ML20212F562
| ML20212F562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1987 |
| From: | Bateman R, Rose J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212F190 | List: |
| References | |
| XX-85-101-006-R03, XX-85-101-6-R3, NUDOCS 8703050114 | |
| Download: ML20212F562 (68) | |
Text
~-
, i, f
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNE REPORT NUMBER: XX-85-101-006 I8 SPECIAL PROGRAN i
1; REPORT TYPE: WeldinE Project REVISION NUMBER: 3 TITLE: Welder Certification h
I i
REASON FOR REVISION:
4 Added corrective action plan - Attachment 9 i
SUMMARY
STATEMENT: N/A PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 11-06-86 I
SIGNATURE DATE F
t i
REVIEWS i
PEER:
t Original Signed By J. E. Rose 11-06-86 SIGNATURE DATE l
ff hKTAS
\\
'[' Q/J 2/!hk TECllMICAL EVIEW NLY SIGNATURE DATE i
I CONCURRENCES
[
OrlEinal Signed By CEG-H:
J. F. Lewis for LEM 11-25-86 i
[ h* M M
%-/7-fl3if SRP:
SIGNATURFg DATE SIGNATURE DATE I
APPROVED BY:
hh
$4l'0f Nk ECSPMANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY) r I
i l
- SRP Secretary's algnature denotes SRP concurrences are in flies.
I 0703050114 070226 2242 l
PDR ADOCK 05000327 p
PDR l
d
'I glPLOYEE CONCEjg SUPMARY SHEET Report Number XX-85-101-006 Report Title Welders Certification I.
CONCERN CONSIDERED: XX-85-101-006 II.
ISSUES INVOLVED Welder Certification III. BIAILNENT ON CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Validity: Y X M,N
, Substantiated: Y X M,N
'this issue concerning welder continuity is valid, all other issues are f
not valid, IV.
EITLCr ON llARDWARE ANU/OR PROGRAM None V.
JUSiir1 cal'10N TVA's consentment for welder continuity is based on the requirements of' the ANSI 31.1-0 Code. TVA's procedures reflected the requirements of the ASNE Code,Section IX after August 6, 1974. The recommended corrective action will resolve this problem.
VI.
RECOft10NDAT10N AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED Revise the FSAR to adopt ANSI 931.1 Code through June 1971 addenda to allow the use of later editions of ANSI B31.1 which refer welder continuity to the ASNE Code,Section IX.
VII.
RL.INDPLCi10N NEEDED: Y
,N X
I Page a 3158T i
4
i
-?
4g: :
e Report Number: XX-85-101-006
.V111.
ISSUE CLOSURE Closure is based on FSAR revision 1
IX.
AllACHNENTS A.
APPROVAL SilEET 1.
ERT report XX-85-101-006 2.
Text of employee concern
.l.
3.
Summary of SQN specific concerns reviewed by WP Program summarization of weld project (WP) evaluation
.[
4.
5.
Rebuttal of ERT report 6.
March 26, 1986 letter to M. R. Martin f
memorandum to' N. W. Whitt from R. G. Domer 7.
March 31, 1986 l
WP-Bechtel audit of SQN Key Elements 4.0, 5.0 and 17.0 O.
i I
/
~
l f
I i
e Page am 3158r I
- r Attachment A
.'?
['
. 'l. j
'i l,,
WELDING PROJECT f.. 4.
I SON SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCdRNS_
i l
DAYE_ 11/6/86 _
i SEQUOYAH SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS -
7 i
SUBJECI:
SUMMARY
OF WP ENGINEERING EVALUATION i.
CONCERN CONSIDEREDt. KK-85-101-006 i
r Il/b/ 6fo
_. DNC, WP PREPARED DY
_, DNC, WP
.b =
%, 11 / b / 65(a REVIEWED BY M
// A M
_,_DQA, WP.
REVIEWED BY 0
(
Y -)?nstA ///2c}yt
$bH lJt irL, CEG-K,,Weldint REVIEWED BY LLw u/
_, ProBrain Nanator APPROVED BY l
,t i
f u
9
[
!l i l
l',
s 06410 t
- n 1
.~.
i*
8, 4
b WELDING PROJECT t ' ',.
SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS s.
l t
t i
t i
I ATTACllMENI I I
ERI REPORT XX-85-101-006
{'
s I
.g a%
i s
s
/
- /
[Olfd 3..
k 4
'l b
O A
e s
f l
(....j s.s..,
l b
o gl ((.
.j.
g,3yes,e4 toi.e ess tois.wp.s.est
,a CillTED' STATES COVEntGtEt4T
-.Memorand MN1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTIIORITY.
II. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant TO:
K. W. Whitt, Dirtetor of Nuclear Saf ety Review Staf f","5'IA8 C-K
,I FR0!!:
MAR 0 71986
"^
IIUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSilITTAL-SUDJECT:
p i
XX-85-101-006 Transmitted herein in llSRS Report No.
WELDER CERTIFICATI0ti Subject KK-US-101-006 concern tio. _
t This re. port conta ns two Priority 1 (P1) recosmnendations which must be The Priority 3 [P3) reconnendation w111 be looked at for add rein ed.
CTLh corrective action follow through by July 3. 1986_.
!!o responso is requ. ired
.w..
Should you have any questions, pienso contact W. D.
for thlo item.
s -
t e
Stevens_ at telephono 6231.
Reconnend Repottability Determination: ' Ye's No X_
irector, llSRS/DesigUeil'
~ s WUS GDti..
Attactunent
{
cc ( Attaclunent):
W. C. Ulbb, DFN W. T. Cottle, WD!l.
James P. Dar11tig, BLN R. P. Deniso, LP6tl40A-C G. D. Kirk, SQN D. R tilchols, E10A14 C-K
[h r, g QTC/ERT. Watte Dar flucione Plant i
l Eric fillger, LP6tl40 A-C
(--
J. II. Su111vnn, SQN 5010
', * / r7*.7,
, ';o..
J.': 2 '
m t
i
,1 ti,
'l
. i y,
- . -(... y.
(
C
~.
s
~
NSRS Reconunendation XX-85-101-006, i
Q-85-101-006-01:
- Welder Certification" Complete the following sequence of recommended actions in conjuncElon with
! and consistent with recommendations I-85-135-sqN-01 and I-85-135-SQN-02 in -
report I-86-135-SQN.
Completion of A and B below in considered Priority 1
[P-1].
Item C is dependent on the outcome of A and B.
' Item D.is Priority 9
3 [P-3].
4 A.
Identify the particular ASitE Section IX code year and addenda to qualify welders.
If different years were used, then identify when i
each was in effect.
B.
After completion of Q-85-101-006-01 review welder qualification records against the : ode ist effect arid determine which welders, if any, had periods of time when welder update (continuity) requirements were not being met.
c'c-C.
Ior any welders identified as unqualified in Q-85-101-006-02, determine which welds were made during periods of disqualification.
For those welds identified, do a technical evaluation for acceptability.
e D.
Update site constructidn specifications to be consistent wih SQts FSAR
.Ii Section 3.2 commitments. This area covers design, field fabrication, f'
assembly, examination and testing of piplhg..' Evaluate piping' i
d' previously completed under the construction specifications for acceptability.
l l
Principally prepared by P. R. Washer.
l I
l 4
- brE
. Tg I
l 1
0580U I
- '
- b -
, ',. v$65 * * "L " T.2
.s..
.,,T
" *. '" P ' i 3
$-h e.
- it,
.. s+
.g g
m.
4 c
c
.l..?
QUALITY
~
=
TECHNOLOGY COMPANY g
Sweetwater.'TN ' 37874 (015)365 4414,.
P.O. BOX 600 RAGE 1 OF 17,
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT i.
CDNCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 CONCERN:
Seouoyah A welder perfortned welds without having the proper cartification.*
INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY G.
Pohlinann DETAILS 7
4
-PERSONNEL CONTACTED:
CONFIDENTIAL d.I DOCUMENTS REVIEWEDs A.
Sequoyan Nuclear Plant Drawings Flow t
1.
Dwg.
47W809-1, R/23
" Powerhouse Units 1 &
2 g
Diagrain Ch'ernical and Volutne Control Systern".
2.
Dwg.
47W830-1, R/16
" Auxiliary Building Reactor Building Unit 1 & 2 - Mechanical Flow Di agrarn Waste l
Disposal Systern".
l 3.
Dwg.
47W560-6, R/40
" Reactor Building Units 1 &2 '-
~
l Mechaical Waste Disposal Systern".,
4.
Dwg.
1-RC-515-1W, R/,0
" Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop f
1 Crossover Lug 2" Drain".
l 5.
,pwg.
1-RC-516-1W, R/0
" Reactor Bu'ilding Unit 1 - Loop 2 Crossover Leg 2" Drain".
" Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop f
G.
Dwg.
1-RC-517-1W, R/0 3 Crossover Leg 2" Drain",.
7.
Dwg.
1-RC-518-1W, R/0
. Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop 4 Crossover Leg 2" Drain".
I D.
Dwg.
2-RC-515-1W, R/A
" Reactor Building Unit 2
Auxiliary Reactor Coolant Loop 'l Crossover Leg 2"
(,'..
Drain".
l
..... :;.c + ~,,
. '.,...'g:q.1;. [a.
+
.c
. -L1*: ' -
- f... ?.'..
[.
(,
PAGE 2 OF 17 4.-ERT-INVESTIGATION REPORT..
. CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 DETAILS' I.
DOCUr.ENTS REVIEWED: (Continued)
A..
Seouoyah Nucleat-Plant Drawings (Continued)
- 9.
Dwp.
2-RC-516-1W, R/A
" Reactor Building Unit 2
Auxillary Reactor Coolant Loop 2
Crossover Leg 2"
Drain".
10.
Dwg.
2-RC-517-1W, R/A
" Reactor Building Unit 2
Auxilisty Reactor Coolant Loop 3
Crossover Leg 2"
Drain".
11 Dwg.
2-RC-518-1W, R/A
" Reactor Building Unit 2
Auxiliat y Reactor Coolant Loop 4
Crossover
- Leg 2",-
Drain".
12.
Dwg.
WD-28,,
R/6 "Re ctor Building Unit 1
Wald History Identification Waste Disposal"..
,q Weld 13.
Dwg.
WD-29, R/4
" Reactor Building Unit 1
h g,,4 History identification Waste Disposal".
Wold
. c-14.
Dwg.
WD-30, R/2
" Reactor Building Unit 1
History Identification Waste Disposal".
+ ' '-
B.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Drawings
" Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1.
Dwg.
47W560-6, R/25
?
1 - Mechanit.m1 Waste Disposal Systern".
47W5GO-18, R/19
" Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit Dwg.
2.
1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal,5yshern".
3.
Dwg.
47W560-28, R/3
" Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal Rys t ern".
4.
"Dwg.
47W560-29, R/2
" Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal Ef s t ern".
~C.
Procedures 1.
SNP Construction Procedure No.
h* 8, Rev 11, Dated 2-14-77
" Preparation, Review, Handling, and Teroporary with Addendurn 1,
Storage of Duality Assurance Records" dated 2-22-77.
2.
SNP Construction Procedure No.
P-8, Rev 12, Dated 6-13-77 "Guality Assurance Records" with Addend urn, 1 I
Dated 8-15-77.
. g +,. '-., v,
4...,
,,,, gf ;.,, n., j
,..gv. h.-Q: - *W
., f
.,. e -
.~.:.,..,..
..,.p..,,,;.
~ ~ ~ -
~.... -..,. _ _.
.~.
(
u*
c.
- ).
)
PAGE 3 OF 17;
' ' ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-OOG DETAILS DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continued)
N C.
Procedures (Continued) 3.
SNP Construction Procedure No.
P-8, Rev.
13, Datedf 11-18-77,
" Quality Assu,-ance Records" with Addendum 1,
Dated 1-30-78; Addendum 2, dated 10-11-783 and Addendum 3, dated 10-3-78.
4.
SNP Construction Procedure No.
P-8, Rev 14, Dated
" Quality. Assurance Records".
3-26-79 Construction Procedure No.
W-2, Rev O,
. Dated 2-2-77
" Welder and Welding. Operator Performance Qualificatlon".
SNP 5.
4 procedurm# No.
CONST DAP - 1'7. 01, Rev 2,
G.
Construction 11-9-77 " Quality Assurance Records".
Dated No.
DEC-GAP Guality Assurance Procedure Dated 5-13-76 " Qualification of Welders and 1:
7.
Construction 2.09, Rev O, m,
Welding Operators".
.b%
SON-DC-V-3.0, Rev.
O, Dated. - -
Criteria No.
Design Criteria for the Classification B.
SNP Design 12-12,75 "Genetal s
of Piping, Pumps, Valves, and Vessels".
r.
NEM-865, Rev 3, Dated SNP Construction Specification No.
'4-12-77
" Field Fabrication, Assemoly Examination and 9.
for Pipe and Duct Systems".
Tests Safety Analysid Report-Se~ctlon 3.2'.
D..
SMP Final E.
Standards / Codes 1.
l E.
2.
AN,SI B31. 7 - 1969,. (Including 1970 Addenda).
1973.
3.
ASME Section IX, 1971 Editlon a'Ad Addergda through 1976.
1974 Edi, tion and Addenda through 4.
ASME Section IX, 1977 Edition and Addenda through 1979.
5.
ASME Section IX, 6.
for F.
General Specificatica G-29M
" Process Specification Heat Treatment, Non-Destructive. Examination, and
..s
- Welding, Allied Field Fabrication Operations".
Dated 2-24-75 "Generai 1.
Process specification 1.M.1.2(a),
' " ? rt;.. s.,,* " :
Welding procedur.e Specification"..,
... a. y : n,. m u *:-:.. W ;,e,;,;. ? r :s- @
- 8. !
. p l,: e.t.;r ! s <;..y.:.,' Q.y.,,y :
~
a
C l
3
' i, !.. e
! f' *.* *
(
(,
- ~*: ;,
PAGE 4 OF 17 ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT i
CONCERN NU.'IDER XX-85-101-OO6 DETAILS DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continuso)
F.
General. Specification G-29d
" Process.SpeciEJcation for
- Welding, Heat Treatment, Non-Destructive Examination, and Al lied Field Fabricat ion Operat ions','.
(Continued) 2.
Process S pe c i f i ca t 'i on,1. M. 2. 2 ( a), Dated 2-5 " Welder l
and Welding Operator Performance Qualification" with Adcendum 1, Dated 6-2-76 and Addendum 2 Datea 6-29-78.
3.
Performance Qualification Test.GT-7-O-1-L(a),
Rev O,
Dateo 0-29-75.
4.
Performance Qualification. Test GT-7-0-3-L, Rev 1,
Dated 2-5-75.
5.
Performance Qua'lificatio Test GTSM-7-5-0-3-H(a), Rev O, Dated 8-29-75.
G.
Performance Qualification Test GTSM-7-5-0-3-H, Rev 2, fe,c (p,@yg.
Dated 2-5-75.
t 7.
Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GT18-0-1, t
Dated 12-10-70.
~
G.
_ Welding procedure Qualification Record No. GT18-0-1, Dated 5-28-74.
9.
Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTB8-0-1, Dat,ed,5-14-70.
10.
Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GT88-0-1, Dated 5-28-74.
11.
Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTBB-O-1, Dated 3-6-78.
1, 12.
Me*1 ding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTSM18-O-1,-
'S Dated 6-2-70.
l l
13.
Welding procedure Quali ficat ion Record No..GTSM88-O-1, '
l Dated 9-18-70.
14.
Detail Weld Procedure No. GT18-0-1,#Rev 5, Dated 5-1-78.
15.
Detail Weld Procedure No.
GT18-0-1A, Rev 1,
Dated
- 9.,
?
r.:..
2-28-75.
I 16.
Detail Weld Procedure No. - GT88-0-1, Rev 6,
Dated 2-23-79.
17.
Detail' Weld Procedure N o.. G T S M 1 8 - O.1,z. ;Rev 4,
Dated.3ge 2-28-75.
. gd
'.c i 4 '. 5. - ;
ir-rTMc.pff',A..W:',.j77..f/,
[ ?.
ighb'[,4*'
.w.
c c
PAGE'S OF 17
- ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006
- ' ~
DETAILS DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continued)
F.
General Specification G-29M_
" Process Speci,Lication for.
- Welding, Heat. Treatment, Non-Desttuctive.' Examination, and Allied Field Fabrication Operations". (Continued) 18.
Detail Weld Procedure No. GTSM88-0-1 Rev 4 Dated 2-28-75
SUMMARY
OF INVE6f1GATION:
This concern is substantiated.
Welder qualification recotds were reviewed f or-the icentified we l d et-and were found not to comoty with TVA/Sequoyah r4uelear Facility (SGN) site ptocedures.
During the course o f.. t.he investigation it was noted that the welder qualification progtam
-contained
- contradictory -infotmation and incomplete
' instructions, rendeting the welder qualification progt?,am indeterminate.
This investigation started on 11-29-85 and concluded on 2-14-85.
s.,,.
Ei;$;'t FINDINGS:
The investigation included a review of the qualification records for
- s.. :
individual 1.
See Attachment i for a list of records found in this Individual's qualification file.
I.
Listed below are ateas in the qualification records that were found to be questionable.
A.
Wel, ding performance Qualification Records (WPQR) dated 5-11-77, 11-11-77,*11-29-77, and 9-29-783. Revocation of Welder Qualification memos dated 12-6-77, 8-8-78, and 0-6-79; and the Welder Qualificati'on Lists (Sheets 1&2 I
of 2) for individual 1
were not processed in accordance with SNP Construction Procedure No.
W-2, Rev O, Section 7 which states,1
" Attachments A, D,
G, and E shall be rev,iewed and stored in accordance with ENP CP P-8."
~~.
l NOTE:
Attachments A,
D, G,
and E I of Construction Procedure W-2 are the Welding performance Qualification
- Record, Welder Qualification
- List, l
Revocation of Welder Qualification.
Memorandum, and Retention of Welder Performance Gualification Memorandum respectively.
.! N.;
1.
CP P-8 Rev.
11, pategraph G.D.1.a states in part,
...QA records resulting from construction procedures or inspection instructions shall be t
3,,.
l submitten immediately after completion to the GCRU
- 6
',, '*],' ?,, fl, * '.
- t,. -
- 'g,...
1,
a c.
- - ^
i
.-e--
ty.,,
7.,...
c c
1..t pAGE 6 CF 17 t
.e c
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORf CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006
~
DETAILS
.l FINDINGS (Cont 2nued)
.i 1.
A.
1.
Continued 1
for detailed review and aporoval.
Evidence of t
detailed review and approval shall be noted by the
- reviewer's initfals on the record."
Contrary to initfals of the QCRU this recuirement, there are nyo 5-11-77.
reviewer' shown on the NPOR dated (Notes P-8 Rev.
11 was in effect at the time of issuance of the. noted WPQR. )
2.
CP P-8 Rev.
.12, paragraph
- 6. A. 2. F states "All records forwarded to the CCRU for review and/or f
storage. shall be"stamund with the "QA Record" stamp."
and paragraph G. B.1 ' states in
- part,
"... detailed review and approval snall be noted by the reviewer 's initials on the record. " Contrary -
to these requirements, there are no "QA Record" g;Ar stamos or GCRU reviewers in,itials shown on the WPOR 5+ 60,8 dated 11-11-77.
.a 12 was'in effect at the time.of (Noter-P-8 Rev.
' issuance of the noted WPQR. )
CP P-8 Rev.
13, paragraph G.C.2 states in
- part, shall 3.
"Evicence of a detailed review and acceptance be noted by a "QA* Record Review" stamp and.the date on the record."
reviewer's initials
.and~
tiiirro are no "CA Contrary to t'his requirement, Record Review" stamps or r, viewer's initials and -
e date shown on the following records:
WPOR dated 11-29-77 a.
WPQR dated 9-29-78 1,
dated b.
Revocation of Welder Qualification memo c.
12-6-77 dated I
Revocation of Welder dualification memo d.
I 8-0-78 Welder-Qualification List page 1 of 2
dated O.
5-77 through 5-78 I
(Note:
P-8 Rev.
13 was in effect at the time
.o f for the noted records.)
issuance D.
- WPQR, dated 11-11-77, contains the statement listed
(
below.
" Equivalent qualification being awarded based upon side bends of POT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H passed satisfactory Welder has. maintained certification of the Glis' 3,_ p.;-,..... g.-j-4,,
y.:'.-..
5-11-77.
s,.3.
f
(
- .i.'
pAGE-? CF 17 ERT INVESTIGATICN REPORT
.j CONCERN NUv.BER XX-85-101-006 DETAILS FINDINGS '(Continuac)
I.
D.
Continued cortion of this test through 11-11-77.
PQT to GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H revoked by letter dated 12-5-77 due lack of SM welding."
1.
ERT. questioned TVA welding inspectors / engineers (indivicual 2,
3, and 4) as to'how or. why a
record,.tnat was signed
. on 11-11-77, could 2-anotner document that was issued almost reference
.a month l a t er- (12-6-77).
Individual 2' s immediate resoonse was ' You guys don' t know (exoletive clarified this do ya'7"., Individual 2 deleted),
undbrstanding by explaining how the alleged lack of which by
,'t described above could happen, situation individual 2's own admission, was not an~ uncommon 1
individual Individual 3 and 4 concurred with event.
2' s '
explanation of program functions.
The 8
,p;g explanation is as follows:
p,:n.v a.
A welder would bring an- "Auth~orization for Welders Test" memorandum (Reference Attachment g.
to B of SNP Construction procedure W-E Rev 0)
~
~
This memo would i
the Welding Test Supervisor.
provide some details' identifying the welder authorized.
and identify which tests had been by the Craft Superintendent.
The Test Supervisor would then assign a test
- number,
,i
[
complete "the requirnd information in the log J
book and administer the test.
Once the test was completed, the Test Supervisor'would be j
responsible,for interpreting the mechanical results or accepting the NDE inspectors report If the test of the radiographic s.xamination.
found to be acceptable, the Test results.were the Super-visor would then complete and sign '
'j.
for Wdidars Test" memorandum
" Authorizationto.the welder. frhis document was i
and return it considered to be advance notice to the Construction Superintendent of the welder's qualification and capabilities.
The Test the required Supervisor would then "pe6cil-in" information on the Wp0R (including the date in bhe lower left hand corner of the form) and hand carry the WpOR to the Welding Engineering Supervi sor's (WES) secretary for typing.
(4 '
The WES would then review both documents (penelled-in and typed WpOR),
sign the typed WpOR and discard the
" penciled-in"
- copy, es!,p,.;,'.. W.
completing,the qualification., cycle. 3. -... ~g ;-r.;, '..,
.., g., 4
.,g,w,. y. p.-
..g s J.5, ;.,..,' s s,.g.
1.
(
(
I PAGE O UF 17 ERT INVESTIGATION.7EPORf i
- CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-iO1-OO6 DETAILG i
FINDINGS: tContinued)
~
I.
B.
2.
The conversations witn individuals 2, 3 & 4 raised ouentions as to the validity of the sueJect WPGR 3
and tne overall program.
a.
The entire process ( f t, om complet ion of the we l d er-testing until final sign-off of the WPOR) would allegedly take no rnore than one (1) week.
From the infortnation found in the subject WPQR.
it can only be concluded that this one (1) week process took place one (1) rnontn after the Helaer's otiginal qualification had expired or the information was added to.'the record after it was signed.
b.
Individuals 2 and 3 stated that the Welding number when Test Supervisor would issue a test the welder came in for aualification testina.
The test number- (taken in secuential_ order' e n-
- fNN, log book) identified the
- welder, the,
4 from a
test to be taken, the test booth number'ano -
s.
o,ther facts relative to the testing.
s numbers shown on WpOR's dated 5-11-77' The test (Test No. p179), 11-11-77 (Test No. 6665), and 11-29-77 (Test No.
5980)_ for incivioual 1 do not agree with these statements.
This in subst&ntiates the conclusions information
~
item a~above.
all records Individuals 2 & 3 have ' stated that (i.e.:
the. log books from the test
- shop, c.
Authorization for Welder Test
- toernos, actual with the test
- results, "pensiled-in" WPQRs) exception of the final ' WPOR, have been destroyed. These records, according to the TVA are not c'6nsidered QA records. The procedures, the st at ernent s of the.WPOR's or od accuracy rnade by individuals 2, 3 and 4, could not be
]
substantiated b'ased on the fact that there is no available objective evidence.
.w d.
Individual 2
stated that the date on the
" clearly" was the effective bottom of any WPQR the of the welder's qualification and not date date that the authorized welding engineer
(
.~.
signed the record.-
described by (Note:
The effective date as individual 2
is the date that the Test and-released Supervisor sporoved the welder
..w
~..
3.-
(
(
i e
PAGE o CF 17
'e ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 DETAILG
- (
,' FINDINGS: (Continued) 1.
B.
2.
d.
Continued Construction procedure W-2, Rev 0 required the
-WpOR to be reviewoo and stcred as a GA recota.
Division of Construction procedure CONST QAp 17.01 Rev 2, paragraph 6. 2. 4, states in part,
" Records
- shall, as a
- minimum, contain the following information to be classified as an acceptable record of work and/or inspection
+
performance:
D.
- Stamped, initialed, signed ot-otherwise.I
- 1..
authenticabea and dated by the t' e s p o n s i b 1'e inspector or data recotder upon completion and...."
Contrary to the requirement.in CONST GAP-17.01, WpOR dated 11-11-77 was not dated by 5h the welding engineer who signed it. Therefore,
. (h..h.
i the record was never properly completed.
e
~
e.
In an attempt to corrolate the welding s
engineer's deset1ption of the program with e
existing ptocedures, it was determined that procedure W-2 governs
" Welder and Welding Operator performance Qualification" at the Seouoyah facility. (Gee SNp Cp No.
W-2, Rev O l
Section 1,
purpose. which
- states, "This a.
procedure described the methods to be employed l
for testing and aualifying welders and welding operators at Seouoyah Nuclear plant").
The of engineers gave a more detailed descriptionW-2.
the progtam functions than did' procedure
- However, it was dqtermined that procedure DEC-gap.
2.09 also applied to the i
I
" Qualification of Welders and Welding
~~
- Operators" at the ',-Sequoyah facility (see DEC-GCp 2.09,
.Rev O,
CdVer page which
(
l states," Applies to:
All Nuclear. Plants Except which Drowns Ferry" 'and Section 1.0 pornose_
j
- states, "This-procedure assigns the responsibility and defines the sequence of l
(
actions to be accomplished in the qualification, certification and recertification of welders and welding
?*.
opetators.")
. i,
..T*--
.. 7 i..
%.,..,; 3 -.y,, -
v
..s-y.
,s g,,. sg ; g
(.>.
.e.
~
gy.
{
.-.[
i i
[
pAGE 10 OF 17 ERT INVESTIGATICN. REPORT 1
CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 i.
t DETAILS l_
FINDINGS: (Continued).
Continued II.
B.
2.
e.
procedure DEC-DAP 2.09.provides different.
requirements and responsibilities not only for set up the organizations responsible for test and
- approval, but also for the differenti review and routing cycles of the WPGR.
In that acdition, proceduru DEC-gap 2.09 reouires the. welders carry a
Welder-Performanco Qualification Curtification card.
?
from those-
-requirements are different These stated and fnom those identified in procedure These differences render'
-the W-2.
implementation of the Walder/ Welding Operators Qualification Program indeterminate.
.@e'b C.
All welding and weld qualifications were being done in process specifications under 8).
accordance with G-29. The-G-29 indicate that welding and welder qualification
..j be done in accordance with
- Section'IX of the g
should
- However, these i
ASME*Boilei'and Pressure Vessel Code.
t state which code year and' process specifications do E2 addenda of Section IX apply.
A
'TVA engineer (individual 5) in Knoxville was contacted for clarification and stated there was no particular code -
in effect..
It rolled - meaning that as year and addenda TVA Would incorporate f
~
the code addenda became mandat'ory, those requirements.
Nowhere in,the applicable G-29 orocess specifications is it stated what the ASME code incorporated. in and addenda are gr that they are l
year this fashion.
-s.
Without TVA knowing which code yeaia and addenda are under Section for qualification of welders t
l
'ap'plicable be answered:
following types of quest ~1ons cannot IX, the 4
1.
All WPOR's listed in Ath. 1 reference the use of filler metal with an'"F" No.
o f Z.
The 1974 ;and 1ater years and addendas of.Section IX do not*
recognize the "F" No. I designation.
i 2.
WPOR dated 5-11-77 indicates that the welder tested l
h,y.
and qualified, using 6" XX-STG Pipe, for a range of to max. WPQR dated 11-11-77 was issued based 3/16" 5-11-77.
the acceptance of the qualification on s..
However, the WPQR dated 11-11-77 indicates that the on I
range of then qualified to_ weld on a..
welder was
. g.
,g.
1/16" to 3/4".
' [..,
.,...,.,7 i-.
p = _r a. ;.
a=:
(.
('
+'
(
O e,
l pAGE 11 0F 17
$ERT-INVESTIGATION REPORT t
".*'lCONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-OO6 l
iDETAILS i.
j FINDINGS:
(Continunc)
I.-
C.
2.
Continued Deoending on the code year and addenda this may on-t
.may not be acceptable.
(Reference GW-351.in both-the 1974 and 1977 editions of Section IX which j
states in part:
"The limits 'of thickness for which t
will be qualified are dependent -upon the-hethickness of the weld he deposits with' each welding process,.in which the thickness shall be considered the j;,e_3_t_. coucon thickness _ as given in GW-452)."
In,
tnis case, the weld that was depositec on-5-11-77, for initial cualification would be considered the test coupon thicknesh.
D.
WpOR dated 9-29-78 incicatos the material specification f
as A-106 to A-106.
This is carbon steel material.
The.
WpOR also indicates P
No.
8 to P No.
8.
p No.
8
($YYll-designator is for steel alloy and austentic stainless f -+.
Nf
. steel material', not carbon steel.
E.
Welder Qualification List,. Sheets i of 2 and 2 of 2 for individual *1 list the following test numbers:
Qualified'Date'. Invalid Date 1
Test Number 4260g GTSM-7-5-0-3H 5-11-77 11-11-77 2'l-11-77 B-4-78 24301.
GT-7-0-3-L 24200- GT-7-0-1-6(A) 11329-77 8-4-78 42600' GTSM-7-5-0-3-H(A) 9-29'-78
'47-25-79 WpOR's dat ed 5-11-77, 11-11-77, ~ 11-29-77, and 9-29-78 list test numbers,5179,
- SG65, 5980, and 0287.
respectively.
s s.
The CY 'made reference to two (2) specific welds within the r
II.
With *the CI's descript ion of (WDS).
Waste Disposal System the help of. Watts Bar erfgineers familiar the welded area and with the
- WDS, the area in question was located on the applicable WDS drawings.
Ho' wever, there is no informabion l
available at SON pertaining to the weld numbers.
A review of in I
the drawings indicated that the particu1 Ar' welds would be I
a Class G line.
D review of the requirements for the installation of Class G
.v..
dp Waste Disposal lines led to the following j
l i _
~
~..v.
~;*
.i. 6
- ..r.... '.3
.: v.
....n :; ::. v :
.v
. na....
. i. '., *...
X.1 u
.s.
u. :- c a
r
l-U-
j
- g..
j pAGE l'2 OF 17 '
ERT' INVESTIGATION rep 0RT' CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-iO1-006
.. DETAILS FINDINGS:
'(Continued)
II.
Continued A.
Section 11. 2 " Liquid Wast e Syst erns" of the SGN Final
. Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) refers to Section 3.2 of the.FSAR "Clannification of Structures,.
Syst erns and Corn oonent s'?.
The review also identified SGN Construction Specification N2M-865.-
Tabien 3.2.2-1 and 3.2.2-2 of the FSAR Section
- 3. 2 d e s et-i o n the "Surarnary of Codes and Standards.for 1.
Cornoonent s of the Sequoyan Nuclear plant for-procurernent a prfor.to Apri1 2,
1973.and.after Both of April 2, 1973."
(See. At t achrnents 2 & 3).
these tables deal with the recuirernents for the orocurernent_ of ining and other cornponents.
2.
Table 3.2.2-3 (See At tachtnent
~4) deals with
@a>MN Non-Nuclear.
Safety Classifications, however*
footnote
(*)
to Table 3.2.2-3 states
" Code Jurisciction is applicable to ~ the field fabrication, assernbly, ex erninat ion, and testing of all piping systerns except the prirnary coolant i
-and the pressurizer surge line piping.
The loops is per-piping design for the'Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Power Piping Code...".
ANSI B31.1 - 1967 Specificafion NEM-865.Section
- 5. O, t' 5 Construction lists different requirernents for field installation
~
3.
~
(See Attachtnant 5).
of piping and duct syst erns... clearly states "The Section
- 5. O of-N2M-865 following codes.- and standards.
nevern the installation and erection of'TVA pipe and duct Requirernents 'for-TVA Class A, B, C&D sys t erns. ".
under this construction specification are different than those cordinitted to iri Section 3.2 of the FSAR.
~ ~
- I B31.1 - 67 for the renewal of The requirernents of ANSI perfortnance qualificabions of welders are rnote stringent D.
than those listed in Genebal Construction Specification G-29M.
1.
ANSI B31.1-1967 paragraph 127.5.6 mtates Perfortnance Requalification is required Renewal of perfor: nance qualification under either of the following conditions:
J*8 ;s.
',-e e
-):.... m $-%)'E! '88 >
- ___..,.:.....,.w 9 f.
+
- u.... ;.
J.l.. T c
c I
_. e pAGE 13 GF 17 ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT' CONCERN NUMBER XX-65-101-006
- I a
DETAILS Y
- ~
FINCINGS:
(Continued)
II.
B.
1.
Continued (1)
A welder has not used the specific within the essential variables given process ASME Boiler.and pressure Vessel in Section IX, nonferrous or
- Code, to weld either ferrous pressure piping materials for a
period. of three inonths, or to is reason to question his ability (2)
If there 1
make welds that rnwet
,the perfortnance qualification requirements.
(1) need of qualifiebtion under condition thickness and Renewal made in only a single pipe. wall production be may be rnade by either a test weld or a acceptable-weld checked on the basis-of radiography.
,w, process.
f'I.*bf.k Construction Specification G-29M, 2.
General Specifica, tion 1.M.2.2(a), paragraph 4.1, statess.
42,
'Renewh1 of Qualification t
4.1 Renewal of qualification of. a performance the following best shall be required under conditions:
has Where the welde'r or welding operator not used the welding process (manual (a) shielded metal m'r e, gas tungsten _are, l
etc.)
,to weld either ferrous or!
materials for a
period of nonferrous except when three months ter rno: e, on soms other welding
- process, employed the period may be extended to six rnonths,
~~
- 2 When there is specidic reasons to or question the welder or welding operator's (b) meet. the
' ability tb produce welds that specificat ion requirernents.
(a) need be itenewal of qualification under only a single test Joint (plate or 7
roade in or material pipe) on any. thickness, position, to reestablish the we lder' s or welding (y.,
operat or' s qualification for any thickness, l
material for which he was
- position, or previously qualified.
. w...... u........ ;
,y t
....%.,.'....,a... n....:.:..-c.:..... a....,,..n..,
. c.
- D
...a 9
+
m *'%
3.
4
[}F k,_ ?
7
.,j h,,,
PAGE 14 CF 17 ERT11NVESTIGATION REPORT
~
1 CONCERN NUMDER XX-85-101-006 q
. DETAILS i
FINDINGS:
(Continued)
~
II.
The areas noted as conflicting are:
4 1.
-ANS1 931.1-67 recuires a welder who*has not welded in m.
specific process for' 3 months to,have a
renewal of aualification.
G-23 allows a welder who the welding. process for a period of. 3 has not used except when employed on some other months or more,-
to have.the requalification period welding process, extenced to 6
months before renewal o f.
l qualification.
i 2.
ANSI B31.1-67 states
" renewal of be made in only a
single qualification...need made by either a
thickness and may be pipe wall test weld or a production weld checked on the basis of acceptable radiography.
G-29 allows for the renewal of qualification, to be made in only a
. d p@g single test Joint (plate or pipe) and G-29 does not 4
define by what means_this particular weld h
would be checked (i.e.:
radiography or mechanical further
' 'Nu l
s tests).
information, TVA' s renew'al - of' reviewing the above meet I
After performance qualification program does not Table 3.2.2-3, welaer
.l the.recuirements of the FSAR Section 3.2,the commitments under the 8
Footnote (*)
and additionally,
- design, field fabrication,
- assembly, FSAR-for the been and besting of pi' ping systems have not f.
examination, met in that existing constructio,n specifications have i
l modified the requirements.
issued to process welding qualificablons
- Also, the dual with on 5-11-77 and 99g9-78 do not comply individual 1
the requirements of ANSI B31.1-67 for renewal of
'pei'formance qualificabions.
I identifying. all During the evaluation of a computer printout 1 and applicable weld history 111.
by individual welds performedfollowing questiohable items were noted:
}
records, the indicates 'that individual 1
p printout A.
The computer When the weld history records for weld performed weld A. there was no evidence indicating that A were reviewed, weld A was performed by individual 'i.
The weld history t
record indicates the compleblon of weld A
{
two-and-one-half years prior to individual l' s i
s,,
employment with TVA.
' i.
f,I ', l,7,.% '..'.." }. '..,*', ;,.~, *]L" [, '. f,
',,f, *,*~ ; Ji.,.. : ;.,
... "* 4
't.
"
- p '. s - -
c.,
~
- h 5,i 9 'T ^
/
O' N
f
(
c i
(
^-
PAGE 15~O#-17 F
'ERTJINVESTIGATION rep 0RT JI CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-10 -006 I
1 DETAILS f
FINDINGS (Continued)
III.~(Continued)
![.
B.
The Weld Qualification List indicates that individual 1-
[
welded during.
. Weeks ending.12-7-77 and 2-8-78.
the f
There is'no indication on the Weld Qualification -List that individual'l welded between the two dates.
This j
L can be _ verified by individual l's medical records.
I According to'the medical records, individual was held off-of. work for over 30 days because of-an injury.
I Howeve,,
weld B and C operation checklists and weld history. cards indicate that welds were made prior to F
week beninning 1-27-78,'. indicating that individual 1
l' welded and this informatibn.was.not properly documentedL b
on the Welder Qualification List.
t
+
i
- i?!y. CONCLUSION
-r N:;<-This concern is substantiated.
I This conclusion is based on the following deficiencies:
'.}'
1.
Qualification records for individual i have not been reviewed in accordance with SNP Construction Procedure P-8.
1
- 2..
WpOR dated 11-11-77 contain's a statement that a)'was added after the record was's,igned, or; b) imolles the record was back-dated to maintain the ' welders cualifications.
3.
WpOR dated 11-11-77 and the. rest of the qualification records for individual 1,
contain information that could not be I,
substantiated as accurate or corredt based on the fact that i
F all supporting evidence has been destroyed.
4.
TVA has not been able to identify tt.a particular ASME j
Section IX code year and addenda used to qualify
- welders, therefore the welder qualifica, tion program is indeterminate.
ll 1L t
5.*
FSAR Section 3.2 defines commitments for the
- design, field li fabrication,
- assembly, examination and* Westing of piping.
'l These commi'tments have been modified by site construction
- ./.
specifications.
Therefore, the commitments for the SQN l (tu r facility are indeterminate.
iU G.
Information (examples computer reports; weld history
,i (I
records / cards) pertaining to the documenting of individual
'1' s welding activities is inaccurate,.therefore making, the..
... y. c.a_.-ja ;p c..g:
.r.g ik..<i,,.,. et fl,jf.
. records indeterminate. i.:e.:
t
- e. '.i
- g n
. 2
/-
l?
7...
i PAGE 16 DF-17
'ERT INVESTIGATION rep 0RT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-10 -006 i
,i
~ DETAILS OBSERVATIONS:
i" Listed below are observations noted during the course of the I
investigation.
procedure P-8 Rev 14 deletes the requirement 1.
SNP Construction for the Quality Control Records Unit (GCRU) personnel to 4
initial and date their review of the general construction GA records.
This is a
change from previous revisions of to initial and-p-8 whien required GCRU personnel date their review..
General construction records reviewed by procecure i
the issuance of.p-8 Rev 14 are tnerefore, the OCRU after to their revi,ew status.
ihaeterminate as following TVA forms within the Personal. History Record 2.
The (PHR) for individual 1 indicann1the wrong social security numberE(___ __ __30) - the'0 should be a 73.
- P.\\ I a)
TVA form TVA9880 dated 5-6-77 (Employee Status.and O
l ' 'h.
Information Record b)
TVA form TVA9880A dated 5-6-77 (Appointment Affidavit l,
and Conditions) c)
TVA ' form "TVA10539. dated 5-11-77 (Welding performance Qualification Record) d)
TVA form TVA9680 dated 5-26-77 e)
TVA form TVA35 dated 12-14-77 (two reports)
(Medical Evaluation For Return'To' Work)
/
L f)
TVA form TVA35 dated 12-27-77
~
g)
TVA form TVA95 dated 12-30-77 b)
TVA form TVA1444 dated 1-17-70 1)
TVA form TVA95 dated 1-19-78 J
I J)
TVA form TVA95 dated 2:14-79 h)
TVA form TVA35 dated 2-16-79 1)
TVA form TVA95 dated 2-21-79 1
m)
TVA form TVA95' dated 2-26-79 n)
TVA form TVA95 dated 3-1-79 to the Appointment Affidavit and donditions Report (TVA form TVA9880A),
dated 11-1-79, found in the pHR of 3.
According p
individual 1,
he was to begi~n work at Bellefonte Nuclear His appointment to 11-6-79 as a steamfitter/ welder..
According Project DNp was contingent upon passing a TVA welding test.
to the Welding Test Authorization, dated 10-31-79, Individual 1 failed to qualify.
Although not qualified as a
to BNP as a
W*
- welder, individual 1 still received appointment h *3.
c.
(This per TVA form TVA9800 dated steamfitter/ welder.
all records SON personnel department stated thatl's work activities at s-.
i l
11-06-79.)
(field files) pertaining to individualinformation does,not appear...in,
were destroyed; "If the
..t 102;:~ 1 % Vs then his records are gone. ">.,inf : ~9J -
.' t,."., ;.g..,g,g,.
DNp v. ". y., :
his PHR,
,.r.
...g.......
l-f' s-
,f
. (
j
(
[
t, '
lj-PAGE 17 OF 17
- j ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 5
-i DETAILS l'
^
. t, OBSERVATIONS:
(Continued) t 3.
Continued The only infortnation relating to individual l's work activities at Bellefonte, is' contained in TVA fort.:
TVA77 j
(Personnel Action
- Hourly TL) dated'4-21-BO which states
.under ~ supervisors evaluation of service,
" welding on NB piping in reactor building #1."
5
,r s
.. i 1
i I 1~'i.55ts:
'^
f.
ii ~..
t P,
j
.J!..
.tt
~
i if i
ii l.
s
~!1 g*
_ _ _'_E_O_'b 2
b PREPARED BY:___'
W1 ' _O DATE f
rw
_ __df<-(_____2/_7[/_[M REVIEWED BY:
DATE i -
W/
f et
'f I
~ ~,
/.
A hhh"
-<..,a
.. 5 t... c...
. - r-v 1
L-
1 t
- 2. m..n.e,.... a.... $.. e s....,... ;....
.,,...,s.gi. :ik
=4,.. :,3,,...,.........,..... e.%.. v,., * : 4.
r,.;.... se.w
. i.
w,
\\
e 8
\\
r g
i (*
]
t
/
(
ATTACHMENT 1
.e:
5 1.
foi, individual y
-i in the qualification film i
.1-j found of doeurnents
.Lict Besscg_.7_1_ lg.
tion' Record t
i lleLc.g.cd_.p_atL!!;.
Welding Perfortnance Qualif ca tion Record Welding Perforraance Qualifica 5-11-77 tion Record i
l11-11-77 Welding Perforreance Qualifica Welder j
of Rirvocation
[11-29-77 Subject Mernorandura Wa ldei-l 12-6-77 Qualification Revocation of
- Subjectr, Mernorandura
- 8-8-78 QuaiifIcation tion Record Welding Perforr[iance Qualifica of Welder
- Revocation 9-29-78
Subject:
Meroorandura -
B-G-79 Qualification T
t i of 2 Welder Qualification List Shee t 2 of 2
- 4r,k.,, 5 5-78 l Welder Qualification List Shee D $ 9 9-79 4
s s
(
t 5
i i
t i
i e
- J T
I s
1li i
1
. p y.,..
...'~h'4~<
,.... :.. 1 '...:w.....,. r :
1*
- Q, '* "t., 'l-I !i,..
Y,g. 5 5 m p 8'
I il i
'. ~.
6'.-
if Sw -
.y I;.
. i.
O'!
- Y, 1 9
. E.
,i
- i..u v.
~7
(
a
,q.
y
- 0...
.. I i
. '4i
. Table 3.2.2-1/
T
~
h-5 l
l s
g i,
. SIRt!!ARY OF CODES AND STANDARDS TCR COMPONENTS OF TtIE S y
FOR PROCURE!!ENTS PRIOR TO APRIL 2,19M i
I Code C1sssifiestions_
d.*
il Crono D Grouo 3 p
O Group C f.
2
}'
ASME Boiler and Pressure Croun A I
Component ASi!E Boiler and Pres-Vessel Code, Seeting_,V,III,
' ASilE Boiler and Pres-sure Vessel Code, Sec-Division 1 or Equivalent
- l I
ASME Boiler and Pres-sure Code,Section III, tion VIII, Division 1
. Pressure Vessels sure Vessel Code, Sec-tion III, Class A.
- Class C,'1963 Edition 1968 Edition l
N ASHE Boiler and Pressure ASitE' Boiler and Pres-Vessel Code,Section VIII.
ASME Boiler and Pres-sure Vessel Code, Sec-
~
0-15 Psig sure Vessel Code, Sec-Division 1 tion III, Class C, 1968 tion VIII, Division L.
Storage
~
g
=
Tanks Edition I
API-650, AWA D'100 or l1*
i
. Storage Tank Codesl Storage Tank Codes
"~
ANSI B9%.1-IPI-650,AINAD100,or At:nospheric APl-650, AWA D100 or AUSI B96.1 Storage,,. -
. ANSI B 96.1 Tanks 3
ANSI B31.1.0*s
- L ANSI B31.1.04 l
ANSI B31.1.0 Piping ANSI.B31,.l.0*
Draf t ASHE Code for Pumps
~.,,.
Deaf t ASHE Code for Valves class'III or 9
Draft ASilE Code for
~ ;' '
DrafC ASi!E Code for Pumps and Valves Pumps Pumps and Valves
~.
Equivalent Pumps and Valves Class III 7
Class II t
i Class I HSS-SP-66, ANSI B16.5 HSS-SP-66. ANSI B16.5 j
' HSS-SP-66, ANSI B16'.'5' HSS'-SP-66, ANSI B16.5 and Draf t ASHE Code g
g
~
Valves and Draft ASHE Code for Pumps and Valves-l and Draft ASitE Code for. Pumps and Valves - for Pumps and Valves Class III class II
. Class I U
AkiSI331.7 Inspection and test requirements oept the primary cool x
- The piping has been designed to ANSI B31.1.0 code requirements.have been u i
loops and the pres,surizer surge line. piping. ',
a.
4 t
.3, i.
i g*
,.I j-g.
e
. ? *= k t.r.,.,,,,z C' v-v..,,,,,'* * ~ 1.2._.._, Y % s 9. g Y',
~ 5.i.4h.,. ;..,..,
, ~ -,~;,',
ptgs /cl~l
~~.'
W)'
i
.l A ch'M l
.t
/,
)(K-BPtot- 00 6 C 5::P
.m/
Table 3.2.2-2
- e o ARDS FOR COMPoliE*!TS
'~
ER SUtetAPJ OT CODES AtID STAllDPLAllT FOR PROC
,.s OF Tite SEOUOYAH tlUCLEAR APRIL 2, 19734 Code Classification Vessels Valves Pumos
- ASFE Code, Scismic Pipine ASIE Code, Sec. III, TVA Catenorv,,
AS!E Code, Sec, III, Class 1.
Snfety Claus Class
/,15 ::-18.2 ASHE Code, Sec. III, A
Sec. III, C.l.a.ss 1 C. lass 1-AS!E Code, I
1 Class.1 ASfE Code, Sec. III, ASME Code, Sec. III, Class 2 ASlE Code.
See, III, class 2 I
B Sec. III, Class 2 ASME Code, 2a Class 2 ASIE Code, Sec. III, ASME Code, See, III, Class 3 AStE Code, Sec. III, Class 3 I
C Soc. III, Class 3 AStE Code, 2b Class 3 ASIE Code, Sec. III, StE Code, Sec. III, Class 3 AS!E Code, Sec. III, Class 3 D
Sec. III, Class.3 ASIE Code,'
I 3
Class 3 A11SI B31.1, Sec. VIII,.
Hanufac-B16.5, or Div. 1 A!!SI, B31.1 turers
.HSS-SP-66 I
C Standards A!!SI 331.1,
,.c:p'..
A11SI B31.1 B16.5, or MSS-SP-66 H
%W
~
i s
J I
April 2,1973.i ements.
K L.....
f code reqtiirements prior toeting ANSI B31.7.requ IEHA, API',
ble 3.2.2-1 for listing oASIE Code,Section III as me code or standard (i.e.,be installed in Seism
- Refer to tab 31 Code case 115 accepts, safety-specific h t reflects its Vh classes C and K'is toof a design quality shall determine the
- Design ent; nflote that equipment. in Tand should be i eers t
cte.).
Cutenory I structures j
related aspects.
d...h'.
- tea, sP e
e
- y
.f,',
)..~-..,.;,,,.;,,,,,.
- ;.. s f., "..
.;. q..
~..r.
t-
~** u W.. )*~-
'~- ~~
~'
-~'-"N_
1 i 1.....
1.t'
,f* 4 7'1"*-
3 :.
. &,ch*.XX 854cv coa.(~
/
SNP e
a-3q.
Table 3.2.2-3 S,
!!n -!NCLEAR SAFETY CLASSIFICAT10:15_
t M
'I-
.J
}
Design foi Code I
?
Felsmie Loadinz
, 7..,,,
f TVA
,Ju ris d ic t !'o'nt Class
,. [
- 5
.1ininu Svstems_
t and Draf t ASHE -
po l-Class II, Al;SI B31.7 (19697 E
Puep and Valve Code for Nuclear Power (1968)
Class III. ANSI B31.7 (1969) and.Draf t ASHE go F
Pu=p and Valve Code.Joc Nuclear.fouer (1968)-
Note 1
..I ANSI B31.1.0 (1967)
,f C
Note 1 A::SI B31.1.0 (1967) 11 No Section 1. A511E Boiler and Pressure t
l J
I Vessel Code Note 1 I
N Unclassified Hate 1 Unclassified
..1 L
l*
Yes i
ANSI B31.5 (1966)
G'Wl.
No 1
ANSI B31.5 (1966)
~
U' 3 H
tJ'.h Steel, Spiral or Longitu-Yes Round Duct, j,
J I
Q dinal Welded Seam, AST!! A 211 and g
SMAC:!A Hiah Velocity Duct Construction _
, (
Standards, Second Edition, 1969, Erected to SQN-DC-V-13.8.
Ho Steel, Spiral or Longitu-Round Duct, J
dinal Locked or Welded Sean,_SttACNA R
l
.. _.. Hirh Velocity Doce Construction _ Stand '.."....l._...
.. s.
ards, Second Edition,.1969.
(Sheet tietal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Assoc.)
t Yes for Velocities Over Rectangular Duct, 2000 fpra or Static Pressures Trop 2-to 5
10-Inch Water Cauge, S?!ACNA Hieh Veloe-.
Duct Construction Standards _, Second t
l ll I t.-
Edition, 1969, Erected to SQN-DC-V,-13.8.
t g
!!o for Yelocities Over Rectangular Doct, T
2000 fpo or Static Pressures from 2-to 10-Inch Water Cauge. S?tACNA Hith Veloe-Construction Standards, Second
-tv Doct i
Edition, 1969.
,j l
I.I
.(
...J I
t 2
=
P i. '.,, '1
' a (:..,: '," -.6,
.e.
E-e ' * */ -
-L
bW%fAlT* b D* *
- b C,
E/-8f- /d/. ccg, j SNP k
.. j.
n Isble 3.2.2-3 (Continued)
- s
. '0!:-XCCLEAR SATETY C1.A551FICATIONS
)
Design for Code..
Jurisdiction
- 5eitmie 1.cadint
- 2 ~ ~,
~
Class "..--
Ptnine Svstens_
ll Rec angular Duct, for Static Pressures
- Yes, Le * :. 2-inch Water Cauge. 5"aC fA 1.ou_
Velocity Duct Construction Standards, Fourth Idition', 1969, Erected to SQ::-DC~'.*- 13
- 8 V
Rectangular Duct, for Static Pressures No Belou 2-inch Water Cauge, SMACHA 1.ov.
Valecity Dect Construction Standards, Tourth Edition, 1969.
- Code jurisdiction is applicable to the field f abrication, assembly, examina-and testing of all piping systems except the primary coolanc loops and The piping design for,the Sequoyah Nuclear tion.
the pressurizer surge line piping.
Plant is per ANSI B31.1.0-1967 Fower Piping Code "and ANSI B31.5-1966 Re-f rigeration Piping Code."
i
. Note 1 All non-nuclear safety piping systems located inside seism c category I structures are seismically supported as necessary l,.
to prevent unacceptable interactions stith safety,-related structures, systecs, or components.
)
.k.e -
g s
=
~
- s. :.:
- ~,.
=;
..g
, :....~
g
- - 7..
J
- z... r. :
)
e m.
g W8
^
g t
- f, ~ )* '*.
l N
9
~
...,, [**'
.l.' I b.jl}.
..*.[...
- f. 5, 9
,.[g. ",
,. [;.,'**"E,**
g o.,
- . ~. -
, (hycg2M XX-8P/o/-od6 f*fe ms s,
..'.., - - Yg
(
[
e
.e TIELD FABRICATI0tl, AS E!!BLY EXAMIllATI0li, Al*D TESTS FOR PIPE All DUCT SYSTEMS
!!211-865
.r.
- 1
~
4.5.2 G-37
" Testing and Balancing of lleating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems."
4.6 TVA Design criteria 4.6.1 SQti-DC-V-3.0
" General Design Criteria for the Classification of Piping, Pumps, Valves, and Vessels."
~
4.6.2 SQti-DC-V-3.2
" General Design Criteria for the Classification of IIcating, Ventilating, and Air Conditions Systems."
.4. 7
, AST!! A211 - Specification for Special Welded Steel or Iron Pipe 5.0 REOUIREMEllTS FOR FIELD IIISTALLATIO!! 0F PIPE A!!D DUCT SYSTEMS The requirements pertaining to installation, testing, inspection, stamping, and certification shall be in accordance with the rules
. applicable to the TVA classification and type of component involved.
Paragraph 3.12 defines the bounddry of jurisdiction. When joining piping and components of different classifications or components.which have been manufactured under different code editions and addenda, the more restrictive requirements shall govern.
G<
~,...b., l.
' !,,. v e The following codes and standards govern the installation and erection
. '{,
of TVA pipe and duct systems. In some cases design drawings and l.
specifications may contain additional requirements applicable to a specific component or system.
e
(..
i.
.l.
(e.'.\\
(;t..:. l.
s..
.... p
. r.. ;.r.,.: +-
a.-.< 2;a.a 4 +...,
. l y_n.t.g n.s.lu t u.s. n w -
..~
.i.
ly,-a.
20MC&W Xg.BS. tot..4 y
p S-yp.
(
.p s
.{
. FIELD FABRICATION, ASSEllBL EXAMINATION, N211-865
/'
AND TESTS FOR FIPE AND DUC SYSTEMS
- [r f
- ',
(
1,~
l-Design for
['
TVA Seismic Class Loadine Applicable Codes and Standards i
l
~ A Yes 1.
ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addenda, class IA j'
-l B
Yes 2.
ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addendai Class,II*
i C/L***
Yes 3.
ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addenda, Class III*
i 4
G Yes 4.
ANSI B31.1.0 (1967) issued July 26, 1967.
.{
N No 5.
ANSI B31.1.0 (1967), issued July 26,'1967, with NDE I
of butt velds per ANSI B31.1.0C,1972.**
.J No 6.
ASHE Boile'r and Pressure Vessel Code,Section I, 1968 Edition' through Winter 1969 Addenda, inclusive.
1[/L Yes/tlo 7.
Unclassified, to be specified on applicable drawings.
H/N Yes/No
.8.
ANSI B31.5 (1967), 1968 Addenda.
- l
-Q Yes 9.
Round Duct / Steel, Spiral, or Longitudinal Welded Seam, ASDi A 211, SHACNA High Velocity Duct Construction Standards, Second Edition, 1969, and ANSI B31.1.0 (1967).
R Ho 10.
Round Duct, Steel, !,i.ral, or Longitudinal Locked or Welded Seam, SHACNA High Velocity Duct Construction Standards, Second Edition,1969, and ANSL B31.1.0
.h
.n
- (sh;\\
SMACitA Righ Velocity Duct Construction Standards, (1967).
S/T Yes/No 11.
s Second Edition, 1969.
U/V Yes/No
- 12. S!!ACNA Low Velocity Duet ConstructioE Standards, 1
Fourth Edition, 1969.
}
- U-Ceneral Construction Soecification."G-29" containe process specifications which define and shal.1 be used to meet tha.TVA requirements for f abri--
5-cation in accordance with the ASHE, AWS, ANSI, or other.. codes or standards referenced therein.
"G--37" shall be used for testing and
)
balancing heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems.
1 All welding used in construction of.TVA classes Q, R, S, T, U, and V shall be in accordance with C29H or G29C procedures.
j s.
(
f.
B31 Case 115-December 1973 - Acce' pts Rules of Section III of AS!!E Boiler and Pressure Vessel code as complying with the requirements of B31.7 - 1969 and l
applicable addenda for the respective class of constructioni. Use of portions z
of later edition and addenda of any code or standard listed in section 5.0 I.
- or of portions of ASME Section III inust be approved by the Nuclear Standards and Haterials Section of DED-HEB. Approvals shall be issued as addenda to.
- this specification.
~
j
- Refer to memorandum R. H. Dunham to G. G. Stack dated February 23, 1973, Contract 69C60-64422.
4
.r..
I t *. e i (
+
i lL4hnvAmawmuut u-c.m h.1.
~
q
..a.
. m
........u
\\
j
\\
)+: ' 'l=
(~
I
(,
^^
r., '
m.1%. 7_
J s '.: * * *. : s. - n REQUE FOR REpORTABILITY EVALUAT1DN
/
XX-85-101-006' 1.
Request No.
.ERT Concern No.)
(ID No.,
if reported)
(
)
~
2.
Identification of Item Involved:
Model, etc.)
3.
Description of problem (Attach related documents,
- photos, sketches,etc.)
Welder quali fication_. records,have not _be_e_nJ_omp_1_e.13 tJnie.gd_aud..MEtDyYEd ___-
e d
_in accordance wi th app _ roved,5,QN_p, roc _e ures. Ov_erall welder _.gyali f f.gg.t Lqp _ ___
d
~
8 records are indeterminate.
- 4., Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental ahmets'if necessary) i
.. i.s...3.-
constructio6 ' deficiency /- were it to have A.
This design or uncorrected, could have affected-adversely the safety remained of operations of the nuclear power plant t any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant..
n
{MM.
No _X Yes
__ If Yes, E:4 plains _
~. -
- r. s.,
^
e
AND a sinnificant. breakdown in any B.
This deficiency represents portion of the quality assurance program conducted
- in t**
accordance with the requirements of Appendix,B.-
Violation of Criterion IX No
'Yes X
If,Yes, Explain -
j in final
~
deficiency' represents a pianificant deficiency C.
- This as approved and released for construction such that
- the, design conform to the critteria bases stated - in. the ',
3 design does not i
safety analysis report or construction permit.
- l t
l l
No _)L__ Yes __
If Yes, Explains _ ___._ _____________________
m
-- _ _ =.=
--.-=
1 7
f
~~~
(, *.
ERT Form M f
. j...
.;., (
..f..,..
w..,3,
..g I
c
.g
~.-
... ~ -
j i-e s we e f-
/.
(
\\
is i
c
~
'3 REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION i
. >r dre f ic: eSecy re pre'.se n t s a
significant deficiency in-U.
Thas conutruction of bv-significant d e ress e o t o a st ruc-t ure, m yrsti er.: e c or.ioe.ne n t wtsich.will reautre extennive eva l um e.J on.
extensave anc. ha ss en or extensive repeir tr.F riti 2% ' the criteric
' r e rs e s i g n,
stated in the safety analysis re' cort or conste-e.tet t ore. ctme m s t si-establish the adfiJu.ecy of tne s t ruct.u re, sy s t ern, to othor m se or coriponent ' to pert forrei 1,t s intended safety function.
No __X _ Yes.
If Yes, Exp1 min:
t Un r.epresents a gL._4n.lf garg deviation from than i
i E.
This deficiency j
performance specifications'. which will require extensive evaluation, extensive
- redesign, or extensive repair to I
establish the, adequacy of the structure,
- system, or component 1
to perform its intsnded safety function.
- X Yes _
..I f Yris, Explains-No
('?.Y}; O 4.; -
i PND 4B DR 4C QB.4D QR 4E ARE MARKED, "YES"i J.M1.t}EDI ATELY.
IF ITEM An, HAND-CARRY THIS REDUEST AND SUPPORTING UCUM NTATION TO NSRS.
.a
.,p/p 0
V' 3ddk3.3.
This Condition was Identified by:,.*_ @ipt ERT Iftve'stigator phone Ext.
t
...t
\\ ;.)*
---..__QW--. 4-
-_,. /_,.___--_c.4t W '
']rd S.
/
Phor e Ext EHT project Manager 1
1
~
1 S.
Acknowtudgmen of receipt by NSRS s
i
/
1
/
Time;~.fb.
Date,h.
1 '_
V,.
~
Signed i.
~.,
ERT Form M j i L s
.i..
/.
s e
(
c l.
v'i
-J I p,
,.. \\ I 3.ua
.J
..i
~
+
e.
REDUEST FOR REPORTAB'ILITY EVALUATION 1.
Req ues t' ' No.
-XX-85-101-006 TERT Conc.:ern No.3 (ID No.,
if reported)
N 2.
Identification of Item Involved:
(Nomenclature, system, manuf.,SN, Model, etc.)
3.
Description of Problem (Attach related documents,
- photos, s ke t ch e'e a, e t c. )
Construction Specification (il2H-865) contradicts requirements listed in the
~.--.
Final Safety Analy tion 3.2
--. - --- sb Re po r t, Se c 4.
Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental sheets if' necessary)'
l E
..., ie..
..f-.-
construction'.. de fi ci ency,'-
were.it to have
'P.
This. design or remained unco rected, could have affected adversely the safety at any' time throughout 3
of operations of the nuclear power plant the expected lifetime of the plant.,
same establish the adecuacy of tne structure, sy s t eten, i
er component to pertform its intended safety functfor.
If es, Explains Y
No X
Yes ____
s t
W1 E.
This deficiency represents a sinnificant deviation from the.
performance specifications,which will require extensive-evaluation, extensive rede' sign, or extensive repair to.
establish the adequacy of the structure,
- system, or component to perform its intended safety function.
No X
Yes _
If Yes, Explains-j
.,l ' h5$h '
,3 1
e I
_____(
l r
l s
IF ITEM 4A,
-ANU 4B DR AC Q3 AD QR 4 MARKED "YES",
JMMEDIATELY_
HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORTING DOCUME IDN TO NSRS.
b__._
W M _h_S.d I h.
This Condition was Identified by: __ERT Inv s,tlgator Phone Ext.
I',
...u
....s.
-i 2
,,~
acj '-
33
(
+
ERT Project Manager
. Phone Ext.
, j_
I !
b*
Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS 1..
j
,,, (
L
_ ______1__g _
A nat
.A. 6 g
i
. Time 1
Signed /
8 A
(..
ERT Forni M e
,qf i
--- 1
j i
j Attcchmmt 2 Fegs 1 of 1
?,,
r i
(EMPLOYEE CONCERNS)
}
,I
'l0/16./86 1
CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY 09G QTC EGG INSP SD RD GD lO;------CONCERN-------
' 'i
'1 3 : 0 1 : 01 SR jXX-85-lol-006 S
1 QUALIFICATION CRAFTSMAN SPECIFIC
(
PROBs WCPOW
[(..,
WORDS:
t II SEQUOYAH:
A WELDER PERFORMED WELOS WITl10UT ilAVING THE PROPER CERTI fi DETAILS MNOW TO OTC, W I T illl E L D DUE TO CONFIDENTIALITY.
CON 8TRUCTION DEPT
'i CONCERN.
Cl HAS No FURTilER INFORMATION.
ll IR: XX-85-101-006 STAT:
RC:
.?
4 D.
TECilNICAL COMMENTARY:
l t
' i
.(
h i.
4
- i'E
.c i:
l-l-
i i
g i.
E i.
(W.s.;.i.R I '.w
~
i-I t
l L
t l
l' l
('
.D, L
i I
i
... ~.
s.
.i.......
. y. ;,;.. ;.....,.
-o
Attaciment 3 N
.PROGRAN SUMMARIZATION OF WELD PROJECT (WP) EVALUATIO This package summarizes the actions taken by the Wolding' Project (WP) to evaluate and disposition the subject SQN-specific employee concern which was previously evaluated by NSRS/QIC/ERT and summarized in WP Phase I and Phase reports.
The Welding Project analyzed each 69N-specirle employee concern to determine the statement (s) being voiced by. these individuals.
lhese :tatements were then evaluated both Individually and collectively to
' develop issues.
Each issue was then Incorporated into the WP review activities of Phase I,
" Procedural Assessment" and Phase II, " Procedural Implementation."
During Phase I, each issue was' analyzed egainst requirements of the applicable policies, NSRS/QIC/ERT Investigation Reports, and other relevant Information to determine if program elements were deficient when evaluated QA program, against upper-tier requirements, Phase II consisted of a sample reinspection of hardware and. independent.
i progr;am. audit by Hechtel.
In each area analyzed by Bechtel, the auditors found no objective evidence to substantiate the employee concerns' considered. The following areas directly related to employee concerns were Investigated by the audit teamt 3
Walder qualification and attendant records 1.
lWolder quallrication and attendant on-the-job-training 2,
i 3.
Welding inspections 4.
Welding inspectors training programs t
l 5.
Wald material traceability i
Welding inspections by craft personnel 6.
7.
Wald material control
~
Each.or these areas was investigated by the auditors for both construction and In s!! cases, there was no objective evidence to The audit report concludes that both operations phases.
substantiate the employee concerns.
construction and operations phases have had'and now have a functioning Welding Quality Assurance Program which meets cede, standard, and unsubstantiated and without technical merit.
r I
3157T Page 1 of 2 I
..a-
The results of the rainspection program ab SQN also give another, additional verification of the Welding quality Assurance Program for both construction and operations phases and serve to establish additional confidence in the accuracy and implementation of these programs through hardware inspections and,
attendant document reviews.
In all cases, the components and items wore found to be acenptable upon initial reinspection or found to be acceptable af ter engineering analysis.
The Wp analysis of SQN-Specific Employeo Concerne supplemented by the Independant Dechtel nudit, reinspection of installed components arm systam,,
and independant (NSRS) overview and investigations has not revealed any significant or ganarle inadequacles in the welding programs for either the construction or operations phase at SgN which have been directly identified through the Employne Concern Program. The Employee Concern Program has simply reiterated problems which Imve been or are now being resolved through existing corrective action programs in the overall Nuclear quality Assurance Program.
A summary analysis of the Wp avaluations and regommendations is included in Attachmont.
e 9
9 e
0 9
g s
SS e
4 e
9 0
9 9
4 O
e
- e e
e e
e I
l 9
l Page 2 ui' 2 S
-t A
f:
' E
.Page 2-of 3 i
4 1
E5PLOYEE WP ACTION ISSUE CONCERN NUMBER SQM-6-005-001 was Craft. Welder Incapable of substantiated:-SQM-6-005-102~
SQM-6-005-001 SQM-6-005-X02 Making Proper Welds was not substantiated by NSRS Report I-86-115-SQN (Attach-ment 3).
WP concurs with report.
E309 Electrode Used to Weld.
This is an acceptable practice. ERI investigated XX-85-013-001 E316 Steels in ERI Report XX-85-013-001, dated 3/22/85 (Attachment 3).
WP concurs.
Not substantistsd by NSRS, Improper Weld Rod Used in Diesel. Generator Building Report I-85-756-SQN XX-85-041-001 (Attachment 3).
' {$?k$it Welder Certifications substantiated as it relates XX-85-049-001 was XX-85-049-001
. j,,
XX-85-049-103 Updated Without Meeting to Welder Continuity Require-s Requirements This had previously ments.
been identified by No in an audit. 11-85-049-103 was not sub'stantiated. Details and
~
recommendations are given in NSRS Report I-85-135-SQN (Attachment 3).
WP concurs with I-85-135-SQN-01 through
-03 and recommends they be closed based on the W?-Bechtel Audit of SQN in Key Elements 4.0, 5.0, and 17.0 (Attachment 4).
Not substantiated by NSRS,
1 XX-85-054-001 QC Ifoldpoint Sign-Off Report I-85-346-SQN Violation (Attachment 3).
Not substantiated by NSRS Performance of Remote Visual Report I-85-750-SQN XX-85-065-001 Inspections (Attachment 3).
,,. _(.-
05640 t
- a a
"~~----m.
(
~
Attachmen't4
'Page 3 of 3
- N
..}
'~
EMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE WP ACIION XX-85-083-001 SQN Weld Inspections not as Not substantiated by NSRS.
Strict as WBN Report I-85-652-8QN (Attachment 3).
XK-85-098-001 Laminated Pipe in Unit 2
-Not safety-related. Not Condenser. Ihis issue is substantiated by WP Evaluation also on the Generic Summary Report WP-18-SQN (Attachment-3).
XX-85 100-001 Improper Weld Repair on an Not substantiated by ERI 2
Undetermined Number of Report XK-85-100-001, dated Welds 3/5/86 (Attachment 3).
XX-85-101-006 Welder Certification for-ERI Report 11-85-101-006 the Construction Era (Attachment 3) with NSRS Recommendations Indicates that this concern is sub-
.)
stantiated. WP takes excep-tion to this ERI Report based on subsequent information
. provided in Attachment 4.
WP exceptions, recommen-dations, and basis for closure were discussed with NSRS as documented in Attach-ment 5.
WP recommends this concern not be substantiated and that it be closed based on the WP-Bechtel Implemen-tation Audit, Key Elements 4.0, 5.0, 17.0 (Attachment 6).
XX-85-102-011 NDE Inspectors cannot Write Not substantiated by NSRS Notice of Indications for Report I-85-735-SQN Preservice-Related Defects (Attachment 3).
XK-85-108-001 Socket Welds Not Inspected Not substantiated by NSRS XK-85-108-002 Report I-85-776-SQN (Attachment 3).
~
f.'p, 3
$/
05640
Page 1 of 3
SUMMARY
OF SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REVIEWED BY WELDING PROJECT.
EMPLOYEE-WP' ACTION CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE XX-85-088-003 Alterations to Welder Not substantiated by ERI Qualification Records in Report XX-85-088-003 of 3/8/86 (Attachment 3)..
Knoxville XX-85-124-001 Burial of Electrode Stubs Not safety-related.- No-action required.
Substantiated by NSES Report XX-85-086-003 Box Anchor Design I-85-560-SQN (Attachment 3)..
Deficiency.
WP concurs with report
~
i*
recommendations.
Not Substantiated by NSRS XI-85-069-003-R1 Acceptance of Previously-
, Report I-85-738-SQN (Attach-Rejected NDE Items
{Jp*,*
ment 3).
WP concurs with report recommendations.~ -
Substantiated by WP Evaluation SQM-5-001-001 UncertifJed Weider Foreman SQM-5-001-002 Performing Preweld Report WP-16-SQN (Attachment-3).
Interim corrective WBM-5-001-002 Inspections actions are being (Also Listed in formulated. Closure is the Generic
. based on these actions.
Additional corrective actions Summary)
~
may be implemented.
i f
XX-85-068-007 Hanufacture of Dravo Spool Not substantiated by NSRS
(
REPORT I-85-636-SQN Piece l
(Attachment 3).
l XX-85-069-001 Inadequate OJT-Records for The general issue of XX-85-069-001-R1 ISI and QC Personnel for N0 inadequate OJT-record.s was substantiated by NSRS Report XX-85-069-X05 I-85-373-NPS (Attachment 3).,
XX-85-069-001 No falsification of records was substantiated. WP cona curs with report recommen-dations.
/
l
('.
s-..
05640
~
~.
a
- *'2 t i.-
\\
Attachment.5 XX-85-101-006 M
O///d../Edis 7 e.s. odiols ?. ECIG PREPAREJ BY 8 b,m REVIEWED BY
.E.
Cho, Olb4[
, OC, WP
'I tM
, QA, WP REVJfED BY t1 opsln i
i CEG-H, WELDING REVIEWED BY PROGRAM MANAGER APPROVED BY l
1 I
i I
t
~
l l
3096T
'4-c.
-(
4
.1 Attechment'5 q
'~
XX-85-101-006 l
\\
is based on ~
91C's basis for substantiating employee concern XX-85-101-006(see subje six-(6) identified deficiencies, provides a response to each specific deficiency:
'The processing of welder qualification records (WQR) was not performed in accordance with Sequoyah Nuclear' Plant,(SQN) 1.
4 Construction Procedures (CP) W-2, " Welder and Welding Operator Performance Qualification," and SQN CP P-8, " Review, Handling, and L
Temporary Storage of Quality Records." SQN CP W-2, revision 0, required the WQRs to be reviewed by Quality Control Records Unit
- ~
~(QCRU) and stored in accordance with SQN CP P-8, however-no evidence SQN CP W-2, exists that the review of the WQRs was performed. deleted the requirement for 31, 1981) revision 1 (effective date JulySQN CP P-8 required retention of the WQRs and the QCRUJreview.
completion of the construction, these records would be transferred to SQN CP P-8, revision 12 (effective the Division of Power Production.
1986), clarified the American National Standards 4
Institute (ANSI) N45.2.9 definitions for record retention (duration date: June 13, of construction and life-of-plant), WPQs were _ classified as duration Although the review of the WPQs was not-of construction records.
performed (revision 1 of SNP LPW-2 deleted the requirement for QCRU review) the requirements of ANSI N45.2.9 were satisfied.
l 2a. -WPQRs for welding technique GT-7-0-3-L was issued concurrently with' or af ter the revocation memorandum (dated December 6,1977) for E
welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H with an effective date of This qualification is based on the WPQR for t-November 11, 1976.
welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H which is comprised of two welding processed, gas tungsten arc welding (GT) and shielded metal arc The welder maintained the GT portion of the welding (SM).
qualification through the usage of the GT portion of the because of nonusage cf the SM portion of the welding technique.
Dased on the above, welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H was revoked r
according to memorandum dated December 6,1977 and the WPQR for welding technique GT-7-3-0-L was awarded with an effective date of based on the maintenance of the GT process of the l'
11, 1977 Novcmber The statement:
previously issued technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H.
" Equivalent qualification being awarded based upon satisfactory side bonds of PQT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H passed May 11, 1977. Welder has maintained certification of the GT portion of this test through PQT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H revoked by letter dated November 11, 1977.
December 6,1977 because of lack of SM welding" on WPQR for welding technique GT-7-3-0-L is an explanation of the qualification.
1 Page 1 of 3 3355T
The date l
(
2b'. ' The TVA WPQR form has one (1) location to recor'd the date.
-that was recorded on the WPQR form was.the date the welder if satisfactorily completed the performance test. The WPQR form is
" pencilled-in" in the weld _ test shop by the weld test shop' supervisor and forwarded to engineering for typing, review, and 'engir"2ering l[
signature. The date on the WPQR form represents the welder qualification date and is the date that the welder qualification The Welders Qualification Record form in the continuation is based.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME),.Section IX (QW-484) has only one place to record the date and this form is used through the industry.
- 3. ' The methodology for processing the WPQR dated 11-11-77 and the rest of the qualification records is explained in paragraphs 1, 2a, and' 2b.
As the ERT report stated, the welder test shop loa book,
" pencilled-in" WPQRs etc. are not available for review and procedurally were not considered QA records.
Walder Performance Qualification (WPQ) may be performed to the 4.
edition and addenda of the ASME Code Section IXfin affect at the time of the contract award or WPQs can be performed to-the latest edition and addenda in effect. New editions and addendas become effective six (6) months after they are issued. ASME Section IX editions and addendas issued af ter the start of construction were reviewed by TVA to determine if the later edition / addenda affected the requirements stated in General Specification G-29M, " Process Specification For Wolding, Ileat Treatment, Non-Destructive Examination, and Allied Field Fabrication." Although some of the requirements of later editions and addendas were incorporated, not all of the later TVA's WPQ program requirements are requirements _were incorporated.
between the original edition of ASME Code Section IX in affect at the time of the contract award and the latest effective edition / addenda (Note: The acceptance criteria for welder of ASME Section IX.
performance bend test specimens has not changed from the 1968 Edition of Section IX through the current Edition.)
1VA's welders continuity was based on a ninety (90) day usage until 5.
SQN CP M-2, " Welder And Welding Opeator Performance Qualification,"
Revision 1 of revision 1 was issued (effective date August 6, 1974).
said procedure adopted the option of continuing the welder's performance for a specific process which has not been used to six (6)
The when the welder has been employed on some other welding process.
performance qualification extention to six (6) months was adopted the TVA's FSAR ASME Code,Section IX 1971 edition 1971 winter addenda.
should be changed to reflect the ANSI B31.1 Code through the.ob-971 The addition of this addenda revises the introduction of
~
addenda.
Code by modifying paragraph 3, column 2 to read:
ANSI D31.1.0-67 "Af ter code revisions are approved by ANSI they may be used by agreement between parties beginning with the date of issuance shown on the title page."
The 1973 edition of ANSI B31.1 Code and later editions refer welder qualification to the ASME Code Section IX.
Page 2 or 3
4-6.
Computer printouts for system status were used to indicate the completion status of each weld within a system. This printout was
~
.I not intended to be used as a umiders history or to be a permanent Quality Assurance (QA) record. The accuracy of this printout for welder identification is a moot point.
The Welder Qualification List (WQL) would indicate the latest usage by welding process for.each welder.- The WQL would show usage on a Week-ending basis according to SQN CP W-2, " Welder and Weldirx3 g.
Operator performance Qualification." The purpose of the WQL is to document continuity of the welders qualification through the continuing usage of the welding process. Based on the usage date specified by QfC, the welders performance qualification was properly continued. Welding process' usage not listed'on the WQL did not affect this welders performance qualification continuity because'of other process usage within the specific time frame required for J
welder continuity. Welding process usage not listed on the WQL can l
not improperly extend a welders continuity, but may prematurely revoke a welders qualification.
f,'
i>
jl Dased on the above responses, item five (5) is the only item that j ;
required further action.
i!
Recommended corrective action:
(.l t
i Revise the FSAR as indicated in No. 5 above.
1.
j i
(.
q.
.h' i
It i
l i
l 2
i l
~
l Page 3 of 3 r
l.
i' WELDING PROJECT SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCER iS 9
AIIACllMENI 6 MARCll 26, 1986 LEITER 10 MR. MARIIN l
4
- t.63,
$ Yf%
4 D
l G
1 i
1
[ e,#'.*
l e,
r6
.. ap.,
'.Har.ch 26, 1986
.e.
.r
..i
.,0.
...Hr'.(HartIn:
f f......
s About.two months or more ago l'got a call from a Mr. Pohlman of QTC
. requesting an ' interview with regard to an employee concer'n.A time for i
l,'
5.i.
l.
the interview was set and the Interview was. held at 'my, office'.in
...'.'i'..
. Chattanooga. Mr. Pohlman arrived at the, appointed time.with an associate
, ' ~
.*e.
whose name I do not recall. They had'.with them.a' copy of a Helder
.r.
. * /...
- ,.....'.. Qual l fi ca tion Re. cord f.or. a 'we.l.d.er.f* rom'.Segpoya.h Cons t. rue tios.'.'.T.he for.m. J.."...
c
..... y.. _. :.....
'i,'.!*M. '9T).r[..'que s t Ioh' ka's In"iwarid 'ol'." equi,5,.. 't ihail.f.'l g'a t l[ori'..foF. '& s,,1,n(1 e proce s s.,- l,,.
aiEn
.s
..>e.......
- ...*'~'?....... Gas:Tungstes...(GT)' Arc Heldin l
l
.was awarded:baseId.on. ' r..:
~ ;W., dnn:;;::.:n& :..u: M i s;;f -l:..g Cert. f.l cal; on.'which,d.%~.l: l..':lk ".i.2:,1;* ; f.fi*Cd.ly.;;,...l:
- l..!. f':
~
- 7,:.ix;l:2L.a;;t;%.
'*TIf.iM. f.3he.'?GT. Td...FtIb6. Ra'."G.T-Slilijdel;d...He ta1. A.r.c. (SHU. c.ert1.fIcatIon th.at theJ.,.
.: * :. ' *~ " :. :
..o
. " rwe l.de f 'ha'd.... iou s ly. h. e'i d ~i.n.. :......
- d.,. wh l. g h J h.ad."b.'.'e. n. '.r.e vo,:ke d. du.se..to.a. lt-..c k o. f... ',
";<M,....
.....: :e..~p.t. -
s.
prev e
a
.. l.Y /, -
- ,SH welding within the requrled 'ime peilod..The'QTC employees'also had '..... ;....
t
...,.:*.:;:.'0...% 8. copies of the original GT-SM certl'fication.and 'th'e Yevokatto.n notice fo I..T,',*
~l*-
- ..,that certification.. All of these doc.uments w,ere '.e.xamined by m,'e ;and,.,
. /.,r e
. ~..
~
.. appeareditobeinorderandto'havecorrectdateE,an.dappearedtometo 7
., .be readily, traceable and easily understood as to the relationshi,ps
.u.
v
'between all dates listed on all three documents.
I' asked what they perceived to be the giroblem and.'was promptly, curt,1y, and emphatical1y
- told that these documents were obylously def,ect.lve. 'They Indicated to me that there was no doubt in their minds.that the.se records were in some r..
- I 0082U x,.
N.
Y e
- 3 6 **s'.
.... s. _..
.~.
I then asked what their foundation for this beller was.
way defective.
s:..:
' c*
They promptly told me,that the' dates on the qualification
- S I'.
,,- based on.
r*
forms.were the dates those forms wer.e slaned and since.the.second.
'l.
(GT-only qualification) form ref. err.ed...h.tthin the body'of the form,.to a.-
date which was later than the form's slanature.date, then the. form was
. -l :
defective and invalid. At this point,11: attempted to correct tlielr.
. preconceived'notionfhattheform'.sdatewasthedateofthesignature I
being affixed to the typed copy of'the.fopm an'd'instead ass.ured them that
+.;
...l; r-the form's date was.the date of the' effective date of the action y,, :. ;, '.1 f.-
.:..; ;,...,'.:.c. :..
- . l;
...',..;~
- described on the qualification. form, and#that in the'cas.e~of Helder.
l'. :
~
t.>-
. Qualification Records, the signature at the^ bottom ofithe form was no.-
d.,..
.t
.1.'.,., dated.
.I attempted to explain.to them.that. this. form.was: a'.TVA-wide ' form
~.
. ~
.. n.. -
. and.that,. to my: recollection...had redialned" rela't'Ively... uncha l...
t
.., /
. le..::
1 t c(alio. -l~
- );Q:l~, '..,j :q :. *:*.
- c
- .I p:olnted out that of..t
. L....:. :. A:.. -.:,
..:,. : o. *
.M...:l M.~f,t'idi'e~I-lhad.'f.lFs t?seeC.
ut20.l years!ago.);
- ; - s........,*e......
-.~...:*..
.l
- u..*'.~.".**.
w-. ~.Q* * *i Y ue s tion rela t l a);the.da4e of signaturef
~
O+.;m:.,& gl.':- Q k%f Q.ve.to. thl's.:.m.atter &..).(2 ; &,%.,Q JQ,7.'~di@. es.*.:.s
'"yA'.
I l
W W>%;.d:/..~.two: dates.r i.
%..,(,Eh p,1,nafit{yp;j~3es Drecord;.,f., R Q. W.'
.H form. or.7bhthe: efl'ecttVe.;tf atejof /'the./, ; -r",:v :..",.
e ed.
.e............
-.... ~
te s t.'.f.dri i.. thit,da t.e(b) was. farhime...l mpor t a n.t.i.....v
- /.p.. I'.'e.
.., e
.. '....actlM..
o
. as. ::ye..w. v.n :. de s cr..ib. d.' on".tlie'.l
~. p..
~~..
~
.fremaQAstandpoint,anfgiven'a; preprinted,.TVA-wideform.L
'.4;. l1l..
. th.an date(a)
.... +,,
}.
...,, r,. *
. bl e ' to' modify,'.
, i',
- .i.e'
- with a. space for one date.o.nly and.which the sit.e wis.una
- .. d
,v-
'.that ' the ' cl' ear and logical' choice 'of die da.te' to.. record, was"the '..
. '"~z.*...'*i '.'
4
- . i.
7.'
c:.. :
ef.f.ective date of the action described'on the record and.not the date of..,:
Ifurtherattemptedto[ verbally" walk,.l...e : :
r -
/-
.the formalization of the.ecord.
' them through" the.whole process of testing welders and recording the
'/'
l IfurthersliowedthemthesequoyahConstruction results of those tests.
Procedures concerning the testing of welders. an.d the preparation of test records, including the. provision within those, procedures for the weld test supervisor to fill out what was a temporary no.tice-to the welder's 0082U (l'
2
- - - ~ ~ ' ~
i N
.,4 p
g.
-,-n_,,*
4 s...
."'q je.,&
,c
.. y to employ'the welder in'the. *.
n
. ',y.... J...Jforeman Which gave permission to the, foreman s..
.c performance of welds using.the. newly. passed. qualification prior to the-p,7;... :,
'. ./,'... :
issuance of the typed, signed final, record of the test.,1 explaine.d that...
f h date of the form's
..,,1f the.date recorded on the form.,had been t e
.. e
' signature,;then these would exist a number,of welds with dates.of welding.
J.,,
Sf<
which were prior to the recorded.date of quall'ftcation'for the welder..I..,. '
~
' also pointed'out that'the welde'r's perlo'd,.for continuity welding begins t'.
with the date he performed his. qualification test and if the date of.
d
. signature was used, then the required period for continuity welding coul.
+
1,
., : r. -
..../,'.
.'..e t..
be exceeded by the amount of. lag time.between,:pe.rformances of.the test ' '.. ~
.,1 r.. v.
f the.. paperwork'. c,This' period','a.s'I told QCI i
".- ' '.... weld and the process ng o
. people, was typically 7-10 days, but.at.. peak. periods. may we1.1:have
.,
- l'
.o considerably longer than that.::. I.a.l s.o 'poln.'te.d out.t.h.at...to, my " k
..'./,.'
~
re coYd'..N..,:wtli,the"ef fec'tiv.'e dateYof' the,," '.'
..... '.:.. e..:.. y ~.
. N 7 'h. k kraiticeLo[I5att'n'g.the':tes
- Y
- \\*-
l racti ce...the. r '. ' ' s :* ~n,.and.now trt.IVA and :i:
- % ' :1.. :
il..
- A... M h.:.das.W....'.:i :a.?
.?
te s t was.un t' ersally..lhe p%.Wn.. :.N.;V.d.. n~v '":.:n~
- t
-? +
<dp/ c
'.g uy::..Mi @s & :c % s. :a.....a'iv..i@iMrdmi4/ad v
. 9;c.,9...
- 6. 4. ; :4*:;... :
m 8
- 4
~.
r
' ' " 'i' '.'
hl's'l s /.liWfd'c.(.'.'th'e.il}id.us try.'s..likdar'd;< Based ok.'a' co'n d f W. #. & i......s, a.c.g..?. :-mm : c,".~
.. ~ c.
.n,..... ~..:.... + ~
~~
... U.' Nlth Bechtel.'s weld 6r record au itor.,..The '.Helder'Q;ual.ifi. cation Tes
.:. ' '., i,..
M d
..g
- 1..!
..... ace on'lt'and ' "' ': '.
5 hte sp d
l '
.' : :. record. form in the AStlE. C. ode- (QH. 84b.has o.:n. y one
. ~..
/...
This explanation was.:;,* c*..
c t the. welding' Industry.
....:....this.for is used throughouvery. lengthy on my p I. gave them p.lenty of.hances to iuestion what,.
. ~..
l.
..... v. :
I c
l t
1
.I was was telling and showing.them and felt that I,had left no s one
~
' unturned in my attempt to alify their suspicions relative to these f)4 ~} 19.V Following this explahation, they expressed to me that I did not records.
~
I considered have any way of proving that khat I said was. the truth.
this to be an accusal that'l was lying..to.them.
,I, agreed,that I was l
l,,.-
[
,.s.
00820..
g..
- l N..
.1 -
t t
e.,. s.a.".
0 &.( :-
l p A,
i v-
i.
W.
' un
,,... i..". t..:;.
..'....able to prove to them that the date.on the test form was the effective.
s.. "..?....date of the test and not the date of the signature, as this, was not v.
r.
,specifically spelled out in any procedure. '.Even af ter.1 pointed out that
".',. /
.... ' ;,','-..the' date on the form was typed by'the 's'ecfetary and not handwri tten, as
. '. was.the signature, the QTC employees continued..to insist that.the date on
..the form was t.he date.the form had.been signed..
I stated that.'si.nce.I
- -1.*.
..T
?.
r
,. had signed many of'these fdris ! could say,for sure that 'tmply was not s
true!
They indicated that all QA. records shoul'd'have' dated signatures L
r, r
~
s.
and that since the form.was a QA. record and had a signature and a date.,:
- c. s..
. q, :,..,..: :
i
../.:il *..,
.then it followed t. hat.t.he d. ate.wa.s'.the date of..the'signatu.re, land that, ' '.
7;.
'., '.'.'..the only conclusion they could.drawbtas,thit,the,se'wer,e d,efective.
',Y '
.~.
~.
v.
u J'
.,.'.. A. t '.a.pproximate ly' thi s'. point. in o' r. d.i scut.s. lons 4which' t.o..thi s'.. time hid i
......t :
.? -.
- J'~llt.W'.*. beeii'.ex tirenWly t'ry.ing),.lieal'lzed i hat I. $a.s..'deali.ng' wi th 'two pe t
.:ps.s.w.::v.y...~ a.:...i...
(*....
fb.,..rt, <.'. seemed to me to ha.ve.II..t t.1,e ot.no'de wa s '. I n.,..::.,t :.". :.
c s.
... - - ~. ~...
v...u....[.. :..c7rNE$d3 rMhinh'$ikdh$nN,Nkik
~.,:, : k.. g..:aicTp[tD
.,k...o g,.:
Y hha IIhkka
, e.^gk.,.w-<.
.,.s.f.i$, por.R.r. I e i. p?- a.
..Ibeen committed with.regar'd...:
~.a..:.~......
an......$ f.o.ui de h,'ha.'.
0.n I lif.bh:
5 i
I rNoN
.. i..'.". V...
- to' the. s. e'. r.,e cord s.. '.i.n,..
..a'..loal attempt to make".. : -
f
~
.t.
, lE... :,i ese two people; understand that thete,recordt iveres' a.s 1.had repr'esented, '
'.' '. N.2:
th
. ~.
..,Iem to be, l' o. ffered to.t'ake 'them...to s.ee'.t.w.o 6ther k.n.ojtledgeable. we.ldliig ~
.U.:,[-
tl
..... -...,:.s
.s
.s l
l'..
e.ngineers who might be able to shed some additional 1,lght on the
/. ','.subj ec t..They agreed to discuss this with them when I explained.that...j.; ', '/:.
~ 'both parties 'were at Sequoyah in the welding unit at'the time these l
records were generated and were. knowledgeable about these records.,I.
explained that one was a 50-4 in ciiarge of welding inspectors at the time
(
~.
. ;n..
4'~
7 uuuzu s _.
s :
s 4-7.f.
c......i.,,.
!..:q... :.
- o. g;.,, ;. i.. *
~
o.,,
t
t s
.+.
. 3;
.s-
.E
$.*. i.'" / ~ ~.who later became a welding
- unit supervisor and the oth.er was in fact.the..
+
'ltestsupervisorofthe'testinquestionaiidissuedthetest'numbersand
.. y. :...
y!.V' I'further t...
. filled out the original shop copy of.the. test report.
i :-
explained that both were now no longer lIn' Nuclear Power or Construction.,. '.
'j :"
'. * //, -
.and should be more unblased than I was. QCT's.. discussions ylth these,..
. Individuals resulted.In the, investigators being. told exactly
/:
" thing about (he' dates' and th4 forms' that. I.had told them.
Namely that s
l the date on the. form was the' effective date of.the action expressed on e.
4 t
.... /. :..
'.the form, that the date was supplied by the.pe.rson who took the. actio c.,.
- .s... r..,;.,
.e.
./
!...u t '...,.
explained on th'e form (Held. Test. Supe.rvisor,.p'r other pe.rsons' in the cas....s "..
4 r
.c.'?
.of' award of equivalent qualificat.io.n) and was supplied by th.at person to.
..a.
~.
. :. *.the. secretary who typed. l t ori the formh and i t.had' nothing':at' all to ldo
~_
b.... wi.,.th..the date. whi ch th.e.un t t s.upe.rv i.sor of h.;i s 'de. s ipn
.J...,.
- ,.... f.
l"-'.T.7.#' Supervisor)'ac'tuallysignedthef.Inishedcdpy',...Again',QT
~
s
.1 l?
.~
. ~.
- +.
...:.... T. expressed.the.Ir.p'reco.nceived conclus on that this date.wa3,.the'dat:e of.d:...:.
J
.4
. J. '.. j...a:.: a.u.. ~..., :.... :...C. r.. w. u :.. :
' :..g. k~. nim $ t T F. O :.
.v
- v..
l
..::p#.w@@hh8siilfuIiTdife$6NUMM4.as'oMTipEN. M:.e7.P.
o o
s#
U,l yer. s..nal",1.y 'd'li n6t.1 II.(e..'.lyA.'.s. lieJ #
. :.s t. Redpf d '.
+.
w.:. r.:
Ci I
.y<;9 y 4e'Were 'idrry lint th
..s
..p;n..ne-w.w a.n c...x...; o.e
...z
..,:.... F.or.m 'but that was th. e forii lliat we had 'to. w.o'rk'.wi.th
'.l'..
l '.4...-
- '.*t m.'.f;< the best job we 'could with that form and that these erecords in. i ue J' '..
l *-
c:
. Y. '
~
d to us. as kno. wledgeab1'e did.'re.as.on.able ~ engineers t'o be.
l..."
'..~
....,:were.tr.ue, appe.are acceptab.le and did not appear. to us to have a.n.y. sign that they were not.t..
i
. acceptable in any way and that,these conclusions were. easily-rea
! ~.. r..:.
- l
any otlier knowledgeable, reasonable Individuals.
AfterthisdiscussionandthideparturedftheQTCInvestigatorsthe
[
three of us (TVA emplo.ye.es) discussed.these p,roceedings and.1.t.was 0082U
,,.l/., :.. *
.. 4..,.
I
?.
m.
- m. s....
.u.r.N9.p..
. h.
'J-r 3..
.9.. gp m.,.,,...i
..'/...... apparent to me-t. hat we all.fel.t that.these people were not knowledgeabl.e,.
.....n.
~
- r,
- ....i '.. ' did not appear to be reasonable, d.id not a.ppear.to be. attempting to
.,s
, determine.lf the records in ques.tlon.were acceptable but, in fact, seemed to.,have the preconceived notion th.a.t th4. records were faulty and were f
dead set against accepting any reasonable. evidence contrary, to'that notion.
..:~
- M...... :
It. seemed to me tha.t.we.'all felt that these In.dividuals.wer.e. :.
'~
't.
attempting 'to creafe 'a positiori tha't our entire' welding qualification.-
~
program was totally flawed *and unheceptable, everi though they had no
~
~
...:.. evidenc.e ' that was the.'c.ase.
...:....,s......
. ~...
' ',.
- l '- l
.At this point. I.wlli.attemp.t to' reconstruct'.from my' memory the general,.
. r.~.
- s.... q,
v.
i,.,
-l
, c". :.1
- nature of the. three' documents'.which",we. discussed 4.'
, '.:/..
, /
. s..
.,,. ~~.
,'...,.,.,.s.."
- i. Document 'llo..I was' a Performance' Qualification-Record for:: the Helder '.. ' ';
s ", ;
'. ~:
. G..,. '.
/../. Y:. sl.iowing the accep.tabl.e, pass log; of..a GT.-SM. performan.ce, test..on.5-11.- XX
..c,,..,.y i
a ar i
f,h Ipht.t i
. nz,.r.. m.
. r v.
- 4.,..i...
um '... J.:.-
~. - r*
c.
t..,:..i,;.;e:m>%.> m. d.:.:,: p.. *-,M.m..si. / * ::.." f.' :::' :... ; M:~. W ' -
":'r e..'...D !..Do. cumen.t ' No.' 2.was fa r. evoc.ation. noti.ce'o. f.'t'.he c.e:.ti fic.atio.'n.'from do i
I 7 ','. (:No.. 1.due to.1,ack of weld,Ing sith SM*proces,s.l,.TI,ils document Hol 2'was'.
', /
a.
n dated in the rhonth af ter 180 d.ays.be. yon.d th.e 'date. o.f document: No. I aqd'.*. l,. '.. '.
l s
was,somewhere near.12-16-XX (again, I. don't' remember the,. yea,.r,cand this.*.-
./.
c..
.p.
'.date may vary by a few days).
Thisdocument'No.j2statedthatthe
.. >... e, :.
E, * -
revocation was effective ll-ll-XX'(l'80 days'after document No. 1).
Document No. 3 was an award of an equivalent q'ualification for the GT portion of the GT-SM heavy wa.ll tes.t which Was. des.c.ribed in.do.,cument.No.
I and revoked by document No. 2.
The body of the do.cument st.ated th.at '. '.
- l..
.......s g. ;,
.... ~.
~
'.....i.,.
,..,f.
00820
. ~-
.,Q.si l
r.
m.1 z.
1 ~.
~.
. t c-5 j.
' thls. document. covered the granting of GT only, light wallpipe test.
equivalent to the GT, portion of a,GT-SM heavy wall p pe test. passed,
j J
~
5-ll-XX and revoked by letter dated'.12-16-XX (approximate d.a.te),
Document Ho;,3 was dated to show it being effective * *
. effective ll-ll-XX.
. ~
This dath is. consistent with the body of document No. 3 and 1*
' ll-XX.
- f.
the issue.date and effec.tive.date'of.docum..ent No. 2 and.Is also.'..
~
consistent wl'th the effectl M date of document No. Il these facts are obvious to even the casual observer and, had the Qic personnel.been
' '.. c..
. knowledgeable, reasonable, and attempting.to. determine the,true validity.
~
.of' the employee concern, It. wo.uld. ha.ve been obvious to th.em.'. ' -
J. "!.
.g l,In the.
-j : l
. The. discussions I held with QTC'.s investigators, lasted from, ear y y.
"..., :f, : 7
.r
~,. '..mor.ning unt t i well pas,t(1.urich time. - TheyVwere.v4
,l1 l..:.
~
. t. impression that I wa.. dealing wit,h,
,'l s
L,.,.;;throughout them 1 had theidistinc r,
... ~.,
. P..... -
two individuals who did not know enough.about what.they yere..
. t,.
t N
fo e
g i
to d e tn
'l
/0J1C.34S.Ian M,pJlaf.'ndt.'seedi.,tp,'mel to,.b.e;,w11[1.1.n.
=. *
.y..:,
..1,,
. h. ; [).',. Input, and who',were obylousl,y attempting.o, escala
.1 l
t
../..'
ST, ^s!.', ::self-explanatory'. records into'a conddmnation o.f'1VA's entir,e weldef [. l
...s..
..i.
~
These Individuals',Were unhb..le,.to.acce.pt. the.facli c.
r t
'.. *.; qual,1fication. program.
that welder performance qualification is gov'efned by a " rolling code,".'..*..,.
. _. i TVA...
. - l :..
' . AsilE Section IX, and who drew 'the e.,rronto.us conclusion, 'that s nce.
did not qualify their welder.s to a particular year and addenda of the code, that our entird program was faulty. A.nyone who has a working
" knowledge of the code's position on code revisions and welder
)
pJb *.
' qualification,knows. tMs.to be, the chsefthe accepts the codes., stated.
l, j,, l; position that welders are quallfled under whatever rules are in effect at l l ';
i l... -
- r..
- (
- " '
- 00821) 7-.
\\
t.s,
a :-
,s
.t**
.......,...4
,,..u-
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
=
h t thelr. qualifications remain
...'#.\\
the time that,the welders are tested and t a lJ,,',
p
.as they were when the tests were performed no matter what ch'anges the
...'se Individuals were code may undergo'after the date'of test'ing.
The unable to accept that position even t. hough that position Is ac'cepted 1
/.'
throughout the welding industry. Reading of QTC',s report on this concern ;
. h
.7
.Y..,,
shows thelr.la.ck of... knowledge about~.t.h. is vi tal point. -
~
Also, and, to me, most im.portant., one determi.n.es. f. rom rea. ding t, heir report tiiat the dates on the welder qualification records are the dates
.. r TH15.IS ABSOLUTELY FAl.SE,'and'Ib/wasf.,
-l-of the signatures on the. records. I them dgiring an..: :.
/
... the entire poi.nt that we were attemptliig to co. nvey to
- j ex. tended and apparently vain discussions.' F.ur.ther,[from reading thel i
h
, Y.... repSrt, we can'.concluda.'thit wi, tol.d :them: the.da't.es,$ek. e '.'s.lgna.ur
. ~......
. date.s--nothing.is'. farther f. rom the. truthl:.
t.
~
r.
1,.,.:.,.
I hv e'a t
h
. re t
kl
- I5 e(
5In
'l.
... ~
ptlons; oft.,(h.e. r.e.quirementsrand..
.,. ~
...... l 'f.
d l s..a.. j. based. o.n' i.ncprrpe.tllogi.c.a. n.m sconce.
l.sb* r: 7 ,.. ". ar
...)
.. :.. the facts'. The repo,rt conta,lns -statements khich are. not true 'and,. to. my'"
e l
i i
T 5
.. knowledge, does not contal.n tiie docuinents in ques, tion which:wou.d.a,l o the reader to' draws his own conclu.sion based on the.'.gv.id. enc.e.;,The. report
.c
-l l
. also uses the numbering system employed.for uniquely identifying. test r.
l j
.'. reports and applies.. flawed logic'to attempt to show thaf some, '.,
)
What this number' sequence shows, in fact, ls l
hankle-pankle took place.
d that the situation Is exactly as we s ated to Orc, i.e. -(1) t iat the f$-
3 d"
.c(StamiuRevbt bf*therecordswereeffective,
.' dates on the test record were'not t.he date that d. ocument. No. 3, the GT. equivalent te.st, was.. awa.rded at and (2)
'0 O
g g
g e.
N N 00820
(,...
9
]
-,< 2 (... c,m.
g}.
e
[
w,.;
s n"~
.... 'v...
.. s..-
', a g
r S.
B,
^
~;
q..f,n< ;...
".Y;,( y.;
about the. time document No. /(the origl.n'al. test'.s revocation letter) 'was '.
I..O.".
- IssueJd and'was effective at the llate stated on the' bottoni of the form
,~
and substantiated withi.n the form's bo.dy.'
e-
~,
Hlen I agreed to discuss this matter with.QTC,.I had not prevIously had f
. ' _. ;i any significant contact }with. them and was not predisposed to assume that they were not fully on,'the Ill-and-up,' and.were not attempting to use i
knowledgeable'peoplet'o(dounblasedInves'tigation.sandtoreach-1 S
reasonable and valid conclusions. During rny' discussio.n on. this. matter it
.. f.,.
f
.became' apparent to me that all was not'i,lght'wlth't.his. opera. tion. Upon' k...'
J, #
.g, reflection, I.have been forced to conc'lud.e,that.1.was. dealing.with people -
~,
. ".. who were.not sufficiently' trained ' arid k'nowledgeable.and 'who seemed to' me. ;
,..,.c.,..;.to be attempting to reach.s.ome '9.ther thap'.th'?,co'r..r ec.t, conc.lu.slon in this.* '..:,,...
e
.4 Also, upon reflection, I have, concluded.that al,though I drew
(
- . matter.
.. ~, :,*, :;...
. ~.. i p:...... I stil.I' feel wa.s a correct.conclust.pn,... ~... per. haps. I.was '.nsomewhat,to what
.. c M n not. eepl ng,;hiy opin.lon :to.mys e l f+. and,.:'*1 f/.that' hns?. caused? TVA,
.s
. Arl*,:: :n' u. W :~g+--... * ' *..
n*M. l.~* =r **- s +.~~' ~~ m~.
F *
- 3,,,.Jffeej %..- l..E..' w non.
y %.',4ss A
- n
.M Z...;M(., embarrassment,,1.. apologize, ' hut, ani qui.c.k. to pol.ri,t, odt that.th,e report,
~
'.k 0....f. t bares out my opinion of.the apparent qual.lfications'of QTC's 5
7,~,.
o. 7,. ' inve s t iga tors.
i.
s.
l' Hhen I was first' told of. the coriclusion drawn',ln.this report.(last week),.
-l.
'.'I requested to present.my version of t'hese disc'ussio'ns to tiie. Interested $. '
4 '.
.i..
". '" ~ parties.
I w$s given that opportunity ' yesterday and 'am most appreclative' for that.
I met witli Joe Rose and Jim Coan of the Helding Project in s Knoxville and with the responsible NSRS representative. They listened l'o
~
f j,my reiteration of this.d.lscussion which was.as I,previously.have reported
-(.,.,.
0082U s
a c.,..:.,.,.._.....
v
.s... r,.. -
.L
r.
They were most; receptive of m.y.pos.ition.and
- .s.
...fr
'.,to you in this report.. recommended that' the correct
- l
', p.
proposed based solely on the QTC report'be set aside and a new' positio
=
They readily.recogni. zed'thi errors.in QT.,C's report wh'en.I'-
l?
'be drafted.
..l was able to convey to them what I had said to QIC, and they were able.to l.
f rely on something other than wha.t'QTC. reported.that I an'd my co.l.l.eagues.
. ~,...,.
~.
_z u
~ * -
had said.
It is unfortunate that I do not have before me the report or.the l.*
ble to obtain a
. documents in question but, on such,short notice. I was una
~
f
- copy of it and feel certain that.the. records'.In question wi11. remain
.e..
u.
..-., unobtainable to TVh.in order to',.".girdtect confidentia ltyl ' !",. 'I.t' o
- t.,.S h.
j rors, which,I"a.m u.n.able t.o. ".
...'.,,..... me.that.the report contal.ns:ot er,ma o..r er..
C
- Since it has been discounted; I expect that any'..
....s.
recall from memory.
'.........s s
ftEther dis.ection on my part. ls wasted effort--some. thing.w.e -alre
. ~.
.'.e,'.'
.........r.~.-<luntl..~..;. ~ -y.to-l,give you my thoug
.~. ~.:...:
, p,". 4. "... :.
+-
f q,,g.
.,,...~...-; w..
- J.,s q.,.p5.ep'.., much.too,much"of.;l31: appreciate
- r.
r
~., ;,
. ~.....
on. te
. it with you.- Lint.ll the.
t
.that you will give me the. opportunity to discuss
~
.~.
- .~.
- ...
,~
. ;~,l tig,,,1 " ;*
ll....
f
,..... ~.....
b
..'.Nl,/,':'.10t!) of April, I,can b'e re, ached At Bel.leforyte/ Construction, y
.. '.., '. ' '. '. '. l.-
.,'.... e/
- l,-
....,...l Chattanooga, 3274, extention 1.71, or 172.,,'
s
.......i.....
,,., e,
- 4..-
.'.Another major, contention of,:the QTC report is that.the.Helder. T
^
...y Records they reviewed did not show evidence of a "QA Record Review n.
,J The records they.
i
, J. '. ',.
required by procedurd and therefore were faulty.
'. reviewed obylously were obtained from the Helder's Perso y-3 i
d such as
. Record because of the. nature of th's other records. hey rev ewe
^
y-
, a.
/,
,.,;:J......,,.,"-
., f,'
l. :..
..N i...,.-
- l
'..s 0082U
.l :.
. ~.
s.
g..
f,,
,6 e
I ~ e 6. j,m 4
~
.V
.' f
- I
- work restriction records.
If they had taken time to rev ew an i
d c
ting and QA document',".
.. ". " understand the proceduresapplicable.to welders.tes
.1
- control, they would have realized tha,t they had,obtained an Informational.
.lo the employee's, personnel fil,e and -
a
. copy of the records which were'sent
./
were not'r.eviewing the QA recor.d copy'.of.the'. test repor.t..T.he QA
/
- f copies of all welder. tests are stored on microf.l.im and.show the ' required evidence of "QA Rei'ord Revi'e9.".These records were audited by Bechtel in. -
1 the Sequoyah Phase II audit and were found'to be in complete. compliance
.,wlth a.ll procedural requirements.- This. conclusion fu.rther p:oints ou
- '. *.*./ '. I. nature of the quality'of QiC's report od..this. matt'e.r. *'.
. y...
.........J........
., pp y...,,)(w
' \\. '.O; "l,.:.
- f.,.;. John.B.oone.. :.. '. '
- {
.....l,'.. l. - '. o.
......s..-
- .. : : s.. '.. -
i
.c
........ ~
...... ' ".'. ' 3 B : P K.
...~..
.,.v
..:. 4c:.,g> W. n,,......'; :% ' tw.Nr.H...
....:. : : -.......w:. ~...
.:...: a:...n:.v.:e.'
- Os,1.s. r :c.... : %
m n
- .,. l i
- :..
. ;,). :'
.r%yf.
.r...,....
e
.i 1
s
,s s..
...s..
s.
0084d.
. 11....
4
.,m
/.....
.n
....., ; 4,. l,.,
- .. g......,...,....;_,....
..u.. n...
.e
..t.
f
....:..e. s-- - - - -
WELDING PROJECT SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYER CONCERNS I
+
~
ATTACitMENT 7 MARCil 31, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO K. W. WilITT FRON R. G. DOMER l
t l
,C.
- 1 rwB*
6 yeg ll 6
I l
-(
t b
a f
s l.
-g*
(.. :
s
- /
.',e A
a,
,i'. '.,
i 4,.
.t' e*
W
f e
,., ;, n s
t.w p,...... :
ILD STATES GOVE!!NalENT N
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUT110RITY IdMOTdHdMM Director of Huclear Safety Review Staff, E3 18 C-K J
K. W. Whitt, R. G. Domer, llanager of Project Engineering, W12 A5 C-K FR031 I
!! arch 31, 1986 DATE SEQUOYAll HUCLEAR PLAllT--DIPL0kEE C0!!CERN xx-85-101-006, StBJECT:
REFORT IX-85-101-006 in accordance with assigned responsibiltles the Welding Project (WP) has the investigation report and the reviewed the subject concern,The WF has s'1so made a detailed review of the recently recommendations.
(Bechtel) audit of the Sequoyah Welding program.
completed independentaudit specifically addressed the issues raised in this concern.
That The following recommendations and basis for close out were discussed with
- 11. A. Harrison on liarch 24, 1986.
Recommended Actions A. B. and C d
The WP recommends that the three priority 1 recommend While welders qualification, maintenance / continuity update atta renewal.
k'"i.9 M
i h
the audit activities were not exactly identical to the recommendat on It audit activities were the welding program being implemdnted was meeting TVA's commitments,.
is recommended that actions A, B, and C be closed out.
Recommended Action D It is recommended that the consistency review of construction documents and 1
the FSAR has been accomplished for welding by.the WP as part of its Phase i
That report stated that, the WP has evaluated the welding program and associated quality assurance program elements re program.
This program adequately by construction during the construction era.
i addresses the regulatory commitments in place during the construct on era An integrated system of corporate level at Sequoyah lluelear Plant.
speciflentions and site implementing procedures was designed (1) to assure i
commitments and regulatory requirements were satistled and (2) to verify that the necessary welding quality was achieved at the plant.
that WP recommends that action D be closed out as regards field welding and related activities.
i 0
\\
l i
a.
0960*a.0L,
t
' i. '. '.$
. e t c'...re. g. ' m I
w4
t'f j',
.f.;...,
i~
+...;,..
e 2
)
K. W. Whitt Harch 31, 1986 l
l EllPLOYEE C0tlCER11 XI-85-101-006, REPORT IX-85-101-006 1
If IISRS concurs with the close out of these open items please respond to If there are the Sqtl site director with a copy to the WP project manager.
any questions or comments *please telephone J. W. Coan at extension 4420.
M R. C. Domer JWC:llJB
- 11. L. Abercrombie, OllP, O&PS-4 sequoyah cc
- W. D..lla 1.1, W12..C6 2 C -K,.,*,,
W. C. Drotieff, W12 A12 C-K L. E. !!ar tin, 10B-WBil OtlP J. F. Weinhold, W12 B34 C-K J. W. Conn, W9 C135 C-K D. W. Wilson, OE, DSC-A Sequoyah
- Rc'?1 ewers Initial /Dato
$wj/.ff j[
~
YR _J. V.
Conn f63 J. F. Meinhold 4 >> u g.,,,
f:
- ppd?
W.D. Ed
{1 ML
?!
l s,
1 i
e eq I
f 0
e 9
e
(. g
'N "r'
,,g
..g,' i,j l<-
"**4
, f,', a,
. i,
.,",1
...t.
l
, ',8' g,.,
- __ __j
-. ~.
O r..
w:
'I _ i,, '
0 s,
.,x.
,+,
e VgLDING PROJECT ~
~ '
w m
SQN SFECIFIC EMPLOYgg CONCERN 8 s
- 4 l
4 4.
1 i
. 9y 4
6 ig a
t r
,i
,N.,
- i.,
I
^
~
i, ATTACHM5!if 8 wp_ggCHTEL UDIT OF SQN KEY ELEMENTS 4.0, 5;0; AND 17.0 4
ee 3
I e
f g
gas e
Le t tr w s
- m^
I
,k J
k
'.$)
h j s
e e
s.
s 7
6 e
l I
s b
6 6
e'
,5 e
I e
l
("i,
t.
f t',
g,
.
- tt.A.-
?
u.; -
f<
,'\\,_(
oc 30
?*
- t-e' o,
.~.p q
'.,i,j...j,#.,
y s e e
\\g,
f:
KEY ELD 4Dff 4.0 l(
~'
OrrICE OF CONSTRUCTION HAINTDIANCE Or WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR 00ALIFI Based on audit of welder maintenance records, TVA welders demonstrated welding within certification expiration dates as required by TVA programs and procedures.
REY ELD 4D4T 5.0 s
OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION RDJEWAL OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS Based on audit of welder qualification records'and maintenance records, TVA welders wer e requallfled in accordance with TVA programs and procedures.
In many carns TVA welders were given the original qualification test for
(
renewal which exceed,ed ASME IX and AWS, Di.1 requirements for renewal.
KEY ELDIENT 6.0 OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION 4'.,*g
_ INITIAL WELDING INSPECTION PERSONNEL OUALIr! CATION i
(ksalification/ Certification records for nondestructive examination personnel (weld inspection) were reviewed for compliance with TVA NDC personnel qualification procedures covering a time span from January,1971 through March, 1903.
',in
.,7 p
.h-TVA personnel qualification procedures used for the qualification /
a certification of HDE personnel compiled with and referenced the applicable i
edition of SNT-IC-1A (American Society of Nondestructive-Testing).
i x
Records evidencing qualifications and certificatio'hs cont.alnad sufficient detail to confirm compliance with appilcable codes, standards and specifications in effect during construction activltles.
j' 0031X i
l
? ' $.
~
l N...
.s 4 ' j,,.....,
u
.',.+;'*~
,,e
.,y t _ L, 4 * ".1'.. * * *.
P* '
- sl*m 1.
"l 8
e, 4,-
e
~
=.
KEY ELDtENT 17.0 CITICE OF CONSTRUCTION DiPLOYEE CONCERNS.
17.1 Concern No. XX-85-049-X03 and XX-85-101-006 regarding welder certification. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 37 welders which involved 124 welder qualification recordyfrom1970to1979.
17.2 Concern No. XX-85-69-001 and XX-85-069-X05 regarding welder.
certification and on-the-job training. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a randore sampling of 37 welders which involved 124 welder qualification records from 1970 to 1979.
17.3.
Concern No. XX-85-108-001 and XX-85-108-002 regarding weld inspections. This concern could not'be substantiated as evidenced by audit of a minimum of 14 inspect:lon procedures.
17.4 Concern No. IN-85-476-004 and WI-85-041-002 regarding welding
~
Inspectors training program.' This conciern could not be substantiated as evidenced by audit of training programs.
.?N$p 17.5 Concern No. W1-85-053-004 and XX-85-68-006 regarding weld rod control' satisfying code requirements.
- This concern was not substantiated by audit of a random sampling of 48 receiving doeur.ents and associated CHIR's which lavolved 83 heat and/or lot number, 8 types of weld metal covci.; ' the years 1972 to 1980. This represents approximately
-/
,,".. i.
572,000 pounds ei weld metal.';Although*. audit finding, AF-01-01,
.E, against Key Element No. 12 of this report is documented against the TVA program, it involves details required by TVA procedures over and above that. required by ASHE filler :netal. specifications and had no impact on weld quality. '
T'e statement in the concern.shows a-lack o tunderstanding of the code.
For example, ASHE III, NB-4122 regulces traceability of the weld filler metal but gives two methods to chose from. Either trace to each component or ensure the specified material is used by a control procedure. TVA'seprogram required that all the material meet the standards and, therefore, did not require traceability to a component.
~.
0031X
~
g%.;.
I*
, f::'hC. ' " F.5 :
- 'N
s
..,. c. -
s
... g s n.- -
a
.,',(*).,,h. '"
.o y
v
.*1
.:t J
g.' "
' FEY ELDIENT 17.0 i
sr :P t
l(*
OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION-DiPLOYEE CONCERNS
~. -
(continued)
"~
17.6 Concern No. XX-85-054-001 regarding weld inspection by craft. This concern was not substantiated by the gudit of 13. Inspectors pulled from the weld history records for the welds reviewed in the audit as well as by an additional random sampling of 13 inspectors.
No holdpoints were found to have been signed off by anyone other than certified inspectors.
This con.cern may be referring to structural welds Instea'd of piping.
Structural welds and piping have different code requirements for fit up and final inspection. No holdpoints.are required by the TVA procedures for structural welds.
17.7 Concern No. EX-85-039-001 regarding weld control (stubs and unused -
rod).
This concern was not substantiated by the audit of applicable procedures. A daily surveillance program was maintained which included verification of welder identification, the feature being
- ' ' ' j,,.'
welded and the procedure being used. Variables from the procedure '
(such as amperage) were verified to assure that welders were using f(fj$..
the procedure properly. Welding rods, ovens and controls were
.?
monitored to assure that the welder had requested the proper rod, was Issued the proper rod, and was using the proper rod. Approximately 300 surveillances a month were performed during years of peak construction.
.g
.. ~
ess-W h
0031X
~
I
. si
..:.. ? ;;.
.{
- :. : h..
d*
... s,..a...
21
- v'** h..'
- t
- j ' ".
h-
- * * * *^
~
4.
- 3
=
o a.
3
'3'.
e
..s*
s.
KEY ELDADIT NO. 4.0
... 4 -. v r e -.r --.
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS'
,(
HAINTDIANCE OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR OUALIFICATIC:IS Based on audit of welder maintenance records, TVA welders demonstrated welding within certification expiration dates as required by TVA programs and procedures.
KEY ELEMDfr NO. 5.0 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS RDIEWAL OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR OUALIFICATIONS Based on audit of welder qualification records 'and maintenance records. TVA welders are requallfled in accordance wlth TVA programs and procedures.
KEY ELDIDir 6.d
. NUCLEAR OPERATIONS INITIAL WELDING INSPECTION PERSONNEL OUALIFICATICNS
.3.*.
All inspector qualification records (NDE, to include visual examination) audited Indicated compilance with TVA programs and procedures and the referenced codes and standards.
s'
- M'.
T it
.,. 3 *.y OBSERVATION
.,i
- ,f.,
'. iA:
TVA Form 6780 (as referenced in procedure 0202.14) used to,docusnent NDE qualification and ' certification does not clearly identify the racertification status of the Individual. Additionally, certification authority is referenced as being in compliance with TVA program require: tents when Individuals are actually certified in accordance with the specific requirements of Procedure 0202.14 (formerly N75C01), Qualification Certification Program for NDE Personnel.
s Program clarity and definition could be improved by adding sither the certification expiration date or recertification status as an entry on Form 6780. Specific reference to Procedure 0202.14 on certification forms (6780) would provide for direct reference and compliance with TVA NDE personnel qualification, certification requirements and practices for each NDS method i
employed.
0031X
(
e, -
3
.N,
'... 3...
[.
G., i :.yc
e. Wll i: a ::
.. i.
s. f'.
3 ' ;;, ' 8, -
.],
e,,..
.i e
s.'
- ..;i s
e I
3l a.of.l.
=
e y
,ie,
^
yh KEY Et.CIE:rt 17.0
~
L OTTICE OF HUCt.ZAR OpERATIO13 17.1 Concern No. E-85-049-XO3 and M-85:101-006 regarding welder certification. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 25, welders which inyolved.107 welder qualification records from 1972 to 1985.
17.2 Concern No. E-85-69-001 and M-85-069-X05 regarding welder.
n certification and on-the-job training. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 25 welders which involved.107 welder qualification records from 1972 to 1985.
17.3 Concern No. E 108-001 and n 108-002 regarding weld Inspections. This concern could not be substanciated.as evidenced by l
audit of a minimu:n of 14 inspection procedures.
17.1 Concern No. IH-85-476-004 and HI 0.41-002 regarding welding inspectors training program. This concern could not be substatiated as evidenced by audit of training programs.,
17.5 Concern No. W1-85-053-004 and E 68-006 regarding ueld rod control
.g satisfying code requirements. This concern was not substantlited by
. Mls.'
audit of a random sampling of 25 receiving documents and associated Cifra's which involved 25 heat and/or lot number, 6 different types of weld metal covering the years 1976 to 1985. This represents
'approximately 19,000 pounds of weld filler metal.
The statement in the concern shows a lack of understanding of the
- *.m code.
For example, AS:E III, NB-4122 requires traceability of the weld filler metal but gives two methods to chose from. Either trace
.; P to each component or ensure. the specified material is,use,d by a 1%**
control procedure. TVA's program required tha't all the material meet the standards and, therefore, did not require traceability to a component..
i.
17.6 Concern No.,n-85-054-001 regarding weld Inspection by craft. This concern was not subst antiated by the audit of 4 Inspectors pulled from the weld history records for the welds reviewed in the audit as well as by an additional random sampilng of 10 Inspectors. No holdpoints were found to have been signed off by anyone other than certified inspectors.
g.
'g 0031%
i;.
, y._
.\\.,
~
.9 g
9 a
,e.*
e
,* & V'i+ !c:-
^
~
- ) '"
r-
,y
.,c,*yjd;,~' pat.g.h.s
, e t t. t:,.1...n..
-.sj'Jt.$11; 3,I..:l. ' *
(
- 3s
---***a'"'"**
i
- e.-
.e.3
.o, 4 e. g
. f '
r I;,'
.i,
..ji,' f, f.:.
[r N;y{p~
-. ;e i
.g, A ;,
1...
p. s.
- ![i
- Q ',,,. ;;.r,%,... *
..i.W U
- .. " ' r,, )
. m. ;4, v 1
e c.
6
' nI
.u -
r d eg o'
T,:.?'l,y..
'~
- , i gg 3 Qs..,
KEY ELD 4ENT 17.0 'h'il, " -
t
....a
,,.:, y,... :. a CITICE OP NUCLEAR OPERATIONS N..
.I.;,'.; ['
'.i =.,
3 (continued) i-
,3, This concern may bo referring to structural welds Instead of piping-,
Structural welds and piping have different code requirements for fit up and final inspection. No holdpcInt;s' are. required by the TVA procedures for structural welds.
17.7 Concern No. EX-85-039-001 regarding~ weld control (stubs and unused rod). This concern was not substantiated by the audit of applicable procedures. A surveillance program is maintained which included verification of welder identification, the feature being welded and, the procedure being used. Variables from the procedure (such as amperage) are verified to assure that welders are using the procedure-properly. Welding rods, ovens and controls are monitored to assure that the welder has requested th's proper rod, was issued the proper rod, and is using the proper roi!.
ee,S
- q
.,-j j.
T..,'.*
'fl $I p
g
.t.
h i 8 * *[.'[
s l
E i
g-
,s I
0
.,.,r.
0031X
.f*G'5*N.
s' }.
., 4....! i y3 3,.
a i -- ~'
t 1;..
.*[,
8-
- * )*
I s'.. $
..~
. Q *. ';5.N, g,$if *S?,...
i.. n:'.xy.',$, V.?.i.5,$
, '. '. w:g.;4:v ?f '/;..)g;li....D,M.LI',';3 4hi id? -M
- * --(t? S :'- -
~^ **
. 4.-
y ' ~,t -. s a
- n.. ss t
m..
~
l
. ',o s' i
l I'
XX-85-101-006 Page 1 of 1 l
i I
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN I(CATD I-85-101-006-019-SQN-01)
I 1.'
ProblemDescription'l Conflict between FSAR Section 3.2 and General Construction Specification G-29M on welder performance requalification time period, t
2.
Corrective Action Plan DNE-OES will initiate a change to the SQN FSAR Table 3.2.2-3 to clarify that the latest revision to the B31.1-0 code may be used for welder qualification and continuity.
3.
Action to Prevent Recurrence Rovision to the FSAR will prevent recurrence.
a 4
6 i
i l
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _