ML19224C569
| ML19224C569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1979 |
| From: | Ellershaw L, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224C565 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900364 99900364-79-1, NUDOCS 7907030026 | |
| Download: ML19224C569 (4) | |
Text
.
U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF IflSPECTION AND EtlFORCEMENT REGI0il IV Report No.
99900364/79-01 Program No.
51400 Company:
Midland Ross Metal Framing Division P. O. Box 727 Goshen, Indiana 46526 Inspection Conducted: March 27-28, 1979 Inspecto'.
hi:)
dd flN/77 W L. E. Ellershaw, Principal Inspector, Vendor Da t'e Inspection Branch Approved by:
/4 micm k d 4/[f D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Components Section 11, Date Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Special Inspection March 27-28, 1979 (99900364/79-01).
Areas Inspected:
Follow-up on a 10 CFR 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Report relative to failed resistance welds in strut material.
The inspection involved seven (7) inspector hours by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the one (1) area inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
272 257 7 907 0300 R(o
. Details Section (Prepared oy L. E. Ellershaw)
A.
Persons Contacted E. Fischer, Chief Engineer T. M. Hooley, Manager, Quality Control T. Pletcher, Managar, Eastern Operations B.
Introduction Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) documented a reportable deficiency under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e), to B. H. Grier, Region I, dated April 5, 1978, regarding inadequate resistance (spot) welding of cold fomed back-to-back channel members used in field fabrication of Class 1 electrical raceway supports (PECo Reference No. QUAL 2-10-2 (SDR#5)), as produced by Midland Ross Metal Framing Division (formerly Super Strut, Inc.), Goshen, Indiana.
C.
Follow-up on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report 1.
Objectives The objectives of this follow-up inspection were to ascertain that an evaluation of the condition had been performed, including making an assessment of generic implications, and that responsibility for effecting corrective action and preventing recurrence had been assigned.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report.
b.
Review of Testing Procedure 10-T-1.
c.
Review of Testing Procedure 10-T-2, revised June 5,1978, and applicable to the Limerick Generating Station (PECo).
d.
Review of Sargent and Lundy Engineers Specification No.
K-2980 " Specification for Cable Trays and Supports", applicable to the Clinton Power Station.
272 258 e.
Discussions with cognizant personnel.
f.
Observation of in-process resistance welding.
3.
Findings Prior to the detection of failed spot welds at the job site (Limerick), the strut material had been purchased as standard off-the-shelf items, with ilo formal Quality Control program.
Testing was perfonred by Metal Framing Division (MFD) or a random, but limited basis. All spot welding prior to December,1977, was doc.e using a sigle head, manual spacing, resistance walding machine.
MFD, at that time, acquired an automatic, four (6) head resistance welding machine, which has been used for all spot welds since no weld procedure specification has been developed, and weld acceptance criteria is basea on a destructive and nondestructive testing basis Tc-ting Procedure 10-T-2, applicable to Limerick Generating Station, requires the following:
a.
Shear Test - at the start of production, two (2) shear tests from the first length and every twentieth (20th) piece is a lot.
Also, shear test when weld tips are changed and when weld machine settings are changed.
Results are recorded.
b.
Pull Test - Test each length of the lot at every seventh (7th) weld excluding the first and last welds.
Results are recorded.
c.
Visual Inspection - Each piece t. be visually inspected (primarily for spacing betwee valds). All testing instruments are calibrated wed ay with the master gage being calibrated every six (6) months and traceable to National Bureau of Standards.
It should be further noted that naterial supplied to Limerick Generating Station is hot dip galvanized after fabrication (HDGAF).
Testing Procedure 10-T-1 is applicable to all other commercial nuclear job applications including the Clinton Power Station.
The requirements, which are less stringent, stipulate the following:
a.
Shear Test - at the start of a lot, using samples of the same gage and finish as production material, weld and shear test one specimen each from head number 1 and head number 3.
Halfway through the lot (lot. ze is 500 feet) repeat the testing using head number 2 and head numter 4.
Results are recorded.
272 259
. b.
Pull Test - run the first forty (40) feet through the pull tester.
Proceed if acceptable.
Results are recorded.
Discussions with the Manager, Quality Control, revealed that the Pull Test is not imposed on MFD by the purchaser, and the possibility exists that the Pull Test viel be deleted. MFD has one (1) full time quality control inspector, with a "back-up" man available from the maintenance department, as necessary.
It should be noted that material being fabricated for the Clinton Generating Station is mill galvanized rather than HDGAF which does have an effect on the ability to produce consistently acceptable spot welds.
It was indicated that there have been no known failures of spot welds for material used as intended, since the acquisition of the automatic, four (4) head resistance welding machine.
D.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the 10 CFR 50.55(e) follow-up inspection were summarized with T. M. Hooley, Manager of Quality Control, who acknowledged the comments relative to the findings.
272 260
-