ML20214U924

Rev 0 to TVA Employee Concerns Special Program,Vendor Weld Quality

ML20214U924
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	11/20/1986
From:	Russell J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20214G966	List: ML20214G963 ML20214G989 ML20214T991 ML20214U124 ML20214U174 ML20214U216 ML20214U247 ML20214U308 ML20214U341 ML20214U367 ML20214U384 ML20214U415 ML20214U473 ML20214U502 ML20214U520 ML20214U550 ML20214U625 ML20214U639 ML20214U689 ML20214U749 ML20214U779 ML20214U814 ML20214U843 ML20214U860 ML20214U882 ML20214U924 ML20214V018 ML20214V037
References
WP-17, WP-17-R, WP-17-R00, NUDOCS 8612090458
Download: ML20214U924 (7)

Text

',.

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-17 SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 0 TITLE: Vendor Weld Quality REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC

SUMMARY

STATEMENT: N/A PREPARATION PREPARED BY:

Original Signed By J. E. Rose 04-07-86 SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER:

Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 04-07-86 SIGNATURE DATE TAS: TECHNICAL REVIEW ON Y

<

• ll l4 $

SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H: L. E. Martin 09-03-86 SIGNATURE DATE SRP: c 44. I //-2d -86 SIGNATURES DATE APPROVED BY-hAfA l

~

$'h N/A ECSP MANMiER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

• SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

hO 00 7 hh P

}iELDING PROJECT GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN s

EVALUATION REPORT REPORT NUMBER: WP-17-SON. R0 DATE 04-08-86

SUBJECT:

VENDOR WELD OUALITY CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-127-001

• IN-85-007-003 IN-85-657-001

• SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATED BY NSRS IN REPORT I-85-753-WBN 00, WP PREPARED BY Original Signed by J. E. Rose 4/7/86 ,

OC, WP REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. Bateman 4/7/86 ,

QA, up REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. P. Lynskey 4/7/86 ,

REVIEWED

[ 2 , CEG-H, WELDING 77

~

' i ,

i ,

r APPROVED BY ,/

/ ULM o_, PROGRAM MANAGER t

00360 i

I r V l

i

(

e. ,

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN.

SUMMARY

SHEET Report Number: WP-17-SON. RO Report

Title:

VENDOR WELD QUALITY I. CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-127-001

• IN-85-007-003 IN-85-657-001

• Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBN Attachment 2)

II. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. ~ Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.

2. Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.

III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY

,. Validity: Y X ,N , Substantiated: Y X ,N .

IV. EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM l None i

V. JUSTIFICATION Vendor welds and equipment are inspected against contract requirements.

VI . . RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED None l

VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N I .

VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE By this report.

IX. ATTACHMENT

1. Text of Employee Concerns

2. NSRS Investigation Report - I-85-753-WBN

}

Page 1 of 1 00360

Is GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN Report Number: WP-17-SON. R0 Report

Title:

VENDOR WELD OUALITY I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering analysis covers the following WBN concerns determined to have possible generic implications at SQN:

IN-85-127-001

• IN-85-007-003 IN-85-657-001

• Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBN (Attachment 2)

II. ISSUES ADDRESSED BY CONCERNS Each concern was analyzed to determine the issues voiced by the concerned individuals. These issues are as follows:

1. Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.

_; 2. Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.

i III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION NSRS has investigated and substantiated the general condition of vendor welds as they relate to WBN in Report I-85-753-WBN for Employee Concern IN-85-007. The conclusions of this report which are-WBN-specific are also applicable to SQN. These conclusions are as follows:

(

l l 1. The employee concerns are substantiated as they relate to the observed general condition of vendor welds.

2. A similar problem had been identified, reported, documented, and dispositioned in accordance with applicable QA program requirements at WBN.

Due to the general nature of the concerns and issues voiced by these concerns, the conclusions are applicable to vendor welds in general.

Page 1 of 2 i

.s.

l 00360 l

l l

WP-17-SQN, R0 TVA invokes technical and quality assurance requirements in contracts for vendor-supplied materials and equipment by reference to industry codes. These contracts are reviewed to assure that required technical standards and quality assurance requirements are included. Many times the governing. codes and standards that control vendor weld quality have requirements which are less stringent than the TVI. construction standards in Process Specifications G-29M or G-29C which contain welding quality requirements of ASME, ANSI, and AWS. Vendor-supplied materials and equipment may be source inspected by TVA prior to shipment or shipped without TVA inspection fecm vendor facilities. This program is outlined in the OC and NO QA Programs, as applicable. When source inspection is required, it is performed by TVA Vendor Surveillance ,

personnel to determine compliance with code, standard, and contract requirements. Items not required to be source inspected are inspected when they are received at the site to determine compliance with code, standard, and contract requirements.

In summary, both the field and vendor welds are required to meet applicable code requirements. TVA field welds are visually inspected to a more conservative interpretation of code requirements relating to visual weld attributes. The final appearance of TVA field welds is generally superior to vendor-supplied equipment.

The issue concerning vendor welds not being. inspected is not substantiated due to the vendor surveillance program and receipt inspection programs.

The effect on the hardware is of no consequence because the materials and equipment are inspected in acccedance with contract requirements.

Based.on the foregoing analysis, the issues considered in these concerns are closed.

3 Page 2 of 2 l 00360

Attrchment 1 03/24/86 (EMPLOYEE CONCERNS) PAGE 1 of 1 11:40:58 .

LOC STATUS RESP -OTC- PPP CFR TC ------CONCERN-------

IN.SP PROELEf1 3-- ------ ---- ----- --- --- ---- --

. ID

/ 366 ,EGEG G.O NR IN-85'-127-OO1 -U Ct1UW -

YWORDS: UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES X: W Y: C 2: N INCCNSISTENCY IN CRITERIA USED FOR WELD INSPECTIOtJ OF EERSEN-PATERSCN Arid TVA l HANGER WELDS. E.P. WELDS LODK EAD. WHILE BETTER LOOKItJG TUA WELDS ARE REJECTED FOR COST 1 ETIC REASONS. HANGER FAE SHOP. LOCATED AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF TUREINE ELDG., HAS BINS FULL OF E.P. HANGER PARTS WHICH EXEt1PLIFIES THIS CONCERil. CI DOES EXISTS. NOT Xh0U SPECIFIC HANGER N'S OF AREAS IN THE PLANT UHERE THIS CONDITI0fl TECHNICAL COT 1MENTARY:

' ISSUE LOC CONSIDERED: UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE sat 1E QUALITY AS TVA FIELD WELDS.

STATUS RESP -OIC- PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEM ID 753 NSRS JO SR IN-BS-007-DO3 WCMUW XEYWORDS: UENDOR UELD QUALITY NONSPECIFIC .X: W Y: C

[ 2: N

-GENERAL LOOK OVER UFNDOR WELCS SHOULD BE PERFORMED. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT IN-SPECTED AT WENP 1 OR 2. THEY ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROT1 FIELD WELES SECAUSE OF THE EnD OUALITY OF THE UENDOR WELDS. UENDOR WELDS WOULO NOT PASS THE JAME ACCEPTANCE NSF RPTM I-85-753-WEN)

[(NICAL COT 1MENTARY:

ISSUE CONSIDERED: - 1. UENDOR UELUS ARE NOT INSPECTED Itl THE FIELD.

LOC

2. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE sat 1E QUALITY AS TUA FIELD WELDS STATUS RESP -OTC- PPP CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEM ID JO NR IN-85-GS7-OO1 WCMUW KEYWORDS: UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES X: W Y: C Z: N

' SEVERAL UENDOR WELDS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN THE VARICUS LOCATIONS OF POWER HOUSE UNIT 1 a 2 WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CG-29 T1) OF TVA WELDING SPECIFICATIONS. AS AN EXAMPLE: HEATER C1 LOCATED AT T15 & G LINE ELEU.708*-O" TUREItJE BUILDING. NAr1E OF UENDOR: YUSA, HEAT TRANSFER CORP. COtJSTRUCTIDN DEPT CONCERN. CI HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

TECHNICAL cot 1t1ENTARY:

ISSUE CONSIDERED: UErlDDR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE SAME QUALITY AS TVA WELDS.

( . .-

) -

6

- - m

-T- h-hb "

' yva se oc evus

, ae)1me 1 *

• g 1o 8 UNITCD STATES COVERNMENT FILE COPY

.MemOTdndum

s

~

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHOR,lTY ..

73 ,

Craven Crowell, Director of Information, E12A4 C-K Attachment 2 '

FRO 31 - : K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-KPage 1 of 8 DATE  :

' J A N 141986 senJECT: REPORTS SUBMITTAL FOR " NUCLEAR SAFETY UPDATE" Attached is one copy'each of the fol awing final reports of investiga-tion or evaluation of employee concerns for your use, summarization, and publication in Nuclear Safety Update. All have been reviewed and accepted by NSRS. ,

Investigation Investigation Concern No. Performed by Concern No. Performed by IN'-85-001-005 NSRS IN-85-007-003 NSRS '

IN-85-278-002 NSRS

.) IN-85-955-001 NSRS IN-86-064-001 NSRS IN-86-200-003 NSRS IN-86-221-001 NSRS

IN-86-305-002 NSRS ' #

Pil-85-038-001 NSRS

~

/ -

o '

- O

't K. W. Whitt Attachments

' Please acknowledge receipt by signing, copying, and returning this transmittal form to J. T. Huffstetler at E3B37 C-K.

cc: R. P. Denise, LP6N35A-C #'"

D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K jf

• QTC /ERT, CONST-WBN , ,

E. K. S11ger, LP6N48A-C .y .,,'~'

LK M