ML20212F562

Rev 3 to TVA Employee Concerns Special Program Welding Project Rept XX-85-101-006, Welder Certification

ML20212F562
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/21/1987
From:	Bateman R, Rose J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20212F190	List: ML20212F185 ML20212F275 ML20212F313 ML20212F342 ML20212F370 ML20212F389 ML20212F438 ML20212F458 ML20212F498 ML20212F529 ML20212F562 ML20212F581
References
XX-85-101-006-R03, XX-85-101-6-R3, NUDOCS 8703050114
Download: ML20212F562 (68)

Text

~-

, i,

,' REPORT NUMBER: XX-85-101-006 TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNE f ,,.

I8 SPECIAL PROGRAN 1;

• i REPORT TYPE: WeldinE Project REVISION NUMBER: 3 TITLE: Welder Certification h

I i REASON FOR REVISION: .

4 Added corrective action plan - Attachment 9 i

SUMMARY

STATEMENT: N/A

' PREPARATION PREPARED BY:

Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 11-06-86 I SIGNATURE DATE F

t i REVIEWS i

PEER:

t

Original Signed By J. E. Rose 11-06-86 SIGNATURE DATE l ff ...

TECllMICAL EVIEW NLY hKTAS

\ '[' Q/J *

. 2/!hk DATE SIGNATURE i

I CONCURRENCES

[

OrlEinal Signed By CEG-H: J. F. Lewis for LEM 11-25-86 i

SRP: M  %-/7-fl3if

[ h* M SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURFg DATE I APPROVED BY:

hh '

ECSPMANAGER

$4l'0f DATE Nk MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY) r I

i l

• SRP Secretary's algnature denotes SRP concurrences are in flies.

I 2242 0703050114 070226 l PDR ADOCK 05000327 p PDR l

d

'I glPLOYEE CONCEjg SUPMARY SHEET Report Number XX-85-101-006 Report Title Welders Certification I. CONCERN CONSIDERED: XX-85-101-006 II. ISSUES INVOLVED Welder Certification III. BIAILNENT ON CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Validity: Y X M,N , Substantiated: Y X M,N

'this issue concerning welder continuity is valid, all other issues are not valid, f IV. EITLCr ON llARDWARE ANU/OR PROGRAM None V. JUSiir1 cal'10N TVA's consentment for welder continuity is based on the requirements of' the ANSI 31.1-0 Code. TVA's procedures reflected the requirements of -

the ASNE Code,Section IX after August 6, 1974. The recommended corrective action will resolve this problem.

VI. RECOft10NDAT10N AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED Revise the FSAR to adopt ANSI 931.1 Code through June 1971 addenda to allow the use of later editions of ANSI B31.1 which refer welder continuity to the ASNE Code,Section IX.

VII. RL.INDPLCi10N NEEDED: Y ,N X I

Page a 3158T i

4

i

-? ,

e 4g: :

, ',- Report Number: XX-85-101-006

, .V111. ISSUE CLOSURE Closure is based on FSAR revision 1

IX. AllACHNENTS A. APPROVAL SilEET

1. ERT report XX-85-101-006

! 2. Text of employee concern

3. Summary of SQN specific concerns reviewed by WP

.l.

.[ 4. Program summarization of weld project (WP) evaluation

5. Rebuttal of ERT report ,'

6. March 26, 1986 letter to M. R. Martin f ..

7. March 31, 1986 memorandum to' N. W. Whitt from R. G. Domer l

, O. WP-Bechtel audit of SQN Key Elements 4.0, 5.0 and 17.0 i

I

. /

~

l f

I i

e Page am 3158r I

.'? :r .'

Attachment A

[' .- . 'l . j

'i l ,,

WELDING PROJECT I

SON SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCdRNS_

f.. 4.

i l -

DAYE_ 11/6/86 _

i 7

i '

SUBJECI: SEQUOYAH SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS -

i .

SUMMARY

OF WP ENGINEERING EVALUATION .

CONCERN CONSIDEREDt. KK-85-101-006 i '

. r

_. DNC, WP PREPARED DY .

Il/b/ 6fo

_, DNC, WP REVIEWED BY .b =  % , 11 / b / 65(a

_,_DQA, WP.

. M // A M REVIEWED BY 0 ( $bH lJt irL, CEG-K, ,Weldint REVIEWED BY LLw u/

Y -)?nstA ///2c}yt .

_, ProBrain Nanator APPROVED BY l

i

,t f

u 9

[,

li l

l',

. . s 06410 .

t

n 1 -

.~. ,  ;

i*

8, ..

4 , .- - -

b ,

• WELDING PROJECT t ' ' ,.

• SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS

s. .

l t

t i .

. t i

I ATTACllMENI I I

ERI REPORT XX-85-101-006

{' .

s I '

.g a%

i .

s s

/

• /

[Olfd 3..

• k 4

b

'l O

A e

s f l (. ...j s.s. .,

l b . . ,. . . . ,

o gl (( . .j . ,

g ,3yes,e4 toi.e ess tois.wp.s.est

,a CillTED' STATES COVEntGtEt4T TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTIIORITY .

- .Memorand MN1 .

TO: II. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

,I FR0!!:

K. W. Whitt, Dirtetor of Nuclear Saf ety Review Staf f","5'IA8 C-K ,

"^

MAR 0 71986 SUDJECT: IIUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSilITTAL- ,

p

- i Transmitted herein in llSRS Report No. XX-85-101-006 Subject WELDER CERTIFICATI0ti concern tio. _ KK-US-101-006 t

This re. port conta ns two Priority 1 (P1) recosmnendations which must be add rein ed . The Priority 3 [P3) reconnendation w111 be looked at for

!!o responso is requ. ired corrective action follow through by July 3. 1986_.

CTLh .w..

• s - for thlo item. Should you have any questions, pienso contact W. D. '

t . ,

. e ,

• Stevens_ at telephono 6231.

Reconnend Repottability Determination: ' Ye's No X_ .'.

~ s irector, llSRS/DesigUeil' WUS GDti..

Attactunent

{ ,

cc ( Attaclunent): .,

W. C. Ulbb, DFN W. T. Cottle, WD!l. '

James P. Dar11tig, BLN ,, ,

R. P. Deniso, LP6tl40A-C ..

G. D. Kirk, SQN ,

D. R tilchols, E10A14 C-K .

i l [h r, g QTC/ERT. Watte Dar flucione Plant Eric fillger, LP6tl40 A-C

(--

J. II. Su111vnn, SQN .

'. 5010

', * / r7*.7,

.* ' , ' ,,,- J .': 2 ' .

, ,- . ., t ,, , ';o.. m , , , ,

i ... .

,1

.* ti ,

'l

. i y, '

. -(.. . y. (

C ,

~. .

s

' , ~ .

NSRS Reconunendation XX-85-101-006, i

Q-85-101-006-01: ** Welder Certification" .

Complete the following sequence of recommended actions in conjuncElon with

! and consistent with recommendations I-85-135-sqN-01 and I-85-135-SQN-02 in -

report I-86-135-SQN. Completion of A and B below in considered Priority 1

[P-1]. Item C is dependent on the outcome of A and B. ' Item D.is Priority 9

4 3 [P-3]. -

A. Identify the particular ASitE Section IX code year and addenda to '

! qualify welders. If different years were used, then identify when i each was in effect. - ,

B. After completion of Q-85-101-006-01 review welder qualification records against the : ode ist effect arid determine which welders, if any, had periods of time when welder update (continuity) requirements .

were not being met. .

, c'c- -

. C. Ior any welders identified as unqualified in Q-85-101-006-02,

'" ' determine which welds were made during periods of disqualification. ,

' For those welds identified, do a technical evaluation for -

acceptability. . e ,

D. Update site constructidn specifications to be consistent wih SQts FSAR

• Section 3.2 commitments. This area covers design, field fabrication, .Ii .

i assembly, examination and testing of piplhg..' Evaluate piping' - d' f'

previously completed under the construction specifications for acceptability.

l l  :

Principally prepared by P. R. Washer.  ;.

l . .

. I -

l * .

4

• brE

. Tg I

l 1

. 0580U I '

.s . . * * *

.,,T "*

. '" P ' i ** '

• b - , ' , . v$65 * * "L " T .2

• it, . .. .

• . $-h e. ..

• g . . s+ -*. .

3 .g

m.

4

.l..?

c -

c ,

= QUALITY -

~

• • _ TECHNOLOGY -

.- g COMPANY _

Sweetwater.'TN ' 37874 _ (015)365 4414 ,.

P.O. BOX 600 .

• RAGE 1 OF 17 , .

ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT

• i.

CDNCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 CONCERN: Seouoyah A welder perfortned welds without having the proper cartification.*

INVESTIGATION .

PERFORMED BY G. Pohlinann DETAILS -

7 4

-PERSONNEL CONTACTED: ..

CONFIDENTIAL ,

d .I DOCUMENTS REVIEWEDs

• A. Sequoyan Nuclear Plant Drawings 2 Flow R/23 " Powerhouse Units 1 &

g t . 1. Dwg. 47W809-1, Diagrain Ch'ernical and Volutne Control Systern".

47W830-1, R/16 " Auxiliary Building & Reactor

- 2. Dwg.

Building Unit 1 & 2 - Mechanical Flow Di agrarn Waste Disposal Systern".

l .

l l

Dwg.

~

47W560-6, R/40 " Reactor Building Units 1 &2 '-

3.

Mechaical Waste Disposal Systern".,

4. Dwg. 1-RC-515-1W, R/,0 " Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop f 1 Crossover Lug 2" Drain". .

l R/0 " Reactor Bu'ilding Unit 1 - Loop

5. ,pwg. 1-RC-516-1W, -

2 Crossover Leg 2" Drain".

G. Dwg. 1-RC-517-1W, R/0 " Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop f 3 Crossover Leg 2" Drain",.

7. Dwg. 1-RC-518-1W, R/0 ." Reactor Building Unit 1 - Loop 4 Crossover Leg 2" Drain".

I 2-RC-515-1W, R/A " Reactor Building Unit 2 -

D. Dwg.

Auxiliary Reactor Coolant Loop 'l Crossover Leg 2"

, (,'.'- .

Drain". -

l ,

. ' . , ..+.'g:q .1;. [a.

- .c ..... :;.c ..+ .~ , , , .

. -L1*: ' - , .

(,

f.;- . . ?.'. ..,-

[. _,

PAGE 2 OF 17 4.-ERT-INVESTIGATION REPORT.. .

. CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 .

DETAILS' I. -

DOCUr.ENTS REVIEWED: (Continued) .

A.. Seouoyah Nucleat- Plant Drawings (Continued) .

2-RC-516-1W, R/A " Reactor Building Unit 2 - ,

- 9. Dwp. Leg 2" Auxillary Reactor Coolant Loop 2 Crossover Drain".

2-RC-517-1W, R/A " Reactor Building Unit 2 -

10. Dwg.

3 Crossover Leg 2" Auxilisty Reactor Coolant Loop Drain".

" Reactor Building Unit 2 11 Dwg. 2-RC-518-1W, R/A 2",-

Auxiliat y Reactor Coolant Loop 4 Crossover

• Leg Drain".

"Re ctor Building Unit 1 -

Wald

12. Dwg. WD-28,, R/6

• History Identification Waste Disposal".. ., ,q

" Reactor Building Unit 1 .- Weld -

13. Dwg. WD-29, R/4 ..

h .$. g,,4 History identification Waste Disposal". '

. " Reactor Building Unit 1 -

Wold . c-

14. Dwg. WD-30, R/2

• History Identification Waste Disposal". ,

• + ' '-

B. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Drawings .

1. Dwg. 47W560-6, R/25 " Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit *

?

• 1 - Mechanit.m1 Waste Disposal Systern".

2. Dwg. 47W5GO-18, R/19 " Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal ,5yshern".

3. Dwg. 47W560-28, R/3 " Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal Rys t ern".

4. "Dwg. 47W560-29, R/2 " Powerhouse Reactor Building Unit 1 - Mechanical Waste Disposal Ef s t ern" . *

~C. Procedures h* 8, Rev 11, Dated

1. SNP Construction Procedure No. and Teroporary .

2-14-77 " Preparation, Review, Handling, with Addendurn 1, Storage of Duality Assurance Records" dated 2-22-77.

12, Dated

2. SNP Construction Procedure No. P-8, Rev Addend urn, 1 6-13-77 "Guality Assurance Records" with I Dated 8-15-77. ..

. g. .+, . '- ., v ,

, , ,, gf ; . , , n., j 4...,

< ,. .gv. h .-Q: - *W

• .,--f ,,.

. . . ;,,, ., . e - .~.:.,..,.. ..,.p..,,,;. ,, .

~ ~ ~ -

~ . .. . - . . , . _ _ . - .

. .~. .

. u*

).

c.

(

)'

. . ' ..-.- . , ' . PAGE 3 OF 17;

' ' ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-OOG '

DETAILS -

N DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continued) ,

C. Procedures (Continued)

Rev. 13, Datedf SNP Construction Procedure No. P-8, with Addendum 1, 3.

11-18-77, " Quality Assu,-ance Records" and Addendum Dated 1-30-78; Addendum 2, dated 10-11-783 3, dated 10-3-78.

P-8, Rev 14, Dated

4. SNP Construction Procedure No.

3-26-79 " Quality. Assurance Records".

W-2, Rev O, . Dated 2-2-77

5. SNP Construction Procedure No.

4

" Welder and Welding. Operator Performance Qualificatlon".

CONST DAP - 1'7. 01, Rev 2, Construction procedurm# No.

G.

Dated 11-9-77 " Quality Assurance Records". -

No. DEC-GAP Construction Guality Assurance Procedure

• 7.

1:

m, 2.09, Rev O, Dated 5-13-76 " Qualification of Welders and -

.b%

Welding Operators".

Rev. O, Dated . - -

Criteria No. SON-DC-V-3.0, Design s

• B. SNP 12-12 ,75 "Genetal Design Criteria for the Classification

r.  : .

of Piping, Pumps, Valves, and Vessels".

NEM-865, Rev 3, Dated SNP Construction Specification No. and

• 9.

'4-12-77 " Field Fabrication, Assemoly Examination Tests for Pipe and Duct Systems".

> D. . SMP Final Safety Analysid Report-Se~ctlon 3.2'. _

E. Standards / Codes l

1. ANSI B31.1 - 1967. E.

2. AN,SI B31. 7 - 1969,. (Including 1970 Addenda).

1973.

3.

ASME Section IX, 1971 Editlon a'Ad Addergda through , .

1976.

4. ASME Section IX, 1974 Edi, tion and Addenda through ASME Section IX, 1977 Edition and Addenda ,

through 1979.

5.

' 6. ANSI N45.2.9 - 1974.

for

..s Specificatica G-29M " Process Specification and F. General Heat Treatment, Non-Destructive . Examination, Welding, ',

Allied Field Fabrication Operations".

Process specification 1.M.1.2(a), Dated 2-24-75 "Generai ,

1. ' " '. ? rt;.. s.,,* " :

Welding procedur.e Specification". ., .

. p l ,: e.t.;r ! s <;..y- .:.,'

~ a

.. .. Q.y.,,y :.8... !a . y : n,. m u *:-: . . .W

. . . >;,e,;,;.

. . . . .? . . r. :s-

C ,

. l 3

(

' i, ! .. e

• (,

! f' *.* *

• ~*: ;, .; .

PAGE 4 OF 17

• ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT i

CONCERN NU.'IDER XX-85-101-OO6 -

• DETAILS . * .

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continuso) .

F. General . Specification G-29d " Process .SpeciEJcation for Welding, Heat Treatment, Non-Destructive Examination, and Al lied Field Fabricat ion Operat ions','. (Continued)

2. Process S pe c i f i ca t 'i on ,1. M. 2. 2 ( a) , Dated 2-5 " Welder and Welding Operator Performance Qualification" with l

Adcendum 1, Dated 6-2-76 and Addendum 2 Datea 6-29-78.

Qualification Test.GT-7-O-1-L(a), Rev O,

3. Performance .

Dateo 0-29-75.

4. Performance Qualification. Test GT-7-0-3-L, Rev 1, Dated 2-5-75.

5. Performance Qua'lificatio Test GTSM-7-5-0-3-H(a), Rev O, Dated 8-29-75.

fe,c G. Performance Qualification Test GTSM-7-5-0-3-H, Rev 2, (p,@y g. Dated 2-5-75.

.. t

7. Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GT18-0-1, t .' Dated 12-10-70.

~

G. _ Welding procedure Qualification Record No. GT18-0-1, '

• . Dated 5-28-74.

9. Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTB8-0-1, Dat,ed ,5-14-70. . . .. .

10. Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GT88-0-1, Dated 5-28-74. .

11. Welding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTBB-O-1,

• Dated 3-6-78. 1,

12. Me*1 ding Procedure Qualification Record No. GTSM18-O-1,-

'S Dated 6-2-70. .

. l l 13. Welding procedure Quali ficat ion Record No. .GTSM88-O-1, '

l Dated 9-18-70. ',

14. Detail Weld Procedure No. GT18-0-1,#Rev 5, Dated 5-1-78.

15. Detail Weld Procedure No. GT18-0-1A, Rev 1, Dated

9. ,

? .

. r.:.. 2-28-75.

I ..

Detail Weld Procedure No. - GT88-0-1, Rev 6, Dated 16.

2-23-79. .

Dated.3ge

17. Detail' Weld Procedure N o . . G T S M 1 8 - O .1 ,z. ;Rev 4, ,.

ir-rTMc.pff',A..W:',.j77..f/,

. gd

[ ?. ighb'[,4*' 2-28-75. '

,. '.c i 4 ' . 5. - ;

.. .- .w. _. -

c

'." c

• ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT PAGE'S OF 17 CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 '

• ' ~

DETAILS * .

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Continued) .

General Specification G-29M_ " Process Speci,Lication for.

F.

Welding, Heat. Treatment, Non-Desttuctive.' Examination, and Allied Field Fabrication Operations". (Continued)

18. Detail Weld Procedure No. GTSM88-0-1 Rev 4 Dated 2-28-75

SUMMARY

OF INVE6f1GATION: .

This concern is substantiated. Welder qualification recotds were to comoty with reviewed f or- the icentified we l d et- and were found notDuring the course TVA/Sequoyah r4uelear Facility (SGN) site ptocedures. '

o f.. t.he investigation it was noted that the welder qualification progtam

' instructions,

-contained

• contradictory -infotmation and incomplete rendeting the welder qualification progt?,am indeterminate. .

This investigation started on 11-29-85 and concluded on 2-14-85.

s.,, .

Ei;$;'t FINDINGS:

s. . : records for The investigation included a review of the qualification individual 1. See Attachment i for a list of records found in this .

Individual's qualification file.

- I. Listed below are ateas in the qualification records that were found to be questionable. .

Wel, ding performance Qualification Records (WPQR) dated .

A.

11-11-77,*11-29-77, and 9-29-783. Revocation of 5-11-77, Qualification memos dated 12-6-77, 8-8-78, and Welder 0-6-79; and the Welder Qualificati'on Lists (Sheets 1&2 ,

I of 2) for individual 1 were not processed in accordance with SNP Construction Procedure No. W-2,

" Attachments A, D, G, Rev O, Section 7 which states,1 and E shall be rev,iewed and stored in accordance with ENP CP P-8."

~~.

l NOTE: Attachments A, D, G, and E I of Construction the Welding performance Procedure W-2 are Record, Welder Qualification List, Qualification Memorandum, and Revocation of Welder Qualification.

l Retention of Welder Performance Gualification Memorandum respectively. '

.! N.; 1. CP P-8 Rev. 11, pategraph G.D.1.a states in part,

...QA records resulting from construction t 3,,.

procedures or inspection instructions shall be l submitten immediately after completion to the GCRU

-- *6 , ,

',. ., '*],'*'g,...

?,, fl, * '. * ,,t , . -

- - ^ 1 , a c. ,. . . . . . , ..

i

.-e-- .

t y.,,

7.,...

c c .

1 ..t . .

pAGE 6 CF 17 t .e .

c

ERT INVESTIGATION REPORf

. ~

CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 DETAILS

.l FINDINGS (Cont 2nued) .

.i _

1

1. A. 1. Continued t

and aporoval. Evidence of for detailed review the detailed review and approval shall be noted by to Contrary initfals on the record."

this recuirement, there are nyo initfals of the QCRU

- reviewer's 5-11-77.

reviewer' shown on the NPOR dated time of (Notes P-8 Rev. 11 was in effect at the issuance of the. noted WPQR. )

paragraph 6. A. 2. F states "All review and/or f CP P-8 Rev. .12, 2.

records forwarded to the CCRU for "QA Record" the storage. shall be"stamund with in part, stamp." and paragraph G. B.1 ' states noted

"... detailed review and approval snall be by the reviewer 's initials on the record."QA " Contrary Record" -

these requirements, there are no to g;Ar stamos or GCRU reviewers in,itials shown on the WPOR 5+ 60,8 ,

.a dated 11-11-77.

time .of (Noter- P-8 Rev. 12 was'in effect at the ,

' issuance of the noted WPQR. )

3. CP P-8 Rev. 13, paragraph G.C.2 states in part, shall "Evicence of a detailed review and acceptance stamp and .the be noted by a "QA* Record Review" date on the record."

reviewer's initials .and~ "CA Contrary to t'his requirement, tiiirro are no and -

Record Review" stamps or r, e viewer's initials -

date shown on the following records:

a. WPOR dated 11-29-77

b. WPQR dated 9-29-78 1, dated

c. Revocation of Welder Qualification memo 12-6-77 dated I

I

d. Revocation of Welder dualification

' memo 8-0-78 .

2 dated O.

Welder-Qualification List page 1 of '

5-77 through 5-78 . ,

.o f I .

(Note: P-8 Rev. 13 was in effect at the time issuance for the noted records.)

statement listed D. WPQR, dated 11-11-77, contains the

( below. .

being awarded based upon

" Equivalent qualification passed satisfactory side bends of POT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H Welder s,has. 3,_ p .;-,.....

,.of g .-j-Glis';

4 ,,

.3 . maintained certification the 5-11-77. .

- f y .:'.-.. !.

(

.i.' ,

pAGE-? CF 17 ERT INVESTIGATICN REPORT

.j CONCERN NUv.BER XX-85-101-006 .

DETAILS FINDINGS '(Continuac)

I. D. Continued test through 11-11-77. PQT cortion of this GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H revoked by letter dated 12-5-77 due to lack of SM welding."

inspectors / engineers ERT . questioned TVA welding a 1.

(indivicual 2, 3, and 4) as to'how or . why could

. on 11-11-77, record, .tnat was signed 2-reference anotner document that was issued almost Individual 2' s immediate

" .a month l awas t er-' (12-6-77).

You guys don' t know (exoletive resoonse clarified this deleted), do ya'7"., Individual 2 undbrstanding by explaining how the alleged lack of which by

't situation described above could happen, .

1 individual 2's own admission, was not an~ uncommon

' event. Individual 3 and 4program concurredfunctions. with individual The ,

2' s ' explanation of 8

,p;g p,:n.v explanation is as follows: -

., would bring an- "Auth~orization for -

a. A welder Welders Test" memorandum (Reference Attachment

g. ,

to

~ B of SNP Construction procedure W-E Rev 0)would the Welding Test Supervisor. This memo

~

i

, some details' identifying the welder provide identify which tests had been authorized.

and The Test by the Craft Superintendent.

,i would then assign a test number, J Supervisor log

[

complete "the requirnd information Once inthe the test book and administer the test.

was completed, the Test Supervisor'would be responsible ,for interpreting the mechanical j

results or accepting the NDE inspectors report test of the radiographic s.xamination. If the results.were found to be acceptable, the Test the

'j. ,, ,

Super-visor would then complete and sign '

memorandum

" Authorization for Wdidars Test" i

and return it to.the welder. frhis document was notice to the considered to be advance the welder's Construction Superintendent of The Test

• qualification and capabilities. the required Supervisor would then "pe6cil-in" information on the Wp0R (including the form) dateand in bhe lower left hand corner of the

..... hand carry the WpOR to the Welding Engineering typing.

secretary for (4 '

Supervi sor's (WES) both documents The WES would then review (penelled-in and typed WpOR), sign the typed and discard the " penciled-in" copy, WpOR . .';

es!,p,.;,' . . W. ,

' completing ,the qualification.,

.,g ,w , . y.cycle.

p.- 3. - . .. ~g ;-r.; , ' . . , , , , ,

., .g s, .g.

s J.5,, . ;. ..- ,. .,' s

.., g. , 4 ,

1 .

(

I >

( .

PAGE O UF 17 ERT INVESTIGATION .7EPORf i -

• CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-iO1-OO6 DETAILG

• i FINDINGS: tContinued) ~

The conversations witn individuals 2, 3 & 4 raised

• I. B. 2.

as to the validity of the sueJect WPGR ouentions -

3 and tne overall program.

process ( f t, om complet ion of the

a. The entire the we l d er- testing until final sign-off of would allegedly take no rnore than one WPOR) the (1) week. Fromitthe infortnation can only be concluded found in that subject WPQR. (1) this one (1) week process took place one otiginal rnontn after the Helaer's had expired or the information

• qualification was added to.'the record after it was signed.

Welding Individuals 2 and 3 stated that the Test Supervisor would issue a test number when b.

testina.

the welder came in for aualification secuential_ order' e n-The test number- (taken in welder, the ,

fNN,4 from a log book) identified the

s.

test to be taken, the test booth number'ano - .

s o,ther facts relative to the testing.

The test numbers shown on WpOR's dated 5-11-77' (Test No. p179), 11-11-77 (Test No. 6665), and do 11-29-77 (Test No. 5980)_ for incivioual 1 This agree with these statements.

not in

,. information subst&ntiates the conclusions

~

item a~above.

all records

c. Individuals 2 & 3 have ' stated that shop, (i.e.: the . log books from the test actual Authorization for Welder Test toernos, "pensiled-in" WPQRs) with the test results, final ' WPOR, have been exception of the

• destroyed. These records, according to the TVA procedures, are not c'6nsidered QA records. Thes st at ernent accuracy of the.WPOR's 3orand od 4,the could not be rnade by individuals 2, is

]' substantiated b'ased on the fact that there no available objective evidence. .w Individual 2 stated that the date on the bottom of any WPQR " clearly" was the effective d.

date of the welder's qualification welding not the and engineer

( date that the authorized

.~ . signed the record.- described by (Note: The effective date as the Test that individual 2 is the date Supervisor sporoved the welder and- released

. ..w

~..

3.-*. .

( ( i e

PAGE o CF 17

'e ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 DETAILG

• ( .

,' FINDINGS: (Continued) .

1. B. 2. d. Continued _,

Construction procedure W-2, Rev 0 required the

-WpOR to be reviewoo and stcred as a GA recota.

QAp Division of Construction procedure CONST 17.01 Rev 2, paragraph 6. 2. 4, states in part, ..

" Records shall, as a minimum, contain the following information to be classified as an

+

acceptable record of work and/or inspection performance:

' D. Stamped, initialed, signed ot- otherwise .I

1. .

- authenticabea and dated by the t' e s p o n s i b 1'e inspector or data recotder upon completion and...."

Contrary to the requirement .in CONST GAP-17.01, WpOR dated 11-11-77 was not dated by 5h the welding engineer who signed it. Therefore, *

' . (h..h.

i .

the record was never properly completed. '

e

~

s attempt to corrolate the welding .

e. In an e

of the program with engineer's deset1ption that existing ptocedures, it was determined

" Welder and Welding procedure W-2 governs Operator performance Qualification" at the Seouoyah facility. (Gee SNp Cp No. W-2, Rev O states, "This a .

l  ;

Section 1, purpose. which l , ' '

procedure described the methods to be employed for testing and aualifying welders and welding The operators at Seouoyah Nuclear plant").

engineers gave a more detailed description W-2. of the progtam functions than did' procedure However, it was dqtermined that procedure DEC-gap. 2.09 also applied to the i

~~

• of Welders and Welding

" Qualification facility (see I

Operators" at the ',-Sequoyah

(  ! DEC-GCp 2.09, .Rev O, CdVer page which l

states," Applies to: All Nuclear. Plants Except Drowns Ferry" 'and Section 1.0 pornose_ which j "This- procedure assigns the states, sequence of responsibility and l defines the

( to be accomplished in the actions and qualification, certification of welders and welding recertification

?*.

. i, opetators.") .

v . .T*-- . . 7 **i ..

. ..s- y. .

,s ,..

g ,, . sg ; g

%., ..,; 3 - .y ,, - .

.e. . -- ,

(.>. - ,

~ - - . - - - .

gy.

.- .[

{ ,

• i

, i .

pAGE 10 OF 17

[

ERT INVESTIGATICN. REPORT -

1 CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 i. t DETAILS l_ ..

FINDINGS: (Continued). ,

II. B. 2. e. Continued procedure DEC-DAP 2.09 .provides different.

requirements and responsibilities not only set for up the organizations responsible for test for the differenti and approval, but also routing cycles of the WPGR. In review and that acdition, proceduru DEC-gap 2.09 reouires Performanco the. welders carry a Welder-Qualification Curtification card.  ?

those-

• These -requirements are different from procedure stated and fnom those differences identified render' in -the W-2. These implementation of the Walder/ Welding Operators Qualification Program indeterminate.

C. All welding and weld qualifications were being done in accordance with G-29. The- process specifications under

. .@e'b 8).

j G-29 indicate that welding and welder qualification

• Section'IX of the should be done in accordance with

, g i However, these ASME*Boilei'and Pressure Vessel Code.

state which code year and' process specifications do IX E2tapply. A 'TVA engineer addenda of Section contacted for

5) in Knoxville was (individual particular code -

clarification and stated there was no as

~

year and addenda in effect.. It rolled - meaning that TVA Would incorporate f

the code addenda became mandat'ory, applicable G-29 requirements. Nowhere in,the ASME code those orocess specifications is it stated what the incorporated. in year and addenda are gr that they are ', ,

l this fashion. -

s. are knowing which code yeaia and addenda t

Without TVA for qualification of welders under Section

'ap'plicable be answered:

IX, the following types of quest ~1ons cannot l

4 use of

1. All WPOR's listed in Ath. 1 referenceThe the1974 ;and filler metal with an'"F" No. o f Z. not*

IX do

• 1ater years and addendas of.Section i

recognize the "F" No. I designation.

l WPOR dated 5-11-77 indicates that the welder tested h,y . 2.

and qualified, using 6" XX-STG Pipe, for a range of 3/16" to max. WPQR dated 11-11-77 was issued based 5-11-77.

. s..

on the acceptance of the qualification on I

However, the WPQR dated 11-11-77 indicates that the range of welder was then

qualified to_

. g.

weld ,g.

on a ..

' [. . , .

1/16" to 3/4".

. , . . . ,. ,7 i- . p = _r a . ;. .

a=:

(' .

(. .

+' ..' .

(

O e, -

l pAGE 11 0F 17

. $ERT-INVESTIGATION REPORT t

" .*'lCONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-OO6 l . .

iDETAILS  : .

i. .

j FINDINGS: (Continunc) ._

I.- C. 2. Continued on-t Deoending on the code year and addenda this may both-

.may not be acceptable. (Reference GW-351.in Section which 1974 and 1977 editions of j IX the t

' states in part: "The limits 'of thickness for which the-he will be qualified are dependent -upon thickness of the weld he deposits with' each welding *

, process,.in which the thickness shall be considered In ,

the j;,e_3_t_ . coucon thickness _ as given in GW-452)." 5-11-77, tnis case, the weld that was depositec on- the for initial cualification would be considered test coupon thicknesh.

f D. WpOR dated 9-29-78 incicatos the material specification The.

as A-106 to A-106. This P is carbon steel material.

No. 8 to P No. 8. p No. 8 WpOR also indicates stainless f -+. is for steel alloy and austentic designator

($YYll- . steel material', not carbon steel.

, Nf E. Welder Qualification List, . Sheets i of 2 and 2 of 2 for individual *1 list the following test numbers:

Test Number Qualified'Date'. Invalid Date 1 GTSM-7-5-0-3H 5-11-77 11-11-77 4260g B-4-78 GT-7-0-3-L 2'l-11-77 24301. 8-4-78 24200- GT-7-0-1-6(A) 11329-77

'47-25-79 42600' GTSM-7-5-0-3-H(A) 9-29'-78 WpOR's dat ed 5-11-77, 11-11-77, ~ 11-29-77, and 9-29-78 SG65, 5980, and 0287. ,

list test numbers ,5179, respectively. s

s. ,

The CY 'made reference to two (2) specific welds withinion the r

II.

Disposal System (WDS).

With *the CI's descript of Waste the welded area and thearea help of . Watts Bar erfgineers familiar with the WDS, the in question was located on the Ho' wever, there is no informabion applicable WDS drawings. A review of l

• available at SON pertaining to the weld numbers. in I

the drawings indicated that the particu1 Ar' welds would be I a Class G line.

G

.v..

dp D review of the requirements for the installation of Class j Waste Disposal lines led to the following .

i _ .

l

~

.'. ~;* .i. 6 ..

.: v.

. . . .n :;  ::. v:':

.v

~..v.

. na . . ..

u . :- c

.ui . ' ., * . . .a .s.  ; . .r ..

. . . .. '.3 X .1 -

r ;

l-U- .

• ' j ,

g. . , .

. j pAGE l'2 OF 17 '

ERT' INVESTIGATION rep 0RT' CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-iO1-006

.. DETAILS -

FINDINGS: '(Continued) . , , .

II. Continued Section 11. 2 " Liquid Wast e Syst erns" of the SGN Final A. of

. Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)Structures,. refers to Section Syst erns 3.2 and the .FSAR "Clannification The review of also identified SGN Corn oonent s'? .

Construction Specification N2M-865.-

3. 2 Tabien 3.2.2-1 and 3.2.2-2 of the FSAR Section 1.

d e s et-i o n the "Surarnary of Codes and Standards plant

.for for-of the Sequoyan Nuclear Cornoonent s 2, 1973 .and .after

• procurernent a prfor.to Apri1 Both of ,

April 2, 1973." (See . At t achrnents 2 & 3) . for the these tables deal with the recuirernents orocurernent_ of ining and other cornponents.

~4) deals with

2. Table 3.2.2-3 (See At tachtnent however*

Classifications, Non-Nuclear . Safety

" Code

@a>MN footnote (*) to Table 3.2.2-3 to ~states the field applicable Jurisciction fabrication, is assernbly, ex erninat ion, and testing of coolant i

• all piping systerns except the prirnary piping. The

-and the pressurizer surge line loops is per- -

piping design for the'Sequoyah Power PipingNuclear Code...".Plant ANSI B31.1 - 1967 ,

NEM-865 .Section 5. O, t' 5 Construction Specificafion 3.

lists different requirernents for field installation

~

~

(See Attachtnant 5). .

of piping and duct syst erns. .. clearly states "The Section 5. O of- N2M-865 nevern the following codes.- and standards.

pipe and duct installation and erection of'TVA B, C&D sys t erns. ". Requirernents 'for- TVA Class A, under this construction specification are different

~ ~

• than those cordinitted to iri Section 3.2 of the FSAR.

for I the renewal of D. The requirernents of ANSI B31.1 - 67 perfortnance qualificabions of welders are rnote stringent Specification than those listed in Genebal Construction * .

• G-29M.  %,

1.

ANSI B31.1-1967 paragraph 127.5.6 mtates .

Perfortnance Requalification is required Renewal of perfor: nance qualification under either of the following conditions:

',-e J*8 ;s .

e

. - ___..,.:.....,.w

u. .. . ; .

9 f.,, , . -): . . . . m $-%)'E! '88 >

+

c c .

J.l.. T I

. ., _. e pAGE 13 GF 17 ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT' '

'* CONCERN NUMBER XX-65-101-006 .

a *I .

DETAILS * ~

Y FINCINGS: (Continued)

II. B. 1. Continued used the specific A welder has not given (1) process withinASME the essential variables Boiler.and pressure Vessel in Section IX, or nonferrous Code, to weld either ferrous a period. of pressure piping materials for -

three inonths, or (2) If there is reason to rnwet question hisperfortnance ability to welds that ,the 1

make qualification requirements. ,, ,

(1) need Renewal of qualifiebtion under condition thickness and be made in only a single pipe. wall may be rnade by either a test weld or of a production acceptable-on the basis-weld checked .

radiography. .

,w, process.

f'I.*bf.k

2. General Construction Specification G-29M,statess.

42 , Specifica, tion 1.M.2.2(a), paragraph 4.1,

'Renewh1 of Qualification t

4.1 Renewal of qualification of. a performance following best shall be required under the conditions: .

has (a) Where the welde'r or welding process operator (manual used the welding not m'r e , gas tungsten _are,

shielded metal either ferrous or!

etc.) ,to weld period of l

materials for a

! nonferrous except when three months ter rno: e, process, employed on soms other welding

~~

• the period may be extended to six rnonths, *

, 2 or reasons to (b) When there is specidic question the welder or welding operator's

, ' ability tb produce welds that meet. the specificat ion requirernents. ->

(a) need be itenewal of qualification under (plate or in only a single test Joint or material 7

! roade pipe) on any. thickness,we position, lder' s or welding (y . , reestablish the to any thickness, operat or' s qualification for was l ._..

or material for which he position,

- previously qualified. ,y t

. w..,,,.:.

.n.., . . . . . u... . . .. .. . ;

....%.,.'.. ..,a... n. . . .:.:. .-c .: . . . . . a. . . .. c.

• • . *D , . ..a .. ;

m *'% + .

3.  ;, .

9 ,

- . , , 4

[}F . - ,

7  ;.: ' ';

. ,j

, ...... k,_ ',? ,

h,,,

PAGE 14 CF 17

~

.. 1 ERT11NVESTIGATION REPORT

. CONCERN NUMDER XX-85-101-006 ..

q

. DETAILS

• i

~

FINDINGS: (Continued) 4 II.

The areas noted as conflicting are:

welded

1. -ANS1 931.1-67 recuires a welder who*has not process for' 3 months to ,have a

in m. specific renewal of aualification. G-23 allows a welder who has not used the welding. process for a period of. 3 .

months or more,- except when employed on some other welding process, to have.the requalification period 6 months before renewal o f.

extenced to l qualification.

i of B31.1-67 states " renewal

2. ANSI made in only a single qualification...need be made by either a pipe wall thickness and may be test weld or a production weld checked on the forbasis the radiography. G-29 allows

, of acceptable only a renewal of qualification, to be made in 4 single test Joint (plate or pipe) and G-29 doesweld not

. d p@g h define by what means_this particular radiography or mechanical further

' 'Nu would be checked (i.e.: -

l s tests).

information, TVA' s renew'al - of' After reviewing the above meet welaer performance qualification program does Tablenot I ,

3.2.2-3, 8

.l' the.recuirements of the FSAR Section 3.2,the commitments under the Footnote (*) and additionally, assembly, field fabrication,

! FSAR- for the design, been

f. examination, and besting of pi' ping systems have not have specifications i

met in that existing constructio,n

• l modified the requirements.

issued to the dual process welding qualificablons Also, on 5-11-77 and 99g9-78 do not comply with B31.1-67 for renewal of individual 1 the requirements of ANSI

'pei'formance qualificabions.

. I identifying. all 111. During the evaluation of a computer printout 1 and applicable weld history welds performed by individual records, the following questiohable items were noted: ,

} .

1 p

The computer printout indicates 'that individual performed weld A. When the weld history records for weld A.

A were reviewed, there was no evidence indicating that The weld history t .

weld A was performed by individual compleblon

'i. of weld A

{

indicates the record years prior to individual l' s i s,,

two-and-one-half employment with TVA.

' i. ._ .

't. * '. ' , . . .

. . . "* 4 '

, *,*~ ; Ji., . . : ;.,

f,I ', l ,7, .% '. .' . ." }. ' . . ,*', ;, .~, *]L" [, ,,f

'. f,

~ * . . .

h"

• 5,i p '. s - -

. c.,

• 9 'T ^ / ,

O' -

N ,

. f

(

c i

( ..

'.,. ^-

F 'ERTJINVESTIGATION rep 0RT PAGE 15~O#-17 ,

JI CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-10 -006 -

I 1

DETAILS .

f FINDINGS (Continued) -

III.~(Continued)

[. B. The Weld Qualification List indicates that individual

. Weeks ending.12-7-77 and 2-8-78.

1-welded during . the

[ Qualification -List There is'no indication on the Weld f that individual'l welded between the two dates. This j

can be _ verified by individual l's medical records.

L According to'the medical records, individual was held I

! off- of. work for over 30 days because of- an injury.

• I Howeve,, weld B and C operation checklists and weld history . cards indicate that welds were made prior to week beninning 1-27-78,'. indicating that individual 1 F

l' welded and this informatibn.was.not properly documentedL b

t on the Welder Qualification List. +

i .

-r

i?!y. CONCLUSION

N:;<-This concern is substantiated.

I This conclusion is based on the following deficiencies:

' .}'

1. Qualification records for individual i have not been reviewed 1

'- in accordance with SNP Construction Procedure P-8.

2. . WpOR dated 11-11-77 contain's a statement that a)'was added after the record was's,igned, or;

• b) imolles the record was back-dated to maintain the ' welders cualifications. .

3. WpOR dated 11-11-77 and the. rest of the qualification records 1, contain information that could not that be for individual substantiated as accurate or corredt based on the fact i

I, F all supporting evidence has been destroyed.

- 4. TVA has not been able to identify tt.a particular ASME jqualify code year and addenda used to welders, Section IX ll therefore the welder qualifica, tion program is indeterminate.

1L design, field t 5.* FSAR Section 3.2 defines commitments for the li fabrication, assembly, examination and* Westing of piping.

These commi'tments have been modified by site construction .

'l: ./. specifications. Therefore, the commitments for the SQN facility are indeterminate.

,i l (tu r G. Information (examples computer reports; weld history iU pertaining to the documenting of individual (I

t records / cards)

'1' s welding activities is inaccurate, .therefore making , the. . <

fl,jf.  : . .'. . records indeterminate.

. ._.. i.:e.:.. ,. n e.

. .. y. '.i c.a_.-ja  : g

. . c..g:,. . 2 ik..<i, , . , . et

. . ;p .

.r.g

/-

l?

7...

i PAGE 16 DF-17

'ERT INVESTIGATION rep 0RT .

i

. .. CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-10 -006 .

,i . .

'## ~ DETAILS -

OBSERVATIONS:

during the course of the below are observations noted

i" Listed .

I investigation.

SNP Construction procedure P-8 Rev 14 deletes the requirement 4

> 1.

for the Quality Control Records Unit (GCRU) personnel to GA initial and date their review of the general construction previous revisions of This is a change from and-records. to initial procecure p-8 whien required GCRU personnel by date their review.. the General construction records 14 reviewed are tnerefore, i

the OCRU after issuance of.p-8 Rev ihaeterminate as to their revi,ew status.

Record

2. The following TVA forms within the Personal .social History security (PHR) for individual 1 indicann1the wrong numberE(___ __ __30) - the'0 should be a 73.

O (Employee Status .and

- P.\ I a) TVA form TVA9880 dated 5-6-77 l ' 'h . Information Record (Appointment Affidavit l, , b) TVA form TVA9880A dated 5-6-77 and Conditions) (Welding performance c) TVA ' form "TVA10539. dated 5-11-77 Qualification Record) *

' - d) TVA form TVA9680 dated 5-26-77 reports) (Medical e) TVA form TVA35 dated 12-14-77 (two .

/

Evaluation For Return'To' Work) '

L f) TVA form TVA35 dated 12-27-77 ~

• g) TVA form TVA95 dated 12-30-77 b) TVA form TVA1444 dated 1-17-70 .

1) TVA form TVA95 dated 1-19-78 J

I J) TVA form TVA95 dated 2:14-79 h) TVA form TVA35 dated 2-16-79 1

1) TVA form TVA95 dated 2-21-79 -

m) TVA form TVA95' dated 2-26-79 n) TVA form TVA95 dated 3-1-79 Report

3. According to the Appointment Affidavit and donditions pHR of p

(TVA form TVA9880A),

dated 11-1-79, found in the Nuclear individual 1, he was to begi~n work at Bellefonte His appointment to Project 11-6-79 as a steamfitter/ welder.. According DNp was contingent upon passing a TVA welding datedtest. 10-31-79, Welding Test Authorization, to the Individual 1 failed to qualify.

Although not qualified as aa

c. individual 1 still received appointment to BNP as W* welder, TVA9800 dated h *3. steamfitter/ welder. (This per TVA form all records  :.

s-.

i l

11-06-79.) SON personnel department stated thatl's work activities at (field files) pertaining to"If were destroyed; individualinformation the does,not appear...in ,

DNp ..t 102;:~ 1 % Vs his PHR, then his records are ,.r.

gone.

.. "> . ,inf : ~9J

- .' t, .".,  ;.g. .,g,g ,. g ,

v . ". y....g.......

l-f's- . ,.

,f .

.(

j -

( .

[ t, ' .

lj- .

PAGE 17 OF 17

j ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT 5

CONCERN NUMBER XX-85-101-006 ,

-i DETAILS ,

l' .

^

. t, t

OBSERVATIONS: (Continued) ,

• 3. Continued relating to individual l's work The only infortnation TVA77 activities at Bellefonte, is' contained in TVA which fort.:

states j (Personnel Action - Hourly TL) dated'4-21-BO" welding on NB evaluation of service,

.under ~ supervisors piping in reactor building #1."

5

,r s

.. i .

1 i

'^ .

If.1~'i.55ts:

i i ~ . .

t P,  % .

j -

.J! . . -

.t t . . .

. ~

i -

if i .

ii

l. s

~!1 ,

g* ,

b __ 2 _'_E_O_'b PREPARED BY:___' W1 ' _O -

DATE ***

!! rw , f .

, REVIEWED BY: __ _ _ __df<-(_____2/_7[/_[M -

i - DATE -

f et W/ -

I

~~,

'f . -

' /. A -

hhh" .

-<..,a

,. ... < v

.. 5 t . .. c.:< . . .

1

- , ,. . ;- ,' , - - - . - r- -:

L- _ _ _ _ _

1 t  ;.

. :,3,,...,........ . ,. . ... e .% .. v , . , * : 4 . r, .; ... . se.w

. , , . . .,s.gi. :ik

2. m ..n .e , . . . . a. ... $ . . e s . .. .,.. . ;. ... =4,. ,

w, . - . .

. i.

.- 8

\ e

\

.- r

]

t g i (*

/

( ..

. ATTACHMENT 1 * .e:

5

• 1.

-i foi , individual y in the qualification film i .

.1-

, found j

.Lict of doeurnents .  :*

Besscg_.7_1_ lg.

t i tion' Record lleLc.g.cd_.p_atL!!;. Welding Perfortnance Qualif ca tion Record --

5-11-77 Welding Perforraance Qualifica . -

, i tion Record j .

Welding Perforreance Qualifica of Welder -

l11-11-77 Rirvocation

[11-29-77 Subject l Mernorandura Wa ldei-12-6-77 Qualification Revocation of ,

Subjectr, ,

Mernorandura '.

8-8-78 QuaiifIcation tion Record Welding Perforr[iance Qualifica of Welder * ,

Subject:

Revocation

, 9-29-78 T Meroorandura -

B-G-79 .

Qualification t i of 2 Welder Qualification List tShee 2 of 2 -

- 4r,k.,, 5 5-78 l Welder Qualification List Shee .

D $ 9 9-79 .

4 s .  !

. . s

( -

t 5 .

i i

i .. . , t i e *J T

, s 1

I li .

i  !

. p y . ,. .

1

, . . . . : . . 1 '.. .:w .. . . . ,. r : ...'~h'4~<

1*

I !i

• Q, ,..'* "t ., 'l-

- 8' I il i * . . .

Y ,g. 5 5 m p

.y

'.~.

I; . 6'.- - Y, 1 .  ;

if Sw -

9

i. O'!

,i . i.

. E.

v. .-

. . .u .- ,q. ~7 y (

a 0.

.. .I . i '

. '4i h-

'. . Table 3.2.2-1/  :-.

~

5

. T s

• l l .

g y

. SIRt!!ARY OF FORCODES AND STANDARDS TCR COMPONENTS OF ,TtIE

• i, i

!' PROCURE!!ENTS PRIOR TO APRIL 2,19M I

• Code C1sssifiestions_ .

d .*

Crono D

• ',f. il.

Grouo 3 Group C p

2 I

Component .

}'

Croun A ASME Boiler and Pressure O '

,. ,,. ASi!E Boiler and Pres- Vessel Code, Seeting_,V,III, I ASME Boiler and Pres- ' ASilE Boiler and Pres-sure Vessel Code, Sec- - l

. Pressure sure Code,Section III, Division 1 or Equivalent '

Vessels sure Vessel Code, Sec-

- Class C,'1963 Edition tion VIII, Division 1

, tion III, Class A.

. . l N 1968 Edition ASHE Boiler and Pressure - '

"' ASitE' Boiler and Pres- Vessel Code,Section VIII.

~

- . ASME Boiler and Pres- sure Vessel Code, Sec-0-15 Psig .

sure Vessel Code, Sec- Division 1

,- Storage

• tion III, Class C, 1968 tion VIII, Division L. ~

- g ,

= ,

Tanks I Edition - '

API-650, AWA D'100 or .

"~

l1* .; , ,

Storage Tank Codes

. Storage Tank Codesl ANSI B9%.1-At:nospheric i APl-650, AWA D100 or IPI-650,AINAD100,or

• Storage,,. - . AUSI B96.1

. ANSI B 96.1 .

Tanks ,.

• 3 ANSI B31.1.0*s. .

- , *L

• ANSI B31.1.0 ANSI B31.1.04 l .

Piping ANSI .B31,.l.0* .

• Draf t ASHE Code for Pumps

~ ;' '

~ . , , .

Draft ASilE Code for Deaf t ASHE Code for Valves class'III or 9 DrafC ASi!E Code for Pumps and Valves

' Pumps Pumps and Valves ~. Equivalent

,* Pumps and Valves Class II Class III t . 7 i

! Class I .

HSS-SP-66. ANSI B16.5 j ' -

. . HSS-SP-66, ANSI B16.5 g

' HSS-SP-66, ANSI B16'.'5' HSS'-SP-66, ANSI B16.5

~

Valves and Draft ASHE Code and Draf t ASHE Code l

.' g and Draft ASitE Code for Pumps and Valves- ,

. for. Pumps and Valves - for Pumps and Valves Class III

. Class I class II . ,

AkiSI331.7 U x

Inspection and test requirements oept the primary cool i

• The piping has been designed to ANSI B31.1.0 code requirements.have ,

been a.

loops and the pres,surizer surge line. piping. ',

4

i. .

.3,

. t >

. i * * ..

• g* ,,

j- -

,.I

g. .. e -

.  ? *= k t.r.,. ,,,,z

.. C' v- v . . , ,, ,,'* * ~ 1.2._. ._ , Y % s 9. g

~ 5 .i .4h. ,. ; .. , . . ,

, ~ - ,~;,',

,'. ,.< .. Y',

ptgs /cl~l A ch'M W)'

~~.' i

.l .

,

• l ,

• .t .

/,

5::P

.m/ )(K-BPtot- 00 6 C . '

eo Table 3.2.2-2 '~

ARDS FOR COMPoliE*!TS .s ER

• SUtetAPJAPRIL OT2,CODES AtID STAllDPLAllT*,FOR PROC 19734

• OF Tite SEOUOYAH tlUCLEAR

• • Vessels Code Classification Valves Pumos *ASFE Code, Scismic Pipine Snfety Claus Class Catenorv , ,

TVA ASIE Code, Sec. III, .

AS!E Code, Sec, III, Class 1.

/,15 ::-18.2 ASHE Code, Sec. III, .-

A I Sec. III, C. lass 1-AS!E Code, 1 Class.1 C.l.a.ss 1

.. ASfE Code, Sec. III,

. ASME Code, Sec. III, Class 2 ASlE Code. See, III, class 2 ,

B I Sec. III, Class 2 ASME Code, 2a Class 2

. ASIE Code, Sec. III, .

ASME Code, See, III, Class 3 AStE Code, Sec. III, Class 3 C

I Soc. III, Class 3 AStE Code, 2b Class 3 StE Code, ASIE Code, Sec. III, Sec. III, Class 3 AS!E Code,

• Sec. III, Class 3

" D I Sec. III, Class.3 ASIE Code,'

3 ,

Class 3 A11SI B31.1, Sec. VIII, .

A!!SI, B31.1 Hanufac- B16.5, or Div. 1 I turers .HSS-SP-66 C . . , Standards **

. ' A!!SI 331.1, ..

• • B16.5, or .

,.c:p' ..

A11SI B31.1 MSS-SP-66 ,.

H ** .

%W ~

i ** ** .

J

• • - .** s I .. ,

K

- ** April 2,1973.i ements.

- L . ... . ..

f code reqtiirements prior toeting IEHA, API',

ANSI B31.7.requ

,. ble 3.2.2-1 for listing oASIE Code,Section III as me specific code or standard (i.e.,besafety- installed in Seism

• Refer to tab 31 Code case 115 accepts, i eers shall determine Vh the classes C andh tK'is -

reflects its toof a design quality. .

• • Design ent; nflote that equipment. in Tand should be .. . . . , ,

- t cte.).

j

• Cutenory I structures ..< ..

.. related aspects. ,

. d...h'. *

• tea, sP e .

e  %.

y

.f,', ,. ..

. ~..r.

.- . - ). .~-..,.;,,,.;,,,,, ~** u .

; . -.. s f. .,. .".... .; . q..

W.. )*~-

• t-

'~- ~~ ~' _ - - - -~'-"N_ , _ , . _

1 i 1. .. .. .

1.t' 3 :. ,.

(~ / ,f* 4 7'1"*- *

. &,ch*.XX 854cv coa.

e a-SNP 3q.

S, Table 3.2.2-3 .

t M 'I-  !!n -!NCLEAR SAFETY CLASSIFICAT10:15_

.J Design foi * * .'* ,

I

? } Code ,, -

Felsmie Loadinz , 7 . .,,,

f TVA ,Ju ris d ic t !'o'nt . .

,. [ . ,,

Class . _ , , , *

- 5 **

t .1ininu Svstems_ po Class II, Al;SI B31.7 (19697 and Draf t ASHE -

l- E Puep and Valve Code for Nuclear Power ,,,,,

(1968)

go F Class III. ANSI B31.7 (1969) and .Draf t ASHE .

Pu=p and Valve Code.Joc Nuclear.fouer .

(1968)-

- - Note 1

..I C ANSI B31.1.0 (1967)

,f Note 1 11 A::SI B31.1.0 (1967) t No l J Section 1. A511E Boiler and Pressure , -

I Vessel Code . "

Note 1 I N Unclassified  :.

- Hate 1

..1 L Unclassified

• l*

Yes -

i .

ANSI B31.5 (1966) 1 .. No .

G'Wl U' 3

. H ANSI B31.5 (1966) ~

- Yes tJ'.hI Round Duct, Steel, Spiral or Longitu- j, ,

g Q dinal Welded Seam, AST!! A 211 and . ,

J -

SMAC:!A Hiah Velocity Duct Construction _ -

,(

Standards, Second Edition, 1969, Erected ,

to SQN-DC-V-13.8. -

. Ho

• Round Duct, Steel, Spiral or Longitu- -

J R

. dinal Locked or Welded Sean,_SttACNA . . s.

.."....l._...

l

.. _ .. Hirh Velocity Doce Construction _ Stand ' ,

ards, Second Edition,.1969. (Sheet tietal and Air Conditioning Contractors .

., National Assoc.) t

' Yes ,,.

5 Rectangular Duct, for Velocities Over 2000 fpra or Static Pressures Trop 2- to t

. 10-Inch Water Cauge, S?!ACNA Hieh Veloe-. -

I t .- Duct Construction Standards _, Second ll ,

• l -

t Edition, 1969, Erected to SQN-DC-V,-13.8.

g . * *

!!o Rectangular Doct, for Yelocities Over T

2000 fpo or Static Pressures from 2- to .

10-Inch Water Cauge. S?tACNA Hith Veloe- -

Construction Standards, Second

-tv Doct i ,'"

Edition, 1969.

,j l .

.( I .I I ,

...J - ., ,

t P i .2'. ,, '1

.e. '

=

' a (: . .,: '," - .6, .

-L E- e ' * */ - ,

b C, E/-8f- /d/. ccg, ', '

bW%fAlT* b D* *

• j SNP k '

.. j . n Isble 3.2.2-3 .

(Continued) .

• s

. '0!:-XCCLEAR SATETY C1.A551FICATIONS .

)

Code.. - .. ,

Design for ,,

TVA 5eitmie 1.cadint . *2 ~ ~,

. . Class " ..--

Jurisdiction * ~

., Ptnine Svstens_ . .

Yes, ll Rec angular Duct, for Static Pressures *

• Le * :. 2-inch Water Cauge. 5"aC fA 1.ou_ --

Velocity Duct Construction Standards, Fourth Idition', 1969, Erected to .

SQ::-DC~'.*- 13

• 8 ,_ , , , _ , , , _ _ _ _ _

No V Rectangular Duct, for Static Pressures '*

Belou 2-inch Water Cauge, SMACHA 1.ov.

• Valecity Dect Construction Standards, Tourth Edition, 1969.

• Code jurisdiction is applicable to the field f abrication, assembly, examina-and testing of all piping systems except the primary coolanc loops and the pressurizer surge line piping. The piping design for,the Sequoyah Nuclear

. tion.

Plant is per ANSI B31.1.0-1967 Fower Piping Code "and ANSI B31.5-1966 Re-

f rigeration Piping Code."

i . ,

All non-nuclear safety piping systems located inside seism c .

. Note 1 category I structures are seismically supported as necessary .

l ,. to prevent unacceptable interactions stith safety,-related structures, systecs, or components. .

) .

.k.e - . g s - ,,

=

. ~ ' ' *

s. :.: .. . .

- . .. *~,.

. . . , - =; *

,* :....~

..g ,

• g

. .. .. - - 7..

J

z. .. r . : * ..

) .

e .. .

m.

• ,. g

... .. .-.. W8

^

g * .

- t

• *f, ~ ; )*,.'*. .

l -  ! ,

N .

9 . .

~

9 . :> * * '* *

, .[g . ", .

. . . ,* , [**' .l.' I b .jl}. . ..*.[...

.,, . .. *

• f. 5,

,. [;.,'**"E,**

• g o., - - - - *.~__._-_

s, , (hycg2M XX-8P/o/-od6

" " "! " " ' *" ' f*fe ms

., - - Yg

(

TIELD FABRICATI0tl, AS E!!BLY EXAMIllATI0li,

.e

[

e

• *  !!211-865

. Al*D TESTS FOR PIPE All DUCT SYSTEMS

r. *

• 1 4.5.2 G-37 " Testing and Balancing of lleating, Ventilating, and Air

~

Conditioning Systems." ,

4.6 TVA Design criteria . .

4.6.1 SQti-DC-V-3.0 " General Design Criteria for the Classification of ~

Piping, Pumps, Valves, and Vessels." .

4.6.2 SQti-DC-V-3.2 " General Design Criteria for the Classification of IIcating, Ventilating, and Air Conditions Systems."

.4. 7 , AST!! A211 - Specification for Special Welded Steel or Iron Pipe 5.0 REOUIREMEllTS FOR FIELD IIISTALLATIO!! 0F PIPE A!!D DUCT SYSTEMS .

The requirements pertaining to installation, testing, inspection,

. stamping, and certification shall be in accordance with the rules ,

applicable to the TVA classification and type of component involved. ,

Paragraph 3.12 defines the bounddry of jurisdiction. When joining  ;

piping and components of different classifications or components.which have been manufactured under different code editions and addenda, the ,

more restrictive requirements shall govern. .

G<

~, ...b. , l . .

' .!,,.' v e The following codes and standards govern the installation and erection

{, of TVA pipe and duct systems. In some cases design drawings and '

l.

specifications may contain additional requirements applicable to a

• e specific component or system. .,

(..

i.

. .. .l .

(e.'.\ .

(;t. .:. l. .

s.. ,

. r.. ; .r.,.: +- a.-.< 2;a.a 4 + ... ,

...... ... .p

. l y_n .t.g n.s.lu t u.s. n w - ..~ .

.i.

l y,-a. .-  %

'. 20MC&W Xg.BS. tot. .4 .

(  ; y p , S- yp.

. ; ., .p s .

. FIELD FABRICATION, ASSEllBL EXAMINATION,

.{ N211-865

/' AND TESTS FOR FIPE AND DUC SYSTEMS *

[r f

', ,

(

1 ,~

l- .

Design for .

[' TVA Seismic

• Class Loadine Applicable Codes and Standards

• i l

~A 1. ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addenda, class IA j' Yes

-l B Yes 2. ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addendai Class,II* .

i i C/L*** Yes 3. ANSI B31.7 (1969) and 1970 Addenda, Class III*

4 G Yes 4. ANSI B31.1.0 (1967) issued July 26, 1967.

.{ ANSI B31.1.0 (1967) , issued July 26,'1967, with NDE

'! N No 5.

I .

of butt velds per ANSI B31.1.0C,1972.**

.J No 6. ASHE Boile'r and Pressure Vessel Code,Section I, 1968 Edition' through Winter 1969 Addenda, inclusive.

1[/L Yes/tlo 7. Unclassified, to be specified on applicable drawings.

H/N Yes/No .8. ANSI B31.5 (1967), 1968 Addenda. ,

• l -Q ,

Yes 9. Round Duct / Steel, Spiral, or Longitudinal Welded Seam, ASDi A 211, SHACNA High Velocity Duct Construction Standards, Second Edition, 1969, and ANSI B31.1.0 (1967).

R Ho 10. Round Duct, Steel, !,i.ral, or Longitudinal Locked or Welded Seam, SHACNA High Velocity Duct Construction

.h

.n

• Standards, Second Edition,1969, and ANSL B31.1.0

- (sh;\

(1967). .

s S/T Yes/No 11. SMACitA Righ Velocity Duct Construction Standards,

- * .. Second Edition, 1969. .

, U/V Yes/No 12. S!!ACNA Low Velocity Duet ConstructioE Standards, 1 . . Fourth Edition, 1969. -

}

Ceneral Construction Soecification."G-29" containe process specifications

• U-which define and shal.1 be used to meet tha.TVA requirements for f abri-- -

• 5-cation in accordance with the ASHE, AWS, ANSI, or other.. codes or

• standards referenced therein. "G--37" shall be used for testing and

) . .

1 balancing heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems. , . . .

All welding used in construction of.TVA classes Q, R, S, T, U, and V .

. shall be in accordance with C29H or G29C procedures. ,

j

( s. ,

• B31 Case 115-December 1973 - Acce' pts Rules of Section III of AS!!E Boiler and

f. ,

.' Pressure Vessel code as complying with the requirements of B31.7 - 1969 and applicable addenda for the respective class of constructioni. Use of portions z

l .

I.

of later edition and addenda of any code or standard listed in section 5.0

• or of portions of ASME Section III inust be approved by the Nuclear Standards and Haterials Section of DED-HEB. Approvals shall be issued as addenda to.

-. . *this specification. - ~

j ** Refer to memorandum R. H. Dunham to G. G. Stack dated February 23, 1973, ,

Contract 69C60-64422. - . .* ';

.r .. 4 I t *. e  :.

i (' ,

• • • Due tio ' changes in ANS safety classification there is no difference between TVA Class C and TVA Class D. . ., .

+

i

._. . _ u-lL4hnvAmawmuut . .-,..,..

c.m h .1 .

~

q

. m .. _ ..a. .

........u .. _. . . . _ .

\

j

^^

(~ I (,  : \

)+: 'l=' r., '

J .1%. 7_

m

.. s '.: * * *. : s . - n

• REQUE FOR REpORTABILITY EVALUAT1DN

/ - .. ..

Request No. XX-85-101-006' __

1. '

(ID No., if reported) .

) .ERT

( Concern No.) , ,

~

2. Identification of Item Involved:

Model, etc.)

problem (Attach related documents, photos,

3. Description of sketches,etc.) ,

Welder quali fication_. records,have not _be_e_nJ_omp_1_e.13 -

e d tJnie.gd_aud..MEtDyYEd ___-

_in accordance wi th app _ roved ,5,QN_p,d roc _e ures. Ov_erall welder _.gyali f f.gg.t Lqp _ ___ .

~

8 records are indeterminate.

i

4. , Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental ahmets'if..3.- necessary)

. * . . . . i.s .

' deficiency /- were it to have A. This design or constructio6 could have affected-adversely the safety remained uncorrected, t any time throughout of operations of the nuclear power plant the expected lifetime of the plant.. .

n No _X Yes __ If Yes, E:4 plains _ ._ ___

{MM.~. - .

- r. s. , - _ _ _ _ _

• * * * - ^ ' e

AND .

in any represents a sinnificant . breakdown

. B. This deficiency program conducted

• in of the quality assurance portion t** - * * * * '

accordance with the requirements of Appendix,B.- -

'Yes X If,Yes, Explain - Violation of Criterion IX  ;

No _

j __

deficiency' represents a pianificant deficiency in final

~

C. *This the, design as approved and released for construction such that 3

i design does not conform to the critteria bases stated - in

. the ' ',

safety analysis report or construction permit.

• l ,,; . - . t l

No _)L__ Yes __ If Yes, Explains _ ___._ _____________________

l , ,

m ,

-- _ _ = .= --.-=

1 7

• f

.' ~~~

(, * .

ERT Form M f .

. ..g:

.. ..f..,.. . . . , . . , . . j.. . ,

.;. , ( _, . . , , , ,,,,

w . . ,3, . - . I

c

.g ~ .- .-- - . .- . . - . -

. . . ~ -

' j i- ,,

e , . .

s we e

/. f-(

. \

' i is c'

~

. '3 - .

REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION

' . . . . >r i

' *

• dre f ic: eSecy re pre'.se n t s a significant ,

deficiency in-U. Thas conutruction of bv- significant d e ress e o t o a st ruc-t ure, m extensave yrsti er.: e wtsich.will reautre extennive eva l um e.J on.

c or.ioe.ne n t anc. ha ss en r e rs e s i g n , or extensive repeir tr.F riti 2% ' the criteric si-stated in the safety analysis re' cort or conste-e.tet t ore . ctme msysstt ern, to othor m se establish the adfiJu.ecy of tne s t ruct.u re, ,

'

• or coriponent ' to pert forrei 1,t s intended safety function. '

' If Yes, Exp1 min:

No __X _ Yes . ___

t i . Un r.epresents a gL._4n.lf i garg deviation extensive from than E. This deficiency specifications'. which will require performance to j

evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair or component establish the, adequacy of the structure, system, 1

I to perform its intsnded safety function. ..

' No *X Yes _ ..I f Yris, Explains- ________ -_-

('?.Y}; O - . .- -

4.; -

i An, PND 4B DR 4C QB.4D QR 4E ARE MARKED, "YES"i J.M1.t}EDI ATELY .

IF ITEM .

HAND-CARRY THIS REDUEST AND SUPPORTING UCUM NTATION TO NSRS. .a .

.,p/p V' 3ddk3.3.

This Condition was Identified by:,.*_ERT @ipt 0 -_

Iftve'stigator phone Ext.

- ., t

.. ...t . .

\ ;.)*

/

-_ ,. /_,.___--_c.4t _-W ' ']rd S.

. EHT project Manager

---..__QW--.

Phor e Ext ,- 4-1 1 ~ .

1 S.

Acknowtudgmen of receipt by NSRS s i

1 .

, / . .. .

/

Date,h. 1 '_ Time;~.fb.

V,. ~ -  % ' ,

. Signed i.

~ . ,

ERT Form M s . . ,

j i L - . .i..

s e

/.

v'i

( .

c .

-J I p,

,. . \ I

l. ~ 3 .ua

+

.J . .i

. e.

• REDUEST FOR REPORTAB'ILITY EVALUATION '

Req ues t' ' No. -XX-85-101-006 -

1. (ID No., if reported) .

TERT Conc.:ern No.3 ,

Identification of Item Involved:

N

2. ' (Nomenclature, system, manuf.,SN, Model, etc.)

(Attach related documents, photos,

3. Description of Problem s ke t ch e'e a, e t c. ) ,

Construction Specification (il2H-865) contradicts requirements listed in -the

~.-- .

Final

---

--Safety sb Re po r t , Se c tion 3.2

. - --- Analy --_ - - - --- - - -- - - - - - -

E Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental sheets if'..f-.- necessary)' l

, 4. ' .

...... . . . , ie. . .

to have This . design or construction'.. de fi ci ency,'- were .it

'P.

remained unco rected, could have affected adversely the safety ,

of operations of the nuclear power plant at any' time throughout 3

the expected lifetime of the plant.,

same establish the adecuacy of tne structure, sy s t eten, i

• er component to pertform its intended safety functfor.

No X Yes ____ If Y es, Explains s .

t _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _

. W1 represents a sinnificant deviation from the.

E. This deficiency specifications,which will require extensive-

' - performance repair to.

evaluation, extensive rede' sign, or extensive system, or component

' establish the adequacy of the structure, to perform its intended safety function.

No X Yes _

If Yes, Explains- _____

j

. ,l ' h5$h ' _ _ _ _ _ - -

. 1

,3 e

l r

s _ _ _

I _____( l MARKED "YES", JMMEDIATELY_

IF ITEM 4A, -ANU 4B DR AC Q3 AD QR 4 IDN TO NSRS. .

HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORTING DOCUME . .,

This Condition was Identified by: __ERT b__._

Inv s,tlgator W M _h_S.d Phone Ext.

I h. _

2  ! I' ,

...u

..s. , -i

(

acj '-

....." - - .. , ,~ .

+ .. ,

33 - -

ERT Project Manager . Phone Ext. -

, j_

• I! .

b*

Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS 1..

,, , (

g j -

6 i

. Time L _ ______1__g _ A __ nat .A.  !

1 Signed / '

8 A

(..

ERT Forni M

. e

,qf '

__' i - '- " -- - - - ---_1 :_: .

j i . j

. Attcchmmt 2

?,,

r i Fegs 1 of 1 -

(EMPLOYEE CONCERNS) }

',I

'l0/16./86 1 lO;------CONCERN-------

' 'i '1 3 : 0 1 : 01 QTC EGG INSP SD RD GD CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY 09G -__ ____ _ _ __ ,

S 1

SR jXX-85-lol-006

,,. PROBs WCPOW QUALIFICATION CRAFTSMAN SPECIFIC (, -

[(.., '

WORDS: t II SEQUOYAH: A WELDER PERFORMED WELOS WITl10UT ilAVING CON 8TRUCTION THE PROPER DEPT CERTI fi DETAILS MNOW TO OTC, W I T illl E L D DUE TO CONFIDENTIALITY.

ll

'i CONCERN. Cl HAS No FURTilER INFORMATION.

STAT: RC: .?

, IR: XX-85-101-006 , . .

4 D.

TECilNICAL COMMENTARY:

l t

' i .(

h  !

i. .

4 $

i' E

.c i:

l- .

l- .. , i g i i.

E i.

(W.s.;.i.R I

' .w

~ -

i-I t

l .

L .

t l

l' l

.D,

('%..

L i

I

.. . ~ . ..

i

. y . ;,; .. ; . .. . .., ...

. ,.-, , s. .i. . . . . . . ,

< - _ -o . .

Attaciment 3 . .

N

.PROGRAN SUMMARIZATION OF WELD PROJECT (WP) EVALUATIO .

This package summarizes the actions taken by the Wolding' Project (WP) to

• evaluate and disposition the subject SQN-specific employee concern which was previously evaluated by NSRS/QIC/ERT and summarized in WP Phase I and Phase .

reports. .

The Welding Project analyzed each 69N-specirle employee concern to determine the statement (s) being voiced by. these individuals. '

lhese :tatements were then evaluated both Individually and collectively to

' develop issues.

Each issue was then Incorporated into the WP review activities of Phase I,

" Procedural Assessment" and Phase II, " Procedural Implementation." '

During Phase I, each issue was' analyzed egainst requirements of the applicable QA program, policies, NSRS/QIC/ERT Investigation Reports, and other relevant Information to determine if program elements were deficient when evaluated against upper-tier requirements, i

Phase II consisted of a sample reinspection of hardware and. independent.

• progr;am. audit by Hechtel. , , ,

In each area analyzed by Bechtel, the auditors found no objective evidence to

' substantiate the employee concerns' considered. The following areas directly related to employee concerns were Investigated by the audit teamt 3

1. Walder qualification and attendant records l

2, Wolder quallrication and attendant on-the-job-training i

3. Welding inspections ,-

4. Welding inspectors training programs t

l 5. Wald material traceability i .

6. Welding inspections by craft personnel

7. Wald material control ~

Each.or these areas was investigated by the auditors for both construction and operations phases. In s!! cases, there was no objective evidence to The audit report concludes that both

' substantiate the employee concerns.

construction and operations phases have had'and now have a functioning Welding Quality Assurance Program which meets cede, standard, and r

unsubstantiated and without technical merit. .

I 3157T .

Page 1 of 2 I .

-, ..a-_ . _ . , -

Attachment 3 The results of the rainspection program ab SQN also give another, additional verification of the Welding quality Assurance Program for both construction .

and operations phases and serve to establish additional confidence in the accuracy and implementation of these programs through hardware inspections and ,

attendant document reviews. In all cases, the components and items wore found to be acenptable upon initial reinspection or found to be acceptable af ter engineering analysis. -

The Wp analysis of SQN-Specific Employeo Concerne supplemented by the .

Independant Dechtel nudit, reinspection of installed components arm systam, , *

• and independant (NSRS) overview and investigations has not revealed any significant or ganarle inadequacles in the welding programs for either the

- construction or operations phase at SgN which have been directly identified -

through the Employne Concern Program. The Employee Concern Program has simply reiterated problems which Imve been or are now being resolved through existing '

corrective action programs in the overall Nuclear quality Assurance Program.

A summary analysis of the Wp avaluations and regommendations is included in Attachmont. .

e 9

9 e

0 9 g

' s ,

SS e -

4 e

9 0 ,

9 9

4 O e * #

• e e

e

1. e e I

l 9

l -

Page 2 ui' 2

' S

-t A ': -

f:

• . 'E Attachment 4

.Page 2-of 3 i

4 1

E5PLOYEE WP ACTION ISSUE

' CONCERN NUMBER Craft. Welder Incapable of .

SQM-6-005-001 was SQM-6-005-001 Making Proper Welds substantiated:-SQM-6-005-102~

SQM-6-005-X02 was not substantiated by NSRS Report I-86-115-SQN (Attach-ment 3). WP concurs with -

- report.

This is an acceptable XX-85-013-001 E309 Electrode Used to Weld. practice. ERI investigated

, E316 Steels in ERI Report XX-85-013-001, dated 3/22/85 (Attachment 3). WP concurs.

Not substantistsd by NSRS, Improper Weld Rod Used in Report I-85-756-SQN XX-85-041-001 Diesel. Generator Building (Attachment 3).

XX-85-049-001 was

' {$?k$it XX-85-049-001 Welder Certifications substantiated as it relates

.s j,,

XX-85-049-103 Updated Without Meeting to Welder Continuity Require-Requirements This had previously ments.

been identified by No in an

~ audit. 11-85-049-103 was not sub'stantiated. Details and recommendations are given in NSRS Report I-85-135-SQN (Attachment 3). WP concurs with I-85-135-SQN-01 through

-03 and recommends they be closed based on the W?-Bechtel Audit of SQN in Key Elements 4.0, 5.0, and 17.0 (Attachment 4).

1 Not substantiated by NSRS ,

XX-85-054-001 QC Ifoldpoint Sign-Off Report I-85-346-SQN Violation (Attachment 3).

Not substantiated by NSRS XX-85-065-001 Performance of Remote Visual Report I-85-750-SQN Inspections (Attachment 3).

(.-

05640 t

a

• a

• , . _ _ , _ . _ . , , , _ "~~----m_. _( _ _ _ , _ , , __

~

Attachmen't4

'Page 3 of 3 -

N

. .}

'~

EMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE WP ACIION XX-85-083-001 SQN Weld Inspections not as Not substantiated by NSRS.

Strict as WBN Report I-85-652-8QN (Attachment 3).

XK-85-098-001 Laminated Pipe in Unit 2 -Not safety-related. Not Condenser. Ihis issue is substantiated by WP Evaluation also on the Generic Summary Report WP-18-SQN (Attachment-3).

Improper Weld Repair on an Not substantiated by ERI XX-852100-001 Undetermined Number of Report XK-85-100-001, dated Welds .,, 3/5/86 (Attachment 3).

XX-85-101-006 Welder Certification for- ERI Report 11-85-101-006 the Construction Era (Attachment 3) with NSRS Recommendations Indicates that this concern is sub-

. ' . .),

stantiated. WP takes excep-

tion to this ERI Report based on subsequent information

. provided in Attachment 4. WP exceptions, recommen-dations, and basis for closure were discussed with NSRS as documented in Attach-ment 5. WP recommends this concern not be substantiated and that it be closed based on the WP-Bechtel Implemen-tation Audit, Key Elements 4.0, 5.0, 17.0 (Attachment 6).

XX-85-102-011 NDE Inspectors cannot Write Not substantiated by NSRS Notice of Indications for Report I-85-735-SQN Preservice-Related Defects (Attachment 3).

XK-85-108-001 Socket Welds Not Inspected Not substantiated by NSRS XK-85-108-002 Report I-85-776-SQN (Attachment 3).

~

f .'p, 3

$/*

05640

Attachment 4 Page 1 of 3

SUMMARY

OF SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REVIEWED BY WELDING PROJECT.

EMPLOYEE- WP' ACTION CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE Not substantiated by ERI XX-85-088-003 Alterations to Welder Report XX-85-088-003 of Qualification Records in 3/8/86 (Attachment 3)..

Knoxville ,,

Not safety-related.- No-XX-85-124-001 Burial of Electrode Stubs action required.

Box Anchor Design Substantiated by NSES Report XX-85-086-003 I-85-560-SQN (Attachment 3).. '

Deficiency.

WP concurs with report

~

i* recommendations.

Not Substantiated by NSRS XI-85-069-003-R1 Acceptance of Previously- -

Rejected NDE Items , Report I-85-738-SQN (Attach-

{Jp*,* ment 3). WP concurs with

, report recommendations.~ -

Substantiated by WP Evaluation SQM-5-001-001 UncertifJed Weider Foreman Report WP-16-SQN (Attachment-Performing Preweld

• SQM-5-001-002 Inspections 3). Interim corrective WBM-5-001-002 actions are being (Also Listed in formulated. Closure is the Generic '

. based on these actions.

Summary) ~

Additional corrective actions may be implemented.

i

( Hanufacture of Dravo Spool Not substantiated by NSRS XX-85-068-007 REPORT I-85-636-SQN f Piece l (Attachment 3).

l Inadequate OJT-Records for The general issue of XX-85-069-001 inadequate OJT-record.s was XX-85-069-001-R1 ISI and QC Personnel for N0 substantiated by NSRS Report XX-85-069-X05 I-85-373-NPS (Attachment 3). ,

XX-85-069-001 No falsification of records was substantiated. WP cona curs with report recommen-dations.

/

l (' .

s-..

05640

~ . .

. ~.

a

• '2 t i .- . _ . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

\

Attachment.5 XX-85-101-006 PREPAREJ BY 8 b , M m

O///d. ./Edis 7 e.s. odiols .?ECIG REVIEWED BY .E. Cho , Olb4[ , OC, WP tM , QA, WP

'I,- REVJfED BY t1 opsln i

i CEG-H, WELDING REVIEWED BY ,

APPROVED BY PROGRAM MANAGER l -

1 I

I

• i t

~

l l

, 3096T

'4-

c. -( ,

q 4 -

.1 Attechment'5

'~'

XX-85-101-006 l

\

is based on ~

91C's basis for substantiating employee concern XX-85-101-006(see subje six-(6) identified deficiencies, provides a response to each specific deficiency:

1. 'The processing of welder qualification records (WQR) was not performed in accordance with Sequoyah Nuclear' Plant,(SQN) 4

, Construction Procedures (CP) W-2, " Welder and Welding Operator L Performance Qualification," and SQN CP P-8, " Review, Handling, and Temporary Storage of Quality Records." SQN CP W-2, revision 0,

~ required the WQRs to be reviewed by Quality Control Records Unit

~(QCRU) and stored in accordance with SQN CPSQN P-8, CPhowever-no W-2, evidence exists that the review of the WQRs31, was performed. deleted the requirement for 1981) revision 1 (effective date JulySQN CP P-8 required retention of the WQRs and the QCRUJreview.

completion of the construction, these SQNrecords CP P-8, would revisionbe12transferred (effective to the Division of Power Production.

date: June 13, 1986), clarified the American National Standards 4

Institute (ANSI) N45.2.9 definitions for record retention (duration of construction and life-of-plant), WPQs were _ classified as duration Although the review of the WPQs was not-of construction records.

, performed (revision 1 of SNP LPW-2 deleted the requirement for QCRU review) the requirements of ANSI N45.2.9 were satisfied.

l E

2a. -WPQRs for welding technique GT-7-0-3-L was issued concurrently with' or af ter the revocation memorandum (dated December 6,1977) for welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H with an effective date of November 11, 1976. This qualification is based on the WPQR for t-

' welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H which is comprised of two welding ,

processed, gas tungsten arc welding (GT) and shielded metal arc welding (SM). The welder maintained the GT portion of the qualification through the usage of the GT portion of the

, because of nonusage cf the SM portion of the welding technique.

r Dased on the above, welding technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H was revoked

, according to memorandum dated December 6,1977 and the WPQR for welding technique GT-7-3-0-L was awarded with an effective date of l' based on the maintenance of the GT process of the

• Novcmber 11, 1977 The statement:

previously issued technique GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H.

" Equivalent qualification being awarded based upon satisfactory side bonds of PQT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H passed May 11, 1977. Welder has

maintained certification of the GT portion of this test through November 11, 1977. PQT GT-SM-7-5-0-3-H revoked by letter dated December 6,1977 because of lack of SM welding" on WPQR for welding technique GT-7-3-0-L is an explanation of the qualification.

1

! Page 1 of 3 3355T

( The date l if 2b'. ' The TVA WPQR form has one (1) location to recor'd the date.

-that was recorded on the WPQR form was.the date the welder satisfactorily completed the performance test. The WPQR form is

" pencilled-in" in the weld _ test shop by the weld test shop' supervisor and forwarded to engineering for typing, review, and 'engir"2ering l[ signature. The date on the WPQR form represents the welder qualification date and is the date that the welder qualification continuation is based. The Welders Qualification Record form in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME),.Section IX (QW-484) has only one place to record the date and this form is used through the industry.

3. ' The methodology for processing the WPQR dated 11-11-77 and the rest of the qualification records is explained in paragraphs 1, 2a, and' 2b. As the ERT report stated, the welder test shop loa book,

" pencilled-in" WPQRs etc. are not available for review and procedurally were not considered QA records.

4.

Walder Performance Qualification (WPQ) may be performed to the edition and addenda of the ASME Code Section IXfin affect at the time of the contract award or WPQs can be performed to- the latest edition and addenda in effect. New editions and addendas become effective six (6) months after they are issued. ASME Section IX editions and addendas issued af ter the start of construction were reviewed by TVA to determine if the later edition / addenda affected the requirements

• stated in General Specification G-29M, " Process Specification For Wolding, Ileat Treatment, Non-Destructive Examination, and Allied Field Fabrication." Although some of the requirements of later editions and addendas were incorporated, not all of the later requirements _were incorporated. TVA's WPQ program requirements are between the original edition of ASME Code Section IX in affect at the time of the contract award and the latest effective edition / addenda of ASME Section IX. (Note: The acceptance criteria for welder performance bend test specimens has not changed from the 1968 Edition of Section IX through the current Edition.)

5. 1VA's welders continuity was based on a ninety (90) day usage until SQN CP M-2, " Welder And Welding Opeator Performance Qualification,"

revision 1 was issued (effective date August 6, 1974). Revision 1 of said procedure adopted the option of continuing the welder's performance for a specific process which has not been used to six The (6) when the welder has been employed on some other welding process.

performance qualification extention to six (6) months was TVA's adopted FSAR the ASME Code,Section IX 1971 edition 1971 winter addenda.

should be changed to reflect the ANSI B31.1 Code through the .ob-971

~

addenda. The addition of this addenda revises the introduction of ANSI D31.1.0-67 Code by modifying paragraph 3, column 2 to read:

"Af ter code revisions are approved by ANSI they may be used by agreement between parties beginning with the date of issuance shown on the title page." The 1973 edition of ANSI B31.1 Code and later editions refer welder qualification to the ASME Code Section IX.

Page 2 or 3

4-

6. Computer printouts for system status were used to indicate the

~

completion status of each weld within a system. This printout was

.I not intended to be used as a umiders history or to be a permanent Quality Assurance (QA) record. The accuracy of this printout for welder identification is a moot point.

The Welder Qualification List (WQL) would indicate the latest usage ,

by welding process for .each welder.- The WQL would show usage on a Week-ending basis according to SQN CP W-2, " Welder and Weldirx3 g.

Operator performance Qualification." The purpose of the WQL is to document continuity of the welders qualification through the continuing usage of the welding process. Based on the usage date specified by QfC, the welders performance qualification was properly continued. Welding process' usage not listed'on the WQL did not affect this welders performance qualification continuity because'of other process usage within the specific time frame required for J

welder continuity. Welding process usage not listed on the WQL can l

not improperly extend a welders continuity, but may prematurely revoke a welders qualification.

f,'

i> Dased on the above responses, item five (5) is the only item that jl j; required further action.

i! -

Recommended corrective action:

(.l t

i Revise the FSAR as indicated in No. 5 above.

j 1.

i

(

q.

i

.h' ,

It i

l i

l 2

i l

~

l Page 3 of 3 r

l.

'. i'

WELDING PROJECT SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCER iS 9

AIIACllMENI 6 MARCll 26, 1986 LEITER 10 MR. MARIIN l

4

• • • t.63 , ,

$ Yf%

4 D

l ,

G 1

i 1

[ e,#' .*

l . ,

. . - - , - - , _ - - - - - - - - , - -,--- . . . . - - e,

.. ap . , .. . .. .. . .

.; '.Har.ch 26, 1986 -

.e. .r . .

.. ., ..i ... .

. ,0 . *

...Hr'.(HartIn: -

f.. . . .. ..',.,,,.,.'

f . ,. .

s ,. .

About.two months or more ago l'got a call from a Mr. Pohlman of QTC -

. requesting an ' interview with regardi to an employee concer'n.A time for .' -

l,' 5.i. l. the interview was set and the Interview was. held at 'my, office'.in

. ..'.'i'..

. Chattanooga. Mr. Pohlman arrived at the, appointed time.with an associate "

, ,'~

.*e. . whose name I do not recall. They had'.with them.a' copy of a Helder ' . ' .' : -

.r.

.. . * /. . . .

c ..

,.. . ... .' . . < Qual .. . .. ... ..l fi ca ...tion.,Re. . , .cord f.or. a. "'we.l.d.er.f*

. . .. : . rom'.Segpoya.h

... ..  :. Cons .-.t.. ..rue . y . .tios.' _. : ......'.T.he .. for.m: . J. ." . ..

'i,'.!*M. '9T).r[..'que s t Ioh' ka's In"iwarid 'ol'." aiEn . . 't ihail.f.'l g'a t l[ori'..foF. '& s,,1,n(1 e proce s s .,- l, ,.

equi,5,

. ..>e... . . . .

.s

• • ...*'~'?....... Gas:Tungstes...(GT)' Arc Heldin l l .was awarded:baseId.on. ' r..: .

l. .! . f':

~ ;W.,:,;dnn:;;::.:n& :..u: M i s;;f -l:..g Cert.: 7,:.ix;l:2L.a;;t;%

~ . .

f.l cal; on.'which,d.%~.l: . l..':lk ".i.2:,1;* ; .'f.fi*Cd.ly.;;,...l:

'*TIf.iM. f.3he.'?GT. Td...FtIb6. Ra'."G.T-Slilijdel;d...He ta1. A.r.c. (SHU. c.ert1.fIcatIon .: * : . ' *~ " :th.at theJ.,.

..o

";<M, . . . . . " rwe

...... .:. . :e . . . .~p .t . - l.des.

f 'ha'd prev.

. . . iou s ly. h.

d. e'i, . wh d ~i.n. --

l. g h. J: h.ad."b.'.'e. e . ..... n. '.r.e vo,:ke d . du.se. .to .a . lt- :..c k o. f. . . ',

a t had '.. . .' . ';......... ..

. . l.Y /, - - -

.. .. . :: :,SH .- , welding within the requrled 'ime peilod. .The'QTC employees'also

.. .,.:*.:;:.'0. ,

..% 8 . copies of the_original- -

• GT-SM  :. . . certl'fication.and 'th'e I..T,',*

Yevokatto.n . . .

', notice fo

~l*- .

.. ,that certification. . All of.:. these doc.uments w,ere '.e.xamined. /by . ,r m,'e ;and , .,

.. - e -

,, .~.. ,; .. . .

. .. ~ .

7 .

. . appeareditobeinorderandto'havecorrectdateE,an.dappearedtometo

., .be readily, traceable and easily understood as to the relationshi,ps .- , . ...

.u. . .. ..

v -

I' asked what they

'between all dates listed on all three documents.

"'., , perceived to be the giroblem and.'was promptly, curt,1y, and emphatical1y *

.- told that these documents were obylously def,ect.lve. 'They Indicated to me .-

, . . . that there was no doubt in their minds.that the.se records were in some

,, r.. .

- I .. ._

x,.

. 0082U -

N. .

. Y e .

3 .

- 6 **s'. . .

.... s. _.. . *

.~. .

way defective. I then asked what their foundation for this beller was . .

s: ."'".' .: .

They promptly told me ,that the' dates on the qualification

' c*

• S I'.

. , ,- based on. . .

.: - r*

. forms.were the dates those forms wer.e*slaned and since.the.second .

, . . 'l . (GT-only qualification) form ref. err.ed...h.tthin .the .

body'of the form,.to a.- ,

date which was later than the form's slanature .date, then the. form was ..

. -l :

defective and invalid. At this point,11: attempted to correct tlielr . .. ' * - -

',.. . preconceived'notionfhattheform'.sdatewasthedateofthesignature ,

I

- being affixed to the typed copy of'the.fopm .an'd'instead .... .

+.; ass.ured them that r- '

- ...l; the form's date was.the date of.: the' '

. .; ;,effective . .. ,'.:.c. .. date:..of the action .. . ' . ."

.. y ,, : . ; , ' .1 f.-

• . l; . . , .

...',..;~

described on the qualification. form, and#that in

.-the'cas.e~of Helder.

l'. : . . , - . .

t.>- -

~

. Qualification Records, the signature at the^ bottom ofithe..form .

. . was no.-

.t . .

d.,..

.1.'.,., dated. , -

.I attempted to explain .to them.that. this . form.was: a'.TVA-wide

~ . . ~ . . . n. . - -

., ' form .' .

t . ., / l...

. and .that, . to my: recollection...had * );Q:l~, ' . . redialned" ,j :q :. *:*. rela't'Ively. . . uncha

. le. .::

. L .. . .: . :. A: . . - .: , ..:,. : o. * . ' . . : ;-:

years!ago.); * ;;-cs........,*e......  :.I p:olnted out. . .that . . !* of..th 1: t .c(alio. ut20.l -l~

.M. . .:l M.~f,t'idi'e~I-lhad.'f.lFs t?seeC.

• u..*'.~.".**.

-.~...:*.. .

~

' - .l a);the.da4e of signaturef .... .

'"yA'.

i.

O+.;m:

w- . ~.Q*I * *i lY ue s tion rela t l

. ,& gl.':- Q k%f Q.ve '

.to. thl's.:.m.atter &..).(2  ; & W ,%.,Q ,

JQ,7.'~di@. .H

%.. ,(,Ehes .* .:.s e

W>%;.d:/..~.two: ed.dates.r p ,1,nafit{yp;j~3es -

form. or.7bhthe: efl'ecttVe.;tf atejof /'the./, ; -r",:v :..",.

.. .. ..,.. . Drecord;.,f.,

. . -. .. .. . .~. : ,..

R Q.e.....

. . W.....'. . . ..

.. , e

- /.p. . I'.'e.. . ' . . . .actlM. . ~ . p. o. ~~ .. : te.l

'- s t.'.f.dri i.. thit;...... ,da t.e(b) . .... was. farhime.. .l-mpor . . - t a n.t .i.. . . .v. . . . . .

. as. ::ye..w. v.n :. de s cr..ib. d.' on".tlie'

~

.fremaQAstandpoint,anfgiven'a; preprinted,.TVA-wideform.L ,.

'.4; . l1l .. . th.an date(a)

. . . , , r ,. * .

. . . . + ,, ,.**.

, }. . . .

. bl e ' to' modify,'. , i' , .

4 .'.:  : .. d

.i.e'

with a. space for one date.o.nly and.which .the sit.e wis .una,v-

. i. . .- .

• ...'*i:-'.'

7 .'

• '.that ' the ' cl' ear and logical' choice 'of die da.te' to.. record, was"the '. . . ,  : . : . : c:.. :

. . . '"~z.  : .; .

. . ef.f.ective date of the action described'on the record . . . . , and.not the date of Ifurtherattemptedto[ verbally" walk,.l. . .e : .-:

/-

.the formalization of the .ecord. - r-

' them through" the.whole process of testing welders and recording the

'/' '

l

• IfurthersliowedthemthesequoyahConstruction results of those tests. . .

Procedures concerning the testing of welders. an.d the preparation of test . -

records, including the. provision within those, procedures for the weld , ,

test supervisor to fill out what was a temporary ..

no.tice-to the welder's *'

1. * - - ~ ~ ' ~ -

i (l' 2 .

0082U N .

. ,4

• p .

g. .

-,-n_,,*

."'q4je.,&

s .. . _ . . . . _ .

,c .,

.. y

. . ... to employ'the welder in'the. *. n

. ',y.. . . J ...Jforeman Which gave permission to.c the, .. foreman s.. '

p,7;... : , performance of welds using.the. newly. passed. qualification prior to the-

' . ./,' . . . : .

issuance of the typed, signed final , record of -

the .

test. .. . ,1 .

explaine.d " -

that .

f h date of the form's

...* .. ,,1f the.date recorded on the form.,had been t e - . . ..

.. e

' signature,;then these would- .exist :.a number,of

.. welds with .. dates.of welding .

J. ,, ..

Sf<

• which were prior to the recorded.date of quall'ftcation'for  :

. . . ...- the. >welder. .I. . , . '

. t'. .

, ~

• ". . , ' also pointed'out that'the welde'r's perlo'd,.for continuity ..welding begins

. .. .. . with the date he performed his. qualification test.. and if the . . . date of .

d

+

1, ., : r. - .

. signature was used, then the required.'..e period for continuity welding  : coul

.... t.. - .

..../,'. .

,:* . ;. .;,...:..be exceeded by the amount of. lag time.between,:pe.rformances of.the

.,:.. test ' '.. ~

. ,1 r. . v. >. .

f the.. paperwork'. c,This' period','a.s'I told QCI

".- ' ' . ... weld and the process ing o

. ,

• l' .

.; . people, was typically 7-10 days,.o but ..:;_ .at.. peak . periods. .- .. may we1.1:have

..'./my  : ,.'

..considerably longer than that.::. I .a.l s.o 'poln.'te.d

,, out

.t.h.at. ..

..to,

"k

. . .. ... . ' .: . . e. .: . . y ~ .

~

re coYd'..N..,:wtli,the"ef fec'tiv.'e dateYof' the,," '.' .

1. Y,.. N 7 'h... k lkraiticeLo[I5att'n'g.the':tes  :*\*- -

• % ' :1 racti ce...the. r ' . ' ' s :* ~n,.and ..  : .

.now trt.IVA: ..A. and il. . *

-?. +.:i:. M h.:.das.W....'.:i :a.? ;t: :.

<dp/ c d.. n~v '":.:n~

m te s t was .un v -

6.t'4.ersally.

4*:;...lhe . : p%.Wn.. : .N .;V.

.?

. 89;c.,9.. .

'.g uy::..Mir @s & :c % s. :a. .. . .a'iv..i@iMrdmi4/ad

• 4

' ' " 'i' ' .'

~ .

hl's'l s /.liWfd'c.(.'.'th'e ... .. -. ok.'a'

,..il}id.us

. . . . ~. .:.try.'s. ... + ~ .likdar'd;< Based co'n

. . ~ c. .n

. .. ~~

d f W. #. & i. .. .. .s. .:, a.c.g..?.  :-mm  : cM," .~ .: . ' ' .

i, U.' Nlth Bechtel.'s weld .- -6r . record au itor.,. .The '.Helder'Q;ual.ifi. cation Tes 5

• "* d

, .. ..g . .. .

1. .! . . . . .

, .. hte sp d l '

. . . . . ace ....,;on'lt'and .. ' "

/...

.' : : . record . form in the AStlE. C.. ~ode-

- -< c .

. .,;. .. . . (QH. 84b.has o.:n. y one This explanation was.:; ,* c*..

t the . welding' Industry. ......:.... .

.:. . . . . . . . . . v. : .:.:..-

.~..

I l.  ;- . .. .

....:.. ..this.for is used throughouvery . lengthy on my.:,' p.

I. gave them p.lenty of c.hances to liuestion what ,.

1 t . ', . : , , :.

.I was was telling and showing.them and felt that I,had left no s one .. .

. .. . . ~

' unturned in my attempt to alify their suspicions relative to these f)4 ~} 19.V .

records. Following this explahation, they expressed to me ~

that I did not "

I considered

- have any way of proving that khat I said was. the truth. .

this to be an accusal that'l was lying..to .them. ,I, agreed,that I was l '

l,,.- -

[ . .

,.s.

00820..

g ..

l t

N.. t - ,

.1 -

v- A, e.,. s .a.".

0 &.( :- .

i - .

p l

,,- i. . . .

W. .. ' un .-

, ,. .. i. ."...'....able t..:; .

to prove to ..

.. them that the date.on the .

. .. test form was the effective . .

s.. ". v. .?. . . .date of the test and not the date of the signature, as this, was not .. .

r. ,specifically spelled -

out in any procedure. '.Even af ter.1 pointed out that ..

" .', . /

. ... ' ;,','- . .the' date on the form was typed by'the 's'ecfetary and not handwri tten, as

. ' . was.the signature, ',

.. the;, QTC employees continued..to insist that.the date on . ,,

,...- .T

?. .

r .

..the form was t.he date.the form had.been -

signed.. I stated ..

that.'si.nce.I .. :-1.*.

, ' . . . ...,. had signed many of'these fdris ! could say,for sure that 'tmply was not s

L .

true! They indicated that all QA. records shoul'd'have' dated signatures '. .

r,

~ .

r . s. .

. q , :,.. , . .: : and .,that since the form '..' ' '.was .:, a QA.  : :.record  : . and . ,:; had * . a c. signature. .and ' . a date.,: .'

i .

s..

../ .:il * .., .then it followed t. hat .t.he;,

d. ate.wa.s'.the date of..the'signatu.re, land ',- that ,..;' ' .

. 7;. .

' ., '.'.'..the only conclusion they could.drawbtas ,thit,the,se'wer,e d,efective.

'. ' ,Y ' ,

. . .. .~.v. .

~. ..... .

i .- J' *

... o'ur. ..

.,.'.. .. A. t '.a.pproximate .- ly' thi s'..? point. - . in d.i scut.s. lons 4which' t.o. .thi s'..

time hid .

. . .... . .t :

- J'~llt.W'.*. beeii'.ex tirenWly t'ry.ing), .lieal'lzed t i hat I. $a.s..'deali.ng' wi th 'two pe

.:ps.s.w.::v .y ...~ a.:.. .i ...

. . (*.... : ... .

c .. . - -wa~ s.'. I~n ... ., . .::.,t :.". :.

fb.,.Y .,k..rt, <.' . seemed to me to ha.ve .II..trMhinh'$ikdh$nN,Nkik- t.1,e ot .no'de

. .. ......... . - .: s.

. .o g ,.: ~ .,:,  : k.. g ..:aicTp[tD v .. .u . . . .[. .  : . .c7rNE$d3 hha IIhkka '

.,.s.f.i$, por.R.r. I e i. p?- rNoN a. 0.n I lif.bh: 5 ian......$ f.o.ui de h. .,'ha .'.

I

.a..:.~.... .... . .:

~ - -

e.^gk. ,.w-<.. .Ibeen committed with.regar'd

- ~

. . i. .'.". .: V .. .

to' the. s. e'.,,. .

r.,e cord

. ..a'..loal s.. '.i.n,attempt f

to make".. : - ,,:

. . .. - .t. .

th ese two people; understand that thete,recordt iveres' a.s 1.had repr'esented , ' ,<,

, '.'. .'.. N .

- .2:

. ~ .

, lE. .. # '.. :,i

-. ,Iem tl to be, l' o. ffered to .t'ake 'them. ..to s.ee'.t.w.o 6ther k.n.ojtledgeable. we.ldliig .U.:,[-~

. . ... - . . . ,:...s . . . .

.s  : . .s ... .

l l'.. e.ngineers who might be able to shed some additional 1,lght on the .. . .' -

/ . ','.subj ec t . .They agreed to discuss this with them when I explained . ..

.that. ..j .; ', '/:. -

~ ' '

'both parties 'were at Sequoyah in the welding unit at'the time these .

l

'. . . records were generated and were. knowledgeable about these records. ,I . ,

explained that one was a 50-4 in ciiarge of welding inspectors at the time ,

( . .

,. . ,  :. . ~. .. ..

. ;n. . .

s s_.: .

4'~ 7 s uuuzu 4- ,

c......i.,,. .

7.f. . . .

o ., ,

~

o. g;. , , ;. i.. *

! . .:q . . . : .

t

t

.+.

s

.s- . . 3; .

.E

+ .

who later became a welding

• unit supervisor and the oth.er was in fact.the. .

. . y. :. .. i.'" / ~ ~ . '

'ltestsupervisorofthe'testinquestionaiidissuedthetest'numbersand ,. -

y! .V' . . ,

. filled out the original shop copy of.the. test report. I'further t . . . ,,

i :- ..* .. - ' : .- . .

explained that both were now no longer lIn' Nuclear Power or Construction. .. ,. .. ' .

'j :"

.and should be more unblased than I was. QCT's.. discussions ylth these ,..

' . * // , - .. ....:. . . . . . :. .. . .

. Individuals resulted.In the, investigators being. told exactly /:

s ..

Namely that *

" thing about (he' dates' and th4 forms' that. I.had told them. , , , .

l

e. .

the date on the . form was the' effective date..of.the . action expressed on 4

c.,. . ... t <

./

'.the form, that the date was

supplied

...  : .s. by . . rthe . .,;., .pe.rson .  :. . who .

. . . :took . . . ,. the. ' actio .e ..

. ... /. :. .

explained on th'e form (Held. Test.:. Supe.rvisor,.p'r .other pe.rsons' in the cas ....s "... . . .

! . . .u t ' ..,.. ,.. .

4 . .. . .

r . .

.c.'?

,'. .of' award of equivalent qualificat.io.n) and.. was supplied by th.at person ,.. to. . . .... .

. ..a.

. . . . . . ~.

. : . * .the. secretary who typed. l t ori <.. the formh and i..,. t.had' nothing':at'  :; , . all to .. ldo

,. . .. f.

.J.

~_

.'de.

b.. . . wi.,.th..the date. whi ch .th.e.un . . . t t s.upe.rv i.sor of h.;i s... s ipne

~

.. .. . . s .

.1 l"-'.T.7.#' Supervisor)'ac'tuallysignedthef.Inishedcdpy',...Again',QT

. . . . . . . . . .~. .

.~ .....

l? ,  ;+. -

. J

..4..:.... .T.. expressed.the.Ir.p'reco.nceived conclus on that -

. < -this date.wa3,.the'dat:e :v .. ...of .d:.v ...:.

l . J.:.'. . j. . .a:.: au.. . ~ . . . , : .. . . : .. .C . r. . w . u : . . : .

'  :. .g. k~ . nim $ t T F . O  :.

..::p#.w@@hh8siilfuIiTdife$6NUMM4.as'oMTipEN. o M: .e7 .P. o U,l  ; +. .;. .

s# w.:. r .:

. :.s t. Redpf .d.s '.

.y<;9 y 4e'Were

'idrry Cilint th I yer. s.;;.nal",1.y 'd'li ...z n6t .1 II.(e..'.lyA.'.s. . ... . .. . . lieJ #

. .p;n. .ne-w.w a.n c.. .x ...; o .e ..

'.l'..

l '..4. . ,: ..- .. . . F.or.m 'but that was th. e forii lliat we had 'to. w.o'rk'.wi.th. . . , ,..:, .

J' '. .

• '.*t m.'.f;< the best job we 'could with that .form and that these l *-

erecords .; in.. . . .i. ues -

. ..:.. . Y. '  : c:

~ .

'..~

l..."

....,

were.tr.ue, appe.are d to us. as kno. wledgeab1'e did.'re.as.on.able

.. ~ engineers

.. '. : : . t'o..be.. .

i acceptab.le and did not appear. to us to have a.n.y. sign that they were

.t..

.. ..not. :.

,  ! ~. . r . .: .

. acceptable in any way and that,these conclusions were. easily-rea

l . . .

any otlier knowledgeable, reasonable Individuals.

[ .

AfterthisdiscussionandthideparturedftheQTCInvestigatorsthe . .. ,

three of us (TVA emplo.ye.es) discussed .these p,roceedings and.1.t.was ,, ,, .

. 0082U .

. , ,.l/ . , : . . *, , .  :.

.. 4. . ,.

?.

m. s . . . .

I . . . .

. m. . .

.- 'J- - * .u.r.N9.p.. . h. gp r -

. 3.. .

., . .9..

m.,.,,...i . . .;

..'/........ . apparent to me- t. hat we all .fel.t that .these people were not knowledgeabl.e, . .'.-

. .,. * .....n. .

~

r, - .

. ...i .. . , ...

' . . ' did not . ,

,- appear to be reasonable, d.id not a.ppear.to be. attempting to ,

,. . ,s , determine .lf the records in ques.tlon.were acceptable but, in fact, seemed .-

..... . ' . ' . f to.,have the preconceived notion th.a.t th4 . records were faulty and were .

dead set against accepting any reasonable. evidence contrary, to'that . .

notion.

It. seemed to me

.. .. . .:~

.. tha.t .we .'all felt that these In.dividuals .wer.e . :.,,-

M.. . . . . :

'~

't . *

, attempting 'to creafe 'a positiori tha't our entire' welding qualification.- * '

' ~

, program was totally flawed *and unheceptable, everi though they had no *

~

,: ~

...:.. evidenc.e ' that.. was the .'c.ase. . . .

. .. ...:....,s.. . . . .

.~...

' ' , .

• l '- l .At this point. I.wlli.attemp.t to' reconstruct'.from my' memory the general ,. . r .~.

...,;  ; .- .. s. .. . q , v. i, .,  : . :, :-

., ,,. -l .

, c" . :.1 : nature of the. three' documents'.which",we. discussed 4.'

' .:/.. ,..

, / '  ! . '- :.-

.. . s .. .-

. , , . ~~. .. . . ., . . , : . ; . .

,'...,.,.,.s.."

.... i. Document 'llo. .I was' a Performance' Qualification-Record for:: the Helder '. . ' '; *

.. s ", ; . "...,.,.. . '. ~: ,

. G. . , . ' . . . . . . . ' . . ,

, /. ./ . Y: . sl.iowing the accep.tabl.e , pass log; of..a GT.-SM. performan.ce , test..on .5-11.- XX . .c , ,. ., .y i

'. . nz,.r.. m.

i . a ar i . f,h Ipht .t '

4. , ..i . . .. .

t .rv.

um ' . . . J.: .- ~. - r* - . . . .

c. .

..,:..i,;.;e:m>%.> m. d.:.:,: p.. *-,M.m. .si. / * ::. ." f.' :::' : . . . ; M:~ . W ' - ":'r . . ' ** ' .' *: '" .

i e ..' . '...D ..  ! ..Do. cumen.t ' No.' 2.was fa r. .evoc.ation I

. noti.ce'o. f.'t'.he '.

.. c.e: .ti fic.atio.'n.'from do 7 ',' . (:No.. 1.due to.1,ack of weld,Ing sith SM*proces,s.l,.TI,ils document Hol 2'was'. ', /

. . . a. n . . .

dated in the.rhonth af ter 180 d.ays .be. yon.d th.e 'date...o.f document:..No. I aqd'.* . l,. '.. ' . .

... .; .. ..:... ...- s . ' .

l .

.. was,somewhere near.12-16-XX (again, I. don't' remember the,. yea,.r,cand this.*.- ./.

c.. . . .p. .

'.date may vary by a few days).

Thisdocument'No.j2statedthatthe . . > ... e , ..-:.

revocation was effective ll-ll-XX'(l'80 days'after document No. 1). E, * -

Document No. 3 was an award of an equivalent q'ualification for the GT -

. portion of the GT-SM heavy wa.ll tes.t . . .

which Was. , , . des.c.ribed in.do.,cument.No.

I and revoked by document No. 2. The body of the do.cument st.ated th.at ' . ' .

... l. . . . .

. . . . ~ . . ..

.......s .. .

g . ;,

~

' . . ...i.,. , ,

.,f. .., ,

00820 -

. . .- - . . ~- .

.  ; :. . * .,Q.si  : l

r. ..

... . . ..~. '

m .1 . . z. 1 ~. -

. . t c- .- . .

5j.

' thls. document. covered the granting of GT only, light wallpipe test. -

j

,- equivalent to the GT, portion of a ,GT-SM heavy wall p pe test. passed ,

- . ~

J . -

5-ll-XX and revoked by letter..dated'.12-16-XX (approximate d.a.te), . "

. Document Ho;,3 was dated to show it being effective * * -

. effective ll-ll-XX.

, . ~ This dath is . consistent with the ,.. body of document..No. 3 and .. .,.

ll-XX.

1* . .

• f.

the issue.date and effec.tive.date'of.docum..ent No. 2 and .Is also.'..

~

consistent wl'th the effectl M date of document No. , ._

. .-Il these facts ,

are .

" obvious to even the casual observer and, had the Qic personnel.been .

' '. . c .. .knowledgeable, reasonable, and attempting.to. determine the ,true

, , , ,validity. . .

~ . . .

J. "!.

- - .of' the employee concern, It. wo.uld. ha.ve..been obvious

. .. to th.em.'. ' -

....- .g

-j : l l ,In the.

y. .

. The . discussions I held with QTC'.s investigators , lasted from,

.. : ear y

.- .r ., . .

". . ... ,. .:f , : 7

... '. ,l1 ,. ' .' l . .:. .

~ .

~ , . ' ..mor.ning unt t i well pas,t(1.urich time. - TheyVwere.v4r

. t . impression that I wa..s dealing wit,h

, .. ,'l ,-

L ,.,.;;throughout them 1 had theidistinc r, -

... ~ . , . .

. P . .. . . -

. : ,. . t, . . . . ..

two .

individuals who did not know enough.about what .they yere..

t - N i to d e tn fo -

'l e g - . . .

=. * , . . .

, .y..:,

/0J1C.34S.Ian M,pJlaf.'ndt.'seedi. ,tp,'mel to,.b.e;,w11[1.1.n.,

..1,, .. '

l

.1

., 'h.  ; [).' ,. Input, and who',were obylousl,y t

.- attempting .o, escala

../..'

...s..

ST, ^s!.',

self-explanatory'. records into'a conddmnation o.f'1VA's -

entir,e

. weldef [. l .

c. ..

. .i.

r

. the , . . .facli These Individuals',Were unhb..le,.to.acce.pt.

~

t . . .. .. . , ,.

'. . *.; qual,1fication. program...

that welder performance qualification is gov'efned  ;.. by a " rolling code," .'..*.. ,.

. _. i

. - l :. . ...

' . AsilE Section IX, and who drew 'the e.,rronto.us conclusion, 'that s TVA nce....

did not qualify their welder.s to a particular year and addenda of the code, that our entird program was faulty. A.nyone who has a working . . .

" knowledge of the code's position on code .-

pJbrevisions and welder

) ..

' qualification,knows. tMs.to be, the chsefthe accepts the codes., stated .

l, j, , l; ,

position that welders are quallfled under whatever rules are in effect at l l '; . . . .

i ,

l...-

, r. . . .

(

" ' *

- . . - 00821) .

7-. .

\ .

t.s , ,

,s a :- '

• ... .t**

, , . .u- .

, ,, . . . . . ...,...4

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

= - .

h t thelr. qualifications remain .,

" the time that,the welders are tested and ta .- .- . . .. .

lJp, ,' , . .

. ...'#.\ .. .

.. .as they were when the tests were performed no matter..what ch'anges the , .

code may undergo'after the..date'of test'ing. The

..'se Individuals were .

unable to accept that position even t. hough that position Is ac'cepted .

1 , . . . .. .

throughout the welding industry. Reading;.of QTC',s report on this concern . h;

/.'

.7 .. .

.Y. . , ,

shows thelr.la.ck of. .. knowledge about~.t.h. is vi tal point. -

~ .

Also, and, to me, most im.portant . , one determi.n.es. f. rom rea. ding t, heir report tiiat the dates on the welder :.qualification records .

. .. r are the dates - .. .

._ -l-TH15.IS ABSOLUTELY FAl.SE,'and'Ib/wasf .,

of the signatures on the. records. I them dgiring. .:an .

. .: :.... . / .

.'.. . . the entire poi.nt that ,we were attemptliig to co. nvey to

j ex. tended and apparently vain discussions.' F.ur.ther,[from. .'reading thelf i .  ; .. .

.. h ..!'..

, Y. . . . repSrt, we can'.concluda .'thit wi,. ~tol.d . . . ...:them: . . . . the .da't.es,$ek. e '.'s.lgna .ur

~ -

.'...., , t.

. date.s--nothing.is'. farther f. rom the.* truthl: . .'.. . - ... .. ... .

- - r . .

1,.,.:.,. . .. .

I e'a t h . re t kl ,

• I5 e( 5In 'l . hv -

... '. . ... ; .. ...~ . . . .

. . .. . . l 'f. :.:

. , . ~

d l ptlons; oft.,(h.e. r.e.quirementsrand.,. . ,

ar

. .a." .. . j. based.. .o.n' i.ncprrpe.tllogi.c .a. n .m. ..sconce. - . . . , .

l .sb* . . r: 7s,.. , ..

.. .)

e

. . : . . the facts'. The repo,rt conta,lns -statements khich are. not true 'and,. to. my'"

l . . . . . . ..: :. : . ..' . . . .

T 5- - - . , ',

i i

. " .o

. . -.c'. . . knowledge, does not contal.n tiie docuinents in ques, tion which:wou .d .a,l the reader to' draws his own conclu.sion based on the.'.gv.id. enc.e.; ,The.

.: report ...

l . -l  : . .. .

r. . also uses the numbering system employed.for uniquely .- identifying. test l .

j  :

), .

.'. reports and applies.. flawed logic'to attempt to show .

. .. . . .. ... thaf some, '.,

What this number' sequence shows, in fact, ls hankle-pankle d took place.

l .

f$-

3 that the situation Is exactly as we s ated to d"Orc, i.e. -(1) t iat the- - -

.c(StamiuRevbt bf*therecordswereeffective,

.' dates on the test record were'not t.he date.. ..

and (2) that d. ocument. No. 3, the GT. equivalent te.st, was. . awa.rded at

> . .. , . '0

. O g .

- g g

(, . . .

. e.

N N 00820

] 9 -

e

- .- , . , - ,< 2 ( . . . c,m.

.: : ;- g}.

[ . .

w,.; s .. ',.- a - n"~

r ,

. . . . 'v . . .

S.

.. s..- . . . - .

g B, .. .*. .

^

~;

, q..f,n< ;. . .,

".Y;,(

y.;

about the . time document No. /(the origl.n'al. test'.s revocation letter) 'was ' .

I . .O." .

• IssueJd and'was effective at the llate stated . .

on the' bottoni of the form

,~

e-and substantiated withi.n the form's bo.dy.' .

~,

. Hlen f I agreed to discuss this matter with.QTC,.I had not prevIously had .

. ' _ . ;i .. .. .- . -

any significant contact }with. them..and was not predisposed to.-assume that .. ".

!. . they were not fully on,'the Ill-and-up,' .

i .

and.were not attempting to use .

knowledgeable'peoplet'o(dounblasedInves'tigation.sandtoreach- - . . ,.

1 S

reasonable and valid conclusions. During rny' discussio.n on. this . matter it - -

. . f. ,. .

f

. J, # "

.became' apparent to me,. that all was not'i,lght'wlth't.his. opera. tion. Upon' k...'..

,, ., .g, ..

reflection, I .have been forced to conc'lud.e ,that.1.was. dealing.with people..-

~, -

. . " . . who were .not sufficiently' trained ' arid k'nowledgeable.and 'who seemed to' me. ;

,..,.c., . .;.to be attempting to reach.s.ome '9.ther

- thap'.th'?,co'r..r e ec.t, conc.lu.slon . in this.* '.. .: ,,...

. . - . . ., .4 .. .

(

.- '. :. matter. . Also, upon reflection, I have, concluded.that al,though I drew

. . ~, : ,*, :; . . . ., .. .. , -

. ~ . . i p:...... . . .:

what I stil.I' feel wa.s a correct.conclust.pn,...

.. c .. . - ~. .. per. .s haps. I .was '.nsomewhat,to u . W :~g+--...A * ' ***n

. Arl*,:: :n' y %.',4ss M n not. eepl n*M . l .~* =r **- s + .~~' ~~ m~.

F*

.M  : 3 ,,,.Jffeej % ..- l. .E..' w ng,;hiy opin.lon :to .mys e l f+. and,.:'*1 f/.that' hns?. caused? TVA ,

non.

~ .

Z ..'.k .;M( ., embarrassment, ,1.. apologize, ' hut, ani qui.c.k. to pol.ri,t, odt that

.' .th,e report ,

. t bares out my opinion of.the apparent; qual.lfications'of QTC's 5 0....f 7,~,. ...

. ' o...7, . ' inve s t iga tors . .'

i. .... .. .

s. .

l' '

Hhen I was first' told of. the coriclusion drawn',ln.this.. report

.(last week),. .- -l.

'.'I requested to present.my version of t'hese disc'ussio'ns to tiie. Interested $. ' . 4 '.

, .i . .

". '" ~ parties. I w$s given that opportunity ' yesterday and 'am most appreclative' ,

for that. I met witli Joe Rose and Jim Coan of the Helding Project in *

~

f s Knoxville and with the responsible NSRS representative. They listened l'o j,my reiteration of this.d.lscussion which was.as I,previously.have reported

-(.,.,.

. , . 0082U -

.* s

. .a . , . , -..

.s. . . r ,. . -

v c.,..:.,.,.._.....

.L

r. ,

.,  :.s.* -

They were most; receptive ..

of m.y.pos.ition.and , , .

'.*l ,to you in this report.. recommended that' the correcti

..fr ..

' , p. .

proposed based solely on the QTC report'be set aside and a new' positio

=

'be drafted. They readily.recogni.. . .zed'thi errors.in QT.,C's report wh'en.I'-

.l l? .

was able to convey to them what .. I had said to .. QIC, .- and they were able.to .

. l.

f * . .. . . .

rely on something other than wha.t'QTC. .,reported.that I an'd my co.l.l.eagues.

.~,...,.

_z ~u* - . . . . .

~. .

had said.

It is unfortunate that I do not have before me the  : report or.the l.*

ble to obtain a .

. documents in question but, on such,short notice. I was una f

~

• copy of it and feel certain that.the ... ,.. records'.In .e.. u. ; - question, . wi11. ... remain

. , unobtainable to TVh.in order to',.".girdtect confidentia ltyl ' !", t.. ,.S 'I.t' o rors , which ,I"a.m u.n.able t.o . ". ..

h. j - .. .

.. .'.,,..... me.that.the report contal.ns:ot er,ma . . . ..

o..r er..

C .. . ' '

....s. '."'..

recall from memory. - Since it .has been discounted; I expect that any'... ..

.......s

- . s . '.. . ,

.'.e,'.' ..

.~. . .

ftEther dis.ection ... ..+-.

on my part. .~ ls. wasted -

~.:.. .:

.. - effort--some. thing.w.e

-alre

.: p,". 4. "q,,g.

,,...~...-;

w . . ...r.~.-<luntl. f .~ ..; . ~ -y.to-l,give you my thoug

• r. .. .

r '

J.,s ~., ; , q. .:,.p5.ep' .. , much .too,much"of.;l31: appreciate

. . . . . .~..... .

. it with you.- Lint.ll the; . :.

.. . . on. te . .

t

• ~

.that you will give me the. opportunity to .~ discuss

,~ *

.~.

... .'

ll....

f b

, . . . . . ~ . . . .. . ;~ ,l tig , ,,1 " ;*

..'.Nl,/,':'.10t!) of April, I,can..b'e , , .. re, .

. . .ached At Bel.leforyte/ Construction,

.,'... . e/ , ' 'y

, .. . . *l ' .,-. , ' . ' ' . ' . ' . l .-

. . . . , . . .l Chattanooga, 3274, extention 1.71,

.. or . . 172.,,'

. s

, ,. , e,

.. . . .....i .. . . . .. . .. _

. .- 4. .-

^

.'.Another major, contention of,:the ...y QTC report is that.the.Helder. ". T

n. '

Records they reviewed did not show evidence of a "QA Record Review i

The records they.

. ,J

, J . ' . ' ,. required by procedurd and therefore were faulty. . ,

y-

'. reviewed obylously were obtained from i thed such Helder's Perso

'. 3 as *

. Record because of the . nature  ; . .of .. -th's other records. hey rev ewe

^

y- , a. . ,

. , f ,' .' ,, l.:..

. /,

,..  : ,. ,;:J......,,.,"- .

i... , .- ,

..N *. .

• • l ,

. . ...' ' ..s

• 0082U

.l.- :.

. ~. .

, . s. ,

, ,6

• e

.*

• g .. ,

f,,

• I ~ e 6 . j ,m 4 . .

. .. ~

. ,, .V . .

i an d If they had taken time to rev ew , ' ,,- ' . '

work restriction records.

.' f

• I

• c -

ting and QA document' ,".

.1 * .. " . " understand the proceduresapplicable.to welders.tes . ,'

control, they would have realized tha,t they had,obtained an Informational . , . . ..

a

.lo the employee's, personnel fil,e and -

./ . copy of the records which were'sent .

/ - were not'r.eviewing the QA..recor.d .. . < . .

copy'.of.the'. test repor.t. .T.he..*f QA .

copies of all welder . tests are stored on microf.l.im ,.

,. . , and.show the ' required 1

evidence of "QA Rei'ord Revi'e9." .These records were audited by Bechtel in. -

- the Sequoyah Phase II audit and . , ,

were found'to be in complete. compliance

.,wlth a.ll procedural requirements.- ...- . .This. , ..

conclusion .. . . fu.rther

p:oints .

ou

. y . ..

.. *.*./ .. '. I. nature of the quality'of QiC's report od..this. matt'e.r. *'..-

, pp y .. . ,,)(w

.  ; .. .........J. . . . . , . . . ..

' \. '.O;. . .

"l, .:.

• f. ,.;. John .B.oone..: ..:.{ . ' .. .'

.!.. . . . .l ,'. . l . - ' . o. ......s..- .....,

. ... :. :. s. ... .. '.~ . - .. .. -:..:.

.c i

... ...~.. . .. .

. . . .m . .. . ' .".'n.:. .' 3  : :B- :.P. K. . ~ . . . . . . . . :. . . .

.....w: , . - , . . :. " .

.,.v ..

.: .. .: a: ..* .n:.v.:e.'

• Os ,1.s. r :c. . ..  :  % . ; ,) . :' :  ;.-

..:.%yf.

.r .-4c:. ,g> W. n,,. '-

. .. . .'; :%; .' ,.tw.Nr.H.

l i: : . . .

. , . . , .r...,.... ,

e .. .. . ..

.. . .i 1 .

s .

,s - , . .. . .

s.. .. .

.. ,., . . .. .. . , . . . . . . .s.

...s..

0084d.

. 11 . .. . ...

4

. ., .,m

/..... . -

.n . . ..

g. ... . . . . , . . ., ,.;. .. .. .;_,....

... . .. . :...# . .,...,,,,,;> .. . , ; 4,. l, . , ;

. ..t. ...

..u.. .

. n... .

.. . .e . .

f

. . . .: ..e. s-- - - - -

.' . . WELDING PROJECT SQN SPECIFIC EMPLOYER CONCERNS I +

~

ATTACitMENT 7 MARCil 31, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO K. W. WilITT FRON R. G. DOMER l

t l

1

. ,C.

• 6 yeg rwB*

ll 6

I l .

• -( ,

t b

a f

s l. .

-g*

s

( .. :

• */ '

a, * *- . . .',e . .

i A ,

• . . 4,. .t' **, e*, * ,i' . ' . ,

W

• f .,

,., ;, n e ,

. s

t.w p , . .. .. . : *

• ILD STATES GOVE!!NalENT N TENNESSEE VALLEY AUT110RITY IdMOTdHdMM ,

J K. W. Whitt, Director of Huclear Safety Review Staff, E3 18 C-K FR031  :

R. G. Domer, llanager of Project Engineering, W12 I A5 C-K .

DATE  :  !! arch 31, 1986 StBJECT: SEQUOYAll HUCLEAR PLAllT--DIPL0kEE C0!!CERN xx-85-101-006, REFORT IX-85-101-006 in accordance with assignedthe responsibiltles investigation the Welding report and the Project (WP) has reviewed the subject concern,The WF has s'1so made a detailed review of the recently recommendations. (Bechtel) audit of the Sequoyah Welding program.

completed independentaudit specifically addressed the issues raised in this concern.

That The following recommendations and basis for close out were discussed with

11. A. Harrison on liarch 24, 1986. ,

Recommended Actions A. B. and C d M

The WP recommends that the three priorityWhile 1 recommend welders qualification, maintenance / continuity update atta renewal. i h k'"i.9 .

the audit activities were not exactly identical to the recommendat on It audit activities were the welding program being implemdnted was meeting TVA's commitments,.

is recommended that actions A, B, and C be closed out.

Recommended Action D .

i It is recommended that the consistency review of construction documents 1 and

, the FSAR has been accomplished for welding by .the WP as part of its Phase program.

That report stated that, the WP has evaluated the welding program and associated quality assurance This program program adequately elements re by construction during the construction era. i addresses the regulatory commitments in place during the construct on era An integrated system of corporate level at Sequoyah lluelear Plant.

i speciflentions and site implementing procedures was designed (1) to assure that commitments and regulatory requirements were satistled and (2) to verify that the necessary welding quality was achieved at the plant.

WP recommends that action D be closed out as regards field welding and related activities. .. .

i 0

$ \ '. ,

l ,

i a. ., .,

' 0960*a.0L ,

t ,

I - w4 ' i. ' . '.$

. . e t c'...re. g . ' m

.f .;... ,

t'f j',

i~ + ...;,. .

. . e 2

)

K. W. Whitt Harch 31, 1986 .

l l

' EllPLOYEE C0tlCER11 XI-85-101-006, REPORT IX-85-101-006 1 '

If IISRS concurs with the close out of these open items please respond If there are to the Sqtl site director with a copy to the WP project manager.

any questions or comments *please telephone J. W. Coan at extension 4420.

• M -

. R. C. Domer JWC:llJB cc 11. L. Abercrombie, OllP, O&PS-4 sequoyah

- W. D. .lla 1.1, W12..C6 2 C -K,. ,* ,,

W. C. Drotieff, W12 A12 C-K

' L. E. !!ar tin, 10B-WBil OtlP J. F. Weinhold, W12 B34 C-K

• J. W. Conn, W9 C135 C-K ,

D. W. Wilson, OE, DSC-A Sequoyah

• Rc'?1 ewers Initial /Dato ~

YR _J. V. Conn

$wj/.ff j[

• J. F. Meinhold 4 >> u g.,,, '

f: *?!ppd?

f63 W.D. Ed _ __ {1 ML l

s, .

1 i .

$ e eq I

f

0 e 9 e

(. g . . . .

.. ** 'N

• . .g ,' i ,j .* . ,

. "r' , ,g ,,

. i,

"**4  :* , f,', a ,

- . . ...t. .* .," ,1 l<- . ,

l

, ' ,8' g , . , *, , , , ,

__ __j

- - . ~ . .. ._- .- . - . . . . .- - .

O r.. . ..

w:

0 s, *: 'I _ i, , ' ,

... .,x .

,+,

~ '

e * ,

. - VgLDING PROJECT ~

w

, m , ,

• 4

• s ,

SQN SFECIFIC EMPLOYgg CONCERN 8

,,.. l 4

1 i

4. ,

.ig9y 4 . 6 a ,

t

- r

,i

,N.,

- i ., ,

I

^ '

~

i, ATTACHM5!if 8 wp_ggCHTEL UDIT OF SQN ,

4 KEY ELEMENTS 4.0, 5;0; AND 17.0 , .

ee 3 I

e f '#

g gas e Le t ,

tr w .

s

• m^

I ,

,k

. J .

k s

'.$). .

h j e -

e ** * '

s. s 7

6 e l I

s b

6 6

e'

,5 e

e I

l

("i f ,

t.

t

... . , g, . .' ., , ,

.

• tt.A.- -  ? .

u .; -

f< ,'\,_(

., oc '

?*

30

• • t-q e' ., _

o, .~.p * , .

' . ,i,j.. .j ,#. ,

y .

s e e  !.

\g , _

KEY ELD 4Dff 4.0

.. f:

~' ,

l( OrrICE OF CONSTRUCTION HAINTDIANCE Or WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR 00ALIFI .

Based on audit of welder maintenance records, TVA welders demonstrated welding and within certification expiration dates as required by TVA programs procedures. - -

REY ELD 4D4T 5.0 s

OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION RDJEWAL OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS Based on audit of welder qualification records'and maintenance records, TVA welders wer e requallfled in accordance with TVA programs and procedures.

( In many carns TVA welders were given the original qualification test for renewal which exceed,ed ASME IX and AWS, Di.1 requirements for renewal.

KEY ELDIENT 6.0 4'. ,*g OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION

_ INITIAL WELDING INSPECTION PERSONNEL OUALIr! CATION i ,,

(ksalification/ Certification records for nondestructive examination personnel

• (weld inspection) were reviewed for compliance with TVA NDC personnel

• qualification 1903. procedures covering a time span from January,1971 through

, March, .

.,7 '

' ,in p

a .. -

.h- TVA personnel qualification procedures used for the qualification / i

- certification of HDE personnel compiled with and referenced the applicable i x edition of SNT-IC-1A (American Society of Nondestructive-Testing).

Records evidencing qualifications and certificatio'hs cont.alnad sufficient detail to confirm compliance with appilcable codes, standards and specifications in effect during construction activltles.

j' 0031X ,

i . , .

l

~

? ' $.

l N.. . ,

. .s

,".'. 4 ' j,, . . . . ., ,- u ,,

.',.+;'*~

,,. ..... *sl*m 1.

... " ,,e . ,y t _ L , 4 * " .1'. . * * *. P* ' * , 8

' "l '

e, ..

4 ,- ,. .

• . . e

~

=. .

KEY ELDtENT 17.0 . -

CITICE OF CONSTRUCTION DiPLOYEE CONCERNS . .

17.1 Concern No. XX-85-049-X03 and XX-85-101-006 regarding welder certification. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 37 welders which involved 124 welder qualification recordyfrom1970to1979. '

17.2 Concern No. XX-85-69-001 and XX-85-069-X05 regarding welder .

certification and on-the-job training. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a randore sampling of 37 welders which involved 124 welder qualification records from 1970 to 1979. .

17.3. Concern No. XX-85-108-001 and XX-85-108-002 regarding weld inspections. This concern could not'be substantiated as evidenced by audit of a minimum of 14 inspect:lon procedures.

17.4 Concern No. IN-85-476-004 and WI-85-041-002 regarding welding ~

Inspectors training program.' This conciern could not be substantiated as evidenced by audit of training programs.

.?N$p 17.5 Concern No. W1-85-053-004 and XX-85-68-006 regarding weld rod control' satisfying code requirements.

• This concern was not substantiated by audit of a random sampling of 48 receiving doeur.ents and associated CHIR's which lavolved 83 heat and/or lot number, 8 types of weld

• metal covci.; ' the years 1972 to 1980. This represents approximately -/

,, ,,".. i. * . . 572,000 pounds ei weld metal.';Although*. audit finding, AF-01-01,

.E, against Key Element No. 12 of this report is documented against the .

TVA program, it involves details required by TVA procedures over and ,,

above that . required by ASHE filler :netal. specifications and had no impact on weld quality. ' .

T'e statement in the concern.shows a-lack o tunderstanding of the -

code. For example, ASHE III, NB-4122 regulces traceability of the ,

weld filler metal but gives two methods to chose from. Either trace to each component or ensure the specified material is used by a control procedure. TVA'seprogram required that all the material meet the standards and, therefore, did not require traceability to a component. *

'. ~. .,

0031X

~

g%.; . - -

%% . I*

.': , f::'hC . ' s" F.5 :  :'N '

,, . .,. c . -

. .. g s n .- - , .. s a . ,

. ,',(*). , ,h. '" ..

.o .

.- y v *

. .'. .*1 ,

.:t J

i g .' " *

' FEY ELDIENT 17.0 t * ,.

l sr :P

(* OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION-DiPLOYEE CONCERNS

. ~. -

(continued) .

"~ '

17.6 Concern No. XX-85-054-001 regarding weld inspection by craft. This concern was not substantiated by the gudit of 13. Inspectors pulled from the weld history records for the welds reviewed in the audit as well as by an additional random sampling of 13 inspectors. No holdpoints were found to have been signed off by anyone other than certified inspectors.

This con.cern may be referring to structural welds Instea'd of piping.

Structural welds and piping have different code requirements for fit up and final inspection. No holdpoints .are required by the TVA ,

procedures for structural welds.

17.7 Concern No. EX-85-039-001 regarding weld control (stubs and unused -

rod). This concern was not substantiated by the audit of applicable

• procedures. A daily surveillance program was maintained which included verification of welder identification, the feature being * ' ' -j ,', .'

welded and the procedure being used. Variables from the procedure '

,'" (such as amperage) were verified to assure that welders were using .

the procedure properly. Welding rods, ovens and controls were f(fj$.. .?

monitored to assure that the welder had requested the proper rod, was Issued the proper rod, and was using the proper rod. Approximately 300 surveillances a month were performed during years of peak '

construction. .

. .g .

..~

ess- #

W h 0031X

. . . ~

I

. si .. . .:. . ? ;;. . .' .{ *:.:h.. .

h-

. . .. *..*s , . .a . . .

- * * * *^

21

• v'** h. .' *t

• j ' ". d*

~

• 3 4. * ,

o =

a .

3 .

'3'. ,

e

..s*

, s. . .

. , KEY ELDADIT NO. 4.0 .

.* .. 4 -. v r e -.r -- . NUCLEAR OPERATIONS' ,(

• HAINTDIANCE OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR OUALIFICATIC:IS .

Based on audit of welder maintenance records, TVA welders demonstrated .

welding and within certification procedures. expiration dates as required by TVA programs KEY ELEMDfr NO. 5.0 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS

• RDIEWAL OF WELDER OR WELDING OPERATOR OUALIFICATIONS Based on audit of welder qualification records 'and maintenance records. TVA welders are requallfled in accordance wlth TVA programs and procedures.

KEY ELDIDir 6.d -

. NUCLEAR OPERATIONS INITIAL WELDING INSPECTION PERSONNEL OUALIFICATICNS

.3.*. .

All inspector qualification records (NDE, to include visual examination) .

audited Indicated compilance with TVA programs and procedures and the .

. referenced codes and standards. ' . .. . . . . . . s'

. , . 3 *.y

. - M'. '

T it ' '

, OBSERVATION '# * '

., .. . . .,i *

,f., '. iA:

TVA Form 6780 (as referenced in procedure 0202.14) used to,docusnent NDE ..

qualification and ' certification does not clearly identify the racertification status of the Individual. Additionally, certification .

authority is referenced as being in compliance with TVA program require: tents when Individuals are actually certified in accordance with the specific

• requirements of Procedure 0202.14 (formerly N75C01), Qualification Certification Program for NDE Personnel. - '

• . . s Program clarity and definition could be improved by adding sither the certification expiration date or recertification status as an entry on Form 6780. Specific reference to Procedure 0202.14 on certification forms (6780) would provide for direct reference and compliance with TVA NDE personnel i qualification, employed. certification requirements and practices for each NDS method "*

. 0031X *

( e, - 3 .,'

.N,

. . '. .. 3. .. . .

G ., i :.yc

[.

es ..f'. Wll3 'i:;;,a' 8,::-

.. i.

, .], e, ',., . . ,

. * ... e , .

s.'

.i

. .;i s e

. I

• =

• e 3l a.of.l . * . .

• y .

,ie, ^

~

yh .

KEY Et.CIE:rt 17.0 L

OTTICE OF HUCt.ZAR OpERATIO13 17.1 Concern No. E-85-049-XO3 and M-85:101-006 regarding welder '***

certification. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 25, welders which inyolved .107 welder qualification records from 1972 to 1985.

17.2 Concern No. E-85-69-001 and M-85-069-X05 regarding welder . n certification and on-the-job training. This concern was not substantiated by the audit of a random sampling of 25 welders which ,

involved.107 welder qualification records from 1972 to 1985.

17.3 Concern No. E 108-001 and n 108-002 regarding weld

• Inspections. This concern could not be substanciated .as evidenced by l

audit of a minimu:n of 14 inspection procedures.

17.1 Concern No. IH-85-476-004 and HI 0.41-002 regarding welding inspectors training program. This concern could not be substatiated .

as evidenced by audit of training programs., . . .

17.5 Concern No. W1-85-053-004 and E 68-006 regarding ueld rod control *

.g satisfying code requirements. This concern was not substantlited by

. Mls.', audit of a random sampling of 25 receiving documents and associated

• Cifra's which involved 25 heat and/or lot number, 6 different types of

• weld metal covering the years 1976 to 1985. This represents ,

'approximately 19,000 pounds of weld filler metal.

• The statement in the concern shows a lack of understanding of the .

*.m. code. For example, AS:E III, NB-4122 requires traceability of the weld filler metal but gives two methods to chose from. Either trace .; P to each component or ensure. the specified material is ,use,d by a - 1%** .

• - control procedure. TVA's program required tha't all the material meet '

the standards and, therefore, did not require traceability to a component.. ..

- i.

• 17.6 Concern No.,n-85-054-001 regarding weld Inspection by craft. This '

concern was not subst antiated by the audit of 4 Inspectors pulled from the weld history records for the welds reviewed in the audit as well as by an additional random sampilng of 10 Inspectors. No holdpoints were found to have been signed off by anyone other than .

certified inspectors. .-

g. , . . .- .

'g 0031% ,

i

, y._ .

.\ ., _,.

~

.9

, g 9 a ,.* ,e.* *,. e *

) '"

,* & V'i+ !c:- ^

' ~

r-

,y ,.

3s ---***a'"'"** *

( ..,..

i .sj'Jt.$11;

.,c,*yjd;,~' pat.g.h.s 3,I..:l. '*

.e.3 .

, e t t . t:,.1. ..n. .

.,*e.- .

r I; ,' ; 4 e. g ' '-

.Af ;,'.o,

, 1... . .:

[r . .ji,' f, f.: .

i , .g,- . ;e p . s. .i , ., .

![i

Q N;y{p~

e

. .i .W U

. ..." ' r,, ) 1

c. ',,,.;,;;.r,%, .. .

• 6 * ' .

. . . m..u;4, -

v r

o' **.: .' .

' nI'.

d eg T,:.?'l,y..

'~

• , i gg 3 Qs. . ,

KEY ELD 4ENT 17.0 . t 'h'il, " -

.. . .a .

,,.:, y ,. . . :. a CITICE OP NUCLEAR OPERATIONS '

N..

.I .;3 ,' .; [' '.i = . ,

(continued) i- .

,3, This concern may bo referring to structural welds Instead of piping-,

Structural welds and piping have different code requirements for fit up and final inspection. No holdpcInt;s' are . required by the TVA *

• procedures for structural welds. -

17.7 Concern No. EX-85-039-001 regarding~ weld control (stubs and unused rod). This concern was not substantiated by the audit of applicable procedures. A surveillance program is maintained which included verification of welder identification, the feature being welded and, the procedure being used. Variables from the procedure (such as amperage) are verified to assure that welders are using the procedure-properly. Welding rods, ovens and controls are monitored to assure '

that the welder has requested th's proper rod, was issued the proper rod, and is using the proper roi!.

• ee,S , .

, *q

.,-j

j. T..,'.*p 'fl..$I .

g

- '. . .t. .

h i 8 *. .*[.'[

s .

l . .

E i .

g- . .

,s .

I .

% 0

. . .,.,r.

0031X .

.f*G'5*N .

,. . ., 4 . . . .! i y3 3, .

a is' }-- . ~' .

1; .. .*[, . 8-

, t *

, ,- * * )* .- I s' . . $ . . ..~

i.. n:'.xy .' ,$, V.?.i.5,$

. Q *. ~^';5.N, g,$if *S?,..'. .

m ..

t

~

,- , ' .. 4'. .-w:g.;4:v a y ' ~ ,t -. s ?f '/; ':' - ..)g;li. . - * ...D,M.LI',';3

--(t? S :'- - n. . ss4hi * id? -M

l .- i l . ' ,o s' I' XX-85-101-006 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 1 l i I CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN I(CATD I-85-101-006-019-SQN-01)

I 1.' ProblemDescription'l Conflict between FSAR Section 3.2 and General Construction Specification G-29M on welder performance requalification time period, '

t

2. Corrective Action Plan '

DNE-OES will initiate a change to the SQN FSAR Table 3.2.2-3 to clarify that the latest revision to the B31.1-0 code may be used for welder qualification and continuity. '

3. Action to Prevent Recurrence Rovision to the FSAR will prevent recurrence.

a 4

6 i

i l

- _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _