ML20133G046

Responds to 850521 Ltr to EM Kennedy Expressing Concerns Re Evacuation Time Estimates for Plant,Per Kennedy 850628 Request.Response Documents Encl Tl Murley 850725 Ltr to Ns Costello

ML20133G046
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/30/1985
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Lord W AMESBURY, MA
Shared Package
ML20133G050	List: ML20133G046 ML20133G222 ML20133G235
References
NUDOCS 8508080542
Download: ML20133G046 (2)

Text

};, } j.e "4 g UNITED STATES , }

+ ,?,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ i ) g( 'S REGloN I IJN H f 531 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLV ANI A 19404

'g ( f jut. 3 01985

?

Amesbury Radiological Response Plan Advisory Committee ATTN: William Lord Chairman Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913

Dear Mr. Lord:

This is in response to your May 21, 1985, letter to Senator Edward M. Kennedy in which you expressed concerns related to the evacuation time estimates for Seabrook Station. Senator Kennedy requested on June 28, 1985 that the NRC reply directly to you on this matter. As a result of similar concerns pre-viously brought to our attention on June 11, 1985 by Massachusetts State Senator Nicholas J. Costello we have reviewed and responded to this issue, as well as others, as documented in the enclosed letter.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. As discussed in my letter to Senator Costello, the NRC has been and will continue to be involved in the overview of the implementation of emergency preparedness requirements for Seabrook Station.

I believe that the information provided in the enclosed letter is responsive to your concerns; however, if I can be of further assistance, please advise me.

Sincerely, ,

' 1l! t,t v u t 'A t

Thomas E. Mu/ ley -

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

As Stated cc (w/ encl):

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy B508080542 B50730 PDR ADOCK 05000443 F PDR v

A ,

JUL 3 01985 2

Distribution:

J. Taylor E00*000785-SECY 85-531 OCA V. Nerses R. Starostecki-T. Martin P. Lohaus S. Collins R. Gallo Docket No. 50-443 Public Document Room Local Public Document Room Region I Docket Room e

a

___ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - , - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - _ _ - ..-----.--,----.-----_-.------__aw--,.---_-__--------Ka

i

? 0 UNITED STATES

[p8 40 % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6 $),P() E REGloN I t h ,# f d 631 PARK AVENUE

k. KING OF PRUSSI A. PENNSYL.VANI A 19406 JUL 2 51985 The Honorable Nicholas J. Costello Massachusetts Senate Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Mr. Costello:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Chairman Palladino of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated June 11, 1985, requesting an investigation into the quality of construction at Seabrook Station. In your letter you cited two specific issues of concern to you.

The first issue involves the recent indictment of a former Seabrook Station employee by the United States Department of Justice (D0J) for submitting falsi-fied reports in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). You express concerns that questionable workmanship may exist at the facility, that further information may not come forward due to an anti-cipated prolonged court case, and that rumors and claims of construction fr-regularities have been reported by workers since its beginnings. Regarding your request that a thorough investigation be made, we believe that this has already been substantially accomplished. It should be noted that the D0J indictment to which you refer resulted from actions initiated by the NRC Office of Investi-gations (OI). The NRC has concluded its investigation of this matter and has referred its findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Hampshire, and pending completion of the criminal investigation, the OI report is being withheld from public disclosure at the direction of D0J.

However, separate from and concurrent with the NRC OI investigative actions, Region I has completed technical inspections and evaluations of this matter with results documented and available for public review. These documents as listed below are enclosed with this letter, not only to provide for you a basis for the review of the comprehensive approach to the problem taken by the li-censee, but also to indicate the completeness with which the NRC has overseen licensee corrective measures and also to document our own independent inspec-tion results pertaining to this issue to date:

NRC Region I Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-443/83-06 and 50-444/83-06, paragraph 4, listing planned licensee corrective measures, which were monitored by the NRC as they progressed.

NRC Region I Combined Meeting Report Nos. 50-443/83-10 and 50-444/83-07, discussing the status of licensee investigation and reporting, under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.55(e), (i .e. : 10 CFR 50.55(e))

with respect to the questionable nondestructive examinations.

~rWNM y -w y

'~Idl iy m' m

T .

Senator N. J. Costello 2 NRC Region I Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-443/83-18 and 50-444/83-14, paragraph 4 and Attachment 1, documenting independent measurements per-formed by NRC inspectors to confirm the adequacy of the licensee re-examination /re-evaluation program on a sample-of the suspect welds.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Reports to the NRC Region I, dated June 3, July 5, August 4, August 16, September 9, October 12, December 2, and December 21, 1983 on the suspect nondestruc-tive examinations. (These reports are required by the PSNH Construction Permit as a means to inform the NRC of potential design and construction deficiencies.)

! The final PSNH 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report, dated December 21, 1983, lists the final I

status of all 2,399 suspect examinations. It should be noted that although about .two-thirds of the suspect items were not related to components having a direct impact on the health and safety of the public, all of the suspect items / welds have been evaluated and/or re-inspected, as appropriate, and all j rejectable items were repaired.

i 1

In order to verify the completeness of PSNH actions NRC Region I has scheduled an on site independent measurements inspection of additional samples of the suspect welds which were re-examined, repaired and finally accepted by the 11-

, censee. Upon ccmpletion of this additional inspection, final review and analy-

, sis of the licensee records on'this matter and resolution of any outstanding concerns, it is our intention to close the technical aspects to this issue and 4 document the results in a subsequent Region I Inspection Report.

In regard to your additional concern on rumors and claims of construction irregularities at Seabrook, this office has a formal program for receiving, I

investigating, tracking, and documenting all allegations involving activities i

' within NRC jurisdiction. This program has been implemented for all concerns raised by not only plant workers, but other members of the public. We have j

even solicited such concerns and potential allegations from certain public j interest groups who we felt might have received such information. I can assure

!--- -you that-each such allegation-or concern, directed to us, has received a i

thorough investigation and also that the quality assurance / quality control j program being implemented at Seabrook has been and is being routinely inspected and evaluated by NRC inspection personnel to confirm construction consistent

with quality standards.

Your letter includes a second issue of concern related to discrepancies in the j evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for the Seabrook Station as identified in j correspondence to you from the Amesbury Radiological Response Plan Advisory I

Committee dated May 21, 1985.

The development of ETEs for the permanent residents, transients and persons in special facilities under both normal and adverse weather conditions is J

a I '

i l

t _

x Senator N. J. Costello 3 an important part of the emergency planning process for nuclear power plants and is given close review by both the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As you may know, the NRC is primarily responsible for assessing the adequacy of onsite emergency plans developed by nuclear power plant licensees / applicants. FEMA, by Presidential directive, has been assigned the responsibility of assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency plans for the area surrounding a nuclear plant.

The July 1983 and March 1984 ETE studies referred to in the Amesbury letter are part of the offsite emergency planning effort. As indicated in a May 31, 1985 response from FEMA Region I to William Lord, Chairman of the Amesbury commit-tee, FEMA is in the process of performing a review of the ETEs for Seabrook as part of FEMA's review and evaluation of offsite emergency plans and prepared-ness for Seabrook. The NRC will assist and support FEMA in the review of the Seabrook ETEs.

The ETE development process, in accordance with FEMA /NRC guidance (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1), recommends the submittal of a draft version of the study to State and local emergency response organizations for their review and comment. The objective of this effort is to identify any discrepancies or errors in the study by knowledgeable State and local officials so that the final report will represent a reasonably precise and accurate estimate of the evacuation times for use by emergency planners and decision makers in the event of an emergency. It is our understanding that the July 1983 study referred to by Amesbury was in fact a draft, and that as a result of comments made by local officials, revisions were made. FEMA has indicated in their response that they will review the apparent inconsistency cited in the Amesbury letter. It should be noted that while the July 1983 ETE study was filed with the NRC, the March 1984 study has not yet been submitted to the NRC.

Both tne NRC and FEMA have been, and continue to be, very much involved in the development and evaluation of ETEs for Seabrook. We are confident that the review process, including the continued input by State and local officials, will result in accurate and consistent ETEs for the Seabrook area, and that any discrepancies in the ETEs will be recognized and resolved prior to the licensing of the facility.

In conclusion, we believe that the steps we have previously taken in addition to our commitments to complete resolution of the tech 51 cal issues are sufficiently comprehensive to confirm acceptable hardware installation at Seabrook, to assure responsive licensee corrective measures, and to verify an orderly process in the development and evaluation of ETEs for Seabrook. I believe that the actions, facts, and public documents referenced in this letter are responsive to your concerns. The NRC will continue to perform inspections and conduct investigations as necessary to determine whether Seabrook construc-tion is proceeding in accordance with regulatory requirements and appropriate

Senator N. J. Costello 4

- industry practices, that the management and quality control programs are effective, and that the review process for licensing the facility is compre-hensive and accurate.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, fjy(, c/

ThomasE.Murley(w Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

As Stated

_ _ , _ m . , , - - . _ _ _ - - . - , - - - - =, - -

y ** - -- - - -

a 7 ' "

e, t;n:TED ST Ts3

. ,I i NUCLEAR RESULATORY OO: N'SSION

%C'p. '

e E

RsGlO.

Ni AM.4 * ~~*#

// $2. P ARK t.V E'.UE KING OF ?%'SSI A PENNSYL.V ANIA 19406 License Nos. CPPR-135 Docket Nos. 50 443 JUN 0 81C83 CPPR-1?6 50 444 p

i Public Service Ccmpany of New Ha- shire t'

ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harri:cr. 7 President and Chief Exe:.-'as C##icer *

- F.C. *::: 32:

4 Manchester, New H ecshire C21C?

1 Gen:lemen: .

Subject:

Ccmbined Inscectic: * :. 5: 442/E0-05; 50-444/83-06 l

This ref.ers to the rcutine safety inscection conducted by Mr. A. Cerne of this office on April 11 - May 22,19E3 at the Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2, ,

Seabrook, New Hamoshire of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. CPPR-135 and C?PR-135 and t: the d'scurri::s of our findings held by Mr. Gramm with Messrs. Beckley, herrin, Mc0cnaic and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspecticn.

Areas examined curine this inscaction are described in the NRC Region I Inscection c.e:c which is#en:1:sec with this letter. Within these areas, ne inspectice. c:-s'ste: seiec 've examinaticns of procedures and repre-sentative recercs, 4:e vist: ':r ersonnel, and cbservations by the inspector.

Within the scope Of :nis 'r:s:s:- : , ,. vicit:icns were observed.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Rocm unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information centained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. SuchThe' a:clication mus: be consistent with the telechone notification of your intent to requirements of 2.790(b)(1).

recuest withholding, or any recuest for an extension of the 10 day period whien you believe necessary, shculd be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Regicn I, at (215) 337-5223.

No reply to this letter is recuired. Ycur cocceration with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, EI;31 Signed 37:

': gr: . 5 ar:steck., Director

<^ O C'visi r of Pr ject anc Resident a 2/ *hh Fr0 crams

~

Q @ W @ p& (( .

0 8 E63 Public Service Company of New Hampshire 2

Enclosure:

Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-443/83-06; _

~

50-444/83-06 cc w/enci:

John DeVincentis, Project Manager Public Document Room (PDR) local NuclearPublic Document Safety Information Room (LPDR) (NSIC)

Center NRC Resident Inspector State of New Hampshire .

m

• go .

e

\-

0 )

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I 50-443/83-06 Report No. 50-444/83-06 50-443 Docket No. 50-444 CPPR-135 License No. CPPR-136 Priority --

Category A Lic:nsee: Public Service Company of.New Hamoshire 1000 Elm Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 I

Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection conducted: April 11 - May 23,1983 Inspectors:

A.C.Cerne Sr. Resident Inspector date signed

.k. AOw- (olI [83 R.A.Gransn, Resi' dent Inspector date signed date signed Approved by: k 6f783 R.M.Gallo, Chief, Projects Section lA, date signed Division of Project and Resident Programs Inspection Summary:

Unit 1 Inspection on Aoril 11 - May 23,1983 (Report No. 50-443/83-06) -

Areas Insoected: Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of work activities procedure:

and records relative to pipe, pipe support and electrical ' raceway installation. The inspectors also reviewed licensee action on previously identified items and performed plan 1 inspection tours. The inspection involved 132 inspector-hours including fourteen off-shift hours by the two NRC resident inspectors.

Results: No violations were identified.

Unit 2 Insoection on Aoril 11 - May 23,1983 (Recort No. 50 444/83-06)

Areas Inscected: Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of work activities, procedures and recoros relative to licensee action on previously identified items and plant inspectier tours. The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours by the two NRC resident inspectors.

Results:No violations were identified.

.[ () .)

^

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

^

i Yankee Atomic Electric Ccmpany (YAEC)

F. W. Bean, Lead Electrical QA Engineer.

B. B. Beckley, Manager Nuclear Projects (PSNH)

O. L. Covill, Lead Civil QA Engineer l i *W. N. Fadden, Engineer (Framingham)

! R. E. Guillette, Sr., QA Engineer l J. H. Herrin, Site Manager (PSNH) (Framingham)

! G. F. Mcdonald, Jr., QA Manager (Framingham)  !

l J. F. Nay, Jr., Lead Mechanical QA Engineer J. A. Philbrick, Senior Project Engineer (PSNH)

! S. B. Sadosky, Lead Start-up/ Test QA Engineer ,

l J. W. Singleton, Field QA Manager '

! R. P. Tam, Engineer (Framingham)

R. Tucker, Engineer (Framingham) ,

United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C) a R. H. Beaumont, QA Engineer R. H. Bryans, Site Engineering Manager J. J. Carrabba, Preventive Maintenance Supervisor s P. A. Giansiracusa. Lead Engineer, Construction Design Group J. A. Grusetskie, Engineering Manager Assistant i B. J. Huselton, Power Discipline Engineering Manager

D. C. Lambert, Field Superintendent of QA C. R. Platcher, Electrical Start-up Supervisor i O. C. Turnquist, Supervisory Pipe Support Engineer 1 T. P. Vassallo, Jr., Quality Assurance Lead Engineer Fischbacft-Boulos-Manzi (FBM)

A. 8. Caldwell, QC Supervisor H. P. Patel, Project Engineer l

R. F. Watt, Project QC Manager i

Perini Power Constructors (PPC)

G. E. Meyers, Field QC Manager G. O'Halloran, Chief Structural Inspector e

i Grinnell Fire Protection System Co. (GFP)

A. G. sabourin, Project Manager

Pullman-Higgins (P-H) i

! R. G. Davis, Field QA Manager 1 R. R. Donald, Assistant QA Manager j D. B. Hunt, QA Records Supervisor

! Royal Insurance  !

J. C. Anz1 vino, Authorized Nuclear Inspector i

Frank W. Hake, Inc.

j R. W. Ellis, QA Manager I USNRC l o G rao, Mechanical Engineering Branch, NRR i

e w ..., ..i..u. . .._..-e... ..

. - - _- - .. - _ _ - - - . . . . . .= .- . .

g -

q

3 -

2. Plant Inspection Tours (Units 1 & 2)

The inspector observed work activities in-progress, completed work and i plant status in several areas of the plant during general inspection of the plant. The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance

with regulatory requirements or license conditions. Particular note was i taken of presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence .

{ such as inspection records, material identification, nonconfaming material t identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation. The inspector

interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.

j '

! Specifically, the inspector examined the installed condition of certain instrument air lines (tubing and supports) in the Emergency Feedwater (EFW)

Pumphouse. He also spot-checked the in-process condition of some tubing installations on the motor-driven EFW pump and reviewed the UE&C foreign

] print drawings for the pump manufacturer's assembly details.

1 i I The mounting details for the Reactor T-ip Switchgear (1-CP-CP-111) in the '

j Unit 1 Control Building were checked : gainst the Westinghouse drawing

requirements (UEAC Foreign Print, FP3?S90) and other UEAC design drawings (F101698,F111341,andF111393). TPe inspector detemined that welding of i the switchgear cabinet to anchor channels had been specified, in lieu of

the Westinghouse anchor bolting dr. tails, for the support arrangement of the cabinet perimeter. However, for the internal cabinet support attachment, j 3/8" diameter threaded stud welds had been provided. 1 The inspector was aware of an Engineering Change Authorization (ECA 03/1544A) i which prohibited the use of 3/8" diameter stud welds for conduit supports j requiring seismic qualification, because of the amount of play provided a

these studs by the strut material hole configurations. Since the f j configuration of the holes in the reactor trip switchgear (0.56" by 1.12" slots)

also allows for considerable play with regard to the specified 3/8" l diameter studs, the inspector questioned the technical adequacy of this hold-down detail for seismic loading conditions.

! Licensee and A/E engineering personnel are currently reviewing the seismic j qualification data and calculations for the reactor trip switchgear to '

j provide assurance that the use of the 3/8" diameter studs for a center j support app 1tcation is acceptable. Pending review of the results by the NRC, this item remains unresolved (443/83-06-01). Any generic applicability i to other switchgear seismic mounting details will also be reviewed at that l l time. -  !

l ,

i l During the course of the inspection, the following items were noted by the j inspectors and resolved with no further questions:

l -- The hauling of the Unit 2 core barrel and upper internals from the Hampton Beach barge facility to the site was witnessed and verified 3 to be in accordance with F.W. Hake procedure IP-SB-004.

t ,

-- The Grinnell Fire Protection (GFP) nonconfomance reporting and review l l procedure (FGCP-13) was reviewed and found to be consistent with FSAR l 1 t 1

(

n 4 9  :

s l statements that fire protection system nonconfomances will be handled '

in a manner comensurate with safety related systems.

4

-- ECA 83/0026A was questioned relative to the completion of hydraulic

! calculations by GFP engineering prior to modifying a piping run 1 configuration. The inspector was infomed that a preliminary check

! had been perfonned and that as-built hydraulic calculations will be made at a later date.

) --TheNondestructiveExamination(NDE)ofpipesupport202-RM-15was questioned relative to ASME Section III NF requirements for Class 1 t

linaar support welds. The weld examination was detennined to be in i accordance with NF-5212 for full fillet welds.

-- UE&C drawing 805943 allcws a specified weld to be placed on either side 1 of a pipe support I - beam web , when the beam is cantilevered from j

an embednent plate. Licensee ' engineering confinned that the weld would function equally"well on either side of the web for the purpose of stabilizing the web during loaded conditions.

l l -- UE&C procedure TP-4 identifies components that are neither seismically 4

anchored nor isolated from other safety related equipment, in particular l several crane and monorail assemblies. The inspector discussed witti

) licensee engineering p'ersonnel the ongoing A/E review program and the l justificatterr for design decisions not to seismically upgrade these i assemblies. He has no further questions at this time.

The inspector reviewed the following sources of infonnation in regards to Class IE safety related radiation monitoring instrumentation -

-- UE&C drawing F-500017

-- UEAC specification 172-1 j -- FSAR sections 7.1.1.2 and 12.3.4.1.6 4

Throughout.the above, references were made to a variety of Class IE radiation monitors and IE display equipment located within the control room. The

only apparent rouce for the signals from the monitor was through a computer i located within the Adninistration Building. The inspector received i clarification that an independent Class IE system is provided for control j room indication of radiation levels measured b

! A NRR Request for Additional Infonnation (RAI)y hasthe safety related questioned instruments.

the potential

! for degradation of the IE portion of the system by failure of the non-IE

bus. The inspector has no further questions regarding the radiation monitoring

! system design.

4 With regard to all of the above inspection items, no violations were identified, i 3. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items I

j a. Previous Inspection Findings I 1)(Closed))

whip (PW Violation restraints.(443/82-02-04): Undersized The inspector reviewed fillet welds the following on pipe documents:

1

l-

., n -

5 O-

e

-- Stearns-Roger Welding Procedure Qualification Test Records, i AF-1 and AS-1.

j l -- UE&C Memorandum from the Lead Pipe Support Engineer, dated 4/7/83.

-- NRC Region IV, Vendor Programs Branch Inspection Report.

99900510/83-01.

--PSNHLettertotheNRC(SBN-148) dated 1/15/81.

During previous field inspections, the inspector had witnessed rework to existing undersized PW fillet welds to butid them up to AWS code requirements. He also verified that UE&C had published and disseminated " Fillet Weld Size Criteria" in line with ASME, AWS and AISC Code Requirements.

During the inspection, the following corrective actions were confirmed:

(1) Upgrade of all undersized pipe whip restraint welds or qualification of the inaccessible welds to the AWS waiver criteria.

(2) Generic treatment of the undersized pipe support welds as one example of a design problem requiring fonnal design guidelines and checklists, retraining of engineering personnel, and the establishment of a pipe support design verification program employing ITT Grinnell to check approximately 1500 support designs.

These generic corrective actions were additionally reviewed by an NRC Vendor Program Branch inspector at the UE&C offices in Philadelphia.

The individual case's of undersized fillet welds have been either reworked or satisfactorily analyzed and qualified. The generic design problems have been adequately addressed by UEAC. The inspector has no further questions on this issue and considers this item to be closed. ,

2) (Closed) Unresolved item (443/82-04-03 and 444/82-04-01): Requirement for tracking questionable components to preclude procurement problems.

The inspector reviewed UEAC Administrative Procedure, AP-49 which established guidelines for responding to NRC Bulletins, Circulars and Infonnation Notices. He noted that a " Deficient Products List" has been established to identify and track any questionable items discussed in those NRC documents. Responsibility is assigned to various discipline engineers and project managers to assure that potentially deficient items are not in use for work under their purview and will not be procured without further review.

The inspector examinad an example of a " Deficient Products List" and detennined that in conjunction with the procedural requirements of AP-49, questionable components are now being adequately tracked.

The inspector has no fi;rther concerns regarding future construction procurement in this regard and considers this item to be closed.

~

s. Q -

S 3

)

)

, 3) (Closed) Unresolved Item (443'and 444/82-09-01): FSAR revision noting

the use of high-slump concrete. Amendment 47 to the Seabrook Station l FSAR has been issued and accepted, which documents the use of "Special High Slump' Concrete" (up to 6" slump) and the use of superplasticizer concrete mixes (up to 9" slump). There is no 4

technical issue which questions the acceptability of properly designed high-slump concrete mixes. Their use in highly congested areas 1

is advantageous to quality placements if controlled, as is done at i i Seabrook, on a case by case basis. '

. Since the FSAR now documents the actual use of high range, water  :

reducing adnixtures and high slump concrete at Seabrook Station, '

! this item is considered closed.  ;

I

! 4) (0 pen) Unresolved item (443/82-12-01): Lack of counterbore dimensions '

) on the contairment electrical penetration detail drawings. The ,

l inspector reviewed the revisions to the Westinghouse penetration i drawings (UE&C Foreign Print 32363) which now indicate the depth

of counterbore. He evaluated these dimensions with regard to the

! effect upon weld quality relative to the assembly and fit-up of

! the electrical penetration to the containment penetration sleeve. '

It was noted that both the sleeve end preparation details and the j penetration assembly counterbore details provide for tolerances i which, when the two pieces are fit-up, may or may not provide for any gap to allow thermal growth of the thinner member, similar to

, socket weld provisions. <

l

While the acceptability of the weld root gap was verified by controls i 4

established in the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS ITS-III-1-BR-2),

the need for any gap between the containment penetration sleeve lan'd extension and the electrical penetration assembly must be further i reviewed. Pending engineering justification that acceptable stress

, conditions are achieved after welding with or without the subject '

gap, as caused by the respective fabrication tolerances, this issue  !

l remains unresolved.  !

^

b. Construction Deficiency Reports (CDR) - 10CFR50.55(e) i J' ,

1) (Closed) CDR (443/82-00-11): Cracks in containment annular steet {

I radial beam connections. Cracks had been noted in a large number j of the connections due to lamellar tears which initiated within the

! filler plate material due to stresses resulting from a restrained l j tee joint. ,

l 1 The inspector reviewed UEAC NCR2731 which provided the following '

measures to be enacted to prevent recurrences of the lamellar tearing

j -- Replacement of all the existing filler plates with either i

! ASTM A516 Lukens Fine Line or ASTM A36 Phoenix X0 material.

l These have improved ductility characteristics to inhibit l j the initiation of the lamellar tearing (Reference UE&C j i drawing 101927).

J '

i  :

l

. p) ,

3 1

I.

-- A 200'F preheat is to be maintained throughout the duration of welding to reduce themal stresses.

-- Welding deposits are to be sequenced to achieve stress ,

reductions.  !

-- Final torque of the end connection bolts is accomplished after welding to allow foi any themal movements.

The inspector has reviewed the modifications incorporated into the annular steel connection installation and welding procedure and considers that adequate corrective action has been accomplished such that this item is considered to be closed.

2) (Closed) CDR (80-00-06): Undersized fillet welds and other pipe support design errors. Based upon the items reviewed by the inspector in section 3.a.1, this CDR is additionally considered to be closed.

4. Licensee Construction Deficiency Recort - Questionable Surface NDE On May 4,1983 the licensee identified as a potential construction deficiency report under 10CFR50.55(e) the questionable conduct of the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of approximately 2,400 welds (later reduced to 2,100),

perfomed by one Pullman-Higgins NDE technician. The suspect NDE includes magnetic particle (MT) and liquid penetrant (LPT) examinations of welds made by several site contractors and is based upon discovery that procedures were violated by the technician in the conduct of the examinations. Approximately one-third of the suspect welds have been detemined to be safety-related. -

Planned licensee corrective action, to date, includes:

1) Reevaluation of all welds in question fdr reinspection or reanalysis as required.

2) Reinspection of a sample of 10 welds per Pullman NDE technician per NDE process (MT, LPT, Ultrasonic thickness checks), cemencing 5/9/83.

3) Increased Pullman Power Products Corporate audit / surveillance personnel will be assigned to the site.

4)IncreasedsurveillancebyYAECQApersonnelofPullmanNDEactivities on all shifts is in progress.

5) Random "infomation only" LPT and MT examinations by YAEC NDE personnel of welds accepted by Pullman will be instituted.

6) YAEC and UE&C have established a Supervisory Support Group to monitor Pullman activities, including NDE, on a full-time basis until further notice.

7) A corporate Director of QA from Pullman Power Products has been detailed to the site.

The inspector will monitor the status and conduct of these corrective actions as they progress. Fomal follow-up of this issue will be provided and documented in conjunction with the evaluation of the licensee's written 50.55(e) report.

r , l

, J, '

8 /

'5. Piping and Pipe Supports F

a. The inspector reviewed section 9.5.8 of The Seabrook Station Safety Evaluation i

Report (SER) in which the diesel generator exhaust system was indicated i

to be treated as a safety related system. The licensee's response to NRR RAI 430.127 had specified the required nondestructive examination (NDE) to be applied to the B31.1 designed system. The adequacy of the Pullman-

, Higgins inspection program and the conduct of the requisite NDE was questioned in YAEC Blue Sheet 53 relative to the exhaust piping. As a i result of the Blue Sheet questions, the licensee initiated the following  :

! actions:

l

-- UEAC Engineering Stop Work Order (ESWO) P-0018 was generated to place i all field work on hold for the exhaust lines. The stop work extended i

to another safety related 831.1 designed system, the control Building l Air system.

j -- NCR 1948 was issued to apply B31.1 (Table 136.4) high temperature

! line radiography requirements to the exhaust system field welds.

j -- Field Trouble Reports M1-0062A and M1-0063A were initiated to record

) and seek resolution on damage noted by the inspector to the exhaust j system expansion joints.

! -- NCR 2062 was issued to note the non-perfomance of the radiography j examination of the exhaust system shop welds per 831.1 requirements.

4 The inspector received a preliminary response to Blue Sheet 53 in which a comunitment was made to apply "the Pullman-Higgins ASME QA program to any future work on the exhaust piping. Additionally, further engineering review ,

is ongoing to identify all other 831.1 designed systems which require an '

inspection program in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix B.

Based upon the corrective action taken to date to up i system ins Previously.pection and upon an open unresolved item (grade the 443 & 444/83-05-02) questioning the generic implication of the inspection provided to 831.1 safety related systems, the inspector has no further concerns at this time in regards to the exhaust system.

4

b. The inspector observed a temporary installation of an ASME Class 3 spool -

! in line CC-721-02 (Field Welds F0203 and F0204). No process sheets were '

available to demonstrate that the welds had been made in accordance with code requirements. The inspector was provided with the following documentation ,

l i

1 associated with the spool installation:

a) The weld rod requisition foms verified that the proper welding '

procedures and rod type had been used. Additionally the welder was qualified to make the field welds. i b) Pullman-Higgins drawing CC-721-02 Rev. O and Rev. 2 along with Speed Letter PPP #616 directed that the temporary spcol be installed.

c) NCR 4426 recorded the lack of documentation for the welds with a j disposition to completely remove the spool, perform area NOE of the

permanent pipe and install the flow elements in accordance with ASME )

i i code requirements. l i

i 1

Q /

j

.: 9 procedurally, even temporary field welds in ASME components shall be fully documented and inspected. Specifically, the welds in question shall be removed under a quality program which assures no adverse effects upon the pemanent pipe. Thus no further questions remain on this inadequately documented installation.

The inspector acccmpanied licensee personnel during a verification check on ITT-Grinnell Figure 306 and 307 mechanical sway and shock suppression components. The check was perfomed in accordance with procedure pE479-1.

Gage check blocks were inserted to detemine the clearance available within the clevis portion of the unit. Support 835-RM-S was found to be defective and rework will be performed to provide the required internal clearance.

The inspector was notified by the Mechanical Enginearing Branch (NRR) that a potential problem existed with the use of ITT-Grinnell Figure 315 pipe i

clamps. The clamp installation directions specify a large preload torque for the associated for the clamped pipe. U-bolts which could result in an overstressed condition Four of these clamps were scheduled to be used at Seabrook for supports: 4000-SG-14, 4001-SG-14, 4002-SG-14, and 4003-SG-14.

The inspector alerted the ifcensee about the potential deficiency detected <

by NRR and engineering has responded that these clamps will not be used at the Seabrook site; therefore, the inspector has no further questions.

No violations were identified in the area of piping and pipe supports during the course of the inspection.

6. Electrical Raceway and Cable

~

An incorrect vertical tray support (1-90A14) attachment to containment structural steel was noted by the inspector. The connection was in variance to ECA 54/2880C in that a specified gap was not provided between the vertical unistrut member and the clip angles to allow for a slip fit. The inspector noted FEM Inspection Report 38-122 which directed that the connection be reworked to confom to the noted ECA. As this was a one-of-a-kind installation and the physical installation has been corre:ted, the inspector has no additional concerns.

The inspector observed that an exposed conduit for the Intelligent Remote Teminal Unit (IRTU) surge ground, a non-safety component, had not received any QC inspection. However, ECA 03/0450A specifies that all exposed conduit (excluding lighting system conduit) within the Nuclear Island shall be considered as safety related and subject to the appropriate inspection.

Given the inconsistency between the FBM conduit inspection program and the direction provided by the ECA, YAEC QA issued a Deficiency Report (OR401),

which the inspector detemined was sufficient to resolve this non-safety issue.

The inspector observed a cable pull from the Control Building El 50' to the Service Water pump House. The following cables were involved:

, A03-CR6, AQ4-CR7, AQ4-VL5, X4X-XY6, AQ3-N81/1, AQ3-VL3, j AQ4-N83/1, CV7-FD8, CV7-F08/1, CS7-F70, CVS-FD8, CV5-FD8/1, CV6-FD8, CV6-FD8/1, CS6-F70, CS9-F70, C50-F70, F72-VL3 6

A ]

. ~> J 10 f.

i The cable installation was verified to be in accordance with the criteria contained in the FSAR, Regulatory Guides IEEE 336 and FBM procedures i FECP-504 and QCP-504. The following attributes were noted as acceptable for j the cable pull:

1) Cable pull tension within allowable limits as measured by a calibrated device.

{ 2) Pulling lubricant applied where required 1

' 3) Adecuate QC coverage during the cable pull

4) Final cable harnessing to the raceway was done in accordanca

with FBM NCR-222 such that previously installed associated c4bles can be inspected at a later date.

The inspector noted no violations for the above inspection items.

j 7. Structural Steel Modification i

) The inspector observed a structural beam (478-51) connection which had

! been $artially dismantled. The Structural Steel Installation Sunmary i

(SSIS was checked for identification of the document authorizing the i

modification. This information was not provided for the beam in question.

! The splice plate connection had been inspected on 8/9/82 (Structural Steel l

Report S-1276) while on 10/29/82,ECA 54/30038 was issued to redesign the i connection. The physical configuration of the splice plates was.not in  ;

! agreement with the ECA nor had a Structural Steel Removal Authorization (SSRA) been initiated for the partial dismantling as required by Perini Procedure ,

FCCP-153.

i, ,

I As a result of the above combination of events, Perini QC was not notified l that a previously inspected beam co.1nection had been modified,thereby t

potentially invalidating their original inspection. Perini has instituted I the following measures to prevent recurrence of this situation:  !

-- Perini QC will receive ECA's affecting structural members to monitor

, the effect upon previously inspected items.

4

-- QC will conduct surveillance monitoring of construction efforts,in i

particular the disassembly of structural members.

) -- Procedural changes have been made to FCCP-153 to clarify the requirements for engineering response to removal directives.

)

The inspector has reviewed Perini procedures, interviewed area structural

) engineers, reviewed the SSIS system and evaluated the interfaces between Perini engineering and QC ,and thereby determined that this was an isolated problem and that adequate steps have been taken to preclude recurrence.

i No violations were identified by the inspector.

I I

i

Q 3

11 -

8. Control and Purchase of Weld Material The inspector reviewed the control and purchase of weld material utilizing the requirements contained within the following documents:

-- Seabrook Station FSAR

-- ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel" Code Section II and III

-- AWS Structural Steel Welding Code

-- UE&C Specification 248-1

-- UE&C Specification WS-1

-- Pullman-Higgins Procedure JS-VIII-3 The inspector verified that the Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB) and Seawall red rocms were in ecmpliance with the applicable requirements, the following were checked and found to be acceptable:

-- Holding oven temperatures were correct for the stored rod type, and a log was available to document the calibration of the oven temperatures.

-- Holding evens contained a singular alloy and heat electrode type with the oven exterior clearly marked to delineate the contents therein.

-- Color coding of covered electrodes was checked.

-- Portable even color coding (designates two different operating temperatures) was checked against weld rod requisition slips to verify proper electrode storage within.

-- Segregation of ASME and Non-ASME materials was noted.

The inspector checked portable oven #2053 and found it to be out of the required calibration time limit as specified by Pullman-Higgins Procedure JS-VIII-3. NCR4560 was initiated to document the uncalibrated over. condition.

The inspector reviewed the portable oven calibration log book and found this to te'an". isolated case,'for which the disposition to the NCR wi.ll dictate aporopriata corrective action. This might include calibration usi~ng thermoccuples.

The themoccuole calibration of the portable ovens was observed by the inspector. UE&C maintenance personnel perfom this operation with an Elnik ESC-6 recorder. This process represents a far more accurate method of determining the oven temperature versus a pyremeter. The thermocouple calibration is performed for all repaired units, i.e. those found to be inoperable or outside the specified temperature limits.

Weld material purchase orders were reviewed by the inspector for several orders:

-- UE&C Purchase Order (PO) 29997 for ER308L, ER309L and ER316L welding wire

-- UE&C P0 24787 for E7018 electrede '

-- UE&C P0 28300 for consumable insert material

The purchase orders contained the applicable requiren.ents to be satisfied by the material supplier in accordance with the aforementioned list of

documents. Certified material test reports were reviewed and found to

] satisfy the appropriate ASME requirements.

In regards to the above, the inspector has no further questions, nor were any violations identified.

r i

9. Unresolved Items i

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in

order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations ,

i or deviations. The unresolved item disclosed during the inspection was ^

discussed in Paragraph 2.

i i 10. Management Meetings At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were '

held with senior plant management to discuss the scope and findings of this i inspection.

}

i l

N

)  !

i

! t l

i

}

I

?

..l'.y =e

s. cy'c, ) UNITED STATES ) (

' I ,*... ,yf 7 ~ "' NUCLE AR REGULATORY COT.*M:SS;un! l QMe

, 9Q4f f

$ REGION I 631 PARK AVENUE f xisc or puss:4. pesusytvania is4:s M22g i

l Docket Nos. 50-443 License Nos. CPPR-135 50-444 CPPR-136 l Public Service Company of New Hampshire ATTN: Mr. Rcbert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Ccmbined NRC Meeting Ncs. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07 -

This refers to the meeting held at the NRC Region I office on June 7,1983 to discuss the planned licensee corrective acticns relative to the performance of the s,ite piping contractor and the status of the licensee investigation into the suspect NDE surface examinations, as reported under 10CFR50.55(e).

The scope and content of the meeting is described in the enclosed NRC Region I meeting report. As noted in the enclosed report, we understand that a high level cf management attentien is being devoted to the subject problems. The effectiveness of ycur corrective actions will be judged not only by the eval-uation cf your future findings and reports, but also by further NRC inspections of the programs and centrols es ablished to assure acceptable performance in the piping, pipe support and NDE areas.

In accordance with 10CFR2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Rocm unless you notify this office, by telephene, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold infernation contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirementsof2.790(b)(1). The telechone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any recuest for an extensien of the 10 day period v:hich you talieve necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.

No reply to this letter is recuired. Your cocceration with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, ,

orisf.nni signed 3T*

Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs l

m - 44 o. i

) () JO / .J )~l

.o

-)

Public Service Company of New Hampshire 2 JUN 2 21983 Enclosure.: Combined NRC Region I Meeting Report Number 50-443/83-10;

• 50-444/83-07 .

cc w/ enc 1:

-John DeVincentis, Project Manager Public Do.cument Rocm (PDR) .

Local PuBl~ic Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) s- NRC Resident Inspector

t. 5% ate of New Hampshire I

1 1

1 l

l I

i

..l.

D U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Region I 50-443/83-10 Report No. _50-444/83-07 50-4*3 Docket No. 50-444 -

1 CPPR-135 License No. _CPPR-136 Priority --

Category A Licensee: Public Service Cemoany of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street Manc.hester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 T

Meeting at: NRC Region I Office, King of Prussia, PA l

Meeting conducted: June 7,1983 NRC Personnel:

A.C.Cerne, Sr. Resident Inspector data signed QL &w pR.A. Gram, Resident Inspector 6/wles date signec date signed Approved by:

R.M.Gallo, Chief, Projects Section 28, bl7 i

dath signed Division of Project and Resident Programs Meeting Sumary:

Meeting on June 7,1983 (Combined Reoort Nos.50-443/83-10 & 50-444/83-07) i Special, announcea management meeting to discuss current and proposed licensee actions in

response to

. contractor (general NRC concerns Pullman-Higgins) and to regarding the specific the construction past perfonnance of theinvolving deficiency site piping the questionable conduct of surface nondestructive examinations (NDE) performed by one Pullman Higgins technicit.n. The status of the licensee investigation and reporting,under 10CFR50.55(e), with respect to the questionable NDE was discussed, along with other t

licensee management and inspection initiatives.

i

?Q- $ 4f hh f

F..;.

i...

O O

l. -

DETAILS

]

1. Licensee Attendees D. N. Merrill, Executive Vice-President (PSNH) i W. P. Johnson, Vice-President (YAEC)

A. M. Shepard, Director of Quality Assurance (YAEC) '

H. T. Tracy, Jr., Director of Construction (YAEC)

6. F. Mcdonald, Jr., Quality Assurance Manager (YAEC) <

2. NRC Attendees R. W. Starostecki, Director, Division of Project & Resident Programs, Region I S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Programs Branch, Region I R. M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 28, Region I i H. B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2C, Region I A. C. Corne, Senior Resident Inspector, Region I R. A. Grasst, Resident Inspector, Region I S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Lead Reactor Engineer, Region I G. R. Klingler, Enforcement Staff, Office of Inspection & Enforcement

3. Licensee Presentation and Discussion The licensee presented corrective steps, taken by management of both the piping contractor (Pullman-Higgins) and the licensee itself, to address concerns "aised about the performance of the piping contractor. These steps include:

i

-- mobilization of a joint licensee / construction manager supervisory support group to monitor Pullman-Higgins site activities on a daily basis and evaluate findings.

-- an increase in the frequency of surveillances and audits of Pullr.an-Higgins site activities, performed by YAEC second and third level QA inspection personnel.

-- the initiation of management actions by Pullman corporate direction to assign a Director of QA to the site and increase the number of personnel assigned to the site internal surveillance group.  ;

-- regular evaluation of effectiveness of the Pullman program by corporate '

personnel with weekly meetings with the licensee to assess the need for ,

further corrective measures.  !

t The licensee interim ICCFR50.55(e) report on Suspect NDE Examinations ,

(June 3,1983) was also discussed to include the status of re-examinations, '

evaluation of the NDE perfonned by other technicians, and the future course ,

of the investigation for the continued analysis of the safety implications of this problem.

The licensee presentation emphasized management involvement in evaluating and directing future corrective steps and in assuring that adequate controls

=_ -. _ - - _ _

) )

have been established to verify satisfactory performance by the piping i contractor.

4. NRC Action The Region I staff solicited and received commitment frem licensee management -

i to submit to Region I, monthly Supervisory Support Group Evaluation Reports on Pullman-Higgins activities and periodic interim 50.55(e) reports on the status of their NDE investigation and results. Future NRC inspections in

' the area of piping, supports and control of the piping contractor work, to include design and construction interfaces, will be conducted to check the effectiveness of licensee corrective actions and to verify the construction of plant systems in accordance with licensee commitments and acceptable programmatic controls.

1 l

i l

4 l

i I

~

J

JAN 2 51984 Docket Nos. 50-443 50-444 Pubite Service Company of New Hampshire ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Gentlemen:

Subject': Inspection Nos. 50-443/83-18 and 50-444/83-14 This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. L. Narrow of this office on November 14 - 18, 1983, at Seabrook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Seabrook, New Hampshire of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. CPPR-135 and CPfR-136 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Narrow with Mr. J. W , Singleton and other members of your staff at the cenclusion of the inspection, and to a subsequent telephone discussion between Mr. Narrow and Mr. Singleton on November 23, 1983 concerning the results of a fillet weld test program.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspec-tion Repcrt which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the in-spection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, measurements made by the inspector, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Occument Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1). The teleonone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10-day period which you believe necessary, should be mace to tne Supervisor, Files, Mail and Recorcs, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.

Qlld n n s n Hn vgy <r vuyv; ,

RPP

3

, Public Sorvice Company of New Hampshire 2 No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

% ;.a stoa.d W 5 o. na**

Thomas T. Martin, Director '

Division of Engineering and Technical Programs Enclosure': Combined NRC Region I Inspection -

Report Nos. 50-443/83-18 and 50-444/83-I4 cc w/ encl:

John DeVincentis, Proje~ct Manager Stephen D'."Floyd, Operational Services Supervisor Donald E. Moody, Station Man-ager - Seabrook Station H. W. Kerch, RI Public Document Room (POR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector State of New Hampshire

)

, _ . _ -- ~

^

O..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report Ncs. 50-443/83-18 and 50-444/83-14 Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 License Nos. CPPR-135 & CPPR-136 Priority --

Category B Licensee: Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire '

l 1000 Elm Street Mantnester, New Hamoshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hamoshire InspectionCondur9d: November 14 - 18, 1983 Znspectors:

'L.

rrow, or b Re ctor Engineer kh

' date signed

'E McA-Gray, eI W I E

eadf3pactr/ Engineer 'dat'e signed )I

_i i /-) *

. Sir- s, 'Eig'ineering Technician date signed R. . Car ngineering Technician 42/28 $d (ate,41gned Approved by: /Joth g. fi bM/

J. P#Durr, Chief, M&P Section, EPB, DETP //E SMFM

' datersigried (

fnspection Summary:

( Inscection on November 14 - 18. 1983 (Combined Recort Nos.

50-443/83-18 and 50-444/83-14)

Unit 1:

Areas Inscected:

Special unannounced inspection by four region-based inspectors of licensee actions on previous inspection findings; review of documentation; and nondestructive examination (NDE) of piping and pipe support welcments for ro-verification of previous NDE results. The inspection involved 86 hours9.953704e-4 days <br />0.0239 hours <br />1.421958e-4 weeks <br />3.2723e-5 months <br /> of direct inspection the regional office.time on site and eight hours of direct inspection time in I

Results: No violations were identified.

Unit 2:

Areas Inspec.ed:

Routine, unannounced inspection by one region--cased insoector for review of safety-related concrete records. The inspection involved 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> of direct . inspection time on site.

Results: No violations were icentified, o,x- _~ ,i ,

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1

.. O-q DETAILS .

1. Persons Contacted Public Service of New Hamoshire (PSNH)

P. B. Bohan, Construction Manager Yankee Atomic Electric Comoany (YAEC) \

J. D. Azzopardi, QA Engineer F. W. Beam, QA Engineer W. Copeland, QA Engineer, Test and Startup D. Corill, QA Engineer T. J. Davis, QA Engineer, Documentation R. C. Julian, QA Engineer W. T. Middleton, QA Supervisor

8. J. Mizzau, QA Engineer i

J. W. Singleton, Field QA Manager

• • K. Willens, Welding Engineer United Encineers and Constructors (UE&C)

• • J. Cannon, . Supervisor of Weld Engineering T. Frolo, Seabrook Weld Engineer J. A. Grusetski, Site Engineer

• • H. Kaplan, Program Coordinator D. Lambert, Field Superintendent of QA.

Pu'llman-Hicains (P-H)

R. Becksted, Staff QA Engineer D. Daubert, NDE Coordinator D. Hunt, QA Records Engineer J. D. Wampler, Site Level III, NDE Perini Constructors. Inc. (Perini)

E. Enman, QA Documentation Royal Globe Insurance Comoany J. Anzivino, ANI Lehich Testina Laboratories

• • J. Kelly, Metallographer

J

}

3 U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission A. C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector H. Wescott, Resident Inspector denotes those present at Exit Meeting on November 18, 1983

• • denotes those present at meeting at Lehigh Testing, Inc., in Wilmington, Delaware on September 14, 1983

\

i 2. Licensee Action on previous Inscection Findinos (Closed) Unresolved Item (443/83-01-02): Combined Inspection Report 50-443/83-01 and 50-444/83-01, paragraph 5(a), identified the excessive use of 3/32" diameter, E7018 electrodes on fillet welds with relatively high heat sinks as an unresolved item. The concern about the use of these electrodes.in as welded safety related hangers and supports was related to the increased propensity for lack of fusion defects, cracked welds due to insufficient throat, and greater mismatch in weld metal, weld heat affected zone and base metal properties. The excessive use of 3/32" electrodes was at least partially caused by a requirement to limit all undercut to 0.010" regardless of primary stress direction or whether the welding was conducted in accordance with-AWS D1.1 or ASME Section III, NF specifications.

The licensee was asked to address the potential for increased metallurgi-cal and welding defects caused by the excessive use of low heat input electrodes. In response, he conducted a test program consisting of six sets of fillet weld test ><<embliac walded by :ite subecntractors with 1/8" and 3/32" diameter E7@l8 on both.3/8" and 1" thick carbon steel plate typical of that in use f M site structural components.

On September 14, 1983, the inspector attended a meeting with UE&C and YAEC personnel at Lehigh Testing, Inc., to review the test program and test re-sults. Hardness test data for weld, heat affected zone (HAZ) and basc metal of structural steel weld test assemblies were reviewed. Welds of all six subcontractors were reported to be free of magnetic particle (MT) indications.

The inspector visually examined a sample of the fillet weld test assem-blies and noted them to show evidence of previous MT examination and ob-1 served no cause for visual rejection. Fillet weld test assemblies from 3

four of the six site subcontractors were hardness tested and macro etched. I The NRC inspector examined the test samples and questioned the following aspects of the test program.

a) Chemistry (C-Mn) of base plates.

b) Significance of one C35 HAZ hardness equivalent to Rockwell C35.

The NRC inspector concluded that the use of either 3/32" diameter or 1/8" diameter E7018 electrode would result in similar hardness values with the construction carbon steel materials and welding procedures evaluated.

u

O 3 4 .

The inspector reviewed the UE&C final report of November 14, 1983, titled,

" Evaluation of Weld Test Assemblies using E7018 3/32" and 1/8" Elec-trodes." Additional microhardness testing, as shown in this report, indi-cate a similar maximum hardness level in the HAZ for both electrode sizes.

Furthermore, the metallurgical structure in the highest hardness region of the HAZ for both size electrodes is shown to be similar. The report con-tains chemistry analysis values for both carbon and manganese of the base materials welded.

Based on the observation of test specimens on September 14, 1983, and re-view of the UE&C report dated November 14, 1983, the inspector has no fur-ther concern about potential metallurgical differences in the use of 3/32" or 1/8" diameter E7018 welding electrodes for structural welding under the conditions evaluated.

This item is closed.

3. Documentation Review The inspector reviewed records control and selected records maintained by UE&C, P-H and Perini, and discussed records control with representatives of those organizations. The adequacy of the system with respect to prepa-ration, review, control, storage and retrievability was examined. Records are prepared and maintained temporarily by the organization responsible for performance of the work.

Permanent. records are maintained on micro-film by YAEC as a part of the Information Management System (IMS).

The inspector discussed this program with a YAEC representative and exam-ined a draft of a procedure for the records management system. Documents submitted to IMS as permanent plant records are reviewed by the Construc-tion Field QA Group for legibility, content and technical adequacy. Sub-mittal and review of records is an ongoing process as portions of the work are completed.

3.1 UELC Records (Unit 1)

UE&C is responsible for receiving, storage, preparation and maintenance of the appropriate records. Data packages for selected 4

Containment Spray and Safety Injection system pipe spools were exam- 1 ined. They included receiving inspection reports (RIRs), vendor certifications and material test reports. All documents had been reviewed and accepted by UE&C QA, and had been reviewed by QA Records for traceability, legibility and UE&C acceptance. The Authorized Nuclear Inspector had reviewed the RIR's. These records had been turned over to IMS and were readily retrievable, legible, complete and technically acceptable.

Il 1

l 1

L. d

e

. O v.) Q 5

3.2 P-H Records (Unit 1)

The inspector discussed review and control of process sheets with P-H representatives. Process sheets are prepared by UE&C, reviewed by P-H engineering and then by P-H QA which assigns " Hold" points for inspection purposes. The ANI also assigns " Hold" points for his re-view. Process sheets for selected field welds on Containment Spray and Safety Injection piping and for field installation of RHR pump and heat exchanger were examined. The process sheets provide a record of inspection at " Hold" points as well as identification of weld procedures, welders and weld material traceability. NDE records were included in the documentation package. The welding and equip-ment packages examined had not been turned over to IMS and in some cases work had not been completed. Records were available and ac-ceptable. The inspector was informed that changes in the form of Engineering Change Authorizations (ECA's) frequently required rework.

' Turnover of completed portions of the systems to Test and Start-up is accomplished through Boundary Identification Packages (BIP's). This system rarely, if ever, coincides with the standard piping system package which is based on isometric drawings (ISO's) and affects or-derly completion of piping systems.

3.3 perini Records (Unit 2)

The inspector re<fewed records of selected concrete placements for the reactor containment. Records examined included preplacement, place-ment and post placement inspection records; Laboratory tests of grout and concrete samples; reinforcing steel, cadwelding and waterproofing inspection reports. Documentation had been turned over to IMS and was readily retrievable, legible, and technically acceptable.

3.4 Nonconformance Recorts (NCRs) (Unit 1)

NCR's identified in the UE&C and P-H records, referred to above, were reviewed. Dispositions had been reviewed by the Nonconformance Review Board technically and for reportability in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). A technical justification was provided. Records of corrective action were provided when applicable.

3.5 Conclusions l

Records which had been turned over to IMS were complete, legible, readily retrievable, technically acceptable and had been subject-to repeated review.

Records not yet turned over (primarily piping) were technically ac-ceptable to the extent complete, legible and retrievable although not completely assembled in some cases. Review of these records was not complete. Completion of these systems is affected by ECA's and the requirements for turnover to Start-up and Test.

No violations were identified during review of documentation.

{

_ - -_ _ d

], '.

']

6 4.

Indeoendeat Measurements - NRC Nondestructive Examinations (NDE) (Unit 1)

An on-site independent nondestructive examination (NDE) was conducted at the site from November 14 through 18, 1983. This was a confirmatory in-spection of the reexamination / reevaluation progr.am completed by Pullman-Higgins on suspect nondestructive examinations performed by a former P-H employee. This was'a reportable incident under 10 CFR 50.55(e) identified by the licensee on May 4, 1983, concerning approximately 2,399 safety and non-safety related welds in question. Welds were randomly selected and retested by region-based NDE personnel.

4.1 Nondestructive Examination Examinations were performed using NRC procedures with addenda written specifically for compliance to the Licensee's pSAR commitment to the ASME B&PV Code for on-site fabrication. The intent was to duplicate te the extent practicable the techniques and methods of the original examinations.

The following examinations were performed:

Magnetic particle Examination - Thirteen safety related pipe welcments were examined per NRC procedure NDE-6, Revision 0, and ad-dendum SB-1-6-1.

,Resul ts: All areas examined were found acceptable per applicable procedures and acceptance criteria.

Liquid penetrant Examination - Fifty .two safety related pipe weldments

- and structural supports were examined per NRC procedure NDE-9, Revision 0, and addendum S8-1-9-1. Samples examined included ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 welds and section NF for pipe supports.

Results: Ali areas inspected were acceptable.

Visual Examination - Seventy one weldmentsandadhacentbasemate-rial were visually inspected for weld reinforcement, overall workman-ship and surface condition per NRC procedure, NDE-14, Revision 0.

Results: All areas inspected were acceptable. l See attachment 1 for detailed listing of welds and NDE completed l during this inspection.  !

5. Exit Interview An exit interview was held on November 18, 1983, with members of the licensee's staff. the inspector summarized the purpose, scope of inspec-tion and findings of this inspection. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.

uw v w e .

INDEPENDENT NEASUREMENT PROGRAM lR I WLtD NUHUER I CLASS SIZE DATA THICK M. T. 1 R.T. U T. P.T. HARDNESS VISUAL REMARKS a .-

_ Lino _zjso _

HC 0008 i l 36" l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC. N/A I ACC. S/S Pipe Weld I roioi l l l

~

l RC 0013 1 12" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Pipe Weld i ro703 l i 1

1 I nc 0038

-l 12" 11 1 1 l N/A I N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Pipe Wald I ro303 1 11 1 I I -

1 CaS 1216 1 , 2 l 3/4" N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Socket Weld l foton l l l 1

.)

~ ,

l

• l NG 1656 1 2 l 1" N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A l ACC. C/S Socket Wald l

l roti7 I i l l l l l

Hal 0155 1 2 io" l N/A l N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC. N/A l ACC.

fo310 I l l l S/S ( Area of PT)

Data Plate Removal l

l SI 0238 2 1 2" l N/A l N/A l N/A N/A N/A l ACC. I N/A I fo201 1 I I l ACC. S/S Socket Weld 1 I l

~ l 1 i l l l SI 0242 l 2 l 2" l N/A l N/A l N/A l N/A N/A l ACC. N/A l ACC. I 1

fo201 Il 1 l l 1 i i Cc 0797 H

Ii I

24" i  !

i fo505 3 i N/A l N/A l

ACC. N/A N/A I N/A N/A I ACC. C/S Pipe Weld l l l l l l 1 I I i Cs oS!ai 3 1 3/4" i N/A l N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC. l N/A i Folol l l l ACC. l C/S Socket Wald i t

l l l ,

V CS 0541 3 3/4" N/A N/A l

l l N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A l ACC. C/S Socket Weld Fo224 l l l l l

,1 1 I Hil 0:55 l l 2 i to" N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACC. 1 N/A ro301 ,

I l ACC. S/S Pipe Weld l

Dc 438a

-l I I 1 3 I il" l N/A l N/A l ACC N/A N/A fo406 l N/A l N/A l ACC. I C/S Socket Weld l l l l t i l_1 1 I I I i i I I I I

( _ _. __ __

W .

INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENT PROGRAM '

l l1 l .

WrtD NUMBER l l CLASS SIZE l DATA THICK M.T. R.T. U.T. P. T. ..

_ Lino / Iso HARDNESS VISUAL REMARKS l_g l Cs 054: 1i 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l roso6 l ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Socket Wold l l Cs 0540 l 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A I ro211 ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wold Cs 0541 1 3 1 2" i N/A N/A N/A i r:505 l l N/A ACC. M/A ACC. Socket Weld 1

l1 '

l ll I Os 0541 l l 3 2" N/A N/A N/A

! FC205 l N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wold l '

l

~

l Cs c54:

ro2od I,

l l 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC.

1 N/A ACC. Socket Weid (

()'

l~

CS 0541 Il 3 l 2" N/A l N/A ro201 l N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Weld 1

!lCs0541 l- I l l 3 l 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A

l ro202 l l l ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Weld l'

,l l I l Cs 0541 l l 3 l 2" N/A N/A N/A I roS01 I l N/A ACC. l N/A l ACC. Socket Wald I l l l - '

l

.I l Cs owi l- 3 l

2" l l l

1 ro502 l l II l

l l i N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. l Socket Weld l l

l l -l Cs 054:

H I 2" l

.i l fo903 l l l1 3 l '

l N/A l N/A l N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. l Socket Weld l l l I

i Cs o%)

l- l l

V i! 3 l 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC. l l ro906 l l l l N/A ACC. Socket We1d l l l l- l

l Cs 0540 l l 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 r02i4 Ii i l l ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wald l 1

Cs owo H 3 2" c l

FC315 l l l l N/A N/A l N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. i Socket Weld l l l l l

l l l

INDEPENDENT MEAsuREMECT Pfl00 RAM g

.- i WELD NUMBER I CLASS SIZE DATA THICM M.T. R.T. U.T. P.T. HARONESS VISUAL

• tIDR/ Iso _ .

CEMARKS  !'

CS C540 1 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A I

Socket Wold 1 F0310 l I ACC.

i' I I l CS C543 l 3 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC.

il FC215 l N/A ACC. Socket Wold l

l -l l AWS 9112 l l NNS I 3/8" l N/A ACC N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. C/S Plug Weld l HC-984 l l Plate l

• i

_ . l I

RC 058 l 1 l 12" l N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Pipe Wold FC502 l l l 1

1 1 . s SI 0242 f0202 l l l l 2

l l 2" l N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wold l

() i 1

1 l l l~ l l 1

• l 1 NG 1155 l l 2 l 2" N/A N/A N/A N/A fW1176 l l l ACC. N/A ACC. l Socket Wold SI 238 H

l l 2 l 2" N/A N/A 4

L IW C203 N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket WeId l 1 l l l l l- l Si 238 l l 2 l 2" l N/A N/A l N/A N/A ACC. N/A fW 0203 l l l l l 1 -

ACC. l Socket Wold ( ,

i l l l l 1 i l Si 238 l_l l 2"

l l l s

1 - -)

TW 0309 l l 2 1 l N/A I N/A l N/A N/A . ACC. N/A ACC. l Socket Wald l l l l l l' l l l ,

SI 233 H

l l 2 I

l 2" l

l l

l N/A , N/A t'

IW 0310 N/A N/A ACC. I N/A ACC. Socket Wold l l l l l l H

l CBS 1216 r 1003 l l l1 2

I l

l 10" I

l l

i N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Pipe Wold  !

l UL  !

Ces 1216 H

Il 2 I

1 10" l .

r i004 N/A I N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. S/S Pipe Wold l l l l l l l l l l i I I I_I l t i NC 1155 Il 2 1" r 0116 il 1 l N/A l N/A N/A l N/A l ACC. N/A ACC. l Socket Wald l1 l l i I l

1 I I l I

I ,.

[.

. [

l_

)

m .

INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENT PROGRAM '~

WftD NUMo[H 1 CLASS l SIZE DATA THICK M.T. R.T. U.T. P.T. HARDNESS '

_LlDellSO _

VISUAs. CEMARKS l NG 1%5 1 2 1" N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A I r 0117 11 I ACC. Socket Wald I

l Cs 0541 H

l l 3 I

l 2" l N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Weld I r 0909 II l l I

I Cs 0541 H

1I 3 I

2" M/A I N/A 1 .

N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wold I r 09:o l l l l l l

I Cs 0340 H

II 3 I

2" I

l l N/A N/A I r 0210 1 N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wold 1I I i l i

i H i Cs $41 I r 0903 l l II 3 2" i

N/A N/A N/A N/A ,

1 ACC. N/A ACC, I Socket Wald I

IO l

l 1 Cs 541

-l .

l l 3 l 2" l N/A 1 N/A I N/A N/A ACC. N/A l r 0904 l l 1 l l 1 ACC. Socket Wald I l

I cs 54 H

II 3 I

2" i N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A l ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wald l r 0401 1I I I I i l l H I I i i l

i cs $4 i I 0411 II 1I 3 1 i

2" l i

l N/A I N/A 1 N/A N/A l ACC. N/A l ACC. Socket Wald I I I l l .

I l Cs $4 H l l 1

l r 0101 l l 1I 3

I 1 2" l N/A 1 N/A l N/A N/A ACC. I N/A l ACC. Socket Wald l I I i I 1

t Cs $4s H

Ii I

2" l

1 N/A ,

l l

I r 01:4 Ii 3 1 i

I N/A l N/A N/A ACC. N/A 1 ACC. Socket Wold l l l i l H I i l l

d l DG 4396 I r 0107 II 11 3 1 1

2" l I

N/A 1 ACC.

l N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACC. I 2" Pipe Wald i l

l l l

l oc 4396 H

II I

2" I -

I -

I r oios 3 1 N/A l ACC. N/A N/A l N/A d/A 1 ACC. I 2" Pipe Wald 1I I I I i I l l

i oc 4396 H

Ii I

2" i i I i l

l r Cio9 l l 3 1 l

i N/A I N/A i N/A l

N/A l ACC. I N/A 1 ACC. I Socket Wald i l l l l l1 1 I l I I I l i

W -

INDEPENDE;;I MEASURENENT PROGRAM '~

l il l i WitD NuMe[H I l CLASS i SIZE DATA THICK M.T. Ct. T . U.T. P.T. HARDNEC3 VISUAL REMARKS l_LineIISO l I oc 4396 11 3 1 2" l l N/A . N/A N/A l N/A l ACC. ,

I r cita ii i N/A l ACC. Socket Wold l 1 i l i I

i oc 4382 H

Ii 3 i

2" l N/A i

1 N/A N/A N/A ACC. N/A ACC. Socket, Wold i F 041 11 1 1 I

l oc 43a2 H I 2"

i F 0410 l l 1l 3 1 l

l N/A I N/A N/A N/A I ACC. N/A ACC. Socket Wald l l I l

4 oc 43 2 H

Il I

2" l

l I F 0412 l1 3 1 i M/A N/A l N/A N/A l ACC. - N/A ACC. Socket Wold 1 1 1 1 1 l 1

I H I I I I

I oc 41:2 l F 0409 11 l l 3 1 l

2" i l

I N/A l N/A l N/A l l N/A ACC. N/A ACC.

i 1 Socket Weld i l

O l

1 oc 43:2 H

Il 3 I

2" I I l

l l F 0408 1 i N/A l N/A ACC. I N/A N/A N/A N/A I ACC. I Socket Welds l l l l l l l

1 4 oc 43:2 H

Ii I i I l

I F 0407 II 3 I I N/A i N/A ACC. N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A ACC. Socket Welds l I i 1 1 1 i 1

I 1 oc 43:2 H

II I

i I I i i 1

i F 0406 l1 3

l il N/A ll N/A l ACC. I N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A ACC. I Socket Welds l l 1 - l l l- I i

.I l Oc 437a H

11 I I I l l l

'l 1 F 1006 II 3

I 1 i N/A l N/A l ACC. N/A . N/A I N/A 1 N/A 1 ACC. l Socket Welds l I I I l l I l i 1 I

l oc 4318 H I i

I I I i i I

I F 1007 l l II 3

I N/A I N/A I ACC. 1 N/A N/A l N/A N/A 1 ACC. I Socket Welds i I I I l i i

I 1 oc 437a H I I l l I

O 3 l i1 N/A 1l N/A I ACC. lI N/A ll N/A 1 N/A I l l 1 I F 10c3 II I N/A I ACC. I Socket Wolds l l  !

l l pc 437a H I I I i l

l F 1009 11 II 3 l l

l N/A l N/A I ACC.

l N/A l N/A l N/A 1 N/A I ACC. I Socket Welds l l l l l l l l 1

i oc 43ra H

iI I i 1  ! I i l

i F 1010 1l 3 I l

l N/A I N/A 1 ACC. I N/A l

N/A 1 N/A N/A I ACC. Socket Wolds 4 l l l I 1 IJ l i I I i l 1

i

(

INDEPENDECT MEASUREMECT PROGRAM '

l Wild NUM612 I l CIAsS l SIZE DATA THICK M.T. R.T. U.T. P.T. HARDNESS VISUAL CEMARM3 **

j.LII!nLiso l_l l l 819-RG-1 l l AsME l Clip , N/A l N/A l N/A N/A l N/A N/A i I I Ill IAnglest i N/A l ACC. Clip Angles and Support Plates H I 21:2-sc-30 l l AsME I Clip N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l l il .IAngla. .' l ACC. Some with Knife Plates l l

l r19-sc-1 l-l 1 1 AsHE Caip l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l l 1 ! les Angleal l l ACC. Some with Knife Plates l l

l l 849-sc-7 H I -

I I AsME I Cisp l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC.  !

l l l III l Angles l l l

l l H I i l C22-RG-6 l

l l AsME l l til i CIip l N/A lAn i

, N/A ,

I N/A l

N/A N/A N/A N/A ACC.

l I l0 l

1 H l glesil l l

l 840-sc-io I l AsME I Clip i N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A l

l l l 181 IAnglest N/A N/A ACC.

I i H l l

I I l 275-sc-3 l l AsME l CIip N/A l N/A N/A N/A N/A l ACC. M/A I i l l l Ill lAngles ACC. I l l l l l i

l l

I 217-sc-5 H

l l AsHE I

I Clip ,

I I  !

l l l Ill l Angles l N/A l N/A l

N/A .

l N/A l N/A l N/A l N/A ACC. l l

l l l l l j l

l 205-sc-13 H I I i  !  ! l l

I I ASME I Clip i N/A l N/A l N/A lAnglesl N/A l N/A- l N/A N/A l ACC. l l l Bil l l 1 l l I I LL!ir i i i i l l i i i l g

i

'.)

c y ll - o .* ~ ~u .7 %

.s.,

, . . . b). .

( ;.. '

SEABROOK STATION messo+ , N 1671 Worcesner tood Pub 5c SeMee of New HampsNre *

. 00 June 3, 1983 SBN-515 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Resident and Project Inspection Ref erences: (a) Constraction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket

• Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) Telecon of May 4, 1983, A. L. Legendre, Jr. (YAEC) to C. Holden (NRC Region I)

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

On May 14, 1983, we reported a potential 10CFR50.55(e) deficiency

[ Reference (b)] regarding the suspect quality of NDE examination: performed at Seabrook Station.

It has been determined that this item is reportable under 10CFR50.55(e).

The following information is being filed pursuant to the interim reporting provision of 10CFR50.55(e)(3).

A. Description of Deficiency Based on the~ 1atest information provided by the contractor, it now appears that the inspector in question performed a total of 2,408 non-destructive examinations which affected a total of 1,966 velds.

The discrepancy in numbers'is based on the fact that many of the j examinations were performed on non-welded items (crane hoods, base 1 material, etc.) and, in many instances, more than one examination was performed on a single veld joint. The validity of all these examinations remains in doubt, except where re-examined as noted below.

i l

B. Analysis of Saf*ety Implications 1 Based on the latest information provided by the contractor, approximately 65* of the affected welds are non-safety related, 33 are safety related, and 2% are other types.

f'b $ -?h ]l '

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _iOOO Elm St.. P.O. Box 330, Manchester, NH 08105 TCGfGOGE@G$M@@@ . TWX 71@@O7595 _

' O

../

'.: . ,'.~

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 3, 1983 Page 2 i

Attention: Mr. Richard W. Staros'tecki C. Corrective Action Taken The contractor has taken the following action:

1. A statistical sampling of the examinations performed by other ,

NDE technicians was completed. This sampling determined that

• the situation was restricted to one individual.

i

2. A plan has been established to re-examine 100% of all readily accessible affected work performed by the inspector in question regardless .of classification. This re-examination is currently 4

underway. Of the 60 areas re-examined to date, 43 have been accepted and 17 have been questioned.

We have yet to rece'ive information concerning the type of defects which caused these 17 welds to be suspect, nor do we know the. safety classification of the items involved.

3. Efforts are being made to increase the contractors NDE staff to expedite the re-examination.

I 4 Inaccessible items will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

D. Information for Analysis and Evaluation i

Our investigation is continuing. At present, it is not possible to determine the safety implications of this situation. A follow-up report will be submitted by August 31, 1983.

Very truly yours, I YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY s

. . e ?$'

\

John DeVincentis Project Manager ALL/pf ec: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e

___ a u

1 p' m, cDR 95-0o-08

~..

sEAsaOOK STATION

% Omes 1471 Worcester Rood Pub 5c SerWee of New Hampshire fhmalachem. Massachusens 01701 (417) - 872 8100 July 5, 1983 SBN- 527 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations," J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki

'(c) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07," R. W. Starostecki to R. J. Harrison

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on t:1e status of the Pullman-Eiggins reexamination program.

The status as of July 1,1983, of reexaminations is summarized below:

1. As of Friday, July 1,1983, of the 1968 suspect areas, 468 items have been reexamined.

434 have been determined to be acceptable.

34 vill require minor repair by surface grinding, polishing or filing.

2. Pullman-Eiggins has hired a NDE Service Contractor to perform the l re examina tions. This Service Contractor vill work under the direction of a P-H Corporate employee who is certified as an NDE Level III Examiner.

i

.~.~. . .. ..

R C P:... . sc ~

(] A, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 5, 1983 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki Page 2

3. Six (6) NDE Service Contractor personnel arrived on-site June 20, 1983. All six technicians completed training at.d certification on Friday, June 24, 1983, and commenced reexamination of the suspect areas immediately upon certification, mid-morning of 6/24/83.

4 De NDE Service Contractor will be providing four (4) additional technicians July 5,1983 for training and certification which is scheduled to be completed by July 8, 1983. These additional technicians will commence work on July 11, 1983 for a total force of ten (10) technicians.

5. The total reevaluation program is scheduled to be ccapleted by M y 30, 1983.

6. De program for evaluation of inaccessible areas has commenced.

Each category will require analysis and resolution on a case-by-case basis. This evaluation program is also scheduled to be completed by M y 30, 1983.

An additional Interia 10CFR50.55(e) Report will be submitted by August 3, 1983.

Very truly yours.

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANT f ..,( . (, . . . ~.~ ')

/*

/ John DeVincentis

Project Manager ALL/pf cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Weahfaston, DC 20555 e

~

( -~

q d 0 [- D 'Od $

SEAaROCK STADON

, Nni., Omse UI 1471 Worcessor Rood hominehem. Massachvents 01701 (417) 872 8100 I

Put2c Service of New Hcmpshire August 4, 1983 SBN- 541 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 ,

Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Starostecki to R. J. Harrison

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7, 1983, we

, committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of the Pullman-Higgins reexanination/ reevaluation program relative to suspect condestructive examinations performed by a former P-H employee.

The status as of July 26, 1983, of the reexamination / reevaluation program for the 1978 suspect areas is as follows:

a. 1340 items have been reexanined.

b. 1294 items have been determined acceptable.

c. 46 items will require repair by grinding, polishirg, filing, or welding,

d. 46 items have been repaired.

N f &gy(h)S 'Ib thiIll

-r g 7 r

i000 Elm St., P.O. Box 330. Menchester, NH C3105 . TefechoneJ6031669-4000 . TWX 7102207595___ ___ _

' n

,. . C ,)

• I- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 4, 1983 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki Page 2 ,

i The current schedule for completion of the reexamination / reevaluation program is August 5,1983 [ Reference (c) scheduled completion on July 30, t

, 1983). A report will be submitted to Region I by August 15, 1983. ,

1 Very truly yours, .

1 YJ E ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY i .

l loh DeVincen i ,

Project Manage K) l ALL/pf cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List f

I 1

i i

t i

b I

I J

I n.

- I p (DL .Q7-cC~ 08 '

J SEABRCCK STATION

% 2'.4 CNkan 1671 Woramw Road Amninghom. Assochveen 01701 (617) . 372 8100 Pub 5c Service of New iivwpiNro August 16, 1983 SBN 551 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Starostecki to R. J. H.trr1 son ,

(e) PSNH Letter, dated August 4, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of the Pullman-Higgins reexamination / reevaluation program relative to suspect nondestructive examinations performed by a former P-H employee.

Reference (e) indicated that the " current schedule for the completion of the reexamination / reevaluation program is August 5,1983"; however, the program has yet to be completed.

The status as of August 12, 1983, of the reexamination / reevaluation program for the 1,978 suspect items is as follows:

a. 2,439 NDE operations (reexaminations / reevaluations) have y J e,eng erformed. ,

30 " V ij) b C?i b l

. _ _ _ _. . . . . . ~i

. i,

. . ' /l.

.. 4-J' United StEtes Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 16, 1983 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki Page 2

b. 1,316 areas have been determined acceptable by reexamination.

c. 826 areas have been determined acceptable by Engineering evaluation.

d. 41 areas required repair by polishing, grinding, or blending and were subsequently accepted.

e. 53 areas will require repair by grinding, blending, welding, or replacement.

f. 203 areas will require Engineering evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

3 1 area requires reexamination.

An additional report will be submitted to Region I by September 9, 1983.

Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY J. DeVincentis h Project Manager ALL/pf ec: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List

L. J'n-ov y

SEABROOK STA110N

" ,'. - - - i ., CWh=

l 1471 Woramer Rand Reasoh m. h uacb een 01701 (417) . 872 8100 Pubec Service of New Hampshke l t

l l

September 9, 1983 SBN- 562 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to

1. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Starostecki to R. J. Harrison (e) PSNH Letter, dated August 4, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (f) PSNH Letter, dated August 16, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Rsport; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of the Pullman-Higgins reexamination / reevaluation program relative to suspec6 condestructive examinations performed by a former P-H employee.

Reference (f) indicated that an additional report would be submitted by September 9,1983.

lg q2 dn a Od oS ( r. '

w r I -+- l 9 w , {}-

. - - ~ , . . - - . .. .. . . . . * ~

_ . _ . - . . - -._. - - _ - .,. - - - - _.. - . - . - - . - - . ~ - . - - . . - - . . - . - . . . -

o. O United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 9, 1983 l

Attention: Mr. Richard W.,Starostecki Fage 2 4  :

The status as of September 6,1983, of the reexamination / reevaluation  !

i program for the 1,978 suspect items is as follows: I

a. Que safety-related weld remains to be reexamined and this will be

• l accomplished as soon as necessary staging is placed, t l b. The present disposition of the 203 (see Reference (f)) welds i requiring Engineering evaluation is as follows:

, 1) UE&C has recommended that all but two of the safety-related

? walda should be " accepted-as-is" based on the results of j acceptable voltanetric examinations performed subsequent to the i j suspect inspections, l

j ii) Two safety-related welds which are embedded require further

! evaluation, and l

111) UE&C is in the process of classifying the remaining

) non-safety-related welds based on service severity levels.  !

An additional report will be submitted to Region I by October 7, 1983

Very truly yours, I

1 YANKEE ATONIC ELECTRIC CONFANY A i l John DeVincentis j . Project Manager  !

ALL/pf

. i j ac

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List l .

. t I  !

i  ;

I l

i l

1 ,-

1 ,

1

____--_---__w

I, ' ' ' '

Cl/N-YJ

,. Q /

n

)

SEABROOK STADON

% Omme Ul 1671 Worcaseer tood Phuningham. Massedusetts 017D1 (617) . 872 8100 J

3 Pub 5c Service of New Hampshire 1 Oc tober 12, 1983 ,

SBN- 570 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permit CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5,1783, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Starostecki to R. J. Harrison (e) PSNH Letter, dated August 4, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (f) PSNH Letter, dated August 16, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Staros tocki (g) PSNH Letter, dated September 9, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations",

J. DeVincentin to R. W. Starostecki

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.53(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of the Pullman-Higgins reexamination / reevaluation program relative to suspect nondestructive examinations performed by a former P-H enployee.

Reference (g) indicated that an additional report would be submitted by October 7 ,1983. . . , , ,

] ; ny J J I'

,3 MP-1000 E!m SL P O. Bcx 330. Monchester. NH O3105 . Telachona rynws.annn . 9m mmommon M1

. - .- .- - - . = - - - - - - -- . . _- .- .- --

P O)

~ \

. i

~'

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' October 12, 1983 '

Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki Page 2 The status as of October 12, 1983, of the reexamination / reevaluation program for the 2399 suspect NDE examinations (1978 items) is as follows:

o Welds /itsas initially accepted by reexamination -

1277 o Welds / items initially rejected by reexamination -

94 Current Status of 94 Rejected Welds / Items 43 -

repaired, reexamined, and accepted

} 6 -

cut out per ECA, FTR, or NCR 45 -

remain to be repaired o Examinations accepted as is -

88 0 o Fxaminations remaining to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (examinations performed on  ;

itsas which are now inaccessible) -

148 ,

) Total Examinations -

2399 2

An additional report will be submitted to Region I by November 30, 1983 Very truly yours, i

i YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY J. DeVincentis

i. Project Manager

ALL/pf cct Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List i

i 4

4 l

l 9

n. .,,., - - - . , . , - - - . . . . , - -.- .,--- , , -- - - , - - - . . - - - - - - - .- ,, -. . - . -

-G

(pg- s - --.

-,7 n

, SEABROOK STATK)N

% ofmme 1671 Womester Road Fnaningham. Mauochen 01701 (417) . s72. s t oo Pub 5c Service of New Mcmpshire December 2, 1983 SBN- S88 T.F. Q 2. 2. 2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Direct or Division of Project and Resident Programs Ref erence s: (a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH I4tter, dated June 3,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Framfnations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Scarostecki to R. J. Harrison (e) PSNH Letter, dated August 4,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Framiuations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (f) PSNH Letter, dated August 16, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (g) PSNH Letter, dated September 9, 1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Sucpect NDE Examinations",

J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (h) PSNH Letter, dated October 12,1983,

• Int erim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starosteeki

Subject:

Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of i

I the Pullman-Higgins (?-M) Re-examination /Re-evaluation Program relative to suspect nondestructive examinations performed by a former P-H employee.

.n% q q gdit, s

. c e r %J '

~ . .

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 2, 1983 Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki Page 2 In References (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) we provided quantitative

+

status reports on the Re-examination /Re-evaluation Program for the 2399 suspect NDE examinations.

The Re-examination /R=-evaluation Program is essentially complete, save the completion of a detailed report on the results of the Program.

l Upon completion of an internal review, the report on the results of the

Program will be submitted to Region I. We expect to submit this report to i

Region I by January 15, 1984.

Very truly yours, f

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY John DeVincentis

Project Manager ALL/bal cc

Atoale Safety and Licensing Board Service List Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

< Washington, DC 20555 I

l d

i i

e,..- - .

b ( l.

a A 4 y-oo -ol SEABAOCK STATION

% Omos 1671 Worcasew stood ammmmm Phsminghom. Maucchwiens 01701 (417) . 872 8100 Pub 8c Service of New Hampshire December 21, 1983 S BN- 603 T.F. Q2.2.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 .

Attention: Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs

References:

(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos.

50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated June 3,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (c) PSNH Letter, dated July 5,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report: Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (d) USNRC Letter, dated June 22, 1983, " Combined NRC Meeting Nos. 50-443/83-10; 50-444/83-07", R. W. Starostecki to R. J. Harrison (e) PSNH Letter, dated August 4,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.S3(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (f) PSNH Letter, dated August 16,1983, " Interim 10CFiSO.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (g) PSNH Letter, dated September 9,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations",

J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (h) PSNH Letter, dated October 12,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki (i) PSNH Letter, dated December 2,1983, " Interim 10CFR50.55(e)

Report; Suspect NDE Examinations", J. DeVincentis to R. W. Starostecki

Subject:

Final 10CFR50.55(e) Report; Suspect NDE Examinations

Dear Sir:

In a meeting conducted at Region I Headquarters on June 7,1983, we committed to provide periodic Interim 10CFR50.55(e) Reports on the status of the Pullman-Higgins (P-H) Re-examination /Re evaluation Program relative to suspect nondestructive examinations performed by a former P-H e=ployee.

O Omas 1 m n.

w~ Jf bJJ O-

< _ . ~ . . - - . .

Mh' . . . . . . .

$E.O -

['o:.;;

l .

0 J United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 21, 1983

' Attention: Richard W. Starosteck, Director Page 2 In References (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), and ,(h), we provided quantitative ctatus reports on the Re-examination /Re-evaluation Program for the 2399 suspect NDE examinations.

In Reference (1), we stated that the Re-examination /Re-evaluation Program is essentially complete, save the completion of a detailed report on the results of the Program.

f The following is a summary of the final disposition of Pullman-Higgins' NCR 4490 that has controlled this item. The NCR was closed on December 15, 1983.

The final number of suspect items remains at 2399.

Breakdown:

1. Items re-====ined and determined acceptable. 1373

2. Itens " Accept-As-Is". 826

3. Items not requiring re-examination /re-evaluation 7 due to removal via engineering changes.

I 4

Inaccessible items e' valuated and accepted on a 193 case-by-case basis by UE&C engineering.

Total 2,399 It should be noted and as substantiated by the above mentioned data, the cuspect conditions did not adversely af fect the installed items, components, or systems.

Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY l f "

(John DeVincentis Project Manager cc: Atomic Safety t.nd Licensing Board Service List Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 2 .. ___ = w

I*

'/ 'o UNITED STATES f" 3 g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHWGTON, D. C. 20555

.. g

~

/

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL I

FROM: DUE: 07/18/85 EDO CONTROL: 000785 DOC DT: 06/28/85 SEN. EDWARD M. KENNEDY FINAL REPLY:

TO:

NRC FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO: 85-531 T AVL-OR - M'M DESC: ROUTING:

ENCLOSES LETTER FROM. WILLIAM LORD, RICHARD CLARK, MURLEY ET AL, AMESBURY TOWN HALL RE DECREPANCY BETWEEN MARCH, 1984 AND JULY 1983 EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE EVACUATION TIME STUDIES DATE: 07/03/05 b ASSIGNED TO: ,gg-JC CONTACT: _76YLun ~W SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: ,

RFPLY DTRFOT TO CONSTITUENT WITH COPY TO SEN. KENNEDY'S BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE.

bp 744 e

I i

l

. la

Sen Edward M. K.nnedy CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET SECY NUMBER: 85-531 LOGGING DATE 7/2/85 0FFICE OF THE SECRETARY ACTION OFFICE: E00 AUTHOR: Sen Edward M. Kennedy--Const Ref AFFILIATION: William Lord, Richard Clark, & Edgar Bottome et al; LETTER DATE: 6/28/85 FILE CODE ADDRESSEE: NRC

SUBJECT:

Decrepancy between March 1984 and July 1983 studies concerning evacuation clear time estimates for Seabrook--req investigation ACTION: Direct Reply... Suspense: July 12 DISTRIBUTION: OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None BAC SIGNATURE DATE: FOR THE C0.411SSION aeco a... t ., -

n ~to. 7:. ). ::,, <  ; z"

• Ttrao. !d.i.k - am" y,no - - 000785 j