ML16340E286

Board Notification 84-079:forwards Addl Questions & Comments from H Meyers of House Subcommittee on Interior & Insular Affairs Re Pullman Audit

ML16340E286
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/12/1984
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
TASK-AS, TASK-BN84-079, TASK-BN84-79 BN-84-079, BN-84-79, NUDOCS 8404130420
Download: ML16340E286 (32)

Text

l, p,it RE'qt P

s a

0

~t O

0 Q

)0*k+

Docket Nos.: 50-275 <

50-323 UNITED STATES NUCL'EAR REGULATGRY.CGMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 APR 12 584 VV~

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts ComIissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM:

SUBJECT:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Directo~

Division of Li'censing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DIABLO CANYON - ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM H.

MEYERS (BOARD NOTIFICATION NO.84-079)

In accordance with present NRC procedures for Board Notifications, the enclosed information is being transmitted to the CoraIIission.

The attached information (questions and comments) was received from Dr. H. Meyers a staff member for the U. S.

Congress House ComIittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 12, 1984.

By copy of this notification; the appropriate Board and parties to the Diablo Canyon oroceeding are being provided a copy of this information.

Enclosure:

As Stated

~'~t <

arre 1 k. Eiseohot, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

See Next Page 8404130420

cc:

J.

F.

Wo1 5, ASLR G. 0. Bright, ASLR J. Kline, ASLB T. S. Moore, ASLAB W. R. Johnson, ASLAB J.

H. Ruck, ASLAB SECY (2)

OPE EOO OGC Parties to the Proceeding

g a

t

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Diablo Canyon Units 152 Docket Nos. 50-275/323 OL ACRS Members Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. John H. Buck Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Mr. Frederick Eissler David S. Fleischaker, Esq.

Mrs.

Raye Fleming Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Mr. Mark Gottlieb Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Mr. Thomas H. Harris Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Dr.

W.

Reed Johnson Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. John Marrs Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

Bruce Norton,, Esq.

Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.

Mr. James

0. Schuyler Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.

Mr. Gordon Silver Michael J.,Strumwasser, Esq..

Paul C.'Valentine, Esq.

Harry M. Willis John F.

Wolf, Esq Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Mr. Myer Bender Dr. Max W. Carbon Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Mr. Harold Etherington Dr. William Kerr Dr. Harold W. Lewis Dr. J.

Carson Mark Mr. William M.

Mathis'r.

Dade W. Moeller Dr. David Okrent

'Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. Jeremiah J.

Ray Dr. Paul C.

Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Mr. David A. Ward Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Malcolm H. Furbush R&ident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS Dr. William E. Cooper 11r.

W.

C. Gangloff Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Dr. Jose Roesset Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush

I i+'& /& <<

I'~

=i7'klOCA 4t:ois4

<<0 ES RK BASIS FOR B -~7 FINDINGS ~

NBC 'AUDIT ETC.

Who NSC august of Pullman arpear e ta hav~ boon under" ef'an in r espanre to concor ne eM pr essed by fQ4E ar to whether, thl D5 abl o r rector g hILd been 'fn constr ucted in a manner that complied wf ".h the Cuemies5an' reguletionr" P84E Audit 80422 (p. 2) staten>

"Sever al apparently generic deficienc5er. in worfc performecf by Pullman were pr avkoucly identif Led by the Sonar'a1 Construct.'an Depxr truant. "

What "gener ic defkc5oncier¹ had boen idontifiocf by the Genaral Conservation

@agar tednt?

~ '1' Had theie'¹g'ir'i'ct fc 'ref i'ctencic"is¹ bein r ep "rtud 'to she.

AR"/NRC"

> ~

av 2.

'The Scope Statement of the NSC ac7df t encompacrc.d "war Vmrna",.5 p of '"he ELeldWabr iceted and Lnctal? acf items."

The Juno lh, 1%78 let"zr fram Hr.

'Ai cchaw ta 5r. Brin,

".o which the>>'CQK riview f the N

C audit and pv}oman rerpanre

".here" p ~ere at.~,"hcd, s"atzd that the NRC i"udi" ¹d5 d not <<ddrecs

( teel f ta the,'c'ri fice";an of the adequacy o4 the inutal}ec har dware.

Tha NSC audit was super'f icial with rcpt-pect 'o the har dwar e...,"

Of d NSC gulfi 1 1 5 ts 'comet tmon" ta veri 4y the adequacy of

' "tel 1 ad hardware~i If not

> whet was the r oa" on for 5 ts not hrv'.ng don>> spr What was dona ta satisfy r 84K's original concern that ther e be an audi t a ver ify the

- adequacy af instal ', ed h~r dwarbV

< ~

PSQE un8er tpaft Aud t 80422 to veri fy tha adequacy af Pullman's

'GtA program; ta review the validity af the t4SC findings end-'to deter mine the accuracy and

~ppr opri atenets af F'ul lman f ~on5ef and ta.observe the as-instal l ed condi ti an pf components arid'u] lman' adherence to appl icabl e speci f 5 cati pns<

design dr.>wings>

and quoi ity standards'

/

Au8M: 804~2 evaluate.d a Pul lman 'corpor ate audi t conducted in February 1978.

Aucfit 804 2

Wourid dx scrcpanci es in items that hyd been. inspected by F'ul 1 man aud'i tor s wha noted. no di scr apanci cs.

Audit 80422 concluded that "In light of the numoar of.-

Circropancies noted> it is agape.roan hat the pullman audit did not ef4ectivrly evaluate the quality o+ their warfi;."

~ ~

~

Mha~ 'addf.tianal audits woro conducted in '1ight of the finding that.ullman's

"<<udig did not effectiva1y evaluate the qu*lity of the'kr warf:9¹ In l i qht of thi a finding what har dwar e inspections were conducted to determine the adequacy of F'ul lman' wor j;7 many discrepancies wer e noted ae the resul t af <<ddi tianal and in pecti anc conducted in the-waf:e of Audit 804227 ghat done to determine why -the de~icient "ond't'.ons noted in 725 and H-5726 had not been di-cevered in thg. ccurga of Ot g

heal i n pccti on pt ocesf

< '++0 wa's the racaso,,

theQQ deaf $ cJ pnt

~t':.

~ 4 ~

t).g

~.

~

~

~

~

~

~ ',

~ \\

~t I ~

~ 4

~

+4~~4 candjtfani: had-nut 'been-noted durf nq th>> -caurso f

tho or kgknel knapoctf on praccsc"?

What was done ta cfetermin>>

why the Pullman carporat>>

audit hacf nat noted the df vcr>>pane.'er.

noted hy Audkt 804

+7 Why ctid the F'ul)man, corporate audit not cfiacov>>r the discropencf>>s7 What wai the baeia, far the S=-.i7

$ indfng (atatacf

.on pago 40> that Pullman had perfar med adequate corporate audits'?

Mhat wee the basks for the 8"i-~i7 0$ ridfnq

<Tcf.) that Pu)1man's internal and carparato audits had fndkcatocf the no fundaoental

~

QA."program hr eekcfown had accut r od7 (E.g.

ae>>.1978-'7'P ffncff,ngs re pipe i uptur>> reatraf nti e'er NCf"* DC)-lB-RN-008, DCl-78-Rt",-00'?,

'Cl-7S'-RN-005,

>>tc.5 4.:,Ta what >>extent cfid recommendatkans

)kilted an pug>> l) 12 'af Au'cfit BCi4~2 Carr espand to cfe$ ickenckes natecf. fp.the..NSf". audit'?

. 'ba '

Ni,y 2V>

)VVO memorandum from K. Freed 'ta E. darwin addraaree pipe rupturo rcrtr aint pr ab) cent.

Why had Ho)cfear dP'(i'af cnci QQ not 5Q dotRgtcd and car rrc"'ed a-en ear ) iar date by PulTmc.n's QC/0 pr ogr em'P To what ex c.nt era th>> noted welding defkcf onckes rkmkler

".o those,specific:d by the NSQ cudkt'?

~l 6 ~

4that audits and/r r>>inspoctkans hangers war a conducted ta dehermkne wh>>ther the types af d>>sects Hound in the pipe ruptur i revtr'aknto elf otod wfth r>>spcct ta p'.po'hangcrr?

What is th>>

. besfo faH a ditarmknatf art that dwarf octa found in pipe r uptura restraints did not e:cirA wi "h rQ<<pect ta pipe hanger s'?

I

~

(.L

~+ 4w pl

~f~,o PIPJ~.

Q>we'j'.

~

~

~

4 ~

~

~

~

~I

~

~ ~t

~

pter QO

~O lP

~

~

~

~

I

~

~ pearl J'k7

~ pre reeled'+Weaaeaao*maeme'otarmmrrttterttetmeerooe

~ 'r ~Ire~~ome~4titorartrreerlr

~ teeeerro

(.

iVebaCi~-.ieF. C:uAAoSf CfNbafiCE

~ e

~, ~

~l 4)

Ho consideration (s given to how removal stresses

'other points in same 5 ructure.

e

~

~

Ie to K. Gew<n Y4y egg 197S QQ}Q

~

-K.e $POCd er'~.'"~

"@jeff'm' 0348Ã CANYON RUPTUPE REjTRA1HT eÃsJiWe tttmaerotoototottoetoooottrtottetottttttoie

~ teeter ~

~ etlttotoeeeettttr

~I ~I~ oe ~ I~ ~ ~I~Io ~ ~rltllll~Ittt'Itr~ ~Itteotrotlttrttrtttriottretoerr cA 4

~

'I.

Prtrbl err'utefde Pullman's responsibi lity I

A)

Jbrtfr bESIGN

'Pr ima Cause I.'i' 1)

Nssive woldments, S" deep x

4 5/8" w)de, at single bevel that Mould shr <nk unrestrained

>bout 1/2" in a ".ransvtrse d(rec'<on'ere tc tally restrained by hv9e colurmns and beam.

All potential shrinkage (s tiansformed into residual stresses end/er cracks, R)

Lt;".nral reinfor cement plates (stiffchr.rs) are welded exactly

opposite, both pulling on webb c.s th(n as 1/2" and 3/4",

r'>

3)

PGQ~L:q~r': of Knoir,eee{rrg..rlr.search

{0;E';f;) hp,s <ck-nwlcdyad )oint Seesaw as one,"a)or problem by developing their <nvcst()ation around s<x (5) joints class<fitd bg d'cd'eel-reMinta --"""

I

~

~ ~

.-'... 'J BASK tCTERIAL Secondary Cause e~

~ '

I ~

~

i c'..

f)

A1Noia all "cracks" originated at lamellar tears. fn bose faatcri al e.

2)

Some material has excessive rolled laminations.

~'

~

~ aea ~

~

~ ee oe 3)

PG&E su o1$ ed base ma.erial was iradeouately identified prior'e Imp ementatioo of RA veri licirioe"Of&ate"mzterrai.'"-.

~

~

~ 4) 'ow me1ting. point a11oys formed with copper (in.A441) and sulf'<des triggered. some tears.

~"i<<.: 0)

IHDTSCRTHItfATE HATERTAL RKHOYAL

~

~

')

Large Destructive test samples have been removed.

H g)

Some sections have been essent{a'11y destroyed chasing cracks.

3)

. go Propasad repc$ r/replacement.

t

ems, E. GcMn axuccr

'Dlhst.O CAttYON RUPTURE RESTRAINTS'

~

are eeeVaIree>>err4tl le>>>>rie'a. 4'eras II'+J oem faap'9, 197$

~

~ ~ I inc m.

~

e e

$ pcs

~

~

r ~ar~ (pont I d) e

~

~

~ '

a

~

~

vM sea)I ~

I

'I%>>

~ ~

~

~ e ONCLUS10N

)

do) nt des< yn can be improved by t 1 ')

b) c)

Real 1er bevel>> any.l.e,.

'I e

Dgu)lg, bevel,f f pos'.<ble Srac)ny eath gusset plates to dfstr$ butc arm contracted upon.

e I

\\

~ '

e

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

I

~ ~

I~I.h

.-'.gp

~

4r Ieaya

~ a' bent'ore:

removal t ccepletn repair/replacement plan. should bo developed Mfth special atterstfon given to other Joints fn the structura,

~ Vj I

~ 4 I e ~

4 ~

gi~

~

~

le p aaa. ~

Pr e~>>

'll." ProbIems wlthsn pullman',I D.A./Fabrication responssblll tg I

~

I A)

PREHEAT Karl Seconder Cause I

~

r

~

~

1)

HELD PROCEDURE

>> 7/8

'll/Il/'/'I Spec.

88SSSR rcqofres AMS Dl.D-89 Rcv..ll/Z8/73 Preheat

- 50 F, mln, 175 over 1" 4 carbon over 4

e

OII I

~

"',~~.;

Rev. 10/15/76 Preheat referehces ESO 243 ",or ARS Meld)ny

~ ~

~

~

~

Z)

Q,A. YERIFTCATLON

~

~

11/>l/71 Spec, 8833XR riqufres deta<lt!d "Q,'A".Insp'ection Plans"'ev, Z/01/74 ESD 243 not address preheat Rev, 5/06/75 ESD 243 preheat now QIA.'old point Rev. 6/10/76 ESD Z43 details prehea e meeting end-exceeding AMS

~ 01.0 69 js ~ ~

ey ~

~ '

~'~

~~If.,

~a

~

~

KNOT QEYIAITONS

~

e L)

PG5E aud)t obsorved welders not.us,<ng correct prsJieat on 9/17/75 and on 9/19/75 b)'/3/77 g.A. inspector termfhbtc4 after qvhgtfohable'docu=

mentation practfceg.

c) 8/15/78 docutI;ented preheat of 150 F., required 2ZS F.

tD.R. 3712).

d) 9/25/78 documented preheat of '.50 F.s required 225 F, (O.R.37SS}.

t=~ {:

cc:

A, Kck H.

Evens p'~if~)/

V

k

~

~

I

~

" leUCCti

~ ~

~,PM% Cli;.

~ s

~. i.

~ ~

,I

~

o'

'q l,.g

~

pr'

~ S ~

.w c

~ <1,

~a~s.

g ~l y

~

~

'i 'o~ '~i

~

I 0+

~ ~

~

~

~ ~

~ )o Jo

-1>

~

~ I

~

~

~

(ge ~

4

~

cc!

A. Kck N. Kvans T. Qers

~

~

E SOW) n aavc Rag 29>

1979 9lASI,Q CANON RUPTURE RESTRAINTS

~ ~

~ r

~ '

1

~ '

~

Ll'. (Cont',dI

'I', V

~

I

". '8)

Purported ma]or weldfng and field metal de)acts are not prevalent.

One gross weld metal defect has been fdenti-f$eg, that being a lack of fusion between two 5NN pro dvced layers, Other defects exfst but 'are inherent to the wcldfng process (f'r example some porosity), are not detrfmcnta3 and are well wfth<n acciptable limits.

Con-fusfon fs occurring because PGhE NO( 'Technicians are callfng lamellar tearing "lack of fusion" which ft dfst-

$.nctly fs not.

~

~

-,'. -"..: C)

CONC US1

, aP

~

~

'o documented control and inadequate contro1 of required preheats were definfte problems before 10/15/'.76, Thfs likely contributed to cracking ad5accnt to fillet welds and may have contrfbuted to cracks fn heavy 5ofnts thai "orfgfnated fn hardened heat affected zones.

He~ever, the ma)or factor by far fn heavy Joints was poor 5ofnt design'.'he preheat situation

efng

observed,

~

~. ~

~

~

Ill. -"POINTS RE'OUIRING ACTION

~

~ +~4sstoe 4 ~

A)

Stop

$ ndfscrfmfnate materia1 removal

')

Change contract.and(or specification to include the addi-tional examfnations (H.T; and re-U.T.) being imposed.

C)

Evaluate cracked points and develop method of bracing the

)oint to replace the portion of the point that examfyat$ ons

,reveal to be cracked.

~i~rasa/

1}

Brace, gusset or plate to web, 2)

Arrange gusset shrinkage to "tak'e loid off cracked area or even to put cracks

) n compress fon.

~,')

Hire Melding Eng)nepr...

r Diablo Canyon to <mpleeent, tupture restraint repdfr ro r m, con ro n

~tfon

. of heavy stanch>ons

>n n>t?.an

~ ann qua ty welding p'rostra m,

~ 9" g~

\\

Docket Nos.: 50-275 50-323 APR 12 584 MEMORANDUM fOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Chairman Pal ladino Commissioner Gilinsky Comnissioner Roberts

'Comissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (DIABLO CANYON - ADDITIONALQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM H.

MF)ERS (BOARD NOTIFICATION NO.84-079)

In accordance with present NRC procedures for Board Notifications, the enclosed information is b5ing transmitted to the Commission.

The attached information (questions and comments) was received from Dr. H. Meyers s staff member for the U. S.

Congress House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 12, 1984.

By copy of this notification, the appropriate Board and parties to the Diablo Canyon proceeding are being provided a copy of this information.

Enclosure:

As Stated cc:

See Next Page 0<>GNARL $iGgED ~y Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8404130420 ZR 1'.

OFFICEI SURNAME$

DATEQ

~0 o

~ ~

~ ~

RltarIl'ni...

4l (L /84 j.

hat..

4/

/84 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO! 1981~~990

Slf

cc:

J.

F.

Wolf, ASLB G. 0. Bright, ASLB J. Kline, ASLB T. S. Moore, ASLAB W.

R. Johnson, ASLAB J.

H. Buck, ASLAB SECY (2)

OPE EDO OGC Parties to the Proceeding

C

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Diablo Canyon Units 152 Docket Nos. 50-275/323 OL Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

Mr. Richard E. Blankenbur g Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. John H. Buck Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Mr. Frederick Eissler David S. Fleischaker, Esq.

Mrs.

Raye Fleming Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Mr. Mark Gottlieb Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Mr. Thomas H. Harris Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Dr.

W.

Reed Johnson Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. John Marrs Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

Bruce Norton, Esq.

Joel'.

Reynolds, Esq.

Mr. James

0. Schuyler Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.

Mr. Gordon Silver Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.

Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

Harry M. Willis John F. Wolf, Esq ACRS Members Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Mr. Myer Bender Dr.

Max W. Carbon Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Mr. Harold Etherington Dr. William Kerr Dr. Harold W. Lewis Dr. J.

Carson Mark Mr. William M. Mathis Dr. Dade W. Moeller Dr. David Okrent

'Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. Jeremiah J.

Ray Dr. Paul C.

Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Mr. David A. Ward Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

,Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Malcolm H. Furbush Rbsident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS Dr. William E.

Cooper Mr.

W.

C. Gangloff Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Dr. Jose Roesset Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush

MQ ES RK BABIP FOR B5-5T FINDiNQB~

NBC AVDIT ETC.

'. ggg4;,

g ~ ~

~ ~

e 4N%

'r~~

Vh4 NBC au/it af Pullman a.@pears to ho,v~ Saon under ".at crn in respanre ta ccncor ne crirpr essed by F'Q4G aa to whether'r tha Diablo reactor o had been in constructed in a manner that complied wi".h the t."ummiesicn's rendu}et5ona.

PSQE Audit 80422 (p. ") stater;l "Sfver-al apparently generic deficiencies in warti parfait med by leman war e prsviaucly icfsntified by the Sinerai Construction leper ttnant. "

@lhasa.'gone> ic deficiencies" had been i<ontifiod by the General Constr uzi ian Da portment?

I

~ ~

~

~ ~

"~

~

~

'alf theie'"gin'er iC deaf i'riinci&'s" birn rejsr ted to vh'6 AK~/NRCV

'v

'The Gcapo f'trritcment pf the NSC afd>t eneampar;.eat "wcr Vmcnship af '~ho fLeldMabr icctad and 5nctel?ed 5 tees,"

Tht-. Junc lh, j978 latter fr am Hr, Wicchow ta 5t.

Ercin, io which the P'9'4K rov> ew "f the NSC uudit and Pu)lean rerpunsa ther e o war e hatt~,"had, s.atvd that the NtrlC audit "d5d nat addrera 5 tan;l f to the var ifice" 5an of the ada qu.-"cy af the installed her dwarf-..

The NSC audi t. was

"-uper fici al with respect, to tric; hardwar e,..."

bid NBC gulfill 5 ts 'cammi tmont ta ver i 4y the adequacy oW in"-tellad hardware~i

!f hot, whet wc.s the r ea" on for i ts not having dane aa:

Nhat was done to acti sf y r 84K' or'inaL concern that the.r e be an audi t, to ver ify the adequacy af insto) l od har dwara r P84E undertook Audit 80422 to vcr.'fy.ho adequacy of l ul lman' CR pr ogram; to review tho val 5 di ty of the NSC findings arid-'to deter mine the accuracy and

~ppropri@a.40ht! cs af F'Ul oman' r '~mneme~

and ta observe the as-instal 1 ed condi ti on of conponents arid' ullmen's adherence to applicable speci ficati one, design dr."wingsq and quef ity standards..'ude~"

80422 evaluated a Pullman 'car porate audi t conducted February y l9'78.

Audit 804 2 fourid di screpanci er in 5 tutus that had been. knepec" ed by Pu] 1'man auditors who noted no di screpancies.

Audit 804"i2 concluded that "Tn lieth of the number of.-

4i rcrepe rici ea ~oted

~ it i s appar"en t iat the P'ul i man audi t did not ef fectively evaluate the qual ity of their work."

~ ~

~

Mht

'r Additianal audi t a wora conducted i n

'2 ight aW the findi ng thatf uliman's "audi) did not effectively evaluate the quality pf the'kr worl P" In 1 tqht of this finding what hardwar e inapectionr.

wer e conducted to dater mine the adequacy of l'ul ]man' warl 7 How many di <<creparrcios wer e noted aa the resul t of addi tianal pudgy ts c:nd in pectionr cOriductc.d in the wal:a of Audit 8042 7

wriest done to deter mine why the def icierit cond. pns noted in g-~725 and M-5728 had riot been di <<cover ed: n the course of thy or. g jnal in pec%i on Pr oct'sf V

>hit <a4 the re~so;.

these def j cg pnt

~>>=

%,f

~

~

~ ~

lpg",

~

~

~

~

~

I

~

~

P

~ ~

~I'>>'>>P

( ~

~

~

~ I &\\

~

~ 5'

~ >>

i ~'vr~w Q~~

~

~

I

>>0 I1 0

~

','rs I

~

~

~

~

~P Pgt All L.~

~ ~

candi tions had nat been natad during the caurrc} pf tho or iginel inspection procear7 Aha" was dano ta determine why the Pullman car pgreto audit hacf not naked the discrepancies noted by Audit 80422'?

Nhy did the F'ullman cprparato audit not discover the discreponcies7 Qhat wai the baeir. for the 8.-"i7 finding (stotrd

~ an pago

40) that Pullman had perfarmed

~dequate carpprete audito7 What was the basis for tha SJ-i7 Winding (7d.)

<<hot Pullman'e internal and carparato aud$ tc had indicatey the.

na 4und*oental QA'prop) em hreekctown had orcut r ed'7 L'E.g, see l9'78-7'P 0inctings re pipe rupture r estrai nta jar NCA' DCl-VB-RN-008, DCl-'7l-RN OOV, DC1 '79-RN-005, etc.

3 4i'. Ta what extent did recammendatiana licted n

pope if f2 'of

, Au'd4'0 BCl4~2 ccIrreapond to,deficiencies noted. i.n.the.NSC, audit'R.....

i

b. '

Hi;y 2V,

!MAL mamarandum 4r am K, Freed ta E. brrwin c;ddraarms pipe rup".uro rcrtraint pr ahl cmr..

Why had Ho)der dvfiaicnciel; not b@ detoctc.cf and car rrc;ted ct: en er'rl ier date by Pul1men'r QC/QA pragrem'P Ta what ex c.nt are the notad voiding def iciuncic;s rimf 1 cr to those,kpocif fed by the NBQ audit'?

~ 4 6.

@hat audito and/or reinspectians hanger c wf:ra conducted ta-dohermine whc,ther the typos af dodec".s f aund in the pipe ruptur e r e'er'@into exiotod With ruspc;ct ta pipo'hangcrr7 What iI 'the baste fbi-. a determinati an that deaf ecta found in pipe r upture restraints did not e~cict with re<<pact to'ipa hanger o'?

I M>> I;

~

~

f ~

I

,i('

~

~ >> ~,

V

%i <<P'ii

~ >>

p%

'::i%%

".~<.

~

~'

Me I+a>>

~ a>>o>

i>>'>> P

~ O'04Pt i

~

~

~ ~

li 4"

V

(.

IHiERQFFICE CORRFEPOHDEHCE

~

~

~

~

i

~

4t yp

', Gewin Qy R9 1979 PACE;.

-K.e.,$ POCd OlABLO CANVOH RUPTURf RE'VRaIHTS

%%JAW e \\teOtoHttttt~ttetl ottttttttttlttttfeHI~ ael ~ ~ ~ e ~

~Itl~ttHI ~I ~Octet ~Ill~ ~llm ~ ~ Iee ~ ~ ~tl~ leal ~IelttttlIIIHatlHlfeWvt4Hteat+Il~tt

I.'roblems outs(de Pullman's responsibilit' A)

JOINT ESIGN 'Prime Cause..... -..,.

~ '-,".,":"

',~

1) fhss$ ve wcldments, S" deep x

rl 5/8" wide, at,

<o single bevol that eau'ld shr(nk unres.ra/net abou: 1/2" in a:ransvcrse direc:ion ere totally restrc<ned by hu9e colur;,ns snd t.rarrs.

All potential Shrinkage is ti'anSformed (nto residual StreS;CS end/ot

cracks, P)

Lateral reinforcement plates (stif'fcni.'rs) are welded cxrctly

opposite, both pulling on debs as thin as 1/2" and 3/4".

. 3) p+G~ep~spgi~of fnoiree~)~g,.(esearch (D;E'.F;)'ts ack-nmledyed Joint

~es !n is

~he r;,a>or problem by developing theft

$ nvcst<yatfon around six (6) joints classified bj d'cjPa'oaf-re&int. -- " "

a ~

e

~ ~

J

-'..'}

BASf tCTERlAL Seconder Cause v I,

~

~

~

~

i g:'.,

~

f )

Almost al l "cracks" or i 9( nated at 1 amel 1 ar tears in'ase c"'y'

~ I

~

s

'> e nWW< 'o 2)

Some material has excessive rolled lam<nations,

~ ae +

3) pG&E su Tied base material was iradenuately identified prior'o qmp ementation o~nveniio'a'tron"ofwaae"materral

."')

'ow melting. point alloys formed with copper (in.A441) and sulfides triggered. soIrte tear s.

~

'~";i=.: C)

JNOISCRTNIWTE HATKRIAL REHOYAL 1)

Large Destructive test samples have been removed.

a 2)

Some sections have boon essont<ally destroyed chasing cracks.

le

\\

3)

. Ho Proposed repair/replacement.

e P

eI 4)

Ho corrs<derat<on

{s given to how removal stressa$

Qther )ofnts

$ n saeo structure.

J

~ ~

v

~6 E., Ge,~,n

~

e

~ccr6

. DIABLO CANYON RUPTURE '-RESTRAINTS' PAL

'f'~X,298, 1 ~79

~

~ m ~

gv+

~

'3

~ice ao.

~

~

~ ' ',

~

~

~

~

~~:,>i '".'-:-.', '~~:. (Cont d)

..,.':,,:,. 0)

CONCLUSION 1)

Oo)nt dcs<gn can bi improved bg!

~

~

~

~

i~ $.,

~

r-'+-re a)

Smaller beve>., any.le,.

'I

~

I b)

Daugly, bevel,<f poss<ble c)

Sroc{ng w/th gusset plates to d/str$ buto area contracted upon.

~

'i

~i'

<<M I ~

9 s pie+I

'3,0'av I ~

ta

~

k m ~,'

~

II<<~

p l...

=0.-'

~ m

~

I

)

Pelion removal t complete repair/repleeerlent plan.shovld be developed wfth special attention g/Yen to other )o/nts

<n the structure.

e

~

I 4'~:

I s ~ v

'4~x. ',i-r

~

~

Cv~8" v~ipP

'~h"

<<l

~

m KH55 DKYIAITONS

~

e a)

PQ5K audit observed welders not.using correct preheat on 9/17/75 and on 9/19/7S b)'/3/77 Q.A'. Inspector termfhhtcd af'ter" qvhstfohiblesdocu=

mentit)on pract)ces.

c) 8/15/378 docuII;ented preheat of 1 50 F., required 225 F.

(O.R. 37lZ),

d) 9/25/78 documented preheat of ".50 I-., rcqu$ red 225 F, (O.R.3798),

~iN' v

~"

31."'robIems wlthtn FoIlman'.s 8.A./Fabr(cation responslbllltr,

<<" A)

I3RFHfAT Earl Seconder Cause

~

~

a'

~

~

~

~

l)

'HELD PROCEDURE - 7/8 Il/Il/'/ISpec.

883338 reqo)res AN 81.0-69 g=$!.

ReV..II/88/73 Preheat

- 60 F. min.,

176 over I" 4 carbon over Rev. 10/li/76 Preheat referehce~

KSD Z43 for ARS Melding

~

~

~

~

'2) g,A, VERIFICATION ll/119'1 Spec, 8833XR 'requires detail'ed "0 'A Insp'ection Plans"'ev, 2/01/74 KSD 243 not address preheat Rove 5/06/75 KSO 243 preheat now Qeh. hold point Rov. 6/10/76 ESD 243 details preheat'eeting and-exceeding AMS 01.0 69

~ i ssec:"

~

g}

cc:

A. Kck H. Evens f/~j

~

~

4

W

~ i i, I

~ i>>

~

OJOJC

~ i

~ 5

.~i.A'MX

~,1

~ >>,

Og,'

~P>>

i

~

>Ci'I

~ ~

~

o' iI.-

~

VL<<,io, 5: '1.>>ii,"'

~ Ige "8'i~l.

'r.~

wi

)w

'L'

~ I

~ ~

+is

~

~

.4+Qm, i V't~ I

~I

~ 0 I ~ P ~

, ~ ~

~

~

~ i

's

~

~

~

E, Gerwkn acre Qy 29> 1979 etc QLASLQ CANON RUPTURE RKSTRAlHTS i

lt0

~ q

~ Il W'%~i

~

4 I

'i I'

I

~

.:.. Il;. (ContId) 8)

Purported ma)or welding and field metal defects ere not prevalent, One gross weld metal

defect, has been ident$ -

f$eg, that being a lack of fvs<on between two 5NN pro-duced leyerS, Other defects exist but 'are inherent to the melding process (for example some poros(ty), are not..

detrimental and ar'e well within acceptable 1<m(t!.

Con-fusion

$ s occurring because PGKE HDS 'Technicians are calling lamellar tearing "lack of fusion" which )t dist-

'.nctly 3a not.

,'.-'-",: C)

CONC USl

,>>i

~

~

po documented control and inadequate control of reqv)red reheats were def<n)te prob'lems before 10/15/76, This (kely contributed to cracking adjacent to fi11et welds and may have contributed to cracks in heavy )o)nts that

" originated

$ n hardened heat affected zones.

However, the ma)or factor by far

$ n heavy 3o)nts was poor )oint

~ "'."

design'.'he preheat situation is now unde~ full 9;A, control, preheat.hold po)nts.are.he(rig observed.

.'Il.:.-'PprNTS RE Ula NO ACTiON

'E I ~

~

~

~ ~

~ V s

+

~

~

. " A}

Stop <ndlscrfminate material removal '

~

~

~

S)

Change contract.and/or specification to include the addi-tional exam'inations (H.T; and re-U.T.) being imposed.

C)

Eva)uate cracked )oint'nd develop method of bracing the

)oint to replace the portion of'he 3o)nt that examinations

,reveal to be cracked.

~

~

~

'h~

~~

~

1)

Brace, gusset or plate to web, I

~

2}

Arrange gusset shrinkage to'tak'e load off cracked area or even to put cracks (n compression.

~')

Hire Melding Eng)nept:..

r Diablo Canyon to {mpleeent tupture restraint repair ro r m, con ro n

Tl cion

. of heavy stancNions in nit?,an...n a.>n qua ty welding

,program, cc:

A. Kck N. Evans T. Hyers

P

~

4 J

k V

~