ML20039D191

Interim Deficiency Rept Re Fabricated Steel Door Frame Welding Noncompliance,Initially Reported 811120.Frame Rework Has Been Completed.Ebasco QA Is Performing UT Exam on Embedded Frames.Final Rept by 820528

ML20039D191
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	12/21/1981
From:	Leddick R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20039D185	List: ML20039D184 ML20039D191
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, GO3-81-2857, NUDOCS 8112310407
Download: ML20039D191 (5)

Text

F Tilts i0 T TER SATISTIE:;rOAU.:tT JINT f 0. -

)H.yn ni,7sttctiT8OM -

" Ole 5 t.CTTEn in015) tu3Es t: Oil ESTA3t.tSH A IS7CC5'-.I17J 1 '

• DD 0'SULLIV'AN/270 EMMITMENTCONTROL-WO/A OUTING-WO/A m/A

\vPPss counEsPONDENCE NO. Ob 4l~S8d7 -

i1TE FILES-WO/A :G PECK-W/A G ALBERT /NRC-W/A JL QUAMME-WO/A R C00DY-W/A JP SLUKA-W/A E DOBSON-UO/A DE TRAPP-WO/A J DORAN-WO/A JE WERLE-WO/A ~

N g .h B GLASSC0CK/280-W/A GC SORENSEN/440-W/A E LOVE L:0/A -

o Docket Numbers 50-508 and 50-509 (

December 21, 1981

. J G03-81-2857 se ,

t' $ .

'f

\, -

b U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V Office of . Inspection and Enforcement E

,5

(~ 1 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 260 4-Walnut Creek, California l 94596-5368

\

Q 0 5

Attention: Mr. B. H. Faulkenberry i t

Chief, Reactor Construction r &

'etsBrakhd I e

5

Subject:

PROJECT NOS. 3 AND E F DOCKET NUMBERS 50-P] Ai J-50 2 EU INTERIM REPORT OF P TL 'TI41 OCFR .55(e) -,

WEtDING DEFICIENCIES, S " -

30R FRAME FABRICATION (D/N #039) - 2 7

In accordance '

• h the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e), Region V was noti- 4 fied onibv e 0,1981, that potential deficiencies, concerning steel y a door frame .el

~

deficiencies, were fcund. -

. . gQ

~ N go}

g Att ched is a i e' report for the subject conditi'on. The Supply S) ;t concurs ti .c description and approach to resolution of the -

h pot nt'al proble e 'or'.

detailed in the attached report. A final report s will ded to your office by May 28 1982. )

m Si uld o ave any questions or desire further information, please or 'act me directly. 'y gT&s g $

} .N' -

f Eh

!$  % N R. S. ddick/1000 ~-~

Program Director, WNP-3/5 .

8 El DRC/tt 5 1

l= ..! F

. Attachment -

5y-f  ;

cc: .: G c-J. Adams - NESCO-WO/A D. Smithpeter - BPA-WO/A g2 .

Ebasco - New York-WO/A l3 _

-WNP-3/5 Files - Richland-WO/A 8112310407 811228..

PDR ADOCK 05000508 S

PDR

l' . .

= . .

=

WASHINGTON PUBLIC' POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS WNP 3 & 5 ENGINEERING INTERIM' REPORT WELDING NONCOMPLIANCE

., STEEL FABRICATION CONTRACT 3240-95 DEVIATION /NONCOMPLICANCE NO. 039 .

Prepared-By 2 CLaft; R. Shetty#

i-DECEMBER 14, 1981 I

i l

t

INTRODUCTION Fought Steel, Portland, Oregon provided all the door frames (including '

Tornado door fraces) for WNP-3/5 Reactor Auxiliary Buildings and Fuel Handling Buildings under Contract 3240-95. Most of these frames were released from the shop and forty-ei 5h t frames were already embedded in the concrete.

Prior to releasing the fabricated steel from the shop, Vendor Quality Assurance inspects fabrication and documentation. Prior to shipping the material to the Site, Ebasco Vendor Qual;ty Assurance Representative inspects the documen.tation package for compliance to contract require-ments.

During inspection of the last of these fabricated steel frames, the Ebasco VQAR found that Fought Steel had not fulfilled the contract specification requirements for full penetration Tee Welds. Specifi-cation 3240-448 requires all full penetration Tee Welds to be examined with magnetic particle or liquid penetrant examination. Shipment was stopped and the site was notified of the noncompliance.

The problem appeared to be generic for all fabricated frames. The problem was divided into two categories:

1. Door frames which were in the yard and in the shop.

2. Door frames which were already embedded.

NCRs were initiated by Ebasco identifying the problem.

A. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL PROBLEM AND REFERENCE TO THE NOTIFICATION There are two potential problems in the area of:

1. The soundness (acceptability) of the full penetration

" Tee Welds", and

2. A breakdown in Vendor Quality Assurance inspection prior to releasing the fabricated steel.

Type "S" hinge plates are welded to the door frames. Type SS, S6, S7 and 58 plates have a number of shear anchor bars (ll"x2"x2'-0 long) attached to them with full penetration tee welds. Contract specifi-cation 3240-448 requires all the tee welds to be tested with magnetic particle or liquid penetrant test of root pass and final weld layer, in accordance with Sections 6 and 9 of AWS Dl.l. Since the above welds fall under " Tee Weld" category these welds should havegbeen tested.with MT.or PT.

Fought Steel did not test these welds other than performing a visual examination. Therefore, contract specification requirements were not fulfilled. Other types of nonconformances were also identified on the NCRs as follows:

-1 -

1. Undercut in excess of 1/32"

2. Undersized and oversized welds.

3. Noncontinuation of welds around corners. .

4. Cold laps. .

S. Weld splatter within }" of weld, material. ,

6. Slag inclusions. .

7. Arc strikes. .

8. Porosity in the welds.

Due to the above defects the integrity of the welds is questionable and the door mechanism could fail i f the welds are not sound.

The vendor process of releasing f abricated material for shipment is another area which is questionable since the f abricated material had been released after vendor QA inspection of the documentation package. This indicates an inadequate QA review of the document package.

The noncompliance was repor$ed to the NRC on November 20, 1981 in accord-ance with the provi'sions of 10CFR50.55(e).

B. APPROACH TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM The problem has been categorized as follows:

l Category I -

Frames that have not been installad,

-Category II - Frames that-have been installed.

Frames in these categories will be dispositioned as follows:

Category I

a. All frames at the site that have not been installed are to be returned to the vendor's-shop for re-inspection and repair.of deficiencies in accordance with purchase order requirements.

b. Frames in the shop are to receive full inspection as required by the purchase order prior to release for shipment.

c. .All full penetration welds that did not receive the

, required PT or MT examination will be examined by UT methods. Weld root area is to be examined using longitudinal wave UT as well as shear wave techniques.

All rejectable defects will be repaired and re-examined.

J

- - 4 , - - - - , - , ,, , - -

d. The Engineer's Vendor Quality Assurance Reprosent-ative is to assure that all frames conform to the .

purchase order requirements, or item c. above, prior to release for shipment.

Category II The Engineer's QA personnel will perform UT examination of "

all questionable welds on the 48 installed frames and provide interpretation of the results. Based on the QA interpretation of the UT examinations, Engineering will ,

evaluate the ability of the frames to perform their design function.

C. STATUS OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION Category I Frames were returned to Fought Steel for rework and the rework has been completed.

Category II Eba~co s QA is performing UT examination on the embedded frames at locations identified on the

. NCRs. Sir, frames have been tested so far. Forty-two more frames are yet to be tested.

D. REASON WHY THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE' DELAYED .

Because of complexity of location of embedded frames and testing sequence it takes considerable time to test each plate. Only six out of forty-eight frames are complete at this time. Based on the results of six frames the defects do not appear to be significant. However a complete evaluation could not be made until all the forty-eight frames are examined. Hence the final report will be delayed until all the UT results are available.

E. PROJECTED COMPLETION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND SUBMITTAL DATE OF THE FINAL REPORT Ebasco QA estimates that it will be able to finish the UT by April 15, 1982. Engineering.will evaluate the test data for significance upon receipt of data and submit the final report to the Supply System by May 15, 1982.