ML20202C156
| ML20202C156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1982 |
| From: | Renee Taylor NRC |
| To: | Madsen G NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C125 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607110120 | |
| Download: ML20202C156 (2) | |
Text
. _
'N....
Auoust 13,.1982 iMORANDUM FOR: G. L. Madsen 7HRU: T. F. Westerman W P.. G. Taylor FROM:
Alleged Improper Weld Practices At CPSES
SUBJECT:
Report of Inquiry doted August 2,1982 (Q4-82-0005)
Reference:
Based upon a review of the Brown & Root terminated employee files, the alleger was identified as follows:
summmmmmmmmmmmmesser Reason for Termination:"Would not do normal work duties" (Note: The employee acknowledged the above statement by signature imediately below entry)
Labor Classification: Pipe Welder The above party was the only W in either the' current employee or terminated employee files.
A review of the welder qualification files indicate that the party had qualified on two carbon steel pipe welding procedures, one for ASME/B31.1 work and one for AWS work.
Relative to the specific allegations contained in the reference:
A. Welders not properly trained: There are no requirements relative to the amount of training to be given a welder. 0ur only requirement pertains to welder qualification by test as in Section IX of ASME or to AWS as in 5.3.The alleger as well as all other welders inspected in the past have passed such tests.
~
B. QC welding inspectors did not have appropriate background in welding: We have no requirements pertaining to QC inspector background except as in ANSI N45.
2.6 which is not specific as to the discipline representing adequate experience. All welding inspectors examined during past inspections have been trained and tested within the Brown & Root or licensee programs which have been reviewed and considered adequate.
C. Poorest quality weld rods: The quality of weld rod varies considerably from vendor to vendor even though all materials inspected in the past have met the requirements of either the ASME code or the AWS (which are the same thing).
The writer believes that the allegation deals with the ease of welding with a given verdors rod. Some welders will experience difficulty in using a given rod but another welder may not have the same problem. Not withstanding, all.the rod examin.d during our inspections has met the code requirements.
D. Inaccessible welds not welded: Assuming this allegation were true, it would then be very difficult to hydrostatically test the pipe since it would appear that it would leak pretty badly.
E. Heliarc versus stick welds: The failure of the welders to follow the combinati procedures has been identified by our inspections but in reverse. Most of welders here in the safety area are much more skilled with TIG (heliarc). Most of the combination processes call for a TIG root and hot pass followed by a stick fill. We identified a case were the welder also filled with TIG which 8607110120 860630 PDR FOIA M*% u gr -
SA80E85 -59
,P_DR
~-
lr
~
violated the procedure but probably provided a bitter weld. It has been my observation that very little stick welding has been done on pipe in the safety Most such welds have been made using TIG at least for the root with stick used only when a lot of fill was, required as in the area.
with stick electrode although I know that some can. The alleger may have been one who could since he qualified on procedures that so required.
The only 52 inch pipe 11 ave been able h
F. Welding of 52 inch " chrome-moly pipe:
to find is the line connecting the outlet of the high pressure turbine to the moisture separator and according to the Project Welding Engineer is of the 2.5 chrome type in welding group P-5. The same gen No such pipe exists in the safety area where all the carbon steel pipe is of standard alloy and in the P-1 groups. This particular pipe is may well be true.
within the scope of supply of the turbine vendor and it is understood that the turbine vendor supposed closely supervised the installation work of B & R. Not withstanding, the work was not in the safety areas and not there were documented instances where the wrong procedure and u.aterial B program area.
on some turbine chrome-moly piping. When found in the review cycle, the weld have been corrected.
Allegations A, B, and C have no regulatory basis and are simply Allegation D appears to be foolish at face value. Allegation Writer
Conclusion:
the alleger's opinion.
D is not at all consistent with ray observations. Allegation F is not in safety area and was not subject to the QA program. Given that his allegations have-little m within our scope and are substantially on the order of four years old, I suggest th the time required for direct interview and/or more followup is not warranted.
., ~
{ ^ A.<.,. 4
/-
s l
l m ' w'.w n c-m., a g..,,.,,
3 a,,.,
j
~
e,
,,n_
n o,w _,
A 4