ML20010H696
| ML20010H696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia, Washington Public Power Supply System, 05000464  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Byran C TAYLOR & ULIN |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17272A975 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-223, REF-QA-99900711 NUDOCS 8109290134 | |
| Download: ML20010H696 (4) | |
Text
n 6lRlLDbk
- 7 o,}
fDk UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION o
7g WASitINGTON, D. C. 20555
~%*****/
August 5,1981 Docket No. 50 6
A
,f g
Carroll L. Bryan, II, Esquire
/d f3 E u 9,
Q >W sa 'd5 H
Taylor & Ulin, P.S.
7 e "E M2 Attorneys at Law 9
AGC' Building, Suite 700
-Wo 1200 Westlake Avenue North IN RESPONSE
, da A
Seattle, WA 98109
,TO F0IA-81-2 mE2
,f,
Dear Mr. Bryan:
T This is in response to your letter dated June 5,1981 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act,12 categories of records pertaliiing to the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Plant No. 2.
Each category of your request was discussed in a June 23, 1981 meeting attended by you; Linda Robinson; Maurice David Lynch, the former project manager; and Rajender Auluck, the present project manager.
In addition to the oral discussion, you were provided with six rccords (identified on Appendix A) and a list of additional pertinent records (identified on Appendix B) which were already available for public inspection and copyingattheNRCPublicDocumentRoom(PDR),
SearcS and review of additional records subject to your request have been completed, and we are enclosing the eight records identified on Appendix C.
With regard to your letter dated July 23, 1981, in which you requested that we provide you with specified records that you were unable to locate in the PDR on June 24, 1981, the private contractor servicing the PDR will copy the records and send them directly to you with a bill for the copying charges, as you agreed during'd telephone conversation with Ms. Robinson on Augut t 3,- 1981. We have verified that there were only oral staff discussions with regard to a fractural mechanics analysis and that no report on the subject was prepared..
This completes NRC's~ action on your request.
Sincerely, f i
tg
. M. felton, Director Division of Rules ard Records Office of Administration j
Enclosures:
As stated i
[i 8 1 0 9 2 9 0 1 3 4 8 1 0 8 0 5 i
?'.
Re: F01A-81-223
' Appendix A g
Records provided on June 23,1981b l
~
'l.
12'/6/79 Memo to'Thornburg from Engelken, " Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) Sacrificial Shield Wall, Pipe Whip Restraints, and Related Structures (AITS No. F05030004)",
w/ enclosure.
2, 4/7/80 Memo tj Thompson from Thornburg, "WPPSS, WNP-2 Enforcement Package".
3.
4/9/80 Memo to Reinmuth from Spencer, "WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 Sacrificial Shield Wall (SSW) Corrective Action Plan Docket
-No. 50-397", w/ enclosure.
4.
4/17/80 Memo to Reinmuth from Potapovs, " Inspection of Leckenby Co.",
w/ enclosure.
d 5.
6/18/80 Memo to Thornburg from Spencer, " Regional Evaluation of Licensee Performance at WNP-2", w/ enclosures.
6.
7/15/80 Memo to Reinmuth from Spencer, " Request for Review of WPPSS Evaluation of Shear Studs Exhibiting a High Failure Rate at WNP-1/4 (AITS No.- F05030009)", w/o enclosures.
i e
, - - - -, - - - +, -,-
,.n,-.,-,aw
~v.,--
m:
'Rs: F0IA-81-223
- p-e Appendix B v
List.provided on June 23,1981:
Items in PDR
~
~
11ceting Notice dtd 2/1/80 Press Release dtd 6/17/80 Enforcement Package dtd S/17/89
~R. Engelken, RV to WPPSS 11/21/79 (Sacrifical Wall)
R. Engelken, RV to WPPSS 11/21/79 (Pipe Whip)
Staff Briefing 2/6/80 Trans ltr dtd 3/11/80 WPPSS to RV dtd 3/35/80 ~ Accession No. 8004070367
-Insp. Rpt. 99900711/80-01 1.eckenby Co.
.lAL dtd 2/8/770' WPPSS to RV (Spencer) 2/4/80 response to inspection Butler, NRC, Div. of Licensing to WPPSS dtd 7/8/74 EA-80-20 WPPSS to Stello dtd 7/11/80 Answer to Notice of. Prop. Imp. of CP EA-80-20 Stello to WPPSS dtd 6/17/80 10CFR 50.54(f) Req. Reg. QA WFPSS to Giambusso dtd 8/19/75 w/rpt.
WPPSS to Giambusso dtd 2/11/76 w/rpt Insp. Rpt. 80-08 Insp. Rpt. 80 Insp. Rpt. 80-11 Insp. Rpt. 80-12 i
- I E.
s l
\\
_. _ _ _.. ~
~.V"i Re:
- s Appe;; dix C h
Records enclosed:
^
1.
2/4/80
-Note to Schauer and Pawlicki from Knight, "WS-2".
2.
15/19/80 Memo to Vollmer from.Thornburg, " Transfer of Lead Responsibility for Repair of Sacrificial Shield Wall -
Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) Docket 50-397",
w/o enclosures.
.w
't.-
7/1/80
- Memo for Youngblood from Pawlicki, " Washington Public Power Supply System-(WPPSS) Nuclear Project h'o. 2, Sacrificial Shield Wall Corrective Action Plan",
w/ enclosure.
4.
~ 7/1/80 Memo for Noonan from' Pawlicki, " Preliminary Review of WPPSS Nuclear Project 2 Sacrificial Shield Wall (SSW)
Corrective Action Plan. Docket Humber 50-397 (AITS No.
F0503004)"..
5.
12/8/80 Memo to Yoangblood from Schauer, " Review of WNP-2 Sacrificial Shield Wall".
6.
1/12/81 Memo to Youngblood from Schauer, " Review of'the Proposed L
Resolution of Defects in the WNP-2 Sacrificial Shield Wall".
7.
1/17/81 Memo to Tedesco from Noonan, " Review of WNP-2 Sacrificial Shield Wall, Weld Quality", with attachment.
i l
' 8.
3/23/81 Memo to Youngblood from Pawlicki, " Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Nuclear Project No. 2, Sacrificial Shield Wall liardship Exemption Request (Weld Repairs)", with enclosure:-
l 9
4 n
v
~
m
\\
T
$%jo, J v
.s.
- m
- ',,U, NITE D STATES e
,_s o
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
.~
j_
W ASHINGTO N, 0. C. 20555
%.v$/
Docket No. 50-397 JAN 171981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
V. S. Noonan, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Division of Engineering
'n
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F WNP-2 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL, WELD QUALITY A
References:
(a) NRC Memorandum, B. J. Youngblood to F. P. Schauer and S. S. Pawlicki, dated November 20, 1980 Plant Name: Washingtor. Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)
Suppl iers'. Burns and Roe Docket No.:
50-397 Responsible Branchi Licensing Branch #1 Responsible Project Manager:
M. D. Lynch Reviewer:
D. E. Smith Description of Task:
Eva'luation of Applicant's proposal concern.ing known weld defbets in WNP-2 sacrificial shield wall.
Review Status: Applicant's response required Referencit(a)requestedreviewofanengineeringeval. tion for the sacrificial shield wall submitted by WNP-2. This submittal included a rationale for leaving known defects in the weld joints of the sacrificial shield wall.
The Materials Engineering Branch (NTEB) has reviewed this aspect of the' submittal, and we conclude the rationale for accepting known defects in the sacrificial shield wall.of WNP-2 lacks definition-in;some areas and is not acceptable 'in others'.=It: does not provide enough detailed information _. _ - _.
to justify all proposed actions.
Our Safety Evaluation is attached. 0 f
/
d^*
, don n A sistant Director l g 2pg 23 810805 for.' ' rials and Qualifications BYRAN81-223 PDRs Division of Engineering
Contact:
- 0. E. Smith ext. 27367 cc:
R. Vollmer J. Knight.
N W. Hazelton H. Conrad R. Gamble F. Schauer M.. D. Lynch MTES Members
~
i.
t -
~
w c: a w
L
~
-- [ '
h'
' WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS),
. NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL WELD JOINT, QUALITY SAFETY EVALUATION REPOP.T MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH MATERIALS APPLICATION SECTION The: portions of WNP-2's submittal concerning weld defects in the sacrificial shield wall are commented on in the order discussed by the
' applicant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
. Although we do not disagree with the " motherhood" and generalizations, of this paragraph, it is important to recognize that this structure
'was built to the American Welding Society's D1.1 which only requires visual inspection of welds for a structure of this type. The
~
internal or volumetric inspection of the welds was not required during construction. The sizing of welds, the workmanship standards, etc., specified in D1.1 are based upon providing a structure adequate for its purpose with visual inspection only. The requirements for
[
qualification of welders and the visua'. inspection requirements of.
'Dl.l'are looked upon as providing a, reasonable level of internal quality of welds. This is an indirect control approach, and has been proven by the extensive number of satisfactory structures built to D1.1 ^ over the years.-.
Most of the defects with which we are ccncerned with in the welus of the sacrificial shield wa? i af WNP-2 relate to workmanship and sizing of welds. Some welds in this structure have been inspected for volumetric quality, and the defects found and rate of occurrence are a' bout what would be expected for construction to a visual standa'rd, but subsequently inspected for volumetric quality.
~
'We recognize that repair efforts can cause are probMms and
-degrade the structure to a condition worse than its present condition, and that the best solution in some circumstances is to allow the defects to remain without repair.
l j
1
+
r
,m
.f
,.Q-Q,.
_2_
- C' II. DEFECTS NOT BEING REPAIRED A.
Electroslag Weld Indication' The electroslag weld indication appears,to be acceptable according to the information provided in the report, however no. details of the inspections performed are given. Qualification of nondestructive personnel, equipment and procedures should
.be reviewed by I&E for all welds inspected in this structure.
B.
. Incomplete Penetration -in Shielded Metal Arc Helds (SMAW)
'The volumetric examination revealed indications of the extent and severity that would be expected for normal workmanship in a structure built-to a visual standard. We see no reason for further action except verification by I&E as to qualification of nondestructive personnel, equipment and procedures.
Incomplete Penetration in Fhux Cored Arc Welds (FCAW)
~
C.
The high incidence of incomplete fusi 6n of roots in flux cored
. welds (six of seven inspected) indicates a lack of quality control of welder qualifications. Qualification records of weldc s.who made these welds should be. checked by I&E for position and process applicability. The acceptability of these welds depends upon the extent and severity of the defect indications found. Note that on double-bevel T-welds, the indications ascribed to lack of penetration in the root could~
actually be lamellar tearing. The extent of the indication (s) of each weld should detennine the action necessary.
Further corar.ent will be provided after these specifics are provided by the_ applicant.
Because these indications are located at the root, extensive damage could occur if repair is attempted.
D.
Workmanship Defects Identified by Visual Inseection The workmanship defects identified by visual inspection are
.not defined as to extent or severity. 4ccordingly, it is 8
x,.f lb.
2' s
l' q:..
L recommended that the applicant be required to establish the extent and sever ty of each defect. Only then can a judgment be made regarding their acceptability. A justification is
.needed for leaving each defect as is, instead of repairing to conform to. AWS D1.1.
III. Repair of Structurally Sionificant Defects He recommend that undersized fillet welds and o.Mer f;.ed butt welds be. restored to D1.1 required dimensions. C,ue requirements are. based upon many factors, therefore waiving one aspect of a code without co'nsiderirg all other pertinent factors is poor engineering practice.
In this case, the applicable code only requires visual inspection of welds, therefore their internal quality is unknown.
~
Usually, most welds on stiffened structures are fillet welds where volumetric.guality cannot be determined. To give inexperienced welders " arc time" and to evaluate welders with unknown skill levels, they are used to make fillet welds and other unimportant and uninspected wefds. The welding codes take this into account in.
specifying minimum size welds. With the history of poor visual inspection results and the inferred poor quality of uninspectable welds, there is no valid justification presented by the applicant not to require conformance to the code as to fillet weld size or
[
1eaving butt welds underfilled.
t-
<u w
Li r. i :i. !i C'.
Cuaral fiie p 1 p GM SEE Pedg. File F. Schauer D. Jenc-S. Chan MIIC P.fe: !I'. F0?.:
Billy J. Younr: blood, Chief Licensir :.tranch ':o.1 s..
Civi'; ion cf Licersir.g Fi.':'. :
Fr:n: P. Sch..ucr, Chief 5tr..n.rG Er: ine:rine Era ch Divisica cf E6;in:.erihg c
S!DJECT:
RE','IE;! C T!!: Dr.DPD.cED RESDLUTI;." CF DEFECTS I:; T!:I 1:!;?-2 S.'.071FICI/.L SHIELD TALL e
Year rro of Deceder 11, if"O bes clarified the intent of your rrevious r.r.o dated :cya,ber 20,19:0, en the sa.c subject. Our findings of the pre?cstd rcsciution of defects, trans6itted thrcugh our raer.o of Decer.ber 9, 1900, referred only to the corrective cction pian in the vicinity of the 7
construction joint at elevation 541 of the SS'..' and are not applicable to othcr areas.
Should there be defects that exist in otSer parts of the SSI., we will roquire det'cGd infomation of each defect including ths exact locction and the nature of the defect, procedtlres.and theoretical basis of corrective actions, conparison of the corrective plan uith the origincl design, and justification of deviation fro: de:ign codes..Upon receiving such details and request for revieu, we will of cour e review and evaluate the proposed plans accordingly.
In the nean time,.we feel that the applicaat's blanket statcnent on the rationale for leaving all defects uncorrected is unacceptable.
Franz P. Schauer, Chief Structural Engincering Cranch Division of Encincering a
cc:
J. 1; night R. Tcdesco S. Pc.: lichi D. Jene I:. Lynr.h U. Smith
-y S. Chan CULTACT:
S. P. Chan x29?SO J
8101200324 810803: -
\\
l' l D:' -
DE:SE3 I
DE:SEB ;hy\\
ov rscr y.. 2:.SEB l's.
.ML.
l
' F5 aue
. j - n g-De iSChan; ash t
sv.,e.tr; y,,-ju '- -
y g /31 -
1/ ' /?l-
c Ic w
4 DISTRIBUTIO::
Central F G f,RR Redg. File
~
SEB Redg. File F. Schauer D. Jeng MEP.0RANDUM FOR:
Billy J. Youngblood, Chief
.-yS. Chan Licer. sing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Fr.0M:
. Frar.: P. Schauer, Chie'f' D Structcral Engincering Eranch Divis'en of Engir.ecring
SUBJECT:
RE'.1EW OF 1:::P-2 S ACRIFICI AL SHIELD llALL
./.s per your recuest of !!overber 20, 1990,' the Structural Engir. sering 's 1
Granch has reviested the portion of the reference c.aterial
( Applicant 19, 1980 subs.ittal of a section discussing the ratfor.ch for August leaving existing knorn defects in the sacrificial shield wall) that concerns the structural cspects of the SSW corrective action plan.
)?e find that the same reference, included as part of Referen:e 2 of the c.ero fror. Knight to Tedesco, dated !!ovember 4,1980, has previously been reviewed by us and as a result of this review, we suggested that the proposed corrective cction plan for the SSW be accepted. As long as the applicant co:.mits to the corrective action plan we do not have further coments.
Franz P. Schauer, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of. Engineering cc:
J. Knight R. Tedesco O
D. Jeng M. Lynch S. Chan CONTACT: S. P. Chan, x29460 s
/
BYRAN81-223 PDR o,r.ccI' DE:5EB /,3%,. D?,:,SE B,,
DE:SEB sun,.. <jl..,,l.SC.han ash,,,,
. DJeng),,
,1,,FSp$ /80 hau,r,,
12/j//80 q12/O/8 12/
],
g/C4; 3
U: M L D ! T ATEs
... q, i
i:U: i.L Ali !;.. A/0 Of.Y CO:/.f.ilSSIO!.'
rl~P c
ms+ mm. o caosss
, 5 % j?
lL
'{tllEO
.. rg.--
M l'OTE T0:
F. Schauer, Chief, Structural Erqineering Branch, DSS S. Pawlicki, Chief, Materials Engineevinc Eranch, DSS TROM:
J. P. Knight, Assistant Director fcr Engineering, DSS
SUBJECT:
WPS-2
~
> Jim Henderson called ce today to ask that, if at all possible, a representative rom the Structural and Materials Branch attend a meeting with the WPS-2 applicant on Wednesday, February 5, at 9:00 a.m. in the licensing hearing board room on the 5th. floor, E/W Towers.
The background for the meeting follows: The applicant has had so many
' problems constructing the sacrificial shield that I & E has talked them into stopping work. Jim Henderson fears that the proposed fixes will result in sufficient changes to characterize an unreviewed safety problem.
It seems that' the shield is no longer cylindrical cad in addition to being distorted is of questionable structural quality.
In addition there are large A-36 structural elements with what Jim describes as pretty high NDTT:
the applicant is apparently proposing some scheme for' maintaining higher than normal temperature to compensate.
As always in these situations, there will be heavy pressure to review the proposed fixes so that the applicant can continue construction. This l
kind of. problem deserves our best shot to. define the scope of the effort necessary for a competent review.
Pier
- Tet me know if you can not cover the meeting with a staff member or sufficient seniority to speak for tha branch and following the meeting please give me your assessment of the matter and an estimate of the review effort needed, if you determine that step to be necessary.
Q k
J. P. Knigh, A sistant Director
/forEngineering ivision of Systems Safety cc:
F. Schroeder J. Hendersoni /
R. Bosnak R. Jackson M. 1.ynch E. Sullivan
[8002270427 810805 O
' BRYAN 81-223 PDR3 N.
__