ML20214U843
| ML20214U843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Bateman R, Russell J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214G966 | List:
|
| References | |
| WP-11, WP-11-R01, WP-11-R1, NUDOCS 8612090419 | |
| Download: ML20214U843 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,.., TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT ~ NUMBER: WP-ll SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1 TITLE: Surface Grinding of WeIds REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC
SUMMARY
STATEMENT: N/A PREPARATION PREPARED BY: Orizinal Signed By R. M. Bateman 08-25-86 { SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER: Original Signed By J. E. Rose 08-25-86 SIGNATURE DATE TAS: TECHNICAL REVIEW ONLY //!/f 4 SIGNATU2E DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H: L. E. Martin 09-03-86 uk ll -20
- I 6 SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE APPROVED BY:
f N/A ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
2242T 8612090419 861124 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P PDR
WELDING PROJECT 7-GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN EVALUATION REPORT l REPORT NUMBER: WP-11-SON,R1 08-26-86 DATE l i I
SUBJECT:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS i i CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-282-002 IN-85-271-001 5 I PREPARED BY ) 25 Edo , OC, WP Y 84p , OC, WP-REVIEWED BY .D. p> d!2 f 8d , QA, WP REVIEWED BY L \\ / /8M , CEG-H, WELDING REVIEWED B e /7 y / , PROGRAM MANAGER APPROVED BY i/ \\ vc ~ i Revision 1 expanded the discussion on the removal of non-relevant indications and surface conditioning to incorporate the Senior Review Panel comments on 8/19/86. I i, g*, 00300 t b
GENERIC EMPLOYZE CONCERN k
SUMMARY
SHEET {f'lf _2 q. V. Report Number: WP-11-SON R1 l Report
Title:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS r 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 kh'.) Grinding is'an acceptable method of surface conditioning for welds. [ .VI. - RECOMMENDATION AND/0R CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED I None f VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N X g VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE I By this report. II. ATTACHMENT 1. Text of The Employee Concerns c k li i I 4 Page 1 of 1 l e 00300 t
= j GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN o_[ Report Number: WP-11-SQN R1 Report
Title:
SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS ,-{ { I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION {u This engineering analysis covers the following WBN concerns determined. to have possible generic implications to SQN: l ~ 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. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION The ASME B&PV Code, AWS, and ANSI Codes which govern the installation of welded features of nuclear plants contain provisions for weld ,.i repair. These codes and standards were reviewed to determine if 7 grinding of welds is acceptable. The AWS D.1.1 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 h 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 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 indications than to perform l evaluations to determine if the indications are non relevant. l 1 In summary, the issue considered in this concern is not substantiated ? due to the fact that grinding is an acceptable practice. I This issue is closed based on this report. I d} Page 1 of 1 t j-i 00300 _.,_m<_ 4---- m.
attacnment 1 404/02/8B ', CEMPLOYEE CONCERNS) Page 1 of 1 l17:31: 47 LOC STATUS RESP -QTC-PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROBLEM ID ERT SR IN-85-282-OO2 WCMCU ) n_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-OO1 WCDPW KEYWORDS: INSPECTION PROGRAM CRITERIA SUR PR X: W Y: C 'Z: 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: 7@,UE CONSIDERED:. SURFACE GRINDING OF WELDS. s a e i 1 e k ~> %) l a l f I .}}