ML20040E760
| ML20040E760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1982 |
| From: | Mazur D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E758 | List: |
| References | |
| GO-1-82-0018, GO-1-82-18, NUDOCS 8202050324 | |
| Download: ML20040E760 (7) | |
Text
..
Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWashington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-50 @
January 15, 1982 M
9 G0-1-82-0018 ij y
'f'3 es#c b
o
=
.z.
tc e
Q L *S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0
Region V 1450 Maria Lare, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Attention: Mr. B. H. Faulkenberry Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch
Subject:
Nuclear Projects 1 and 4 NRC Inspection WNP 1/4 Dates of Inspection October 1, 9 and 19-23, 1981 Docket Nos. 50-460 and 50-513 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-134 and 174
Reference:
(1) Letter from R. H. Faulkenberry to D. W. Mazur, NRC Inspection at WNP 1/4 Site, dated December 3, 1981 (2) Letter D. W. Mazur to R. H. Faulkenberry dated December 12, 1981, G01-81-414 Reference one (1) of the correspondence delineated the results of the Octo-ber, 1981 inspection of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-134 and -174.
Further, reference one (1) of the correspondence identified certain activities which were not conducted in full compliance with PSAR requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation enclosed as Appendix A.
This item of noncompliance has been categorized into a level as described in Supplement II of the Federal Register dated October 7, 1980 (45FR66754) as the Interim Enforcement Policy.
The specific finding, as identified, and the Supply Systems response is pro-vided herewith as Appendix A.
Program Manager, WNP-1/4 DWM:MER:wp Attachments cc: CR Bryant, BPA/399 RT Johnson, QA WNP-2/917Q V. Stello, Director of Inspection, NRC A. Toth, Resident NRC Inspector FDCC/899 Q -Cl[f 8202050324 820129 PDR ADOCK 05000460 G
I l
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)
COUNTY OF BENTON
)
D. W. MAZUR, Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Program Director, WNP-1/4, for the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the applicant herein; that he is authorized to submit trie roregoing on behalf of said applicant; that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and believes the same to be true to the best of his knowledge.
I)19 1981L DATED M/ h D. W. MAZ On this day personally appeared before me D. W. MAZUR to me know to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and pur-poses therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and seal this l e day of J __
,1981
\\
d D 5.. G 8
~?% - ed Notary Public\\in and for the State of Washington Residing at b nwh 9
- t vo s _*4;e; us e SM
"_^%
WM 4=43ED#
A5J M-A/dd 'bV Ve
' b ' 2 - * ** is
- k N' a r* <
.AA4*
'^'+**"'"4
' - " ~ '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Docket No. 50-460 and 50-513 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-134 and -174 APPENDIX A FINDING A Criterion V of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 states, in part, that:
" Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, proce-dures, or drawings....(which) shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
Section 17.1.5 of the PSAR for the Washington Nuclear Project Unit #1 des-cribes that measures would be established to comply with the above require-ment.
Contrary to the above requirements, on October 9,1981, welding and weld inspection procedure JAJ-WI-010.1 did not include appropriate acceptance criteria for welding of skewed joints of piping support structural steel.
This situation has existed since at least October 9,1979, when the contrac-tor had contacted the ASME code committee to inquire about this matter.
In the absence of specific ASME requirements, the contractor failed to define inspection criteria and techniques for assessing adequacy of weld sizes of skew joints.
On October 9, 1981 a weld of less than 1/8-inch. throat size had been accom-plished and accepted by the JA Jones Construction Company, whereas a 1/4-inch size fillet weld was shown for the 150-degree skewed joint on sup-port steel for the in-core monitoring system, weld number N1 of sheet 29A of drawing 9779-LL-419500.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
Supply System Response A.
The deficiency described in the subject item of noncompliance was reported to your office on November 16, 1981 as a Potentially Report-able Condition under the requirements of 10 CFR50.55(e). On December 8,1981 an interim report, Supply -System letter number G01-81-414, was forwarded to your office identifying the deficiency and the planned and ongoing corrective actions to be taken by the Project to correct the deficiency. A copy of that interim 10 CFR50.55(e) report is attached with modifications, Appendix B, as our response to the Notice of Violation. The original 10CFR50(e) Report will be amended to reflect the changes made by way of this response.
E-7 There is one (1) item which was not specifically addressed in our interim report, which is germane to the Notice of Violation and that is the aspect of inspection acceptance criteria.
The PCP's referred to in the interim (Appendix B) report not only establish the new fillet weld leg sizes as a function of the dihedral angle but also indicate by means of diagram-matical illustrations how the fillet weld leg lengths are to be measured.
This new leg length and the variable dihedral angle represent the accep-tance criteria for skewed welds.
At the present time the in plant inspection of existing skewed welds as discussed in Appendix B will be limited to Unit I only. The skewed welds in Unit 4 requiring leg size verification will be inspected only after restart of construction.
In order to assure that timely follow-up action is initiated at the restart of construction of Unit 4 this item will be carried on the Projects Action Tracking Systems by Supply System Engineering.
5 i
i 5
I d
APPENDIX B WNP-1/4 DOCKET N05. 50.460 AND 50-513 P0TENTIAL REPORTABLE CONDITION 10CFR50.55(e)
SKEWED TEE JOINT WELD SIZE INTERIM REPORT BACKGROUND Apparent undersize fillet welds on skewed tee joints with obtuse angles were identified during a routine. inspection by the WNP-1/4 resident NRC inspector, Mr. A. Toth. This created a question of whether or not the design criteria for increased weld size to obtain the requir a effective e
throat for skewed tee joints was properly implemented.
In accordance with AWS Dl.1 skewed tee joints are defined as having a dihedral angle
'of.not less than 60 degrees nor more than 135 degrees.
The desi.gn criteria for the weld size of a skewed tee joint is based on 2
an equivalent sized 90 degree tee joint fillet size.
The fillet weld leg length is increased to provide an effective throat for obtuse angle tee joints which is equivalent to a 90 degree tee joint weld. Fillet welds on acute angle tee joints inherently results in an increased weld leg length which provides an effective throet greater than an equivalent sized 90 degree tee joint weld.
- DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY
.All obtuse skewed fillet welds detailed by UE&C on the drawings used by the contractors have been sized based on a 90 degree tee joint fillet.
UE&C. considered it the responsibility of the contractors to recognize
/,
the need for increased leg lengths on obtuse angle skewed tee joints for b,
angles up to 135 degrees. However, it appears the contractors assumed that the weld size specified on the detail drawings provided by UE&C were
[,/'
correctly sized and no adjustment in leg length was necessary for the skewed tee joints. With weld sizes applied as detailed, a condition of i
e inadequate effective weld throat could result for obtuse angle tee joints.
7 Sample analysis performed by UE&C has indicated that an inadequate effec-tive throat could result if the weld size was not increased for the skewed tee joint fillet welds.
In any event, not following the criteria for
~'
skewed joints vould result in undersized welds. Whether or not an in-adequate effective throat exists depends upon the applied loads and the degree of conservatism in the design.
IMKdDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION The affected site contractors (contracts 211, 257, 207A, 216, 218, 217, 262, and 253) have been issued PCPs specifically directing them to increase the weld sizes (leg length) for skewed welds shown on the detail drawings supplied them by UE&C Engineering.
The contractors have been directed, by. way of the aforementioned PCPs, to revise their affected procedures to' reflectthe information provided in the PCPs. Bechtel has verified through c currently,ontact with each of the effected contractors that none of the
(
)
approved procedures require revising. However, to ensure uni-form inspcetion of skewed welds, each of the affected contractors will N
'(*
j, y
~
s?
receive by February 1, 1982 an inspection training packet from Bechtel which is to be administered to all welding inspectors by March 1, 1982.
Per the PCPs, the magnitude of the leg length increase is to be determined by the contractor based on a chart included with the PCP which gives a range of different weld sizes and dihedral angles with the respective factor by which the weld is to be increased.
It should be noted that, to date, the 217 and 262 contractors have not installed any members or supports which incorporated skewed welds.
Site contractors 216, 218, 253, and 207 are currently working to the requirements of AWS D1.1; however, their design practices are being review-ed by UE&C Engineering to assure that the treatment of skewed welds is in accordance with AWS DI.l.
UE&C Engineering will take a random sample of contractor designed connections involving skewed welds and verify that the design and the drawings are compatible with the provisions of AWS D1.1.
If it is determined that the contractors designs are not in accor-dance with AWS Dl.1, Engineering will make whatever recommendations they deem necessary to correct the contractors design procedures.
If it is determined that the welds are undersized, the same procedure of analysis and verification delineated in the following paragraphs regarding contract 211/257 will be followed. For the case were the drawings are found to be in compliance with AWS Dl.1, a sample of the welds shown on the detail drawing analyzed by UE&C Engineering will be reinspected in the field to assure conformance to the drawings.
UE&C Engineering is in the process of identifying all of the skewed tee joints already installed by the 211/257 contractor. From this list, UE&C Engineering will perform an analytfcal review of each joint where the dihedral angle is in excess of 105 to ascertain on, a case by case basis, the acceptability of the joint.
BasedoncalculationsperformedbyUEgC Engingering it has been concluded that, for dihedral angles between 90
- 105, there is an insignificant reduction in the effective throat and therefore they need not be considered in the analytical review.
Because of the large number of skewed joints with this potential defi-ciency, it has been concluded that the most accurate and effective means of determining the effective throat for the as welded joints would be to have engineering take the original weld size from the detail drawing and, using the know dihedral angle, compute what the reduction in the theoretical throat would be. This calculation n based on the assumption that the welded joints were installed per the detail drawing. Currently there is nothing to indicate that the joints were not installed in accor-dance with the detail drawings. Utilizing this reduced throat size and the load data, UE&C engineering will perform their analytical review.
This review should be completed by June 1982.
For those instances where the analysis indicates that the weld would not support the design load, a reinspection of the joint will made to determine the actual weld size.
The weld size will be reported to UE&C Engineering for comparison with what was called for in the detail drawing. The reason for this reinspection of those joints where the load could not be supported
is that, for the weld sizes called out on the detailed drawings, there is a plus 1/8" tolerance for the weld size (no minus tolerance).
In some cases the joint could have been welded oversized by this 1/8" thus increas-ing the effective throat size making the weld acceptable upon reanalysis.
For the cases were the weld size was in accordance with the detail drawings and the analysis indicates it will not carry the required load, the joint will be repaired / reworked to bring it into acceptable limits. The appli-cable contractors will be notified of the required repairs by way of PCPs initiated by UE8C Engineering. Further, UE&C Engineering will maintain a status log for all skewed welds i.e., those already installed.
This repair / rework program will be administered by Bechtel QC.
It is anticipat-ed that this program will be completed by July 1982.
..