ML20058N488

Forwards Response to H Myers 900625 & 0703 Requests Re Plant Welds

ML20058N488
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/16/1990
From:	Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9008140158
Download: ML20058N488 (5)

Text

. _ . . , , _ .

/

y[ J ,

. Io. UNITED ST ATES

,e

.y ,e NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 I W A5HINGTON, D. C. 20666

• 1

.  % , , , , , #' July 16, 1990 Chairman The ComitteeHonorable Morrisand on Interior K. Udall,lar Insu Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

i Enclosed, at the request of Dr. Henry Myers of your staff, are responses to his requests of June 25, 1990 and July 3, 1990, concerning Seabrook welds.

Sincerely,

.t e- r t . ' \ ?. ( .I Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As Stated cc The Honorable Don Young

'bASCll804

$0'i*'$255*22glg, PDC

ATTACHMENT RESPON5E TO OR. H. MYERS' REQUESI 0F JUNE 25 & JULY 3.1990 Request 1 (June 2d, 1990):

(paraphrased) With respect to the reactor coolant (Rc) system welds listed in tne table that I p"ovided, please provide prior to COB, July 2, the 38 weld repair orders (WR0s) indicated in the second column of that table.

Response

Thirty-seven of the total 38 WR0s requested by Dr. Myers were forwarded separately.

With regard to the one WR0 (No. 727) that was not found in the tearch of the quality records for field weld RC-2-01, F0102, it is believed oat this is not a valid WR0 number. An examination of WR0 No. 726 (which hat .;een provided) indicates that it was initially numbered as 727, but then crossed-out, initialed, and re-numbered as /26 on April 2, 1982. The Pullman-Higgins (P-H) Repair Order rontrol Log lists WR0 Nos. 726 & 727 as ooth initiated on April 2, 1982; how-ever, while WR0 No. 726 is closed on the same day it was initiated, WR0 No. 727 was not closed until August 3,1983. A review of the Field Weld Process sheets for tield weld RC-2-01, F0102, reveals that the weld repair activities associ-ated with WR0 No. 726 were indeed completed on April 2, 1982, the date this WRO.

was closed. Also, the process sheets provide reference to tive of the WR0s applicable to field weld RC-2-01, F0102, and all five of these WRus were >ro-vided separately. However, there is no reference on any of the process sieets to a WR0 numbered 72/.

In light of the above information, it appears likely that WR0 No. 727 was in-itially taken out to control the weld repair activity which was performed in accordance with WR0 No. 726. When the numoer 727 was t.rossed-out and replaced -

by number /26 on the WR0 on April 2,1982, the use of WR0 No. 72/ should have been cancelled. However, this was not ap?arently discovered until August 3, 1983, at which time the WR0 was closed, rinal radiographic testing (RT) and acceptance of field weld RC-2-01, F0102, was >erf ormed on March 22, 1983. This RT film was reviewed and accepted by the P-H .eyel 111 technician and YAEC NDE reviewer in November 1983. Since evidence of

• a code acceptability of field weld RC-02-01, F0102 existed in March 1983, seu val months prior to the closure et WR0 No. 727 in August 1983, it appears that als closure was an administra-tive action taken, as discussed above, to close out an invalid number.

An inspector reviewed the weld package for tield weld RC-02-01, F0102 and noted the existence of a complete and acceptable weld and weld repair history and supporting documentation. WR0 No. 727 is not referenced in this weld package, except as crossed-out (as explained above) on WR0 No. 726. Evidence of weld I

' " " " " " ' ii.m i...-i.

i ,'.

. Attachment 2 quality is provided by these weld records and the final code acceptable radio-graphs. Given both the non-QA record status of WR0s and the likely explanation, discussed above, that WR0 No. 727 was not a valid number, the inability to locate or provide one of the 38 requested weld repair orders 15 neither a weld quality nor a records problem.

i l

4 i

\

l Attachment 3 l

Request 2 (entire request of July 3, 1990):

Please provide me prior to COB, Monday, July 9 Seabrook Inspection reports 87-16 and 89-ve.

1 Wesponse NHC Region 1 inspection reports (irs) 50-443/8/-16 and 89-08 have been torwarded separately. Also provided were irs 50-443/88-02 and 88-06, it is presumed that Dr. Myers' interest in the two inspection reports requested relates to documentation of NRC Inspection of the RHR System Recirculation Line Weld tallures (reference: Section 9 in IR 87-16 & Section 3.1 in IR 89-08). The other inspection reports forwarded provide additional discussion of NRC follow-up of this issue (reference: SectionAbinIR88-02&Section4cinIR88-06).

It should be noted that the welds that were the subject of this inspection effort are 3/4" diameter piping socket welds, for which liquid penetrant testing is the ASME Code acceptable method of NDE. No radiography of these welds was required. The weld tailures were attributed to vibration problems induced by excessive flow. No evidence of unacceptable weld quality or of NDL concerns were identified, l

.. . . y t

_ ~Q I

1 RESPONSE TO-DR. MfERS-REOuEST OF JUL't '. 1000 iSEABFOQt a Wii 6 1

- ! T E'1 ll'.A l 1

rsmout.s !],g: in, inse,et2on ree:rt, wnsen -w31: e, _:g,..,- .

i

ster t .tne = : t t'. t *. l e s ::nc.ctae ey t%e see:2+;.

(

t i O S O e ** d e'* t

• w.*1 7 w team .i;,1 1 1actu$e gote et t *. e . -

la * : r .*. p t ' On r e; s e t t e g ; r. atemg j].A-througa i.  ;*e j e tent to wn1Ch thig r e p o r.t wijl WC3re%6 'me I

reQuestec in'Cetat!,en Wal1 De . as tne .t. e a m i?!t ne C el 5 a r Y. to reaCn a Conclublon regarcing- tr4 acecuacy of tse 5eaerooA weld Qua 1i ty- inclucang a  ;

cetermination et compliante with NRC recurrements'. 3 ine staft oces not intend to expena additionei resources to-Compile and, submit other-Informat1Cn whicn. cased on tne team s expert ooinion, coes. net i Dear'on the Quality et the welds or weld program at  !

Seaeroo6 or tne cetermination of whether or not NRC l}

requirements ~were met.

L i

i

?

L

, i-

?

.{

r i

s.

., ,-.