ML20090K425

Applicant Exhibit A-96,consisting of Testimony of WE Rogers, Lr Barnes,Lw Rudasill,Je Cavender,Aw Roy & Dh Llewellyn Concerning in Camera Witness 2 Allegations Re Welding Matl

ML20090K425
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/15/1983
From:	Barnes L, Cavender J, Llewellyn D, Rogers W, Roy A, Rudasill L DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
A-096, A-96, NUDOCS 8405240201
Download: ML20090K425 (9)

Text

'

• Exhibit.96Tb.

}&~ ~~

g y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Np k iI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO g 4, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI BO"AS'Di '

1; qv^

In the Matter of )

) '< ' l---

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

-) 50-414

)

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF W. E. ROGERS, L. R. BARNES, L. W. RUDASILL, J. E. CAVENDER, A. W. ROY AND D. H. LLEWELLYN CONCERNING IN CAMERA WITNESS #2's ALLEGATIONS REGARDING WELDING MATERIAL 1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAMES, BUSINESS ADDRESSES, AND 2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.

3 A. Mr. Rogers: My name is W. E. (Bill) Rogers. My business 4 address is Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C.

O 5 29710. My current position is welding Superintendent. I am 6 responsible for Welding at Catawba. My department consist of 7 approximately 550 employees. Prior assignments have included 8 Welding General Foreman, Welding Foreman, Welding Inspector, and 9 Welder with Duke Power. A copy of my professional qualifications 10 is attached to Applicants' testimony addressing In Camera Witness 11 #2's Allegations Concerning Foreman Override.

12 13 Mr. Barnes: My name is L. R. Barnes. My business address is 14 Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C. 29710.

15 My current position is Planning and Control Manager for 16 construction at the Catawba Nuclear Station. A copy of my 17 professional qualifications is attached to Applicants' (v\

G~

h 0

. r j 1

,q = 1 testimony addressing the Board's Question Concerning the U

2 Containment Spray System.

3 4 Mr. Rudasill: My name is Larry W. Rudasill. My business address 5 is Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C. 29710.

6 My current position is Welding Supervisor in Reactor Building #2.

7 In the past, I have held positions as a Welding Inspector, and 8 Welder for Duke at Catawba and McGuire Nuclear Station. A copy 9 of my professional qualifications is attached to Applicants' testimony 10 addressing In Camera Witness #2's Allegations Concerning Foreman 11 Override.

12 13 Mr. Cavender: My name is John E. Cavender. My business 14 address is P. O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N. C. 28242. I am a 15 Nondestructive Examination Examiner (NDE) Level III. My 16 responsibilities include qualification of NDE personnel, the ,

17 development and approval of NDE procedures, and the periodic 18 review of NDE records. A copy of my professional qualifications 19 is attached to Appliccats' testimony addressing the Board's 20 Question Concerning the Containment Spray System.

21 22 Mr. Roy: My name is Alfred W. Roy. My business address is 23 P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C. 28242. My current position is 24 Quality Assurance Supervisor. My responsibilities in this position 25 consists of supervising Quality Assurance Vendor Personnel in 26 Piping and Materials areas. This consists of performing surveys, O 27 audits and surveillance in vendor shops. A copy of my

9-

, I professional qualifications is attached to Applicants' testimony 2 addressing the Board's Question Concerning the Containment Spray 3 System.

4 5 Mr. Llewellyn: My name is D. H. Llewellyn. My business address 6 is Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C. 29710.

7 My present position is group leader of Construction Technical 8 Support - Welding. A copy of my professional qualifications is 9 attached to Applicants' testimony addressing In Camera Witness #2's 10 Allegations Concerning Foreman Override.

11 12 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH IN CAMERA WITNESS #2's ALLEGATIONS 13 THAT UNACCEPTABLE WELDS RESULTED FROM THE USE OF 14 DEFECTIVE 1/8" TIG AND 3/32" COATED ELECTRODE CARBON 15 STEEL WELDING MATERIAL?

16 A. Yes. We have reviewed his testimony regarding the allegations. In .

17 essence, he alleges that in 1981, the welders were forced to use '

18 unacceptable 1/8" TIG wire and at some other (unnamed) time, they 19 were forced to use unacceptable 3/32" coated electrodes.

20 21 Q. HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED THE ALLEGATION?

l 22 A. Yes. The investigation consisted of an analysis of relevant 23 documents including weld records, codes, ' standards and reports 24 regarding this issue and discussions with the welder general 25 foreman, welder foreman, technical support personnel, filler material 26 issue clerks and welders.

27 f]

l I

1 Q. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

.O- A.  :'

2 Based on our investigation, we have determined that in the only 3 instance where any concerns regarding TIG wire were raised by i

4 welders during the period of the witness' employment, the wire was 5 tested and found to be acceptable. The only instance where i

6 concerns were raised regarding 3/32" coated electrodes during the 7 witness' employment, the electrodes were tested and about 10% were 8 removed from service due to undesirable welder appeal, i.e. , some 9 coated electrodes had an unusual bulge of the flux and minor 10 chipping of the flux at the stnking end which caused concern 11 among some of the welders. While our tests and analyses of the ,

12 electrodes did not indicate any failure to comply with Code i

13 requiremente, the electrodes had unusual markings which caused 14 concern of the welders. In any event, regardless of the filler l

15 material used, rejectable defects on safety-related welds would have 16 been discovered in the inspection and nondestructive examination .

17 process and corrected. In sum, this concern raises no question of i

18 safety significance regarding construction of the plant. Factors 19 which support this determination include the following:

i 20 1. Filler material is procured by Duke through approved 21 vendors taking into consideration the quality of the 22 material, ' Duke's experience regarding the products and 23 the preference of welders using the products. In some 24 cases, this. has resulted in purchasing filler material from 25 other than low bidders. Of course, a documented 26 justification for any additional cost is provided in each

{ 27 instance. DHL, WER.

l L

1 8

1 2. Vendors supplying filler material undergo strict vendor 2 audits and surveillance to assure filler materials are 3 fabricated to meet Code requirements. In addition ,

4 procurement documents require the vendor to meet all 5 applicable requirements of ASME B&PVC Sections II 6 and III. Notarized statements and test reports are 7 required of the manufacturer to verify that standards 8 prescribed for these materials by the ASME are met.

9 Further, periodic vendor audits by Duke as well as other 10 utilities provide further assurance that such requirements 11 are met. AWR, DHL, LRB.

12 13 Since 1977, all 3/32" E7018 coated electrodes (of the

{ Q 14 nature raised by the witness) have been purchased from 15 Alloy Rods Division of Chemetron. TIG wire (of the 16 nature raised by the witness) has been purchased from -

17 Page Corp. , Linde Corp. or Arcos Corp. In the past 18 five years, approximately 6-8 audits and surveillances 19 of each of these companies have been conducted, and in 20 no case has any significant deficiency been discovered.

21 AWB , DHL.

22 23 3. When filler material is delivered to the site it is inspected 24 in accordance with QA Procedure P-1 to assure 25 requirements specified in the procurement specification 26 regarding documentation, packaging, etc. 'are met.

.O 27 no.ever, to prevent meisture contamination, packages

-5 '

I containing filler material are not opened during this 2 inspection. Any discrepancies identified in the inspection 3 must be dispositioned prior to entering this material on 4 the RWML (released welding material log). Once material

-5 is on the RWML it can be released, as needed, to the rod 6 issue stations in accordance with CP-410. Once in the

. 7 rod issue stations it is controlled, issued, and 8 reconditioned * (* Coated electrodes only) in accordance 9 with QA Procedure H-3 and CP 39. At the issue station 10 the filler material is appropriately dispositioned. For 11 example, the coated electrode packages are opened and 12 the material is checked by the issue clerk as it is being 13 put into the holding ovens. The issue clerk is 14 knowledgeable regarding filler materials and provides an 15 extra craftsman check of this material. WER, DHL, LRB.

16 .

1 17 As the welder is issued filler material he has standing 18 instructions to check his filler material to assure it 19 conforms to good craftsmanship standards. Duke 20 considers the check . by the craftsman welder to be an l

21 extra check in assuring quality work. Further, all 22 welders have been instructed to follow procedures which 23 require that, among other things, 'any filler material

.24 found to be damaged .or having chipped or cracked flux 25 ,should not be used, but . placed in proper discard I

26 containers at the rod issue station. WER, DHL, LWR.

O' l

l

4 1

n V

1- Finally, welders are required to weld in accordance with 2 approved procedures and are thoroughly trained with 3 regard to their work. In addition, detailed QA/QC 4 inspections and examinations by skilled and trained 5 personnel are conducted on all safety-related welding to 8 further provide assurance of good welding practice.

7 WER, JCS, JEC.

8 9 In short, the life cycle of filler material, from 10 manufacturing to issuance in the plant to use on welds, 11 is carefully controlled in accordance with the approved 12 procedures, and is subject to rigorous QA inspections and 13 periodic QA audits and surveillance. DHL, WER, LWR.

'4 O

15 4. Occasionally, welders express concerns regarding filler 16 materials. These are usually related to ease of operation .

17 and surface appearance of the material (flux or 18 electrode) . Some complaints usually accompany any

. 19 change of manufacturer of such materials (i.e. , as the 5

20 fluxing elements differ slightly, the electrode welds

! 21 slightly different). If these complaints persist and/or are 22 severe, welding and technical support personnel evaluate i 23 the material for suitability even though it meets all Code 24 requirements. Generally, familiarity with the material by i_ 25 the welders alleviates complaints. WER, DHL, LWR.

l.

26 O

~'

1 5. As to the witness' allegation regarding TIG wire, his v 2 foreman remembers the witness asking him whether an 3 . unusual line running lengthwise in places on some TIG 4 wire was cause for concern. The foreman directed his 5 crew members to stop using the material until he could 6 investigate. He reportec' the question to his general 7 foreman who directed him to remove from use all wire with i 8 this line until the material could be evaluated. LWR, 9 WER.

10 11 The welding superintendent, welder general foreman, and 12 technical support personnel visually examined cross 13 sections of the material under magnification and 14 determined that the line apparently resulted from minor 15 scoring during the manufacturing process. Several pads 16 of weld metal were deposited using this material, both ,

17 single and multiple layers, with no welding difficulty; and 18 the weld pads were nondestructively examined using the 19 liquid penetrant method. No indications of porosity 20 were detected. Welders were informed that from this 21 ~ testing it had been determined that the line was not 22 . detrimental to the material. WER, DHL, LWR.

23 24 6. As to the witness' allegations regarding 3/32" coated 1

25 electrodes, the only concerns regarding such material 26 were raised in March,1983, when some welders and the Q 27 issue clerks reported irregularities 'in the flux of some i

,,aa . - , . . - . . , . , . . . . - -- , , . - ...

c_ 1 Alloy Rods E7018 coated electrodes. Subsequent tests

( .

2 and analysis gave no indication that the electrodes would 3 not meet all Code requirements. However, some 4 electrodes had an unusual bulge of flux which caused 5 concern among some of the vielders. In addition, there 6 was minor chipping of the flux on the striking ends of 7 some electrodes. In view of these irregularities, all of 8 the electrodes were visually examined and those which 9 exhibited such irregularities were removed from service 10 (approximately 10%). The manufacturer was informed of 11 the situation. WER, DHL.

12 13 7. If flux irregularities from use of these electrodes had

! 14 resulted in porosity in weld joints, this porosity would i

15 have been detected and repaired through the inspection 16 and nondestructive examination processes required for the ,

17 welds . JEC, WER, DHL.

18 19 8. Neither welding foremen or welders who we talked to 20 could remember any other instances of irregularities in 1 21 1/8" TIG wire or 3/32" E7018 coated electrodes. In 22 addition, none could recall any time when they were 23 forced to use unacceptable weld filler material. WER, 24 LWR, DHL.

i o 4 a - T-O g 4

O, 1

]

i

? I/ ^

u 0

,i

/

,/

/// /

/l  ! g,/ h / .

l5 f!/ ,/ /

!,// / /g%

1

/ / / / / Q

.c s /

f.e;e/,,',// .  : /. /.-Q i i 4 c <r: 9

<-l

~

. j

-3 L 79

[f' ni:'

O

- - - -- . ... -- -