ML20069G509
| ML20069G509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1983 |
| From: | Leddick R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| GO3-83-231, NUDOCS 8303280001 | |
| Download: ML20069G509 (1) | |
Text
.
Washington Public Power Supply System Box 1223 Elma, Washington 98541 (206)482-4428 Docket No. 50-508 March 17,1983 G03-83-231 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Subject:
POTENTIAL 10CFR50.55(e) DEFICIENCY STRUCTURAL WELDS - FAILURE TO MEET AWS MINIMUM WELD SIZE REQUIREMENTS (D/N #47)
Attached is a copy of the final report provided to Region V concerning a potential 10CFR50.55(e) deficiency associated with the subject con-dition.
Should you have any questions or desire further information, please contact me directly.
/e Leddick (760)
Program Director, WNP-3 DRC:nj Attachment cc:
J. Adams - NESCO, wo/a D. Smithpeter - BPA, wo/a Ebasco - New York, wo/a WNP-3 Files - Richland, wo/a Records Center - INP0, w/a 5 677 888!!88R'a888Sg S
Washington Public Power Supply System Box 1223 Elan, Washington 98541 (206)482-4428 Docket No. 50-508 March 14,1983 G03-83-203
. c
.v U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 260 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 Attention:
Mr. D. M. Sternberg, Chief Reactor Projects Branch No i
Subject:
POTENTIAL 10CFR50.55(e) DEFICIENCY STRUCTURAL WELDS - FAILURE TO MEET AWS MINIMUM WELD SIZE REQUIREMENTS (D/N #47)
On November 24, 1982 the Supply System notified your office of a potential 10CFR50.55(e) deficiency concerning the subject condition.
Attached is a Supply System approved final report that provides a description of the problem, corrective actions taken and analysis of the safety implications.
Based on the satisfactory completion of qualification testing, the subject condition is not reportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e).
Should you have any questions or desire further information, please contacc me directly.
(
R. S. Leddick (760)
Program Director, WNP-3 DRC:nj Attachments cc:
J. Adams - NESCO D. Smithpeter - BPA Ebasco - New York WNP-3 Files - Richland M 1 2 - O l $' O,_
Y Atte:hrent to:
Letter, G03-03-203, dcted lSrch 14, 19S3 LASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 (DOCKET NO. 50-508)
POTENTIAL 10CFR50.55(e) DEFICIENCY FINAL REPnRT 4
STRUCTURALNELDS-FAILURETOMEETAWS MINIMUM UELD SIZE REQUIREMENTS (D/N #47)
Description of Deficiency J. A. Jones (installation contractor) welded fifty (50) clip-to-embed connections in accordance with.four (4) CB&I drawings that specified a 1/4" fillet weld.
CB&I subsequently issued revisions to each of the drawings revising the weld size to 5/16".
It should be noted that this change was made to comply with the requirements of AWS Dl.1, Table 2.7, and was not made because of weld size relative to load considerations.
In addition to the undersized weld problem discussed above, J. A. Jones employed mult + jass welding to 11" thick embed plates, contrary to the requirements of AWS Dl.1, Table 2.7.
This situation affected nine (9) additional' connections.
Note:
The provisions of Table 2.7 of AWS Dl.1 are intended to ensure sufficient heat input to reduce the possibility of cracking in either the heat-affected zone or weld metal.
Corrective Acticas Taken The problem was specifically identified with the 265 Contract (J. A. Jones).
However, due to the nature of the problem (i.e., detailer and contractor unfamiliarity with the requiremen'.; of AWS Dl.1, Table 2.7), the potential existed that other site contractors may hav'e encountered similar situations.
Since it would have been impractical to inspect every small fillet weld on site to assure that the requirements of Table 2.7 had been met, it was decided to proceed with corrective actions as if all contractors had experienced the problem.
Therefore, each contractor (except Contract 225)* was directed to qualify their fillet weld procedures in accordance with the requirements of Aus 01.1 and the following more severe restric-tions:
a)
The coupon plate thickness was 3/4" minimum.
b) The maximum temperature of the coupon immediately prior to welding was 50 F.
c) A single pass 3/16" fillet was deposited on one side of the coupon.
After cooling, a 3 pass 5/16" fillet was deposited on the opposite side or on another coupon.
- Contract 225 was not required to perform the qualification testing because they heat all joints to at least 100 F minimum.
0
. tech t.t.;;
Lciter, G03-83-203, dated March 14, 1983 iENTI AL lt.'FR50.55(e) DEFICIEf;CY
- NAL REPDF.!
JRUCTURAL UELDS - FAILURE TO MEET AWS
- UtilMUM UELD SIZE REQUIREMEriTS (D/fl #47)
Page 2 Corrective Actions Taken (Continued) wve d) The test coupon was restrained to prevent movement during welding.
e) The coupons were welded using the lowest amperage that would produce a visually acceptable weld.
The purpose of the above restrictions was to maximize the cooling rate and maximize restraint in order to provide a situation most likely to cause cracking.
To assure all field weld conditions were covered, the qualification testing also included a requirement for test coupons to be made for each electroce diameter and welding position used in production.
All of the specimens tested were acceptable per the acceptance criteria of AWS Dl.1, Section 5.
Of particular significance, was the fact that no cracks were found in the macro-etched samples.
Analysis of Safety Implications, Eased on each of the contractor's test results, it has been concluded that fillet. welding in accordance with the contractor's respective veelding procedures will not produce the cracking which the provisions Lf AWS Dl.1, Table 2.7, are intended to preclude.
Since qualification testing has been successfully performed, the welds meet the requirements of AUS Dl.l.
Accordingly, the undersized welds are not reportable per
-he criteria of 10CFRSO.55(e).
o