ML20133C426
| ML20133C426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1983 |
| From: | Kirkland R DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B649 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8507200493 | |
| Download: ML20133C426 (30) | |
Text
, .
- rrlicants' Ev"ib't UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF RONALD KIRKLAND 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.
2 A. Ronald Kirkland, Catawba Nuclear Station QA, P.O. Box 223, 3 Clover, SC 29710.
4' Q. WHAT- IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?
5 A. I am a Level II Welding Inspector, certified in PT and MT NDE 6 Inspection in Units 1 and 2 Interior and Exterior doghouses, and in 7 all other aspects of the plant.
8 Q. SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 9 OTHER DUKE AND NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION, 10 CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND 11 TRAINING.
12 A. I am a graduate of East Gaston High School, and I have 4 months 13 welding _ experience with Gaston County Dye. I was a utility man 14 for Duke Power at Catawba for 2 months in 1976, and 2 years 15 welding experience for Duke Power at Catawba during 1977-1978. I 16 have been in Welding Inspection for Duke Power for 5 years at 17 Catawba, with approximately 6 months experience in Level II PT &
18 MT Inspection.
I 1
]
B507200493 850524 i PDR FOIA ~~ l BELLB4-722 PDR ~
~
' ~ ,
1 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COFDIONLY REFERRED TO AS 2 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 3 LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS 6 WERE?
7 'A. (1) Some inspectors expressed their concerns on the lack of 8 support from management.
9 (2) Some inspectors filed a recourse on our pay percentage cut.
10 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 11 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?
,. 14 A. I expressed my concerns to the Nontechnical Task Force, Gail 15 Addis, Neal Alexander and R. A. Morgan.
16 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION 19 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.
20 A. (1) Wrote a recourse letter on our pay percentage cut to R. A.
21 Morgan, J. R. Wells, Gail Addis, Bill Lee.
22 (2) Wrote a recourse letter to R. A. Morgan because of the lack of 23 support I experienced while working on the 2nd shift. I 24 Q. DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?
25 A. Yes.
. m
.;.~
f;
, 1 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?
E s 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. DOES THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS 4 ATTACHMENT A REFLECT YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?
5 A. Yes, I have attached as Attachment A the letter I wrote to R. A 6 Morgan regarding the lack of support I experienced as I stated 7 earlier.
8 Q. ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 11 COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.
12 A. I explained the lack of support I experienced while working on the 13 2nd shift. When work was stopped because of a problem, we did
- 14. not have technical support on the shift to resolve all the problems 15 at that time. So we had to wait until the morning shift came on to 16 resolve the problem.
17 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 20 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS ,
21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?
22 A. (1) I attended a meeting with George Grier where he had called in 23 all of the welding inspectors to show us all of the people that 24 were involved in taking care of all of our concerns, and the 25 process for resolving those concerns.
I (2) Then, I met with Neal Alexander to discuss =v .
specific l\ 2 concerns. I cannot remember the details of the meeting.
3 Q. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 4 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 5 INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA 8- PROGRAM.
9 A. While I cannot recall all of the changes, two come to mind. These 10 are (1) we now have an Employee Relations Person and (2) we now 11 have a task force to go over procedures. As for my concern on 12 technical support for the 2nd shift, I have not been back on that 13 shift since that time so I do not know if this has been completely 14 resolved.
15 Q. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES 16 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND TO WHAT 17 EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED YOUR PARTICULAR 18 CONCERNS?
19 A. As I already stated, I don't know if my specific concern has been 20 addressed because I have not been back on the 2nd shift.
21 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 22 RESOLVED?
23 A. No.
24 Q. THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN 25 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 26 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWB A. DO YOU AGREE OR 27 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?
c.
1 A. I disagree because my concerns had nothing to do with the quality 2 or the safe operating of the plant. I feel that the quality of work 3 and the safety of construction is above board.
4 Q. DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR 5 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 6 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 7 WORKING?
8 A. No. However, I felt that there was a problem with rapid 9 communications and solving problems on the 2nd shift because we 10 didn't have the technical support like they had on the 1st shift..
11 Q. DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 12 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?
13 A. No.
7 14 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 15 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 18 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 19 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?
20 A. No.
21 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR 22 TESTIMONY?
l l
c -
r .
~
s 1 A. I believe that Catawba has been built safelv . I believe that the 2 quality of work on the job, as far as the welding part, is s'econd to 3 none. I believe, and I am confident, that the plant can operate 4 safely without any danger to the public.
5 6
. \
7 8 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 9 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.
10
,s/ M J 13 Ronald Kirkland ,
14 15 16 Sworn to and subscribed before me
.{. 17 this A ui_ day of September,1983. ,
18 19 ' '
20 fa'. J , k), 0 h e_h -
21 'T Notary Publib -
22 23 Commission Expires /pim/ 7, /19 3 B
N -
. .\
5 va!! !! a
- = ? f j
_gt k @
s .
6 s
7 p er
$ s t :j p
wWa y2 H u
i _
3J i s p au n og! i s .~. '
I c g -
13 3 <
d a E s enis2 s 4 0 a s .. 4 S gi. ! Ii U 51 t p y! s b3 1
n li i sqil; s "
=2 b s d63 t a al g .
=
g
=
nd S . ip 8 -
%y s1h a^ (*j j I'
w ej g 8*
. 3 3
. : a g 5 9
" hl N $
U
$ 2 a
- P @d b'l N
h j
p d
'. Q ! e ; P 1
s iLp 3 6
- f i G g2
,s5j. 5 g i h.p)!J u "2 1 4 s l g f1 M
'E Q,pg 3 y 3 W e r g od) !. .
i u d
M o i t]
kpm l Uj *ip i s E 3a y
a is l
lj; i b i y! t 53 '} l p W 4 : sm e,i q l ao!q A i
" d '- 4)9'\ [
3 N j a,
j,"
w p
pI e
-t p e
f l !
1 m i y ii 4 5! A f Nj $I x!.feil! e
} l IR$i1 : 3 l l tmg' E
--a dd [
\ ~
test u as ma am musaismo +--J
~
., p
- t ,
o - en - - - s - -
y i J e > I M it 3 j s (- : e 8
>- =
s e n
+ _. . . . ..
4 4 E 1 4 - l* >- b $ 1 3j' l~. !
= -Oq -
' 3 g ,z-o_ j% 2. sa o s e a u D '
s j d 3 0 a g ,_ . a , g , 5 N u Ik,Ol 3 3 $4 h *
~~ .
k (j l E E I ifEz 5 % < 2 *
}$
- 7. '
3 0 '2 30 6 3 $ ) j D k
,0 $ m 4
j g , y'oZ io .< c. ,. 7 { g,_ s i E g ll q g (c 1 4 4
. l c m
] 5 5
o O . 6 % o h fj > 5 0 :5 l j ns .y' 8
\
4 ! 1 l js s lj H U h =4 g' W! EJ 3
<- Q ( l ' '- s 1
k
- w
,):
5 j N E ' %$ ' iE l E*
$'&a . } *!N 3
- s d 4 f.lUbf T 3 ) g a j
1 o 4 .b
- W "! 4 ldi i
! l 3 1 -
l " s 4 h 1 1 i 'iig e ] 6
=
1%
~1
~
6 I l
*E h l N E
{1 rt t i i5 ! il ! 4 Ji '1 !4 8( 8i l p*
= ; 8 l 2 Ie j i' aN 33 $ } A gyg3ygg NOf1'JV NOf13311H7 AN3W3 LVIS WilO f
d
' A -
i b Attachment (1) to NCI 9092 Surface defects are judged not to be significant based on engineering
- Judgement gained by prior experience in containment vessel and pressure vessel design. ,
Site QA and QA Vendor surveillance shall address and evalu.ste why defects , were not discovered during shop inspection and receiving inspection.
.:;uirs to be done in accordance with Section III, Subsection NE, of the A5ME Code.
bE./el4.d.-.E-WAl R..E Y w h o C-W-9/ 4
/-- 9
~
C Attachment (2) to NCl 9092 Response to Attachment (1) to NCl 9092
- Vendors supplying safety-related materials or components have an approved QA Program. This program includes QC and inspection that we are confident is satisfactory. Duke Power QA performs surveillance on their program to maintain a good confidence level. The surveillance does not include 100%
inspection of the material or component. Minor or extremely smell irregu-larities can go unnoticed depending on inspection or N0E requirements. I Shipping damages and normal oxidation are factors to consider in reviewing the containment plate. /W/ ( g/gy, AU8.f, f f/ jf pff Aec4i*f
. & V-/.-?/
m
- u-3 desaises we eeeueet N/^14 nospecTed ree ODOTh@1&g Pu w. W A
dmf MdE !. 'FM I 0" Mauenom Cop A b9 d **g aocirtoo e f x g' ' p... iosTuotT'ad h / htM - _a en c, a kT Shkd s w ; .a 6& cearc e McM av ' og goG a A W lCoJT MlteQJauh. h a. -- -- - -_
3 ,
.~
.- .- l .,
Attachment (3) to NCI 9092 . This attachment provides additional guidance to the resolution of original NCI dated 7-28-81. Surface defects have already been judged not to be significant based og engineering judgement (see attachment (1)). This attachment provides additional criteria for the surface preparation and inspection of pitting and surface roughness less than or ( - has beesp *ahW hLry plg1lgf1 to // 1/8 inch in depth. [//[Il The containment dome plate -M!! 5: sand blasted to a "wh te metal surface" in accordance with Surface Preparation Procedure DPSPS-I. This process w444 Ass
/~rre # remove all surface foreign debris, scaling, rusting, etc. to sound metal . f W_ ASTM A20, paragraph 9.2.1.,1. require's_alj rfectiont to ha reen6 h,es..fr/pr Dh/0/t/
Jound metal and to be weD faired.' Proce re i SP-55 shall be used as a
' 9ulde to detsiMEEwell ralred conditions. TypeA TypeJ4 and Type,gli, 7E ////////
aces. photographs shall be used for representative acceptable sur s All pits greater than 1/8 inch in depth shall be weld repaired in accordance
" with ASTM A20 paragraph 9.4.
t By: StYhk
/th6/ fMB #/s& l Technical A groval:
bS. N //ff/2} QA Approval: Y$ // 7-d/
- C e in Nh! @ '$ U Q !
is 9M MK to D* ( T4 h i*Dgl 'b4h s is
.oa. a ex4: g9d w vs b.3(i y p.4gt1 u .x a 20 9 eg*h n ' .x 912 T\ $y ]%
ld t} l % h ' Q
~
$) \
'k
.d s t a'sid . (i.:q I g4 ) 4 44 2
( 3g \ N y '> as y ' N b, '-
\\ g Y k & #
NIk. );l'<d $M. a e m$)h:!1l! = = = ~
= = = = .
.b. ...A n4 J ....; a . - - .Ja *'- . .
ma $
- L. ...
~ . -.
- M '
O~ *. i = . J. N "M= $
+9:r% :
I
7-szas,eua,ik1apfe/yh6
. i.gs & 4 u / 3.
-W /a,ssper.af.KJ<skydead delef, tg a n-A ,sau w r l.i
.MA dit;dethoA cetatt/8 god h/pf A gars /f M d.
fedmsea/,ss sua<4*at/ t ad/ inl l .Jr ewA4 dp %yA /rlesandA AJAd <sof Ar
./ u g w s d z X d d a m
. .,/wedsae ass yes w,dssdd gd1 oci
- . suAs st< f4cd aaf/E< ad' sw.
; .,sua<d.seyAc</s2lds;#h' e </arwjdb 24 xat/M/l euduk s/Isa A/ArAr</4A a
~ : lGwAis gf &/Q sp/aasa saA p i s/ps- saadwse,4sa (ns) ada ?
p e. 4 / ? b - s / d , 4 t s o & L ,7-3/- T o - /2 E l
.Affa/At/N l D'14/#pbW/4cf /AV,/batt$ f 4C
. ra a/ Awns A ,A#sn- ?
i/ A d / A b8L
../etuy,/A,4/,w]$ 44fidh h haaf tstA skhadu&n /w esz cs 1:
Y ' Wyrz , dita woe af s/a&dw,surd 14(lss/srew
.w ad/4fVaak/ , @ r. .smD4i
..-y*/. A / A N a ,. y r ^y _
e o e M A '
$ (q "
I m y .s gin y , a t s Q s .l'8 tM x N ta9 .
! ~
N Y( s M 2 t 'k \ evi y"t
\ .
- . y, g, g. g , n, N WM h t'1 '
a q' pei
= 9__ _
ll i (
.. . .. .. , ;d. . . i,
. .. r.- -.-
; i s .m m ., mm .-
- cu t c:. n cc=u.t i
&q.j.:$( _
..R. '
%f srAnc rax-:r ce= n u; ; i d t. C 3. C 3. -
/// //h*;.
ElE"llCetRl$:.lf'3 iTE.3 REPOET. a- cam i c- m t g* i %::< A ' Cucsud. [ ir~ En.4.";t E ' ' PolfeT PEN 0 ilYJ t- --
- # - Q ==o==r %
8-= ==- C m e n-w-m 5, m1 m / 3. 64.1.. 5, g .w ses, , p, emA r,4// w A;c a,w w e W a n A. 9- y ws1, w// O A sse A A - 7 1/ ws sets' =in'PM e 2/a/ /2M.ld' M /AfESd-G A M /Afel#/26'l N M /i.' i e
+jm^-1A l'
/ F 4 AP'AbdW sf3 A W "N/WA'W) J'+'A v
h.
)
I e of in . , b ' cca o === s-r === D M n w. cw e o- e a-- r Q w
/ANno cear.== g eJ' g!;2 / ff O@-
a .- T-N Dsm
==.
0*y&N
,a ns 8 m-81 ,
n m. da p== sn.s t 4g p.m teen acmuen.m - a v. W me A i rest)en to n/sc
+ -
*I171.is ve/A La4 fr.e s on o e r awJ.od
? 4nd IudaT-4 mee+ 1%e yeaalrewc,rk & N84f/Z We9 Kid f a n. Malscc+ we fd ed;+en.' 6 ocMr. Hen . +he redim reoI, s -
a s w s*-e w ~to/uaf*2 a s, d i u dn.-d o ee eWzrf1/5 hu 7%4 E.o w l /77
< vrs ha, m M e Redtea> n Av N 'th= cme s nerrf.ikt ewe Jeu
$ wo+M% iTh m 4v-* %M L e id au o efs ( // . com r ew ~ M- an/
r g - e La // n . m > n o Furre in sknees o+ we il n,4 Frier surke es y g the ws/d has A+,- c>cm ts, d ':- 2, . tw e eee r m n ee rss >h/e w h o ,s
- g
*' nud ce/ n kd hu rod rm n6 s k a so.e not r-e M eed k he ': ',
3 m aa,',s u a,s ,/- ' de r/e f/O h sse r+oE(. i - 3 rn sr / . .
'h AJ/ W ~ -
f 2.) See AT1%ck<.meM W_Z v t en-ap2 - meme c.a. C You 2 a - / n ' YY f n s b d i h tl W h ]// ( [17hh/l Y ' 2 W$ b 70
#t ~=== nyth asceMa : " g".* L 3: % cium . '
>=r-i
.g . . . . . _. .
. e- 3 . . . . , ~ ..
, .- t t-L.
$ - t
.g. g j .
; e .s...
-. l L e. -
g 1, . . y .- . . s i s ...g;. g a .a t 1
- --l y ._
- e. ,.
, g -r j -
j' . j a == a e, - . y
,.j iv-Z' *& -26 l&~~. %y .
%% s ,,,,,, ,, -
m-f .
.. .- r .
, 1,
@_ - ]
. l
- e," e
~, ! ro i . :1 m.
j ' f $ I 1 & b_ , ; __ _ W i W 4- C
- 8 Aa. s la i
( l l Of Case 1 pruar >~
- W P c. r o I e. p l <
'-Ieis- K 9 <- r
..- Tb,,e asen, . -Q.'_~ Y72,Q94 .d _j Phas & Reese (f ' MMM
.~ .
[. Lw n ts
. 6. U s i j r. -, c... . --
~-
J v. ... a .- -- : . . ,- . . . . v. . , .n
- CU12 i;im r.CO:.3tt.Y
.A N/ pp. n
. . .. ,.c. w. u _ _ . . . . . :- j. , , STATIOfi/FF.OJECT cawl./.
gj jgg UNIT I1, C 2. O 3 , a4 a.eu. ca. .e r .a u.iae. NONCONFORMING ITEM REPORT
- d.
- O Y od *T
, ota*
2 C=cir l USE BLACK 9ALL POINT PEN ONLY !
,o > ceaeenea # a.P,, -
@ g, 1.acstion of Itap sw. %
e::: : a1 m sr- <w /Q.517
& $ Deseprion of tt and Statement c' Protsam ts) A / M 1M /M t'A &Q D - /12 M i & A .
CL. g* 1 13 &SA Jht:; s'4
- 7
>Y latere M A > M id A=&s/ lt.J/ M / # / Arc SS-1 \
g g: e+ AaAM ask w arMJ mAA -sse AMs12 s w w o e sin x a e. m (5 Evoluetion/Disassition Responsihiii y t C Conur C Deseyv $ CA C Sesam C Grous p f Q g g g ose Tenna m a com
#on,dd asi.e F- M M Q ?_N..b s M oA a t--
lh_ Szc-Br s.t . Peter'tially delfortacle Under 10CF R21/50.55e C Yes C No if yes. das form 290.1 Dispo.rtion/Just ficanorr ' t I J w Scec/ Calc./Dwg Revised A. Selow
! PR.202 Amoei:aciee Design Cniv O Yes C Ni l
.. e r_ - - o-t t
CORRECTIVE ACTION / INSPECTION REQUIRED d f l b"[,**8 l Date f 9 farmtr a-tA .rne km Mimur AriwctraJ Sun ) m E N m 'n-3'-wI O Li LJM21 / Ad. Wd -7 I f l l I i ! l 1 i i i a i , i g i I 8 et i ! t 8 I i t i l l e, aY
.ai.
'd $b- f-:174) 0C ? ? J.3.gf8 tS t 4.t-,,.o t,o. E soon, o, n- / r -
,,,,,,,,,, .. w e. ..u_. ..s i.e ._ , r.... .m i ,,,,
.._ - . . _ _ m .. w,, ,,,,
3.. !- Nummer sewtial I EI l i A I I t t 4 L i ; Of Coones pw i Z, ! . g l t f g \. J , t e s 4 l 1 Treas m . l fynes QAjme.ww"' " E---^' '" -
- _ _____ -__ - _ ._ - ___. - _ _ _ _Wo . O
.? cc 3 ~
o - - ' Attachment l ' NelR #12549 e , Page 1 of 1
'J .
The radiographs of this weld were reevaluated and the Internal surface was also investigated visually. Based on the reevaluation, this weld-is judged to be acceptable to the requirements of the code.
- I e
@fa7 Wu .
I y , 5 6
-e
h~ .,<
~' '
Attachment A
. S e e
W. 7/ \ 2d y-A %as ur.r,enn d.e A faM e k n f.2d
- J, . %
..is s Acxdd f a W L /u s As
3~C
.:. ? JtKe ".o2d. & $t .
2AOn = = MF add' ao ~ V. 2fL .skA e.,m "&2&/-4 ~d sadAA, .d.A.Aa .akW 3d L-se Eusz.
=st-n A s b ad 4A #f.aA
~ st-q.la s
. y.4,JA& da . .L n '", La aA-f y lt
..6$44" "o 4" A " -
L ' w a A A -. %- &s cass, d . 2- %> A pa 4A~ J-m4 (r
- h-and45ae'$ c,2d. oh 8 A>>
. s-
~
M -
'i a aa ger W ; " $ ...
qm w& y" , l' ocr fac L2tr
~
1 3 a4 gmW,ss
.bg
/ "d
.ll>
..k$g e , d..x "A Y
* $.g.c c. AJ46 Tjffe Y , ,A! s:
.m$
j
'k, '
. $W
~
E A a. n.tJK s.,- ~ n y ll '
]o .2 . M~ Fm .
/
')
~ ' '
}
id ; - k, )
.gg q
.I M -
,s-'- a. - .; -
l .
.. Attachment A l . .
i I . .
~.
' 8a r/
/- 22-C
- a. o@a $n
.s.t.u niid l
- /Ni$hj h $-( As sr>l / .
m
- 7 . ..~.
.. .:<: ~ c-,A/ 2A !
- . i =y. -
TLT '}$rs e L w l Q.{ @ DA2d...;h &M yHA
~ '..flhEOf ' Ya~ , l r - .. -
* ' ~ ~
,. . l g j *
i',Az;:Vdo
. .:< f a 6 a # 1 !
.= M ##.4 4/ ' ' *_
~ '
& Q,. C A A,. M
.[ CSA/.. "/Ac. && '8 4/c2 /R f 31 -
. w s_ _ A_-_,
y
M CT)4.,d,.
5 La.2d 'cf-cdi-M Of 6! (' .
%}LY!j.
-Qi";c.n.o
$_j{p&.'&>.' s< ~ ' N de<r. /
~
. :: ....:.ilf xnf
..?,h..3. . .. -
d -c;
~ ~"
.&_~6 >
. ' fr j_ u p
.1AKarts222x i.1 - :L d-c A 41,eb.
.. . ..' . ar.. .,l't,d,4 CA *k Oyt S* $ $
- ' Na .-
~< , a asul
&42.Y g Yag b i
$k.
~
p .s l . A. +
~
-a '
a 6. #c2 l . . '. 2 Blea.x f. M . Lg,ry ir.a,
- .edq5:7395g.7. .:v ..
i l
. w. .s,
- y..,...-0.*
. '*-- c . . , ;-4:
.W h -
-. a ,-
,"y, t, , v, i
f,.,..,.'!,,
,, q p s-*! y-- {
. :. ~.. ':
. .. . ;* 'lo.g."-- y ?;; .- ~ , , ' v. :.- .-:; *. 3.w y,,A.* f-::. * ,
.m .'.. .,... ,,y;.- G -- ,-,.,. * - -
. .,_. *t 7* ; .
.. . .4 ...
....a... .. . . . -
.. 4 j ,. .. . . . ,
.e
\ .
. : tl 4
4
- i. .
Attachment A l f.. i
' l
( 93 rr dbd ArcT i ns P.2 2 Ma \
!&' LJg& n%& . add \
. . .. L *. sve-j n- P . - .w raode/ ?
Za.a. + h 4 01'
&s
?
.'l A j ,s. . ,.
%A
.& - a,1 -__ .ao.A A nnm
. :;p.- - ,--
,.w3 g g_
= .w -
~
~sud4 -lu An $ _Ga gbcd_4.
M A '! l
.?
1,; . 'Ma% ggg af.c
'a.e W ., f 4 d ga.<
i
~ l 4'; :A M .aaer l
n. 4 Jog. : t 3
*nnard C e $.;. %w,,wh. a&g ~-#' o$$L mW
~B.1% pA<d
.XMM
; ^'3 g.y g.p % 6'/ -
L .g - ' -
.;;. tai L;f a&Ld
';; %pg)s.s a & s .a % .
-w .m . ,, . . :. :. .
$ h- [,./R:
AO .,4fAtEQ h
. . :ll'.i 'Wk'.fiefaax./, d-c ' 2?r
. .;;> kn%K' aa ud"22a
;:. ? M.W0..i ~. is-1. .. -;. .
... 2. d. . .. . :. .
~ er
~
. .d,y .;
~
g4.g
. .g.a ja
. - l';LMiJ2 -
.L,. '
~.. h cde y ks; & ><
'*.) W a.a.o 9Wr.
Mla.sim 1;
. ~ , i.a - a A , 1
- -hhA M C' N A f w- ~i . .a .... -
( . Attachment A
./ . .
. ?
C - -
- z. .
au *
^
.ad4 nah/ ',
~
- r. ~ d& A caaz6 A . !
M 6 3- J%4 .36g4 }A--
..g..
M4 . . 4.. g
.-__D k g' 'p .
Oo
.l n i an,
+ .
mlJm'~ ' , b .ba ( abc/
,l @Na' 2
.e.
r . 9 6 f
.g* . .. .
t
- c. -. *
- " , ...: .- +
'g'a e e
,e . , ip "." s
, , . , f h
t
, . . - .. ' .Q* ..... .*J'..
*1l o . . = N W ' .Jg'..
- -%.,.a . . ..
.a.J L .. ,, , .%..,
r 5 I'*. ' [1,, * . .;*% . -v.w .,C..h' .. , e* ...*f. *5 ;."-...,
...d.,., ..
C
, .~
s .. . ;
.1 .. . - , . ...-M.. r .-
.. . ,l . . ; . ;. . ... *
- n. r. .. a . . 9. ....-
s..
. .! '. C, ..
. ' .. n.. :.%, . . .. !; '. . Q. . .:.
.w .. .
e
* + ... . . . . .. .9.,.-; .
; ,,. .c . *.. . . . . s
" Y. . ..% .. ,
1 . . ..?-.
..a.;,- =
- r ..., ..',.0. . . Q ..' ; ..
... . . s... r .w ..
;..L -
..s. ..
. q ,, . . ., , , ~ . . . . .... ..s.-.
. ~ . . .
9 .; l
? .
. ...,.2.. . . . . . .
#= be m. . .==- 'a * .- f
. J.i e.-. . ... y, 4, * ,
t, . ., ;.*
.?
i
.. . .e. .......4 <=.-
. ......a s . :.
,. 2.
.........a,,-6..v.t.
9}.
.s r.
.s. . . . . ..w.. \..
s c.- < . . ,
.c. Q,.:r=,'n.
m
- it .. .. ... ..-.
H, w.. ,.QJA...
*',,.e..*.'6.o
,f.
s. s % .. .4 . .".. . - .;*. i
;*& '. .'.*W
.', a;,.,7 ..
.y t 4. ,.., c4*.. s 1 [*.. .'&"i.is
- ... .. . . . .:. . .-J.'. . @*C a.- .. - .
~
-1; , .. 7.
- . ' , . ~ f.r.-U. 6 .,.,.f & ' .'::y'...',;*,::
........q.....,;,.
. 1.* .* '* '[ ., . .~ ~ ..
.JL 4. . , y?.Ty%.;;. .. *
. ;. ... .. . p..:.~' p . ..-.. G. J, .
'?: ? . .n . ". . .,,.;.. . v. . . ;; .
. . V.' .. .
. . . : r..#3 . r .. r..A. . .s.... . .r .,. ,. . .y .; .. r. . ~ . . . . ..
<f '.a;x g c. ? a..a fp .. .
. . y,)l
'-- ;. -: -:;e'3. ...m..
- : ~+.m ,. - ..,:.:.
,L' .
- y 4..f
. - . . .; . Q,. .
. - - - - .~
...g.. .s - y .. -. . . . . . :.~ .
yt, . .
~ - .. . ..
~.. ,
s r 7 . 4.. .b .
...l c . 2, ;.:,: m...-= - ....; ;.
. . ,.u.~... ..
.a
.. ...v.......:-.f.
yl. - . -s e., 4... , l
. . a.
, . ~
N . i
.I :- . .
.a
.I - .
...... s..:. 3 . . . .. ' . >~ . .. .4.. . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . , ..
,J s
g') zy/d;,i %,-),t.L
~
is/h/v WTCL W7?f .s 77.. , ,,,,.
"' W d' V ~ 't
= ~
'T H 7'
,,7 , , 77 y s ,: .ya ,. p .., ,p y .~ y --
9a y.,y . . y , ,, x .
,- - y..,
- -: -y 7~ y~yty 7.x 77' H:~ tz * ~ s-1 7 ooi.7 % .y y -. . . : - ~ , -,~.,, y , 7 77 -
., y: y y7- ~ -3 .
- y ~y , p:- .
)
y .. , y . yy y, .- . y~ ~ y: > f.~ y 7 .~7~.p~ j~- y -- '~ p - -:- y -' ~y ' ~ y tr gy .y~ 7 7 y~ y '
~' y.y py:v y y - 7:~ / -y:~:- y y ~.y.~~'y yy f'~' *~
. .y . ~ t' y . y ,y .
. .. ,y -.., y . r ..
. .y 4 :. .y. .y i ,t-~ .,, aa,, - gg 3 . ,- .
y , ~~.y ~7 y~*' 7 .~y- p~ y yy yy
., y .y.
. ..p.
. .g. , ty.y ,z y .y t .
7.:- .i x, .7 . ..y . , :..y
. r ,. , y y .. . . -.y y., , , .y.,,
pp 7~ 7, y y :. y -y y~pv y.j
> w 'u , zxv y yy- y y- yy)y ~
~
.J
- z. . ,,
I e . .. MEMO TO FILE
SUBJECT:
Response to R. W. Irby's request for a " Resolution of Technical Matters Involving Differences of Opinion" Involving NCI Serial No. 13165 File No. K-1 The " Description of Item and Statement of Problem" from NCI Serial No. 13165" reads as follows:
"During random inspection of Weld No. INV 193-30, an air hose was discovered taped in the end of the section being joined (approximately 24") providing a rapid cooling process of the welded joint. This process was applied without approved process control and controlled methods. Items in question are the rate of cooling, the moisture and oil content of the air, and the cleanliness.
condition of the assembly (see attached QA for additional note) (RWI 10-27)." Mr. Irby also expressed his concerns in a memo dated January 18, 1982 and in an attachment to a memo from R. A. Morgan to J. R. Wells and L. R. Davison dated January 11, 1982. The concerns are as follows: I January 18, 1982: 'Ny concems involve specific technical matters and the efficient processing of non-confoming items, relating to lack of suport in the program. I would like to point out short comings in decision madng and proper research (to specific NCI resolution) that is not conduciv.e to the program and not restricted to Catawba alone." January 11, 1982:
" Reason that I feel the weld in question is rejectable and should be replaced.
- Unknown factors such as temperature ranges during time of welding and at time of air injection?
- Rate of cooling? .
- Up setting of the chemical balance of weld deposit and parent metal?
- lhis non-confomance should be addressed entirely from a metallurgy view-point and not a cleanliness problem.
9 f 1 / [
.z.
- The additional resolution (signed by D. E Llewellyn T. H. Robertson, H. L.
Atkins) r.ade note of the time factor of the weld ileposite and surrounding f metal in the critical tenperature range (800-1600 degrees). This factor is true in respect to sensitization of the metal; however, accelerated cooling is not an approved method to correct this. Correct application i of thq FWDS and following process specification will eliminate the problem of too nuch time in the critical tenperature range. In regard to anneal-ing of the weld joint, this process implies a slow rate of cooling and not an accelerated rate of cooling.
- This question may not be technical,'but why did the welder apply this 1 method and why do current changes in the process specification (January 4, 1982) approve of this method that took place on September 26, 1981."
This response will cover the technical questions concerning the weld rather than those concerning how the NCI was handled. Also, it is assumed that the concern for cleanliness of the system has been answered satisfactorily. The rate of cooling of welds can effect material properties by determining tempera-ture gradients, metallurgical structure, and amount of hydrogen retained in the weld. Temperature gradients or change _ of temperature across a thickness of material coupled with lower yield strength at high temperatures and thermal expan-sion result in the residual stress. Generally speaking, the higher the thermal gradient the higher the residual stress. For example, residual stresses close to welds where the themal gradient is the highest are generally considered to be at or close to the yield point. In the postweld heat treatment to relieve stresses, there are rules governing the width to be covered by the blankets and the rate of I cooling so that new residual stresses will not be introduced. The Procedure Quali-fication's Materials tests are used to prove the amount of residual stress induced is not detrimental; with heat input, preheat, interpass temperature and material thickness being the parameters controlling cooling rate. In order to detemine whetheraccelerated cooling of the interior of the pipe affected the integrity of the weld in question, three facts should be taken into account. First, the weld (a socket weld) was on the opposite wall of the pipe (0.343" thick) from the circulating air. Second, 304 stainless steel is a ductile material with an elongation of 55 percent in the annealed condition. Third, circulating air is not a severe quench as shown in Table 1. A faster cooling rate than circulating air could be produced by an increase in the thickness of the pipe. Thickness is , not a limiting factor for fillet welds on P8 material. I Air Oil Water Brine No circulationof fluid or agitationof piece 0.02 0.25 to 0.30 0.9 to 1.0 2 Mild circulation (or agitation) . . . . . . .. 0.30 to 0.35 1.0 to 1.1 2 to 22 Moderate circulation ........... .. 0.35 to 0.40 1.2 to 1.3 ... l l Good circulation ............. .. 0.4 to 0.5 1.4 to l.5 ... l 0.05 0.5 to 0.8 1.6 to 2.0 Strong circulation ............ ... Violent circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.8 to 1.1 4 5 l Table 1. Severity of Quench (H) for Various Quenching Media (Grossmann 4 Bain)
3-
' # Foi- these reasons, I do not think the properties of the weld were effected due to an increase in residual stress. - De metallurgical structure can also be affected by the cooling rate. De most notable example of this occurs in carbon and low alloy steel where the cooling rate at the time of transition between a Face Center Cubic Structure to that of a i
Body Center structure determines diether perlite, bainite or martensite is formed. Type 304 stainless steel is an austenitic material and does not undergo this trans-fomation and is therefore not hardenable by heat treatment. The metallurgical structure of this material is affected by cooling rate due to the fonnation of chromitat carbides between the teeperature range of 550*C and 850*C. The formation of carbides is rate dependent allowing sensiti:ation to be avoided by cooling at a fast rate between these temperatures. It should be noted that too fast a cooling rate at high temperature in stabilized stainless steel (Type 321 and 347) can lead to a problem known as knife line attack. I would therefore conclude that the effect of increasing the cooling rate on sensiti:ation would be beneficial. Quenching metal after welding can' increase the probability of hydrogen cracking in carbon and low alloy steel by slowing down the diffusion rate of hydrogen and by adding to the residual stress. H is is not a problem with 304 stainless steel which is an austenitic material and not susceptible to hydrogen cracking. In welding stainless steel joint cleanliness is extremely important. SmallHot amounts crack-of impurities can cause hot cracking or sensitization of the weld metal. ing is caused by the presence of small amounts of low melting point constituents to the w eld metal such as lead or sulfur. Sensitizationwould be caused by the addi-tion of carbon. Both carbon and sulfur are present in oil but in the case in l question the air was not used until after the first pass which sealed the pipe. Another possibility which was looked into was the diffusion of carbon from oil en the inside of the pipe. The idea was discounted or considered superficial due to the short period experienced by the I.D. of the pipe at temperatures which carbur-i:ing would take place. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the relation between time, tem-perature, percent carbon, and distance below the surface for 1020 during liquid carburizing and 3115 steel during pack carburi:ing respectively.
'lo2o carbon steel, I-in. diom j
ceawiew ., ~irSo r
'c e'wisee stISS$ r c=E.aw.iIsod" F l ' '
*l
* ' ' ' A IJ'O i ! h\ CA !
k A I M - NN WY ' l l\\ WJ il a, _ LO NW A l\ \V A ! _ \W W NW
\ Th
).d NA I l I
_ AAI es ~~ n / I w 40 50 60 70 80 0 30 40 SO O 10 20 30 O 20 30 40 SC 0 0 20 10 w.. a00i 0 . . ww.. nooi . 0+.%. 000i. 0 Figure 1. Effect of duration of liquid carburizing on 1020 steel (ASM Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 2)
- .__ _.,_ __-.,-y._ - . , , _ . - . , _ _ _ , _ _ - , -____,_,,7_ __-...__-.m..--._,
[ ., , . a ,.
- s. .
Pact CARBURENG
~
- ISO .6 6
14 0 i f 20 en . g, ./ > i /! i c1 40 fl l 20
/ I 0
0 S C IS 20 2S 30 35404S r-....,....., i kl I ll l l 8700 F
,, %iil I i I
' O 80 f \i \'\ N I I "e, i i i
,,, \i i\ N X i I l 1
~
k i KJMa~i ! i N !Ts'i'i i O 20 4C 6 80 00 820 dC 40100
- o. m. . ... . 0.cor .
k.. . . Figure 2 Effect of durationofpack carburi:ing on 3115 steel (ASM Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 2) Stating that the weld is technically sound does not mean that Mr. Irby's concerns were not legitimate. I especially agree with his point of view that the FWDS is the vehicle for insuring that sensitization does not occur. Also, I would like to point out that although quenching was not a problem with 304 stainless steel, it could very well be for carbon and low alloy steel. The cooling rate is one of the determining factors for whether preheat or postweld heat treatment is needed for different thickness.
, Y w David E. Whitaker Assistant Engineer C.o. 37F76G e
L
Attachment A
-l %:
Jr.r.uc r y 11, 1982 n. J R Wells L,R Davison Re: Catawba 1-2 l Management Procedure 8030-0003 i Resolution of Technical Matters l We have an inspector R.W. Irby who has a technical concern on resolution to nonconforming item Serial Number 13165. This nonconformance was evaluated technically by the Catawba Project Technical Support welding group and approved by the QA Technical Group January 4,1982. . Attached are Mr. Irby's concerns and a copy of Q-1A 13165
/ M%~
RAMorganh Project QA Engineer Atttachments
- s e
G F M
._ 'g
.* . -.' l Reasons that i feel the weld in question is rejectable and should be replaced. Unknown Factors such as - temperature ranges during time of welding and at time of air inJaction? Rate of Cooling? The possible inducement of oil and moisture into the weld joint? Up setting of the chemical balance of weld deposit and parent metal? This nonconformance should'be addressed entirely from a metallurgy view point and not as a cleanliness problem. The addltional resolution made note of the time factor of the weld deposit and surrounding metal in the critical temperature range (800
- 1600 degrees). This factor is true in respect to sensitization of the metal however accelerated cooling is not an approved method to l correct this.
Correct application of.the FWDS and following process specification will eliminate the problem of too much time in the critical tempe,ature r range. In regard to annealing of the weld joint, this process implies a slow ( rate of cooling and not an accelerated rate of cooling. This question may not be technical, but why did the welder apply this method l and why do current changes in the process specification (1-4-82) approve of this method that took place on (9-26-81). R W trby Welding inspector 9 e I
~
Attachment A Duzz Pcwza GOMPW - an.morneo ammun. P.O. Best MASS, '"{mwrFE. N.o. SSS4B
- vena,mases omones w. oessa (704)sts.4ces an w omass esaa n 1 -- masamma February 19,*1982 R W frby ,
Re: Catawba 1-2 Resolution of Technical Matters Your concern dated January 11, 1982 The resolution of the referenced technical concerns from a metallurgical viewpoint is answered in the attached ~ memo to file and will be explained further to you by 0 E Whitaker, S H Van Malssen, and L M Coggins. The conclusion is that the weld quality is not jeopardized. As you also know, there was a question as to whether the practice employed was actually que :chsig, which led to diff rent conclusions regarding whether or not procedures were violated. My feeling is that,there was no
' tb people resolving the NCl to approve action Tvt violation of the d'ur(e. It is apparent that a bett'er solution would be arrived at by recognizing that the action was not authorized beforehand in the proper manner and, separately, the individuals concerned will be instructed in future resolutions of this type.
f; h / - G is Corporate QA Manager k GWG/ph
MEM CRANOUM l O TO: Bob Morgan FROM: Kenneth W. Karriker DATE: January 14, 1982 SUSJECT: EMPLOYEE RECOURSE This letter is to Inform you and Duke Power that I wish to pursue the Employee Recourse Procedure. My major concern is the lack of support that we, as Q.C. Velding inspectors,
, have been experiencing and also wish to let upper management know of the attempted cover-up of many items that Larry Davidson and others do not want brought to light.
On 1/11/82 Larry Davidson held a meeting with all welding inspectors. He said that the purpose of this meeting was to get to the bottom of the problems we were having but I sincerely believe the real reason was to find out some of the things that we have directly point to Larry Davidson, not supporting us and not handling important items of interest in a Company Policy manner. My point is that Larry Davidson is attempting to build a personal defense for many things that he knows he handled wrong and that knows will not make him shine in a favorable light. Mr. Wells made the statement as did Larry Davidson that we should forget what has happened in the past and go on from now. My question is, does Duke Power Company wish to let known violations of procedures and policies go uncorrected. I do not wish to talk to Mr. Davidson as I believe him to be the root of our problems we as Q.C. Velding Inspectors have. I sincerely hope that Duke Power Company will give these matters their utmost attention. my s / L%s Kenneth W. Karriker Q.C. Welding Inspector _ m.l W u. -- FoN (S 7a A}}