ML20154R235
| ML20154R235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1985 |
| From: | Mulley G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603280160 | |
| Download: ML20154R235 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - - A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Of fice of Inspector and Auditor May 3, 1985
- 0.... i,..i.e n...
REPORT OF INTERVIEW Thomas F. Westerman, Enforcement Officer, Region IV, NRC, was interviewed concerning actions by Region IV in response to affidavits alleging that the liner plates for the spent fuel tank, refueling casities, and two transfer canals at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (SES) had been improperly installed. During the interview, Westerman provided the following informa-tion. On April 4,1984, at the completion of an 0I investigation, the Region IV Office of Inv.estigations (01) Field Office provided Westerman with a copy of an August 24, 1983, transcript of an 01 interview of Arvill Dillingham, Jr. During the August 24, 1983, 01 interview, Dillingham discussed his concerns about alleged falsification of inspection travelers pertaining to.the liner plates. In addition to the August 24,-1983, transcript, Westerman had on file two other affidavits by Dillingham dated March 31, 1983, and June 27, 1983, which documented his concerns with the construction at Comanche Peak SES. Although the issues raised in the first two Dillingham affidavits had pre-viously been investigated by NRC, Westerman provided.the three affidavits to Region IV Inspector Robert C. Steward for review and research in April 1984. However, also in April 1984, the NRC Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) arrived at Region IV to review and attempt to resolve allegations of con-l struction deficiencies at Comanche Peak. Consequently, the TRT assumed responsibility for all allegations at the Comanche Peak SES. The Dillingham affidavits as well as any other allegations concerning the liner plates at Comanche Peak were turned over to the TRT for review and resolution. L 1 a 8603280160 860320 PDR - ADOCK 05000445 PDR _ A t Reaion IV ,,,,_ 85-10 goril 26,1985 , George A. Mulley Jr., Investigator, 01A May 3, 1985 o,,,,,,,,,,, T6aiS DOCUMEasT tS PROPE RTY OF NRC. tF LOANED TO ANOTHER AGENCY IT ANO ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE OtSTRIBUTED I' OUTSiOE THE RECElvtNG AGENCY WiTHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR. mw ~ + - -... ,m---v- ---y v i--t -'i7y ^ w v v-- f
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 3 4 TECHNICAL INTERVIEW 5 6 Monday, December 10, 1984 7 Granbury, Texas 8 This interview was commenced at 2:30 p.m. 9 10 PRESENT: 11 MR. JOHN J. ZUDANS Technical Review Team Staff 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 13 MR. VINCE NOONAN 14 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Washington, D.,C. 20555 16 MR. JIM MALONSON Technical Review Team Staff 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,D. C. 20555 ,e 18 MR. CLIFF HALE 19 Technical Review Team Staff 7 Region 4 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Texas 21 MR. T. E. CURRY 22 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Idaho Falls, Idaho .24 C 25
2 1 PRESENT: (Continued) 5 2 MR. VIC WENCZEL Technical Review Team Staff 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Idaho Falls, Idaho I 4 ~~ MR. VERN WATSO!! 5 Technical Review Tearn Staff Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission 6 Idaho. Falls, Idaho 7 MS. MEDDIE GREGORY Glen Rose, Texas .1 8 MS. DOBIE HATLEY 5' 9 Glen Rose, Texas 10 MS. SUE ANN NEUMEYER Fort Worth, Texas 11 MS. LINDA BARNES 12 Granbury, Texas .s - 13 14 15 16 ~ 17 18 f: 19 u 20 21 22 23 24 25
92 y r-g 1-suffer through the NCR's, I think you're going to find thot a i J f in '82'they started doing that to a lot of the inspectors, 2 ? a j g l. retrain the inspector. Of course, you know that when an + r , inspector is certified he's supposed to $e adequaEcly g , trained. That's why we're asking about Jin because in (.i - 1 fparticularwerememberabouthim. j 4 j i a f e MR. NOONAN: This ct.;ne up in.the hearings, didn't it? r t
- .8
, L+r. r MS. GREGORY : Yes, it did; and also another gentler:an t - < C l 3 9* in the hearings, Robbie Duncan.- When they.put him ontthe witness stand and they asked him how you could tell when u an NCR had been dispositioned which is merely a signature 4 at the bottom saying it had been dispositioned, he didn't 8 know.- It was so bad that when they were through questioning l E him, Mr. Watkins went on record to ask him if he was still lE working as a QC Inspector, and he said, no, he was working r l as a QES Reviewer. They wanted it off the record that he l'y.A (1 sas doing any inspecting. You would have to read the ilE ,( -testimony. A i E ar MS. HATLEY: Since then, he's terminated. I MR. HALE: Okay. Jim, do you want to do on-site g D fabrication, I believe, right? i O MR. MALONSON: I have two categories: One is material [D traceability and.it's related to on-site fabrication because 4 I did sorre material traceability in the other large alle-5. gation--concern pertaining to traceability.
p 93 1 (Short break taken.) A l2-55 2 MR. NOONAN: The-issue on the spent
- fuel-liners, 3
Whether-it's' safety ' elated, non-safety related; everytime r Idturn arounduI*m_ hearing a different poink of view on this 4 r 5 thing. el-finally got -tired-of -it; *and"I 'fust *put cut' a 6 memo 40 ths97RC ktaf f Melling-them to come-back and*give rne 7 a-formal position on this. The reas'od'I'm laughing is 8 because I think after all these years it seems like each f 8' 9 plant'is different. For some reason or another they have 10 a reason for making it safety related or not safety related. 11 In this plant here I don't know the answer right now. I've 12 had two different opinions, one saying it's safety related, 13 one saying it's not safety related; so I basically took an 14 action here to put it out to the people that are involved 15 in reviewing of this particular item and asked them to come 16 back with a formal position. I'll give you that;~you can ' 0 17 have as nany copics as you' want to'. IS MS. NEUMEYER: It says fuel pool liner. Is this also ~19 including the transfer canals? 20 MR. NOONAN: It includes the transfer canals, yes. 21 MS. GREGORY: My problem with that in that there are 22 reg guides out right now, 1.13. Of courso, you know 1.29 23 puts it in Seismic Category 1. 24 MR. NOONAN: It can be considered f.eismic Category 25 1, but the liner doesn't necessarily have to be safety
y 94 related..But it's either way. 3 u.e:*r.MS.r GREGORY : I realize that, but 1.13 definitely in 3 p opinion, the way your reg guides read, puts it in safety 3 category because of the possibility of Seakage, I think ycu 4 rem.1 [ g pall;it,.05 ({ealr), whatever it is. Anyway, I've gone e g p ugh several of your reg guides. I've gone through 3 10CFR50. I don't know if I gave you the copy that I had 3 done :for the stainless steel liners for the ASLB hearings n art.not,, but it gives you what I thought was pretty con-i g g:losive evidence th'at it was safety related. MR. NOONAN: It's not. It's not conclusive because Il c between.two different organizations of the NRC, they both had ,u d,ifferent opinions. They're both using the same reg guide ? j M
- you're talking about.
Certain Utilities, based on their t } 5 particular circumstances, can core in and stake it non-fM isafety related and we' probably will agree with ther.. What W W- ~-4I= did.in this case:.I went back and I asked them to come j B
- ack end tell rie.
( Is. 11R. ZUDANS: It was Friday that this memo was signed I 3 cut..- - The reason it doesn't have a date on it is that I 23 pade a copy before it was distributed, and they put the R <iate on at the time they distributed it. D MR. NOONAN: I'll get it back here, and I'll send you as dadies a copy of what they tell me. E Vac.? MS. HATLEY: Who did you ask to tell you this? I L;.g.# G
s.- ; i 95 7.t. bet JiR. NOONAN: My peopic. You can see their names on { g f 2 there. There are particular branches that are responsible 3 for review of that thing. did MS. GREGORY: Wow,T"this will also 4 pertain to ithe 4 5 ptor cavity. stainless. steel.. liners _ as. well as cmpent cf uel .4 W V' y . wN. MR. NOONAN: No, it's strictly the spent fuel pool. 8 t!... - MS. GREGORY: Well, the question that we had at the t &pa
- WASLB hearings is the reactor. cavity.itself.for. refueling 3
- + system. p.)-57 33 12. MS. NEUMEYER:.Thepdocumentationtthey produced *in my + i 3 gymalcallegation was that they haduforced me:to sign of f D apyte 142 travelersp and what we did get them finally to N' produce--they tfere suppcsed to produce Unit One and Unit if3< Two, and they only produced Unit Two. They came back with {E ~i some of those plates 'ere installed in the reactor. So now w t OP - ere have--surely, if it's in the reactor, there's no question bl& ^ that it's safety related. 1,- .1 }'4 AG MR. ZUDAMS: I think the fabrication methods and the M, design methods for the liners in the Reactor Building are, M in essence, identical to the way they build the ones in the j Mi spent fuel pool. j% 0.- 2 3 I i { MS. NEUMEYER: What I!m telling you is that. I falsi-R) Slee-the: documents..r.They made me, falsify them, and that's . El what's come out in the AELL hearings. For a long time ,I <k y - 4I- .t gr, 8 g i.w
~ I 96 g there, right up to the last, I think they altrost had ever1-body cc:nvinced that, yes, indeed, I did have the documenta-g tion that I needed in order to sign this stuff off, but I 3 didn't. I said from day one that I did not know what I 4 - was signing off. I did not know what the chit was, that I 6 believed that the chit only had to do with backing strips, 3 whichc came out there at the last to-be true. That's all . that it pertained to was that. backing strip. It had nothing -*toddo. with the front weld. Therefore, I signed off the g front weld; I signed of f everything, without ever. seeing y its -I was told--I was put in a little room, I was told that g I.-vould sign it off if it took me three days to do it. I - g signed it off. I had gone every route that I could, saying N Idon't want to sign these of f, I don't believe this is what 3 iets:.for, you're going to put me in prison for 20 years for b dhng this, it's illegal, and all that stuff. And still f** .it:y tsupervisor stood there ' and said, "You will sign it off. E You will stay here if it takes you three days to get these , 89 ' 142. travelers signed off. You will stay here until they're done, Ms. Neumeyer." So with that-- t: : MR. NOONAN: Who was the supervisor? R MS. MEUMEYER: Dwight Icodard, Ted Blixt; and Pob 3 Sievers was the one that originally told me to do it. That 3B is and was at the time--I know they've had some fast corporate shuffles since then, but these were the non in } s NE
fg w< 97 j charge. Bob Sievers was the one that told rae to go over 3 there, that Dwight Woodard and Ted Blixt would take re over 3 to the Millwright Shop and show me what had to be done, and g they did. MR. NOONAN: How many documents did you sign off? g 4 .that MS. NEUMEYER: They said there were approximately 142 7 cf. them, and later came back and said they thought around i 4 .4121ssomewhere between 112 and,142. But for the hearings d a pg M -on my deposition, when they deposed me, the Utility a s a ' came-up--Dwight Woodard said, when they deposed him, that I i g had fabricated the whole thing, that it never happened. t Then Sievers came in behind him and Blixt came in behind B him--this is down here in the library; you can read it for M I yourself--and 'they said that, yes, it did happen, that I 2 e - had signed off, but that I hadn't raised any fuss. 5 Eut I i E had, and I think if you could, if you could talk to Billie hW, l. f-Catness,. Chuck Reaves, Mike Kennr :ly, and C. C. Randall, u 3 i S ~ they could tell you that I did raise cain. I was upset. Eadidn't just raise cain, I raised hell. I' MR. HALE: This area is one that Tom Curry is going h' to speak to. We're going to have him after Jim. D us .MR. NOONAN: We're going to cover this? I MR. HALE: Yes.. I i.' r - MR. NOONAN: I want to go into it. I j ' ccr., MR. 20DANS: I didn't want to make a big discussion f.y-
- .n w' fh I
a.e V,,6 i 95 g of it. I just wcnted to provide you with a memo that at t .[ least we're going to get something straight on our end. y 3
- 1. >
MS. GREGORY: In other words, this is just a request; t {g .dsey're to answer these questions and-- s-MR. NOONAN: They have to go bacT: and tell me what ,5 k 6
- that liner is.
7 i:. MR. ZUDANS: When we say "NRC position", that is how 8 ' me review all the plants on that. This is our position. pfm that's the way we're going to review spent fuel pool W . 11ners. 7 3'. B. :. MS. GREGORY: Well, the one on spent fuel and is E au different NUREG number than that. I wonder if I could B get some of those together and send them to you? N a.x -MR. NOONAN:
- Sure, et E
MS. GREGORY: I know that you've got them, but I would E e feel better mycelf i,f I were to present my case as strongly c l k9-s Ns I could, a EJ MR. NOONAN: Meddie, send them to me so I can send %v E them to the right people. I I 'I ?.S. GREGORY: All right. E! MR. HALE: All.right, Jim, let's get you out of the [ 8 way so we can get to Tom. O MR. MALONSON: I'm dealing with three allegations in 2 here in this category of material traceability, and they i O cconcern either one or all three of you. I might also say i ,? . t- - l t E. -cts w, -4 -q
0, e 106 I MR. CURRY:.-Okaye AQE,41 concerned the gauges used 2 to calibrate-lightings restraint cable. installation-tools .y., - 3 were worn-which resulted insipcorrect imptallation.-and ,fssuan.ce;ofcan NCR. Do you rerenber that one? 5 MR. EALE: That was Eusie's. n 0 MR. ZUDANS:.Actually, we covered this with sorcone . g -;a I elsc. Let's leave it at that. 0 MR. CURRY : Do you want to go on? , y,.,q - 'I MR. ZUDANS: I think we just better go en. h MS. EATLEY: We knew about calibration; you don't have f,._, u., il to tell us. 3 MR. CURRY:,dAQ 55-and 78:: 1. Fuel. transfer-canaltliner .- e:js 3 ~ 4gcupentatientwast alsified. The required weld raciegraphy f \\ 4 was not complete. Hold points on inspection travelers were 3 signed off improperly. I cuess we can just take those one ..,n,;. 4 at a tire. av sno 3-er,. First of all, the fuel transfer' canal liner docuncnta-ii 4 tion was falsified. I don't think we're prepared to say I that it was flat-o9t fL sified. We will talk sore more e,,,,q. 3 about signoff of 5 sic y,tnts. 2 MS. NEUMEYER: I can say it was flat-out falsified
- , e,,-
2 because I'n the one that flat-out falsified it. .3. MR. CURRY: Lut cur investigation and how we deterr..iney 3 I that it was falsified, I don't think I have enough infor-L L. r.ation to say that it was falsified. 4 H. 8a
_E 167 I MS. NEUMEYER: But I did. Let's go on and we'll come back to that in 2 MR. CURRY : The required weld radiography was 3 just a rinute. Second: We did find the weld radiography for"those 4 not conplete. i welds, and the canal that required radiography--there was 5 a limited number of them--we located that. 6 Eold points on inspection travelers were signed off 7 Of course, there's a whole series of questions 8 improperly. In essence, what that relate to signof5 of hold points. 9 our conclusion was was that we weren't satisfied with the 10 way that they were signed off, call it inproperly or what 11 Whatever actior we take as a result of that, 12 you will. - 13 we're still investigating. I think it's fair to say that we're net 14 MR. HALE: 15 through with that. the What allegations I have r.ade about 16 MS. CREGORY: stainless steel liners has to do with the knowledge that W 17 I didn't know I have which is with Unit Two cavity only. 18 that there were documents that Fue signed off in Unit Cne 19 and in the transfer canal along with Fred Evans, but with 20 your being satisfied with naybe the documentation that are 21 I found 147 cases where backing up hold point one on there, 22 l they had used chits with the QC Inspector date ano sigr.c-t 23 ture that were actually held point two and three and Cif 24 Fad he intended to includc-not include hold point one. 25 /. A
.~ y- - ~ '168 1 hold point one, he wculd have signed it off at the tire he l. 2 signed off twc and three. So I feel in those particular 5 i 3 cases that there's not adequate docurentation to show that i i: 4 that hcid point one was perforred or docur.ented." i e 5 MS. EATLEY: However, if you would be willing to get us is 6-a copy of Unit One and let us go through it, we would be T 7 happy to document that for you. 8 MR. CURRY: Unit One-i i ? p9 MS. HATLEY: Unit One Reactor cavity and refueling C. 10 canal. There will be about 1200 to 1500 drawings,'and it 31 would take us about a week, and we can get you a real 4 12 accurate synopsis of what happened. 13 HR. CURRY: ,3 grin, the subject of falsific'ation of the 14 signatures or whatever on those travelers is the subject of i 4. 15 a separate investigation by OI. That's one of the reasons l l i E ! 16 why we're not prepared to say that the documents werc I
- lg g7 falsified because they are still looking at it.
i MS. HATLEY: You mentioned that you looked at the~ ,.18 19 radiography. Did you look at'the film or did you look at 20 the reports? Did you physically see the film? 21 NR. CURRY: We Icoked at both of them. Sore of the 22 team looked at the reports; sor.e of the team. looked at the 23 film-i l i fE. EATLEY: And reviewed ther with the docurent. l 24 MR. CURRY: Yes. The raterial was there. 25 i l ,i ~,., - ~ _._.o-..
s Ye.&rr \\ 169 %> Q[v. V MS. IIATLEY: Do you know what percentage they used? l II-
- ?p:
y -many? .a .f ~' -A MR. CURRY: How rany radiography--? l .*'y MS. I!ATLEY: Yes, and how they were obtained. Did you -e " elect the ones you wanted to see or were they preselected ? j. g or you? 5-f g g g n: - MR. CURRY: I don't know how they were selected. Thercl: {
- l. W &
g was another individual that went'to look at the film. k g..g. Q-g Mt _MR. HALE: I thihk I can say with some assurance that l F'
- 1 i,
. the direction that we proceeded under in all of our assess-l W I!s, ment was to select things independently, not sorething-- 1 b with the exception of those concerns identified to us by n l l 'T individuals such as yourselves, we would go and select I 4 I 8' something specific; but by and large it was not to be led l 1 o I 1: by anyone. me I. Our interfhce with personnel on site was purely ?
- because they were on site.
Any tirte we did an assessment it was not based upon what someone told us. Ele looked at the documents, we looked at the records, whichever the 6 g. case was, and tried to establish an independent view to r i the extent even that we did not rely on reports generated j by Region 4 or findings generated by Region 4. tio looked independently even of that, so I would say that these l l docur.ents were not selected by somecne for us to look et, i 4 but were selected in sor.c fashicn randomly perhaps by the l individual who looked at therr. l l - - ~ ~~~
- o t r 1 169 I MS. liATLEY: Do you know what percentage they used? 2 How many? 3 MR. CURRY: How rany radiography--? 4 MS. HATLEY: Yes, and how they were'obtained. Didyou! 5 select the ones you wanted to see or were they preselected 6 for you? 7 MR. CURRY: I don't know how they were selected. Therg 8 was another individual that went to look at the film. ' 9 MR. KALE: I think I can say with some assurance that 10 the direction that we proceeded under in all of our assess-11 rent was to select things independently, not sorething-- I 12 with the exception of those concerns identified to us by I 13 individuals such as yourselves, we would go and select 14 something specific; but by and large it was not to be led 15 by anyone. Our interface with personnel on site was purely 16 because they were on site. Any tire we did an assessment i 17 it was not based upon what someone told us. We looked at l 18 the documents, we looked at the records, whichever the I i 19 case was, and tried to establish an independent view to 20 the extent even that we did not rely on reports generated 21 by Region 4 or findincs generated by Region 4. He looked t 22 independently even of that, so I would'say that these 23 docunents were not selected by screene for us to look at, 8 24 but were selected in scr.c fashion randomly perhaps by the 25 individual who looked at ther. i 6 d
) e b ~ I 170 gs,. E;.TLEY : lic would have been someone who was 2 qualified to know whether or not this particular film was 3 good or bad? 4 s. MR. HALE: Do you knou what team looked at that,' Ton? I 5 Uhich group looked at it? Was it our group that looked at 6. those radiographs or was it one of the other groups? The 7-individual's name would be'okay, I think. L 8 MR. MALONSON: 'I looked at radiographs on a concern i 9 that identified specific weld joints on the lift gate 10 1 frames, and_I physical 19 looked at the radiegraphic record 1 11 and the leader sheets. 1 12 !!R. 11 ALE: Who selected those records for you? l 13 MR. MALONSON: They weren't selected. I found the. 14 weld joints being referred to and then went and asked for l 15 the film. 'You're intimately familiar with the assiennent i 16 of field weld joint's on the spent fuel pool transfer canals, 1 and there's no heroics in this, but I spent about seven 17 i hours in my hotel room looking at drawings to find the field 18 ~ i 19 weld joints in question. There's a history of that in ene i \\ of the mechanical and niping assessments that will bc 20 21 presented later. This information was presented by another It was not presented by-a particular SSTR pertaininh 22 person. to the lift gate frames was not presented by either of you 23 1 24 ladies. 25 14S. hATLEY: All of the RT filming that you looked at i I -.... _ _, - - ~. ~ ~............ ~, _ -., _,, _... ~....
j#' *% UNITED STATES y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , y, g j OFFICl-OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV %..... / '""7d"iGi0' '^ "r"E!I 's!' " S April 4, 1984 MEMORANDUM T0: T. F. Westermar. Inspection & Enforcement Officer FROM: H. Brooks Griffin Investigator SUEJECT: RELEASE OF PORTIONS OF DILLINGHAM'S TRANSCRIPT The Region IV OI Field Office has completed its investigation in the Dillingham matter. for its reporting needs. Region IV is free to make use of the transcript If you require further infonr,aticr., please call me. -[gk /'. f~ l P 5 yk (( 9 ~ h t w
' "e*g ue 'o UNITED STATES ? j f M II 3 ~g 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j n h WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 h i(
- " * * /
DEC 0 71984 .[ h Docket No.: 50-445 ,y" Auxiliary Systems Branch, DSI MEMORANDUM FOR: Olan Parr, Chief Robert J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch, DE George T. Ankrum,-Chief Quality Assurance Branch, I&E FROM: Vfncent S. Noonan, Project Director for Comanche Peak Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
PREPARATION OF A STATEMENT ON THE NRC STAFF'S POSITION ON THE SPENT FUEL POOL LINER The purpose of this memorandum is to request that Auxiliary Systems Branch prepare a statement of the NRC staff's position on the need for the spent fuel pool liner to be designed and constructed as a seismic Category I structure, and/or a safety-related,10 CFR 50, Appendix B structure. In view of the questions for which we shnuld have answers (see enclosure) ASB will likely need to draw from the expertise of the Mechan'ical Engineering Branch and the Quality Assurance Branch. The statement must, represent the position of all three branches. We plan to use the requested statement to demonstrate to the allegers that the staff's criteria for accepting the Comanche Peak design are identical to the criteria used for acceptir.g designs at all/some of the other plants of the same vintage. The staff's acceptance of the design, construction and inspection comitments for the Comanche Peak spent fuel pool liner has been raised in the hearings. As a result, the statement will likely need to be 3 offered as an affidavit or testimony in'the next several weeks. We are enclosing a copy of two NRC Inspection Reports, 50-445/77-13 and 50-445/ 79-15. These provide information on the Regions criteria for inspecting the spent fuel pool liner. 1 In addition, we are enclosing a copy of recent testimony (November 26, 1984) by ~ the applicant's employee concerning the quality of the spent fuel liner. The prefiled testimony and pertinent cross examination pages (Tr. 20630-20634) are provided. 5' W y i v I i
g ~ ,[ DEC 0 71984 ~ 1 Please advise me on the members of your staff which are assigned to this task and a schedule for providing this statement. Should you have questions concerning this request, please contact S. B. Burwell on extension 27563. / l / / t n, n, roject Director for Com che ieak t Division f Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: P. Hearn E. Sylvester - R. Kirkwood J. Spraul I e i D 0 9 L 1 ~~
ENCLOSURE QUESTIONS FOR WHICH A RESPONSE IS NEEDED 1. What are the NRC's acceptance criteria for the design, construction and inspection of the spent fuel pool liner? Comment: We are aware of the SRP (NUREG-0800) acceptance of a non-seismic Category 1 pool liner with qualifications. However, we do not find this in the earlier SRP. What is the background and basis for the . change in acceptance criteria in NUREG-75/087 and NUREG-0800; i.e., the acceptance of a non-seismic Category 1 pool liner. Was the change in the acceptance criteria reviewed and approved by the Reactor Regulation Review Committee (RRRC)? What request or event triggered the change? 2. Describe the. relationship between the guidelines in Regulatory Guides 1.13 and 1.29 and the staff's acceptance criteria as given in SRP NUREC-0800. 3. Describe the need for or rationale for requiring the spent fuel pool liner to be classified as a " safety-related" structure, or an "important to safety" structure. And discuss the need to have a QA/QC program for the liner portion of the spent fuel pool. 4. Describe the manner in wilich the Comanche Peak spent fuel pool liner meets the requirements of GDC 2 relative to protection against natural phenomena (earthquakes), and GDC 16 relative to preventing a significant reduction,in fuel storage coolant inventory under accident conditions. 5. Describe the Comanche Peak FSAR commitments relative to seismic and quality standards for the spent fuel pool liner. In so far as possible, describe the criteria or basis upon which the spent fuel pool was found acceptable in the SER, particularly as it relates to the quality of the spent fuel pool liner. 6. Please identif9 all documentation used in the review of Comanche Peak spent fuel pool liner; e.g., old FSAR pages, SER references, memorandums and reviewer notes. L
... ~ - . g.pa ash UNITED STATES [ 'c NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.WISSICN $ ~},, },'r-RECION IV ,4* /, $ 611 R YAN PLAZA DRIV!. $UIT! 1003 o, *g;((g, /[ AR LINGTON. TZXAS 76011 ,g December 20, 1977 In Raply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-445/Rpt. 77-13 50-445/Rpt. 77-13 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General flanager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas - 75201 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. C. Stewart and other members of our staff during the period November 28 - Decerber 2,1977, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units No..1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. B. George and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. t Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the - encicsed insoection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of proce,dures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors. t a j Within the scope of the inspection, no items of-noncompliance were identified. One new unresolved item is identified in paragraph 7 of the enclosed report. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,. J Title 10, Code. of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed, inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If the report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is of the date of-this letter, requesting that such information be withhe public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary inforcation identified is contained I
j 2 Texas Utili-ies Generating Company December 20, 1977 in an-enclosure-to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in i this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the public Document Room. Should you have ar;y questions concernin,g this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, o / f e 4 . i.w. N W. C. Seidl'e, Chief Reactor Co'nstruction and i Engineering Support Branch-i
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-445/77-13 50-446/.77-13 cc: w/ enclosure ~ b Texai Utilities Generating Company j . ATTN: Mr.. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager i 2001 Bryan Tower .e Dallas, Texas 75201 4 } l 1 i 4 i 1 1 4 i 4
1 ~ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND E?!FORCEMEtlT REGION IV ~ Report rio. 50-445/77-13; 50-446/77-13 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category AZ Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at: Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection conducted: November 28 - December 2, lo77 1 O /} g _ Yo - - e /2.[yo/77 Inspectors: ,( .S 2 R. C. StewartireaMar) Inspector, PVojects Section Da t'e / (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 & 10) / Eft <>/77 =: W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date (Paragraphs 5 & 6) R. A. Hermann, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section (Paragraphs 7 & 8) /t/1.cb7 L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date / Section (Paragraphs 7 & 8) Other Accompanying Personnel: R. E. Hall, Chief. Engineering Support Section (November 30 and December 2, 1977) Approved: [ /7/10/77 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date / L-f2. 7) R. E. Hall, Chief. Engineering Support Section Date O
~~ Inspection Summary Inspection on "ovember 28 - December 2,1977 (Recort No. 50-445/77-13; e 50 U6/77-13)- Areas inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection involving observation of work performance and record review of dome liner and fuel pook liner fabrication; follow on review of safety related piping shop and field fabrication; observation of work performan_ce-and record review of the installatien of the reactor coolant system ' component supports, review of the QA program implementing procedures for electrical and instrur.ent cables and terminations; and independent reviews concerning construction deficiencies for which the licensee h1s submitted reports in accordance .with 50.55(e). The inspection involved one hundred thirty-nine inspector-hours on site by four flRC inspectors. Results: flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 4 e ~ l I l' ~ e om e e
- e W
e O 6 e 9 e
l.* DETAILS 2, 1. Persons Centacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
- J. B. George, TUSI, Nuclear Construction Manager
- D. N. Chapman, TUGCO, QA Manager
- R. G. Tolson, TUGCO. Site QA Supervisor
- J. T. Merritt, TUSI, Resident Manager
- C. L. Biggs, TUGCO, QA Lead Eng'ineer R. V. Fleck, TUGC0/G&H, Site QA Supervisor,
J. V. Hawkins, TUGCO/G&H, Site QA Representative
- D. E. Deviney TUGCO, QA Technician Other Personnel
- H. O. Kirkland, B&R, Project General'Hanager H. C. Dodd, B&R, Project Manager
- U. D. Douglas, B&R, Assistant Project Manager
- P. L. Bussolini, B&R, Project QA Manager J. P. Clarke, B&R, Senior QC Engineer j
- J. J. Moorhead, G&H, Resident Engineer The inspectors also interviewed other contractor employees during the l
course of the inspection. They included B&R field engineers, B&R QC j inspectors and B&R construction personnel.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 4 (0 pen) Noncompliance (50-445/77-10; 50-446/77-10): Failure to Remove Weld Surface Defect Prior to Final Acceptance. The licensee's written response, dated November 17, 1977, did not reflect audits. and/or sur-4 I veillance activities being implemented to prevent recurrence of this item. This matter remains open pending IE review of supplemental l infonration to be provided by the licensee. I (0 pen) Noncompliance (50'-445/77-10; 50-446/77-10): Failure to Provide Welding Procedures at the Location Where the Prescribed Activity is i Performed. The licensee's written response, dated November 17, 1977, i did not reflect audits and/or surveillance activities being implemented to prevent recurrence of this item. This matter remains open pending IE review of supplemental information to be provided by the licensee. i Il i j ' n
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/77-11; 50-446/77-11): Indication of an Uncontrolled Welding Design Change. Curing this inspection, the IE inspector reviewed B&R inter-office memo (TSV-00B7), dated November 30, 1977, which documents the corrective actions initiated to resolve this matter. The inspector had no further questions regarding this item. 3. Potential Construction Deficiency - Vendor Sucolied Steel Embeds On November 23, 1977, the licensee reported by telephone that tNe site construction staff discovered that "B" series Cadweld sleeves were welded to eight steel plate embedments in reversed orientation. During this inspection, the IE inspector reviewed the current status of this discrepancy and found.that the specific steel embeds had not been embedded in concrete and corrective measures were initiated; however, due to insufficient information at this tirre, the question of similar conditions of reversed crientation of "B" series Cadwelds on previously installed embeds can not be answered until an on-going review and evaluation is completed. This matter remains unresolved. 4. Allegation of poor Workmanship The licensee informed the NRC, Region IV office on November 23,1977, by telephone, of a call on November 22, 1977, from an unidentified woman who was apparently concerned with the workmanship at the site regarding the use of "rotofoam" as a temporary spacer being utilized in construction in maintaining the required air space between Category I seiscic structures. During this inspection, the IE inspector reviewed the subject allegation and found that contrary to the woman's belief, all temporary "rotofoam" blocks have been removed from the subject areas. The B&R-staff have initiated an inspection and docurentation progr.QA/QC inspection am to assure that the required 1" gap between Category I seismic structures is bei,ng maintained in the as-built condition. This matter will remain open pending IE review of the QA/QC inspection results. 5. Review of 0A Manual provisions for Electrical Construction Activities The inspector reviewed the Brown & Root QA manual to ascertain whether appropriate and adequate procedures were provided to assure that activities related to electrical cables and terminations and electrical components are controlled in accordance with NRC requirements and licensee commitments. The following procedures and specifications were reviewed: ACP-3, " Material Receiving Storage and Handling" QCP-1,1, "QC Receiving Inspection" QCP-l.2, "QC Surveillance of Storage, Warehousing and Control" QCP-1.6, "QC Surveillance of Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumen-tation Equipment" 1
a ] QCI-l.6-ll, " Safety. Related Mechanical and Electrical ' Equipment Storage Maintenance" QCI-1.1-ll, " Receiving Inspection for TUSI/GaH Procured Safety f Related Equipment" MCP-10. " Storage and Storage Maintenance of Mechanical and j Electrical Equipment" ECP-10. " Cable Tray and Hangers" 1-ECP-19. " Exposed Conduit arid Hangers" ~ Specification No. 2323-ES-100 " Electrical Erection Specification" Specification No. 2323-ES-19. " Cable Tray Specification" } The inspector noted that several work and inspection procedures related j to electrical construction activities are being developed and will be issued in the future. These procedures will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.' i No items of noncunpliance or deviations were identified. ] 6. Electrical Cable and Equipment Storace i The inspector observed storage of electrical cable which was stored at i the site. Reels of electrical cable were stored outdoors on a concrete i pad. The inspector noted-that several QC tags attached to cable reels- - were' becoming faded from exposure to weather and were difficult to read. A licensee representative stated that new weather-resistant. tags were being procured to replace the faded tags. The inspector also observed storage of several items of electrical equip-ment which were located in warehouses. These items included: three con-tainment spray pump motors, one component cooling water pump motor, two safety inje'etion pumps,'and two motor operated valves. The inspector reviewed receiving records for electrical cable and equip-1 ment maintenance records for one containment spray pump and two motor j operated valves. No items of noncompliance or deviations here identified. 1 7. Safety Related Structures f l a. Review of OA Implementing procedures j The inspector reviewed the program for the fabrication, erection, welding and inspection of the stainless steel liners for the refueling cavity, transfer canal, spent fuel, storage and cask f ' I
= -s i J loading pits to ascertain if the commitments stated in the PSAR and Gibbs & Hill (G&H) specification 2323-SS-18, Rev. 2 were being implemented. The inspector reviewed Brown & Root (B&R) construction procedure 35-1195-CCP-38, " Stainless Steel Liner Erections," and B&R QA procedures CP-QCP-2.11. " Inspection of Stainlasr Steel Pool Liner Systems," and CP-QCI-2.ll-1, " Weld Inspection. and Fit-Up of Stainless Steel Liners," to ascertain if the above stated requirements had' been implemented. Additional QA and work procedures in the areas of weld expendable material contrr,1, welder and weld procedure qualification, NDE and welding survoillance were reviewed,to assess control of these activities. No items of noncompliance or deviations.were identified. b. Observation of Work Activities (1) Stainless Steel Liners i The welding of fillet joints for the attachment of leak chase channels and of tacks for the attachment cf backing bars for the butt weld seams for stainless steel liners was inspected. Weld procedures and welders were found qualified in accordance with the requirements of the ASME B&PV Code, Section IX. The welding was performed in accordance with WPSs 99020 and 88023 and placed as specified by B&R drawing WRB-10559. Work and inspection activities were performed as prescribed by the procedures discussed in the previous section. Ho items of. noncompliance or deviations were. identified. (2) Reactor Coolant System Component Sucports_ ~ A limited inspection of the Vertical Columns - C1 as shcwn ' j and described on Westinghouse drawings 1457F2S and 1457F27 was performed in the site storage yard. The inspector i reviewed the PSAR and Westinghouse specification G-952628, Rev.1. " Fabrication Requirements For the Reactor Coolant i System Component Supports," and. determined the vertical column fabrication requirements were ASME B&PV Code, i 1 Section III, Div.1, NF,1974 edition as a minimum. The inspector was unable to find any documentation in the preliminary data package and certificates of conformance. or on the components that the articles were fabricated in accordance with ASME III, NF and that volumetric inspection of the full penetration welds had been performed as prescribed by,ASME III, NF, paragraph NF-5212. The licensee is obtaining 4 the complete data package for these items to determine if the items were fabricated and inspected as prescribed. This item is considered unresolved. I .m m.
S E i - B. Sa fety Related Pipina (Welding) The inspector observed the welding in the pipe shop of weld #2, 4"-pipe to fitting, SF-l-151R-3 per HPS 88023, Rev. 2. The welders and welding procedure were qualified in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code'. Section' IX. Weld technique, parameters, gases and expendable materials were as prescribed by the WPS. Inspections were as prescribed by B&R QCP-3.4 as noted on Weld Data Card 00893. The inspector reviewed the radiographs of welds 2 and 3, 24"-CC-1-AB-12, componen.t cooling line. The radiography was performed in accordance with procedure CP-NDEP-101, "Radiogra'phic Examination (Piping)," which complies with the requirements of ASME B&PV Code, Sections III and V,1974 edition including Summer 1974 Addenda. The inspector reviewed twelve original radiographs and radiographs of repairs as required. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Unreso1'ed Items 9. v Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. The following item was disclosed during this inspection re-garding fabrication and inspection of reactor coolant system component supports: Identifier Title Reference '~ Adequacy of the fabrication and Pa'ragraph 7.b.(2) 77-13-1 ~ inspection of reactor coolant system component supports 10. Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph
- 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 2,1977.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings. The licensee representatives acknowledged the unresolved item (paragraph 7.b.(2)) concerning lack of documentation regarding the fabrication of the reactor coolant system component supports. 4 k 7-h m m
p m.,,, ] ' OfM<M 2(~M.,,.hN + UNITED STATES 'n 5 OM-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMivilSSION $ S b k )[. E i REGION IV %,,y - @ij'[ 611 flYAN PLAZA oRIVE, SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 7G012 s July 2,1979 In Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-445/Rpt. 79-15 50-446/Rpt. 79-15 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN; Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President and General Manager 2001 3ryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen: This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. R. G. Taylor and W. A. Crossman of our staff on May 29 through June 4,1979, of activities authorised by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units No.1 and 2, concerning allegations by a former Comanche Peak employee. The investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigation report. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Even though no items of noncoupliance with NRC require =ents were identified during this investigation, we did find that the allegations vere essentially We also noted during this investigation that a thread of continuity true. existed between this investigation and others recently conducted relative to alleged problems with site canagement and quality control in certain areas of construction. Although ue feel that the major organizational changes you made in January 1978 have strengthened the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak, we cannot ignore the fact that we are continuing to receive allegations concerning construction bractices. Taken individually these allegations, some of which have been substantiated, do not appear to have any significant adverse impact en the conformance of your plant to NRC commitments. in our meeting with you and Mr. Fikar, in our office on Jun2However, as we discussed 22, 1979,'uhen these allegations are taken collectively, there appears to be a morale problem
- hich is evidenced by several of the allegers and may be attributable
, in part, to co==unication problens between the workers and supervision. June 22 ceeting, you indicated that you would look into these apparentIn cur ec =unication problems along with the adequacy of QA/QC indoctrination of plant supervision and workers and take appropriate action to correct any ucaknesses that you detect in these areas. cis sel-/ during subsequent inspections. Pe intend to follow this matter A
t Texas Utilities Generating Company July 2, 1979 In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of'this letter and the enclosed investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If the report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a teritten application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from l public disclosute. The. application must include a full state =ent of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary infor=ation identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Docu=ent Room., If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have 'any questions concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss then with you. Sincerely, W. C. Seidl Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
II Investigation Report No. 50-445/79-15 50-445/79-15 4 cc: u/ enclosure Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 i i ~ i I y m. ~ .---.g- - -,, ,-.-.----m..-- n.e --..n-n a-g--n. + ,-.e ~.--+-4 m- ..,,,a,--
~' U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.TIISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AT. O ENFORCDfENT REGION IV Report No. 50-445/79-15; 50-446/79-15 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company . 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201. Faciitty Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 Investigation at: Cc=anche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Tens Investigation conducted: May 29 through June 4, 1979 Inspectors: G[2/[75 R. G. Taylor, Reactor Resident Inspector, Project Sections Date 6[Z/ h. ev W. A. Cross =an, Chief, Projects Section Date Approved: WN G[2 / b - +7-W. A. Crossman, Chief, Proj ects Section Date Investigation Su nary: Investigation on May 29 through June 4, 1979 (Recort No. 50-445/79-15; 50-466/79-15) Areas Investi::ated: Special investigation of allegation received regarding improper and potentially very poor welding of inter-place seans in the Unit 1 Refueling Pool, spent fuel pools, and transfer canal of the common facility Fuel Handling Euilding. The investigation involved twenty-eight inspector-hours by the Reactor Resident Inspector (RRI) and the Chief, Projects Section. Results: The alle3ations vere neither specifically confirmed nor refuted. The allegations, if confir=ed, would have no safety significance. No items of nonec=pliance or deviations were identified. 1 ,J \\ i
INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 are under construction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Broun and Root, Inc. as the constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as the Architect / Engineer. REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch received a telephone call from a former'CPSES employee who reported several allegations indicating a pctential breakdown in the CPSES Quality Assurance program and a possible threat to the health and safety of the public. The substance of the allegations also appeared in an edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram published on May 30, 1979.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch received a telephone call on May 25, 1979, from a party who identified himself as a former CPS'ES employe~e who had worked as a Boilermaker welder. The call was taken jointly by the Branch Chief and the Section Chiefs of the Projects Section ~and the Engineering Support Section who in turn provided the infor-cation to the ~a ssigned Resident Reactor Inspector at CPSES on May 29, 1979. The allegations were reviewed with the alleger in an interview which took place on May 30, 1979, at his home. Each of the following allegations relate to welding of stainless steel liners in the Unit 1 Reactor Containment Building or in the common Fuel Handling Building: 1. Allegation No. 11/ Welding and weld repcirs on the liners were difficult because water fro:a concreting activities had run down the leak chase channels and out past the baching strip into the weld area. Welds finally completed were very poor; some velds had been slugged with weld rod and others were so.thir that if buffed a second time with' 120 grit, they would not have passed PT (Penetrant Test). 2. Alle2ation No. 2 There are problems with the gate guide (refers to a gate in the Reactor Containment separating the refueling pool f r.;;n a s aill storage pool and the transfer canal). p.- r.1:enen.s. ov a rr-tha allegaticas as receited. Cl a ri fi ca t i:nn r.M :. i':e i jtc the alleger durin3 the interview of :!ay 30, IM9, are indicated by p4r. 4:!.u...
The gate guide between the large and small pool was welded in the a. shop. When the gate guide was installed in the pit, the end bevel was cut off so it could be fit-up. When the guide was installed, it was not rebeveled and where a fillet weld of 3/8" was required, only 3/16" fillet veld was made. b. The gate guide had to be welded to both sides of the liner. When welding the back side, the welder had to crawl down between.the rebar to get to the weld. The position was so crowded that the welder could not make a good weld. Also, the welder couldn't see what he was welding very well. Six inches of the chase channels were lef t off the gate guide and c. added after the gate guide was installed. The rebar was so thick in the areas where welding was performed that "you could hardly get your finger through, much less the welding torch." Consequently, the welds were not'made properly. 3. Allegation No. 3 Welders have no experience. They spend as much as 80 hours trying to make a test veld. They finally learn how to make a weld that wi.1 pass the qualifying test and then when they get into the field they do.1't know what they're doing. 4. Allegation No. 4 There is " lots" of QC coverup. QC is " buying-off" on welds over the phone. One-QC inspector bought off a seam before he ever saw the seam and it was not a good weld because water was coming through while the veld was being made. (The buy-off involved was joint preparation and cleanliness prepar-atory to welding). 5. Allegation No. 5 Brown and' Root is not following procedures in welding the liner plate. (The procedures referred to are welding procedures and specifically refer to use of a down-hand welding technique being used versus the procedurally i required up-hand technique). 6. Allegation ro. 6 Some of the tcp seams 18" above water level on the fuel pool had backing strips tack welded to the liner plate. There are places where the plate did not cover the backing strip. H.e would not guarantee the weld. The veld was probably 60% rust, air, concrete, etc.
D 4 CONCLUSIONS Review of the CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report, Project Specifications and Engineering Drawings, as they pertain to the liner fabrication and 3.ustallation,. have led to the following conclusions relative to each allegation stated in the Summary of Facts above. considerations are necessary:To better understand these conclusions, the following The liner systems are not installed to prevent or mitigate the conse-quences of any of the postulated design basis accidents, but rather are installed to prevent an excessive burden on the liquid waste collection and disposal syst6m and to allow the wall and floor area to be more easily decontaminated after pool usage. The liners as a functioning element are, therefore, not considered safety related and are not normally inc.luded in the NRC inspection program. The liners, as passive elements and parts of the building structure, are usually classified into seismic Category I since if one or more of the liner plates were to become detached from the wall, serious damage could be done to stored fuel assemblies. The plates are, . therefore, secured to the concrete supporting structure with a system of weld studs attached to the back of the plate and embedded into the The weld stud system is not a factor in these allegations. <oncrete. 1. Allegatio'n No.1 The RRI, based on the interview with the alleger and with other welders, __.. has.become reasonably sure that there were difficulties encountered by the welders with water, moisture and in some instances with concrete on the weld surfaces and that in some instances, the welds may not be com-pletely sound internally. These welds, however, serve no strength purpose and need only to be smooth and leak free, factors which are established by visual inspection, dye penetrant examinations, and by vacuum box tests of the joint after it is complete. The allegation, while probably true, has no safety consequence. 2. Allegations No. 2.a, b, & c These collective allegations, while probably true in a substantial sense, also have no safety consequence. The veld joints in. question only need to be smooth and leak free in the-case of a. and b. and leak free 'in the case of c. The welds do not serve to lend strength to the.=tructure. 3. Allecation No. 3 The project specifications for all welding, including the pool liners, require that velders be qualified under the requirements of the American Society of Mechancial Engineers, Boiler and Pressure '.*essel Code, Section IX or a comparable requirement such as those of the American k'elding
Society. Section IX of the ASME requires that a werder must perform a weld process involved and the as-welded coupon must pass specified tests when ccaplete. No time limits are specified or implied as a requirement in Section IX for making the qualification test coupon weld. The RRI has verified previously that'the site welder qualification pro-gram is in full compliance with Section IX. 4. Allegation No. 4 'The RRI' examined the circumstances surrounding the specific portion of the allegation and discussed the matter with the QC inspector directly involved. It appears that this man, on occasion, was depending on the inspections performed by a fellow inspector and so recorded on the ' appropriate weld data card. The joint was cov'ered over with tape after it had been inspected for cleanliness and fit-up and the inspector re-leased it over t.ne phone based on the record card entries. Water in the leak chase channels appears to have been a constant problem. 'The QC inspector may have made a judgement error in not re-examining the joint, but not withstanding, the joint had been inspected and found satisfactory at that time. The REI did not investigate the alleged " lots" of QC coverup because of the lack of specifics. 5. Alle2ation No. 5 As noted in the Summary of Facts, the general allegation of failing to follow procedures was subsequently refined in the interview with the alleger to relate specifically to an occasion where the alleger was directed by his supervision to weld down-hand rather than up-hand as required by the welding procedures. ASME Section IX indicates that such a change. is in the category of a non-essential variable and, therefore, , is not a prohibited change in the procedure, if recorded. It appears that the change was not recorded. Interviews with other welders on the sa ae activity failed to reveal any similar experiences and supervision has denied directing the alleger to perform out-of procedure. The RRI, there-fore, has no mechanism by which to confirm the allegation. Again, assuming that the alleger did weld down-hand instead of up-hand for whatever reason, the consequences of such an action are essentially meaningless as related to a weld, since such a change has no effect on the finished weld of the type involved. 6. Alle2ation No. 6 The particular welds in question are even less consequential than the other seam welds in a functional sense. These welds, which are above the water line in the pools, do not need to be leak free, just smooth for the' purposes of easy decontaminat'.n. The allegation, while perhaps true, has no conse-quence.
' w, DETAILS 1. Feysens contacted Alleger The alleger, hereaf ter identified as Individual "A," is a former employee of Brown and Root, Inc. (the site general contractor). The person iden-xb tified himself as a for=er welder assigned to the millwright / boilermaker unit of the construction force. s Principal Licensee Emoloyee Site Quality Assurance Supervisor Brown and Root, Inc. Project Construction Manager Milluright/ Boilermaker Superintendent Individual "B," a welder currently working as a pipefitter but who was a Boilermaker Individual "C," a welder currently working as a pipefitter but Oho was a Boilermaker Individual "D," a quality control inspector who was assigned to inspection of pool liners 2. Backtround of Allegations Individual "A" contacted the Region IV of fice at approximately 9:25 a.m. on Friday, May 25, 1979, to express concerns about the welding activities which had taken place on the spent fuel pools, cask loading pool and the transfer canal in the com=on Fuel Handling Building for both Units as well as that work accomplished in the Unit 1 refueling pool and temporary stora3e pool installed in the Reactor Containment Building. The RRI was notified of these allegations on Tuesday, May 29,1979, (May 28 a holiday) and initiated an immediate investigation. The first point of contact was the licensee's site Quality Assurance supervisor who informed the RRI that he was aware of the allegations, since his company had been apprised of them by a newspaper reporter e= ployed by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The site supervisor also infor=ed the RRI that another welder, Individual "B," had expressed similar concerns to the Project Construction Manager 'on May 23, 1979, and that concerns had been forwarded to site Quality s Assurance for investigation. The RHI was provided an informal memorandum giving the results of the investigation dated May 23, 1979. t
- e.. -
h t
Individual "A" also contacted the Project Construction Manager on May 24, 1979, and expressed essentially the same concerns as those expressed by Individual "B" and which in turn he expressed to the Region IV office ~on May 25, 1979. It appears that Individual "A" and his supervision, up through the Project Construction Manager, had reached a substantial point of disagreement and Individual "A" voluntarily terminated his employment at the site as of May 24,~1979. The voluntary termination ds a matter of record in Individual "A's" employment file. 3. Investigation The RRI initiated the site phase of the investigation by extensively . reviewing the CPSES Final Safety Analysis Repnrt in order to ascertain the safety classification of the various pools and pool liners involved in the allegation and to review the functional descriptions. Reference to Section 3.2, " Classification of Structures, Components and Systems," in the FSAR does not indicate the liners as being safety related although the buildings in which they exist are shown to be in seis=ic Category I. Paragraph 3.8.3.7.1 provided a commitment to test the liner seams via a vacuum box for leak tightness and briefly described a leak chase system behind the liner seams. Paragraph 3.8.4.1.3 provided a brief additional description of the function of the liners. Figures 9.3-9 and 11.2-4 revealed that the extensive leak chase system has lead-out piping which leads to a building sump and hence into the liquid radioactive waste collection and disposal system. The RRI then obtained Project Specification 2323-SS-18, Revision 3, " Stainless Steel liners," to ascertain what requirements the design engineer had established for the liners. items from the specification: The RRI noted the following significant The design engineer invoked the general quality assurance requirements a. of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B on the fabrication and installation work. b. The design engineer provided three full pages of detail requirements relative to the system of studs to be welded to the reverse or concrete backed side of the liners. The design engineer made reference to the inter plate seam welds only c. by requiring that the welding procedures and welders be qualified to ASME, Section IX. Criteria for finished welds require that, " Surfaces of all welds shall be smooth and free of any irregularities such as serrations, ridges, crevices, or pinholes which may make it subsequently difficult to achieve an effective washdown of the liner surface." Under testing the design engineer provided the following, "All seam uelds shall also be tested by vacuum box for leak, tightness for their entire lenth." No other quality requirements were imposed on the seam welds. I
d. The RRI then obtained the design engineer's drawings S-0831 through S-0834, SI-0560, MI-0581, all of which provide' details of liner fabrication and installation. In addition, the RRI obtained vendor design detail drawings for the gate guide installed in the Containment Building between the refueling pool and the temporary storage pool. These drawings, taken collectively, showed that the design engineer had designed a system wherein the liner plates and the gate guide would be supported by and anchored to the surroanding concrete walls by a very extensive system of "T" headed studs. welded to the concrete sides of the plates and gate guide frame. The seam welds are entirely from plate-to-plate and provide no attachment into the basic building structure. The RRI concluded on the basis of the above information that the liner system had been designed such that resistance to seismic effect was vested in the "T" headed stud installation and that the seam kelds were necessary only to provide a very low leakage path for the pool water and that what leakage might occur would be drained to an appropriately designed method of disposal. The RRI interviewed Individual "A" on May 30, 1979, in conjunction with the Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Branch, Projects Section ~ Chief, in order to gain additional information relative to each of the allegations received over the telephone on May 25, 1979. The additional information and clarifications were as noted in the Summary of Facts included in this report. In addition, Individual "A" acknowledged that he had only very recently become aware that the stud system existed for holdihg the plates in place' and was, in fact, unaware that the leak chase channels were piped to a collection point for controlled collection and dispos'al of any leakage which might occur. The RRI interviewed Individual "B" in the presence of the licensee's site QA supervisor, also on May 30, 1979. (This arrangment was allowed since Individual "B" only came to the attention of the RRI through the assistance of the licensee's representative.) The allegations of Individual "A" were reviewed in detail with Individual "B" who essentially confirmed Allegations 1, 3 and 6, but indicated he had not worked in the Allegation 2 area and further indicated that he had no complaints about lack of effective QC nor had he been instructed not to follow welding procedures. The RRI interviewed Individual "C" on May 31, 1979, with the same results as those obtained in the interview with Individual "B." Individual "C" indicated that he perhaps was one' of the persons referred to by Individual "A" in Allegation 3. He also indicated that he had very limited welding experience before coming to work at CPSES and none in "Heliarc" weld process. He vas given some forty hours of very informal training and then used fifty-t<o hours to make his weld test coupon, a duration that he now considers to be excessive. He now thinks that he is a good welder. -S-
The RRI interviewed Individual "D" on May 30, 1979,'and again' June 1, 1979, to develop any facts relative to the specific allegation of " buying-off" joints over the phone. Individual "D" categorically denied that he, or to his knowledge any other QC inspector assigned to this work area, had ever " bought-off" a designated inspection point without making the required inspection. On June 1,1979, Individual "D" indicated that there had been very few occasions when he had given consent to the welders to weld up a seam that, by the inspection reports, had been previously inspected for fit-up and cleanliness. He also indicated that he and others had repeatedly stopped work on welding of seams where it came to their attention that water or moisture,was interfering with good welding. l The RRI interviewed the Boil'rmaker Superintendent on June 4, 1979, relative 'to his knowledge and/or participation in any of the allegations. ' He cate-gorically denied ever directing welders to make welds where water or moisture was present, but acknowledged that it was a constant problem. He indicated that he finally received engineering permission to drill holes through the liner at the ends of the leak chase. channels so that air could be blown through to dry out the channels and that this action helped a great deal. He indicated that he had continuely attempted to impress the welders with the importance of making good seam welds. 4. RRI's Assessment of the Liners The RRI observed some of the welding work on the refueling pool in the Unit No.1 containment during the latter part of 1978 and the early part of 1979 incidental to making inspection of other activities in the same work area. The welding appeared to be normal and the dye penetrant examinations appeared to be properly accomplished. The finished surfaces examined have been uni-for~cily smooth and appear sound. The RRI also examined some unfinished areas in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool and can appreciate the difficulties that may be encountered in removing some of the concrete laitance from the vertical weld jaint areas. 4 9
4 20574 4 i November 21, 1984 1 , h' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of s ) } TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and COM PANY, et al. ) 50-446-2 i ~~ ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for . Station, Units 1 and 2) i _ ) Operating Licenses) PREFILED TESTIMONY OF C. THOMAS BRANDT REGARDING ) CASE'S sFURTHER " EVIDENCE" OF A QUALITY CONTROL - BREAKDOWN IN THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION OF THE STAINLESS STEEL LINER PLATE Ql. ,Mr. Brandt, have you had an opportunity to review the memo-randum concerning the stainless steel liner plate ~ " ' ~ filed b'y the Citizens Association 'for Sound Energy on November 15 19847 l a A1. Yes. Q2. Mr. Brandt, directing your attention to. page tEo of that i memorandum, CASE contends that applicants incorrectly assert that the' liner plate is not sa fety-related. Do you see that passage? i A2. Yes. It is set out in the first three paragraphs, on the page. 03. Is that contention correct? 4 f O. f sig e y -ea w4 ee- --,,,.-e---- y y--.--
. 20575 "A3. No. CASE's contention shows a lack of understanding of my testimony and the procedures applicable' to the fabrication r '.,.. and installation of the stainless steel liner plate. As I testified before, the fabrication and installation of the stainless steel liner have been designated safety-related r activities by the architect engineer. I eould like to note ~ g my testimony on this. point appears at page 45,315 of the ~ transcript of this proceeding. Therefore, CASE is factu-ally incorrect w' hen it asserts that applicants have testi- 'I fled that the liner plate is not safety related. What I testified to, and what CASE appears not to understand,- is ~ that the welds in question are non-structural; this point is different from, and unrelated to, the fact that the [ fabrication and installation of the liner plate are _,,,, safety-related activities. The significance of the welds being non-structural is that the architect-engineer did not impose stringent-I L requirements such as those imposed by the ASME code, for the fabrication, installation, inspection and testing of the liner and the welding associated with these activities. The architect-engineer's only concern was that_the. elds 3 not leak. Accordingly, welding on the liner place is not \\ now, nor ha's it even been, under the jurisdiction of the ASME Code. only two matters. remotely tie the liner plate to ASME { activities, but neither of these matters' apply ASME fabri-cation and installation requirements to the-liner plate. J
~ ~3~ 20576 First, the specification for the liner plate requires that welders who work on, and welding procedures used in connec-() tion with, the liner plate be qua'lified in accordance with Section IX of the ASME Code. This Section, however, is limited to the qualifications of procedures and welders, and it is not a fabrication code. Accordingly, the Code's fabrication requirements simply do not apply to the liner plate. Second, as an administrative matter, the inspection group originally assigned to perform these inspections was the ASME group. In February 1982, responsibility for these inspections was transferred to the non-ASME inspection group; this transfer was also an administrative matter. Again, I want to emphasize that these assignments-were .Qnrelated to the applicability of the ASME Code require-ments to the fabrication and installation of the liner p la 't e. 04. Mr. Brandt, directing your attention to pages ' two and three of CASE 's memorandum, CASE asserts that the correct traveler form.was used for weld no. 988, and that you either were wrong in testifying that all travelers were initiated on the wrong form or that you knew that some travelers were initiated'on the correct form and your testimony aas deceptive. Do you see these allegations? A4. Yes, I do. C5. Is CASE correct? } V
20577 ( AS. No. First, my testimony was that I could find no evidence that the correct traveler form was esed before April 18, ('e-1979. My review of the travelers in11 cates that the cor-- rect form was used after that date. Second, all of my testimony, as I have stated several times, is limited to the travelers for the Unit 2 refueling cavity, which is located inside the Unit 2 reactor buiiding. All thirteen hundred travelers at+ issue in this proceeding are for that cavity. I would like to point out that I made tf.is point on pages 15,921-923, 15,927 of the transcript of this pro-ceeding. Traveller 988 cited by CASE is not for a w' eld in this cavity. I-t is for a weld in the Unic 2 fuel transfer canal, which is located inside the fuel building. This is ( not only a completely different cavity; it is for a cavity . located in a completely different building. Thus, CASE's f allegation is pr'emised on a, traveler that was not even j included in the travelers that were.the subject of my testimony. 06. Directing your attention to page 3 of Exhibit I to CASE's memorandum, CASE alleges that certain welds lack QC veri-fication of the fit-up and cleanliness of the outside 1 welds. In support of this allegation, CASE identifies a total of 147 welds which it claims lack QC verification of the fit-up and cleanliness of outside welds. Do you see those. allegations? ~ A6. Ye s I do. i 07 F. ave you reviewed the travelers for these welds? A7. Yes.
i
- 20578
.Q8. What were the results of your review? AB. In each instance. I found that there was either a chit g~g and/or a traveler documenting QC verification of the fit \\;... up and cleanliness of the outside weld. Accordingly, CASE's allegation is factually wrong. ~ ' 09. CASE asserts on page three of Exhibit 1, "it is evident that the chits (attached to the 147 travelers] w t ere not intended to verify step 1, but was [ sic] intended t Step 3 and/or 2 only." o verify Is this correct? A9. No. The chits themselves reflect that they document QC verification of the fit-up and cleanliness of the out side weld. Q10. CASE also alleges on page 3 that 170 other weld 4 s lack QC verification for fit-up and cleanliness of the outside weld. Did you review the documentation for th'es~e weld ? A10. Yes.- s Oll. What were the results of your review? All. With the exception of weld 326, [ I found that there,was a. chit and/or traveler substantiating the QC inspectionof the fit-up and cleanliness of the concrete side of these welds. Thus, with the exception of weld 326 CASE's alle-gation is f actually wrong.' Q12. Have you determined why there was no documentati on verify-ing the cleanliness and fit-up of the outside weld for traveler 326? A12. Yes, I have. e 9 a se n, w-y - ~ g-m e-,w e -p-w -og,-
-6 20579 -Q13. Why was documentation of the QC verification for this weld found during your review? not A13. The weld has not been made. It is a weld between an angle ~ and the top plate of the cavity, which as of November 20,
- 1984, had not yet been fit-up.
Q14. CASE next states on page four of Exhibit 1 that five welds lacked OC verification of fit-up and cleanliness for the outside welds prior to welding which allegedly renders their conditions indeterminate, contrary to procedure and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix 3, criteria V. - Do you agree I with this characterization? ~ A14. I cannot agree with CASE's position. [ I do agree with CASE's contention that, because of the dates of the signa- 't u r e s, the chits attached to these travelers do not t - definitely establish that the five cleanliness and fit-up inspections were performed prior the time the backing strip was tack-welded to the plates. This is a violation of site procedures, and I have directed that an NCR be written.to address this deficiency. While I agree that there is a paper problem with these i five travelers, I cannot agree that the deficiency is tech-nically signific' ant. The fit-up of the plates associated with the travelers identified by CASE was reverified and i documented and the cleanliness of the inside joint was verified and documented prior to making the inside weld s. Under these circumstances, the verification of the fit-up and cleanliness of the plates prior t'o tack-welding the } m m oe a ,---,,-y,,..- y ,.,.--,y ,w - 9 ,,p a,
. i 20580 backing strip to the plates is not a technical concern. ~ The only purpose of verifying the cleanlin t ess of the plates prior.to tack-welding the backing strip to the' l (" p ates was to assure that the backing strip could be securely t ^ ~ acked on and would not become dislodged inside the le k a c.hase channel. The sole purpose for the inspectIion is t that the backing strip remains in p' lac o ensure e until the time of the inside fit-up. The reason for verifying fit-up prior to tack-welding the backing strip to th e plates was to prevent difficult rework which would be requir d after the e attachment of the leak chase channel if the origi ~ nal fit-up between the plates was out of tolerance In any event, if the backing strip had dislodged or if th r e fit-up have been . improper those deficiencies would have been not d \\ when the e cleanliness and fit-up inspections were perfo rmed for the inside welds. 015. On page five of Exhibit 1, CASE identifies a number of welds which were done using welding proc d e ure 88023 and. claims that the correct procedure ing procedure 88025. for those welds was-weld-Do you agree with this assertion? A15. No. The welds CASE identified are embed to plat All selds made on the linsr plates betw e welds. een embeds and plates are groove welds in shich the deposited weld metal thickness (joint thickness) is 1875" (the thickness of the plate). The proper procedure for making this w ld i e n 1978 wa s W PS 880 2 3, which was cualified for thickness ranges .0625" through.750". Prior to October 15, 1979, WPs 83025 h e e -*S. M % *
- 20581
~ was qualified for welds with thicknesses of 0.75" through 3.5". On October 15, 1979, WPS 88025 was revised and the f'N thickness range was ' expanded from 0.75" through 3 5" to \\ / y 0.185" through 3.50". Af ter this date either WPS 88023 or WPs 88025 could have been followed when making the welds to which ' CASE refers. Therefore, CASE is wrong in contending that the wrong procedure was used in making the referenced welds. To confirm my observations on this point, copies of WPS 88023, WPS 88025 and 1977 ASME IX, QW 202.2 are append-ed to 'my testimony as attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Q16. On page six of Exhibit 1, CASE identified 243 travelers which CASE claims lack QC verification for Step 5, fit-up and cleanliness of the inside welds. Have you reviewed the traveler packages for these welds? A16. Yes. Q17. What was the result,of your review? A17. It is difficult to understand CASE's allegations with respect to the various welds included on the lists on page 6 of Exhibit 1 to CASE's memorandum. Initially, it is important to note that CASE's list includes five-line travelers and eight-line travelers. With respect to the ftve-line t ra v e l'e r s, for example weld 6, the fifth line is for the final V.T. inspection, not for a fit-up and clean-liness inspection. Thus, CASE's allegations for the five-line travelers does not make any sense. In any event,
20582 where the fifth line of the five-line traveler is unsigned it simply means that weld is in process, and it does not, -] reflect any paper or technical deficiency. The eight-line travelers on the list fall into several categories. First, many of the travelers are for welds that are welded on one side only (welds 875, 896, 901, 908, 909, 910, 912, 682, 713, 714, 779, 7'83, 784, 785, 797, 798, and 799). For these welds CASE's allegation is wrong because there is welding on only one side of the liner; consequently, there are no fit-up or cleanliness inspec-tions to be performed on the second side of the liner I Second, CASE is correct with respect to a small group of i eight-line travelers (welds 12, 51, 59, 65,66, 72, 73, 90, 43, 107, 147, 203, -709, 851, and 907), and I have directed that._ an NCR be written identifying the welds for which th i e inside fit-up and cleanliness inspections have not been documented. Finally, my axamination of all of the remain-ing eight-line travelers on CASE's list reveals.that CASE is factually wrong because the inside fit-up and cleanli-ness inspections were performed and documented. 017. On pages 7-8 of Exhibit 1 CASE lists twenty-seven (27) welds which CASE contends are missing the final V.T. of the inside weld. Have you reviewed this alleca tion? A17 Yes. 218. What conclusions have you drawn as a result of that review? i
20583 A18. 'This is another example of CASE's l the fabrication and inspection proceack of understandin ss. CASE is correct fg noting that a final visual inspection has not b in Q een perform-ed for these welds, but the final visual inspection has not been performed because the welding /inspecti not been completed.. on process has My review of the travelers indicates tha t no holdpoints have been bypassed and no violati exists for any of these welds. on Q19. Fir. Brandt, CASE also lists twenty-two (22) welds for which WFMLs are not on page 8 in the package. Have you had an opportunity to review this allegation? A19. Yes.
- However, the absence of WFMLs in these traveler pack-ages does not constitute a violation of proc d'
/ e ure or a deficiency. i There'is simply no requirement specifyi a_cgpy of the applicable WFML is to be kept i ~ ng that n each traveler. I might also add, there is no requirement filler metal traceability on any of thes for e welds.. 020. On pages 9-15 of Exhibit 1, CASE alleges that WFMLs are referenced on' travelers indicating that new welding was done, but there is no QC verification or involv the welding is done. ement when Assuming this to be true, what significance doe. s this al' legation have? A20. i Although I have not reviewed all the travelers listed by \\ CASE on pages 9-15, i I have reviewed enough to lead me to believe that this is another '.itance where CASE does not unders.tand the requirements and/or the fabrication sequence. In all-travelers I reviewed, no inspection hold- ) ~
20584 points have been bypassed. If CASE is attempting to infer that QC must perform some type of " verification" each day (.7% welding is performed, this simply is not the case. All v required inspections are procedurally described, and there is no requirement for " verification" each day welding is performed. From the sample I reviewed, I am unable to detect any violation. 021. Mr. Brandt, turning your attention to pages 16-20 of Exhibit 1, CASE lists numerous welds for which welding was done, -but no QC verification or involvement is shown, and that WFMLs are attached to, but not references on, the ~ travelers. What significance, if any, is there to this allegation. A21. Mone. Once again, as I discussed above, this is apparently ....anoth_er instance where CASE is attempting to assert that verification of welding must be performed on each day that welding occurs. Of the travelers that I reviewed in connection with this allegation', all welds were still in-
- process, i.e., they had not yet received final inspection.
CASE's observation that WFMLs are attached to, but not referenced on, the travelers is correct; however, the alle-gation is without significance. This information is not required by specification, and serves no quality function. I ) The millwrights are procedurally required to enter this information but they simply have not done so as of this date.
Ac.- ,,a .L_ J .-.aJ -y 20585 Q22. Mr. Brandt, CASE identifies S NCRs on page 21 of Exhibit I which describe welds for which vacuum box testing was improperly noted as not applicable. ,g tj Is there significance to this observation? A22. No. It was an error made by the inspector, but was proper-ly reported and dispositioned on an NCR. Q23. On page 22, CASE lists fifty-seven (57) welds which it, 4 alleges are deficient because final V.T. has been-performed without vacuum bo'x and/or liquid penetrant examination bein~g performed. Have.you reviewed this allegation? A23. Yes, I have. Q24. What was the result of your review? A24. CASE apparently misunderstands the inspection testing /' i sequence. The final V.T. precedes the vacuum box testing and the liquid penetrant examination. As these welds are ~[ clearly still in process, no holdpoints have been bypassed and no violetion exists. Q25. On the bottom of page 22, CASE notes "the final V.T. of the inside welds were signed off on the following welds by other inspectors." What i s the significance, if any, of this observation? A25. I am not quite s'ure to whom CASE is referring by the use of the phrase "other inspectors." I assume CASE is referring to the fact that the final V.T. has been performed by ~.; inspectors other than those who performed the P. T. and/or V.B. test. If this is. CASE's allegation, i it is without ee * * ="#*88* e .e.
, 4 p 20586 merit because there is no requirement 'that the same inspec-ter perform V.T. and P.T. and/or vacuum, box testing. No (} violation exists. 026. Mr. Brandt,.on page 23 of Exhibit 1, CASE lists 131 welds shich it alleges are deficient because the " completion of weld inspection block on attachment 1 signed off as completed prior to the completion on welds prior to [ sic] vacuum box testing and/or P.T. inspection being performed." Have yo,u reviewed this allegation? A26. Yes, I have. C27. What did your review indicate? A27. The welds listed fall into several different categories. ~ For a number of welds which CASE asser~ts that (~ " completion i wof weld inspection block on attachment I signed off as .. completed prior to the completion on welds prior to [ sic] vacuum box testing and/or P.T. inspection being performed," CAS: is incorrect as the travelers clearly indicate that the wel*' is still in process. Welds 5, 7, and 8 are examples of this category. As the welds are incomplete,-no violation exists. For a small group of wclds, (seld numbers 1240, 1242, 1245, 1248, 1182, 1209, and l'210), CASE is correct and I have direct'ed that an NCR be written identi-fying the condition as nonconforming. For all other welds { ],,,) listed on page 23, CASE is incorrect because the referenced R tests are net recuireb.: the re fo re, no violation exists. i
.. 20587 Q28. CASE alleges on page twenty-four of Exhibit 1 that "[m)any NCR's were written for welds that James Cole had N/A'd e g7g vacuum box test on. The vacuum b'ex test has been reestab-lished on all but the ones below." Have you had an oppor-tunity to review this allegation and the travelers involved with this allegation? A28. Ye s, I have. 4 029. What was the result of your review? A29. Apparently CASE alleges that' vacuum box was required for these welds. CASE lists.eighty-eight (88) welds which it believe are deficient. As a result of my review, I have determined that with one excpetion (weld 932) that CASE's allegation is incorrect. All other wieds are not pressure boundary welds and therefore do not require' vacuum box testing, and the step is properly marked not ~ applicable ("N/A") on the traveler. I have directed that an NCR be written for weld 932 noting that the vacuum box test for that weld was improperly marked "N/A." 030. Mr. 3randt, CASE alleges on. the bottom of page twenty-four of Exhibit 1, that " PT t e s t has been performed on these welds but vacuum box has not". Have you had an opportunity to review this allegation'and the related travelers A30. Yes I have. Q31. What l '.'._/ were the result of your review of these travelers? A31. CASE lists an additional forty-eight (48) welds for which vacuum box has not been performed. For-four (4) of these j selds (welds 1230, 1232, 1235, and 1238), CASE is correct
- w eee-e
-c,, .n. e ,,..pg.y
4 20588 and I have directed that an NCR be prepared d escribing this condition. For all other welds listed here, CASE is incorrect; the step has properly been marked no't applicable as these welds do not require vacuum box testi 032. ng. Mr. Brandt, directing your attention to page twenty-five of Exhibit 1, in particular to CASE's di'scussion of NCR M 83 D1847 dated 7/7/83. . CASE states that in 1983 and a hold tag applied "The NCR was written It has not been disposi-tiened yet, and'there is no copy of this NCR in traveler 151. There is no RPS in package for weld 154 154 was . signed off by Don Vogt, S.M. McCoy, for steps 2, 3, and 4. Jim Cole inspected 151 on 4/20/80 and 153 on 4/24/80." what is the significance, if any, of these allegations 7 f A32. -First, CASE is incorrect in stating that _ - - - - - - - - been dispositioned yet." ...it has not In fact, ' CASE describ'es the disposition of this NCR on page 25 of Exhibi t 1. original NCRs are not . Second, filed with traveler packages, does the lack of a copy of the NCR in nor package 151 consti-tute a violation of any code, standard, specification, procedure. or Third, CASE's observation thut no RPS is in package 154 is correct, but it is without significance for tso reasons: first, the repair is not-yet complete secon'd, the and repair, when completed, will be of weld 151 s nog weld 154, and accordingly s copy of the RPS will be in package 151, not 154. Fourth, with respect to CASE's observation that " Jim Cole inspected seld 151 on 4/20/80 [actually 4/2/90] and 153 on 4/24/80 " CAS E is apparentiv m. .-g. c. y , w.y
e . -~ _ 20589 speculating on Mr. Cole's ability as an inspector. There is no indication that' weld 153 was improperly inspected. ~ The NCR clearly states that the backing bar had"been ground k-through. No evidence exists which indicates that I the back-ing bar was not intact when Mr. Cole performed his inspec-tion.on 4/24/80, and, as CASE notes, the incident (gr through the backing bar) was properly repo t r ed as nonform-ing. In the other incident described, i.e., the failure of the backi,ng bar to continue for the full len th g of the weld at the intersection of welds 166 and 153, CASE again seems to allege that this weld was imprope'rly inspected by Mr.
- Cole, Although not extremely clear from the face of th document, what Mr. Halcomb, e
the originator of the NCR, was attempting to indicate by attaching the Chit for first fit-up of weld 154, was that the " deficient" i backing strip was from weld 154, not from weld 151. Therefore, Mr. Cole clearly was not involved with this deficiency. The defi- ) cient condition becomes clearer after looking at the d i ing. raw-Weld 151 is a vertical weld which attache s_a' plate-(A35) to a gate guide. Although the vertical weld contin-ues on down the gate guide, it is numbered differently for each plate it at.taches. Welds 151, 155, 157. and-159 all form the vertical weld which attaches a gate guid e to plates A35, 335, M35 and M35, respectively. This weld - (although'4 weld numbers) was fit up on 5/17/79. The back-ing strip for this weld (weld numbers 151, 155, 157, a..d 159) was continuous for the 'ength of th.e weld. Th e fact r s v, e-~, wr-nm---- e r,cv r-e a m g y s- + - - - - ~ s - - - - e s.-y e
= 20590 ~ that the backing strip for weld 154 lacked 3/8" fr om running the full length of the weld was properly reported , n) on an NCR, \\. and is attributable to inspector errQr. Q33. On page 26 of Exhibit 1, CASE refers to a numbering discrepancy which was reported on NCR M-83-00907. What significance, if any, is there for this allegation? A33. This allegation is co~ rect, however without significance. r In this case the construction group which issued the trayelers, assigned separate veld numbers for the welds attaching the backing strip and leak chase to the gate guide. Although clearly indicated on the traveler, the mi11 wrights were not timely in assignment of these weld i numbers to the marked-up drawing which they were proce-Murally required to maintain. This conditi n was properly , identified by QC on an NCR and the situation was corrected. In no way was this an inspection deficiency. Q34. Mr. Brandt, on page 27 of Exhibit 1, CASE identifies two nonconformance reports, NCR M84-Ol969 and NCR M84-00498. Have you had a chance to review CASE's allegation regardi ng these NCRs? i A34. Quite frankly, I am unable to find that CASE alleges anything with regard to these two NCRs. Both identified
- problems, and both were properly dispositioned in accord-i ance with site procedures.
- s CASE's note regarding the ) absence of a copy of the NCR in all of the packages is not a violation of any recuirement. As I stated earlier, the original UCR is filed in a location separate from the 4 e
~18 20591 traveler package. All Packages do contain the' corrected PT report and reference NCR M-84-00948. Other than the defi-O ciency which was reported on these two NCRs, I am not aware of any deficiency in the way they were processed or dispo-sitioned. e e G 4 e e 4 ,~ =*=.% e 9
- e e
M I e. -- -.-i
1 20592 i 1 UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C.OMMISSION r(,j. BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROAR In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. COM PANY, et al. ) 50-445-2 and 50-446-2 }
- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
) (Application for - Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Prefil d Testimony of C. Thomas Brandt e of a Quality Control Breakdown in the Construction,Regarding CASE's " captioned matter were served upon the following pa Installation e-delivery or deposit in the United States mail,* firstersons by hand-postage prepaid, this 20th day of November,
- class, 1984:
(' Peter B. Bloch, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and i
Licensing Doard Licensing Appeal Panel U. S. . - U. S. - Nuclear
- Regulatory '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. - 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements E81 West Guter Drive Docketing & Services Branch U. Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert Grossman, Esq. U. 'S. Nuclear Regulatory Stuart A. Treby, Esq. Commission Washington, D.' C. 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S.
- M r. Robert D. Mar-in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator Region IV Washington, D.
C. 20555. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Gil Ryan Plaza Drive Licensing Board Panel Suite 1000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Arlington, Texas 76011 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 .s --y
t a " O J 2-20593
- Renea Hicks, Esq.
i Assistant Attorney General Anthony 7.. Roisman, Esq. Environmental Protection Executive Director - Division Trial Lawyers for Public Justice P. O. Box 1254.8 2000 P.
- Street, N.W.
Capitol Station Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C. 20036
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Board ' Panel U. S. Dallas, Texas 75224 Nuclear Regulatory ~ Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 / N / '44 ru c e ' L. 'Down ey cc: Homer C. Schmidt John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq. i e e O v w: I e I
20594 ~ vetLD #wCCtCweit.vo, - arm
- . n...",.t* ^ :*.?. 4
- e:. W 1? Y) 8907') u t s w.t J. 4.. s ;;. i.. H-4.;M '8. 72 *-4 M.y n avisie,e l i 1 ...t i e,) APPLICA3LE COD 2isi SUPPORTING POS ts) ASME Tee. iY yg i. .-. CATI O N _ ">- C a t?na s.., ess.:. Sec. IiI c-- ~ ' va.1. 1 O...- .7 ge:;e 05 Dev 4ig4g,y A!iSI E31.1 C O.'. W C.% H ad P t Y Z A C W C 8AsE f.:ETAL
- .'/47Pr M RAIlOM
.*..g: :..,..; ,3 7 1. ' " C-Q CACUP I 73 ? NO-E*,",',* a n.sawa,1 6v -san =4af-- . w.. -..'. w e - -. ' r I THICX.'t sS3 3MN~3 '3 n c' I :. s:: arc cut-inc. and/or triccir.o. ~ p ggg ngue,- (i. 4 e.-d a
- G,.EA... :3 ul.1Tixt & INTE APAs31 PRCCOsSLEsl es,
-e 3- .0 4 4.,.
- c.,, r, - s e el st i bs
,s i. s i= =.. e ' e d {cr?"c: t re:: (-M te ev eva e1 e. se.1.. 3 , cr otn.:e c n :mnants. PCSITICN iJA0 All Pesiticss j - un::.; A rc~i Fi,cw n4T ic re-im PRCCRE=1CN '1IO .!.M30C IION III _ FLOW MTT-5 CFH f4in. ! T:t A:t.!M 3 'Ill FLCW RATY_ d'/ ".n ,:ictEa uzTat j sLux / CPSES rne := ":'7 " sFA no. : o a no, e A No. 2 ,.::.A=me: Tron M/A OF \\ racers.s '! /1 FA NC. *!/3 i: MC. '!! 1. :c. 'L*j f "!.**C'.! r.: Z II/A EM d /f N Mb$ ~ k CTNER I/A 3 T:t.. : ti.*.*.:- ' N /1 ~'( N ' D.; w PREH2A7 i ?;i.Ti.!'I' 0 r.2AT T3 EA7:4 5777 '- 4 g.},j j, PREHE AT TZMP., 'F C000 9I f* -}# T' ' 71 H--e N./ 1[dhtM7A.SMANCI. F I' " -W . TC'?*3AT:.;RE 'I ? "- b l Tc..
- I/A
. Q *.. _,. \\. j Acc;Tiot. alt:3 su,'PL.!.. :iTAH't 72cu!.c.1::ra ~ l. Pricr to the start of welding, th 2nittn ;2s fr:n the ;crge trea shall te checked f:r its oxyger. cent 2n. 2'; or Scicw bef:re widi- .:s;en ::::2r.: cf the exiting gas us ; he at least t o (2) pas:es (g ::. ..2. i:e cur;2 shall te. aintained fcr i.e., 7.::: in: 2.2 Fili). 2. All weld joints shall te fr:e of < :isture, ext:e,,rease, oil 2nd ;retective coatings. All slag and/or surfac: deisc s : hall ce re cve: as prescribed frem each weld bead pricr to the c:ntinuatica of weidng. (1) Purge reiuire.ent snail te deicted..han be: king strip is u-ilf:ed. ~' ~ FREvt.aA;;c-RAP ne w.L cA:4 '1 I 1 ;ssu:cATE x. _.. _c. e / c N1 I a..~. w., c -?O.... a.us ureutn ,I / ~.
- 2.
2 "LLE."_92.2; O m.. n
- ; U'"C
-, ] " c-:. s' n S^'~3 : f ? 'l ' c, t -a ~ -(" 1scrats / '* J. w~/ w u a.,,a . _. s. 4! :/,. /v.xfc.,. c.2 T..: ,, ~ ~ - -.....,,, - r2.r -- -:-u.;e m.: l y,qg g).jg-y. ..-.-r-
,v. _ unuw - _ to a 'io. -G CUP q. ,,,, y e., _ s 1klCK'3E!s UNr V n.O a ..o 2 s, 2 JO!NT DESIGNr.'liLO $1 QUINCE nw wy/gj; wswq 20595 r cwxw y((A gs.g M7 I I -q " - Y//////f//h ,s emeu s. ~ y w 4y OhD h d_. h - N6 A.,, nu Y-h, K\\ j rW WELD PARAMETERS FILLia MET AL l .C As/F LUX { ELsCTRICAL DATA PASS PSCCEss ,TRavgt W. , g gg
- g. A ss i rves M ir., sLcn type AMetaAct vCLiz IPM 1
GTA 1/16" See flote 7 Arg:n ' 15 CFH DCSP 100 Max. 11 Max. y,e i or 3/8" GTA 3/32" See Note 7 Argen 15 CFH DCSP 100 Max. 11 Max. 3/8" 2-3 GTA 1/16" See Note 7 Argon 15 CFM DCSP 115 Max.11 Max. 3/8" l GIA 3/32" See Note 7 Argon 15 CFM OCSP 115 Max.11 Max. 3/8"
- &Cri GTA 3/32" See ;;ote 7 Argon 15 CFH CCSP 140 Max. 11 Max
'3/8" i f. g 1 pon Can ?!n to 7 i ce a e, 1C r?u neC0 1,81 v, 11
- e.,,
s i 3 son PMfMEAT goor SAcx Co uC:NC METHCO D j _ iur:Reas Ttup. 60cF - 350cc c , ourAct was to wor un. N/A 53NetE c$ MULTIPLE ARC Clea*n CRIFICE oR CUP $J:3 t /o n v4 MU I< 01 e SINCLE C A MULTIPLE PA:5 l. wg(g pgggggggggg _ UOwa tad SPECl AL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Preheat shall be established prior to the start of weidir.g. 2. The interpass te:ceratura (abeve 1503F) shall be checked ustr.g :amper ture incicating crayens or an accreved ecual. 3. The number of weld beads n2y vary with section thickness. 4. The starts and stocs of all tack welds snail be ta:ered by.;rinding s i tha the initial pass can be properly consume the tack. ' 5. Tack welds which are used at the root cf fcir.:s shall be c: alete cer.e:ratien. 6. The non-c:nsumable electrcce for the Gas Tur.gsten Arc pec ess snail cerf:m to AWS AS.12 Class EWTh-1 (1% Th:riated Tungsten) or Class E' nth-1 (2'; Theriated Tungsten). 7. The type of bare wire selec ed for the base metal t: follows: he welded shall be as BASE METAL TYPE EARE WIRE -') EE i SED 304 or 301.L to 2G4 cr 30al iASC5 or EE20d C 316 cr 316L :o 315 cr 316L ER316 er ER31st 304 or 30*L to 315 cr 316L EP.316 or ER316L i l l m-7- ..,, p _j.y a sy.. g m _ ., ~.
.svv..a4.s. - :c:r:s. Tt n : PROCEDURE QUALIFICATIOtJ RE 0808V204pe.,; t RO ree. 1 of 4 Jtsteris! Spec. - SA-312 TP304 - 20596 SA-312 TP304 P No. O to Gr. No. l to ? No._ 6 Gr..'.o. _ I 1._ Gas Tur. ester. Irc_ _.h:ceu and 0.D. _ E30" 'a I I I.". Weiding Processes 2. ';/ A Manual or Automatic f*i nua l 2.
- !/A nickness Rsnge 1.
~ 2. '! / A Tots! Qustified Thickness Range O_ W" N'1 . CW FILLER 5tETAL WELDINC PAR.OtETERS F.No. I._ 6 _ 2, _N/A A.No.
- 1. _ 8 Joint Type _
Sincle '!ee Groove *.41d SFA $ pee.
- 1. ___5. 9
~ 2. _ fi ' A Po.ition 6G Ur:ttard _ 2. IUA 4 AWS CI.us. 1._ ER303 cs: Ling Constrabale Ir: sert (ivne x) Filter Si.ce 1._3/32" ~2. fi/ A - !'rchest 600F 2. IUA Trsde Name I. ARCOS IPT Range G0oF - 350eF-2. fuA P'.iHT tione Describe Filter afersi if stu( included in Seitaun IX Passes / Side I._ MultieIe 2,_ I;/A 1/8" x 5/32" Arcos Consur able insert No.of Arc: 1._ S1nele 2._ N/A Current I._0 CSP 2._ N/A FLUXOR AT'.!OSPHERE Amps 1. 70-100 2._ N/A Volts I. 8-10 i
- 2. -
?UA Trade N:me 1. 2._ N / A Travet Speed 1. 1"-2" IDM
- 2. _
H/A Shiciding Cu 1. _ 'rt Sn 0,:it!stion 1. 3/8" Ftar. i 2. fi / '-
- 2. _
H/A Flow Rate Sesd Type 1. Strincer 16CFH 31 1 2._ P:/A I EC ea.'.si n, i Purge 1. _2. fi/A ~ .y ; 1 TENSILI TC5T Specimen No. D mmions L 'l,' mmste Unit h.idth l Thiexness A,eJ Character of F&re , (3, steess psi And t.ocation j OW 462. I(b)!1 : 0.724 0.203 .1505 i 13,100 87,000 i i Weld-O'.! 40.1(bh2
- 7. 714 0.205
.147d l i, 13.?00 c0.200 Peld CUIDED DE.'.D TESTS Type sad
- r. Tare No.
Result I S P' *"d i Fere No. ge3ut _ QW-462.3(a) Face Sa tisfact:ry l QW-462.3(a) P. cot QW-462.3(a) Face Sa tis factory Sa tisfactory QW..tS2.3(a) Ecot Sa tis fact:r.i W:Ider's Nsme _ Jfrrny E. Mite C:ock No. 2314 hho by virtue of these tests meets v.elJer perior-.ance requirements stamp No.__ AAC Test Conducted by Soutb.es tern L2: Ort: cries kboratory Test.No._29559-60 per_ rir. Con form, Aedress Scuston, Texas _ rhte 2-20-15 he certify that the statements in :!n> re:ord are c:rre: :nJ ttist acccrdance with the requirements ni Seerson IN of the ASME C2de. the test welds prepared, me!ded and te..eJ in eigned - 3E CIIII l' E30 I. II C-Date-A ' "I
- 70 OI.nuiseturer; y_
f -- " t,& =_ w - _,y ,,m_. _,,,_.y._ y ,r.. _r_,_._
/
- /
.Ef0' tin O~i:OC:LinC. v.a r. oum s,. rc <.u escse. m A 2.e.,. SUPPLEMENTAL TESTS fe. 2 I or 4 x TOlJCHNESS TEST TYPE-PER SIZE PER 20597 e !m-tor.wT1scA11oN TOIP LocATro.y SP -Ctst E.'4 TEST .%0TCH rgg MUY W.LBS stiLS LAT.F.tF % SIIEAK D.itent 3.or 9 P A E.\\ x N r, c 6t t.m q i I \\. HARDNESS YEST TYPE PER. .% O. hEL D stkTAL HFAT \\FFECTcD 70NE i BASE sthTAL i f.- FILLET WELD TEST FIC V MCRO Tt3T RCSULTS l FRACTURE TEST RCSLLTS CHEMICAL ANALYSIS % METHOD L'st Chanicti PER r*EI'1 M 71 1 tLest. e u. P s si er si uo ce ri N Q___ g WELD L O33 1.76 42 19.89 9.45.29 .059
- 0. 0 Accrexir.2te Celta Ferrite Content: 9" (S.9 41ar Div >
er :M -, -. ADDITION AL TESTS. of the A5i'i Section III C de) Celta-ferrite tests were conducted en -he cc:pleted weld at 6:00, and 9:00 o' clock wi'th a severn ferrite indicator. 12:00, 3:00, All posittens recorded a 7.5 to 10" delta-ferrite centent. I 1 he ::rtify th..! the it::e: rents in tis tscurd are co:Tect sad 1.'at t::: PQR No. $.EO9.A200 ?? 3 tests were cos:J:.;eted ni 3::ctJ;.:ce ..a. and the recuire ne:its of 'I/ A i $ia;*lCd .eSe k $I.)Y. ( Uste _ * 'T ~7 9 f .*W/w E.v a p .g*. -r~ --w+- w we - e --t rw-e ,--e --w w---- y - + - - -e -e i
^ i f ON[7D s ;C C. l.I[,, Hou: sten.7ExAs SUPPLEME JTAL TESTS 020 A204 Rev.' P r.. 3.: 4 ) TOUCHNESS TEST TYPE-PER. SIZE FER 20598 S Pt:ClitEN TEST NnTCit i ~.'- IDr.NT!!1CA110N TDtl' LCCATios FNFRGY FT.L35 MILS LAT.E.V 3 31 TEAR DKor hI H.H r \\. tREAK NO 8 RE4K I Y \\ HARDNESS TEST TYPE PER- .N o. WE:.0 METAL HEAT AFFECTCD /ONE BASE. META L l i FILLET WELD TEST FIG MACRO TEST RESCLTI l FR ACTUn' 2 TEST XLSCLTS CHDIICAL ANALYSIS. StETHOD - - PER-ELEM. C u. P 3 i, Ni uo % ELD l gg g sASF L ADDITION AL TESTS Bend tests were examined at 10X ragnific2:!cn aftar' be'.cing te teet the acceptance critaria of "Interm Repictory Guide 1.21." r exceeding 1/64" were present. ft fiss;res Radiographic Report of !! alder Qualificaticn: 00009, was run in ac:orcance with 2cetieri Radiograpnic reper: '!CRI acceptance criteria of Section VIII, Oivisicn 1 was herein net.IX,1970, pa The We certify th.it the statements in this ree.srd are correct :::d tS PQR No. C 71M00 Dav. 3 . t the tes:1.cre :endected isf :: cord:nce *ub and :he er pitements of - " 'I Sige.ed 3EC. *! 5 A O "J. I.*;C. oaue -
- ~7 7 C '
E
- . // N..
u s / i e e - =, ,e r ,...-%.,---..m.m .,y-- ,,.r.. ~. - - -
p i / $~.[O'(([.I C [.Ye. xou::o4.ieaAs 020SM204 Rev.. SUPPLEMENTAL TESTS P,. 4 .t 4 l TOUCHNESS TEST. TYPE PER r SIZE /Er( 20599 SPIT 14t E!4 TYST .%f)TCit F.N > KG Y >T L D S tills L AT. EX P 't silF. Aft D W w>ltJIT sul hTit irAlloN TIMt? LOCAT!uN ,3 BREsx No turag t 1 t 1 4 I HARDNESS TEST TYPE-( l'ER NO. % F.I.D st>.TAl. ItFAT WFF:LTr3 /oSE 4 B ASE MkTAL i l l Two (2) specicens were sansitization testad in accordance with ASMT A262-Practice E. Specimens were examined ac 20X cagnificatien for presence of (. micrecracking. No fissures were present. 1 The following parameter excerpts have besn ex:racted from the actual param utilized withir qualification of said pr:cecure and are by the PSAR. ADDITIONAL TESTS Ef:ERGY I::-i!T D:l;GE GTAU Prccess Amperage ~ 80 90 Voltage 10 8 Travel Speed (in. per/ min. ) 2.0 - 1.0 Kilojoules/ inch -- 24.000 min. 43.200 r.ax. Note: Parameters noted are indicative of,ne maxieum and minimun energy inout range and do not utilized during qualificaticanecessarily ref t act the -aximum/cinimum amperage /vol:a he certify that th PQR No SC8,e gt :ements in tes rc:urd are correct md : : the tests were cortdue:ed in :::o:c:nec -aa 20-eV. 3 and the re t;;ter.e:::s of
- !/ A S!;.:d__
I ~9! A 'OOT. ";C. ~ On t e __ S' ]* ?? f/ a f.'. O.. ' ~ / _m __,A__+_m_, . = _ - - _ - "i--------**-* 1
s
- s. - '
/ C3.e./C Yi *.> r.*3..r > !.. :J.n sca ns. s e wousto*, rmr.s /' i g r.m j e g,3., PROCEDURE QUALIFICAT ON RECORD ha 1 of 3 ' ' Ma terial Spec. SA-312 TP 304 20600 to - 92-117 TD v4 ? No. R Gr. No.~- 1 to t No. A Cr. No. I_ Tnickne:s ano 0.u..h. ?E*' '4ii Tir i t <.,, Welding Procenes 1. (;as Tiinte*an , r, a-2. Chialdad V3=1
- 2. c r
Manual or Automatic b'snum1 2. 92 m>> i Thickness Rsnae I. (s 2. Tot:1 Qualified Thickness Range O.e:2c" - h e'# 0 : n" ~~ FILLER METAL WELDING PARN.!ENRS F No. 1. 6 _ 2. 3 Joint Type 91 mal e. 'l a = r:r w.. v ld A.No. I. 8
- 2. - 8 Position EG Ucuaed a
SFA $pec. 1. 5.0
- 2. --
4 2acking '!c a s AWSChu.
- 1. - ER308 2.
E309-16 Prehest - 60*F Filler Size I. 3/32" 2. 3/32"!il/S" IPT Range An*F i:0*C Trade Name 1. Arcos PWHT '!a n a 2. Arcos Passes / Side 1. e i ti c l e 2.- Multirla Describe Filler Metal it not incituied in Section IX N/A No.of Arcs 1. Sinele 2._ Sinn!e Current I.- CCSP 2. DCR0 Arnps I. 29 05 FLtJX OR ATMOSPHERE _.2. 70 09 Volts I. B-10 2.- 16-27 Travel Speed I. 34 I E'4 2. 2.5 .0 I5 , Trac.: Name I. _ 2. II/a o,c;Irmijon g,
- /16" usw Shieldina Cas I.
A"a"" 2. '!/ A 2,_ g/1ca w, i Send Type 1. 5 "i""*" _2._._Steines-Flow Rate 1. 19 CFM *'f a -__2.. '!/ S Purge 10 C CV i a _ 2.
- f /a
~ TENSILE TEST . Specimen No. { tillimste L' nit Charseter of Failure Area Width ! Thickneu { Streu psi And Lo : tion OW *62.IIbi il _ .73? .146 .1069 c.?:n c1_ or.n u.3 t s OW 462. lib) id .711 .Ic6 .1141 in _160 te .an Weld GL".DED BEND TESTS Type and Firare No. Resuji yPe and F 3ure No. Result f'?> 4A7 7f2) Face c=*f sir-- v fN 462.3/a) R:ot $3'#5f!Ctarv l w 462.3(a) rar. e2 4,<,,*--y (N 462. 3(2 ) ocot ' Satis'!ct:rv Welder's Name Ji-v Hi e Clock No. 2314-hho by virtue of these tests meets welder performance nquirements. St:mp No. AIC i Laboratory Test No. 17 23 ~ Test Conducted by Sm'thwae*=-a ' = M-s a rb e Addreu 997 P 3.* '1 e s 4 w e- ~Y per wancy wm5 Mek-Date_ ?'s r We c:rtify that the state.-.ents ia (?:u record an c:rrect and that . iW seccidance with the requ.irements of Section IX of the ASME Code.' the test weids prepared, se!ded and tested cj Siped % :-a* --- a
- a-t.is Let)
'f-an 7f /T CJ iG2MN D,, e w i i --a.-, .,,,,.n.,_,a-,
b[O'((.0 Oddin Os $7 sir.,,, i eu2:=u.TexA: j SUPPLEMENTAL TESTS Pqe p. g I ^ TOL'GHNESS TEST TYPE PER 20601 SIZE PER SP> raw EN TEST $0TCit FNFROY FT.L85 MILS LAT.EXP % SHEAR H.HT foENTillCA110N T0.4 P LOCATtON s I, ' BREAX .% 0 D R >:A E ~ HARDNESS TEST TYPE PER PsO. h>.1D vtTAL HtL4T ATFELTCO ZONE B ASE MkTAL i l FILLET WELD TEST FIC / M ACRO TLST i.CSL L TS FR ACTURE TEST RcSULT3 i CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 5 METHOD 'det Ch*~ic2I PER ASI'd E?!O-74 ELEw. _g_ wa P s si c, wi wa C2 n fl Q___ g wELo . 079 1. go 7n to.7o o 14 - oc ecn 0.0 SASF { a g g re y (c.s
- a 931*3 c,r**a ra
- s-7
f*e-see s1.,. r*ii s e. s-a o e t -... 7f.?? l ADDITIONAL TESTS of tr.e AI.':E 5ecticn III'Coce). Bend :ests were examine:! at 10X cagnification af ter ' er. ding to c.eet the acceptance criteria of " Interim Regula ory Juide 1.31."
- o fissures were present.
\\ 0.adiographic Report of '<.'aidar Ocaiificaticn: P.2dicgra: hic rec:rt '<'CP.T C0020 run in accordance wit.'1 Sec-icn IX,1974, P:ragr:;i C4-id2. The ac:e;;ance was l criteria of Secticr: VIII, Di.isien I was herein r et. he ce tsf} th.st the siste..ents i. tna record art torte:t ud that' the tests were condu:ted i, ac:ct::2. ice wili PQR No. 050315105 :s v. and the rew rements or
- ' 2 Sqned _
9 eo.4n 7, een-fr-1'- p e - V ~ T e.- e,,, e /- s u.
_ _. _..,s,;j VffD... _... ... _ -..,,b% 1 s' j *,,,, i Mousron.Tt ranQ : ~ -\\ .{ SUPPLEMENTAL TESTS 0303*.;;}c pg i TOUGHNESS TEST 74s 7 sf s TYPE . < ~ SIEE. _ PER~ PFR-20602 SMft%EN TEST NOTCH l IDENTil1CA110N TI:MP LOCAT10 N E.9ERGY FT.L55 AtiLS LAT.ExP 5 51 TEAR Mobi h.uT _ 1 4 1 ^ SREAK S.", 3 R E A i i j I j i i 1 i i t j t I \\ HARDNESS TEST- ^ i TYPE _ I NO. _ l'ER _- -.i k WLD MLTAL HEAT AFFtLTCD 7.oNE _ i B ASE METAt. ]_ f l 1 -FILLET WELD TEST t FIC __ MACRO TEST RE5L'LT3 i / 1 4 FR ACTL'RE TEST R C51,'LTS 1 = a ~ C' HEMICAL ANALYSIS ~r~ r ~ AIETHOD_ tiet Chemic? 1 ~ RE M. < C V9 I _ PER_ ASTM E350-72 5e wtLD l.013 - h_t_ Ni i i 1.61 .35 9.38 .07 19.95 .05?S 4.'ng__ "I ec crir ?te Cel u ta Ferrite Cen ent: 10'; ISchte"le" Discr! ce Peitre ?ill-L ADDtTIONAL TESTS of tr.e ASEE Section III CeceJ E 1 1. Ber.d tests were exa.ined at 10X magr.ificatica aftt acceptance criteria of " Interim Reguia: cry Guida 131 "r ber. din present. 2. Celta-Ferrite tests were ccnducted at t.telve !Io fissures were used and the folicwing results notad:the length of the p 12 Positien erritascopa MTE.'725 was ~ All ~ Del ta-Ferrite *:u-ter Ali positicr.s ar.gec tetween 9.5 and 11.5 We certify that the staternents in this record a PQR No. n~SC11'ta ~=v re cortect and tr.st' he tests were condve:ed e s 1 _ snd the en,uirements at. N/A e:r: see om-5 ned_ Er wn 5 Roe-I c. g Da t e -- O ** i g_ y 7^ ~" e. 'l _ - --,7 _z...-..- = .- ~ - - ~
~ " Brovm &Tho!Jnc. ' Lib ; ou. c.. xu ae SUPPLEMENTAL TESTS P,. 3 .t 3 TOUCHNESS TEST TYPE-PER SIZE 20603 PER sri-flM EN TEST NITCil F.st kGY FT LE) Lt!Ls LAT.EXP /, IDF.NTillfA110N T!3IP LOCATIO N \\ ;.- 5 SHEAR. DROF%M.HT BREAC ho 3Rt;AK 4 t I HARDNESS TEST TYPE PER NO. wE4.D kitTAt. HEAT AFFECTCD ' 0.sE / 8Ast MLTAL I i: FILLET WELD TEST FIG I M ACRO TEST RESULTs FR ACTid E TE.5T RESUL;3 3 ADDITIONAi. TESTS 4 1. Two.(2) spect.~ ens were sensitizaticn tested in sccordance with ASTM A252-70, Practice E. Saecimens were examined at 20X magnification for presence of microcracking. flo fissures v.ere present. In additien, Westinghouse Cactment WCAP - 8673 stst:s that anergy input of 80 KJ/ inch for base metal thickness of 3/4" resf.ted in r.o ser.sitization of the base metal. 4 i i i l We certify g t_t,he >ts,te.e:sts in th.s record an cert:ct an PQR No. - Ou aII" '9V-I
- ..as stir tats *ct
- 70.ht
- eJ an ac:st::nce.ith -
as:d the regi. ire nents of - a i $iped Er-.n & ?C00. I"C. C :te - ~ S0 ~ $ L VNOA J By o l ^
r _ *[CY.8 } D n.,3*6 0 C81.yi'. e rea r4 l O ee:: :. trxes 0802AS105 Rev.d SUFFLE.YENTAL TE3TS pg. 3 .e 3 TOUCHNESS TEST TYPE pen 20604 SIZE PER lggymy 3 7,g,35l stiLS LAT.sxP srt riMLtd TEST NiTCil 7 SHEAR DROP wt H.H T / IDt NTillrA110N TI'M P LOCAT!oN t l BREAK 6 0 S M t'A K Q. 'i I* 1 i I f MARONESS TEST TYPE PER N O. % ELD is tTAt. IIF.AT Arl'ECTCD /ONE B ASE M ETA L FILLET WELD TEST FIC [ M ACRC TkST RCit.LTs I FR ACTL*R E TEST R CSL LTS ADDITION AL TESTS 1. Del.ta Ferrite tasts were conducted en the c:mpleted weld test pad at six equidistant locations at the center ine with a severn ferrite indicator. All positions recorded the fol10wirg delta-ferrite content: Greater than 7.5, les: than 10". i 2. Lo (2) spect=ers were sensiti:ctica t::sted in accordance wi-h Asm A262-70, Practice E. Specimans were exacined dt 20X magnification fer presence of microcracking. _ tio fissures were presen:. In cdditien, Westinghouse dec:. ment ',;;AP-5G73 s:::es t. Mat erer;y ir. ut of EC Y.J/ inch for base metal thickness of 3/'" resulted in r.o sensiti:stien of the base i ce tal. i t 1 he certify th.. the itstements in :his record are cortect r.J th:t the rests were es.-docted in a::ord: ace *at: PQR No. n * * : : ' l
- D a'r - 2 and :he regirements of
' b' C S;,ned Decun ', be t, ( Date 0# 8y MC)pp~ ] I { m
/ C. e '.) p J Q. f. s.r,. q~(3; yu - C t a ron t'e. ~ mrov.. ai.s. s PROCEDU E QUALIFICATION RECORD 050SAA114 pey. 4 Pm 1 of 3 .m mterSISpee._ SA-240 Tvoe 30 1 i M-220_IV:n 204!. 20605 P No. R Cr.No. 1 te r No. _ o __ 't Welding !roceses Cr 1
- 1. Ga s Tur.cs en.No.- _ hekness and o.D. _l-3 /4" ola ta Arc
- 2. _ *!/A T
Manual or Autorr.a6e I. !*.anua l nickness Range I. - - i!/A 2. Total Qualified Thickr.ess Range 0. !875" thru 3. i.'e",,,,, 2. 'l/ A ~ g FILLER METAL WELDING PARAMETERS F No. 1._6 _2._N/A A.No. I8 Joint Type _ Doubh Vee Gemve Wld j 2._N/A SFA Spec.
- 1. 5. 9 Position -
2G ~. i _ 2. ti/A AWS class. I._ER308 & 30SL
- 2. 'i/A~
uscLing' None Fil!er size !.3/32" 8 1/8"
- 2. i./ A Preheat
~ 600F - ~ i Trade Name I.1/32" Acces: 1/3" Elrdvi$, l'WHT _ Iforte IPT Ranse. 110'F throuch 3cC0F 2.N/A Describe Fi!!ct Etal if not included in Section IX P:sses/ Side I.Mult'nl* No.of Arcs
- 1. Si nnl e*
_2._ H / A 1._ N/A Current I.DCEP FLUX OR ATMOSPHERE . Amps 1.100 i'O _2. 3 _2. N/A Yolts 1.11 i
- 2. N/A Trnvel Speed 1.2J-4 't IDM
_2. H/A -Trade Name I. - j Shielding Gas I. Arcon - Oscilhtio:s I.3/ " '**v _ 2. !!/ 4
- 1. _ 'I ' f.
Flow Rate 1.20 CR m m. 2._ '! / a Se.ad Type I. S h f9=* _2. N /A P.rE, I.20 C:M Min. _2. '! / 3 d 2._ N !. i 3 TENS!LE TEST ~ ' Specimen Ko. Dimensions ut m258 Totsi Ultimate Unit Width i nickness Arc 2 Character of Fsiire __ Losd LS. Stress psi And Locatiers GW-462.1(a) 31 1.002 1.61a 1.617.121.700 80.487 uC'J-462.1(a) 82.1.005 Meld Metal 1.a01 1 435' " ' '#4 28 A 1
- ** 1 d "a"'
CUIDED BEND TESTS Type and Fig.are No. Result y,F Result OW-462.2(a) Side Satisfac-6ry j uCW-462.2(a) Side l. C'J-42.2(a) Side Satisfacterv i Satisfact:ry C'.' '62.2f a) Side Sat'sfacterv i l Welder's Name _ Curtis Ma rcuis ~ !
- 5. 5. 'o. 260-64-7775 Who by virtue of these tests meets weiderp.:rformance ter;uirerne-ts..- Ses=, No._
A *.J i Test Conducted by_ Paterials E.cgte.eer'.g L:.:. Laboratory Test.';o. ~ 3100 C11rten Oe.. F h s::..e,.2s - i
- a. r.. W.<!: n
.udres: per-02:e Ma r n j, 1H?,, We certify that the statements *n this record :re co: ::t ar'd that sccordance with the r;quittm:.:s of S : tion LX cf the.!d.'.'C C:Je. the rest melds prepared, welded.v.J :ss:$5 Signed -- E0 5 E000. 'PC. o,,, 9-a e - 7Y ('la..upeturer; /K(T& ~ y w o y 4
- ~
- 7
_ em,em+e ekee - 4 ._-,-=m.,-. n,,--._,.---,.--__---.3.v---%,_.m__. p.,,me,p ,-,,,,...-.c,..,,,,,y. , + - i,,- w,,r-+ge..q.,-y,,.-p,w r e *og-e---,e'-w.e-,*y. p.
i
- = - B,,,/I.,M....g F, #d.! ; 82.:,:"3 1,%o g, was.one:. rr.v;t :r.,.: <. a ~ ._.'.'., h...... j. HOU: TION. TE X A$ __M4 5 ^J,,'...W R Eva$10N-3 4 WELDING CODE pact i os 2 ~~AS$1E B & PV SUPPORTING PQR(S) 20606 SECTION lx WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION
- 0 5 0 3.u 1 1 1. Rev. -
I. '. ) 1, WELDING PROCESS (ES) 1. N -_ TYPE "--"C 2. e/s TYPE '? ' A BASE META LS ive,-4031 FObii.E.0 HE AT TREATMc N T iCW-4071 P No. 8 _ Gr. No. 1_.to P Nor E Gr. Pio. I tv.: M l Tnickness Range .147 d' 9 3 53 IN Temr nt. re - Mh Pi,e o,a Ran,e n %.o 4 Range for Fit:et. T.%All in. ue w O.J. '.'.0.I f.;"Li' ifs IN FILLER MET ~sLS (CW--8081 C t.'. IOW-10J) F No. I. 6 '.,n: ate.r 1 Gas ! . 2. 'i/ 5 A No.1. - 9 ree... Como. IM _2 " 'ft SFA Spec. No, l. S- 0
- 5. febn-Gas Flow Rate 1%
2.- ".E' E *;f OJ1
- ~~^'
'4 CFM (mm.) i AWS Cisss. No.1 -W* '* an : Shie:mog Gu Cor*.::,s. tion - - Flow R te-9 _ CFM (min.) Site of Electroce 1. * - 2. 2.-
- d..
Size of Feller 1. P/ ' ' '/* F L ECTT.iCA1. CH AR ACTEf11STICS (CW-.109) us- '; ' S lt:. Electroce - Flus Cr iC sinnt 1)'M Consumaele insert - 2.- N/A ntal n,a*0c. fr-'- 2 ri3 s-v::t: itan..a ~1 _2._ '!/2 - ]. er m:i E!ee S.ie:T<pe 16"-l/B"/r Th.i -- 9 _r POSITION ICW-805) A1 TECam:Odi :C //--. 10 welcie; Pes : en _ We c.ng Pre. pen.on '
- iv" 3 r.t S*w r:r ot.c2.= bad 1. airinW3r 2.
..i n . a.1 /...:'.
- ev l'a: 2 PR EH EAT (CW-406 #
Or i.x,r Gas Ou, Site 1/** - I/2 ._ IN
- p L..'" 3 l.i.: J r 117.*trons creante.1 Preheat Terr.o Wel&rg surfsces snali ce w.re trushen j
i n:.:rcass. Temp. R ange - . '. 3 2 1 + :::s::J :: rer:uar.. ::c #:fr.ove s %h or etNr cc.cts ?.ier.. ;I:,f d. a croa-.; g Prenest Maint - JCit47 C ES G?, (OW-C# 0::.. : :.. l.. '.;;/. - _ 2. -- * /A _iN ) Groove Ce. -r. I ' :.' e */ o r "
- Tede :1..:. L ::tt:nce
';/ A IN Cl- " / *.._ .... :,. ;r i '::nt Type Cd - .,. c :,. 4, t _ N.n'".c E'a /?"
- h. :;:,: -
Ba:A:9; Matt Tvoe 51-i h r 20 h'SJ ' ll-t ~'*1~! ' t. W :r s..-ic e. : int es -..,. Sif'le r Truei to..; %nm 1 's pe ce 2.- i RE!. TAR KS
- P 't
- This PQR i:.cl;2cr $.. ; le.an*.2
- lc a t. Res.
I J Pri:r :c the st.ar: of widtr. the exitinf-.:.u <h.11 he : hee 2d for erygen con:ent. It :ut,t 'e
- 1:v er b. iert velei:.. r1n :r. ence.
Main:ain purge fora: 'es.: :va la Vas tinghous e su;f.ied c...po..- yers G.v.. ::." and ne fill). i
- =w ire ;.rc.e. air.h...
- a for a: least t.hree layers (i.e., rc :
.ind :ve i lisi. i P C.f P[. R / Tf 3rd/4.7PROV*.'.$ i L.l ' ' " 'l /fp. d-) s t.T E (0 R *7'; F::. Cc.,s: '.i.'E 'e::i:~ I I '. 1d:3
- 12 - '-
i n e,C; E, 4.we.e.:,, id J/,, g.g.,
- y,..
o. C?"':5 i a.e,g. s,. e..r, /,- /,si i .t.'. C. " 'I g~ *. . ~ " * * ' ' \\ * *.' ,a No. CR-0171 4 .Qf(_ g A1Gh) l
WELDIN:- "CCHNIQUE SHETT , -,... - =. =... c.... :.... t...... v. * = P NO. 4 .a _ GnouP 1 TO P NO - 8 os c:g35 GROUP _1 THK. RANGE-- I ' I O '" ' M "l7 W 4 TvPicAt.oNr orsic~s PE=wirf Po ngvisiou _3 C' 2 08 2 hs.. s
- 9...-rmm noor oPzNmc o e _1/14-ilih.
/ ] rs i is _ i / t,,, es /i."*W [. / 2 /u_N]
- g., #
. R ',. ~ ~ ~ 9 20607 O = T"" P .j..- QQ
- i. fI... ;.c y~.
~' r/ m i.7 x.y q i n i m 7.. e.. s pUA;f \\ [ E // sh .c
- e..,
.a. / ,f- <r //j';/ /'-' \\ ff?bh n , % 1/ / ?&b./ '.I '6 A tv'h w R \\d I / 'Y! s ~ ) WEtQtNc'P Aita V ETE A5 l I
- 5#NG L E FILt.E 8t v ! ? A L,
t*AS vt.t,vEs AstE ueNivv y LAYEp SIZE ELECTntCAL DATA l hAVEL r T'E lr L".s ci n A T E C FM PhotE55 f fN.)
- ^ICl#II
) TfPfl AVPE f= AG E VCLTS SPEEo stao g 5 4,,.,o...,,.u. g, g PO LA Ti NANCE mAuct 88M ,,D m n 1-3iGTA or 1"+/32 See Nets 5 gin, nrgon 15 j5 OCSP 50-150 3-14 N/A 3/8 I GTA 1/8 See Note 5 Argon-15 i5 DCSP 50-150 S-14 i N/A 3/S s Alt <GTA or 3/32t See :~o:e 5 f,r g o n, 15 i ::/A DCS? 50-150 8-14 ' N/A 3/8 i g i t f 3& GTA 1/3 Sue :*ste 5 -Arg:n' 15 ; ';/ A 3Cl?. r
- \\
on f 50-130 a-14 N/A 3/8 Waxipu: d thichness v*f 2ny faslejdap**!':ri h,.yar shnll not extccd 1/ 1 i PREME AT TEv'* f' r; i,;mai; a t *
- 1 74. J 38 t'.9n' t 0
- CA NTE AP ASS TE*.ip t
PREME AT M Al*JT. ~ 'O Ct.Ct. GovC:N ?.9EfM00 - Ii/"* l ? h C.* ".T AC T T 'uE TO WOR *: !. 5
- Tv**csTEN E LiCT Si2E 4. TvPE 3 i..C'-I/3 e a.,.. ! on t:.,e 5.zE t / ~'
' /' in ..N E.m. 1.er <.-EL,..o. P. carastoai p...ra i.,
- vc;ic.
i 1. Prchen and i.terpass tempersects bbec.: 1D
- T) :, hill bc :h< Sed usi.3 tempara:ure indicating cir.yct.'
Tack welds shall e:picy t'c pars ::ics for :h:ran r;r" C aq.:11. 2. 2. Tack welds shall be complete fusion; :a. rx.t ;>a:. by grinding so that the int:ial pu. sr.ar:s an ' stops sha.*; be ::pered All velding shall utili:c
- ringe r be.:.
pre,pcily con. mc th
- s n.
4 5. 3.are wire selec:ed for she base :.cial :o.e valded shall be as fo i i I BASE METAL TYTE ~ 4.f._*ill?. 70 E 'MD 1,
- 04 or 304L to 304 or 3 L
316 or 316L to 31o or 311:*. FR235 or ER305L ~ 303. or 30!.L to 315 or *1.*. EiOlo or T:.31ol Eh316 er E?.3*6*, Ter Ves:inghouse supplied ?.e..::or C:olan: Piping, ER305 vill be used f:: base :e:a1 Cype 3G cr 3Ci; :: 316 er EfL. i 6. Pur;c re uire en: n.:y La deh:ed for c:M:
- he ?r:;e : a' eld in: En: ncer.
voici or when spc:ified by ) 7 Prehea: : sin:c.::ce sh.;'.1 :.s veld in s:ill air. d tri ; v.r! !in; :nly; : :'. c:n:lc d ecn:1 e.: I J 8. V:ris:icn in the join: eldcu..na the tantgec.utries sh:v..:bave is permit cd previded the j;.: I is single or double w tolerances. .psting caintsinad within the spe-::: led 3 e
- ..g.u-
~~ --4---n, p- .-+-v-r--
- y w-S
--wy yH y <=--g-er g--w --eg -'7m-et- + = r-e $ a --msee wi-'q
- =w wm-+"g-'
gams 1y e----p-t v-w --6 yn'm--g*-& 1--- m
l l h//7) i vb _\\ rv. HOUSTON. TEXAS U 880 5 WELDING *ROCEDURE SOE(.tTIOATION CHM 50608 (fN,
- w..,
CURREPeT REVISiOP.S ARE IN O R EV. DATE i ORIGINATOR 1 o-: PAP 789VAp* s 1 tMo
- 3. Bro.t-ki
[L T (LLi.o C ' l^- J. Bra-tedi_ 1 '3 r-. i M. f _ g V t.dl.0a-n- ~ ~ E yew'h w-- R EVISION NO. CESCRIBE TilC CHA7;GE 1 ficted POR revini.:n. Revir.ed thickness rar.:;c, joint detai}.:, nr.inv rcierenec :o c::*..alues of amps and volts and deleted .c.' s;eeds. ~ s 2 ketypad in c,. fore. filh -t :J c. '- Idled the folic. int; infor:stion: cla.w isic.ut-
- . u and dir.rutur, cle: trode - flur.
trailin; =hi *.i.e. rA.t :tiiatensnee, jo!.: description, type, initial
- un
- . n size and type, head ce t! o.t. c n i '. '..
- 0-n.. int r, us a le.nir.g ac:k : cuping i.nd rc.'t.; h in. ::::ced Tih re.
vision. i.J d e......u.
- a k'es tinghe.:c r.'
- ire-s...p
..J vol: val :es. t.dl;;
- n: :or k' P v lds.
3 u Added prchc..: s n:O rt.c., ;.3ni. size r:n.es reo: spaci.~,, cup .e u 4 7.- : 2 E.
- h:ed ? 3 Kevised :.._J.:
ru;:.; 4. r e vi.= i :n. -4 tion. .idd:J layer thickness li:ita- ~./
- REVISION
- MUST BE AP7 ROVED GY THE PA 0 3 1435 CE3iCf4EE
-- vr
f.
- c. m a
/M O MOG o r,C. --7. _ WPS!POR HQ. 't souSToN. TEX AS 2 *.~ 7 2 0 0 %?.u t 1: CHANGE NOTICE PROC E D'_'R E OU 2.*. TI.' ATION RF.CO RD 20609-OUALIFYING wit. DIN'a ?RDCEDURE ?J'ECIFsCATION Q Qi, ESSENTIAL VARIABLES CANNOT BE CHANGEO ' CURRFNT REvissONS AR E INDICATED S WPS.?OR REV. Cr TE OR t'il% ATOR pg APPR OV A L *
- r. _. :
_. _t. />.5 //,'/,. f.' C, p..- c-ifr. 2-i.;
- 2. ; */i. *_
g, , L --- ,..gg WPSPQR. REVIstON NO. DESCR:PJ THE CHANGE 'PQR 1 Deletien of Ica: 'ni a: 4 L'CA?-85 7? re fe ren ts. pars: c:ers and..ddition of k*cstinghouse 2 PQR 2 ?.etyr d.*n'r.ev f$rs. Added :he f e; *.cri :;: infor:stien: j kPS r.u:" e r, j c i.: sis.:ch i dir.er.sirnt, 0.t. range qualified thi:kneess ranno t:a:!fie<i ;str prc::* r. clee: rode size ~- electrode-f;:: cit.b., cencunablo it...crt,.eelding pretressica, Phil! type,: i. :i: 0 orifice or :ns cu virc..::.nge, p :r:;c flev rate, bead t.ridth, or single laia:". "; C:.an:.cd "rittes/ side" to "r.ulti ler e.f tires" tc "cultiple or single electr de". Oelet.. forence te "A: :.; hare trade nione", l "hsckine", and " h: "c:. virtue cf :hs:t pe r f:-..:nr e req *.: t ro:.r.r =". .ec:s eee:s sc *. der "N/A". Ch:nrel :li;er trade naec :o Inf.rr. sri:
- . leuwi r '.dir.
- r d i:.d *r "escilla: ion" is er.!cred under '" e.o: v12 t h" r nd s ' '.;d "SIA" inde r osci!Intion.
C' hu t.:ir.:.,,.;:n i ' r.; rec fic. rc:e f rc: 20 Cili c;n. : e. 2. J 1 ~4P S 3 Dele:ed ref.:ren s t:
- ain u :..:nce..nc 'e ; :..:e ra :. gin: 7 R r. 1 act d pee.Jng, pre'.ca-s.:p - u r e.
k PQR 3 'Chr.n o "thickr..rs s cual.fied" : "l-peri:ed vel e:a; thicinust". l..:i 5g .:.t. ns on :: :: r.s:icn. and type, pcen.::s....: bru.x;.-i gir.;:. ur. s:en si :e 1 i
- flEvts Ow: uu:7 CE APPROVE D BY THE We % AGER OF LL ATEril ALS ENGINEER t
M hr. * *'" _ MWg- - 6 6 .. - - -. ~,..,., - -,,, ,e,, _--.,,____,m, __c--,,,.,_. .%.e, ,p.m -p,.v.,,-,e ,--,,. +
brown &HOOMnO. ....m. l MW *'"5: .. m.. ..r. c g WeltSa9 Piecert.,r. Soccif eation No O W AAll; n.e ?-l'-M Revis.ont] .t.i?* 20610 .;[tOING PAOC SSIESI 1._.Ca r..I'.:.:1 M:. l.G IT*E PW':<4 l 2 .r. .. e..... _....... .y,- . -g i '.. , T 3aSE FAETALS 407. 403: O 9 No O '.~ i A;.' " * ! a i' N T IQW 407 Gr. No
- b. lo P No b. Gt No I
cpi.M 3 7 >: e. 5 'l:
- r.etness eange 10*
ne 0,s. R anye - - '.=a, a:.g y - - A b":
- ' n
.. e a
- v ei
.i.--- i. 9 ~ - - ) t .~
- tLLER MST45 iCW-404
}
- No 1 6
2 N/A .G. ! P.
- ., u..../,.....
s No 1__ E - 2 ,:....:.Le 1 ; c,., _ _,.. _ C. 3ea sat: N o. I.1:.~- 2. S ".A.. .? .~ . e. . y...M.?.. Site o E.ce:::,,ce 1. I3N 3ME2..I.I.1. - i *,. i ;-. 4:..,.. . _ _ _.. _. _._ C r rs AWS Class No 1 SI.. _ F. Ratt II' EinCF M t, s i
- .ng...
- C.::.t. t no. lU A
- .:s a
- 2. ' "
i 3.se of Fillet 1. 3/31-Ilb __l. = 5 2-II' IN-iM J IR CAL C'tAPl*CTERISTtCS (OW-409: tr ctroce - Fava Class I; 'A e Cse s
- 1 ons.,rnaa:e nser1 NIA L' ' "
2 M/A A m p i,e t,,, _,1.
- 1_ M 2,
2,,,,,, y,( _
- t. s n
.s.....t. 1 - 4,.1- _ 2
- ',;/.0 a
4 Tunn:t.. ( : e tv.1 ypv _1.:"d "- 1/ "'.G. "~' - t o r 2 a ~ SO5sTION (C W-4051 /.e.g.ng Pos.tica - 'O t !. C,iN QU t07. 4 to, ' f e.g.n; P,c;res5.on 'OA c.* A.a. c Sea : 1 MII.,l"t:* f _2-NIA b.. V. t n 1. 3.'
- 3
_ 2. N/A j =Rs EsTicw ace Oi * :.., O.:t '" : 'i 4e I 'lf. l2 2 'l/I _IN. (Maa ; I _ l *4 l a S e'ea: Tera s. - 6'3 i,....: ....,.:... r.;. <eei-eg soimei ir..n o,,.,.e :.o.,a i l'.*. 9., I e:erca ss. ie-,s. Ra-.s _, -~ ~ 3 3 0 . ;.3 2..:, e g.;,,, y,: .... e .-r . e, :.,;; M -.c.nc,., g:;; 5:a:e :* c:* t' ::9:4 s.r.:3:s 4 'fe. eat Y a.r _ I' ) 3 .' ' r a M ir r Cr* - :- { g'- sw IN ~. Si a...n.. .)
- ~ : st -
a-- q 4 s.- 2...,.::1,5 4 3,es.e Oes.gs_ A \\* u :2:. .. t:.. 5.. a J c o u .:te.: Ty:e C 3 - 5' *
- la:k.ng */a:! T., a _
N*A _ 05-N#A _ /...t.*'e et 5.* ; 2 1. a. e 1 - _ Cl-4'- ic. 5 w. e s 2._
- /2 1
=...,C.g..,., ..t3-4< i
- .. e i:
.. ' e. /. 2 3 _ 2 _1' A - 4 r. _ae m.
- ..i-.
- s.,ievCc-,. e-:
a 4 i J' i 4 ) ~' i .sp: .s. s.. t 3J 4,*
- t "
1 .t /.1. 9 88 .. _ m. ....e.,. 3..1/,. ,.21.3 0.r : = < \\ n e l L 'g a
- i I'
.w,,. g: s , I -M_'_.LAdDinh <s _.i:-':~,/rf ) n DrTE
- 5. J. '.
- v.E Or:L t'.cns Eains / .... )i. c.%{c.:. d _ (.,-(?-f.j _. - r.:f. u r.,;, t. :y., ca.; .-,,,,yg.#--- e-y p I 4 i _---_,,-,._..w.- -_-sm_.,,.-Tr e----------.--*~m,e4 .--%.=,v-. r-n-,.w-.r mev-i r =.---- -er _.--.,--4. r- ..,-_,.-,v~y-,.~_,mm..
g., M V 'l j i i V i s. Y.. (....,?!.a li I U. s...._.. ; :. t r. :.
- .~."P':..
i. ". ~ = _.. b ~ e *. : PROCEDURE GUAL.lFICMICrN NE0*m3 ..../.. s... e.w. _rj,, i t.
- "~#--**
a_. WELDit4G PROCE55 IES) 1. _ 0a* ~" 2; c *./: : ' e,e.,,,,,,. 7YPE. *
- i. 2 i. -
2 g ASE.tE T A L S tO'A'--8 02:
- !e i TOSS-a. *.*. A - W.'
.*au Socc SA -.29 ~
- ;,e C' O'ade 3,y '
1 20611 o no & Gr.Ne I To P fis _f _ Ge No. ,i s @ fovoor.OO N//* Trac h m l. I "'_ [1 '.1.1. 'l < t 't ./ l g-='-=.' C e O. 0. R angs Qualif e.o - " t o <. ', s 3 s. (.S t.J >. - c,oosi:ecfieldM.taiIns 1 ,*._2.....'** r..;..- _ P. B *, .' Total Tnk A.n;e O.at.f.ce ... IN MA. . v. #. i uf.it 0,3.g. u,..:.,
- l t L E R '.* i ? *. L 5 CW-4 041 -
Gr'if....:*4 . N o 1.. _ t* _ 2. ' 'r . No,l.
- l. '. :.
_ 2.... -.. ~ -. I' 4 Aa'r.
- FA Soes. Ne.1...
_ %,. $1 r,.. s.,> < 9 t.'//F C als. '.o.1 .;.:.a 1.. 4... _.._4......__. r a.* :. 3.gs of E ec:ro:: 1.S *.~.c.; :.i.-. 2 U l.. -.. t'. aire et e.~ er 3. 2.,. s 'n l ' e... 2. w-es 4..J '. st. N F'.hcit.:".*.t t"
- .C iH!s. TICS 10.*/ 40.9,1 q
lectrode - F'un C:.rss. N/.
- s.,.'
_ h ~'A I ,, ~ . 1.... :
- v.--- -- '2"
.',r,' .onsumante insert 1 . s... '....g... 1-
- r. t.
..u,.. reade Name m.n 1.. i... L.. r. ri < a...*:...._ 2. t.s.. r.
- M_ -
.'CSITION (CV. _*.S! J elding Pesition ~ L O * *% W.J:' 'C'A
- a 10-
- /ciding Pro;ress 'a U'
- S m n N'.* As.n* Crs.2 i
E**#""^* 2.
- ' A P.. a.1 A c:a 1.1' 1."1 @J.t 2.-
\\'/ A ~ 2 A EHEAT IOW--:"Gr
- .8..
t...*.. C.:n.r.it e 1. _IN
- [M
- 2. I*/ A b' 2:.. 3A..-
2-N'A IPL / _IN. t'seai Te 9o. '.'..'-
- F
'lat t o a c:. ass.. er c s- ._;. t n.- n:.u r*.:. 1.__ I '.*I? b e. J r o f'.
- 1 1
,5.w s. t.e., ...,.... c.. I w..
- m.
4 n :...._. ,.s.,.. i t., s. .. ~,- .e+. ype-
- 1..
-e t n.t.,.s .sc... empera t.J re e.. ...i ;t.. t _ _ 2. r e.g.. IP, s.. r T.. O.. r "ime R any _ "e*! .'c *
- iia!
i s oc:.rae m I a., .a s.r.s : e. i.. s i : l ..7.-.. r4a. I F.4 re a e Wam 1
- t * *:s
- r..,. e *.: l l ep;. ti.f ,,3,. r....x:,, or e,i,,,, i .?>*8
- *__t.._
. " _8 L <dca t**" 1_. C' *- 4 2.', _M.i l. 0
- r*..I..'_. f * -
I n,"..u.s..s e..s. l - - -.. : I.. ! !.T..*.. N.., ' -.. '. * * *,'1". -..,.. N. .%;.a l 3 ... = u..,i. __..,,,,,,,,,( .. _.. _.... i.. sace.-. I ~~ i .. i s.v.o > T,o, i u.n
- -.e-
...-i
- s..!... s s
. 4.t a... . i, v e.. 6 '...' _* \\ L i_.*......'..'......_ 9_.'. n... 4 .!. u *.* ',...*,s,- = n _._.t..t <s..,. n. (.., 1 ' e_,o_. e ....r,.. c :.. ~,:.. ' *:.,: ~ ?..: _:_ -'..-.......a.r.... y _.. I I r I . elder's Name _ ".**'9 A t'A'!M _ _.-.... _ " PJa . I.I.1.*.t.*.IE... -oft CondwCitC
- y 58.R M1:er.a'i E*,.".ac' *. $.c L.....,iact..9 4..
A t... : 3tr C - CC O :"! f
- et D
" i.;.:. r. esas -..'t*.**. - _ _. _ -. O.ts
- .e Oct!.,.v ;*.3* t he s!J:r te
- t s. * '
W; JCf. tcar ce.e * *!.e f e:Wre"Pe"tl L' S T5r - . ;
- s /
- 3 * " t '. y
- e.g
- P
,..,p,r,. (,, ' ! * .'*.'I"... ,,. ;..,.,; f e :t e c.
- f
..:......... t. r...... ......e... " j ?* A q e 1 I . ate - i' - Ps.. \\. / .J..& .-.J- '. T '. '.. '% /- p=>..=r..-.. N-
.I ' B.rcinn&Pmcur.c. -~ ..A...~ sc.usm.<. :Eus rg SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RF5'1LT CH ANGE NOT:CE q,.g, C;87 F.ENT REVISIOP.S ARE INCtC ATED EY C?t A?.,E gar REV CATE O RIGifd A TO 83 .. _I. rc. t. i.'.. .7.A P.b r.'; v A
- 1 9 - 0
( '.. e.., 2
- tc.i
. a.: 3
- - :- ; ~
. 7. - ! t '*. I s.. : _? *. *. = .D* R E VISIOti NO. D E SCR!*.it tr4 E OF AN G E ~ 1 Dele t i. :: vf ; i n it:; u t ;. ::..:.vtc:: :..ind t.ddi :ler. of..a e s u.i:-. s... ... : - :,..- r.i. run: e. f 2 T p ed er :. f.st:.. / 3 /.dded :c..;1.:- ; e... ;; r;.., it-date.
- c. :... s::2 tes:i;.;;
l
- R E VISIOP;5 MUST B E APP R OV E D S Y IP.! '.t A r?,*....~ r O f M t.'lC n gA L I
I
's. cWG'lin U a '.* /',C.;iiC I i SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS I 1... gpe., n.01 n 20613 f D., CHEMICA. ANALYSIST. c_ Mt. :.!' !' Ve.t..Ci..
- i e t. '..--
?ER _S DI E.J _W.71. EL Di. - C '.in Si 51 M.> Cr C':- WE!.D .013_ 1.01 .35 4.3e 0; 19. ~ t- . : ',- A <. a 1 SE551T12AT:CN Two (2) s;e:!: ens voro s.r.si.1:a:..: t.
- c:i in Pra:tice I.
Sre:ime.s were e:.s.- a :' :.'" .i. ; ( !:h li'.D: A262 '0, =terocrc.:ki ;. Ns fis.= :rer verc :.,,
- i r. for pr..once cf i
MIC?.0 FISS*.'.:.C { Eend tes t vara n.tc=ined a t acceptance criteria e' interi:10X a.:.i fien tie. af..r b.f ading t r., r..M tise .t
- 1s t ory Ce t :t 1.11." ;;3 f t w.:cs vu. e.
pre s e r.:. r D.n...s..Fe..n. t e. I 1 Delta-Ferrite tes:s varc. eanc f:e! -- the length :if the proce ?.re ; sali:1
- e in a (s t x p.cr < ; di.)
along
- u l r.
- i. : '>
e 1 ! a n. ;.i.,
- e.
-i :.. sed an;! the fe.llevin; s et:1:$ .< e e p t yg: 725 was ne :... - All pos. i-ions, sn,:c.i L :.se: ,. 5 2 n. I '. 5 F:.. Apprcxica te 1.1:s Farrf :.. Cent en:; 1'
- ", ii.: v ; f *. s. !,i,.,. p.:: r;..tre 2;;1 1 c, ts.c a..,..
.. :..we t,:e:t......d e ) .. Test c:ceseted t., BAR Matet.au Engine: ring Lao. A : eess: 3100 Chnton Dei.e. H.aut:en. T,m L a b N, /,2 ". - r p e, _ Csc rse Dav5 ' *! 4 O3te "erCh 7. 19
- '.'e ce"i'r 1 at t.ie state nen:s ir. tS:1 ef::,'c are c in ac::,rcanct *.tn the above 1.ste: PC1 ar.: see ee :.e cents of -ts e:t 39c tr.at t* t it*! w *.'s is t*? Ot t on " **..* aat !?stec s
8.tect ex, sN :.. pu. I l g.. e.... 6f0.*/* '. E.c.. _Y i.:. -.... ~
- f. ~/ f.- 0 4 s
O watt -
- A
..y -.n.. _l. (*J..r y.A -'. r e ~- .e. m, .o . o. 4 11_ -~ ~ h m a
QW.201.1-QW 24.2 SECTION IX - PAllT QW WELDING i the necessary Procer%re Qualification Record (s) (PQR). QW.202 Type of Tests Requires. 20614 QW 202.1 MechanicalTests.The type and numb I of test specimens that must be tested to qualify welding procedure are given in QW451.except th i s77 QW 201.2 Procedure Qualifesrion Record (PQR), $78 where qualification is for Atlet welds only, the. h, De specisc facts including the base metal spe. requirements are given in QW.202.2 and, where ci5 cation Type and Grade (or chemical analysis and qualineation is for stud welds only, the requirements mechanical properties), and the essential variables (as listed in QW.252 through QW.282) used in are given in QW.202.3. All mechanical tests shall qualifying a WPS shall be recorded in a form called meet the requirements prescribed in QW 150. QW. Procedure Qualification Record (PQR). This form 160.QW-170.or QW.180 as applicable.. I shallalso record the test results. It is_recuired that the essential and nonessentialQW 202.2 Base Metals -Groove and FIHet 1 vahables or : WPS boroUowed in weldmit the testExcept for vessels or parts ofvessels constructed of 4 ~ !! (excluding P.ll A Subgroup l'and 2) metals, WPS coupons. He WPS identdcanon (including case and qualiscation tests for groove and Met welds may revistos number) shall be listed on the PQR. These made on groove welds using reduced.section sension documents shall be ceruned by the manufacturer or specimens and guided-bend specimens. De groov contractor and shah be available for examination by weld tesu shall qualify the WPS for use with groo j the Authorized laspector. A suggested format is welds within the range of essential variables listed, given in QW483. This PQR format may be changedGroove. weld tests shan also qualify for use with Met i to 6t the needs of each manufacturer or contractor.
- !d
_! s in aH thicknou-armetal sizen or nh.g i A change in any essential variable shall require and diameters of nine ne tube _within the other i requalification, to be recorded in another PQR. A !1n.saminti applicable essential variables. Where a change in any nonessential variables does not require WPS qua tAcation of Met welds only is required, tests requali5 cation. A change from one welding process shah be made in accordance with QW 180.T I to another welding process is considered a change inshall qualify the Allet WPS for use only with Met an essentialvariable. welds in au thicknesses of metal, sizes of Met welds, e and diameters ofpipe or tube, for use within the other s remaining applicable essential variables. . - - QW 20lJ C^'s of Welding Processes or For vessels, or parts of vessels.<onstructed of P l! Procedurus. More than one process or procedure may (eacluding P ilA Subgroup I and 2) metals, WPS be used in a single production joint. Each welding qualiacation tests for groove welds shall be made on ' { process or procedure shall be qualified either sepa-groove welds using reduced.section tension speci- { l rately or in combination with other processes or mens and guided. bend specimens. The Groove. weld procetures (within the thickness limits specified in tests shau qualify the WPS for use only with groove QW.202.2, QW403, and QW451) for the base metal welds within the range of essential variables listed. thickness and for the denosited wefd metal truckness WPS qualification tests for Met welds shan be made " rance for wh at The nme-m erocedures to be in inccordance with QW 180. The tests shall qua ) the fillet WPS for use only with fillet welds in ai! { used in the productioiiFjoint. For'multiprocess or j multiprocedure applications, the qualised thickness thicknesses of metal..sizas of nilet welds, and diame. of each process or procedure shall not be additive in ters of pipe or tube, for use within the other remaima determining the maximurn thickness of the pro. applicable essential variables. 1 duction joint to be welded. One or more processes or. Groove weld procedure qualineations shall encom-pass thickness ranges te be used in productien, for procedures may be deleted from a production joint i qualified by a combination ofprocesses or procedures both the base metsis to bejoined or repaired and the provided each remaining process or procedure has deposited weld metal to be used, except as aUowed in ) been,in the spect5c combination welding process or (1) below for both the base metal and the deposited l weld metal. ) procedure qualineation, qualified (within the thick-(/) For welding procedure quali6 cations made l ness limits specised in QW.202.2. QW-403, and QW. 451) for the deposited wc!d metal thickness range for with the SMAW. SAW. GTAW. GMAW, or PAW 1 j. cach of the processes or procedures to be used in the welding processe.s. using weld layer (s) of % in. (13 productionjoint. mm) or less in thickness. there is no limit on the nunimum depth of deposited weld metal for reps.:t er i 22 !L W e am a ~t 3 i i
N gf.,,, gr-w +4 r_v.f4; 1 ate. ,,.., W " 9 " N U ? 2 '$:f~f # d'"* "~? cM.-p 1 s ,r + .s ..a s.; .9 - u.c' " ~I, A ra:.C.p m A::.;'..3.3 L'W.'w m. amig.w-:,3 ' r ~**m { s. -y Ag 7fy.$r%. t 4 v y - %., w x -g* w ~~ p E --jn-- %M i f $N... i$ P * ; W ~ 20615 M ir r-M3, 5ffff
- Qt.;.*Q-y.Q-{M"
.f m.*o or'm 3 ~ "'"I-- i ~ DM ^** 4 .,4 , }Q y'" g i ,.4 )..
==m vjjE'.Qp,.4< ? ?...,sp.. .IP.. rE .~.,;c;; V...' .3 - 'i-t t-h "" an - - - - - - - - ~ ?e";h; $. base. or.$,w..e s:9'- q: < dep,th,p(dep,o.l - c - th n ( r, d QiQ",., metal,M e.np4..@.;: to.:: y' .&.9 g&q$$I sitai 2 an m% - dQ'wSIch t]EbaN5[8 one sEleIs eg$alRON.h**=M ,m. ~ ~ ~
- fM
. 's ls a .. M G =#'
== s h ?'~ .;f ,.y ._Z i i g sf
- g e
.w .w; p
- 4. * %w-Y --- -
h h _f? q i.g9 y'g M %,,? M h w +.): 9 % w 'lc y l -w . - W.,,, Vrys-n c E 1 4_-- ; <..? qJ
- g.
,. g. l
- ^-
' P% - s -.r a -o ';-~ <- ,.rg sp' ,?, pi. c~,r..s g .= w: munwr i 29 . 3,m-- .M:.., g,_ _r ' ^ ^2 *F =w a y +-- w-" ..,, ;p. C* *3l.? f.* 8 k h e. r W, seu J l wu n .uk,umyggW;e%c.sgJ.,; t'...u;. AM ~ - wa.swme:su-
- f mn::.
t. w. n -- g a n. - =g w ; e -= g. ~ -=m. ~< n -m r g. n. c g. ) y-3." W F-%4i ME q Q W7gN.. : >= m x_ )- l.j .'.'?gAGhd m y q, 2 ll Di : a _W fg' I e- ~ . -... q3-gg,. 4, ,i S. - - - n' iy,t A.p'- .. x e- ,a . ma4WwiK":.L i% Zhdh PC "? iEs k.3 d -- _.'- ' Z7 ~ ?"' ' i ~ M*f 1.a..ys...;M~ 1 h935WW g-t*xg g %. y. ?~. . ~ 4 _M .w~.m -~m kgw_g.~ ,~ c i r,., mi, ..e g,y.c:a..t%:. ^ g- ~.4 -W. s smae%___ gy = _ - ~- .i -g g, ? m ?, "T6W n L tW %~.. ~%9% _g. m. 9;L pf-:p...,3,, c - m.-- -_5 '.w g, .p. .,,. m ~ ,4.s .,1'7., c .s n E.&~mr: ~ ~- al A
- "F.hc{
af. M.Eg 9l.~ -c w $. 'l U.CM.....,..
- d.c
'*d & l.:. h.-,:.. . ~ w @s'.-;{fi-W'4FJW ~: s~.= ~. 9 ? & 'd l* i ~ ,,,,.? e
- s.l
.s,-A ~iE. t A ?f s t2,-l.:L +; 't S W. ;:...,'.r:y,4,-: . c <. c,,.,, y%.m. Lf,,@.%y:;.:g;g f Ak's.. ~~ t9 mist: 4W ,y,.N + 3'*pw M~e.eg h.='.:$ i w'
- m n ; M,t '
<.1, %s .o.y, sp%;,p,r.3gh'., n r. -"g,W i. .a 4: s g . m. #.., -... wit.: me,r. %.P . ' :,...y. e ,-:p, $r, x. p.,; 34;:.c g.>. p.- J.. t: g<
- c. g, g. ; g. y -
? 7 ,,;. m,,.:..,M.,,,a. i.:q;.,.? .... :[*Q',d @ C i*N..f.;+h.,w;:--~..~.m, ., + w.,,n.m.. t.a.x.. w.~.m. m h i.5 '-;=I :2 n. ":..u.., *<:.,. : w . c a w. i?.n.-ig.nf- ~. s ;..t-a q;. w, f *g @ R,n %. ,,5 2 s.w y. gv. n.:z. s..:- 3 m. w1 - %:s.
- Af; :h 3 W$$I Je
. m. p>. w w @'== w.: w w :. w,a.~{ w.. >,. c... .f4 ':C L 1"i * ,f f .W =, =.. :. .s ~ . a a y g ' w :un.v.., r y U N; e u a x . h' M U
- I*
r
- {.I/Ie )$Y;.d.e,,:.: w w.p.-*
-a.; M.$ Y +$7.0-TMMyMiGLy$.t M EIas J U I* ~;y/p.M N e G;9 rap',U,a*.' G f'l"e W 4..m s, at s M M M t f...f g '. M @ M.1
- rfE
- _.ge;.
.a.
21189.0.. c'~ Ro ss = F tvu r4 A Ti o r4 A BRT 20630 1 JUDGE BLOCH: What's the difference? 2 THE WITNESS: Section NP you can construct (??; 3 something to. Section NF of the code gives you design 4 criteria, procurement criteria, installation criteria, and 5 inspection criteria.,Section 9 does not do that. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 7 BY MR. ROISMAN: '8 Q I'm going to show you what appears to be the QA 9 portion of the FSAR for Comanche Peak, and ask you if you 10 could identify in it -- show us the chart that you were 11 referring to that lists the stainless steel liner plates 12 as "nonsafety." I don't think this is a trick question, I 7' 13 fust want the witness to do that so we will'have it pinned 14 down. 15 MR. WATKINS: I do want to be sure this is the 16 current FSAR. 17 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I think that's fair. 18 MR. WATKINS: I would like to ask or ask the 19 Chairman to ask whether the witness knows this is a 20 current copy of the FSAR. It's not an exhibit in this 21 phase of the proceeding. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Can the witness verify for us 23 whether or not this is a current copy of the FSAR? 24 THE WITNESS: No, I cannot. 25 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I assume it's 9 i
21189.0 BRT 20631 1 possible to tell because there are amendment dates that 2 are on there. The witness could tell us at least through (2 kM 3 what date that's relevant. We are going through a whole 4 period of time here so there would be some relevance in at 5 least pinning that much down, even if we don't know that ".6 we have the 1984 version. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins, how can we get a 8 stipulation as td having the current copy? 9 MR. WATKINS: I'm not objecting to questions 10 based on this document. We would like the opportunity to 'll review that we know to be the current FSAR, so long as 12 it's understood that Mr. Brandt's answers are on the basis 13 of what this document is and I would like the pages of 14 this document on which he's questioned bound into the 15 record. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Any objection, Mr. Roisman? 17 MR. ROISMAN: I don't have any objection to 18 having it bound in. I don't have an extra copy of it at 19 this moment. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: We'll arrange to have it bound in 21 as an exhibit with the understanding that Mr. Watkins will 22 correct it if he finds it's not the currents FSAR. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is it the current FSAR you want 24 anyway here? 25 MR. ROISMAN: It is the current. We have been
21189.O' BRT 20632 1 led to believe that this is. I can't independently verify 2 that. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Judge Grossman's que,stion was do 4 you want the current one or the earlier one that might 9 S' have been applicable when the liner plates were nade? 6 MR. ROISMAN': We are interested in both. We 7 want to know what it is now and what it was back then. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: The liner plates are still being 9 made? 10 MR. ROISMAN: There's still some fabrication on 11 them, is my understanding. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I haven't seen that. Are there r 13 dates on each page there? 14 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. It tells you " amendment as of"'and then it gives a date which presumably are the most 15 16 current amendments. I believe the dates Mr. Brandt is-17 looking at appear to be 1981 -- well, no, there's some '82. 18 It just depends on when the amendment took place. s 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: My recollection is that the 20 liner plates we are talking about, a lot of them were in 21 1981, those travelers. 22 MR. ROISMAN: That's correct. Why don't we do 23 this. I had thought it was a quicker process. When we 24 take a break I'll take Mr.'Brandt -- 25 JUDGE BLOCH: We'll use that as a-basis for 3 m-.
y e a s 21189.0 20633 BRT 1 questions and then Mr. Watkins will correct it if it turns 2 out to be wrong. /7) NI 3 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Brandt seems to be still 4 looking and rather than have us all sit and look, he can 5 do that at a break and I'll just move on to something else ~ 6 and he can do that later. 7 MR. WATKINS: I want to make sure he has enou'gh 8 time to review. ~ 9 JUDGE BLOCH: How much time do you need to 10 review that? 11-THE WITNESS: I don't know. The table is 50-something 12 pages long. 13 MR. ROISMAN: He indicated earlier, I think in 14 answer to a question about the appropriate table of the FSAR, 15 that this stainless steel liner was listed as "non-safety," 16 and I'm asking him to identify where that is in there. 17 MR. WATKINS: To correct the testimony, that it 18 was "non-ASME." 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Non-ASME. 20 MR. ROISMAN: I believe it was non-safety. I 21 don't know what his current testimony is but 22 THE WITNESS: What I intended was n6n-ASME. My 23 prefiled testimony clearly states that it is ) ~' 24 safety-related, and it is considered safety-related by the 25 designer. L
r' , * * = 21189.~0 20634 BRT k 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't we accept Mr. Roisman's 2 suggestion and hold the study of that document for the 3 next break and we can prolong that break if Mr. Br&ndt 4 needs it. 5 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. 6 JUDGE PLOC : That would seem to be something 7 that could be handled by stipulation of counsel, frankly. ~ 8 I mean, that table either says it or it doesn't. 9 . MR. ROISMAN: I hope that's correct. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I think we have shifted the. burden f 11 to Mr. Watkins reading it during the break. It seems we 12 can have a stipulation of counsel as to what that table f 13 says or doesn't say. It doesn't seem to me that we need 14 testimony as to whether it is or is not ASME in the table. 15 MR. WATKINS: I'll have to consult with my '16 expert during the break, your Honor. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 18 BY MR. ROISMAN: 19 0 I would like to take a look at weld 62, 63, and 20 64. If you have them there, I'll have them here and then 21 we can talk about them. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: The witness is looking for the 23 documents about that weld. This refers to the second set i../ 24 of testimony and second filing? This is for your further 25 evidence submittal? N}}