n -- w a s s-w a - - s .--- -.sx>.* e 4- "#
- 4-t l
' t ENCLOSURE 2 NHY PLAN FOR , f REVERiflCATION OF RECORDS 1 l n F1 1 l> I i 5 1 3 I l< r } e. l I .. l i L
NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE PRESENTATION TO NRC ON - PULLMAN-HIGGINS FIELD WELD RECORDS RE-VERIFICATION PROJECT APRIL 10, 1991-
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Purpose
- 1. Identify all Pullman-Higgins field welds that require radiography by code
- 2. Verify that NHY has the documents (RIR's and radiographs)
- 3. Confirm evidence of YAEC radiograph
, review
- 4. Identify and report records anomalies i 5. Report on the results of this effort
9 RECORDS REVERIFICATION Scope Applicable codes: 1977 edition, winter 1977 addenda ASME SectionIII Piping Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Supports Class 1 ASME Section HI ANSI B 31.1
RECORDS REVERIFICATION ASME Radiography Requirements I ASME ASME Applicable Type of Welds Class RT ASME Code Paragraph 1. Circumferential 1 X NB 5222 Butt Weld 2 X NC 5222 Joints 3 - NO 5222 2. Branch Piping 1 >4'NPS NB 5242 Butt Welded 2 >4'NPS NC 5242 Joints 3 - ND 5242 3. Branch Piping 1 >4*NPS NB 5243
- Corner Welded 2 >4'NPS NC 5242 Joints and Oblique 3 -
ND 5242 Piping Connections 4. Fillet and Socket 1 - NB 5260 Welds (excluding 2 - NC 5260 Name Plate Welds) 3 - ND 5222 l
RECORDS REVERIFICATION ANS! B 31.1 Radiography Requirements Systems With Temperatures Systems With Between 350'F and 750'F Inclusive ASME Temperatures And All Pressures Type of Welds Over 750'F Over 1025 PSIG v Butt Welds (Girth and Longitudinal) RT For NPS Over hgFo c ness 2 inches Over 3/4 Inch Welded Branch RT For NPS Over Fo B h v r4 inches g dfckness Connections 4 Inches of Branch Over 3/4 Inch Fillet, Socket Welds, Deposited Weld Metal None - None as Reinforcement
.a
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Approach
- 1. Independence
- 2. Accuracy and Control
- 3. Qualifications
- 4. Reporting
~
- 5. Checks and Balances
S RECORDS REVERIFICATION Methodology TASK 1 Isometric Review 2SK2 Field Wel s Tabulated M09M I"W Report Review u Field Weld RadiographV Requirements Confirmed Confirm That The Radiographs he On File y Confirm All Radiograph Une Segments TASK 3 Data Packages Field WcAd Tabulation Compared
& With Radiograpn Data :
" Package Tabulation y
v Contractor Cortractor Provides Provides Radiograph Data Cortractor Field Weld Package Tabulation Ust To NHY Scope To ,NHY n l t i Y NHY Electronically Y " NHY Enters Matches The Weld NHY Entem Data into NHY Ust & Radiograph : Data into Scope A Data Base Data Packages A Data Base l l
~ ' - - -
! ^ /
gu . u . , - t
- uurde..
i 3 ,G \ , EL-
' ,f l .\ \f. \
, \
q ge.
/ .~># .i.,= ,.
- 3RRE$
- 4- ;i n t hh 5
. g'
-9
,A g \e }$.i. f.
>Y k*
m C "' h g , p t*65 g
- g' ;gA ',
s k f y % $ f ,dj IS, I! g
\ s fsp A lot 4 f !5 m /,\('
\
,$L iJ lib
-/ 'p' !QS ajc .\d _
aa
.\ s,'
f j,/ % ' ? c,. d, . T ~' _ 4 t< # ,i- 5.'
. <,< gr rJ 6p-E a. ..
Yh u-.) A>] p
;&d5 I
* ,/ ,
o K,;,7
~ 9
.\,
/>
/ ,lf,,' s % 3rW
/
s
'g ,
L% 8 F
,4 r .a yL .
dr * ,* e f* 'q
'/ bl
. /\ -
q .p<\ c-r3 r~'.n ,.e
. \ e. jh's$kb, '/ k- Y' I
g/. w eo ,
,N A.'N *r
,%,,, , , ys , h g *.
IIM - D,J'{k<mh *o ' $}p k 1. N g hh t ' (E \' l
$te$ q b g
x/ oy e4 - 1 l yc M' u/\
/.-wA/ ' t[',y Nf xmmahb t n
- y s
h~k,4 C O 2fh6 E )
\
h ([ g,,
/
\ 9,.. ** '
- e. e / .@
.w
., i 4
9 ,1 ,
.s d!1 -
} ,
/ y% , l/ (4 .s
Q 8
~
' \/,/s. , et M@a 35 '. !i k /s '
.k[6k ' *
$N g? cattoiTEvo NoictJE
*M h y A
ows PER REV g f j&;a !
"'/gr ue.4c ave es es'eevdi M, -
, ,su ense e u1'm o t n a , . owes.m s .s. . s o sm4/ "cy
< % s.ristor )
- a m Mn5ew g?dostvarEve
. as ur,gw a ccce ~.n ~~
r; me- M,nom e,mp.,una C" ,"j't, ,, M JOB NO. 7036 yne e as.a umumoem ~.- - A00f 0 5ien22. ri6s._ m , gs.o . y p
- u sio m uns uwg y; ,gepitrW m ITFTrv PtC MT~~a u to wra e T(sprva .g, ;;p; we . u .,si.o, i,,
.a n .an p = y' rN p ,,a '*ma 's "a s gg,3goog gy37,og g,,,,, , p mi uso m.pmprpp numen >,% y,
.Wf_ PUBLIC 5E RVICT of
~ ..
in, wew mwse iscuttnic onAmme w _ - - ~ ~
n .. I BIL L CF M AT(RI Al, [ j,'.l,:,;.jmj . c m .. j m'c jm,, # ,, i e, n. .. . .e. 3.. v.,a. ,s.,2 m, s ,.. m. ,, . . a n. . .. , . . o r. n . , ,,, w b Wi t - 5l A' Men * . M... //jlLR'T i (A , 1*! '~""
- k. M ~'r"! .* ? I W/fte t* tr* b Tzf r/At/f M(d& fG I n'1
&!.' ! ? i!?d; VLA < Tilt 3h*9 ?t LO N '[y
' g' #8
- . ob
* ^? "!M 2 4 i ns f . A.v7 C
<2 t9 t!(.R R A
- D f M Gtt 1.
2*t
.rw ! 4 ' N
~5 ' H f g\ f,'l f'N I 3 J* 3- . . R m . . g s . Op, fett u n sei) i . 34 *Et8'*CUI8 @ D'I U 4 A S kte uP % . a%f __ fn va
, en 4m 4 I
.MAi* Q $/dCM1X nt(Ath
[ < 07 V O J l'.it t y J1A
! Pi*.7 * ? 't :' w fM*
1 j . .*;18 i . t 9 . o 3Coe . i l Ns'. .:~L' :.o s y g i
- I~
A o f na.nr. mL n, n
}
- fatt*t.r raros _
u g m-mg i !_ GO 77" W E t. C., --
.t l __
S w. t
; t
--+ ._ ,
*** 4r
= * **eo,st !
' ev ', e v k '
.t ,
i 84 rt ,
~
*}g g..>..
- Asala leo < s a t N6. 2' Rik%W c . t e . v .L PC f^
'I
*****-?
L**;4 Q F8#$6 %I . : r
...i a c 2_ ( %_ *6 sc..s..r 1 i s
t. t g - -_
~'
1 . tu r wt .'I .
} UCf% t St J 7M ^101 3
e 5"J M A L ; f'[L Q s s *~lt* W I- 6 E *W
.1 - a.ep'i" g p,. wi n - -
- 1, . , - o ar n . - -
f
., r;e , , . : c , . .,
s . c.r E*.z.EL .. (Es a e. 9 n.% u L.2\ a M l S Ni-
*mm _! ?
! i. As i
! n, a~ a j "Clain @ 434ULLT" '
5, g , , y * M!j - y ss sJun$y, n u t_J's
- L., . ;m y ,:nic y ransua A L o a- h . c FIL L E ? RELD 1
s i .,.m, &' &> m, - m . .. 3 %wth.,. - i, 3
- Litav11CA N 'a 5 - A CAh ' '/ F_ t *- 'I A iM I' * '
~
g edNI
-.'s
'- *t ftCN 4
a sos ioA r n.
,g p g
.~
i pK
; a i >4 n~+,r,7w egg ro eg,e.rcerr4r c '" au owes JOB NO. 7035 g <J P<D<%7hN e acoe:) N $0A g g ,, of"'"
a
* >t h c 44 g"Q[~{@lQQE O T $>*.'P8 gdh< oTsfra M 4's 4!p %
.
- A (C T C/ AJ L WS#KfGJ 8_ g, __
,, P P P sic sitta u AW Q l ' 9 ? ?_ *fs'y 'n N' Iht(p $3 L O $1! .Pf f y _
!44 N.psWam "Ma e etwMD F19% 17f sam ' cas s l aw, SEABROOK STATION M=. % P'*****
o, g tv yfl ,.v , r e . 3 . . . .. < . . .
, 7' .
ottcairnet 'mW 0 ann
' 'i li tAl j NEW HAMPSHIRE
- 6
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Line Segment Confirmation i 1225 94 I a25 g5 1225*1'381 6' SPRAY N022LES uo.m, No. 3) til NO22.) 1225 06 .1
,(TYPJ 6' s , 3 t .214 04 _
\\ g:4Y S .[eg.$ " * ,
\
baCR. NO 11. j g N 1214 ia i 688 NO22J t 2I08 " ' g
/ -
- 5' ', .
L
, ;214 07 1 I '22I' 6' L 'N 025 01 1 .225 02 1 T~ *
- 226 l*30l*6'
*"[!. BL E SPRAY
! ;214-06 gg, yo, 23
( L2 1214 05 \ l214*6* 4' [ __* 6' 1226 04 1 CB 1214 2 381 6' l i 1226 03 1 F c-26 06 . . 4' L4 1226 95 1 <
' 1216 5 301 4'
\ LMOR. NO. 41 l D - a16 08 1 l36 NO22.) I I 1216 07 .
ai ,
, gg,g /< .
i 1226-02 i C6 j L I i226 91 I "4 1216 6 391 6' - g, 4 y t 1216 05 F d r
"'.ai r
i ai6 e4 -c m -
@ > ;;;;;,...x 1m.2 m... .
1214 13 I CB/ i 1216 06 A bt iiddM-d.,4 x i4 3.w.r CONTAINMENT BLDG v22{n 2 7 t' /bv23 %LO . i214 ta ' -- 6, 2 4
.I ,
HADIOGRAPHIC Pullman Power Fiuuucts INSPECTION $" ** ' ' *
- REPORT sos rou
.,.a ..a f
(W$ ^ .
... v . ,u - 1,.c .... ..a em....
/2/si t*' (- (CS*/2 [~}
.n .8 "c. 3?> 382 n n o, . a i
...n 2 onwnc w.....e.nu na.,
..rew so y es c in w canon f 4 @
sa c sa neuovn c sw se*.= c 2-i gp a wca t oin a o.svo.~n ss
- wa c ot=en --
. e s ai
- C - et en tone savation (b.i 7-
.+at a-~~wc u%+. O
. en or o do.* De a e
**n o%, C men catooe pacewa aaocow=ea
$7. / wes.af j -/2 4 W 6 tyjf s ma .4% C om,ea..a y $=oa .a c @ L
..=o wamo a poweu ..a c a
,Q 4 \
/ s i i j
....M 3 ll3i P i
- . .-.-. ?.- _ . ,
3 aA04ATION SOURCE Fit,M gAyA l l INTENSIFYING SCREENS c- w
-: q*a't. c ,e ,, e .e " cat- oe saca
.c
. units y wa av f set s47 C 4%s'0 T*%*57 0 07"t* i LaAo sacsup =o txecsuas twa./ ,,; g3- lptwviewma smota V cousositt Q wo pocAt spot act
, j g g., e t140 e usto@_ i smots wauviewm4 Q' oouste wau O PENETRAMETER CATA sounca tosiw oistAact g gy,
- Q ','g* # m,7 ,m g saa g at paccroung ix at-/ -w7t**v y swi.e. ,g wattaisuy/g PROCES$1NG DATA sea. /2 swine:
,g varannaug /g acctpt stano sim ix.at-j -wnnev- ., l- autcuaticy mano C
.swa v C 4 wen ! 227 C 347 F
/ ass =oor / -
/ r i
__ $taf'C's NO '
+ll~ ! / * *
- 2.j Id 1-0 8#-
I l i l MM/ I I l i 17 0 I sw e 'i l
'i i l i I A / i f g 1",,3 #v /// / *[/ . r*#
i I I i l 'r e I l i i i i i i i i i i 6 8 i i i t i i ! i 1- i ! e i i i
! I l-i t i t I t i e i i { i i i i l i: i I i ) I i ! t i i e i t i i ; e i 8 I i i 6 I I I i- t i t I I I ( l i i I i iia i i l I i !
i i- i e : I i t { t i I j j t t I- ! 4 -t i t i i i j l i F i + . i i , i ,
! i i i i i I i -
t 1 4
*
- i e i i i
. I i } t j I I 4 i < t k I I I I I I t
;;6 ~
l ! I l i 11' i iii 4 i i I h I i I I i 6 i i i t i 6- -* ! I ikm i i
- .sanste= A h u s! .<e$ . L a ir s.- w/
.ccir ..a T/' - nas: C i reannian a
,y
~~~ aescotC l- v/7/M I) m ) g care
~-
,.e , f .ff,, p g
- n,..<
+
s . . .. . - ma e
, - ~ c ge,,.u.3 j g.y,, ,,g . w. ,,a m
. _ . - . . , . , - , , - . , . ..-- .~ ,---,-.- -,,__.,,... _ . ....__ _. . - -, .,~. - - ,-~.c, --m..~
RECORDS REVERIFICATION Schedule April 5,5 d991 Contract Awarded April 8,1991 Contractor Arrives on Site April 19,1991 Contractor's Procedures Approved April 22,1991 WeldTabulation (TASK 1) and
- RIR Review (TASK 2) Begins May 30,1991 Pro.ect Status Report (Verbal)
June 28,1991 Weld Tabulation and RIR Review Completed July 5,1991 Weld Tabulation and RIR Review Comparison (TASK 3) Completed I July 31,1991 Contractor Submits Report 1 i to NHY "
~
>L July 31,1991 Pro ect Status Report (Verbal) A August 23,1991- NHY Completes Root Cause Analysis (as Required) August 30,1991 NHY Submits Final Report to NRC,
%r _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _
. 4 ENCLOSURE 3 MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
Q rW t ATTENDANCE AT APRll 10, 1991 MEETING WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE 1ANKEE ; 1 H A.M.E, , , , , , , , , , , , , O RGANI Z,A,' t 0H _ l 1 Gordon Edison NRC/NPI. ! Heal A. Pillsbury NHY l Ted C. Feigenbaum NHY Terry L. Harpster NHY , E. W. Desmarais NHY l Robert E. Sweeney NHY kent E. Walter NRC/OlG Ben Hayes Ol/NRC D. Ringo INRC M. $. Callahan GPA/CA L. J. Norrholm OCM/KC Jose A. Calvo NRC/NRR Lawrence J. Chandler NRC/0GC Philip Joukoff HRC/01 W. Bateman NRC/EDO Frank Forgione 010 Ebe C. McCabe NRC/RI Antone C. Cerne NRC/R1 Ken C. Brockman NRC/0EDO Dick Wessman NRC/NRR Tim Martin NRC/R1 Jim Sniezek NRC/0E00 Jim Partlow NRC/NRR l 4 l l l l l l}}