ML20203M941
| ML20203M941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1986 |
| From: | Bateman R, Lynskey R, Rose J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203M897 | List: |
| References | |
| WP-17-SQN, WP-17-SQN-R, WP-17-SQN-R00, NUDOCS 8609050195 | |
| Download: ML20203M941 (14) | |
Text
._ ~ - - - -
- - :ne-
. , , , _ . . ,.g, .: .: .. .
%.. : n. .I _
s' -
r . .,e . : , %,~'.
. ; . R'_ ,_f.;.
C_,_-'-
'.- L' A % :.: . .
y' . f" l' . , ' _.p f " [- ', ,' ~;,,
[
4, h -h . ^- ~.Of .. .' '
s ; .; - . . '; ,.L~,. "
'f W. ? .l . &f *. Y ': . ;f5 l - 7. *! ' ! ' $[ ' YY nhk. f ;"h -l --l ' ' -:
<$ 5
[
h '
, '. ^ *
Y
, .. . ,,- [ II. 9(
- t I f
h [, 2[f". 7, ..- I* 5 +
- m ' ;.
- I g m .
- n .' > h Y :m$ 4 h,..,4k.' pn
.hf&l ~ [. [ 5n$s. Vm(w. ,l?kii..& W'..Dla?~1 c 0 'Wh+ s.? w,. ,$ lglWkkS f .. ' W.$.l$ !.
l .
h: .
h e l '
s'
[.
J ..,..:..c
++ . . -
- . ~-y.-
-[.
4z; l ' ~ ' . ; _. iyf :
e i .. < i.
f _ .~c; . .[' l ,; ; -@yf.,l; ;.p, ;Vwry [ k- ' =p{*.fk- .y ;-% p. .
j; ;. ).' 4g 4J- gg, { .) #
k). , .
py . . .
.s . . - - +
- y. :: .'s,-
l
[
4
'- I ' =
I
.y- -
O.
j
} :
I',. ,. -
.t [ ll ~ , g
- - .'#f N, Y._ ',; ,.p, ,;.. ' *~ f y... - -
9, ';n
$g' 9, 1 a . . ': n jk.. .- {;<- $ '.. :g3
.' " .'.% i ., *2 I r.
- y$ - Drg,.
.i., -
g ,
'I'J.
l!,g *'=:.,i.,;.,*..
[;')' ,.g[. -4U g.; . ., J l g*; A , hy,k ( ,h ..-
- .'.,$.~~ r m. . P-f.
.y, * : '
s, c A q: .; t.b. 54 ~ > f.' , . . . ,,. <.; h' *.i7f .
.gl R.*2. ;
L; j ..-p-')':
' v;,p'M
. ; +, vz n ,
^
- I ,9 4x . ( g , ' f(4h ' , k' .M id .m: v o
~. eql.q . ' .z./ .
5r!'d,;l[x%[.,s.*%
.m .. .
.g . b .y .[ QQ. f . QQf ~e
^
Yj .
k.y -
lfff .',kf}[.p f .kf N $khbh_ k,. . ./hkk N ;khhN kk f
%,%$qw}p$y&sW.qW e M.f.C W w w.nw Rh.& ~
'O p2.q fiw.w.;qj&g!;.y : .g p 3 4 A y a : v o w . A W M.
m y t. e. g y.d r m ; g;;. p.c. ....
..ppgg., . \
) *
- l
-e}-Q }gl_QTyQQ_y}gg
. ~
j ,f f :. f.
w&.c :l vl; n%.c n.
4:
MM. M+gwme+ k, y . w. .:n jg,,p&./H%ews n W w y:. , nw y .e m .. y' N, %o ... w.% .:j,( k . -
.'g,g.j. ,eg_ w% b.M&w%y a.: gf,;. c, r'% .,_ ,.:.:
n ; .:
4 :
.p ~ : p ,, s a ';..
_,( .
- c ,m f.= G. w?.y,3,4; : p%g, .
g ..y 4..2 : .
ang's y_ 7 y R s%g; , a _ . ,
m ,.,
1g m
.: ~ ,cy a n c+M:. 2 7
. .,-.1,. ..
+. . . , L.. . %. . :c:L.u't ,* ' -
3 v .flrlf p p g g g ,%qqyg , .
-w .
- a. . .,
w n ( n .. Av.g'~ s. ,m.
y
+
N W
~..w< .-
. . * . . j' .
> -R. k , J.. A J jF A 1 m
. , . ~; .
g+ .,4 G7 2 .- : . .
? . ' - ' ,n' ; ' - ^
+ '
~
[ *l ,.
- r_ .' . - ' . ' -' g
.a. .
~~_
p.4' ( 4" a
.I.v f .
~ . . .
. g,y.
i
- .-r ' '"
.~ . . ' . '
A,. , .'-
3 .
efr.; . .gi
. g.. * .J f' ..;, .'4 7 't .), ..\-
-l 'y WMI ' A : r ,- . g'7 .. -
.. - p ,:
9 A. t .
' . =%v . ri- t- . ..,.u'. .
, . , .. (.. . , , . ,- .
.Nc h . ,((*'+,', 1.Q. . )bhf ,
1 .) -
\ '. [->I d H
e
- 1 WjE. DING PROJECT I GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN EVALUATION REPORT REPORT NUMBER: WP-16-SON, R1 DATE 08-26-86 i
SUBJECT:
PERFORMANCE OF PREWELD INSPECTIONS CONCERNS CONSIDERED: SQM-5-001-001*
SQM-5-001-002*
WBM-5-001-001 BEM-5-001-001 BEM-5-001-002 BFM-5-001-002 WI-85-030-007 IN-85-212-001
- SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATED BY NSRS IN REPORT I-85-768-SQN PREPARED BY
.M.DQ sl.as' .
% , OC, We REVIEWED'BY % .F. p- 8/25ABro"
, OC, WP i
i REVIEWED BY >. .M gEf 6 , QA, WP 6
- C REVIEWED BY # , CEG-H, WELDING
~ /, // r r APPROVED BY t / , PROGRAM MANAGER
< 1-(
Revision 1 was to update status of interim corrective action on NCO-CAR-86-001, DQA/0E-CAR-86-01, and SQ-CAR-86-03-01. -
.('
00390 1
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN O
SUMMARY
SHEET Report Numbe'r: WP-16-SON, R1 Report
Title:
PERFORMANCE OF PREWELD INSPECTIONS I. CONCERNS CONSIDERED: SQM-5-001-00l*
- SQM-5-001-002*
WBM-5-001-001 BEM-5-001-001 BEM-5-001-002 BFM-5-001-002 WI-85-030-007 IN-85-212-001
- See NSRS Report I-85-768-SQN (Attached).
II. ISSUES INVOLVED
- 1. Do uncertified welder foremen perform preweld inspections?
- 2. Is this a violation of TVA Quality Assurance requirements?
- 3. Is this a violation of ANSI N45.2.5 requirements?
(n.
III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Validity: Y X ,N , Substantiated: Y X ,N IV. EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/0R PROGRAM None (Program has been revised).
V. JUSTIFICATION Procedural controls were adequate for construction. Nuclear Operations has documented areas of noncompliance in accordance with the Nuclear Operations QA Program.
VI. RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED None (Corrective action has been taken as described in this report).
VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y _,N X .
VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE Based on completion of required corrective action for Nuclear Operations.
I
(.
Page 1 of 2 00390
i 4
WP-16-SQN, R1 IX. ATTACHMENTS I'
- 1. Text o'f Employee Concerns a
- 2. NSRS Investigation Report - I-85-768-SQN
- 3. W. C. Drotleff's March 17, 1986, memo to R. B. Kelley (B27 860314 003)
- 4. J. P. Vineyard's March 19, 1986, memo to J. W. Coan
! (B27 860319 002) i i
~
l i-(:
Page 2 of 2
(
L
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN Report Number: WP-16-SON, R1 Report
Title:
PERFORMANCE OF PREWELD INSPECTIONS I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering analysis covers the following WBN, BLN, and BFN concerns determined to have possible generic implications to SQN. The i issues in this report have also been investigated by NSRS on concerns SQN-5-001-001 and SQN-5-001-002 in NSRS Report I-85-768-SQN dated February 1986. The information contained in this report expands on the evaluations performed in the NSRS report.
II. ISSUES ADDRESSED BY CONCERNS Each concern was analyzed to determine the issues voiced by the concerned individuals. The subject concerns are repeats of the SQN specific concerns. These issues were stated in the NSRS report.and are as follows:
- 1. Do uncertified welder foremen perform preweld inspections?
- 2. 'Is this a violation of the TVA Quality Assurance Program?
,, 3. Is this a violation of ANSI N45.2.5 requirements?
(.. '
III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION The concerns relate to General Construction Specification G-29C, Process Specification 0.C.1.1 which requires welder foremen to perform preweld inspections including fit-up inspections.
NSRS Report I-85-768-SQN correctly concludes.that the issues revolve around preweld inspections on structural and miscellaneous steel features. The report concludes that these preweld inspections are verifications only and that final acceptance of welds on completed
" assemblies is performed by qualified quality control inspectors.
These conclusions fall short of identifying all of the requirements applicable to these issues. This report will address these issues further as they specifically relate to compliance with ANSI N45.2.5,
" Supplementary Quality Assurance Requirements for Installation, Inspection, and Testing of Structural Concrete and Structural Steel During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants." ANSI N45.2.5 requires inspections to be performed to the extent necessary in connection with the feature's importance to safety.
(
Page 1 of 3 00390
- WP-16-SQN, R1
+
,~
Review of SQN construction procedures indicates that OC implemented ANSI N45.2.5 requirements during the construction era at SQN through a network of procedures for the erection of structural steel, miscellaneous steel, and hanger features. These procedures required final visual inspections of welds on these features to be performed by certified QC inspectors. They also required a rigorous surveillance program which verified individual elements such as fit-up inspections, Detail Weld Procedure compliance, and proper welder qualification practices on a daily surveillance basis. These-daily surveillances were documented on a weekly welding surveillance checklist as outlined in SNP Construction Procedure M-3, " Weld Procedure Assignment and Welding Surveillance." This program was used throughout the construction era to i assure compliance to ANSI N45.2.5 requirements. The provisions of Process Specification 0.C.1.1 were not used for the construction era at SQN.
Nuclear Operations is committed to perform modification activities in a manner equivalent to the original construction requirements. They did, however, fail to recognize their role in implementation of ANSI N45.2.5 requirements and did not implement a program to satisfy these requirements. This failure was recognized by Nuclear Operations in late 1985, and the noncompliance was documented on Corrective Action Reports NCO-CAR-86-001, DQA/0E-CAR-86-001, and SQ-CAR-86-03-01 in accordance with the Nuclear Quality Assurance Program. Interim corrective actions have been developed to assure compliance with these requirements.
These interim corrective actions include:
(.
- 1. A Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance (DNQA) directive for l certified QC inspectors to either. perform 100 percent fit-up lR1 3
inspections or sample inspect welder and welder foreman checks l
[ .w hich record fit up gaps for fillet welds. l
- 2. Revision of procedures to comply with the DNQA directive.
- 3. Office of' Engineering (OE) clarification of its position with regard to how documents such as ANSI N45.2.5 are incorporated into design output.
- 4. OE performance of an engineering evaluation of fit-up gap practice and conclusion that installation met design requirements.
- 5. OE (and others) random verification of fit-up conditions to substantiate the worst case assumption of the engineering i evaluation.
These interim actions are being evaluated for additional program improvements and additional corrective actions will be implemented as necessary.
In summary, the issues considered in these concerns are not i substantiated for the construction era at SQN but are substantiated for the Nuclear Operations era due to the following reasons:
r
(-
- 1. SQN construction had a program in place which contained procedures which adequately addressed the elements of ANSI N45.2.5.
Page 2 of 3 i
00390
WP-16-SQN, R1
- 2. Nuclear Operations has identified this issue as an area of I. _, noncompliance and has documented this noncompliance in accordance with QA program requirements *. Corrective actions have been implemented which completely address this issue and confirm no effect on hardware.
The issues addressed in these concerns are closed based on completion of the interim corrective actions for Nuclear Operations described above, ,
part of which is contained in the following memoranda.
- 1. W. C. Drotleff's March 17, 1986 memo to R. B. Kelly (B27 860314 003)
- 2. J. P. Vineyard's March 19, 1986 memo to J. W. Coan (B27 860319 002)
Additional corrective actions may be implemented based on the program
. evaluation described above.
i
?
i P
h I
I P
l id _
(..
4 .
Page 3 of 3 00390
Attachment 1 03/RS/85 .
CEMPLOYEE -CONCERNS) PACE 1 of 3 11: 33:02 . .
LOC ' STATUS RES? -CTC- PPP CFR INSP- TC ------CONCERN------- PRCELEM f-- -I O a . -
SR sci 1-5 -001-001 ^ -WCDFW -
A_YWORDS: INSPECTIDN PROGRAM. FIT-UP-RESP- c .. X: S Y: N Z: N __
SECUDYAH - THE GENERAL CONST. SPEC. G-ESC. PROCESS S?EC.
O.C.1.1~IS IN1 CONFLICT WITH THE TUA CUALITY ASSURANCE COCMMITMENTS AS STATED SY THE TVA TOPICAL REPORT. TVA-TR75-1A, IN THAT PROCESS S?EC.
O.C.1.1. SECTION S.O ALLOWS. UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN, WHO HAVE DIRECT RES?ONSISILITY FOR-THE INSTALLATION, TO PERFORM PRE-WELD INSPECTIONS.
NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
4 e. .. -
- TECHNICAL COMMENTARY.
ISSUE CONSIDERED:1. UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN PERFORM PRE-WELD INSPECTICNS.
- 2. DOES THIS VIOLATE TVA QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS?
LCC STATUS RESP -QTC- PPP CFR INS? TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEM
____ ______ ____ _____ ___ ___ ____ __ ~ ID SR SCM-S-OCl-DC2 WCDPW KEYWORDS: INSPECTION PROGRAM FIT-UP RESP X: S Y: N Z: N
~ SECUOYAH - UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN ARE REQUIRED EY TVA TO PERFORM PREWELD INSPECTIONS ON INSTALLATIONS THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPCNSISLE FOR WHICH IS A
--UIGLATION OF ANSI RECUIREMENTS. NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. CI HAS NO FURTHER IN-jpRMATION.
' I[:
.NICAL COMMEtiTARY:
ISSUE CONSIDERED: UNCERTIFIED WELCER FOREMEN PERFORMING PRE-UELD INSPECTIONS UICLATE ANSI NSS.2.5. REQUIREMENTS.
?
LOC STATUS RESP -QTC- PPP CFR INS? TC ------CONCERN------- PROSLEM ID SR WEM-5-001-001 WCDPW KEYWORDS: INSPECTION PROGRAM FIT-UP X: W Y: N Z: N WATTS EAR - THE GENERAL CCNST. SPEC. G-ESC. PROCESS SPEC. O.C.1.1 IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE TVA QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITMENTS AS STATED SY THE TVA TOPICAL REPORT, TVA-TR75-1A. IN THAT PRCCESS SPEC. O.C.1.1, SECTION S.O ALLOWS UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN. WHO HAVE DIRECT RESPONSISILITY FOR THE INSTALLATION, TO PERFORM PREWELD INSPECTIONS. NUCLEAR POWER CCNCERN. CI HAS NO ,FURTHER INFORMATION.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
i ISSUES CONSIDERED:1.CO UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN PERFORM PRE-WELD INSPECTIONS?
R.IS THIS A VIGLATION OF TVA CUALITY ASSURANCE RECUIREMENTS? 3.1S THIS A VIOL-ATION OF ANSI N.SS.2.5 REQUIREMENTS? -
2
'(
I
, ,.r-,- - _ - - , .-u_ _ _ _ . _ ,_
. , _ , , _ ~ ~ , , . -...m, , , . , ., _ s.,, . _ _ _ . - . . . .,.-,-
. Attachmtnt 1 l 03/24/83 CEt1PLOYEE CONCERNS) PAGE 2 of 3 11:33:C2 LOC STATUS RES? -CIC- P?? CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- 'PROBLEt1
-m,- - ------ ---- ----- --- --- ---- --
~
ID
. NSRS -
SR BEM-S-001-001 kiCDFWs G.YWORDS: INS?ECTION PROGRAM FIT-UP RES? X: E Y: N Z: N ,
BELLEFONTE - THE GENERAL CCNST. S?EC. G-2SC, PROCESS SPEC. O.C.1.1 IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE TUA CUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITMENTS AS STATED BY THE TVA TOPICAL REPORT. TVA-TR75-1A, IN THAT PROCESS SPEC. O.C.1.1, SECTION 5.0 ALLOWS UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN. WHO HAVE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INSTALLATION, TO PERFORt1 PREWELD INS?ECTIONS. NUCLEAR POWER CCNCERN.:CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORt1ATION . _. .
TECHNICAL COMt1ENTARY:
ISSUES CCNSIDERED:1.DO UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREt1CM PERFORt1 PRE-WELD INSPECTIONS?
2.IS THIS A VIOLATION OF TVA CUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS? 3.IS THIS A VIOL-ATIOil CF ANSI N.SS.2.5 REQUIREt1ErlTS? --
LOC STATUS RES? -CTC- PP? CFR INS? TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEt1 IO NSRS SR BEM-S-001-CO2 WCDPW KEYWORDS: INS?ICTION PROGRAM FIT-UP RES? X: B Y: N Z: N EELLEFOrlTE - UNCERTIFIED WELDER FCREMEN ARE RECUIRED BY TVA TO PERFORt1 PREWELD
"" INSPECTIONS ON INSTALLATIONS THEY ARE DIRECTLY RES?CNSIBLE FOR UHICH IS A GLATION OF ANSI REQUIREMENTS. NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. CI HAS NO FURTHER
- g. _. 1Rt1ATION.
.y TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
ISSUES CONSIDERED:1.DO UNCERTIFIED WELCER FORE' MEN PERFORf1 PRE-WELD INSPECTIONS?
2.IS THIS A UIOLATION OF TVA CUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS? 3.IS THIS A UIOL-ATICN OF ANSI N.SS.2.S REQUIREMENTS?
LOC STATUS RESP -CTC- PPP CFR INSF TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEt1 ID NSRS SR EFil-E-001-OC2 WCDFW KEYWORDS: INS?ECTION PROGRAM FIT-UP RES? X: F Y: N Z: N BROWN'S FERRY - UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN ARE REQUIRED BY TVA TO PERFORM PRE-WELD INSPECTIONS ON INSTALLATIONS THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF ANSI REQUIREt1ENTS. NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. ~ CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY: .
ISSUES CONSIDERED:1.DO UNCERTIFIED WEELDER FOREMEN PERFORM PRE-UELD INSPECTIONS?
2.IS THIS A VICLATION OF TUA CUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREt1ENTS? 3.IS THIS A VIOLA-TION OF ANSI N.SS.2.5 RECUIREMENTS?
'/ .
\
1
.e '
Atttchmrnt 1 03/24/EG CEMPLOYEE CONCERNS) PAGE 3 of 3 11:23:02 .
' LOC STATUS RESP -OTC- PP? CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROBLEM l a_. .I O i I ,~ -
DC . SR WI-SS-030-007 ' . - WCDFW - ,
7 L (WORDS: REINSPECTION PROGRAM PAINT X: W Y: N Z: N
~~ ~
5 =THE WEN FSAR COMMITS TVA TO THE REOUIREMENTS OF A'US D.1.1 FOR STRUCTURAL WELDING. CONTRARY TO THESE REOUIREMENTS, THE G-ESC PROCESS SPECIFICATION WAS 3 MODIFIED TO REFLECT LESS STRINGENT INSPECTION REOUIREMENTS CE.G. VISUAL INSPECTIO*J OF WELDS THROUGH PAINT CCARBO ZINC PRIMER) AND NO DOCUMENTED ,
INSPECTION SY CERTIFIED UISUAL INSPECTORS CFIT-UP, IN-PROCESS) PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.) CI HA5 NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NUC. POWER DEPT. CONCERN.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
ISSUES CONSIDERED: 1. INSPECTION OF WELDS THROUGH PAINT.
- 2. FITUP INSPECTIONS BY WELDER FOREMAN.
LOC STATUS RES? -OTC- PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROBLEM
------ ---- ----- --- --- ---- -- ID -
MSS NSRS PS SR IN-SS-212-001 p WCDPU
, KEYWORDS: INSPECTION PROGRAM FIT-UP RES? ' */: b Y: C 2: Y WELD FIT-UP INSPECTICN WHICH UERE PERFORMED BY OC DURING 1578-1550 DN DUCT SUPPORTS IN REACTOR EUILDINGS #1 AND 2 ARE NOT EEING PERFORMED ON DUCT SUPPORTS
~ " PRESENTLY BEING INSTALLED IN REACTOR ELDG. #2. CI OUESTIONS WHY THESE FIT-UP 'IN--
AND NOT REQUIRED AT PRESENT TIME.
lp?CTIONSWERERECUIREDDURING1S78-1980 FURTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE, WITHELD DUE TO CON-((,,iTR. DEPT. CONCERN.
1NTIALITY.
TECHNICAL CCMMENTARY:
a .
[
ISSUE CONSIDERED: FIT-UP INSPECTIONS WERE DELETED FROM DUCT SUPPORTS.
L
? ~
a ..
p I
b l .
Y -
l 1
r' (
C 4
L . ~ - _ ._ _ _ _ _ .
.3 ..
'TVA C4 (oS.9-65) (op-WP S 85) -
(
\
Attachme Page 1 ef 9 2
UNITED STATES GOVERN 31ENT '
M6mO7dndMM -
TENNESSEE VALLEY'AUTHQRITY ,.
s To: H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
_. ~.
FROM: K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K DATE:
{g g jgpq _
SUBJECT:
UUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL
~___
~
Transmitted hetein is NSRS Report' No. T-85-768-SON p
Subj ect UNCERTIFTED WELDER FOREMEN PERFORM PREWELD TUSPECTIONS Concern No. SOM-5-001-001 and130W 5WBT W No response or corrective action is required for this report. It is being
. transmitted to you for information purposes only. Should you have any questions, please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231 .
, b, Reco::: mend Reportability Detemination: Yes No I
/ '
' 4# h
/ M ctor, NSRS/ Designee WDS:JTH Attachment cc (Attschment):
W. C. Bibb, BFN Mj.
J. W. Coan, W9Cl35 C-K ,, _
{ W. T. Cottle, WBN l' James P. Darling BLU ~
. R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C G. B. Kirk, SQN F. E. Laurent, CEO-WBN D. R. Nichols. E10A14 C-K QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C J. H. Sullivan, SQN Kent Therp, IOB-WBN C >493U -
{-
Attachment 2
, Page 2 of 9 i
( . . . .. . - . -d. e : :;: c;r.s. u . 31,.c g: TENNESSEE-VALLEY AUTHORITY. :
- NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF
- 4-' NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. ,I-85-768-SQN
. .. ~
EMPLOYEE CONCEIUI: SQM-5-001-001 SQM-5-001-002
". ' r : , :. - *
SUBJECT:
UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN PEPSORM PREWELD INSPECTIONS u ;
- au. ,- t!MCr.:T !.'iri. _HE ,._._ . . _ . . .
--- . .. . .. r.,..
DATES OF INVESTIGATION: DECEMBER 30, 1985 - JANUARY 20, 1986 INVESTIGATOR: . .
- ! b DATE E.[F.HARWELL
/
(' '
REVIEWED BY: 2!/4![T.e
'..'....'> .L; E. BROCK DATE r
APPROVED BY: -
d!/
- ~
W. D. STEVENS ... <
... . . DATE 4
.e W .
%1 .
's,e8 s ~ ,=.
eus y(-
C 4
r._. _ _ _ _ _ . .
. . . .. - -. ~
(
\ *
(
\
Attachment 2 l
,. . Page 3 of 9
- g. I. BACKGROUND k~ A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity'.'of2 tw6 expressed ' employee concerns as received by _.
Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee. Response Team (ERT). The '*' ~
concerns of record, as' summarized'on the'E=ployee Concern Assignment Request Forms from QTC and identified as SQM-5-001-001 and SQM-5-001-002, respectively, stated: . . Z." * * .
2 Sequoyah - The Genera 1' Construction Specification G-29C, Process Specification 0.C.1.1 is in conflict with the TVA Quality Assurance '
Commitments as stated by the TVA Topical Report, TVA-TR75-1A, in that process spec. 0.C.1.1, section 6.0 allows uncertified welder foremen, -
who have direct responsibility for installation, to perform pre-weld 4 " -
inspectionss' Nuclear' Power Concern; CI h~as no^further information.
Sequoyah - Uncertified welder foremen are required by TVA to perform pre-weld inspections on installations they are directly responsible for, which is a violation of ANSI requirements. Nuclear Power
~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ' Concern. CI has no further information.
Since these two concerns deal with the same area, the investigation was done in such a manner that a single report covers both concerns.
~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
3 . II. SCOPE A. The scope of the investigation was determined from the stated I, concerns of record to be three specific issues requiring l investigation; . . . .; .,;. . _ _. . . ..
t . 1. Do uncertified welder foremen perform pre-weld inspections?
- 2. Is this a violation of the TVA quality assurance co=mitments?
' ' ~~
- 3.
, Is this a violation of ANSI requirements? ..
, B. In conducting this investigation, NSRS reviewed the AWS code, ANSI
- standard commitments, QA tier requirements, welding and inspection
, program requirements, and plant implementing instructions. Several people were interviewed who had been associated with defining welding and inspection requirements or had been responsible for field s implementation. :,.t .
III.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS
- A. Requirements and Commitments
- 1. Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Rev. 8, Section 17.2, "TVA Quality l Assurance Program, Program Applicable to Plant Operation."
- 2. NUREG-0011, Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 1979, for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 50-327 and j g(,
50-328.
l Q
1 l _ _ _ .
. ( .
(- Attachment 2 Page 4 of 9
- ~
,- s- .
- ..3. Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual. Part II Section 5.3 , -,
" Maintenance and4 Modification Inspection Program."
.. uu c. a r :a =' :mrw :.t. :r. . .:: !... a. +.r.: e.:. . . . . . c . . . ; . v.
ocereeg t: ANSI /AWS:D:1.1, '.' Structural Welding Code. Steel." -
,, j
. . . . : ~ *. 2 ; st: r . a.m r.: ; :' -
r *'
- B. . Findings .;- ;; :: 'l
,.a . .-- . --
c... . ; .
m.e.:1.:nThe Sequoyah structural steel components were designed in "
I accordance with the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) specification. This was acceptable to the NRC as stated
- . .in.the Sequoyah Safety Evaluation. Report (Ref. 14). .
i cc:.a.ne:c n t.uanet m- .m. i r . w: : a . .m- i 4. ': ~ : ~ s. -
mu
- 2. menthe welding associated with.the AISC specification, particularly"-
.welded. steel structures, is governed by the American. Welding.
... .. Society-(AWS) Code D1 1-(Ref. 16). -This AWS Code requires that all completed welds be visually inspected: " Visual inspection
-of welds may begin immediately af ter the completed welds have cooled to ambient temperature."
- 3. The AWS Code skates, **The Inspector shall, at suitable intervals, observe joint preparation, assembly practice, the
. . . . _ . ..m. welding . techniques. and. performance .of each welder, welding
, : operator, and. tacker to make certain that the applicable
. requirements of this code are met."
- 4. The AWS Code requires the inspector to verify the size, length,
('r:. . and location.cf.all. welds; -that correct procedures are used;
,,. . that. welders are. qualified; and that proper filler material is used. The AWS Code states that, "Other acceptance criteria,.
. different from these specified in the code, may be used when approved by the Engineer." The engineer in this case is the design _ organization.
.. ... . . . . . . . . ...-... .s ': w . . . - .
- 5. References 4 and 5 require that all individuals performing QC
~
, . inspections be qualified'and'theic qualifications be documented.
- 6. c. Plant implementing procedures and instructions (References 1, 8
,;and.10). require that. inspectors. performing QC inspections be em- : . qualified .and certified. Reference.1 states, "QC inspection
~ ~ ~
shall be performed by qualified individuals.other.than those who
. t . -. performed-or directly supervised the activity,'bding inspected." .
Q -
, 7. Process Specification O.C.1.1 (Reference 6) was prepared and issued by the design organization as being their defined requirements for welded fabrication of steel structures in accordance with AISC specification, and the AWS Structural Welding Code. Process Specification O.C.1.1 requires, as a minimum, the pre-weld and in-process welding activities be verified by the welder and his foreman and be subject to a quality surveillance program which verifies that these acitivities are being properly performed. The post-welding (finished weld) inspections are performed by an AWS certified
,( inspector who is trained and qualified.
2
(-
.. Attachmtnt 2
- {
- Page-5 of 9-
'A . I a-- '
r
~
Process Specificatidn'0:C.111 is not always invoked in.,. s . .__ l f- .
Gorkplans; Chosever "shsh2iEls'h6t" invoked:the inspection k requirements become a negotiated agreement between the oEginization perforsiWs Wthe wore ~End QA as the'means of meeting - -
a the interpreted, applicable code requirements.
- 8. A design engineer, Individual E, knowledgeable with the AWS Code requirements 'and the process specification,said that the pre-weld an'd in-processT weldins' verifications performed by' the i welder and the foreman were not QC inspections and were not required'to be QC inspection hold points by the code.
Individual E said that.the only QC inspections required by the code' were' the final. weld" inspections performed by the' QC inspectors and verfication of compliance"via a surveillance. l program (which is implemented by QA/QC personnel). ' 2
- . :.- e. t .. .- ~. .o;.. -
.. .. .. .:.v. - .3 r.:
This in' consistent wfth'the'c6d5 requisements'verifled'by the investigator in Findings 2, 3, and 4.
- 9. The investigator was advised in. discussing with plant QA staff personnel that the welding surveillance program is accomplished per-the instructions of QA Section Instruction Letter 18:1,
" Surveys" (Ref. 13).
- 10. Reference 12, an inplant survey, identified a difficulty that the QA staff was/is having with meeting the inspection *
, e. '. requirements of Process Specification 0.C.1.1. The
' specification allows for increasing the size of-the fillet weld to compensate for a fit-up. gap greater than 1/16 inch. Since QC
[ . acceptance is based solely on the final visual insFection, QA c6nten'ds that'it is impossible to determine if the fillet weld size has been adjusted to compensate for fit-up gap in excess of 1/16 inch since a QC inspection at fit-up was not required.
Their-(QA) recommendation was that craftsmen should note whether the weld fit-up gaps exceeded the 1/16 inch.
- .
- . rc -m.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- .
- -- #- "i - -
..s . . . . . . . . .
~~ ; ~ ' '
, A. Conclusions - -
m.
m, , . . e. . ~ . .. . p. .....:,. y l
- 1. The concerns of record were not substantiated for the following i
reasons: -- -
1 .
- a. The pre-weld and in-process welding verification activities
^'t 'done by'the weldce foreman are not considered QC e inspections and are not required to be-QC inspected by the governing codes.
l- b. Since these in-process verifications, discussed in IV.A.l.a. are not QC inspections, only the final weld
- inspection and the surveillance activities require a
[
(' qualified and certified inspector.
l -
3
[
(f .
I( Attachment 2
. Page 6 of 9
- s. -
- c. Since these in-process verifications, discussed Ih7 -
-IV.A.1.a. do4not require a special process (NDE ~^~" ~~'
~ inspections), individuals performing these activities do not have to be trained and certified per ANSI standards. _.
In fact, the AWS Dl.1 Structural Welding Code is an
- American National Standards Institute approved document.
- d. Although the lack of QC hold point inspections for pre-weld activities seems awkward compared to the ASME requirements, Process Specification 0.C.1'.1 meets the requirements of the AWS Structural Welding Code and is consistent with the cormitment to the NRC to design and fabricate structural ce=ponents to the AISC specification. -
B. Recocmendation
~
i NSRS agrees with the recor=endation made in QA Inplant Survey Sa-85-A-005 that the craf tsmen or foremen checking the fitup gap should note it in order that the QC inspector doing the final weld t inspection will know what size. fillet weld should be present.
Post Investigation Findings Area Plan Procedure DPM N73M2 was revised on December 20, 1985, to take exception to the preweld inspection activities of process specification 0.C.1.2 by requiring these activities be done by a certified QC inspector for gs;, all safety-related items. Per discussion with a Nuclear Service Welding Engineer, P.S. 0.C.1.1 should have been included, and a revision is presently being processed to take the same exception for this specification. ,
5
~
, 0105S -
- H O
. l l .
yt .
I
~
9 s .
l l 4 L _ __ ___
( -
( Attacilment 2 Page 7 of 9 lf ' .
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTIGATION I-85-768-SQN
(.
ANC RZFERENCES
.. ~.
1.
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Administrative Instruction AI-20. Rev. 10 dated November 21, 1984, " Inspection Program" -
- 2. SQU Modification and Additions Instruction M&AI-1, Rev. 9, dated August 5,1985, " Control of Weld Documentation and Heat Treatment" 3.
SQN M&AI-11. Rev.11, dated September 4,1985, " Fabrication Installation,"
and Documentation of Seismic Supports and Supports Attached to Seismic Category I Structures" -
4 Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part II, Section 5.3 dated
July 30, 1984, " Maintenance and Mcdification Inspection Program" 5.
TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Rev. 8 Section 17.2.9, " Control of Special Processes," and Section 17.2.10. " Inspection" -
- 6. Area Plan DPM N73M2 Process Specification O.C.1.1, Rev. O, dated March 9,1983, " Specification for Welding of Structures Fabricated in Accordance with AISC Requirements for Buildings" x 7.
Maintenance Instruction MI-6.21 Rev. 9, dated December 17, 1985,
" Repairs and Replacements of ASME Section II Components" 8.
- SQNP Technical Instruction TI-51, Rev. 29, Procedure No. N-VT-2, Rev. 2, dated July 1, 1982, " Visual Examinations of Welds" 9.
SQNP T-51, Rev. 29. Procedure No. N-VT-3, Rev. 4, dated April 23, 1985,
~
" Visual Examination of Weld Ends, Fit-ups, and Dimensional i
, Examination of Weld Joints" - * ^
10.
SQN Quality Assurance Section Instruction Letter No. 10.3, Rev. 2, dated March 16, 1932, " Inspection - Nondestructive Examination" 11.
SQll'I;K2ality Assurance Section Instruction Letter No. 10,.4, Rev. 8, dated November 12, 1985, " Inspections - QC Inspecticns"
, 12 . QA Inplant Survey Sa-85-A-005, for period of August 19-23, 1985, "Special Processes - Welding" 13.
SQN Quality Assurance Section Instruction Letter No. 18.1, Rev. 10, dated October 17, 1984, " Surveys" -
i 14.
NUREC-0011, Safety Evaluation Report, dated 1979, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 i ( **
,(
t i
i . .
(
\ -
Attachment 2 Page 8 ef 9
- 15. Sequoyah General Design Criteria, SQN-DC-V-1.3.3.1, Rev. 4, dated September 4, 1984, " Additions After November 14, 1979,.
Relinforced Concrete, Structural, and Miscellaneous Steel"W ., s m
DJ. .J .,,..2 .... .. 1 ,.. t u.s- : ilv. u. ...,. ..,.
..wr--.
- 16. ANSI /AWS D1.1-1985, " Structural Welding Code - Steel," Ninth Edition, dated February 8, 1985, Section?6:,' " Inspection," and Section 8 -
" Workmanship" ,, ,
c-nt a vi t. :. u.e:.: . . .. .. . ; ; . . . . :- . _ .. ..
0105S *t . . .
%. . s- .. , *:.,.- ,. .- lt.
- i. . . _
' v. -
- . . . . .. a : . . ;.;. a : .;,: : :~.
. ar.. .
5.-....,
. ~ ;; , ,, .. . . ..
=..
- t;. ....; ... .. .
I h' " n . ..;r- ._. .
.; ~~ ;. .m .: s . ... . ~ . .
- h. . .
s .
7,;pe . . . . ...;,-- .
. ' ~~~ ~ .: . ; - - . .. :n - r ~ :
c, .
~. . . . .
. . _ . . N,g .
s ;.3 e.. * . . g g 4 'M.
r
'm 9
e _.
6
'* f%1 h
- ' ' ~
-_ Atte.chmrnt 2
... Page 9 of 9
&. . ,. s g *
~
EM?LOYEE CONCERN A55IGNMENT REOUEET
~
70: Director - N595 TRANSMITTAL NU?.5ER TECE1T ER" mas .reesivec tne Er.c'_oyse concern icentifiec below, anc nas assi; rec t.7 e incicate: category anc criority:
s etority: 1 Concern w SG.5-5-001-002 NT5-J'r$~250 Category: 53 Confidentiality: _YE5 _NO (I&H)
Suoervisor Notifiec: X_YES ___NO NUCLEAR SA ETY RELATED YES -
Concern: SEOUOYA-i - UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN ARE REJUIRED BY TVA TO PER OR'6 PREWELD INS 3ECTIONS ON INSTALLATIONS THEY ARE DIRECTLY RES:ONSIBLE COR WmICH IS A VIO_ATION OF ANSI REQUIREMENTS. NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. CI WPS NO CURTHER-INFORMATION.
~
n~. y-)f] Q D ~< T L)l6! OIT
?
i . <
- _ P, '_ DEC 691935 MANAGER, ERT DATE NSRS has assigned res6onsibility for investigatior, of the above concern to:
ER? ___
NSRS/ERT _____
NSRS ___(__*Q,c$
a
, OTMERS ( 5.3ECI:Y ) _ _ _ _ _
y -
NSnef----m - . - - .
- - C.DAA-lf -
f.. $
e
(
qs>m .
A
/
B27 '860314 003 c E TEs covEauxEn s
Memorandum ,
TENNESSEE VALL3y ATTTHORITY .
/ e3 -
s fo : 1. B. Kelly, Director of Quality Assurance, LP 4N' 45A-C - ^ !
FROM : W. C. Drotleff, Manager of Engineering, W12 A12 C-I Attachment 3 with reference i Page 1 of 22 - -
l DATE : March 17, 1986 '
SUBJECT:
CORRICTIVE ACTION REPORTS (CARS) DQA/0E-CAR .86 -001 AND NCO-CAR-86-001
References:
- 1) R. J. Mullins memorandum to R. W. Cantrell dated January 1
29,1986 (L16 860124 824)
- 2) NSRS Investigation Report I-85-768-SQN K. W. Whitt's me=orandum to H. L. Abercrombie dated February 18, 1986
- 3) Your memorand m to J. A. Kirkebo dated March 7, 1986 (L16 860307 800)
- 4) J. W. Coan's memorandum to L. E. Martin dated March 7, _
~
1986 (B27 860310 001)
Ref erence 1 and attached CAR DQA/0E-CAR-86-001 and reference 3 vith attached CAR NCO-CAR-86-001 indicate that OE General Construction Specification G-29C was in noncompliance with Quality Assurance Program Topical Report co=mitments to ANSI N45.2.5, velding inspection personnel qualification requirements. This commitment appears in the portion of the topical report applicable to design and construction (Tables 17D-1 and 17D-
- 2) and in the portion applicable to plant operation (Table 17D-3). CAR SQ-p CAR-86-03-010 also attached to reference 3 is being handled by an ;
evaluation described in reference 4.
I do not believe that G-29C is in noncompliance with N45.2.5. The CAR reflects a difference of understanding concerning the role of C-29C in the engineering / construction / quality assurance process. General Construction Specification G-29C is a key.part of the OE effort to ensure the function and adequacy of all structures it desiges. To accomplish this, it requires a combination of inspectors and velding foremen to verify all work to ensure that it meets specified workmanship standards. OE also specifies all of those preveld and postveld inspections required to ensure the function and integrfty of design. These include the inspection requirements of W 2.5 as appropriate based on the importance to safety.
These inspectiew e e noted on the drawings and specifications for each individual fr ;urt n structures designed by OE. _Ve believe that the combinatiot mr % Ar foreman verifications plus the inspections specified on the drawings have been adequate to ensure the integrity of the designs constructed in the past. .
OE is currently reviewing its policy for the tyEe and detail of require =ents to be included in its future design output documents. This review plus the development of new procedures by your organization vill enable the Office of Nuclear Power to clear up any remaining misunderstandings about the roles of velding foreman verifications and quality assurance inspections. In particular we vould expect Nuclear
' (: Qaality Assurance to specify all generic quality assurance inspections for velding to carry out TVA's commitments under the applicable topical report.
~( OE vill continue to specify the necessary inspection requirements for velding.
.g n.... t r e c...:. . o...r. n...u. , .. . . . i enene, nn
.d*....,.....e,.. , e, Attachment 3 with, reference:
Page 2 of 22 -
A ,-'__ ~ '
'[' , ,, y. . . . . , , ,
R. B. Kelly a Ma.rch.17, '--
oms 1986
=
., ..%;.;.. du p a;.L g i'. g _g g, u y,'
4
.-7. 's., s, % .. . *- & w~
... n. n ,, :. , t , . . . .. . , . . . . . . . . ., . .
- ~'
CORRECTIVE ' ACTION" REPORTS '(CARS)'DQA/0E;-CAR-86~ - 001'.AND NCO-CAR-86-001
'. tW'.kLC' '. . :. !.C 1T t '. ' t * ..
To clarify the: current Ceneral' Construction Specification' ' G'
-29C; wen.are adding the following to sections ......sn- 0.u.C.1.1 .. ..
and 0.C.1.2 and 3.C.5.2:
This specification contains only ' technical requirements. ' It does not Ispe2ify Niy[hbEl'e'aY!qualit} as'suia'nc'e" program require-ments. This specifi'citi' d"shall o be implemented in connection with the requir.ed nuclear quality assurance program when it is used to f abricate 'an item requiring nuclear safety assurance.-
I will also revise section 6 of' O.'C.1.'1 and 0.C.1.2 and section 2 of 3.C.5.2 appropriately as follows to emphasize the scope of the requirenents.
~ ~ ~ "Th'e' Ve^rifica'tions and/or irispections required by this"
, . specification are not a substitute for the inspections required by OE-approved drawings. They also are not a substitute for the
'fequiremenis' of a ' nuclear quality assurance program. The
' requirements of the drawings 'and 'qu'ality assurance program, (g. including requirements for personnel certification, shall be
. implemented.
Additionally 'in 1981, t' eh _ design and' construction' portion of the Quality Assurance Program Topical Report was revised to"take additional' exception l
to ANSI N45.2.5. This was identified as exception 4, "Does not perform fit-up inspection of structural velds on a 100 percent basis." NRC
[ questioned this exception ~in 1982. The OEDC program'for veld fit-up 'F inspection, which did not require fit-up inspection of all velds was i
determined to. comply with ANSI N45.2.5 (see NEB 820716 272). The exception vas deleted'from.the design'.and construction portion of the Quality Assurance. Program Topical Report . See attache.d NE3 820716 272 for information.
- ~~~ ' ' " -
-- .s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . ' - , --" ' " ' . . ' .
~
Additional Backeround Information -
The identical perceived condition adverse to quality was identified as Employee Concerns SQN-5-001-001 and SQN-5-001-002. The concerns were j investigated by NSRS. (See their report number I-85-768-SQN - Reference 1
(
2.) They concluded the concerns were not subststtiated because "the
[ preveld and in process velding verification activities done by the velder
- i. foreman are not considered QC inspections and are not required to be QC inspected by the governing codes." '
/ .. u . l
'b I
\s.. !
096052.02 1
l l
i
s ' .
, t
- Attachment 3 with reference:
- Page 3 of 22 ,
3
(.
R..B. Ke117-March 17, 1986 -
4
~" d:~ N ACIC ' FEPOC2 (Cf.": '.) DW.!C ; "-Ff - " 17T' M-- J L 7 'K -
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS (CARS) DQA/0E-CAR-86-001 AND NCO-CAR-86-001 ~
.. :e. .. . p. . r t : . - w. ; - .. .
A very similar, perceived condition adverse to quality as docu=ented in !
these CARS has been evaluated previously by the for=er Office of Engineering Design and Construction..(CEDC).organizatioc<and the NRC.
That perceiv.ed condition. adverse. to quality vas.;that the OEDC Quality Assurance Program did not require conpliance.vith ANSI N45.2.5, required . veld . inspections.. ..This,co=mitment ;vas..and is .in the design and construction portion of Jhe Quality Assurance Program. Topical t t Report. The specified inspecti.,a and i=ple=entation were found to be "
in accordance with ANSI,N45.2.5.
The perceived failure to comply with ANSI N45.2.5 preveld inspection requirements in 1980 resulted from a concerned employee's perception that OEDC was in noncompliance with four require =ents of ANSI N45.2.5 as committed to in the design and construction portion of the topical report.
~
An audit finding (BLN.W80-08-01) was issued to a previously completed audit to document .this concern. The audit finding was considered significant, reportable, and generic to all plants under construction.
\ . . 1 u. . .. ..
(x.. n
(~ ... ...
As a result of evaluating this audit finding the OEDC method of specifying and implementing velding inspection requirements were determined to be in
, compliance with ANSI N45.2.5. The NRC agreed that it was in compliance with ANSI N45.2.5. (The audit finding, final report to NRC, and NRC .
closure-are documented in BQA 821022 006, A27 810622 023, and HEB 82-0903 220,, g,es.pectiv,ely and .a.re attached .for. information). .. .
...-t. ... . . . . . . .. .
Based on the foregoing discussion, I am confident ..that the OE program and de. sign putput documents.meetuall. applicable ANSI.N45.2.5 requirements for veld, inspection. . ,
a u t . <. .
~
_v..
g -
W. C. Drotle 6 JAR:WPJ:MP . -
cc: RIMS, SL E6"C-K R. W. Dibeler,11-142 SB-K
, .H. L. Abercrombie, Sequoyah ONP R. R. Hoesly, 9-113 SB-K R. O. Barnett, W9 D224 C-K L. E. Martin, LP 6N 47A-C
,, N. R. Beasley, A10-BFN ENG C. C. Hason, MR 6N45B-C /
W. C. Bibb, Browns Ferry J . A .~ Rau l s t on , W10 C126 C-K
- 1 C. Bonine , Jr. ,12-108 SB-K T. W. Roberts, W5 D181 C-K W. R. Brown, 9-169 SB-K J. C. Standifer, P-104 SB-K J. W. Coan, W9 Cl35 C-K W. T. Cottle, MR 6N 46B-C J. P. Vineyard, A8 Sequoyah ENG, J. F. Weinhold, W12 B34 C-X J. P. Darling, ONP, Bellefonte
[(. Project Manager, 9-167 SB-K W. P. Joest, W9 B81 C-K l *Please revise G-29C as indicated by Mav 1. 1986
- g. , .z.~ a UNITED STATES COVERN3 TENT
@,,.F- L16 860124 - rm '
A tac ent with references 824 Memorandum
', . pAzsszz vittzy scrao;m .
To :
.. .. jai -O 'c5 RIQ. Cantrell, Matager of Engineering, W12 A12 C-X-FRO 3! : c;;:::t '. .
R. J. Mullin,Jf"Director of Quality**:,.
Assurance, LP 4N ASA-C. c7 tetts i
- 1'>f'''.
_ ' ' i?.Q' *.*
- pn .,._w.
"^'S
, , , , Note i
t N-1e
SUBJECT:
JAN 2 91986 CONDITION ADVERSE TO QUALITY (CAQ) - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIOFor;c!'
$5[ M?
.(C-29C) C'dd N"- O C M '- --
. .. .>.. .i ; <. .
A *H I
- c. : u t
. 15=on I
- s. ei. ..m o: at . er : :.
T h.-:. r ~ r et a v a' concit en rever!- to e, .* r f f r . L. r: -- ;.: I'::
c.
g,l gg. , om,,.g In accordance with requirements.of:the.NQAM, part V, section 16.1 ' Co' er i
'(ID-QAP-16.1),' :the. attached CorrectiveGetion' Report.
I No. DQA/0E-CAR-86-001. requires < action by your: organization for: o RirAS i disposition. n; . a '. . ; Ou.c: a..- . :".1 :::en.: n .
- t
- m_ #j g, _
The attached CAQ identifies apparent inadequacies in Ceneral Constmetionbd4 Specification G-29C.(Process Specifications 0.C.1.1, O.C.1.2, and w3 3.C.S . 2) .
These inadequacies involve. welding inspection requirements --Md(
that allow inspections of safety-related welds by noncertified personnel.
iMpProject's Phase I Program Assessment for SQN Nuclear Operations.Thes
-- g MN8 -
. . . . . . . . . . , , .. .; .a. c f. , ... ;;. .; ;. . -- ; ; :. ;
RFC ~ The Division of Quality Assurance (DQA) is assuming the role of :ud
_g - organization as specified by ID-QAP-16.1, paragraph 2.3.c, and i ngAwac;. g g,q.,, f.
- i -
requesting the Office of Engineering (OE) to take the following action as O
,NAL OSG i
.I . m , .* h ."
. n iear Plants under construction and in operatlog g ,g DSG l Upon xeceipt of this memorandum.. confirm in writing that the act .ons requesteti belowabe taken or"of fer suitable alternatives. i b SSG ~ l g
~
- 1. . . . . . .
Evaluat e the attached CAQ for significance in accordance wit ?.j _,,, ; h,c-2,.y.
~
C' GRJ ~ "* ' requirements;of. the. 0EtQA. program. If: significant: - -
,f"
c t. ; ,
M .
a..
. . . . . .s. a r.u .. ,.. ..
.. ..... :::.. I ' ;
P teW. Mlc Evaluate for reportability in accordance with 10 CFR 50. 556 dnd h l process as appropriate.
_ { 6 !
b.
Detemine and document the cause oE the 'codd tion. } l l
' gg g
- c. Specify corrective action to preclude recurrence. " !
- 2. Specify'the remedial corrective action. $$ l DQA recommends the f oll18 wing l corrective action to resolve this matter. l l%l
- a. l rn, 6*
Establish and document in OE procedures more definitive cru.ec.ta ! -
to be utilized by engineering design personnel'to determine when to specify preweld inspections in design output documents for saf ety-related stmetural items, f(. l t, .
" ' NEB MASTER Fill. ,
Buy U.S. Sa:: inn Bonds Repularly m, % p ;.or < .. -. ~ - % ^
.., . .. .~-,y....,.
. Att tchment 3 with reference's" Page 5 of 22 '
"[,' .$ Un'. b . ' .
,._ g,; , -# !. h { j ;' ;,,' ) ',.,,,,j',,
, ..-----*-. .E.
u R'.Wt.Cantrell.. n a ar.er et .m:tneer:.n;, . 1:~.. ..
"' JAN 2 91986 ~' "
'. J :- - "
- e. . . . L ~.i.:ec: o oi f .:t. Li ;; t.:..ca r .n :. '. - .T 3('.f..D.._,'
CONDITION ADVERSE TO QUALITY (CAQ) - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION -- -
(G--29 C) --
.. 7;
""*"-. /'*~ ~ ....'. . - L;. . , ;0.d. .. ' .,, : .: .
~
'b . Revise OE per cedures to provide a method for clearly identifying -- -
on design output docu=ents (i.e. , drawings, specifications) .those. . ,,;
welds requiring weld inspections.
.u..-e .. n. .: : .. . . t . .
. j en Perform and document an engineering evaluation to determine if ..---. . ..._ {
.u. . .,. structural-welds.-already,. completed at; TVA? s. nuclear f acilities are -- '
- .. :. acceptable without having preweld inspections by certified . -
i inspection personnel, and if not, what corrective action is needed. !
I
- d. Revise appropriate. General. Construction Specifications (e.g. , h-
.G-29C) and existing design drawings to correct any inadequacies.
-~
ANSI N45.2.5-1974 may require clarification in the TVA Tcpical Report (TVA-TR75-1A).
..- . . v. . . . : :. . -.
Please report your course. of action to DQA within 30 days of the date of
(, l this. memorandum. - "
. ] , ,, .-.
, F. B. (Pete) Smith has been designated by me to coordinate the resolution of-this.CAQ. If you have any questions or need. additional. informatien. ._ ._ .
please. call him at Chattanooga extension 5302. .
~
t <./
- ,. ... .- : :. . -R.04.-Mu1lin . ... _._
r.1*
JEL:FBS:DFJ:CCH ,
~ ~ ~ " ~ ' - '
Attachment .
cc (Attachment):
RIMS..MR 4N 72A-C . .: . . .W..T. Cottle, OUP, Watts Bar . . . .
H. L. Abercrombie, ONP, Sequoyah J. P. Darling, OUP, Bellefonte _.
W. C. Bibb, Browns Ferry R. W. Dibeler,11-142 SB-K C. Bonine, Jr.,12-108 SB-K L. E. Martin, LP 6N 47A-C
~
W. R. Brown, Jr. , 9-16 7 SB-K C. C. Hason, MR 6N ASB-C J. W. Conn, W9 C135 C-K .,.
i I
0268I
(?
k
I. .
Attach:nent 3 with references !
Page 6 of 22 o
^ ~
FEB 6 1986' - EGB NCH B05 '86 0 2 06 0 0 -~ ~
-ze: RIMSY MR 4N 72AJC 3 cc '(Attachment): -
R.'O. Ba'nett, e "N'.' R'. Be'a'sley , 'A10-BFN W9 D224 C-K
~
J. W. Coan, W9 C135 C-K R. R. Hoesly. 9-113 SB-K k
jJ. A. Raulston. W10 C126 C-K - Please prepare a response from [
R. W. Cantrell to R. J. Mullin addressing !
. . . - r. . - .. -- .
.this CAQ. -Plonne nnPa the We must '
.,q
. '- r' y ) .-
- respond by(Itarch' 3,1986, r porting our 7 ,. ,. . 3 . - . : " course of shivii. If vu- course of action '
is not fully defined by that date, we must
, - e r . c e: . . .w ..m r .give the schedule for determining the
..c.. w;- - t,i e m '" course of~ action."% : - ; " --- ;2' '
=.--.. . . . . . . . w.u .n, :1 n, r.. . r .
In preparing the response, please coordinate as necessary and, in *
.. .- - - - - particular, coordinate with J. W. Coan 2- relative to the conversation among <
Lawrence Martin, J. W. Coan, and me on
. --.'('.: :' January 31 1986, concerning OE taking a I much more definitive role in our definition of specifications for inspection and test.
(
- Also riote the request to evaluate the CAQ for reportability in accordance with
-50.5 5 (e ) .
, , . . . _ . , au - : - ' - rt Please note that this CAR is identified in R. J. Mullin's February 4, 1986, memo to Those listed (L19 860203 862) as being required for restart on SQN.
_. . . . . . _ --EGB T. W. Roberts, W5 D181 C-K J. C. Standifer, P-104 SB-K
"'J. P'.
- Vineyard, A8 SQN-ENG
. . . . .- h-
...m -. .'- :-:.
im g 3 /-: Jtr...:
sa % ,
-)
- c:a , %)'
ca . ~
.. tu a
. .u ; c '
i j '
3 b 938 uewD k u 3 Z C2Oo
( UhyO '
N 3m U2
< u < E- c' -
1609E l (V) 3 i I
6
, j : Attachment 3 with references
, '. /* ,
Page 7 of 22
~#
)[
C ' CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT ,,_ ,
- ~
a
. e. s -,
Report No. DOA/0E-CAR-86-001 Initiated By D. F. Jacuith Date 1/13/86 <
Requested By (if applicable)
Significant L_/ Yes f_/ No Assigned To 1
office of Entineerint (CE)
ADVERSE CONDITION: OC drawings through reference to General Construction Specification G-29C for weld inspection requirements, allows noncertified personnel to perform inspections of safety-related structural welding.
This is in conflict with quality assurance co=mitments (i.e.. Topical Report, ANSI N45.2, ANSI N45.2.5) which require that inspections of safety-related structures, systems, and components must be performed by certified QC inspection personnel independent of the job function.
Spreifically: 1) C-29C Process Specifications 0.C.1.1 and 0.C.1.2 requires the welding foreman to perform preweld inspections. 2) C-29C, ,
Process Specification 3.C.S.2, paragraph 2.2 states that pr2 weld visual inspections may be performed by noncertified personnel.
CAUSE (Root cause analysis required L_/ Not required L_/): ,
CORRECTIVE ACTION (1) Re=edial corrective actions (s) PROPOSED:
s (v~,
Esti=ated Completion Date RESP SUPV. DATE (2) Action (s) to prevent recurrence CCNCURRED:
/
Estimated Co=pletion Date
APPROVAL:
The resolution of the above described adverse condition is acceptable.
Recommended By PORC Chairman Date Approved By i
Site Director or Division Director Date completion - corrective action has been completed and is ready for verification by QA. ,,
Responsible Supervisor Date
/. Verification - corrective action taken as described above or with the following deviations. .
<(
ks ,, Verified By
, QA Representative Date 02691 TVA 22C01 (CE C-2-74)
Page 1 of 1
w..p..es+cnow s.n Attachment 3 with referencrs f,
Page 8 of 22 L UNITEq STATES _Q.OXKR.bl!.ENT _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ,,,--,,,,,_ ,. y NemOTdndum ' 'c :.: --
TENNESSEE VALLEY 411THORITY
/.
Q TO:as R. .,L.
Abercromb.ie., . Sit.e. , Dire..c.t.o.r.,. .S.equoyah Nuclear P.la. .nt FROM: -
K. W. Whitt. Director of Nuclear Safety Revicw Staff. E3A8 C-K _ .
~ ~ ~~ ~
DATE:
B 1 &]om - .-
~
SUBJECTY HUCT.EAI.F, SAFET.Y" REVIEW 1TAEF. i.fNV. E5TIGATION R5P0RT 'TR1NSNITTAL'"'~~ ~ ~
t
~.. .. ....:. . .;. +.. . - . - . . . . .
.- . r. -f:::- "..'- .. .. ;:c. :. -
Transmitted herein is NSRS. Report No. T-85-768-SON a v ; r ce : v...: : .-- : . -. -- -
Subject ..
. UNCERTIFIED WELDER FOREMEN PERFORM PREWELD INSPE Concern No.
SOM-5-001-001 and SOM-5-001-002
-: .. ( r . - -
....No . . response or corrective action is required for this report.
- It is being
. transmitted to you for infor:::ation purposes only. Should you have any
-.~que'sti'on'6 ple'se" a con...... tact W. D. Stevens at telephone _6231 .
( ~.2
. . . . . Recommend Reporta. bili.ty Determinatiohi]. Yes No I
.. . .: - - .: .a rm . . . -
/*
J[
j
..~-,-.
g.rNEERING WDS:JTH F.
; ~1 'C 'gg Attachment cc (Attdehment):
' WELDIN'3 PROJECT T.'
~
W. C. Bibb, BFN l/ l Noted M Coen, L-fv;
,__ J. W. Coan, W9C135 C-K W. T. Cottle, Wau -
( ..
~
- t. Sims ,
- #1 Jessee l James P. Darling, BLN {, Pitzt l R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C /) Stagnolia ,g G. B. Kirk, SQN ,
F. E. Laurent, CEO-WBN M Prueitt v z / &
~
l D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K i l l QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant l Eric Sllger, LP6N48A-C l l
J. H. Sullivan, SQN I File l
l :
Kent Therp, IOB-WBN I Toss .
i
.i 04930 W - - .
At tac.hmen t 3 with references
. Page 9 of 22 .,
.r. .
a'- ,
- - '* ~ * - '* -
n .. ,. . .
m.
. . . e. s
( .. . . c e . ,.... . . ,.. . . # 1,. . . .TENNE.
n;;;. S..SEE
, m ,g VALLE.Y 3, ,,
AUTHORITY NUCLEAR , ,,
SAFE.T1 REVIEW STAFF n.
NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-85-768-SQN
.s..... .. . , . . , . . . . EMPLOYEE CONCERN: .SQM-5~001-001-
.. . .. . . . . > . . 2-1 SQM-5-001-002 ..
~
SUBJECT:
~ UNCERTIFIED' WELDER FOREMEN PERFORM.PREWELD. INSPECTIONS
. i.....
m u. .m .. . . . . . . . . : L ,. . . . . .---
. ,. . . . . .- - - - - .*. ,.,.-. _ . . : .r. . . . . .
~
DATES OF -- --- --- -. --.
INVESTICATION: DECEMBER 30, 1985 - JANUARY 20, 1986
/
/ -
/ /
, ' ,' o INVESTICATOR: - -
DATE E.[F.HARWELL /
REVIEWED BY: 2 /4'
,.c e.L.. . E. BROCK. DATE i .m.. . . . .u.: .. .
r APPROVED BY: _.
W. D. STEVENS -
DATE ,
-. . - ~ .
t L .,*;; ~ -~ ~ :1;,: ..- . : =: ,-.-
.....u ...i .
O* . i. ; 0;c .,, s------- . _ . . .
,. . "/......_.
- - ~ ~ - . , . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . _ . , , .
I * *
- ~ ~ . . . . . . ..
' =
i /' . . . . .
. - ~ . _ _ __ _;
. Attachmtnt 3 with refdrances Page 10 of 22 t, -
t I. BACKCROUND '
h -
' ~
A Nuclear Safety RevieIf8Ea~f'f:'~(NSRS') Tin v *IEEi[alion was conducted to determine the validity of two expressed employee concerns as received by _
Quality Technology Comp'ahy~(QTC)/Emp16yee Re'sponse Team (ERT). The --
concerns of record, as su=marized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Forms -from 'QTC :hnd identified as SQM-5-001-001 and SQM-5-001-002, respectively, stated:
i'.C. :3Yt7. .. . . .
Sequoyah - The General Construction Specification C-29C, Process Specification O.C.1.1 is in conflict with the TVA Quality Assurance Connitments as stated by the TVA Topical Report, TVA-TR75-1A, in that process spec. O.C.1.1, section 6.0 allows uncertified welder, foremen, who have direct. responsibility ~foriinstallation, to perform pre-weld inspections, Nuclear Power Concern. CI has no further information.
Sequoyah - Uncertified welder foremen are required by TVA to perform pre-weld inspections on installations they are directly responsible
.for, which is a violation of ANSI require =ents. ' Nuclear Power Concern. CI has no further information.
Since these two concerns deal with the same crea, the investigation was
- done in such a . manner..that .a single report covers both . concerns.--.---- - -
~~
II. SCOPE gr.y ,
~
A. The scope of the investigation was determined from the stated concerns of record .to.be..three.. specific issues requiring ----- . . ---
investigation: *
- 1. Do uncertified welder foremen perform pre-weld inspections?
%, .. 2. Is this..a,y_lo.lgtion_of._the TVA quality assurance co=mitments? -
, 3. Is this a violation of ANSI requirements?,
B.
In conducting this investigation, NSRS reviewed the AWS code, ANSI standard commitments QA tier requirements, welding and inspection
- , program requirements, and plant implementing instructions.
Several people were interviewed who had been associated with defining weld'.,;
and inspection requirements or had been responsible for field
. implementation. . t, l .
III.
SUMMARY
OF FINDIUCS
- A. Requirements and Commitments 1.
Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Rev. 8 Section 17.2, "TVA Quality -
Assurance Program, Program Applicable to Plant Operation."
g 2. NUREC-0011. Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 1979, for V (. Sequoyah Nuc1 car Plant Units 1 & 2. Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328.
k
/
f 1
.- Attachment 3 with ref6rences Page 11 of 22
- 3 '.
Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual. Part II, Section STT,, '
" Maintenance and Modification Inspection Program."
a liucJ ear bu e:v .-eview Strt: ( rT P.1- ?.nver:2 ' Lt : 07. -
~~'
- L M; e4 . .1
- " ANSI / AWS i D'.1';1'F "S t ru c tb E a li We Id i~n g : Code C Steel."- 'u U' ' ' ~
u . : - - h nw . y :,c:. + m- " U. ' i.:. - - - mr - < --
~
B. : Findings: 0.. . .
e.a. . ... .. .. : u.4, . :.; . . . . - - - -
1; The Sequoyah structural steel components were designed in
- t. accordance
-(AISC) with the American . Institute of Steel Construction specification. .This w'as acceptable to the NRC as stated in the Sequoyah Safety Evaluation Report (Ref.14).
, . .. ; ... x . a w ., . : .. . m .
- . :?. . >. . m . *. ?- . . au :. .
2.r The weldings associated:with the AISC specification,-partiedlarly ,
m.o . welded. steel structures, is governed by the American Welding inn Society (AWS) Code D1.1 (Ref.16) . This AWS~ Code requires that all completed welds be visually inspected: "Visual inspection aof welds may.begin immediately' af ter the completed welds have ~
cooled to ambient temperature."
- 3. The AWS Code states, "The Inspector shall, at suitable intervals, observe joint preparation, assembly practice, the
. welding techniques, and performance of each welder, welding -
- operator, and tacker to make certain that the applicable requirements of this code are met."
4.
e-xAM The AWS Code requires thA" inspector to verify the size, length, (On f and that location.of({q)l welders are ualified; welds; and 'that'thatcorrect properprocedures filler material are used;is used. The AWS Code states that, "Other acceptance criteria, different from these specified in the code, may be used when approved by the Engineer." The engineer in this case is the design organization.
15 . ~ References 4 and S require that all-individuals performing QC inspections.be qual.if, led'and their qualifications be documented.
6.
nu:;and Plant 10)implementing procedures and instructions (References 1, 8, require that inspectors . performing QC inspections be
,,.,ur.i.. qualified and certified. -Reference 1 states, "QC inspection shall be performed by qualified individuals other than those who performed or directly supervised the activity bping inspected."
~
?
7.
Process Specification 0.C.1.1 (Reference 6) was prepared and issued by the design organization as being their defined M
requirements for welded fabrication of steel structures in
- accordance with AISC specification. and the AWS Structural Welding Code. Process Specification 0.C.1.1 requires, as a minimum, the pre-weld and in-process welding activities he verified by the wolder and his foreman and be subject to a quality surveillance program which verifies that these '
acitivities Lee being properly performed. The post-welding
- {- (finished wr.1d) inspections are performed by an AWS certified inspector who is trained and qualified.
/
Attachment 3 with references $
Page 12 of 22 i e . __ l a ,: -
' I ',
-Process Specification D.C.1.l is not.always invoked:En- -
' korkplans;chowevec;:when- it:~is not- invoked the inspection "- *-
requirements bec'ome a negotiated agreement between the rorganization. performing .the work and OA as the means of meeting
))De interpreted, applicable code reouirements. -. ~.
- 8. A design engineer. Individual E, knowledgeable with the AWS Code
' requirements andc.the process specification, said that the pre-weld'and-in-process welding verifications performed by the l welder and the : foreman were not QC inspections and were not i
required to be QC inspection hold points by the code.
' Individual E said that the only QC inspections required by the code were thecfinal. weld inspections performed by the QC
' inspectors and verfication of compliance .via .a : surveillance iprogram (which is implemented by QA/QC personnel).- 2; -
. m. c 4 .~. ;; t . , ,
This'in consistent with the code requirements verified by the.
investigator in Findings 2, 3, and 4.
- 9. The investigator was advised in discussing with plant QA staff g personnel that the ' welding surveillance program ic accomplished t . per the . instructions of QA Section Instruction Letter 18.1,
, t\ [ " Surveys":(Ref. 13). +-
.. n; e. ; .
& ,s ( 10. Reference 12, an inplant survey, identified a difficulty that g gyf -the QA staff was/is having.with meeting the inspection (r. ,S $ requirements of Process Specification 0.C.1.1. The-t
- ___3 t specification allows for increasing the size of the fillet weld
-i
'g .to compensate for a fit-up gap greater than 1/16 inch. .Since QC acceptance is based solely on the. final. visual inspection,_2A,
' contends that it is impossible to determine if the fillet weld sice has been adjusted to compensate for fit-up gap in excess of 1/16 inch since a QC inspection at fit-up was not required.
Their (QA) recommendation was.that craftsmen should note whether
, the weld fit-up. gaps exc'eed'ed the 1/16. inch., s h t, J st,-
,,o ,A .,, g M
- IV.
fp" ? .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.- - '
w~.-..ew- m... . ... . . . . .- .. ..e.>. :....;
A . _. , Conclusions -
.a.
~
..-. t . ..v. .. .
- 1. The concerns of record were not substantiated for the following
' . reasons:
- a. The pre-weld and in-process welding verification activities done by the wolder foreman are not considered QC inspections and are not required to be QC inspected by the governing codes.
- b. Since these in-process verifications, discussed in *
}
' IV.A.1.a. are not QC inspections, only the final weld
(.{: inspection and the surveillance activities require a qualified and certified inspector.
- \s_.
l 1
- - . . . - . _ - . - - . ~ . - - - - - - - --- --
Attachment 3 with references ;
. Page 13 of 22 c,~.'...Since..these.in-process verifications, discussed in , !
AE.j.))t,M.1.~s,',fo ; , :not,.p.equire..a; specidi. ptocess (NDE: , , . . s _ , , 1
{['
k
,,,....insp.ects.ons p,., litdiddtrals;per, forming: these - activities do ih;Db"kb:-cpetified p l
N.bbN.*
- gMIn.-f.aet,-,the; AWS D1?l7 Structural:Weldin%
s g Code is an ANSI--stan
~ 2- 'Ame'ri'cair National'st andards *Tnstitute approved document...
, .. m.,.., . .
. g
- d. ,'.:Althougfi 'the 1&E.k: of'QC' hold point inspections for pre-weld
~
t
~
.,..[ activities','sesius' awkward compared' to the"ASME requirements,
,,,,, Pr6 cess Sbecifica' tion ~ 0.'C.1^.1' ein' its the~ requirements of the AWS Stn ctural Welding Code and is consistent with the
- ... _ cor:nitment to the NRC to design and f abricate structural
~
components to the AISC specification. ,,
'. '. ". '. ~ ~ ' . . ' ' " ' ' ~ * ~ " ' ~ '. . .
~
B. Reco=:5et$dsition!.,. ,[, .
.~...,.,.
NSRS agrees.with.the reco==endation made in QA Inplant Survey -
Sa-85-A-005 that the craftsmen or foremen checking the fitup gap
. should note it in order that the QC inspector doing the final weld inspection will know what size fillet weld should be present.
Post Investigation Findings , ,,,
/* Area Plan Procedure DPM N73M2 was revised on December 20, 1985, to take exception to the preweld inspection activities of process specification
.C.1.2 by requiring these activities be' done by a certified QC inspector for a afety-related items. Per, discussion with a Nuclear Service Welding Enginee . .S.g.C.1!1'shouldhave'beenincluded,andarevisionispresently being processed',to'take.the sa=e exception
., ..s. . .. .. . . . . , _ .
for t.his specification.
l' &.} } c,," b fc=o o a1 E ey s., o sur ua. r . '
.. . . u.. .
__ q y
? .
,.z.;. : .: . :- . . :.. .. :- *
. . . .
- T :.'.' nc~.*
. t '. ;. ; ' . . s ';t t. . ,
- 0105S
- .m- .
.........M* '
f."r.C O. .*. .
. .r>
- f. -
h 4
\
Attachment 3 with refdr'ences Page 14 of 22
(
(I
- . ,. ...- v e. ... -
y
- * '.' '. L . '
't _ "._,~ -
b c
a'
. DOCUMENT,E in a e.
ne- neec ':
P' Y- " 1 "" * "#
REVI.EQED. ",",,',,.,,., .
IN:.INVESTICATION t
..AND,
REFERENCES:
.'"----" .,.m
, , . , .g
~. -
...a C 1.
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Administrative Inst -
dated November y ; : = -:: '. a .21, . = ' ~1984,
~~ ~
" Inspection Program"ruc tion II-20,' 'ReS.' ,1 -
2 '. '
t SQNAugust Modificatio~i'and;;A.ddit' 5 ions In'stEuc'tio'n E&AIU , , . .
1985,.'" Control of 7^
Weld Documentationu and H1, Rev. 9, dated. , .
- 3. . . . . . . .
- eat-'iYeatme' nt'"
SQN M&AI-11. Rev.. .. . 11 --dated -September.
4, .-.. .
Seismic'. Category I Structures"and Documentation ached to of Seis
- 4. ~
.. . : . ~
Nuclear Quality Assurance'Mahua.. .., --
July 30, 1984, l (NQAM), Part II. Section 5.3 dated
- 5. " Maintenance and Modification Inspection Pr'ogra m "
TVA [opical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Rev. 8 Special Processes," and Section 17.2 10Section 17.2.9 " Control of 6.
. " Inspection" Area
... :._ Eian~ BPM N73M2 Process Specification . .
. , Rev. O, dated 0C11
.y3
- .. March 9, 1983, " Specification for Welding of Str
- . .;;in -Accordance' with 'AISC Requirements uctures for Fabricated Buildings" ,
([? ~
- 7. , Maintenance Instruction H'II-6.ElRev
" Repairs and Replacements 9.ofdated ASME December Section 17, II ents" 1985, Compon !
8.
SQNP Technicai Instruction TI-51, Rev. 29 dated July 1, 1982, " Visual Examinations of Welds", Procedure No. N-9.
SQNP T-51 Rev. 29, Procedure No. N-VT-3 ,
Examination of Weld Joints"" Visual Examination ,
mensional of Weld Ends,
- 10. ,
SQN Quality Arsurance Section Instruction Lett dated March 16,1982, " Inspection - Nondestructier No. 10.3, Rev. 2,
- 11. ve Examination" SQN'Q'uality dated November Assurance Section Instruction Lett 12, 1985. " Inspections - QC Inspectier No. 10,.4, Rev. 8,
- 12. (' ons"
. QA"SpecialInplantProcesses Survey -Sa-85-A-005, Welding" for period of August , 1985, 19-23 g' 13.
SQN Quality Assurance Section Instruction Lett dated October 17, 1984, " Surveys" er-No. 18.1, Rev. 10, 14.
NUREC-0011, Safety Evaluation Report, dated 1979 Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-327 ,and Sequoyah 50 328 Nuclear
(
2 ~-
C{
/
e l
Attachment 3 with refareness
.7
- Page 15 of 22
?* 15. S:quoyah Crnseal D ; sign Criteria, ' SQN-DC-V-1.3.3.1, Rev. 4
\
b dated September 4. 1984, " Additions After November 14 , 1979,
^ Reiinforced Concrete. Sttvetural, and Miscellaneous Steel,". '
.~t...~ . ..s... .. ^- ~~
- 16. ANSI /AWS D1'l-1985, '"S't' rife'iiifal'UeldinI"Cbde' a Steel." Ninth Edition, dated February 8,1985, Section 6, " Inspection," and Section 8,
. Workmanship" #" ' 2 '-
~~
-.. ., : . m. .
t 0105S g.. . .. . . . . . ,
- .y. ; ... .
Os*. -
.. . . . . . . . a .. -. -..
- = u . .:. . u .. . m .y .
lf(f.b, n
- . ...e. '\ .
L',
t L
t,
- . . :... :e .
% .J.,
I g .
.e * .
> '.s 4
e N
4 ts 6
,,, Memo 7andum L16 860307 800
.. . u u . r.. .
a:.
a.e a v,- . . . . - . '
, TO
~
L N'NESSEE VALLEY AUTHOR J. A. Kirkebo/ Oltector of'En5incer . an *
~
FROM : nical Services. W12N8,.C.X Rf 5. NkUk.ND1eeeto$..of'
. u co- . ..
'NO5}.EINydakiYy"Ns"s ,,
DATE :
.uc'iEee,~LP 4N
~ .'45A. b . *
.*l..
SUBJECT:
Page 16 of 22 h
SUBMITTAL OF NCO-CAR-86-001 AND SQ-CAR 86 -
010 FOR RECONSIDERATION Attached are copies of CARS HCO-CAR-86-001 and SQ CAR 8 -
associated with the stnictural weld issue described 03-010 which are i n DQA/OE-CAR-86-001.
These are being submitted for your reconsideratio telecon on March 6 among you, L. E. Martin n in accordance with the
, and myself.
R. B. Kelly JEL:XC Attachments cc (Attachments):
RIMS. MR AN 72A.C
- k.
- 0256K l f t
I L -. -. .
8;[
huv f.'. 7. .Tavinne Rands Rt.aular/v an IIw Pas.ra11,qn,,;na
. a s u e . .. u. . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . .
n
~~ Pnco 17 nf 22 j 5,
. :. .? :
, CORRECTIVE ACTIClf REPORT
. . ; <. : . .c . . .. . .. d-- -
~ -
~ -a :-
Report No. ,NCO-CAR-86-001 .- a ~~~
Initisted By 'D. F. Januith Date 1/13/86
i '
W. ; . ' . L ; . v t .:. -
- o;.ct- .. , ; ,;
. r.s re e c . . . .. .. .
Requested By (if applicable) _
__ __ G. J. Pit:1 Significant 46/ Yes L_/ No Assigned To Machanical Besneh, NUC SVCS ADVERSE CONDITION: DPM N13H2. Process Specification 0.C.L.1 is inadequate in that it allows the weldce foreman to perform preweld inspections *on CSSC structural items. This does not agree with our commitments (i.e.,
. Topical Report ANSI.N45.2.5 and N18.7) which require,use.of certified QC Linspection personnel. independent of . the job: function. -(Referencs.- Welding Proioct - Nuclear Operations - Phase I - SON Proeram Assessment)
. . .. .w. . . . u. ... v. a : __::v..- ... . . ._ :
CAUSE (Root cause analysis required L1,$/.. Not required /__/):DPM N73M2 was not properly reviewed to ensure ecmpliance with ANSI N4'5 .2.5-1974.
- CORRECTIVE ACTION (1) Romedial corrective actions (s) PROPOSED:
DPM N73H2 has been revised to require use of certified QC inspectors to perform preweld inspections on CSSC [.'d /Ju.t/.
Estimated Completion Date 3/14/86 RESP"SUPV. DATE structural items.
(2) Action (s) to prevent recurrence CONCUPSED:
Future PMPs which reference OE G-specs. Will.be more ,,
thoroughly reviewed by NUC SVCS & DQA to ensure . /
j
/,
Estimated Completion Date N/A d d[ .date UPV.- DAYE compliance with OA commitments.
APPROVAL: Tho resolution of the above described adverse condition is acceptable.
Recommended By N/A N/A PORC Chairman Date Approved By Site Director or Division Utractor Date Completion - corrective acticn has been ecmpleted and ir ready for
- verification by QA.
s Responsiblo Supervisor Date Verification-correctiveactiontake.nasdescrihedaboveorwiththa following deviations.
~ ' Vorified By
( QA Representative Date 0241K Page_.l._of 1 TVA 22C01 (CEIC-2-7t)
- 5 d I CAR If4 '43 lE(NITIATED BY DATE
' REFCRT NO . ~ ~ ~ ~ "-
FLT. I CAR l YR IMO pol Attachment 3 with ref erences FECUESTED BY (IF APFLICAELE) Page 18 of 22
~~ -
. IGNIFICAYT x . cr : ..
3~
(C1RCLEGiE)
\ ASSIGNED TO PAM/m M 2 M & '.r d u._ A ~ d ^* w ..
AIM.RSE C00lTICNr#A. 4. 7d% n,su[ A _s C.
~'
s A;-w &+ s _j x N5%&.,ga.g W. .g aL,h,h *7,~ J
,.,_3
'-a((w'
~
.ds, n M / ,
q_ 4 & ~a &%m:.A.c w a.
.-s.
.J axm22.: m- Mg w.1<
. +;- .
~ ".hlw'dsd&<. .:O. wlas.; .19 Ai% . RDF 0pm n 9%o w: o , r. L 1
' R'00T d ? 6. l e C. . l **)
CAUSE (CAUSE MALYSIS RE0JIRED 6, NOT RECulRED C: ..
. :.n = u . am x u rm . :,..n. ...~. . - . .. r m. . , . . .
.m. . . . . ,
. .. . .:.. . ; .. . . . :. : . .:. . . . . .. M :.:
- CO?FECIlW. ACTICd (.1) REMEDIAL CCRRECTIVE ACTIC4S(S) g V~
2 &
" M "EST!MATO CCMFLETIGl DATE [
W s s
(2) ACTICN(S) To PREve<T RECuaaENCE q
F .. .
..8.. $
- t. : ._ .
y y
.._.w....._..................
g g c.
ESilPATED CCMPLETICf{ DATE v
f.CFru/AL: THE RESCLtfrict: CF THE ASOVE DESCRIBED' ADVERSE CCfolTIGI IS ACC _ . . . . . . - - _ _ . . . .
~
- RECCitlENDED BY ~ -
FCRC CHAIRiW1 l . - ,-- ; ,(FCR SIGrilFICANT PLANT CARS Gil.Y) CATE '
--- < . . _ _ AppgcyED.gy . . . . . . .......x. ... ..
PLT 5_UPT CR FGR, TECH SUoPCRT DATE 4 CCt9LET!GI - CCRRECT!vE ACTIOl WAS coFil.ETED Oti.
MID IS' NE1DY IOR' *-
V5RIitCATIO!! BY TQE. ..
RESFCMSIELE SUPERVISCR DATE s VERIFICATIC!L - CCRRECTIVE ACTIC!l TA' E N AS CEECRIGO A50VE CR wtm THE FCLLCWING DEVIATICMS .
VERIFIED BY /
DATC' .
CLOSED BY l
rqE suveavIsca DATE l
i
^
e .. .
- , - ~ _ . . . _ . , -
. .,v im A'ttaEhment 3 with rtfcrcnce.s ...
sa %. .- .
.z.- , , . .
~: .. . Page 19 of 22
- - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - 4
. . . . ,
- d.
- ,9 , , t
- ..=
- . v-
_ .~~ . . . = . . . . _ . . . . . - . _
. . ~ - . . . . . . --. . .3 ...
, . . . . . . . . . .w.. .s ':. . n .. . .w , . ;.;,....
- 7. R. W1 ye* , AND, Pan-1, m.q,. y.g ,.,
,l
\
$--ti.01sonT
- ~ . ~ -
ONP;~33-2T'3equoyd~" ' '" b "--"-~~ ~ --
i '~ . -'
. . ~ . . . . . . . .
Dublaut.1 . . . . . . .
OC 11rMECTIou or,tyt3 irgte yt; ny
.. , . . .~a . . . ~ :.-.
. . m .w . .- ~ ?~~
.: .:::.+ - . ~ . ;, = :
~"
- - A - - '- - ' " "*
i E!!4ctiV1 (f ts.aup) vtti im purtnmud by rhe QAthis date, Febt'titt'y % 19%, ' A Visud 8ta f f en si t A'.ts 31.1 vatda esistas le ,
h.5C of soIn er *Nhory. . . .mu s s . . . . . . . . ,
ca/rjor}.i5$,.,a). ores.
Any workplans or MR/t(Rs which have been previously reviewed and approved but
- 40. not _inc lud_e _the. appropetata-fit up -inspection"=ust-br~roMaed"idi:di' d to incorporate this requirement assuming the fic up has noc yet bean perfor--ed . .
Instructions which reference WI-11 for hanger inspections will not normally require revision requirements intosince the QA Staff is responsible for incorporating the this procedure.
this revision to M/4AI-ll vill be impler.ented Upon PORC review and Plant Manager's approval, ,
.. day grace period. without
.. . [
y The required fit-up inspecetona vill be performed and docu-the no
- O men.t.ad .in accordance ,vtth the requitecients of N-VT-2 as described in TI 51.
w =
- If you have any questions concerning this policy or its implementation, please
~:. centact D. C. Craven (6539) of the QA Staff. .
l((r .
. . - , *x .% / a ,
- 1-- _
_ K.1.(A4ercpfmbie
/Y/MDW'^~'"~~' '.
DCCiRJZ '
i .
ee.
This was prepared principally.by J. L. Hamtiton.
. . . .. _.. . . . . . - ~ - ~ ~ - " - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ " " *
' ' '" '~~~~ ~
,._.,....-.. ~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~- -- -- - " - - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ . . .
lr
\
l l
l
UNITED STATES GOVERN 3fENT B27 '860310 00:,
Memorandum .
, . TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Actachment 3 with references lp _ 1..E. Martin, Watts.BarEmployeeConcernTaskGroup,E*IlfNhON s *^ " ^
'a\.w
- u .
\ no3f :
-J.JW.;Coan, . Project. Manager. . Welding Proj ect , W9 C135 C-K DATE : Marc.h 7, 1986 . , , .
SUBJECT:
PLAN FOR EVALUATION OF FITUP CAP PRACTICES OF SQN. MODIFICATIO The fo11oving" steps"hrennecessary.:toesubstantiate llie assumptions'had'e 7 'in "the eval'uati~o6.','df'.fitup practices of SQN modifications personnel included as Attachment 1.
~
u.
u c.s:., , ,
1.'
- Th( Welding Project (WP.) vill reviev- the resu' Its Tf ' the' previ~o usly -
' co=pleted'SQN reinspection for information relevant to this issue.
- 2. SQEP personnel have reviewed modifications'ca'de to civil features since
'- plant operation (February 29, 1980) in order to, determine the fitup
requirements. as required by notes on the civil drawings (reference .,
memorandum f rom Vineyard to Coan dated February 14,1986, .B25 860214 003). In response to.a memorandum from Rankin to Vineyard dated February 7,1986 (S03 A60207 905) a review of all the drawing revision
produced a list of 107 types of structural changes. This was done to G.
identify -the significance of welding done by Nuclear Power.
- 3. A person from NEB with velding, nondestructive examination, and AWS code familiarity and a person from SQEP familiar with the design of,the structures involved will conduct a plant inspection of about 10 typical structures at SQN. This inspection will verify to the extent possible f ,the fitup gap practices identified by modifications are a worse case.
- 4. SQ modifications personnel vill review electrode useage records to w verify the electrode size assumptions of attachment 1.
0$
IE gg 43 .
[ r EW'HERtHGl d f f. F . Coan l@ l l '$$
~
" f, g { DJE:MP \VEi.D.'N 3 PROJECT
$ cc: RIMS, SL 26 C-K I
>aw R. G. Domer, W12 A6 C-K J. F. Weinhold, W12 B314 C-K I ~
I $sms W
f *, ",
_ g jeg,,
i l'it:!
Q l .
I 5pgmho _ ,
xc: J. P. Vineyard, OE, DSC-A, Sequoyah (Attn. - **'" ~YMU
- r. Y C. N. Johnse I I k
.) l I 3/10/86 - JWC:xP i i ec (Attachment): I '
I r '
J. P. Vineyard, OE, DSC-A, Sequoyah (Attn. C. N. Johnsoa) 4 I To
- -- Per telecen on this date with Charlie John =en, please scyssuc _.u -~ -.* t:. 2.i Banki:
Design Services Manacer su==arizing findings on above ite=s and effect on
-structures
'"
- y at SQN. Please provide me a copy of all corresnondence on tM e
1
- * ' " ..' Attachment 3 with references Page 21 of 22
, s. . ...* - -
~'
... . . ..... :. . EVALUATION OF FITUP PRACTICES .
(
. OF. SQN H0DITICATIONS PERSONNEL
. . .. . .v. t. ,
- c..t n num:
EU w.r r: m:'.
ie On February 24, 1986, the following personnel attended a meeting at SQN to discuss structural modifications steel... personnel's fitup A. ' i practice for fillet velding
- . 1" Larry Alexander Gary Pitzi SQN - Modifications NO u.. Larry.Titcham:...:?- i.m SQ EP ' .' : 'mM 4 - I'** '"" '""? ' ' ' '
R. A. Montgonery WP -
Carl Bat =aker WP John D. White OE D. J. Itzler :. . . OE. . . . - . c. ':;--.. - 1 Dan Mickler OC .
The following assu=ptions result from discussions with SQN modifications personnel.
A. o Standard sh' p practice vas to reject. fitup. gaps which exceeded the electrode core dianeter. ..
B.
f Virtually all velding, based on review of veld material use records for past years, was acco=plished using 3/32" or 1/8" diameter electrodes.
C.
Based on A and B, I will assume that the. identified concern is that ficup gaps of 1/8" vere seceptable without increasing the fillet veld -
leg size as. required by AWS D1.1, paragraph 3.3.1, and TVA Ge:eral Construction Paragraph 7.1 Specification G-29C, Process Specification 1.C.1.2 D.
For the,Jollowing discussion, I will assume.a.vorse case situation of a 3/16": specified fillet veld with a craf t ficup gap of 1/8". &
The folleving discussion supports a conclusion that the fillet veld has not been compronised. integrity as a result of the craf t workmanship po ,,
..n 1.
The Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria (VVAC) is a docin::ent developed by the0 Nuclear Construction Issues Group (NCIG) and approved for use by NF .
The VVAC establishes guidelines for final visual veld acceptance criteria requirements which of when AISC. followed assures the velds vill neetthe design For a 3/16" specified fillet veld the actual veld f abricated can have an effective area 25% Icss than that 'specified and still be acceptable to VVAC.
0.099 in2 /inThe veld area thus could be 3/16" x 0.707 I 1" x= 75: -
(
096062.04
Attachment 3 with raferences
- Page 22 of 22 s .
- 2. With the veld can'dition',,in,aesumptiou D an effective veld area of A,099 2
{
in /in could be achieved:vich only 5/64"edepth-of p'enetration into the -- . --
~
~
base material. This depth 'of 'pe'netfat' ion"is' easily achievable with the
~
E7018 electrodes and direct current reverse polarity which are used almost exclusively for structural velding at SQN. AWS D1.1 -- '.
acknowledges this penetration as evidenced by square groove butt joint
. . detail. B-Plc, which specifies 'a nomi~nal root opening of 1/8" in 1/4"
~
thick material. This' 'j~oint detail pro'vides an ef fective throat of 1/8" which is much greater than the 5/64" depth of'pe~netration necessary.
- 3. We'have visually reexamined many structural velds at SQN, WBN and BTN, and; b. ave iden.tified several. structures in which velds were missing and undersize. In all cases the structures were analyzed and demonstrated to meet design requirenents. Since the fitup gap concern is less significant than missing velds. I consider that more serious velding discrepancies have been analyzed and shovu to not affect plant safety. .
- 4. Most of the modifications performed at SQN have been in cable tray supports, conduit supports, duct. supports, -and pipe supports which are pri=arily made of square tubing. In most instances, metal to metal fitup is achieved because fitup gaps would make assembly of the structures more. difficult. , ,,, ,
,. 5. This practice has been used only by modifications at SQN and TVA does not intend to adopt this as a standard practice.
[+.
- w. .. . u. . . . . . ,.. ,:
..t .
. a.. . . ..
2
.. . . r i
- I ". 0 $ e ,
4 r
096062.04
. . . . .: ..m . ge #1 Y
, umt6 sTxTts cove"***
T[Recoid B27 ' 002 M em o r dn d um.al., . -;;,- Tsuussszs vAttsy Aurnoairy
- . ' , h a t y. . w;- . ,, ,,,,
g g a* .. t.. .. . , .,
Attrchment -4 9 ..a... v. q.2 n n ,. 4 . , :. . , ;, f , . .
. u. i. s. (.; ..;i.. ,;c
.Page,f or 9 _--
to - : 8 p fJ. %tCoan,. Project d'anager,t Welding 3 Project,:W9,C135.C-K- - -
.s v .: t te:t rc cet . ni, . c . r e r. ; :t r: e r.t rev er e t. po u.::: 6 ;..; t . , . , , .
- nJ. P;avineyard, Project. Manager, Sequoyah Engineering Project, OE, DSC-A,_ ~
FROM '
- - :Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. . .. v. c :. .
'(
- March -19, 1986 - ..:...
.....;.. .. ... 7 DATc :
. ; ;. . P
--.; i. r1 L':;
. u- .
FITUP GAP . PRACTICES OF SQN. MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL.
SUBJtCT:
References:
(1) Your memorandum to L. E. Martin dated March 7,1986 CSM No. .L. . rg:.. ;; m. 4B27. 860310,001),. A t t a chme nt [. f l .. .
. . n.,. . . ., . .., ,
MAR 2 ., h_ a .....w.
. . . .n... .m ... . m.
DAT2~C D - -(2). D. J. Etzler!s memorandum to the OE-NEB Files dated March
- m. 19, 1986, " Evaluation of Fitup Gap Practices of Sequoyah ACTION RC'fD _ ' "' .
" "c:* '"' c. Nuclear. Plant .(SQN) Modifications Personnel - Plant -
DATE c- *" - Inspection" (B45 8603 19 261), Attachmenc f2, INFO ON! -*.' '
CER W 6 .
WP t _
This.memorandtim is for the purpose of evaluating and consolidating the
.ID'll '- information gathered by several groups at TVA working together to resolve D;h. _. the question of fitup gaps af ter February 29, 1980 (Unit 1 initial operation),. :A conclusion is drawn at the end of this memorandum which 9".- v
- , represents .We. combined opinion of Of fice of Engineering as relates to this
' subject. ...*tp.9 7{f
.b The formatc,fS11ows that of Ref erence (1).
. ; .:.LYG
- 1. SQEP has reviewed the results-of the SQN reinspection for ficup practices of SQN modifications personnel and the following is the results of that review:
to Thereinspectionofmodificationsdidnotrecordanydatal relevant The few fitup gaps. Apparently the modifications gaps were accepable.
cases of gaps recorded during re' inspection were for const'ructica and were found to be acceptable in that the "as-built" installation met design requirements.
- 2. ' As requested in Ref erence (1), a list of 107 types of structural These changes since Unit 1 initial operation have been identifed. c Engineering personnel as follows: h Of n e-
- 1. Pipe Supports ca#
- 2. Heating & Vent Supports CD RFC y
- 3. Electrical Supports ._
O HGC
- 4. Miscellaneous Steel A.4
- 5. Cable Tray Supports f\)- NAL
- 6. Heavy Equipment Modifications
- 7. Pool Liners F 05G
- 8. Containment Vessel & Penetrations U
( 9. Pipe Rupture Protective Devices 9_
- 10. NSSS Supports c_ 550 O
t' o w.
$;, l~
,g -
NEB MASTER Fil.E AoA07A.06
.- Atttchm:nt 4
- PK83 2 0E 9 a
. i *.: t,u :)..wu ,
- - n
.s t - i: . s : .. . . . .
a-- .
.s ,
.f,, .
- -roice; nnoccer. ,41otn., tre,3er;.
J .W. Coan... ,L . -: -
l . '
\s
- March 19,1986 ,
. s r.evt: .. Pr er. i.crt- 3 ~' - -- - c c. . r : : -
FITUP. GAP. PRACIICES OF SQN MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL .
i
. . SQN,.,civi,1, Engineer, i ng . personnel .have adv.ised that Items 1 through 6 require no special fitup instructions for initial installation. Item 7 requires initial fitup but was done prior.to initial startup'. These velds were full (penetration . velds and .will not be included in this study. Item 8 required ASME velding for attachments to the pressure
..._ boundary and again vill not be included in this study. Ite=s 9 , and 10 . .
require fitup inspection during. initial construction. -None of these -
'" "iiems' were initially buil.t,during the time frame covered here. . :- "
- - - - - - - - - - ...,,....,7 4 ,,,4 : _. .
..It should be noted here that a report by CE, attached to Ref erence 1, shows a worse case fitup situation which would give an effective throat of acceptable dimensions. SQEP Civil Engineering personnel have endorsed this evaluation of ef f ective throat. (See steps 3 & 4 belov
.h$for[just,ificationthat.thisisthevorsecase.)
-c;;.m . n- :
-- 3. D. J.. Etzler (OE), Larry Katcham (SQEP), Larry Alexander (SQN-0MMM) and
, , ., Bryan , Turner.,,(,SQN-0MMM) conduct ed, a . plant search at.SNP on 3/6/86 for random fitup gaps used on fillet velds. The results of this search j
gr is attachment (2). Final conclusions of this report say: "I conclude
- f. ~ " '- that the majority of the structures involve designs which are easily 44.' ,.
f abricated and have relatively easy fitup. The physical inspection results support the earlier statements by(NO) personnel that their -
practice was-to reject fitups in excess of the electrode core diameter."
- 4. SQN modifications personnel. reported the ,amoun.t of electrode . size.
consumption as .,f.o11cus :- : . ., ua... . .. , , ;. : . .
.. " Electrode Size -
3/32 ins, 1/8 ins. 5/32 ins.
~ ' ' ' ~
1984 5,455 lbs. 2,3 50 lbs . 0 lbs.
. .. 1985 3,950 lbs. 5,180 lbs. 100 lbs. -
.. . ., . . - v.,. . . . . . . ..
ToEn1 percentage of electrodes greater than 1/8" is .59%. It is doubtful'that the 5/32 in rod was used for AISC velding. It is very doubtful that the root gap would have exceeded 1/8 inch.
~ *
~
f . . .
1 k
Attachmnt 4 I
. Paga 3 of 9 {
e *
. 3 ,
w . ,
J. W.'Coan~ -
March 19, 1986' -
FITUP GAP PRACTICES '0F SQN MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL I
. .. . . . . . .1. -*;; . ";. . . . ,
~
Other s'a' e tors should be-considered'h'ere. ' Weld metal is approximately 10-16% 1 stronger than specified yield st'r'ength. The allowable load is limited by code to'the' lesser of;the capacities proven by tests for fillet velds parallel to
- stress and those- transverse 'to stress. The fillet velds ,
transverse to stress are at least 40% stronger than those parallel to
, . . u. . . . u . . . . . . . < r :.:. -..: . . :.: .;: .. . .
, gg ,, ,
w.. em er; . . . . . n; . 2 . 6.u .t- ,, n- ::: 3-A review of the four steps necessary to substantiate the assumptions made -
in the evaluation of fitup practices of SQN modifications personnel indicates that these assu=ptions were valid. The velding reinspection program found no fitup errors. A review cf drawings and velds required for modifications to the features identified in 2 above shows that no modification made during the time frame from February 29, 1980, to present would require special fitup. The attachment to Reference 1 indicates an effective throat in the " worse case" condition greater than the design value for these fillet velds. This " worse cane" condition was supported by information r in 3 and 4 above. Given that this is the worse case,
(" veld equal to the specified leg size would yield an any qualified -
~
I acceptable throac imension and resulting acceptable design strength. An additional!1/16" of leg size equal to each 1/16" oversized fitup gap would only be.a conservative addition in'this'~ case. The overwhelming majority of velds for modifications'during 'the 2 previous years as shown in 4 above vere made with core diameters equal to or less than 1/8". Weld gaps greater than this core diameter would be much more difficult to make and velders, indicated they rejected"these conditions. --
Based on all this information, I b'elieve no further investigation of welding inspection practice as relates to fitup needs to be performed at Sequoyah. - - --- ---- - - - - --
,, . - OX.8//(' ,
/ J. P. Vineyard' i'
LK:MP Attachments Reviewers Initials /Date f cc (Attachments): ~
RIMS, SL 26 C-K L. Katcham MM .M2 /
V. A. Bianco, OE, DEC-A, Sequoyah D. J. Et ler e9/ti- 7//f R. O. Barnett, W9 D224 C-K J. W. Cosa (gif., J//s.__
R. G. Domer, W12 AS C-K J. A. Ediston 4% J/So
(
W. C. Drotleff, W12 A12 C-K r+ p. 6me rs Cf L' .3/r/
C. N. Johnson, OE, DSC-A, Sequoyah p,c., w e m --
ggm) .3/u L. Katcham, 5-121 SB-K J. A. Kirkebo, W12 A8 C-K L. E. Martin, IOB - Watts B H. B. Rankin, ONP, DSC-E, Seqt. ah -- This also responds to items J. A. Raut ston, W10 C126 C-K #1 and #3 in your memorandum
. .. ... ., snoc
i># Attachmtnt 4 f ." $ ,
- Pagn 4 of 9 1- '
- - a ..a ,
"r *H ' I M"
- EVALUATION OF FITUP PRACTICES .
0F SQN MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL .. .
- .. :: . v: .: .
- On February 24, 1986, the following personnel attended a meeting at SQN to discuss. modifications-personnel's fitup practice for fillet velding structural steel., .
- . 2:it e t. :s c > .. .e ::. . :. .>
t e . . , . tra c:.t::r u. a try . _ . a... .. . . . . . .
-Larry Alexander ~
SQN - Modifications -
J ~ " 'Cary Pitz1 O ' ' ' NO Larry Katcham SQEP R. A. Montgomery WP ,
Carl Hatmaker WP John D. White OE D. J. Etzler OE Dan Mickler OC t
The: following assumptions result frem discussions with SQN modifications
__ , personnel.
! - - A'. Scaudard shop practice was to reject fitup gaps which exceeded the alectrode core dia=eter.
(. + t. -
B. Virtually all velding, based on review of weld material use records for past years, was accomplished using 3/32" or 1/8" diameter electrodes.
C .- Based on A and.3, I will assu=e that the identified concern is that fitup gaps of 1/8" were acceptable without increasing the fillet veld leg 1 size as" required by AWS -D1.1, paragraph 3.3.1, and TVA General
"*" Constiuction Specification G-29C, Process Specification 1.C.1.2, Paragraph 7.1 -
. .: :.: -- v ,: -
D. For the following discus ~sion,' I will assume a worse case situation of a 3/16" specified fillet veld with a craf t fitup gap of 1/8".
The following discussion supports a conclusion that the fillet veld l integrity as a result of the craft workmanship policy re. ficup gap at SQN
! has not been conpromised. - -- -
-1. The Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria (VWAC) is a document developed by the Nuclear Construction Issues Group (NCIG) and approved for use by NRC. The VWAC establishes guidelines for final visual veld acceptance criteria which when followed assures the velds vill meet the design requirements of AISC.
- For a 3/16" specified fillet veld the actual veld fabricated can have
- an effective area 25% less than that specified and still be acceptable
(- to VWAC. The veld area thus could be 3/16" x 0.707 I 1" x 75% =
0.099 in2 /in .
l
T4 Attachm:nt 4
',' , Paga 5 of 9 -
- c
, u G f .
I -
- 2. With the veld condition in assumption D an effective veld area of 0.099 in2 /in could be achiWed W ith dnif T[64"Tdip'th of penetration into the-
~ ~
base material. Thii depthof je'neMatio6Ils easily achievable with the. '
E7018 electrodes and direct current reverse polarity which are used almost exclusively for structural velding at SQN. AWS D1.1 s:
acknowledges this penetration as evidenced by square groove butt joint detail'B-PIC which specifies'a nominal' root opening of-1/8" in 1/4" -
thick material. This joint detail provides'an effective throat of 1/8" which is much greater than the 5/64" depth of penetration necessary.
- 3. We. have visually reexamined"many structural velds at SQN, WBN and 3FN, and have identified several structures in which velds were undersize.
In all cases the structures were analyzed and demonstrated to meet design requirements. Since the fitup gap concern is no more ,,
significant than undersize' velds, I consider that velding discrepancies similar to the fitup gap concern have been analyzed and shown to not affect plant safety.
- 4. Most of the moditications perfor=ed at SQN have been in cable tray supports, conduit supports, duct" supports, and pipe supports which are primarily made of square tubing. In nost instances, metal to metal .
ficup is achieved because fitup gaps would make assembly of the structures more diffi~ cult. '
{ '
5.
This practice has been used only by modifications at SQN and TVA does not
- r-intend to adopt thislas a standard practice. - --
- e ras , .g o * ,.*. , ,,
. . c ,
. . . .i- -
- Wl8lffo Prepared f A/L
- D J. Etzler Reviewed 8 d' 1//f/h 6' J. D. White
' ' . ~. ...,u: . . . . . . .
C. E. Robert / /
. .* G $ ge %
t c
l
Attachmant 4 M u s.,anictauaumst Page 6 of 9 9 umrco sTiTes c0vtanE"' B45 '860319 261 Memorandum QA R*ch: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[,
TO : : Nuclear Engineering: Branch Files un'A10: 1 i t. c h ~ L D" "' ' W ' ' !~ E -
l, 5/ 4' c=u a c: os'a :'. n i w.- ) cu ;m - (,
- s ;. . i i:-. cet h e rcht w w m n of.- .
FROM : D. J, .Etz.ler, .MetallurgicalvEngineer,. W9.B82 C-K ru t. en : . T -- -
- . n.; .. : - . .
.= .
.DATc : MAR.19 '!986. a. ., ,, m . -
- c. .. . . , .
SUBJECT:
EVAbE ION.dF:FITUP G P PR CTI S OF. QUOYAH,NUCL PLANT (SQN)'
MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL - PLANT INSPECTION
- s. ,
- .2 r.- .
. . .. m .. r 1.0 .,Dat e , , Time , . ,and. .P. lace: ..... v c.:c,c ..,u..
r . .:.
., . . . . v.. . . .: .. . . . . . . -
. March 6, .19,86, .SQN ,~, .,., ,;- ,
2.0 Requested by:
i
' Bob Olsen l l
3.0 (In . Attendance of Walkdown Inspection Were:
' Bryan Turner SQN Modifications MOD /M, SB-2, Sequoyah Gary Pitz'1 NO LP SS 139D-C Larry Katcham SQEP 6111 MIB-K Roger Field 6121 MIB-K
( D . J .',,Et z ler ,
SQEP
,OE-NEB W9 B82 C-K 4.0 Purpose of Meeting:
4.1 The purpose of the meeting was to conduct an inspection of several SQN structures fabricated by mods personnel for evidence -
of the fitup gaps used on fille.t welds. . u 5.D Cocments :
5.1 We were guided through the plant by Bryan Turner and Roger Field directing us to structures representative of work performed by ,
modifications.
5.2 We looked at approximately 30 structures, 10 of which were chosen for detail ficup gap inspection. 'The majority of' the structures were rejected for detail fitup inspection because they consist of two or three straight sections of 2-inch square tube, or unistrut material, or a short section of square tube welded to an existing structure. This type of structure is so casily fabricated that it would require extra work to provide other than metal-to metal fit.
5.3 Several methods .were used to measure the present gap. Note that the present gap is not an accurate measure of the fitup prior to
} welding, but it is the only indicator available.
N 5.3.1 Wen members were not welded all around, I could directly
./ measure the existing gap. This was possible on 6 items.
.9 M 096073.04
r
- s .
Attachment 4 l Page 7 of 9 -
g .p
. * . - ' ~
. . , [ . , ,_ . _ .
' '* , , . 2 . , 3 7. -. .. ,. ..
. . ..s ..., , , , , , , , , .
,p,,L ,. . g.. c. .;. 7 ,, _.
..c ...
- Nuclear Engineering Branch Files ,
y -
.a -.
p.- .
4(- .
i MAR'19 W6 mi=" '- *- T -
.. -l EVALUATION OF FITUP CAP PRACTICES OF SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLA!TE (SQN)
MODIFICATIONS PERSONNEL - PLANT INSPECTION w..
imb. .::: v . or : p. &c.c'. . p..: m a..t: ,
'5.3.2 - Wiiere,short sections of square tube were welded to other members, I could look. inside the square tube and detect -
the relative root gaps. This was possible on 3 items.
. 5.3.3 .I discovered. that on size-on-size square tube, "T"
. connections, an indirect measurement technique is sometimes possible. Figure 1 attached is necessary to ,
describe this technique. Please note that this technique '
only provides an indicator of the maximum existing gap.
6.0 conclusions
6.1 I examined 10 structures which involved 13 separate connections and 32 welds. Four connections had gaps of between 1/16 inch and
.- 1/8 inch, 7 connections had gaps of 1/16 inch or less, and 2 connections had metal-to-metal contact. The structures and ,
results are tabulated in Figure 2.
i(
.(f: .
6.2 Nine of the structures consisted of square tube construction with the maximum being 6 x 6 and the minimum being 3 x 3; 1' structure '"
f
. consisted .of a wide flange sitting on plate; two were plates welded to a -square tube; and one consisted of angles'velded to ,
square tube. . . . . .
a~
6.3 Based on the observations of typical work performed by modifications since 1980, I conclude' that the majority of the structures involve designs which are easily fabricated and have relatively easy fitup. The physical inspection results supports the earlier statements by.NO personnel .that their practice was .to .
reject :fitups in excess of the- electrode core diameter. NO reported that for 1984 and 1985 about 1.5 percent of the electrodes purchased (250 pounds out of a total of 16,585 pounds)
~
were 5/32 inch. The remainder of the. electrodes were.3/32 inch and 1/8 inch.
, p 4
/ f/ -
- 4. l k
/ 'D J. Etzler DJE:SHS . JAR:SHS - AR 191986' Attachments Attachments
[(M cc (Attachments): cc (Attachments):
f (. ,
John A. Raulston, W10 C126 C-K RIMS, SL 26 C-K
\ ;WP" J. P. Vineyard, OE, DSC-A, Sequoyah
._. 096073.04
f Attachment 4 g- , Page 8 of 9 >
. w' FIGURE 1 .
f . .
l A
.IN TE R S E cTI N G M e m 0E R-
- 2. S tru)ki eslye
$. 5% rej h Ed y '
l{f. ???N'f('k.'.,;W_ /gsfy)f5fi.?wf ~ YI l (N?"*.f.: ' '
(Q' ,
=
TRft. ouch M G M GER
, - .Y i
, w
- 1. Place straightedre elong fusion line of flare bevel on intersecting member side of weld.
, ,2 . Place another straightedge across surface of through member.
- 3. The height of straightedge 1 above straight edge 2 can be an indicator l
of existing gap. .
- 4. If the reinforcement of the flare bevel veld on the intersecting member just covers the cut edge of the square tube this could be a very good indicator of the existing gap. This method can only indicate that the j existing gap does not exceed the resulting gap measurement, i
l l
1 096073.04
\
l
(
., Attachment 4
- , Page 9 fo 9 i
.'e e
., FICURE 2 f
y o e -a
~
~
SUMMARY
OF FI'[UP CAPS MEASURED
( ,
l '
How
. Ites Sueoort Mark ,
Welds Type Structue Cao Me'asured 1 2 ERCH 346A Pipe Support - ST/ST 1 0: Direct 2 CCH 1007 ' Pipe Support - PL/WF 2 cl/16" Direct 3 ERCWH 232A 1 Pipe Support - PL/ST <1/16" Direct 4 Valve Room 2 Pipe Support - ST/ Angle < 1/16" Direct Aux Fdwtr Sup. -
5 2AFDH 250 2 Pipe Support - PL/PL 0 Direct 6 47A450-3-78 2 Pipe Support - ST/ST 1/16-1/18" Direct -
7 ERCWH264 2 Pipe Support - PL/ST < 1/16" Direct
-~
8 1-67-11568 4 Pipe Support - ST/ST 1/16-1/18" Direct 9 10-9 2 Pipe Support - PL/ST < 1/16" Direct (E. .
4 Pipe Support - ST/ST 1/16-1/18" Direct 4 Pipe Support - ST/PL 4 1/16" Direct
, 10 10-10 2 Pipe Support - ST/ST 41/18" Indirect 4 Pipe Support - ST/ST <1/16" Direct Abbreviations:
. ST - Square Tube PL - Plate ,
WF'- Wide Flange f
(
O m
p Ws Yk C
, 096073.04 s
1,; %
- - . , -