ML20215K385

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Allegation Synopsis & Allegation Category Re Welding Allegations at Power Station,Per Recipient Discussion W/Re Hall
ML20215K385
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 08/23/1984
From: Randy Hall, Taylor J
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To: Harrison J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20215K202 List:
References
FOIA-85-213 NUDOCS 8706250309
Download: ML20215K385 (8)
v • d • e


Text

- -___

cc. ..

, ; , :. , ..-- - . i. - Y r'-

, - I a.' > A '

u .

  • s s ,, ,'
  • O~ ," ' ' . -

z ;- ~,c . : ,. .. ;:

: M:  !

.- e.3
7005 i August ?3,1984 i i

q

\

.) ,

i Mr . J . ba r r i so r<

M RL , f er ion 11] f 7 9:' Eces ei elt Rd., Elog. 4 ]

G1er. Ellyr., ItL 60137 l

.f Dekr lay:

Pu svent to your prior discussions with Mr. R. E.. Hall, you will find the  !

f ollod ng inf orn.ation enclosed in rega rds to welding; allegations at the Mid,- l lano Pcwer 5.atior:

i e f.r e sis of 3ppecairet ely 60 allegaticns which have been forn.ulated.

f t :r s w ie occ a e nt s. -;

]

e A li sti n; c' eig* t categories tr.at the alle;ations ~ fall into; the. -f j

cat e'.ories cefir,e both the type of allegatior, and/or the ' action re-qui rec to resolve it.

Fiease not e that ine. allegor's name or inf erences to the allegor's iden-tity are not used enye.ere in this transmittal.

J r. r e;.erds te tne allegations 37 can be _ responded 'to and- 23 cannot be 2 cispositionec at tr.'s time, t

Of tr.e F" tnat can be di spositionec,18 h' ave sufficient' technical basis ' '!

and car t e responcec to' or: that leve". . In some.. cases Bechtel documents will.

d e r ec 4 rec f o r revi ew. Tne remaining 19 allegations in this' category are either too general in ne*.ure or are specific to another nuclear _ facility. A ..!

report on inese 37 allegations will be transnitted to you by Septenber 24, a 1954 '

Of the 23 allegations inat car.not ce dispositionec a' t this time,' ? are 4 out s irre BN'.'s scope of wort anc shou 1c' be' ref errec to NRC Of fice of . Investiga-t i o r, .

The remaining 16 allecations are Piciand site specific: anc' require

~

eitn's a physical site inspectior. or a revien of site' specific records.: ' Some q of the latter 16 might be resol ved through.a' review of 'NRC records or Bechtel q of f site records. '

. 4110 2 7 ' J3M . ,

8706250309 870619- '

-N PDR FOIA .

u i

GARDE 85-213" PDR j_

a

1 I

l l

1 BNL i s actis ely wDr,i rg on tt i s ef fc et b oc pl a n! t o r s et t he c :r..-i tc e nt U.enticr.ec above, treat is , a report t c you by Se;t ete r 24, 1984, l

lf you.have any additional questiors , please feel f *ee to contact nie at J a ny 1ime. -

Ve ry t ruly. Yo.,rs , j i

  1. i

< -~ h~ h {:- - d John H. Tay or, Group Leader  !

Fi c n Sys t es a nd E q ui pme nt Analys i s

)

1 8 /i l b l g  ;

/ s 3

k evi ese by: .-} -%i j, /. / n a ,n .

r .t i

_l l

. 1 JHT/jr At t a c hr,e nt  !

cc: R. Ba ri T. Burns l C. Craj tc< ski R. Hali W. Lato

h. Fout 5 J. Weet s 1

1 i

l

l ATTACHMINT 1 ALLEGATIO.N SY.'.SPS IS 1

I

!. . Source - Af fidavit dated July 16, 1992 (specific to Midland) allefer to D.

Crow, Govern ent Account ability Frcject (cap) i

1. It is ry professional opinion that the Mdland plant is the worst nuclear 1 facility I have ever seen.  !

l

2. Eechtel Corporation has systecatically downeraded standards for safety- I i

relat ed eculprent to the point where I believe that much of the construc- l tion will not withstand the st resses it should be built to take.

1. Lecht el has hi red engin~ers and OC inspe ct ors who were not adecuately cualified or t rained for the cocplicated work in a nodern nuclear plant. -i I have seen Eechtel personnel, both OC inspectors and engineers with OC res p' nsibilities, routinely accept sub-standard work. ~!
5. I will also give examples of the unhealthy deg ee of reliance that certain KRC inspect ors have placed in the Bechtel personnel whom they are supposed to nonitor. ,..

the itspection reports that were supposed to represent a complet ely separate check on Lechtel performance of ten wound up basing their approval on Lechtel's evaluations of its own work.

i. I was astonished to see that in nu erous ;1 aces, hechtel had established standards which feli helow those cf the ASME Code. l l

.i

7. Despite this, Eechtel in some cases made the decision, based on their own engineers' opinions or short-tere testing in San Francisco, to modify these standards. 3 S

F. but in thc area of welding , where I was cualified to judge, the new speci- 1 fications were inadequate to the needs of a nuclear f acility.  !

c. (The subject is socket weld enrarement-length.) hackney states that as long as the pipe is not withdrawn f rom the fit ting , it udll be approved.

This means that 8 Fap of nearly any length vill be tolerated between the end of the pipe and the bottoc of the socket. ...the ASME code has , for this reason, established a much more rigorous spect fdcation, l

Ecually as serious as the problec of douncraded specifications were. the problems created by the incompetence anf ignorance of OC. Even scrething I baric like knowing how to use the fillet raures correctly to'reasure the H size of welds was beyond; the ability of some of the bechtel inspectors and John Kunski - paul Schulz, another OC enrineer was also there to hear the explanation, and he admitted af ter I showed him the diagraro that he'd been approving bad welds himself, mistakenly determining inadecuate fillet velds as being adequate.

i _ _ _

!!. Ee:ause of this , I was very ccraerned to din over that tany welds fr- the piping had been it; r aperly p roond dwn, gri riding dcen t he pipe wall thick-ness alcrig dth it.

22. Although the OC reports a Wear tc sssure that the piping is of safety-grade cuality, these reports f ail to reflect the prob 2ers of the piping systers which I discovered (i .e. , severely corroded pipe is approved for safety-related eystees). i 1

}3. . ..bechtel allowed low-hydrogen electrodes used in ve3 ding to be taken out of their hot ovens or hermetically sealed conte'.ners for up to eight hours before use. the American We3 ding Society ( AWS) standard allows only four hours r2xt r ue in the open air.

l4 One OC enri .eer who has been at "U d : :, nd f or ca ny p , r s tc]d me that in his opinion over 9 rcent of the piping in the entire p; ant has had to be cut out and r+p: aced at one point or other. In ey ri nd , t hi s rai s e s {

serious cues tions of saf ety . .. .

{

i They have happered because hechtel has hired inexperienced enFineers,  !

welders, and inspectors. .  !

i There were few formal requirements to become a we2 der, or even an inspec -

tor. -

If t his was supposed to be ccrrected through a thereugt training prograt, it didn't ha p pen .  ;

Tne  !

training periods were only a couple of weeks, and based on my experi- {

ence in working uith the engineers, welders, and the inspectors, I can  ;

state that they were not properly trained.  !

19. NRC inspections often failed to correct probl ees . (This was because the NRC inspectors seemed too willinF tc' trust the : Lechtel inspect ors when they made their tours.)

j

1. 12C inspectors were handicapped by their pract3ce cf not coming in' unan-i nounced. 7o the best of my know] edge, there were.nc NRC inspections tha't l weren't preceded by preparation directed by bechtel, during which problems .

would be repaired and sometimes modified. I 3f . Never in my life have I ever seen so cany critical welds accepted ir  !

nuclear work and then found to be unacceptable ,

19. I can only believe that I was fired for insisting that there were serious i 1'

problems at FUdland which my superiors refused to acknow edge, and'hence redused to repair.

27. I told thee I felt that Bechte] was not adecuately investigating the serious prob 3ets I had t ried to bring to their at tention, and that I f elt I had been fired for trying to do this.

I l

i

21. After r early twenty years of work as an engineer and weldirr aut hori ty, 7 know a deficient veld when 1.see one, and I know rany of these selds and oth+r irorlens went undet ect ed (or ign6 red) by the mer. res po sible f or ir.-

specting then.

22. Fechtel ha s s hown by i t s a t t i t ud e t ha t it cannot be trusted to perfore work of the high quality neces sary in a nuclear plant .

i

1. Source - Staterent dated October 16, 1982 by alleger to P.V. Joukoff and C.C. Shackleton, Jr. (Tocument is specific to San Onof re , but certain allega-tions are n.ade regarding the PJdland plants.)
23. The ASFE Code reouires adequate root penetration of fillet velds. I re-cell that some of the vendcr-supplied welded hardware appeared to not have adecuate root penetration. I recor;end t. hat the NFC exar.ine the beginning and end of fillet velds to assure root penet. ration at these areas and verify that all c ra:ers are filled, and ccnduct dest ructive te sting of se- l 1ect ed supports supplied by this vendor to det err.ine if other f det wel d s  !

and groove welds have adequate root penetration or other code violations. 24 Bechtel Specification WO-2, sheet 20, note 1, hequ-ires"shallnot exceed 1/ 3 inch ..." regarding eaximum groove weld reinf orcement at PJ dl a nd ,' Michigan 's Twin Nuclear Plant. This requirement should-road "shall not e>. c e e d 1/F inch ..." as required by the ASME Section III code on groove weld reinforcerent.

i. I believe that the celiber of indiduals ecployed by Feabody Testing te j perf orn nendest ructive e>:atination (NDE) on welds in. nuclear service ap- I pli cat j ons was not acceptable. This belief 'is based on the observatior, of -

many spelling errors, ... . 1

26. I believe that established industry standards regarding the qualification 1 l

of NDE personnel are not sufficient ~ te assure an adequate level of person- l nel capability and knowledge in this very icportant' area of inspection. C. Source - NRC Interview of /dlege: dated October 15,.1950, Lana point, Ca l d - f ornia (rerards f n Onof re Station and Pddland Plants).

27. pp . 2, pa ra. 6 - It is alleged that pipefitters used pipe cutters to place scribe marks on socket veld fitup ecasurements.

2E. pp. 3, para. 10 and pg . 17, para . 3 - It is alleged that bechtel designers used only fillet welds on web-to-w.b connections c,f beats and pipe' 9 supports and tray hangers and did hot weld. all around to res: rain f orces l in all directions. A11eger alsoq 'uestions seiscic Icading calcula: ions  ! and feels that there is no actual rest on welds under seiscic condi ti ons. A11eger states also that AWS I'i.1 demands end returns on fillet welds and these were lacking in cany places. 2c. pg . 22, . para. 5 - It was stated that ASME . code requires adequate root penetration' of fillet welds and states that " vender-supplied equipment did j not always conform to this requirement." Specifies Zack Co.

i 3:. Fr. 79-F2, :. ara. 3 (E2} - It was stated that A-7 rir steel may have been used f r: critica: arp2ications or 5(WGS. J

3. Fr. i]f, para. 5 - A1:ef er cye't f ons the code ad+:uacy of Lecht el's } rc- i

(~dares rega rd:nr E7r,;E elec t rode out of oven time..

32. Fr . 125, ; era . 3 - A] } eger s t a t es a di sc repancy exis t s bet ween Ak'S and ASSI statine: ARS -]deits the size of elect rode for vertical and overhead position we] ding tc '5/32" diamet er - ASKE does not.

1

33. Pp. 12&, para. 4-It is stated that reinforcements of Froove welds on Lechte) for KC;, S'reet 20, dif f ered f rom ASME code requirements. 3
           ~

Pr. 133, para. 2 - It is stated that Eechtel welding procedures leave a Iot to be desired.  ! i

25. Fr. 137, part. :-( - A ]eger stated that t . ant.' t ic.n wel ds at Pali sades were seer, which did not reet the vaid t ; ansition requirerent s in ASME. 4
           ' . Fr. 139, para. 4 - Alleger states that at Mid3and undersized fillet we3 ds                  j we rt docuc4nt ed as acce ptabic .                                                           l 1
17. Pp . 149, para. } - Alleger 'describeF inadequath throat thickness in we3ds 1 j

at SONGS.

  • i 2'. Pp. 149, para. 6 - A]2ecer rentions the inadequate 3evels and weld transi-tiens; centions Talisades, i
           'F. Pg. 15f, para. 3 - A12 epe r ci s cus ses a 92-page hechte) non-conformance re-         1 port or. e2 et rical cab 3e trays cr. 50MGS.

R: . Pp. 174, para. E - Alleger discusses the qualifications of "Hi2ti-type" studs and a stud that failed in a brittle u.anner.

4. Pg. 210, para. 2 A3]eger stat es that runoff p2ates were not.used on structura2 metbers. {

i

42. Fg. 222, para. .* - A;2 ef er expresses concerr. of the lack of dew point ~ con-trol in argon gas.  !
42. Pp. 223, para 2 - A32erer states that in Region III plants inspectors documented undersfred fillet we3 ds _ as being f ull si zed socket welds when they were not.
4. Fr. 224, para. 7 - Allerer states that r.any examples of non-exis tent ' end returns on we3ds are at SONGS, Palisades, and >Udland.
          -:. Fr. 230, para. 6 - - Alleger states ext ensive pitting on pipe at Pali-sades was seen.
46. Pp. 246, para. ] - /dlerer expresses the concern that many young people were inspecting welds with no rea3 knowledge of welding.
47. Pp. 248, para. 8 - A13eger ' expressed concern - that ' there were bolts at SONGS which were not torqued down with several threads appearing above the nut, specific to anchor bolts.
46. Fr . 31, para. l' - A))erer expres sed ec.,ct rr. ovir t he code not addre ving we3d ripple spacinc.
49. Pg. 33, rara. ( - A13 eger e3 aborat es ' on a si acer being insta))ed on a 50!:GS 1 hydrogen line.
50. Pg. 51, para. 2 - indicat es alleger 'was upset that there were several instances of inconsister cies or errors between AUF and ASFT.
51. Pg . 51, para. 4 - A31eger contends that end returns are not specified on Eechtel Foeer Corporation detall drawings .in violation of AWS D] .1, paragraph 886, 8861, and 8862.
52. Pg. 55, para. 5 - A11eger stated t hat a spacer plate was tissing on an upper inside hinge on 50?:05 l' nit 2.
53. Pr . 66, pa r a . 6 - The al i eg e r wa s concerned that since there were cany spelling errors on nondestructive test reports by Feabody Testing that the exacir,at ions perf ormed b" these ' peopl e may be cuestionable.

Source D - Various " Foster" memoranda. 1

54. March. 3 meno of ' Fos t-er's - page 2 cain steat pi pe just outside of. con-tainnent before first relief vel ve had weld witt. unac ce st able concavi,t y.
55. Fr. 2 "Some ripe hangers of cuesticnable construction," 'O.c we] ding on hanger f 2 ann s) .
56. Fiarch 4 metc, pg. I and 2 - deficient' socket welds cou3d be found in'"0"
                      . piping in Jowest level of the auxiliary ' building.
57. Varch 4 memo , pg . I and 2 - welds FS9, 90, 91 on drawing : FSE-M-]HBC-5E-2 (service H2O) lines being the worst.

SE .' bechtel spec. f or argon portt all owing ]-4 cft Ar (hi feels'too ruct f2ow i rat e latit ude), ancs net require checking dew point on Ar used for purges.

59. March 5 memo of. Foster, pg.-l.' para. 3 - undersized welds had been- ac'ceg-ted by Morris and his qualification revoked.
60. March 22 memo of Toster, pg.
                                                           ], para. 6 - both-}dd3and and Region II: in-spector did not know how to use a fillet we3d gauge properly.
61. March 22 meco of Fosier, pg.1, last paragraph - all welds onsite should be reinspected.
              )
   'h i
        , s

         . . . .                                                                                                             J
               .; ' . ' , a                                                                                                 '
                  +1 ATT AC'e'ENT II                                    -l
                                                                                                                              )

A LLEG A!10N CATEG0PY A. 0f fice of In..est f ration: A12erations 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 36, and 43. E. Code Recuiren,ents are Inadecuate: Allegations 32 and 42. C. Technical Response Can be Provided: Ai,egations 9, 13, 18, 23, 29, 31, 34, I 41, 47, 48, and 58. . ]. D. Frocedures Tail to Comply vith Codes /3.e lards: Allegations 2, 6, 7, and

s. .

1, E. Fire Verific6 tion of Iter Recuired (or procedure verification): ' Al' eFa t i ons 3 (inspec t ors ) , 4, 10, )), 12, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30, 33, 53, 54, 56, 57, and 59. j T. Ee ht el Ve r$ ficat f or. of item (at Lechtel Of fices): AJ1etation 3 (errineers).  :. 

                           ,    G. Too General - Undefined:       Allega tions 1, 21, 22, 37, 40, 46, 50, 55,'60, and 61.

( F. . Li stissed Out of Fend: A] 1 eg a t i ons 5, 27, 35, 38, 39, 45, 49, 52, (25, 51,  ; and 4- are sane). i s h l 1 

                             \
               \.

l l 5 I M 5 ( w a _.c}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215K385&oldid=3234719"