ML20203M944

Rev 1 to Performance of Preweld Insps, Welding Project Generic Employee Concern Evaluation Rept

ML20203M944
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	09/03/1986
From:	Bateman R, Lynskey R, Rose J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20203M897	List: ML20203M895 ML20203M901 ML20203M904 ML20203M909 ML20203M912 ML20203M916 ML20203M924 ML20203M929 ML20203M931 ML20203M936 ML20203M941 ML20203M944
References
WP-16-SQN, WP-16-SQN-R01, WP-16-SQN-R1, NUDOCS 8609050198
Download: ML20203M944 (49)

Text

.: . . . . . .

. . 37 , .. _ -

.. . . , g .

' . E .' ..

. 3: .

h4'

( ; 4.y L.yY. .f;).fl:::l:h.Qh:-[d 4,4

- 'C Q.2 '- p,:l !. ,& %

f.yy i45 . %h. fYf&.N;f' f% %.: :WQ. *

?

$.f.QY $.

?.}%?'@f.}

. %.M M -

i'

(

u;;;..;: /.f.~f: % l ?W f .'. R . A R " f .

&y. .f Q .i ?&, j . .j; o & W ...N.; ,. h' 4 h & -% K .2,

.f .

$, O h[..( .'

% }k.

.f. .;.; f[

,; - h -

f .n p%:.%. . r .',w

( ' p+h ...tvV,, . . .. .,f

• l.1. : ;. . . .

.,' &ll/;. Fw..m,.:i.9. :p L .+ ,: g ,.Eg% ., ey-g .yfn

. e . . . .. .

.~

za,o ,y g pw.. . d '. . :; . r %X 4 % - . ; .p.

mm y

.. es . p . _g y .;,4, n Y. i m. ..

I N.

$q~]fih.)e w :y.

N 2Q: . e ; .. -

2 %

n

' J.

. m:

Q f ',f.4. y;;R l #y l f-t: W q :::;p _.

-l;y;;.p p. .,..k.l.;Q:.).R.1f

f. s. Her .;"9, -

.

m. .* n. .: e y

,f . ,. Q . y .._,

.;:y . .v y

-a .:.

,,w

,r. r.:.

. . . a7~4- yg . ~ . i y;J:. ., ..f,, ..Q. ... s,, . . n. . ~ . % g, 3.

. g; p . m.

y.y.t

.;4.g,. .;g.;

q- e .. w m. - A v ,c > ~e n.. . . . .s

. . 1,,

% . , ..l .h. :g(hy/. .g $ X,-v

.c ::1.. lO ' -

..nq . ?: u i - . .'#-} ~ :

.>s M.[Mj:MY1 m cg. . .g. - . 2 f'.,

s

, d;;Q 4 ., -"- : .- LELDING PROJECT 1 O,i:F:

Ph:P

• U Y ![ M-..~ - >

h*n 7k. % ^ k .E

.N '

' . ..f _ )t.; ..f d b

[ h... GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN

&h b.

1 (

' .' F EVALUATION REPORT i-T.h,g6-

. 7p. ,

. '% 44.

.v h1,'T s

- + .;.,;.

p. .5 y .g},.n.. .. - .i- ?.

. . 9 s

s y: :.

. W. . . .

. .:. . ?. ,~ ,A -, ,: ..- ;

..~ ...

w ... .

m.'. ; , f 1 :%,

. .. . .- ynt ,,, - a ys x

- . -,x .

. ,  ;;v.c 1 L . , r J: . . . .y. -

p y._:.  ;.9 , ., , ; .:

..e( (p.;,. g .

if w v ..gu g 6,..  ;. .-. e.j b,. y..s.

ts 4.2. . . -

A '

e

• w c- .. -

4 . . .:#w.

W'

,' S*w. U + L VENDOR WELD OUALITY F- -

L j$ . ..- t . 9 'k. )$N

....4'- n [.. ,J.f,.' ~J.. .h. b.s .  !... . ,

..s ~. a3Ikd . x - c 9 q. . r

*p. .

s.f. .*. ;%.s; . :

s .:.  ;.

,- . .,  ;:. . e. g

- u Y < - ,s n~e: r:c:. .. %./ .~g< . n a

, ;.:A :.c n... ' . .<p&,.

ng;N. .

%e , . ... t r.M.m. re ..* -v8e 'l 5 <: eM:. . . :.e gbh.f. . 'M% \

gi,NNk Y 4 M ; N).. hi wg;S: {.. . ?.-

g. .. .f  :

7 - ' Jg 4:@g  %.p. 4.g  ; 4 %.. j hj 'V[ v,, 6 c..'.

, .-, 7,f , 7 ,. p .. g.:

S ;ff '?[.~* ( '._;' l' .. fk: - . r'! -; ;r ..l : .

. b , :p.

a .

f. phw j (fy.f .!. , S.hg.L} f* W g4:

/ .& :. :

y &Q.f[.4 l g',g.f. y. x .W. f :f T . ,; .

.s 0Y h 0!A. _f.:* h. u:k.l '. f.Y,W : $f 4.' ,h'N l k' $(h 5 1

k ex - s . S.

. :;? .f. .,

..' Y. w. . . .

.&..Yh..,,

5....,

.0.f [ -

f..l .

. , . .v.. .l $ 'f . f,, .:. . . ( . .*

. .c.P ,' .,..-f.),,;Y,.

, t,-. .%,.M

- ' 2::V m,.c .,e ,' _. y 3,[: e. ,1.g . ;, 4 , y,,i:p .

% . \ g.Q Y: ' ' .*, 3; 4. %.

.,v 2 4, , a c.. .f.. ..:: ':k.

. :. e .. ..e.

y,, %.s.q L C. r. . < . v. . a, ,

.~

... g: ,n S .

. . h. ' y '.g'y+.e )N ;.M.

,.y s . : i. . m,; ... a s f ;m

p:n. : .;. . ge.,.~ '>. y,. -= ..w .. ,. ..p's .;, Ny ..m,_i..,i..=.,  ;

. a .. s~ :n . .. . v - .y ~ ., .:....

, . . p . . . r ,:~ ..a m . . .,._s.y. , . . .,. s. , . ., -..i..y. ,, <

..u. a

,. J. 3..+;, .,. . .,..~.

.....t... .

. l Y.YY'[. fp .:.$.j {

. ' ?.Wf: l Y .:.,-O.:. ,_";l l- .i ...Nl.-b.

.'k 1-L- l .W . . . . . k ' f..!*~;h  ;;- v. > c.:;.T ...~

'.? ..f :r'...,.=,

y

?.. ,: .v Qwp.\ e:,...tg>. a. . ,q;...:

1

. - 4; . . . . . s,. ,3 y. .: . .g q .

. ~. s

.. . c .g. .'...J..,

N . k Yhh! - : :- l$ Y.- .Y. p.? k .) I\* hb:. h.W .; . 'f,

[ 4. ;;w.m ,

W hDf-h.j ~ ~ .;

l  !. -

J.*? e.

f. .,. si,$h.;.

..pr. :,

& Ql -,;j ' 'f .. & -l,. E.hyjSy.

&}... _ ; ;;+ . g . o 6 ,.

QQ. h_

.lf*&y.Qs;P-4 a. ry} ). . . ..q - :

() -,..>,

• sa. f;;:-;j{ .:- u- %. i g_ . . yy . ;,

q '. .[ -E: ...

L  ;.: .  ; . '-%

l_l. .. .4... . Vi, ~i Q:,QQ:V . . % - :.m:* j'. e +: :..r?t'; . ;3}. .

A.+rk- G ..a y f ,. ,*, y;:

s., i .

'.,..s$ .y g .Q( ..:.. Q: '*,$.'.J ;. .? g ..

M 6f ,;@ .,7r

.n.,cW. i , ,y. .m. - .. - . . <p n'."<, 4 . ,, . . l 1_ . .

%v _ . .-- '- .

..c...c-i g P x' ' , .r<*r . A.

vvp~ , A.. " .w.q:aq,.,,4 '.s k Tw W 4W ' -

~. .x s e

L .

yY

. w

..* # ' ' 3 ' ' S y  : n y#.; p

'd ?* I.; t J * - - E * --

pu; , .. . + + ' - 1.-g, 1 {6 \

~---- o

< u L U i. . -,

"~

%~

l &.Y%. i$ ^$. lk.,  ?,k%$j&.. ... &f. $.f.,z. ]-.

f,. %. g.Q,l: .Y]W[#W 33).

'y

[.9

N,QQ.f } g t ,. t i: K . $

.m

(:',...........

m.

.l j &Y IM k M Y/h['f bkNNbk3h M;O  % p .: g, 1.s;}.; .p_g . ,-

W 9 , D. _.g n$N g:y .

@ ban a.

$C . .z . w.

MWF%y. ,m.p. r ~ (j ,

s. . , , , -

,, z.j 'y- .- Q ; -

n 3p, ,

y 4~..~ L. , .;

g 3 : vyyy

.v h

Q,;-(pg.. :, .._3 p , g_g :. _ . g,y. i(fg

~>< <n.,_,4 4;.m q_. e .. y  :

x; gjg

s. , _ ,

. s.  ;.

..s .. . ;.

.s .

.s

. q .. ..

.N '

o'

.* ,d .

p.

w, , - .'. . e. , , . , e. . . .

. . .. .. 1-2 . ,,,

. ,, ' _c_

s.n=-

u .

r-

,,;c *

-.u r

. v g .

t . '

y f

' C;~ , ' j., ( '

4 '

} v< -

. * ' . . v'

'Na.'.. ,

n' Y Q,.4_".,, '

,,.[- ' .'  !. -.

+

Q. __'O's '

~

.\', . f

l

• WELDING PROJECT GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN EVALUATION REPORT I

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 PREPARED BY Original Signed by J. E. Rose 4/7/86 , OC, WP

( REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. Bateman 4/7/86 , OC, WP REVIEWED BY Original Signed by R. P. Lynskey 4/7/86 , QA, WP REVIEWED / M , CEG-H, WELDING 77 APPROVED BY ./

v v U LM o . PROGRAM MANAGER i

l l

00360 l

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN

SUMMARY

SHEET Report Number: WP-17-SON. R0 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) i 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 I ,N , Substantiated: Y X ,N .

IV. EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/0R PROGRAM None V. JUSTIFICATION Vendor welds and equipment are inspected against.. contract requirements.

VI. RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED None VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N X .

VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE By this report.

~

IX. ATTACHMENT l 1. Text of Employee Concerns

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

(~

Page 1 of 1 00360 l

I -_ ,_. .

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN I Repcet Number: WP-17-SON, R0 Report

Title:

VENDOR WELD QUALITY 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.

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:

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

( ,

00360 i

{!

I WP-17-SQ!1 RO ji i

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 I

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 TVA construction standards in Process Specifications G-29M or G-29C which contain welding Vendor-supplied materials quality requirements of ASHE, ANSI, and AWS.  !

and equipment may be source inspected by IVA prior to shipment or This program is

' shipped without TVA inspection from vendor facilities. When source outlined in the OC and NO QA Programs, as applicable.

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 IVA field welds are visually inspected to applicable code requirements.

a more conservative interpretation of code requirements relating to The final appearance of TVA field welds is visual weld attributes.

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 accordance with contract requirements.

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

F 74 _

i i

[.- Page 2 of 2 i

' 00360

Attachmtnt 1 03/24/85 CEMPLOYEE ~ CONCERNS) PAGE 1 of 1 41:40458 .

LOC STATUS RESP -OTC- PPP CFR IN,SP TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEM-

. ID 365 ,,EG&G G,0 , NR IN-SS~-127-OO1 ' dWCMUW'

~

_YWORDS: V'NDOR E CRITERIA DI'FFERENCES X: W 'Y : C 'Z: N

~

INCONSISTENCY IN CRITERIA USED FOR WELD INSPECT!CN OF EERSEN-PATERSCN'AND TUA HANGER WELDS E.P. WELDS LOOK EAD, WHILE EETTER LOOKING TVA WELDS ARE REJECTED FOR COSMETIC REASONS. HANGER FAB SHOP. LOCATED AT SCUTH EAST CORNER OF TUREINE ELD 3., HAS BINS FULL OF E.P. HANGER PARTS WHICH EXEMPLIFIES THIS CONCERN. CI

, DOES NOT KNOU SPECIFIC HANGER M'S OR AREAS IN THE PLANI UHERE THIS CONDITION EXISTS.

TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:

ISSUE CCNSIDERED: UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE SAME CUALITY AS TVA FIELD WELDS.

LOC STATUS RESP -OTC- PPP CFR INSP TC ------CCNCERN------- PROELEM.

- ID 753 NSES JO SR IN-ES-OO7-OO3 WCMUW XEYWORDS: UENDOR WELD QUALITY NONSPECIFIC X: W Y: C 2: N GENERAL LOOK OVER UENDOR WELDS SHOULD EE PERFORMED. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT IN-i SPECTED AT WENP 1 OR 2. THEY ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHAELE FROM FIELD WELDS SECAUSE OF THE EAD CUALITY OF THE UENDOR WELOS UENDOR WELDS WOULD NOT PASS THE SAME

~~ ACCEPTANCE JNSF RPTM I-8S-753-WEN)

{

- ((%(NICAL COMMENTARY:

ISSUE CONSIDERED: 1. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED IN THE FIELD.

2. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE SAME QUALITY AS TUA FIELD WELDS LOC STATUS RESP -DIC- PPP CFR INSF TC ------CONCERN------- PROELEM ID

, JO NR IN-SS-ES7-OO1 WCMUW KEYWORDS: UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES X: W ,Y: C Z: N l

SEVERAL UENDOR WELDS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN THE UARICUS LOCATIONS OF POWER HOUSE

UNIT 1 & 2 WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (G-ES n) OF TUA WELDING SPECIFICATIONS. AS AN EXAMPLE: HEATER C1 LOCATED AT T15 & G LINE ELEU 708 '-O" TUREINE EUILDING. NAME OF UENDOR: YUSA, HEAT TRANSFER CORP. CONSTRUCTION DEPT CONCERN. CI HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:

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

I

' (.

C l

L -

s~_ R-%$"Mb I vv A e au s-ea UNITEIT STATES GOVERN 31ENT ge [8 '

FII2 COPY .

l

.sMemorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY .-  !

7o . Craven Crowell, Director of Information, E12A4 C-K Attachment 2 _

Page 1 of 8 -- -

[

FRO:.!  : K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K j w l

"^'c  :

' J AN 141986 -

SUmECT- REPORTS SUBMITTAL FOR " NUCLEAR SAFETY UPDATE" Attached is one copy each of the following 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 l IN-86-200-003 NSRS IN-86-221-001 NSRS .

^

IN-86-305-002 NSRS

~

j ,

PH-85-038-001 NSRS

~

/

l! O .

K. W. Whitt l

Attachments / --

Please acknowledge receipt by signing, copying, and returning this l transmittal form to J. T. Huffstetler at E3B37 C-K.

( -

cc: R. P. Denise, LP6N35A-C Name Date

! D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K .

ji QTC /ERT, CONST-WBN . .',,. --

t E. K. Sliger, LP6N48A-C .

.p,g .

l

1 s

. (', -

(,,Attchm:nt1- .

l

• Pegn 2 of 8

~

.. i. 2- ',

.%.): -

.;g ,

- . : ~

~..,

TENNESSEE '/ ALLEY AUTHCRITY ,

NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF " *- '

1 NERS INVESTIGATION REFCRT NC. I-55-753-WEN EMPLOYEE CONCEF.N3 IN-85-001-005 AND IN-85-007-003

,. ;, : m .. s . ,

n MILESTONE 6 - -; * #'

EL'50ECT: VENDCR WELDING - ---

DATE5 CF INVESTIGATION: Novemcer 12, 1955 INVESTIGATUR: _ M ___( ,__ _ _f__ /__hf'3 C. Catlin

.J . Date , ;"

.c~. . ?.- .a

. e,r u. ,

='

l':

i*;*.:\ ;'

h*_'IEWED BY: ' *

/g- l 7- S llr. .'s.{.

J. D. Smith Date

...%W

'...i.. e, & ,

p

.- ::.r e -

M,1.c.].

p APP'RCVED BY: 4,

, __ -.- =--

, _ _ _'_/_0__9_

M. A. Harrison Date < .-

s i n .

48 **.~-7 cn

.g*

. - ,t

< .)  %

. '.J.

o .*

V .a N

p .

,; . z

.r

.e e

1 N

• . 0

.e-j .

l L

Attachm:nt 1

- (. .

( Pagn 3 cf 8

.e-s . '

4 ** "

.4 .1 ,

. -: ,^.- .. .

- _ . - BACKGRCUND NSRS conducted an Investigaticn regarding two' emclovae i cncerns received '

bv Qus11ty Technolcgy Ccmcany (OTC). Concern IN-55-OO1-OO5 received Jon - ' ~

Octcbar 15, 1925 statad: '"/enccr welcs were bougnt of f even though they - -

exhititsd 'shoddv wcrkmansnic'." The allegation was nonscecific.

Ccncern IN-E5-007-CO3 received June 10, 1955 stated: " G e n e r..a l icok over vendor welds should be performed. Vendor.;we'ld's are n'ot inspected at .

WBNF 1 or 2. They are easily distinguishable from field welds because of the bad cuality of the vendor welds. Vendor welds would not pass the ,

same accentance. . . .

" This allegaticn was al so ncnscecific. During the course of the investigation a similar ccncern was noted i.e.,

, .IN-85-372-OO1. This ccncern had been investigated by the Of fice c'f- . "

", Construction and closed out by QTC. ,-

II. SCCFE The sccce of the investigation includec attemots to find--a mere specific

~

example of the allegaticn and to track the e::amcle to its conclusion.

OTC cculd provida no acc:tional information other than to verify that the concerns were similar to IN-65-372-OO1.

. III.

SUMMARY

CF FINDING 5 ,,

. 3 A. Recuirements and Commitments

. f J7;..p S-M T.h The ncnspecific natura of the allac,ations rendered all requirements g%;w

';t W.t, ,lt '

1and ccmmitments indeterminate. %q re W <

N,yg

$a47.

D ' MB. .

Findincs

$UM; wt

- +H.

1. Empicyee Concern IN-85-372-001 ci. tad manway hatch covers as a .

f.

g, speci :ic e:: ample of substandard vendor welds. * . -g*id.

! > .us. :

2. NCR 6341 isas written on September 25, 1985 which defined the i -

nonconforming condition as: " Contractor wel.ds for stiffener . . . .

g plates on hatch covers accear to not meet requi.rements of AWS ~ ME.

i. D1.1. Welds appear to be undersiced in places and have undercut ".i .

and overlap. Reference employee concern IN-85-372-OO1." J 2. 3 e

3. NCRs 6345 and 6345A were written on September 25 and 26, 1985 covering Units 1 and 2, respectively. The ncnconforming ccndition noted cn the NCRs was similar to that of NCR 6341.

4. A statament was issued on Employee Concern IN-85-372-OO1 which stated in part that GC agreed that these welds were not of the quality e::pectec of TVA personnel and t' hat the contracter welds for stiffener plates on these hatch covers did not appear to meet the recuirements of AWS D1.1 and also that the welds appeared to be undersiced in claces and have undercut and overlao. These were structural attachment welds which were not part of the reactor primary containmenf; and, therefore, they

_{ did not recuire a laak tightness test.

5. Discosition of all three NCRs by Engineering was to "use as is" in acccedance with memcrandum St6 651012 007.

b --

Att chment 1

, * .. .Piga 4 cf 8

• { ' .

+

(t'

,4 j 4 .*s

-- 0

-;1. . .

CCNC:USIONS AND F: ECOMMENDATICN,S - --

~

A.

~

, - EGOcJ,u31gg3 N - --'

,- - 1. The cbjective evidence cf a similar emsicvee concarn

~' ' '

e sulstantis.ted the observed allegation of botn ccncerned- -

. t' .

individualc (CI). . . -

2. A typical case of a similar problem had'been identif'iad, rescrted, and documented in.acccedance with applicable I' peccadures. Disscsition was to "use as is."

3. Spec;fic conclusions regarding these nonspecific allecation r - ~

could not be reached.- . .

B. Egggggggggtigos _.

i * -'

None.

w. . .

. "" .7 6 .~ . _.

9 e op

• 4 e m

g 59 * ,

• A f, i'.* ,2. .

• gd J I-2*.:p,7t# & > -

• rp'* o,,; ,\ '-

+

l ,

( .

'y ,

. . 4 m - Wu U - e i' .

, a* . v. .

g , . - * *%

, mi . '~ ' .

2. : .=.,a.~ .

- '* 5 Y s. '. ' Z %. 4.

~

8 'psE.. 4

• • , , .. 44,e -

i F%

• g i, -

I

$ 4I

-- - , w

Att chmtnt 1 .

Pags of 8 A ..

~,

J t-

~

EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISPOSITION REPORT CONCERN NO. IN-85-OO1-005 ~ '

t DATE OF PREPARATION: 1-9-86 CONCERN: Vendor welds were bought off even though they exhibited

" shoddy workmanship".

fi INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY: TVA NSRS

, FINDING (S): See investigation report.

{t i

CORRECTIVE ACTION (S): Similar problern was identified, reported and docurrent ed in accordance with applicable procedures. ; Disposition was to "use as is".

l~ .

s I

I , .

CLOSURE STATEMENT: This concern was substantiated.

ERT Form Q i

' s. . Attichm:nt 1

( .

( Pagn 6 of 8

$b A .. -

~

(. 4 EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST _

To: Director - NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUMBER T50011 ERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has assigned the indicated category and priority:

f-f,r- }5 3 g g d Priority: 1 Concern # IN-85-007-003 Category: 05 Confidentiality: YES _NO (I & H)

Supervisor Notified: YES X NO NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED YES Concern: GENERAL LOOK OVER VENDOR WELDS SHOULD BE PERFORMED.

VENDOR WELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED AT WBNP 1 OR 2. THEY ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM FIELD WELDS BECAUSE OF THE BAD QUALITY OF THE vet 1 DOR WELDS. VENDOR WELDS WOULD NOT PASS THE SAME ACCEPTANCE

. O r.

f(k i

f l

l l

' MANAGER, ERT C}op '

DXTE l NSRS has assigned responsibilty for investigation of the above concern to: ,

ERT i

/_

Y .Nlbb NSRS/ERT , g g4g NSRS f //l/3'f(T l N /

OTHERS (SPECIFY) b ~

ll i 0 W$L?A&

NgS / D ATE

l Attachm nt 1

( .

(-

Page 7 of 8 b<

. numa. .c -

7% t d u  !'d ., u- L!as S

REQUEST FOR REpORTABILITY EVALUATION ~

1. Request No. _,IN-95-001-OO5 (ERT Concern No.) (ID No., if reported) *

2. Identification of Item Involved: VENDOR WELDS (Nomenclature, system, manuf.,SN, Model, etc.)

3. Description of problem (Attach related documents, photos, sketches,etc.)

VENDOR WELDS WERE BOUGHT OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY EXHTBTTED SHODDY

, WORKMANFHIP.

4. Reason for Reportability: (Use supplemental sheets if necessary)

A. This design or construction deficiency, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety l ,

(n",

of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

AND B. This' deficiency represents a sionificant b'reakdown in any

' portion of the- quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B.

No X Yes __- If Yes, Explains OR C. This deficiency represents a sinnificant 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, Explain:

{,

RE I

i ERT Form M

l 1

, f- , prtachment1 l

\ Rage 8 of 8 4 .e *)] Q "[ '

-, - - *J 4 .2ii,.a*p ,', ,

.a um, .

(-s.

a REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION D. This deficiency represents a significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, syst em or-component which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to meet the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction permit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

Q_R,,

E. This deficiency represents a sinnificant deviation from the performance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to

, est'ablish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component

/ to perform its intended safety function.

t

_c No __X Yes If Yes, Explain:

IF ITEM 4A, AND 48 OR 4C OR 4D OR 4E ARE MARKED "YES", IMMEDIATELY HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS. - ~'

This Condition was Identified by: h r i

ERT Group Manager

) ~

/ ERT Project Manager Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS

/-

~

A Date O3 Time Signed / -

'a.

l

! ERT Form M l

[

-