ML20214U814
| ML20214U814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Russell J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214G966 | List:
|
| References | |
| WP-10, WP-10-R, WP-10-R00, NUDOCS 8612090409 | |
| Download: ML20214U814 (32) | |
Text
I TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-10 SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 0 TITLE: SQN Implementation of QAE-80-2 REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC
SUMMARY
STATEMENT: N/A PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
Original Signed By J. E. Rore 04-03-86 SIGNATURE DATE e
REVIEWS PEER:
Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 04-03-86 SIGNATURE DATE 1
l TAS: TECHNICAL REVIEW ONLY Y$
ll 1
v l
SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H:
L. E. Martin 09-03-86 SRP: M h.
II 20*8C SIGNAIURE DATE
()
SIGNATURE
- DATE l
APPROVED BY:
h l2 A
$$ Y N/A l
ECSP MANAG8R DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE I
CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
2242T 8612090409 861124 l
l PDR ADOCK 05000327 p
I
~
WELDING PROJECT GENERIC EMPLOYEE C0hCERN u
4
's EVALUATION REPORT REPORT NUMBER:
WP-10-SON, R0 DATE 04-08-86
SUBJECT:
SON IMPLEMENTATION OF OAE-80-2
~
CONCERN CONSIDERED:
- WI-85-030-010
- THIS CONCERN REPLACED WI-85-030-001 PREPARED BY Original Signed by J. E. Rose 4/3/86 OC, WP REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. Bateman 4/3/86 OC, WP
.)
REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. P. Lynskey 4/3/86 QA, WP A
CEG-H, WELDING REVIEWED B '
y,,
/
~
A b
PROGRAM MANAGER
/
o APPROVED BY 1_
7 l
00290 I
l
I GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN
SUMMARY
SHEET
..t Report Number:
WP-10-SON. R0 Report
Title:
SON IMPLEMENTATION OF OAE-80-2 I.
CONCERN CONSIDERED:
- WI-85-030-010
- This concern replaced WI-85-030-001 II.
ISSUES INVOLVED
. The corrective actions specified in QAE-80-2 of September 1980, 1.
may not have been implemented at SQN.
III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Validity: Y X
,N
, Substantiated: Y I
,N IV.
EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM None V.
JUSTIFICATION ll QAE-80-2 was a study of the overall Office of Construction welding It was not an audit of quality affecting activities. SQN program.
construction was essentially' completed when the study was done.
VI.
RECOMMENDATION AND/0R CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED None VII.
REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y
,N X
VIII.
ISSUE CI.OSURE Based on this report.
IX.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Text of the Employee Concern 2.
May 27, 1980 memo to Those listed from H. H. Mull and M. N.
Sprouse (QAM 800528 003) 3.
Report QAE-80-2 Page 1 of 1
(.)
'./
00290
(
iR-
l-(
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN Report Number:
WP-10-SON. RO q.
Report
Title:
SON IMPLEMENTATION OF OAE-80-2 I.
SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering analysis covers WBN Employee Concern Number WI-85-030-010 (this concern replaced WI-85-030-001) which was determined to have possible generic implications at SQN.
II.
ISSUE ADDRESSED BY THE CONCERN The concern was analyzed to determine the issue voiced by the
~
concerned individual. The issue is as follows:
The corrective actions specified in Report Number QAE-80-2, " Review and Evaluation of the OEDC Welding and NDE Program," dated September 8, 1980, may not have been implemented.
g III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION On May 27, 1980, authorization was given by H. H. Mull, Director of
-Construction, and M. N. Sprouse, Director of Engineering Design, to perform a review of the implementation of the welding program in CONST and EN DES and to provide recommendations for improvement (QAM 800528 003, attached).
The evaluation was performed during the time period from June 16 to July.31, 1980, and covered Watts Bar and later nuclear construction sites which were active at that time. A copy of the report is attached. The report identified recommended improvements that would make the overall welding and NDE program more effective. Among the recommendations was one deficiency which had been previously reported as an audit finding. SQN was specifically not included in this evaluation since the construction effort with regard to welding was nearing completion at SQN at this time.
Based on the above analysis, the issue addressed in the concern is substantiated. However, it was not intended to implement the recommendations at SQN, and many of the recommendations would not have been feasible to implement at SQN due to its completion status. No impact on SQN hardware can be identified.
Based on the foregoing analysis, this concern is closed.
Page 1 of 1 ta:,0 i
00290 I
03/02/86 CEMPLOYEE CONCERNS)
Page 1 of 1
. 1'Sr24:28 LOC.
STATUS RESP.
-QTC-PPP CFR INSP TC ------C.ONCERN-------
PROBLEM zu SR WI-85-030-OO1 XXXXX X: W Y: C Z: N NOT WELD RELATED AutWORDS:
WELDING AND NDE PROGRAM CORRECTIVE ACTION, AS IDENTIFIED IN DEDC QUALITY DATED SEPTEMBER 1980, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IMPLE-ASSUPANCE EUALUATION NO. QAE-2.
3 FOR WATTS BAR AND OTHER PLANTS; THE SAME/ UNCORRECTED PROBLEMS WERE FOUND MEfi.
TO EXIST YEARS LATER, AND MAY STILL EXIST TODAY. CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
CHANGED DUE TO CLARIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY.
SUBJECT CONCERN TRANSFERRED TO WI-BS-030-010 (WB) AND XX-85-110 COTHERS).
LOC STATUS RESP
-QTC-PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN-------
PROBLEM ID P7 SR WI-85-030-010 WCPIF XEYWORDS:
MISCELLANEOUS IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT X: W Y: N 2: N WELDING AND NDE PROGRid CORRECTIVE ACTION, AS. IDENTIFIED IN DEDC QUALITY QAE02, DATED SEPTEMBER 1980 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ASSURANCE EUALUATION NO.
IMPLEMENTED FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT. THE SAME UNCORRECTED PROBLEMS WERE FOUND TO EXIST YEARS LATER AND MAY STILL EXIST TODAY. NUC. POWER DEPT. CONCE CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
'iNICAL COMMENTARY:
. i/
THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SPECIFIED IN QAE-2 OF SEPTEMBER 198d ISSUES CONSIDERED:
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
9 4
L
' mWqi
., g., Q'.e.>;,.
m.
qau ',80 0528 0 0 3 te,s
,k -.
m.
,T
~ Memorandum mmvmrx nud AUTHORrrY n
800530A0258 E I' To me.i-To. 11ste* ** "
a L H. Mall, Manager of Construction, E7B24 C-K M. E. 8prouse, hoger of Engineering Design, W11A9 C-Z 7,ng May 2'T,1980 DATE :
RETIEW AID ETAIDATION CF CGIST WEIDING AND NDE PROGRAM - WA*TS EAR
.UBJECT:
AID IATER FI#fTS i
(
This You have been selected as a ammber of the subject review team.
i is a very important review which needs continuity anc you have been j
assigned to devote your attention ecutinuously during the month of J
.htne and part of July. Please refer to the attached memo, nt11 and t
8prouse to Project Managers and Branch Chiefs dated May 27, 1980.
Iso Hebert is the team 1 ender and you should be available to meet with him and other team members June 2 to caka plans for the review, which abould be c<= plate by ear 1y July. Further direction in the details of the review will be provided by L R. Brown and J. P. Knight at the first usesting.
i The objectives of the review are to look at the adequacy and effectiveness 1
.cf the velding and NUE progress and report to us on your findirgs with appropriate reccumendations for imiptw. a nt.
_.WW A
@ Ab M/
W=. L M111 H
A. N. sprouse l
L L Earris, ETIfW C-K L 0. Hebert, W12B4h C-K f
B. L Jessee, W10D183 C-K j
L C. Northard, Vatts Bar, LCNST e
4 L L Turnbow, Hartsville, c:NST
'j 2
)
WRB JII LF Attachment "I
L R. Brown, E7B23 C-K ec:
f R. L Dibeler, E5B60 C-K
- 0. F. Dilworth, W10C126 C-K 2
- 0. Facruer, E7D23 C-K j'
O. L h ns, W12A9 C-K
~
J. P. Enight, W12B30 C-K J. L Parris, vi m M C-K J. E. '#11Hns, Watts Bar, ERST
_ Mtml, EfB37 C-K \\
4 6 ?
a r, t Buy V3. Saebegs Bonds Regularly en ihe Peyroll Savings Plan
QAM '800908 001 j
UNITED STATES COVERN3 TENT Memorandtem TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY yo H. H. Mull, Manager of Construction. *E7824 C-K M. N. Sprouse, Manager of Engineering Design, W11A9 C-K FReut '
E. Gray Beasley, Quality Assurance Manager, OEI)C W12B26 C-K DATE September 8, 1980 80090980330 A
W M:
REVIEW AND EVA1.UATION OF OEI)C WEl.DDC AND NDE PROGRAM QAE 80-2 Reference Memo H. H. Mull and M. N. Sprouse to Those listed
)5'fl i dated May 27, 1980 (QAM 800528 002) and ggg Memo H. H. Mull and M. N. Sprouse to Review Team dated May 28, 1980 (QAM 800528 003)
Attached la a copy of the final report dated September 4, 1980, for the subject report.
E. Gay Beasley b
14H:AH I
Attachment cc: (Attachment)
R. A. Costner W11D190 C-K R. W. Dibeler. ESB60 C-K C. H. Kimmons, W12A9 C-K Evaluation Team Members 1ED S. F'.R37 C-K File QAE 80-2 Buy US. Savings Bonds Regularly on the PayrollSavings Plan
TENNESSE8i VALLEY AUTHORITY QUALITY ASSURANCE STAFF Office of Engineering Design and Construction QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION No. QAE-2 Rev.
0 Vatts Bar and later nuclear plants Appries te:
M.
nevt.u.nA Pv.1.isetan nF nrne t.'.1 A 4 n, an A smr pene,..
June 16 to July 31. 1980 e
l s
a L. C. Hebert R. L. Earris
/ K. A. MastigrP OIDC-QA CONST - Koorville CONST - Knoxville k
h.
.r e e n.
us m
!11 A L. C/ Northard R.M/Jessee N. L. Turnbow CONST - WBN EN DtS - NES COFST, QL - trTN September 4. 1980
=
e U
i l
CONTENTS
(
t A.
Scope i
l
'f 3.
Criteria for a Valding Program
}
C.
Management Summary Evaluation Team and Schedule D.
s Attachment - Questions. Answers, and Recommendations E.
1 F
3 e
1 d
1 e
A i.
I 1
1
.I
e i
established.
j A more detailed training and certification program for certifying f
4.
Level II Radiographers to 1.evel 11 Film Evaluators needs to be j
developed.
,i 1
5.
Additional supervisorw and technical personnel should be supplied to the Project Welding Engineering Units.
l The Project Velding Engineering t! nits should supply craf t and 9
inspection personnel with information on weld sequencing.
i i
4
M 3
s 3
i l
I Information needed to produce welds of acceptable size, configuration and quality should be furnished to welders.
Workmanship samples should be provided to welders and welding ins pec to r s.
The Project Welding Engineering Units should select welding to provide optimum quality and enhance processes and equipmentCONST should establish a welding applications cost factors.
facility to support this activity.
Complete welding procedure specifications should be at the foreman's station.
CONST nuclear projects should be supplied with welding fit-up procedures.
A concerted ef fort should be made to provide a checklist on operations involving multiple procedures.
A standard weld monitor system should be developed to provide more 6.
information and to relate to cost and schedule.
All necessary tools, sauges, and instruwnte necessary to determine 7.
weld acceptance eTould be more readily available to welders, 1
foremen and inspectors.
More surveillance checks should be made on'in process velding 8.
operations.
A standardized system for continuity of welders' qualification 9.
and a welding procedure / performance gus1Lfication cross-reference should be developed and applied to all nuclear projects.
An improved system for making minor changes to welding operation the nuclear projects need to be developed.
10.
control documents at A study of manpower utilitation of welders at all nuclear projects 11.
should be made.
A complete rework of distribution, control, content and utilization 12.
of C-29 welding and fabrication specificaticas should be made jointly by EN DES and COF5I.
Improvement should be made to the review sad application of requirements of STR1DE specifications, gN DES welding personnel should review all drawings for constructability, standardize requirements for subcontracted and field fabricated items, and clearly define requirements by system classification.
Fositive action needs to be taken to preclude defective items from being shipped to the projects.
-e
.a* :
O interf aces betwen EN DES and CONST and within both
- 13. A review of the EN DES and CONST is needed.
The scope, depth, and frequency of CONST audits of welding and 14 Auditors performing these NDE acti-ities needs to be evaluated.
audits should have additional training in these activities.
gp 3s The CEP/ SOP and QC1/C-29 progr.m at HTN and later plants needs s
15.
standardiastion.
A review of NRC Ol&E reports and interactions with their inspectors indicate NRC's major concern in the welding ard KDE areas is our own The review team contends
, j j'
failure to follow established requirements.
that areas addressed in this report concerning training should be given highest priority to alleviate this problem area.
NOTE stated above are discussed in detail in report section E, The items Questions, Answers, and Recommendations.
l 8
e 3
i e
1 m
e i
7' l'
~.-
S I
i I
D.
EVALUATION TEAM AND SCHEDULE Team Members l
I L. C. Hebert - CEDC QA, Team Leader L. C. Northard - CONST
- 1. L. Harris - CONST
- 1. M. Jessee - EN DES M. L. Turnbow - CONST E. A. Hasting - CONST (PBH and YCN only)
Schedule June 16-20,1980 - Bellefonte Nuclear Plant June 23-25, 1980 - EN DES /CONST Enoxville June 30-July 3,1980 - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant July 7-11, 1980 - Hartsville Nuclear Plant July 14-18, 1980 - Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant July 22-25, 1980 - Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant July 26-31, 1980 - Eh DES Knoxville Y
6 0
i a-f l
m icxx m
(
f QUESTIONS, ANSVERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I.
Personnel Manereme_nt and Supervision a.
1.
Upper Manatement Do they demonstrate by word or deed suf ficient QA a.
commitment to the people they supervise down to the lowest level?
ANSWER Upper management.at each nuclear project demonstrates their quality assurance / quality control commitment to the pe-sons they supervise, however, this information does not appear to be transmitted to lower All nuclear level personnel in their orgsnisations.
project management; project manager, construction engineer, and construction superintendent have their own method of conveying commitments to those they supe rvise. Some indicated the need for developing methods for assuring that this information reachea 1
their lowest level of personnel.
RECOMKEND ATION All nuclear project management should continously demonstrate the need for implementing QA/QC commitment to all their project personnel. The system for communicating this information should include a feedback from personnel to assure management that requirements are being properly interpreted and problems identified.
2.
Craft Supervisors / Foremen Are cra f t supervisors knowledgeable of QA/QC a.
requirements?
j AMSWER l
supervisors at the foreman / general foreman level I
Cra f t have a general knowledge of QA/QC commitments, but need additional training in the sper'.fice of their area I
of responsibility. It was observed that the percentage of plant completion had a direct relationship to the level of QA/QC knowledge. This would suggest V
N 3
such knowledge is acquired through negative that esperience rather than a positive training program.
[
The amount of formal QA/QC training in this area la to that provided in other areas, i.e.
disproportionateThe training varies from a 30 minute I
QC Inspection. orientation to an unstructured program where specifies approximately 10-week intervals.
are covered at RECOMMENDATION is recoussended that a structured training program It The program should be implemented at each site.
address the general requiremer.ts and cournitments l
applicable to all crafts and in addition, the specifics
(
for each craf t and/or type of activity, i.e.
l steamfitters, ASMIl ironworkers, AWS.
j I
b.
What is their consnitment? Quality, production, or r
L quality production? Which of these provides their motivation?
M%TR Direct craf t supervision is placed in the position satisfy both quality and production.
.)
where they must The balance between these is dictated by the acceptability of the work. In essence, the supervisor l
is attempting to achieve an acceptable quality level This results with the lowest expenditure of man-hours.
l in a quality level which is directly associated with the degree of inspection.
How do supervisors assign welders to specific work?
I c.
ANSVER 4
Although all craft welders are quallfled to standard it is tests in accordance with applicable codes k
recognized that various skill levels exist between These skill levels are generally I
lodividuals.
recognized by issnediate cra f t supervision and assignment is made accordingly.
What instructions are given for specific work?
d.
ANSVER The type and detail of instructions given to the velders vary from site to site and activity to These do not always appear to be activity.
It was commensurate with the required quality level.
i the general opinion of craf ts that more specific j
information would be of benefit.
~
3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the information needed to produce a weld of acceptable size, configuration, and quality be determined and made more readily available to the welder.
3.
Welding Engineering /QC Unit Supervisor What are his qualifications?
a.
ANSVER In general, the Welding Engineering /QC Unit Supervisors have suf ficient background and experience in TVA to function as unit supervisors, but need additional technical support from qualified welding engineering and RDE personnel.
b.
What is his span of supervisory controlf ANSWER With the exception of Phipp's Bend, where Welding Engineering /QC has been separated, there are too many personnel in the unit to -be,e f fectively supervised by one individual. All projacts are understaffed in the Welding Engineering function.
Does this arrangement (welding engineer and QC c.
inspection) provide suf ficient flexibility and independence to be effective?
ANSVER The arrangement of Welding Engineering /QC can work either way (in the same unit or separate) provided there is suf ficient management personnel and technical All projects are under staffed in one or both support.
of these areas.
RECOMMENDATION The Welding Engineering /QC Unit should have additional qualified technical personnel. Also, there should be an H grade supervisor in the Welding Engineering and the QC functions to relieve the unit supervisor from some of the administrative duties which he now pe r f o rms.
i
m O
b.
Welding Engineering the interf ace between EN DES and CONST ef fective?
1.
to ANSVER There are many areas where the interf ace between EN DES and CONST is not effective. There are also areas within EN Present DES and CONST where interf aces are not ef fective.
rules require nuclear projects to interf ace through EN DES Project Management. This arrangement is too time consuming and inefficient.
RECOMMINDATION_
These interfaces should be reviewed to provide for uniformity and improved efficiency.
Do we have adequate welding engineering coverage in CONST 2.
and EN DEST ANSVER There is inadequate welding engineering coverage in both CONST and EN DES.
RECOMKENDATION EN DES should supply CONST with a list of systems for the particular project, defining system classification, nuclear safety-related items, code and standard (with applicable exceptions), inspection requirements, etc., for ready EN DES welding personnel should review reference by CONST.
all drawings for constructability, welding, inspection and KDE information, review specifications for subcontracted items so that fabrication requirements are comparable to TVA field f abrication, upgrade QE5 welding EN DES inspection activities for vendor supplied items.
should clearly define requirements of codes and standards on fit-up, inspection, etc., for each system acd special requirements for duct, drain lines, and other non-critical fabrication.
3.
Are the CONST site welding engineers qualified to be welding engineers?
ANSVER Approximately 50 percent of the site welding engineers have insuf ficient background, experience and education to perform as qualified welding engineers.
I
,s 5
The Welding Engineering Units should have additional qualified technical personnel.
Are the CONST welding engineers functioning as welding 4.
l engineers or as a technical advisor /aasistant unit supervisor to the welding inspectors?
ANSWER The CONST welding engineers spend the majority of their time as Technical advisor / assistant unit supervisor to the velding ins pectors. This situation results 'from inexperienced walding inspection personnel, and the amount of research needed to determine requirements for the system.
Do CONST welding engineers have the ability to sequence 3
welding operations so as to control shrinkage, distortion, cracking, etc.? If so, do the cra f ts abide by this sequence?
ANSWER la many cases, welding engineers have the ability to sequence welding operations to control shrinkage, distortion, cracking, etc.
There is very IIttle evidence of this type of informati2n being provided to the cra f ts.
The cra f t s generally follow such information when provided.
gECOMKENDATION CONST Welding Engineering Units should supply craf ts with welding sequence for those applications where required by code and where considered necessary for other applications.
6.
Do welding engineers have a system to menitor the accep-/ reject rates with respect to cost and schedules?
ANSVER The uvid menitor system at the CONST projects serves as a status indicator and is not related to cost and schedule.
There is lit tle uniformity of weld monitor systems from one project to another.
____j
h l
I 6
I 1
actions do welding engineers take to improve acceptance rate of welds (review procedures, methods, weld 7.
What configuration, manual / auto process, etc.)?
ANSVER Little, and sometimes no action is taken to improve This condition results mainly from acceptance rates.
understo f fing of the welding engineering units.
RECOMMENDATION CONST should establish a standard weld monitor system which defines weld type and size, volume of weld metal, weld process and position of welding, type of K)E (surf ace or information volumetric), and a system which will relate on acceptance / rejection rate to cost and schedule.
How do welding e s;ineers interf ace with craf ts?
8.
ANSWER with crafts, In general, there is insuf ficient interfaceto understoffing of welding ent neering unit.
i due in part process to be used, which may not be the mest cost In other cases, effective nor produce the highest quality.
decisions on velding process and equipment are overruled There is also by higher engineering or craft management.
f ailure by cra f ts to follow instruction in estk packages and other documents, and to bypass hold pointa.
REC 0KKENDATION The CONST Velding Engineerine Unit at each nuclear project should select the most cost ef fective welding process consistent with the quality level required for the to be application and should select welding equipment purchased compatible with the welding process, in conjunction with the CONST Velding Engineering Staf f.
CONST should establish a Welding Applications f acility "de-bug" machine and
, to qualify welding procedures and to automatic welding equipment.
c.
C0h5T Inspectors is the background and qualifications of these 1.
What people?
ANSVInt The background and qualifications of CONST welding inspectors ranges from 25 years of continuous related esperience, to new hires with no previous work experience
F,
/
i I
?
f::
and nonstructureJ on-the-job training (OJT). The six is not weighted toward the more experienced. As a group, l
approximately 80 percent of the individuals did not have previous experience in this field prior to employment by I
j TVA.
Almost all of these individuals attended i
the Training and Technology School, Oak Ridge National I
The Laboratory and were recruited directly from there.
f remaining 20 percent had experience in military service I
or with private companies.
2.
Do they receive adequate training from within TVAT f
h L
3.
Do they know the procedural requirements, criteria and f
techniquest li ANSVER The requirements of ASKT-TC-1 A establish the basis for training and qualification of CONST inspection personnel In the area of KDE.
The criteria established by QAP 2.3,
?
Qualification Training, and Certification Requirements f
for Hondestructive Examination Personnel, provides
(
reasonable assurance that the individual has received l
adequate training prior to conduct of activities in this area. Training for other duties of welding ins pec tion,
i.e., ficup, purge, visual ins pection, and surveillance of welding procedure conformance which are 8
I not addres sed by ASNT-TC-1 A need more emphasis.
RECOMMENDATION l
I It is recommended that a structured training program be l
established to cover other duties of a welding inspector which are presently not adequately addressed.
l r
f
- 4. Do they have adequate tools of the trade to perform the required inspection functions?
f 4
l ANSVER l
l At the present time, inspection personnel are not always i
provided with the basic tools needed to perform the l
inspection functions. Certain tools, such as protractors for checking angular dimensions and weld reinforcement j
gauges are not readily available.
l RECOMMENDATION i
Tools such as protractors and reinforcement gauges be made more readily available to inspectors.
h 4
1
8 5.
What is the ratio of inspectors to welders? Is this I
ratio adequate to cover the job 7 ANSVER The ratio of active welders to inspectors ranges from 20 i
to I to 24.2 to I with an average of 22.2 to 1 for all sites. If the inspection prograss is to be fully implemented in nonsafety-related areas, this ratio is not adequate.
6.
How do they interf ace with welders?
ANSVER The relationship between inspectors and welders is i
f generally good. The basic problem in this relationship is that the inspector, in most instances, must pass judgment on workmanship that has not been evaluated by craft supervision.
7.
Do inspectors direct work by crafts?
AN%TR l
As indicated in 1.c.6 ab*ove, when cra f t supervision does not evaluate work for acceptability prior to requesting in s pec tion, the inspector is placed in the position of directing work.
In the case where an activity has been performed incorrectly, procedures not followed, or acceptance criteria not met, the inspector must provide the necessary information to the craf t to correct the situatien. A general attitude exists that it is the function of the inspector to provide the cra f ts with the necessar) QA/QC information to perform an activity. With the exception of NDE activities on safety-related sy-tems, associated welding inspection activities, i.e.,
f i t u,,,
purge, weld configuration, and profile are not normally
" rejected" in the sense that a record is generated. The I
l condition is not accepted Ly the inspector and such rework as necessary to provide an acceptable condition is l
performed and then reinspected to determine acceptability.
RECOMMENDATION It is recounsended that cra f t responsibility for meeting i
QA/QC requirement s be emphasized f or both sa f ety-related and nonsafety-related work and the role of the inspector be defined as assuring these requirements have been met.
l I
i I
.W...
9 l
d.
CONST Welders 1.
What is their esperience level?
ANSVER All construction craf t welders are required to be qualified The experience in accordance with the applicable codes.
personnel is normally based upon attainment level of craf t The number of journeyman welders of journeyman status. varies from 80 percent of the active welders at one site to 40 percent at another site. The remaining welders are formal program or permit welders apprentices enrolled in anormally having approximately six months of formal welding training.
skills training do they receive within TVAT 2.
What AN5VER Welding skills training is provided by the craf t on an This normally constitutes such training as-needed basis.
as required to enable craft velders to qualify in The content and format of 5
' additional welding processes.
this training is dete rmined by the cra f t.
Do they receive adequate training in the area of QA/QC7 3.
ANSWER The amount and type of QA/QC training provided to velders varies from site to site. As a minimum they view i 30-Add itiona l minute orientation film on welding QA/QC.
traloing is at the option of the site which may consist of repetition of the film at s pec i f ic inte rvals, formal orientation sessions, etc.
RECOMMFKDATION is recommended that a standardized structured Ittraining program be implemented at all sites.
Do they receive on-the-job training (0JT)?
4.
AN5VER With the exception of the apprentice program, OJT for This is due to the requirement welders is not provided.
that all welders must be qualified prior to performing any velding activity at a TVA construction site.
e ow
~
^ ^ ~ ~
--_nna
10 Are detail weld proCeaures made readily available to 5.
[
the we lde r s ?
ANSWER Detail velding procedures are made available to welders at all sites. The system varies from the applicable DWP to all assigned being posted in the inmediate work areathe foreman's work DVP's being maintained in a folder at station. It should be noted that the DWP provides only process parameters and the general welding procedure specification must be available to provide theWith one exception, the general additional requirements.
welding procedure is not readily available.
RECOMMEKDATION C-29 Ceneral Velding Specificatioi4s should be at the foreman's work s tation.
Are the quality control and standard operating 6.
procedures made readily available to the welder?
ANSWER Other than the Dethil Weld Procedures, velders are not provided with quality control and standard operating procedures.
Are the welders knowledgeable of the procedural 7.
requirements of the jobf ANSWER Welders are knowledgeable of the procedures they are provided and in general adhere to these requirements.
How are velders certified /recertified?
8.
ANSWER All TV.'. welders are qualified / certified to the applicable codes and processes they utilize. This qualification / certification is supervised and evaluated Requalification by welding engineering unit personnel.
is required if a specific process has not been utilized All sites have instituted a within three months.
to assure this qualification / verification procedureThis verification is made at one site requirement is met.
by observation and documentation by welding inspection
l 11 m
M s_
=
personnel. All other sites utilize the filler metal
?
requisition to verify that the individual has welded with Z
the process during the verification interval. This
=
practice is questionable for maintenance of qualification.
RECOMMENDATION A standardized system for continuity of qualification
[
should be developed.
9.
How do they interf ace with the ins pec to r s ?
W ANM
[
A 9
T Relationship between inspectors and welders is generally good. The basic problem in this relationship is the ins pec to r, in most instances, must pass judgement on workmanship that has not been evaluated by craft su pe rvis ion.
e.
Training 1.
What is the scope of training for welders and welding supervisors?
- ANSVER m
Training classes vary in content, in duration (1/2 hour MW to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) and in frequency.
{
2.
How are these training courses developed, presented, and
["
-N evaluated?
^
ANSVER b
M L.
6 Training courses are developed by the welding engineering
[
M units and most are presented by the training officer.
=
Some are updated periodically. Most courses are not
=
evaluated by testing nor are they given periodically.
T_
m RECOMMENDATION E
-9 There needs to be a standardized and improved welder and a
weldlag foreman training program.
E 3.
Ilow are inspectors and inspection supervisors trained / qualified / certified?
6 ANSVER Eg
=
School, Oak Ridge National 1aboratoy, without previous industrial esperienca. They are assigned to work with a W
m
___h
^ - -
W.
I la i'
J l
'I In some level II NDE inspector for some period of time.
4 cases, the experience requirements of CEP 2.05 have not All inspectors receive NDE training at 4
been set.
il Bartsville and are certified in specific NDE methods.
j At Watts Bar and Bellefonte, inspectors for visual
)
examinatiori are trained and certified by the project.
At Hartsville, Phipps Bend, and Teltow Creek, visual
,s l
examination inspectors receive training at Hartsville for Training courses have been evaluated by CONST 1
one week.
and EM DES personnel. No special training is given to inspection supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION A standard division wide qualification / certification 1
h program for visual weld inspection should be established This would require similar to that of the NDE progree.
each individual to complete a minimum 3 month on the job training program under the supervision of a certified Areas j
inspector prior to an individual being certified.
in welding such as filler metal control, welder I
qualifications, process specifications, etc. should be covered during this period. M the completion of the OJT the individual would attend the NDE training f acility at 1
Hartaville for class room training and certification.
The visest veld-inspection training course at Hartsville i
^
should be structured to coincide with the NDE qualification / certification program.
FDE inspectors need additional training in ersaining and
)
This should be accomplished at the site 5
I evaluating welds.
j prior to certification as specified in TVA's written practice (CEP 2.05).
S
{t a
1 I
I. PROCEDURE
S j
i 1.
Are the authors quellfled?
t MMR l
Tes
)
From where is the acceptance criteria obtained? For STRIDE 2.
projects is the C. F. Braun specification consulted or does C-29 only APP y as for other projects!
l ANSWER 1he acceptance criteria is entracted from the codes and l
standards TVA is committed to follow.
The C. T. Braua specifications are consulted and the G-29 procedures sa I
modified accordingly.
I d
!x
]
U L
13 1
Y
=
L 3.
Rave our NDE and detailed welding procedures been approved
=
F by CE/C.F. Braunt (STRIDE only)
-Sm 4'
No - all procedures with the exception of ASME Section NE have been excluded from this requirement.
i A
6 4
Do the EN DES Welding Engineers review the C. F. Braun specifications and prepare / revise detail procedures of C-29
)
appropriately? (STRIDE only)
ANSVER
,f STRIDE specifications are not reviewed by EN DES for inclusion 1
of requirements in C-29 procedures and specifications. The 2,
Nuclear Project Welding Engineering Units must review STRIDE
}
specifications to determine procedures needed ard request them i
f rom El D ES. DI DES nuclear codes, standards and material j
sectio, changes C-29 specifications at the request of the nuclear projects.
]
RECOMMENDATIONS CONST should either set up a welding and fabrication group for HTH and P8N Projects to review welding, inspect. ion, NDE, and faorication requirements, og the review should be made by EN DES, so that procedures are available and proper for the application in a timely sunner.
{
g l.
7 3
g i
S.
Is C-29 adequately controlled?
ANSVER Yes - It is controlled within EN DES and CCHST by approved L
M-document control procedures.
h
]
6 Does C-29 supply sufficient information for the implementation of fabrication operations, inspection, and tests of nuclear safety-related welding?
ANSVER Tes - Provided the proper requirements are specified in other documents.
7.
Does C-29 supply suf ficient information for the implementatton 6
of fabrications, inspection, and test for other than nuclear
=
safety-related weldingt
]
T
}
i l
1 l
14 ANSWER Yes - Provided the proper requirements are specified in other documents.
8.
Does C-29 receive an adequate review for conformance with OEDC QA Program Requirements?
ANSWER C-29 does not receive a specific review f or con formance to the OEDC QA Requirements; however, it is prepared and controlled in accordance with EN DES EP 3.13 which has been reviewed for conformance to the OdDC QA Program and accepted as meeting the appropriate requirements.
RECOMMENDATION A complete review of the distribution, control, content and utilization of C-29 should be made jointly by EN DES and CONST.
COMMENT Information providing the requirements for f abrication operations, inspection, and testing in accordance with AS"E Section 111 is adequately de fined in supporting documents.
For work not in accordance with ASME Section lit, the specific requirements for implementation of the re ferenced codes and standards and for non-code work are not adequately defined in supporting documents.
111.
ItATERIALS 1.
Who procures weld filler materialf 2.
How is weld filler material controlled at the site?
Is this adequate?
ANSWER Weld filter materials are normally procured by indefinate quantity term (lQT) contract and each nuclear project requisitions filler materials as needed. All nuclear projects basically control filler materials in the same manner from receipt on site to issuance to the welders. Occasionally each project has the need to requisition filler material on an emergency basis. This is accomplished by the nuclest project contacting EN DES, QE8 QA Audit Section to verify the l
i 15 acceptability of a specific supplier's' QA program and/or past QA performance. If the supplier is acceptable the project procures the material. Again each project basically procures this material in the same manner.
RECOMMEND ATION None.
There does not appear to be any problems in this area.
OSSERVATION Our nuclear projects are constantly cited by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the lack of control of filter material, i.e. loose electrodes, on the floor, laying in cable trays, or behind vent ducts.
This has and will be a problem considering we are working with " people" and the turnover of craft forces is considerable. For the amount of filler material consumed at each project in comparison to the amour t found by the NRC inspectors, this does not constitute an uncont rolled condition; however, all project management should continue to emphasize to those concerned the importance of controlling filler materials until consumed or returned to storage.
3.
Are the specifications of CE/Braun reviewed with respect to weld filler material used? (STRlDE only)
ANShER L
Yes. For STRIDE projects (HTN-pBN) the specifications
(
(CE/8raun) are reviewed by the Welding Engineering Units with re s pec t to weld filler material to be used. This is required to assure the appropriate material in conjunction with the appropriate welding procedure contained in General Specification C-29 is used.
l IV.
Welding and NDE Processes 1.
How are welding and UDE activities planned?
ANSWER I
j Work is initiated by shop traveler or work package. Welding, NDE information is entered by the Velding Engineering Unit.
i l
l l
2.
How are welders and inspectors assigned?
ANSWER
]
Both welders and inspectors are assigned by qualification status.
j l
l t
i i
r I
l
16 3.
Who msgigas wa
..g and NDE procedures to specific welds?
ANSWE R Welding Engineering Units assign welding and NDE procedures to specific welds.
Safety-related systems within the scope of the Nuclear Components Manual ( ASHE III) have a welding and NDE procedurs assignment drawing issued by EN DES anc the information is entered on the shop traveler or APC card. For other systems and features, the information is entered in the work package or APC cards by the Welding Engineering Unit.
4 Who determines whether manual or automatia processes are ut ilized ?
ANSWER in mos t cases, there is joint e f fort between craf t and engineering.
5.
Do the processes utilized re flect the best acceptance rate of welds?
AN S WE R Cenerally not.
The re is not enough evaluation performed by the Welding Engineering Unit on acceptance / rejection rates.
V.
Audits of Velding and NDE Activities 1.
How ef fective are CONST audits of Velding and NDE activities?
ANSWER In most Cases the aud[ts Conducted at caCh nuclear project developed for each audit. However the plan should be more detailed and their implementations should require more thorough evaluations.
The number and f requency of audits vary at each nuclear project due to the stage of construction. The number of audits that have been conducted within the last year directly related to welding and KDE (W-audits) for each nuclear project is as follows : WBN - 7, BLN - 10, HTN - 7, PBN - 2, and YCN - 3.
RECOH}tENDATION The scope, depth, and frequency of audits for velding and KDE activities at each nuclear project needs to be evaluated.
It is also recommended that a training course (s) be developed (cr utilize the existing courses) at the HTN training facility for those auditors who are conducting audits in the welding and NDE discipline to improve their familarity with the requirements of these activities.
l
17
)
OTHER HECO'c!ENDATIONS 1.
QEB needs additional authority, training and personnel to inspect items for which they htve inspection responsibilities.
and welding inspectors to provide guidance and prevent over-reaction on surface finish requirements.
2.
Workmanship samples should be provided to project welders and welding inspectors to provide guidance and prevent over-reaction on surface finish requirements.
3.
Disciplinary action should be taken against welders who bypass hold points, foremen who allow hold points to be bypassed and craft, engineering and inspection personnel who fall to follow procedures.
4.
Quality levels on civil structural drawings are confusing--need some type of resolution.
5.
C-29 Ceneral Specification needs to be at work stations--it is part of the welding procedure.
6.
A Welding Procedure - Performance Cross-Reference (condensed version) needs to be supplied to project and should be standardized.
7.
Foremen and welders need inspection gauges to determine that work is ready to be inspected.
8.
Welling of sheet metal needs to be more clearly de fined.
9.
CONST needs fit-up procedures. There is a number issued in CONST QCI, but procedures have not been issued. First, there must be a commitment to either follow AWS 01.1 and 831.1 visual examiniation requirements as specified on drawings or list exceptions for specific applications.
Following issuance of these procedures, inspectors on visual examination should be given additional training on joint design and fit-up requirements.
10.
On large structures subject to lamellar tearing, TVA should purchase specist steel rather than gouge metal and redeposit weld metal to prevent lamellar tearing.
11.
A concerted e f fort should be made to provide check lists on operations where multiple procelures are referenced, to avoid having multiple procedures on hand for reference.
12.
Redundancy in QCI and C-29 on KDE procedures should be eliminated at HTN, FBN, and YCN projects.
13.
More surveillance checks should be made on welding conditions.
18 14 There needs to be a faster system for making minor changes to APC and SCC cards at projects, rather th.in having forer.n travel to the Welding Engineering Unit.
15-Improvements need to be incorporated fo r ve ld e qu i pme n t procurement, separation for particular craft use, and for na in t enanc e.
16.
Requ ir emen t s for stamping of welds, prior to per forming the welding nperation, should be removed where they are now s pec i f ied.
17.
A more detailed training and certification program for certifying level 11 radiographers to level 11 film e va lua to r s should be developed. Example Film evaluation experience under supervision of cer tified film evaluator t knowledge of welding processes, de fects, joint designs, etc.
18.
A study needs to be made on utilization of welders at al nuclear projects.
19.
CEP/ SOP Program for itTN and later plants should be reviewed for standardization.
86120904g9 861124 PDR ADOCK 050003g, P
PDR o
~
L be e
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT' NUMBER: WP-11 SPECIAL PROGRAN
~
REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1 Surface Grinding of Welds TITLE:
REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC SUNNARY STATENENT: N/A PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
Original Simmed By R. M. Bateman 08-25-86 SIGNATURE DATE f
t REVIEWS PEER:
Original Signed By J. E. Rose 08-25-86 SIGNATURE DATE TAS: TECHNICAL REVIEW ONLY
//!/f 4
SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-N:
L. E. Martin 09-03-86 SRP: Wk ll -20 *I 6 G
SIGNATURE
- DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY:
ECSP NANAGER DATE ~ b f
N/A NANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
2242T
)
m 1
WELDING PROJECT GENERIC EMPL0 FEE CONCERN EVALUATION REPORT REPORT NUMBER: WP-11-SQN,R1 DATE 08-26-86
SUBJECT:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS CONCERNS CONSIDERED:
IN-85-282-002 IN-85-271-001 PREPARED BY
)
T 25 Edo
, OC, WP YNb
, 00, WP-REVIEWED BY
.b.
tna -
8 i 8S
, QA, WP REVIEWED BY L
\\
/
/
M
, CEG-H, WELDING I
REVIEWED B
/
//
7 I
APPROVED BY i /
, PROGRAM MANAGER
\\
I
[
~
Revision 1 expanded the discussion on the removal of non-relevant indications and surface conditioning to incorporate the Senior Review Panel coments on 8/19/86.
I i
6;-)
l 00300
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN l '
SUMMARY
SHEET Report Number: WP-11-SON R1 I.-
Report
Title:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS i
I.'
CONCERNS CONSIDERED:
IN-85-282-002 IN-85-271-001 II.
ISSUE INVOLVED 1.
Grinding of weld (surfaces) may mask surface defects.
III.
STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY
~
Validity: Y
,N X
, Substantiated: Y
,N I
IV.
EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM None V.
JUSTIFICATION l
Grinding is'an acceptable method of surface conditioning for welds.
.VI.' RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED t
I None VII.
REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y
,N I
j h
VIII.
ISSUE CLOSURE i
By this report.
II.
ATTACHMENT 1.
Text of The Employee Concerns t;
{
4 i
\\
6 Page 1 of 1 v.ie 00300 l
L r
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN
~
Report Number: WP-11-SON R1 Report
Title:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS I.
SCOPE OF EVALUATION
[
This engineering analysis covers the following WBN concerns determined.
to have possible generic implications to SQN:
I i-IN-85-282-002 IN-85 '271-001 II.
ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE CONCERNS The concerns were analyzed to determine the issue voiced by the concerned individuals. This issue is as follows:
Grinding of welds may mask surface defects.
III. CONCERNVALIDITYORShBSTANTIATION The ASME B&PV Code, AWS, and ANSI Codes which govern the installation of welded features of nuclear plants contain provisions for weld
.s ig,)
repair. These codes and standards were reviewed to determine if W
grinding of welds is acceptable.
The AWS D.l.1 Structural Welding Code,Section III, Subsection NB, ASME,B&PV Code, and ANSI B31.7, " Nuclear Power Piping," were reviewed.
In all cases, grinding or mechanical means (a term which implies grinding) are specifically referenced as acceptable methods for defect removal. ASME Section V, " Nondestructive Examination,"
also mandates the use of conditioning methods ( a term which implies
?
grinding) as a preparatory step for radiographic and ultrasonic f
inspection. Additionally,Section V directly specifies grinding as an acceptable surface preparatory step for magnetic particle and liquid penetrant inspection.
Surface conditioning and/or cosmetic grinding is frequently performed l
so subsequent NDE inspections will be simpler and make subsequent l
i evaluations easier to interpret. For surface indications that are of l
a minor nature, it is more expedient to perform cosmetic grinding or lR1 surface conditioning to remove the inoications than to perform l
evaluations to determine if the indications are non relevant.
l t
In summary, the issue considered in this concern is not substantiated j
due to the fact that grinding is an acceptable practice.
t I
This issue is closed based on this report.
8 i
[h Page 1 of 1 i
00300 i
Attacmaent 1 204/02/06 ',
CEMPLOYEE CONCERNS)
Page 1 of 1
- 17:31: 47 3' LOC STATUS RESP
-QTC-PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN-------
PROBLEM ID
~~~--
~~ -
f- --~
ERT SR IN-85-282-DO2 WCMCU i f'
,1 s_tWORDS:
INSPECTION PROGRAM CRITERIA SUR PR X: W Y: C 2: N
.UNTIL RECENTLY, TVA WELD INSPECTORS REQUIRED ALL PIPE WELDS TO BE SURFACE GROUND TO A SMOOTH FINISH. THE CONCERN IS THAT SMOOTH GRINDING MAY ACTUALLY MASK A SURFACE DEFECT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE DETECTABLE. NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
ISSUE CONSIDERED: SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS.
LOC STATUS RESP
-QTC-PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN-------
PROBLEM ID ERT XO SR IN-85-271-dol WCDPW XEYWORDS:
INSPECTION PROGRAM CRITERIA SUR PR X: W Y: C
'2: N WELDS BEING GROUND DOWN-THROUGHOUT UNIT II TO SATISFY THE INSPECTORS. THE PRIMARY CONCERN AT THE PRESENT TIME IS FOR THE WELDS TO "LOOK PRETTY". NO SPECIFIC LOCATION GIVEN.
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
SUE CONSIDERED:. SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS.
l I
e
- ~ \\
1 l
'v' l
. _ _ _