ML20214G992
| ML20214G992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1986 |
| From: | Alexander M, Harwell E, Sauer R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840729 | List: |
| References | |
| I-85-756-SQN, NUDOCS 8605290626 | |
| Download: ML20214G992 (20) | |
Text
F k
(
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY f, CLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-85-756-SQN EMPLOYEE CONCERN:
XX-85-041-001
SUBJECT:
IMPROPER WELD ROD USED IN 0/G BUILDING OATES OF INVESTIGATION:
OCTOBER 22 - DECEMBER 14, 1985 INVESTIGATOR:
/8-I/
I i
E. (F. HARWELL ORTE /
/2, d' REVIEWED BY:
e'-
^'
M. W. ALEXANDER DATE APPROVED BY:
Z wx/
/[2[B(o R. C. SfiOER DATE
~
b f
k l
I i
l
(
l I.
BACKGROUND f'
A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity of an expressed employee concern as received by the Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Response Team (ERT). The concern of record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as XX-85-041-001, stated:
At Sequoyah, a weld was made in '79 or '80 in diesel generator building, unit 1, using the wrong type rod to weld carbon steel pipe to stainless steel pipe. A cover pass using the correct rod was run over the existing weld. Construction Dept. concern.
CI has no more information.
Further information was requested from the ERT follow-up group regarding whether they had any additional information concerning the type of weld rod actually used, type of weld, size, or plant system where weld was made. QTC/ERT was unsuccessful in contacting the Concerned Individual (CI) to obtain any more specific information. However, QTC did supply f
the following information from their existing interview file:
(1) the CI did not state the type of weld rod actually used but said it should have been E309 electrode, (2) the CI identified the pipe as an instru-mentation line, (3) the CI did not remember the size of the line, and 7
(4) the CI said the first pass looked bad, but was instructed not to I'
grind it out and weld over the exis' ting weld with the correct weld rod.
g";,
\\;. [
II.
SCOPE A.
The scope of the investigation is defined by the concern of record to be one specific issue requiring investigation:
t e Confirm the integrity of all dissimilar instrumentation line welds in the diesel generator building.
B.
In conducting this investigation, NSRS performed a walkdown of the 9
pipe in the diesel building to determine the number and location of dissimilar instrument line welds.
Drawings and wold maps were niso i,t reviewed. Several people were interviewed that had been associated
};
with either directing welding or inspecting welds during the timeframe of interest.
Examinations of all dissimilar instrument line welds in the diesel generator building were performed.
s I
III.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS l
A.
Requircments and Commitments
}
)
1.
ANSI Standard B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addendum - Nuclear Power Piping - Coverned installation and inspection requirements for i
Sequoyah Safety Class A, B, C, and D piping systems.
l l
1 I
i k#
k
(
r h
2.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B - Basis for Quality Assurance (QA) progran during Sequoyah Construction.
B.
Findings t
1.
From the piping walkdown in the diesel generator building, the p
only dissimilar metal welds found on instrumentation lines were
[
the sense lines branching off the Emergency Raw Cooling Water f
(ERCW) piping. These are 1/2" lines which are shown on drawing TVA 74W600-113 and are routed to an instrument panel for monitoring ERCW flow.
(
2.
There is one dissimilar socket weld on each of four instrument lines in each diesel room. This dissimilar weld is located at the junction of the 1/2" stainless instrument pipe to a carbon steel valve body.
Immediately downstream of the valve on each l
of the stainless lines is a carbon steel pipe support which has i
i two dissimilar fillet welds to the 1/2" instrument line. This f
support is welded to the 6" ERCW pipe and provides a fixed j
restraint between the two pipes.
s 3.
The NSRS investigator measured the fillet size of all the 1.
dissimilar socket welds with a Fibre-Metal Weld Fillet Gage, and they all were approximately 3/16" in size.
l 4.
Four dissimilar socket welds in each diesel room (total of 16 j
E%
welds) were liquid penetrant examined by a certified NDE l
examiner. No surface defects were found. If there had been sufficient bad weld metal underneath the cover pass, then flaws should have propagated to the surface.
f l
S.
A visual examination of the eight dissimilar fillet support welds (total of 32 welds for the four rooms) was conducted with no evidence of defects.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
JL.- Conclusions 1.
The concern of record could not be substantiated becauso all the welds examined were found to be free of any defects which could l
be noted on the surface.
All the welds were aproximately the l
same physical size; therefore, not allowing the detection of any extra filler metal which might have been added to conceal a i
defective weld.
2.
If the first pass weld was made with E308, the weld would not have been pleasing in appearance, but would have bonded to both the carbon steel and the stainless. The second pass with the g
correct electrode (E309) would have remelted some of the first 8
pass and provided a smoother region of bonding.
{
j I
2 i
a k
\\
3.
With tha rigid support being located adjacent to the weld, there
[ ' ="* ',.
is no reason to expect the weld would experience stresses to cause a fatigue failure.
Also, if the instrument tube weld should develop a crack, it would be restrained from separating and creating a significant leak.
4.
All the welds appeared to be sound and were free of any detectable defects after several years of operation.
B.
Recommendations None I
l
. )'
t
'1 I
I s
3 il A
i k
i yi DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATICN I-85-756-SQN
}
f AND REFERENCE 0
}
r 1.
Sequoyah drawing 47W600-113, Rev. 1, dated 1/11/77, Mechanical Instruments and Controls, Units 1 and 2 ij 2.
Weld Map - ERCW to Diesel Cenerator; Unit 1A-A, Panel 1-L-272, SEN-18.
3 Rev. 3; Unit 2A-A, Panel 2-L-272, SEN-19, Rev. 3; Unit 1B-B, Panel 1-L-163 SEN-20, Rev. 4; Unit 2B-B, Panel 2-L-163 SEN-21, Rev. 4 3.
Work Request No. 100968, dated 12/3/85 L
i 4.
Work Request No. 100979, dated 12/4/85 5.
Maintenance Request A-088716, dated 12/6/85 t
I-6.
Maintenance Request A-88717, dated 12/6/85 i
l 7.
Record of Liquid Penetrant Examination (TVA form 7440) for examination s'
performed on December 14, 1985, on the following welds:
SEN-450,
-462. -473, -483, -495A, -505A, -515B, -526A, -537, -548, -559, -570, Y
-582
-594. -606, and -618 b
i W
- }lt.
\\
1' 4
l l
i I
4 EMPLOYEE CO!!CERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST TO: Director - NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUMBER T50167 ERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has assigned the indicated category and priority:
Priority: 1 Concern # XX-85-041-OO1 i
'A -M ~1 $L-MM Category: 33 Confidentiality:
_YES
_NO (I&H)
Suporvisor Notified: _X_YES ___NO NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED
_YES_
1 Concern:
AT
- BUILDING, UNIT 1,
USING THE WRONG TYPE ROD TO WELD CARBON STEEL PIPE TO h
STAINLESS STEEL PIPE.
A COVER PASS USING THE CORRECT ROD WAS RUN OVER THE F
EXISTING WELD.
CONSTRUCTION DEPT CONCERN. CI HAS NO MORE INFORMATION.
3Qul uue iun Cc0 N
i
' lp@)
l il h__? n/2S~'
a MANAGER, ERT DATE NSRS has assigned responsibility for investigation of the above concern to:
Li ERT ___
U NSRS/ERT _____
NSRS __
a OTHERS (SPECIFY) ____.._____________________ ________________________
&_Yb_h&_____b/Yhl h
NSRS wAA DATE O
l}
l
+
i
-f j
"l
'.I;_
I[
l EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISPOSITION REPORT l
j CONCERN NO.
XX-85-041-001 DATE OF PREPARATION: 1-18-86 l
l CONCERN: At Secuoyah, a weld was niade in ' 7'S or '80 in Diesel Generator Building, Unit 1,
using the wrong type tod to weld carbon steel pipe to
[
stainless steel pipe.
A cover pass using the correct rod was run over j
the existing weld.
i P
i t
INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY: TVA NSRS I
o FINDING (S) : See investigation report I
{
l CORRECTIVE ACTION (S) : None required I
f i
i e
i i
r CLOSURE STATEMENT:
This concern could not be substantiated because all i
the welds exan11ned were found to be free of any defects which could be l
noted on the surface.
All the welds were approximately the same physical sire; therefore, not allowing the detection of any extra I
filler metal which might have been added to conceal a defective weld.
f 5b..-
ERT Form Q 4
g,.
b f
(
t Cyf1 : Im3pe a.JJ.aeylc%/
s /
f hj )M
=m 3 REQUEST FOR REpORTABILITY EVALUATION 1.
Request No.
XX-85-041-OG1 (ERT Concern No.)
(ID No.,
if reported) 2.
Identification of Item Involved: _ ELDING W
(Nomenclature, system, manuf.,SN, Model, etc.)
3.
Description of problem (Attach related documents,
- photos, sketches,etc.)
SEQUOYAH
-A WELD WAS MADE IN
'79 OR '80 I DGB. UNIT 1.
USING THE WRONG TYPE ROD TO WELD CARBON STEEL DIPE TO STAINLESS STEEL DIPE.
A COVER PASS USING THE CORRECT ROD WAS MADE.
4.
Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental sheets if necessary)
A.
This design or construction deficiency, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout 3JI; the expected lifetime of the plant.
i
+,3 No Y
Yes _
If Yes, Explain:
AND B.
This deficiency represents a sianificant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B.
N'o X
Yes If Yes, Explain:
a OR C.
This deficiency represents a sianificant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction such that the design does not conform to the criteria bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction permit.
No X
Yes __
If Yes, Explains _
i
__= -
l ERT Form M s
s k
f.
\\
,h5W d
J d' 4 3 ':]p. y=
f?
p~
k a
L' ~a
.-(.
REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION D.
This deficiency represents a
significant deficiency in construction of or significant d arda g e to a structure, syst era or cordponent which will require extensive evaluation, extensive
- redesign, or extensive repair to raeet the criteria and basen st at ed in the safety analysis report or construction p e rra i t or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, sy st er.1, or cordponent to perforra its intended safety function.
No X
Yes If Yes, Explain:
I DE E.
This deficiency represents a sinnificant deviation from the performance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive
- redesign, or extensive repair to establish the adequacy of the structure,
- system, or component to perform its intended safety function.
No
__,X Yes If Yes, Explain:
IF ITEM 4A, AND 4B OR 4C OR 4D QR 4E ARE MARKED "YES",
IMMEDIATELY HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS.
This Condition was Identified byM
- -f_W ERT Group Manager e
f ERT Project Manager Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS
_. Ah Date 7 Od
___ Time. /b05 Signed
- /w
)
o ERT Form M
t TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: I-85-776-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM f ~
REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 0 TITLE:
Socket Welds Not Inspected REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC
SUMMARY
STATEMENT: Concerns Considered: XX-85-108-001 and XX-85-108-002 PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
Original Signed by R. M. Bateman 11-06-86 SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER:
Original Signed By J. E. Rose 11-06-86 SIGNATUPE DATE ffTECHNICALREVIEWONLY TAS dh DbW Hb/b SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H:
J. F. Lewis for ! FM 11-95-A6 SRP: \\ W [
12* 2 *FC f
SIGNATURE
- DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY:
Y/ k
/G 2-Tb N/A ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in flies.
2242T l
i WELDING PROJECT SON SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS DATE 11/6/86
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS -
SUMMARY
OF WP ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONCERN CONSIDERED: XX-85-108-001 PREPARED BY Il/ Ll6(o
. DNC, WP REVIEWED BY \\1.h *
((f b[b GP
, DNC, WP I_ '.
- /!E8 #$
. DQA WP REVIEWED BY
.e d G
C REVIEWED BY [>w u / f.Nnu n// </# /:
ret 2/3 n'
, CEG-H, Welding J
/f*f-Id
. Program Manager
. //,
APPROVED BY s
06470
t I
Thin. pact. age ;uinmart;ec the action; ta!.en by the Welding Pro ect (WP) to i
I evaluato and di'ponition tlie vubJect. SQll-cpecific employee concern which was pre.ioucly evaluated by MCRS/OTC/ERT and c uinmar i z ed in WP Phase I and Phace II reports.
5 The Wolding Project analy cd each son-cpecific employee concern (ftttachment C) to determine the ctatement (c) being voiced by thcce individuals.
Theco statement were then evaluated both individually and collectively to duvelop iccuan.
Each incue was then incorportated into the WP review activities of Phase I.
I
" Procedural ($cuesumont" and Phant II, " Procedural Implementation."
During Phaco I.
each iccue wac analy:cd againut requirements of the applicable OA program, policion. NSRS/OTC/ERT Invoctigation Reporte, and other relevant information to determine if program elemento were deficient when ovaluated against uppur tier requirements.
Fhano II consicted of a comple reinspection of hardware and independent program audit by Duchtel.
In nach area anal,:cd by Dochtul. the auditorn found no objective evidence to cubctantiate the employce concerne concidered. The following areau directly I
related tu emplayou concern were inveutigated by the audit team 5371 Page 1 of 3 w..
t
r j
1 e
1.
Welder qualification and attendant records 2.
Wolder qualification and attendant on-the-job-training l
3.
Welding inspections 4.
Welding inspectors training programs 5.
Weld material traceability 6.
Welding inspections by craft personnel 7.
Wald material control Each of these areas was investigated by the auditors for both construction and operations phases.
In all cases, there was no objective evidence to substantiate the employee concerns. The audit report concludes that both construction and operations phases have had and now have a functioning Welding Quality Assuranco Program which meets code, standard, and rogtilatory regt$1rements and that the employee concerns considered were found to be unsubstantiated and without technical merit.
' C paso 2 of 3 03371 r
[_
The results of the reinspection program at SQN also give another, additional f
verification of the Wolding 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 were found to be acceptable upon initial reinspection or found to be acceptabic after engineering analysis.
l The WP analysis of SQN Specific Employee Concerns supplemented by the l
independent Bechtel Audit, reinspection of installed components and systems, and independent (NSRS) overview and investigations has not revealed any significant or generic inadequacies in the welding programs for either the l
construction or operations phase at SQN which have been directly identified I
through the Employee Concern Program. The Employee Concern Program has simply l
reiterated problems which have been or are now being resolved through existing corrective action programs in the overall Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, i
A summary analysis of the WP evaluations and recommendations is included in l.
I k
L i
l l
[
0337I "E"
l t
a Page 1 of 3 5
SUMMARY
.0F SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REVIEWED BY WELDING PROJECT lEMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE WP ACTION XX-85-088-003' Alterations to Welder Not substantiated by ERT Qualification Records in Report XX-85-088-003 of Knoxville 3/8/86 (Attachment 3).
4 XX-85-124-001 Burial of Electrode Stubs Not safety-related. No e
action required.
i XX-85-086-003-Box > Anchor Design Substantiated by NSRS Report Deficiency.
I-85-560-SQN (Attachment 3).
WP concurs with report recommendations.
XX-85-069-003-R1 Acceptance of Previously Not Substantiated by NSRS 4r Rejected NDE Items Report I-85-738-SQN (Attach-j b.,
ment 3).
WP concurs with
\\
J -
report recommendations.
i
- S SQM-5-001-001 Uncertified Welder Foreman Substantiated by WP Evaluation J
SQM-5-001-002 Performing Preweld Report WP-16-SQN (Attachment WBM-5-001-002 Inspections 3).
Interim corrective l1 (Also Listed in cetions are being the Generic formulated. Closure is Summary) based on these actions.
Additional corrective actions may be implemented.
j
.)
'l XX-85-068-007 Manufacture of Dravo Spool Not substantiated by NSRS Piece REPORT I-85-636-SQN
'i (Attachment 3).
XX-85-069-001 _
Inadequate OJT-Records for The general issue of XX-85-069-001-R1 ISI and QC Personnel for NO inadequate OJT-records was XX-85-069-X05 substantiated by NSRS Report XX-85-069-007 I-85-373-NPS (Attachment 3).
j No falsification of records was substantiated. WP con-
'I curs with report recommen-dations.
ll 1
i 05640 t
l jx
Page 7 of 3
(-
EMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE WP ACTION SQM-6-005-001 Craft Welder Incapable of SQM-6-005-001 was SQM-6-005-X02 Making Proper Welds substantiated; SQM-6-005-X02 was not substantiated by NSRS Report I-86-115-SQN (Attach-ment 3).
WP concurs with i
report.
tj, 1.;
XX-85-013-001 E309 Electrode Used to Weld This is an acceptable B
E316 Steels practice.
ERT investigated
}'
in ERT Report XX-85-013-001, dated 3/22/85 (Attachment 3).
WP concurs.
'i ;
. ). -
XX-85-041-001 Improper Weld Rod Used in Not substantiated by NSRS j.
Diesel Generator Building Report I-85-756-SQN sj (Attachment 3).
$1 l'
1$
XX-85-049-001 Welder Certifications XX-85-049-001 was l{, :
~
XX-85-049-X03 Updated Without Meeting substantiated as it relates Requirements to Welder Continuity Require-j.
ments. This had previously
)j; been identified by N0 in an a
audit. XX-85-049-X03 was not j;
substantiated.
Details and recommendations are given in 1-
)
NSRS Report I-85-135-SQN (Attachment 3).
WP concurs with I-85-135-SQN-01 through
-03 and recommends they be j
closed based on the j1 WP-Bechtel Audit of SQN in
]:
Key Elements 4.0, 5.0, and 17.0 (Attachment 4).
4(;
$, i XX-85-054-001 QC Holdpoint Sign-Off Not substantiated by NSRS Violation Report I-85-346-SQN I
(Attachment 3).
I XX-85-065-001 Performance of Remete Visual Not substantiated by NSRS i
Inspections Report I-85-750-SQN f [b (Attachment 3).
I 05640 l'
o
J
^
Page 3 of 3 l
l EMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE WP ACTION XX-85-083-001 SQN Weld Inspections not as Not substantiated by NSRS
[
Strict as WBN Report I-85-652-SQN (Attachment 3).
XX-85-098-001 Laminated Pipe in Unit 2 Not safety-related Not Condenser.
This 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 ERT
~
Undetermined Number of Report XX-85-100-001, dated Welds 3/5/86 (Attachment 3).
XX-85-101-006 Welder Certification for ERT Report XX-85-101-006 the Construction Era (Attachment 3) with NSRS Recommendations indicates
('[
that this concern is sub-stantiated. WP takes excep-('. '
tion to this ERT 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).
XX-85-108-001 Socket Welds Not Inspected Not substantiated by NSRS XX-85-108-002 Report I-85-776-SQN (Attachment 3).
W 05640
Page 1 of 1 11/04/86 (EMPLOYEE CONCERNS) 11:27:45
}.
CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY ORG OTC EGG INSP SD RD GD 10 ------CONCERN-------
l 7-S 1
NSRS P1 SR XX-85-108-001 WORDS:
WELDMENT OUALITY SPECIFIC PROB: WCMHC SEQUOYAH: C/l STATES WELDS IN UNIT #1 ACCUMULATOR ROOMS AND/OR FAN ROOMS WERE NEVER INSPECTED. TIME FRAME IS NINE OR TEN YEARS AGO. WELDS ON 2" STAINLESS STEEL (SOCKET WELDS) AND HANGERS ON THE RADIUS PIPE IN TilOSE AREAS. CONST. DEPT.
CONCERN. C/l HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFO.
IR: 1-85-776-SON STAT:
RC:
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
1 i
N
'i e
o 4
t i
e 9
e 4
(W xl
WELDING PROJECT SQN SPECIFIC EliPI.0YEE CONCERNS 6
1 l
.I ATTACHMENT 3 NSRS REPORT I-85-776-SQN 4.
\\^ e, 91 a
h h
t i
l h.'
v.
g' i-
tva 6cim.u top au s-en f
UNITED STATES GOVERN 31ENT
(
(
}
Memorandum rzxxzsses vatter Auruonirr TO
- H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM
- K. W. Whitt. Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K
'." " ] O 9 jQ pI*l DATE a a
~
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No.
I-85-776-SON Subject SOCKET WELDS NOT INSPECTED Concern No.
XX-85-108-001 and u -u m ve-vos No response or corrective action is required for this report.
It is being transmitted to you for information purposes only.
Should you have any questions, please contact R. C. Sauer at telephone 2277 Recommend Reportability Determination:
Yes No X
. n tor, NSRS/Desigdee RCS:JTH Attachment cc (Attachment):
Jim W. Coan, WBN P-104 SB-K R. P. Denise, LP6N35A-C R. J. Griffin, SQN E-18 G. B. Kirk, SQN D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C J. H. Sullivan, SQN W. F. Willis, E12B16 C-K (4) 0219U ea w
e c..:-.. o
.s.
n....o..s..
r..
o.....rr c..;:,. or.