ML20140C283
| ML20140C283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1986 |
| From: | Catlin J, Harwell E, Stevens W TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082340275 | List: |
| References | |
| 0006S, 6S, I-86-115-SQN, NUDOCS 8603250311 | |
| Download: ML20140C283 (7) | |
Text
.
~
\\
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-86-ilS-SON EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SQM-6-005-001 SQM-6-005-X02
SUBJECT:
CRAFT WELDER INCAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER WELDS DATES OF INVESTIGATION:
JANUARY 30 - FEBRUARY 11, 1986 INVESTIGATOR:
I k
E.
. HARHELL DATE /
i A
REVIEHED BY:
- h.
. C. CATLIN
/#
4 m
DATE '
!'/
b t) s h/D!kb APPROVED BY:
R.
D.~ STEVfNS" DATE/
8603250311 860321 PDR ADOCK O 29 1
0006s
i I.
BACKGROUND A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity of two expressed employee concerns as received by Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Response Team (ERT).
The concerns of record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as SQM-6-005-001 and SQM-6-005-X02, respectively.. stated:
Craft individual (known) was passed through the welding test in March 1985, by agreement between Engineering (known) and the general foreman (known). The individual is alleged as being incapable of making a proper weld, and every weld the individual has made in the containment area of the reactor building has had to be redone. Additional details are known.
Welder certification test records were potentially falsified for an individual (known), by agreement between Engineering (known) and general foreman (known). Occurred in March 1985.
Additional details known.
Further information was requested from the ERT follow-up group regarding the names of the individuals alleged to be involved and a more exact location of the welds that required rework. QTC provided the names and a little more information on the location of the poor welds. Since the l
above concerns are related, involving the same individuals, both concerns were investigated at the same time and are addressed in a single report.
II.
SCOPE A.
The scope of the investigation was determined from the stated concerns of record to be two specific issues requiring investigation:
1.
whether the welder is incapable of making proper welds, and 2.
whether there was collusion to certify this welder resulting in falsified records.
B.
In conducting the investigation, NSRS reviewed the welder's certi-fication, weld red draw cards, and workplans referenced on weld rod draw cards; and interviewed weld test representatives, cognizant engineers, general foremen, and modification management.
III.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS A.
Requirements and Commitments 1.
TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Section 17.2, " Quality Assurance Program, Program Applicable to Operation" l
2.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX, " Welding and Brazing Qualifications" 3.
Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part II, Section 6.1,
" Welding" D.
Findings Note:
In order to preserve the confidentiality of individuals interviewed, they are identified by letter only below.
1.
References 2 and 4 require that personnel performing special processes (i.e., welding) be qualified and that their qualifications be documented.
2.
ASME Section IX (Ref. 1) and AWS Dl.1 (Ref. 10) provide requirements for qualifying welders and guidance on how to maintain their qualification.
3.
The Office of Nucicar Power has defined in reference 3 how to meet the requirements of ASME Section IX and AWS D1.1.
4 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) utilizes references 5, 6, and 7 to implement the requirements of the welding program.
5.
The welder in question was certified in March 1985 as shown by reference 8.
In discussion with the weld test representative who signed his qualification record, Individual C said that he did not remember any real problems with the wolder in question.
He remembers that the operator welded his coupons in the fabrication shop, not in the weld test shop.
Individual C is i
not the engineering individual named by the concerned individual (CI) as having passed the welder by agreement.
6.
Individual C said that he had never passed anybody that was marginal and that he had never been asked by any of the foremen or general foremen to do so.
7.
During interviews with modification managers Individuals A and B stated that a recent problem had been identified with a particular welder. After more discussion, it became obvious that the welder they were talking about was the same person named by the CI. Individual B said that as a result of the welder's poor performance, an employee performance report was filled out by his foreman and a copy placed in the personnel flies.
2
\\
i 8.
Individual D, the general foreman over the questionable welder during the above mentioned poor performance period, was interviewed concerning the details of the job. He stated that this welder had done most of his welding in the shop area in a flat position. He said that work done by the, questionable j
welder in the turbine building did involve some out-of-position welding, but it was not that difficult in his opinion. He said that the welder really wanted to do a good job but looked like he may not have had enough experience to sharpen his skills to do so.
- 9. Individual E, the general foreman normally in charge of work activities in which the questionable welder would be involved, was interviewed concerning the welder's. performance. He stated that the individual was a borderline welder but did fine in the fab shop. However, the individual had passed the qualificaiton test, was certified, and had been utilized where he was needed.
However, his work was continuing to be reviewed and, should it continue to be below standards, he would be retested.
- 10. Process specifications 1.M.2.2 and 1.C.2.2 of reference 3 have provisions for renewal of qualification when there are reasons to question the welder's ability to produce welds that meet requirements.
1
- 11. After reviewing the questionable welder's weld rod draws from the tool room, a determination was made of the various workplans on which the individual worked.
In discussions with three cognizant engineers responsible for those workplans, none knew of any major problems. They did remember that some welds required grinding, and in some cases weld repairs; but since workplans do not always identify the welder to a specific job, j
they did not remember the welder (s) involved.
I IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.
Conclusions 1.
The concern that the welder in question was incapable of making proper welds was substantiated in part by virtue of the poor performance evaluation for work performed in the turbine building. However, the welder reportedly does an adequate job on welds made in the shop.
2.
The concern that the welder was passed by collusion between engineering and the general foreman resulting in falsified records could not be substantiated. The individual (engineering) named by the CI as being a part of the collusion was not the individual who signed the welder's qualification record. No anomalies were found with the welding performance qualification record.
3
- -m
l I
B.
Recommendations 1.
I-86-115-SQN-01, Continue to Monitor Welder Performance The welder performance should be monitored closely for at least one month; and if his welds, includins out-of-position welds, are not up to standards, the weldec should be retested under the provisions stated in paragraph III.B.10.
The performance evaluation should be documented and a copy sent to personnel files. SQN should notify NSRS when t.he performance evaluation is completed.
[P3]
l i
\\
1 i
,s_...
... ~.. -,
- O DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-86-115-SQN AND REFERENCES 1.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX, 1983 Edition Winter 83 Addenda, " Welding and Brazing Qualifications" 2.
NQAM, Part II, Section 6.1, dated October 12, 1984, " Welding" 3.
Area Plan Procedure DPM N73 M2 dated August 28, 1984, " Process Specifi-cations for Welding, Heat Treatment, and Allied Field Operations" 4.
TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8, Section 17.2.9, " Control of Special Processes" 5.
SQN Modification and Additions Instruction M&AI-1 R9 dated August 5, 1985, " Control of Weld Documentation and Heat Treatment" 6.
M&AI-5 R9 dated January 29, 1986, " Welding Material Control and Welder Certification Procedure" 7.
SQN Standard Practico SQM-17 R2 dated May 17, 1984, " General Welding Requirements for Nuclear Plants - DPM N73M2" 8.
Welding Performance Qualification Record of the Questionable Welder 9.
Employee Performance Report for the questionable welder for a period in January 1986 l
10.
ANSI /AWS DI.1 -1985, Ninth Edition, dated February 8,1985, " Structural l
Weldit.g code - Steel" 11.
Workplans WP 9936, 10001, 10714, 10954, 11438, 11485, 11778, and 11854 5
w
w gnokg6u non.wo-s asi UNITED STATES GOVERMSIENT
~
Memorandum Tsxxssses vattsy Aurnouiry TO: H. L Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K MAR 10 1986 DATE:
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No.
I-86-115-SON Subject CRAFT WELDER INCAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER WELDS Concern No.
SOM-6-005-001 and SOM-6-005-XO2 The attached report contains one Priority 3 [P3] recommendation which requires you to take some form of investigative or corrective action within the next four months (July 10, 1986). No formal response is required for this report unless you disagree with the proposed action.
Please notify us if actions taken have been completed sooner. Should you have any questions, please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231-K.
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT srte amcrens orne, Recommend Reportability Determination: Yes No X
7 lM ll'd AE i i l
/
~
/D re'cCo'r, NSRs/oesience
/
L~
WDS:JTH
- 7.
- Attachment y
ec (Attachment):
ce,,,
W. C. Bibb, BFN J. W. Coan, W9C135C-K W. T. Cottle, WBN \\
5 James P. Darling, BEN R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C G. B. Kirk, SQN F. E. Laurent, CEO-WBN D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K
(
QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C J. H. Sullivan, SQN Kent Therp, IOB WBN r
0590U W.
E.
Mason--Review for OCC information.
5
\\
T#.... I ' C en..i nr R no,rir I?a.n,lariv n,, ti,o, Pavrnfl.Tarrin os Plan