ML20030C422
| ML20030C422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1981 |
| From: | Mazor D, Mazur D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | Faulkenberry R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, GO-1-81-260, NUDOCS 8108260091 | |
| Download: ML20030C422 (4) | |
Text
'
1 i*
50.55(e) Report i
+
Docket Nos. 50-460/513 Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWcshington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 3
,1 r.
iR i'3
- h
- r N
=.3 CJ F.
Ts Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 19, 1981 E
\\g}'%
Region V G0-1-81-2 Suite 202 Walnut Creek Plaza e to 1990 N. California Boulevard f,Y.
\\\\
b9 9 @[*
Walnut Creek, California 94596 N/ (
.f
\\
T d
Attention:
Mr. R. H. Faul kenberry 1
g Chief, Reactor Construction 1.
f p#
.p/
Projects Branch V
o.*
c
Subject:
PROJECTS 1 ANC 4 4/j
\\/
DOCKET NOS. 50-160 and 50-513 N,
/,
POTENTIALLY REP 0hTABLE CONDITION 10CFR50.55(e)
BOSTROM BERGEN ME'AL PRODUCTS WELDED ASSEMBLIES
References:
- 1) Telecon T.J. Houchins, Supply System to D.F.
Kirsch, Region V Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated December 8,1980
- 2) G0-1-81-03 dated January 7, 1981, D.W. Mazur to R.F. Engleken, Director
- 3) G0-1-81-167, dated June 9, 1981, D.W. Mazur to R. H. Faulkenberry, Chief, Reactor Construction
- 4) G0-1-81-209, dated July 17, 1981, D.W. Mazur to R.H. Faulkenberry, Chief, Reactor Construction
Dear Mr. R. H. Faulkenberry:
In reference 1) the Supply System informed your office of the potentially reportable deficiency under 10CFR50.55(e) and references 2), J), and 4) were updates on the subject condition.
Attachment A includes a brief description as to how the potential deficiency was discovered, and the investigation methodology used to evaluate the possible deficiency.
Project Engineering has reviewed all the pertinent test data derived frcm the investigation and determined that the welded assemblies supplied by Bostrom Bergen Metal Products meet the applicable design requirements. Based on the iriformation provided in Attachment A, it has been concluded that the originally reported " potential" deficiency does not satisfy the necessary criteria of 10CFR50.55(e) to be considered reportable, therefore this is a final report and no further action will be taken by the Supply System.
f WI s
ib 4
0108260091 810819 PDR ADOCK 05000460 S
Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWashingtonWay Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 RH Taulkenberry G0-1-81-260 BBM Welded Assemblies Page 2 j
If you have any questions or desire further information, please advise.
Very truly yours, j,$}$$l' )
fjrb.W.Maz0r Program Director l
WNP-1/4 DWM:MER:pm cc: CR Bryant, Bonneville Power Administration V. Stello, Director, NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement FDCC - EDC Files-030 4
f k
I i
i i
i t
.-y,w.
__m_.,
-r-1--
WNP-1/4 DOCKET NOS. 50-460 AND 50-513 FINAL REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL REPORTABLE CONDITION L0 CFR 50.55(e)
BOSTROM BERGEN METAL PRODUCTS
" WELDED ASSEMBLIES" BACKGROUND Because of the large number of BBMP welded assemblies being rejected at the site for weld defects such as, undercut, undersize, excessive con-vexity and arc strikes, it was concluded by the Project that the situation was a potential 10CiR 50.55(e) Report. The potentially reportable items were identified as follows:
(a) Weld defects in released assembiies fabricated Ly BBMP.
(b) Uncertified BBMP inspectors performing visual weld examinations.
ACTION TAKEN In response to the potential seriousness of this problem the project imp emented the following corrective actions:
(i) - Provided for a one-hundred percent (100%) on site reinspection of all available BBMP assemblies utilizing o -lified isual welding inspectors.
All identified deficiencies were documente. by the inspectors and tracked by the installing contractor.
(ii) - Requalified and documented same f e all appropriate BBMP welders J
and welding inspectors per AWS Dl.1-76.
t (iii) - P ovided the fabricators welding inspectors with on-site formal training by qualified welding inspectors.
(iv) - A hold point was established on all BBMP welded assemblies prior to embedmer.t.
(v) - Shop inspections were performed to verify BBMP's compliance with the dispositions on the non-conformance reports.
(vi) - A ten percent (10%) sample of the worst case conditions of non-conforming welded assemblies were set aside for destructive testing.
The remaining assemblies with non-conforming weld conditions were repaired per approved procedures. This ten percent (10%) population was o representative aggregate sample of all identified weld deficiencies with a bias towards the most severe condition.
For analysis purpose this test sample was also consir:ered to be representative of the entire population of embedded assemblies.
i i
(vii) - To minimize the construction impact that would have occurred if the 10% sample were tested to destruction, mock-up samples representing the worst case defects were fabricated, utilizing identical base material, weld rod and welding processes. The mock-up samples were reviewed by the contractors Quality Assurance and construction personnel in addition to a UE&C Surveillance Report (Report #C-1555), all of which indicated that the mock-up samples did in fact represent the worst case defects when compared with the field pieces.
(viii) - By subjecting the mock-up samples to destructive testing the ultimate load carrying capacities of the assemblies in near and tension were determined.
(ix) - The mock-up test results were then evaluated by the Engineer. The evaluation indicates that the load carrying capacity on the ock-un specimens exceed the design capacity by approximately a factor of 3.
CONCLUSION The evaluation of the test results indicates that the as welded capac: ties are within acceptable limits, hence it has been concluded that the subject weld deficiencies do not compromise the integrity of +'
' lass 1 components, and therefore is not reportable under the rules ICFR50.55(e).
i
_ _ -_,, _ _.. ~ - _ _ _ _ _
.