ML20214G989

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:11, 19 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Vendor Welding, Nuclear Safety Review Investigation Rept on 851112 Re Employee Concerns IN-85-001-005 & IN-85-007-003
ML20214G989
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 12/10/1985
From: Catlin J
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20214G966 List:
References
I-85-753-WBN, NUDOCS 8605290620
Download: ML20214G989 (7)


Text

- -- .

.* k

(, . -

(,Attachm:nt1-Page 2 of 8 t *

~

'~,

n g .A .I:

^

j(f. -

l

... . ~

. TEi
NESSEE VALLEY AUTHCRITY -

U NUCLEAR SAFETY RE'.'IEW STAFF >'

f .-

N5RS INVESTIGATION REFORT NO. I-85-753-WEN

.. a + .

? t. f ' - -

. Q y ;:.;,, . Er1PLOYEE CONCEF.N5 IN-85-OO1-OO5 AND IN-95-007-OO3 L;W '%, '\;., .. ti.. .

a '

t

,. u -

MILESTOfJE 6

.; ~q.'. .'.... -'  %

^) l.)@. J,' $o '  ;'r_* ' .. ' . -;,.

- .' ' , .' i - '

.J .

, !. 'i' ;. P'..,.'s

'g

, .*J

~

BULUECT,':- VENDOR WELDING - - - -

~

.  ?. :m . . .

DATES OF INVESTIGATION:

Noveincer 12, loS5 IL INVESTIGATOR:

s. -

._. n/_ _ _ _ _/_

.J . C. Catlin

._ _. _ __/_ / 7' k'b n,rp. Date . '; { G

~.T ,' . . i A,g,. L. w,tY ;., -

r  % y,.di 0 W. '

. *;r * <,;q.

?.

' 1 4;' ' * .i .

I, E. _W,ED BY : .

/g__2 [_ Y_ _ S ".ys* ,:. . t:5

..r'i. . , 4:ff+-

J. D. Smith Date

','. ..@e. ,

- .i,:.: .. . .'<,.

..s94 APPROVED BY: )

1 4 M. A. Harrison

. ___.______ , _ @ /0 -9 5.

. - /n _ Date t .

. . , , - . o, -

V ,

+

4,-~.' .

. ' $p* , '4

  • e.

3 1 ,.

} . ,

, . .-4.'"*

=

r ...

( .

p .

%w O ) ' '

,i l

.o

-t attachmznt l'

, (. - -

( -

Pagn 3 of 8 3

pg a

  • t . .-

. BACKGRCUND I N5RS conducted an investigation regarding two emcloyee iencarns [eceived J. . . bv-Quality Technolcgy Comcanv (UTC). Concern'IN-35-OO1-OO5 received on -

!- Octcber 15. 1965 stated: "'/e n d er welds were bought off.even though they j, e::hi b i ted "shoddv wcrLmanship'." The allegation was nonspecific. -

j - Concern IM-E5-007-OO3 received June 10, 1955 stated: "Gener.a1 look over j ,- vencor welds should be performed.- Vendor.; welds are n'ot inspected at

< .. WBNP-1 or 2. They are easily distinguishable f rom field welds because 3' _,f of the bad quality of the vendor welds. Vendor welds would not pass the same acceptance. "

} 3 . . . This allegation was also nonspecific. -During i 5 Jsthe course of the inves$igation a simi.lar concern was noted; i.e.,

j **j*?nd[t,Constru=ti 4.T h' : IN-85-372-OO1.

on andThi s concern had been . investigated by the Of fice . of'-- ',

't.

1 c1osed out by QTC. .

- l: .: f,

- - g,. 9p:g .

. ahd.

w. . . ,,  ;. m_ ; ,

L

-II. 'SCCFE -

[{ '

Tile scoce'of the investi ga't i on included attempts to find-a more. specific j , e::ampl e of the allegation and to track the e:: amole to'.its conclusion, OTC could provide no additional information other than to verify that y;y- ,the~concetns were similar to IN-65-372-OO1.

L L III. t

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS f , l?".l, g'f  %: * "

)  ;?

,i."J,$' , N.A.,,':Reouirements and Commitments t . -

a - ,..

g M "g.p r.%.The

  • o-nonspecific nature of the allegations rendered all requirements '.

M:j,Qg[" . and ' commi tments i ndeterminate. 7ly y .3. p - , ~-m .;

Mid$5B. Findings . M '

A:7>.~.'. >

.. j

.;. .A . 1. Employee Concern IN-85-372-OO1 cited manway hatch covers as a y l , g& % y ,,

specific e:: ample of substandard vendor welds.>

u

, a ' q .. g. .,c -- .;,-

. - 3 s f, ..

q 2. NCR 6341 was written on September 25, 1985 which defined the . 1, i nonconforming condition as: " Contractor wel.ds for stiffener .

j plates on hatch covers appear to not meet requirements of AWS --

1 D1.1. Welds appear to be undersized'in places'and have undercut 1 -

and 6verlap. Reference employee concern IN-85-372-OO1."..

9 .

] '3. NCRs 6345 and 6345A were written on September 25 and 26, 1985

?

covering Units 1 and 2, respectively. .The nonconforming .

d condition noted on the NCRs was similar to that of NCR 6341.

9

,1  ?

1 '4. A statement was issued on Employee Concern IN-85-372-OO1,which stated in part 'that OC agreed that these welds were not of the

, J quality e::pected of TVA personnel and that the contractor welds

^

for stiffener plates on these hatch covers did not appear to 4 meet the requirements of AWS D1.1 and also that the welds

] ,)

appeared t6 be undersiced in places and have undercut and overlao. These were structural attachment welds which were not

,f j part of the reactor primary containment; and, therefore, .they U

i_ did not recuire a leak tightness test.

?

'4

5. Di sposi ti on of all three NCRs b,y Engineering was to "use as is" 3 in acccedance with memorandum B26 G51018 007.

l l.

a

1- -

.- **- j%.. -

Pagm 4 of 8-

- e

.t ..

5 . j J - . . .'

% -/ . ."CCr:CLUSIONS WD F:ECOMMENDr",TICNS -

, A. . -c .o.r.c.l

_ . u.s.i .o n. _s

. .- ~

. 1 . ~. .The-cbjacti.e evidence.cf a similar amoloyee concern-su: atanti ated the observed allegation of both conce ned 7- ,

individuals (CI).

Dl .

L

.A typical ~ case ofjaisimilar problem had been identifUed,

' S, ' . reported,_and documented in.accordance with applicable

-procedures.

, ~, Disposition was to "use as i s. " '

. 12. L . . *

.. v . '

  • l"'3*- g v-. 9peci t ic conclusi ons regardi ng these non speciii c all eoatiorik"'-- ',_6" o(n g;1lf.4.)a,w;_y'

. J:@tv

-could not c.

. be reached. .

1 5:..',e.

l' s .;. .

.\ w;- '

^

.-la..i

. . . . w u, . . . , . -

Fe - -c- c.mm._e_n

_ .- d a t..i.o n s_

-' * - None.

-. .. -"q. G. . . .

,~.':~

'S O

_ , .= *.% n$ , M-

m. 's<,.,ag.

. I

1. , . * ':t y.?

, ',c p g" *

.~

. .;y*, ,

3.q. . , . %  ; ,:. . *t tll s

.s

  • *ja, 4' 8 ,,

, g

eh . .i , ,

4 n

, .% ypi f ', ; * ,

v

.;/..,t.;<.,'

.. .g > s. ,

'Y 9f . 'rp. ,h

  • jt 4 .@ r-
  • e .M.,

%$)fj,',SU d Te p~ *

'rt;T qa. f.: F.T..\ .I- o b a .% .

b.5 0 **$

& g. 4-  % F ,

.e ..,;*.

.o <gc ,

? '

i% }4 *m7 {'

s "t

, g4

. y = I. e l' b *'.\' *

.* .+' tF** g r*e,' * - * *. '. ', *

.[ f ,'. nc a' g'

. ,1 -

o .

. . . 6'f.hph . " , '.'

! > . .a '?! : I +

~ ~

4 q

"*- l. .

8 I

J a

e UL b 1 8 .

4 8

e t

+

. 4 9 ed -

+

f. & e 4.

4-J i

I.

,,, *5

( ,

Page 4.of,8 i...

EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISPOSITION REPORT CONCERN NO. IN-85-OO1-005 DATE OF PREPARATION: 1-9-86 CONCERN Vendor welds were bought off even though they exhibited

" shoddy workmanship".

INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY: TVA NSRS FINDING (S): See investigation report.

.1

-J CORRECTIVE ACTION (S): Similar problem was identified,, reported and documented in accordance with applicable procedures. . 1 Disposition was to "use as is".

, CLOSURE STATEMENT: This concern was substantiated.

I i

l l

2 ERT Form Q

7

[ Page 6 of 8 h k_.,

,3 -( .

3 .

l ..

=

! (.o j EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST- _

To: Director - NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUMBER T500ll f ERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has f

assigned the indicated category and priority

-ff- 9 3' g ,g d f Priority: 1 Concern i IN-85-007-003 t'

I Category: 05 Confidentiality: YES _NO (I 5'H)

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

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

I I(.U t

s e

a, t

A l: ,

, C}pp '

[ 'M A N A'G E R , ERT DXTE

}.

NSRS has assigned responsibilty for investigation of the above concern to: .

1 ERT o i 8 d ,#f/3 j NSRS/ERT /

ggg NSRS [ ,y //l/5'/Q~ lL /

) OTHERS (SPECIFY) b ~ S'[ llj f ,

7 6 MNpS n akdr / D ATE

e Page 7 of 8 J.

( -

( ,

.mmm a ,

', g t t du .d, r bas .

~

REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION

1. Request No. IN-85-001-OO5 (ERT Concern No.) (ID No., if reported) *
2. Identification of Item Involved: VENDOR WELDS ,

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

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

VENDOR WELDS WERE BOUGHT OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY EXHTBTTED SHODDY WORKMANSHIP.

4. Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental sheets if necessary)

R. This design or construction deficiency, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

AND B. This deficiency represents a sinnificant b'reakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B.

No X _ Yes If Yes, Explain OR C. This deficiency represents a sinnificant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction such that the design does not conform to the criteria bases stated in the safety analysis. report or construction permit.

No __X__ Yes._____ If Yes, Explain:

OR ERT Form M e... . ._

yttacl} ment 1

[ * ' * . Tage 8 of 8 l .-

~23Qn gG t(. -

' .f uo a54  :

~

f REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION F)

D. This deficiency represents a significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system or component which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to meet the criteria and bases

, stated in the safety analysis report or construction permit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure,' system, or component to perform its intended safety function.

No X Yes If Yes, Explains O R-E. This deficiency represents a sinnificant deviation from the performance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function.

No _X Yes __ If Yes, Explains IF ITEM 4A, AND 4B OJ 4C OJ 4D O8,4E ARE MARKED

_ "YES", IMMEDIATELY HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND' SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS. "

,. This Condition was Identified bya h/ r

- ERT Group Manager 01 ~

, c ..

ERT proaect Manager ,_

Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS N

/A~ Date [~/ 3 Time Signed /

('

5 I

l' '

l}

h. ERT Form M L

i

. s.s * .

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-18-SQN

.' SPECIAL PROGRAM

~

~ REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1

~

TITLE: Effects of Laminations on Weld Quality REASON FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC SUNNARY STATENENT: N/A l

PREPa*ATION PREPARED BY:

Original Signed By J. E. Rose 08-25-86 SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER:

Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 08-25-86 SIGNATURE DATE

"'"MBC"2 -

SIGNATURE oinkDATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H: L. E. Martin 09-03-86 SRP: 6 . //*26 86 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE

  • DATE I APPROVED BY' N/A ECSP MANi@R~ ' DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
  • SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

'242T 2

Qj J}Ql/fh]S~

L.

b W' f

J

- W

_ELDING PROJECT SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN i EVALUATION REPORT REPORT NUMBER: WP-18-SON. R1 f 08-26-86 DME 1

EFFECTS OF LAMINATIONS ON WELD OUALITY

.)

SUBJECT:

CONCERN CONSIDERED: XX-85-098-001 PREPARED BY \Em. A/ Web , OC, WP REVIEWED B . .

Cw - T A5 1(a

. OC, WP REVIEWED BY -

t 8 OS , Q A , WP

' ' I -

f ,_

G REVIEWED v --8M / ,, CEG-H, WELDING

> , 7/ , ,

APPROVED BY i / , PROGRAM MANAGER v _

x

, Revision 1 to this report incorporates comments made by the Senior Review

Panel on 8/19/85.

I t

bi u

l! p i

1 00370

SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN f-- .

SUMMARY

SHEET

?._

Report Number: WP-18-SQN R1 Report

Title:

EFFECTS OF LAMINATIONS ON WELD OUALITY I .- CONCERNS CONSIDERED: XX-85-098-001 II. ISSUES INVOLVED 4

Laminations in pipe prevented making an acceptable weld in unit 2 condenser.

III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Validity: Y X,N , Substantiated: Y ,N I IV.- EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAN None V. JUSTIFICATION

Laminations in pipe are parallel to principal stress direction. Welds terminate the lamination at the weld joint.

, fs VI. RECONNENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED

, None VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N X .

VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE i

By this report.

IX. ATTACHMENT l

l 1. Text of Employee Concerns C

Page 1 of 1

.

  • s

- SPECIFIC FMPLOYEE CONCERN

,-~ Report Number: WP-18-SON. R1 Report

Title:

EFFECTS OF LAMINATIONS ON WELD QUALITY I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering evaluation relates to the following SQN specific

, concern:

- XX-85-098-001 II. ISSUES ADDRESSED BY CONCERNS The concern was analyzed to determine the issue voiced by the concerned individual. This issue is as follows:

Laminations in pipe prevented making a good butt weld in unit 2 condenser.

III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION Condensers are nonsafety-related equipment built to manufacturers l

standard designs with custom specifications for fabrication and i erection. They generally specify ASME-type materials for construction, s ASME welding procedure qualifications, and ASME welder performance qualifications. Working pressures in condensers are characteristically l very low (near atmospheric or slight vacuum) and the piping materials l used in condenser construction do not need to be of the stringent quality lR1 l

that is used in high pressure piping service. They are constructed of l carbon steel materials which conform to either ASTM or ASME Section II material requirements. Piping material for these applications is commonly A-53. This material specification makes no mention of laminations being injurious defects. A lamination is simply a discontinuity which is formed when blow holes resulting from the steel ingot casting process are not fully fused together in the rolling process for a particular product form.

These discontinities are located parallel to the direction of rolling of the product form and are usually at mid-depth of that product, although they may appear at other depths. It is important to note that they occur in a plane which is parallel to the product surfaces.

Wrought products such as pipe and plate which are subsequently rolled and welded into pipe products, commonly have laminations due to the ,

steel making process. It is important to note that in piping applications where pipe is subject to internal pressures, laminations are of no consequence.

O Page 1 of 2 00370 i

i .-

WP-18-SQN, R1 f-, ASME Section III which defines requirements for nuclear pressure piping l in safety systems which are designed to much more stringent requirements lR1 l than those used for condenser construction accepts laminations with l qualifications. ASME Section III NB-5130 does not require weld repair of weld prep laminations which are one-inch and less in length. Those which exceed one-inch in length are customarily ground back three eighths-inch and sealed-off by welding. This sealing-off simply moves the lamination a distance from the weld joint which will prevent small porosity from appearing in the weld joint during subsequent welding.

This is done as a convenience for subsequent nondestructive testing, if

' required. The net effect of welding over a lamination is simply to stop it and seal it off. Welding over laminations will usually evolve a small amount of oxides or gases into the molten weld puddle which l will appear as porosity. This porosity is bothersome to the welder, but if repaired, is acceptable, n

In summary, the issue voiced in this concern is valid but not substantiated. It has been determined not to be detrimental for the following reasons:

1. ASNE Class 1 rules state that weld prep laminations one-inch and less in length are acceptable material conditions which do not require weld repair. Those greater than one-inun are allowed to be weld repaired after grinding to a specified depth.
2. Condensers are constructed to requirements less stringent than ASME Class 1 which do not address laminations as injurious defects.

f-s

3. Laminations are commonly occurring discontinuities in wrought steel products and are not prohibited by material specifications.
4. The'effect of a lamination in a pipe subjected to internal pressure '

is of no concern.

5. Laminations pose no problem to weld joint integrity.

I Based on the foregoing analysis, this concern is closed.

l r

i l

Page 2 of 2 j 00370

- M .

Attachatnt 1 03/24/BE.

CEMPLOYEE CONCERNS)

PAGE 1 of.1

. 11

'"Ob'43:17-STATUS RESP -QTC- PPP- CFR INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PROBLEM ID 4

NR XX-BS-098-001 WCMHC

' KEYWORDS: WELDMENT QUALITY SPECIFIC X:.S Y: C 2: Y SEQUOYAH: THERE WAS A LAMINATED PIPE 12" OR 14" DIAMETER COMING OUT OF THE

' CONDENSER IN UNIT 2 TURBINE. BUILDING. THE CRAFT COULD NOT GET A 0000 WELD DUE l- TO LAMINATION. OCCURRED IN 1977. . DETAILS KNOWN TO OTC, WITHHELD DUE TO CONFIDENTIALITY. CONST. DEPARTMENT CONCERN. C/I HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

,,. TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:

ISSUE CONSIDERED: LAMINATION IN PIPE PREVENTED MAKING A GOOD BUTT WELD IN THE UNIT TWO CONDENSER. .

i , '

I l

l l.

1 l

l l

l i

e 9

-.,,,.--.- ,.~.- -_. - m-,- ,-,, _y--,,.-,,-,y . - - . . , . . ,

_e.-..w.--,,,____..__- .,,,y-s----,-.-,,.--.y,,-,,,7_,-,m-m.,,_,__.-

--