IR 05000327/1986033
| ML20212N126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1986 |
| From: | Cortland P, Crowley B, Georgiev G, Nemoto J, Newsome R, Danni Smith, Spessard R, Wu P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N109 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-86-33, 50-328-86-33, NUDOCS 8608280095 | |
| Download: ML20212N126 (37) | |
Text
_ . - - - - . _ _
.
o .
L
. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
-
. DIVISION OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS Report No.: 50-327, 328/8C-33 Docket No.: 50-327 and 50-328 Licensee Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority Facility Name: Sequoyah 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 2-6, June 16-20, July 7-11, 1986 Inspectors: M* ,
7h'8 %'!> C!8te Da~th Signed A.8.Gebrgiev,TeamLed,ddr t' b $b P. Cortland Date Signed tkcIes
.m. A f& he fi B. R AJ: o e p /
,-
Dafg Si'gned a AyJ D. Smith l'
@es ITate Signed
'
2WA A , ' )MYk., xJ h( .V f*LCf6'&
/ R. NeW e
'
/ y V Datt Signed
q ist /f St S kVb P. Wu
'
Date Sig1ed L ://lb 0/2DkW
~
Date Signed emoto Consultant: M. Schuster Approved By: A< $4*-if _
R. Lee Spessard, Deputy Director
[!Ji' (
Date Signed Division of Inspection Programs 860028009b 060026 PDR ADOCK 05000327
. O ppg Enclosure 2
-- -------------------___d
___
.. . - . - . . _ _ - _ - . . _ = - - - - - . . _ . . = _ . - - _ . _ . -. ._-
. -
!
.;
.
.
t . .
.
.
e
,
'_ TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
PAGE
,
d
- Inspection Scope and Objectives ............................ I t I Discussion ................................................. 2 j III. Inspection Details ......................................... 3 I Tables of Inspection Detail s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 i
! Persons Contacted and Documents Reviewed ................... 36
.
,
-
b
'
,
I i
$
e a
e i I
.
i i
i
I h I
.!
I f
!
f
?
,
,
'.
, 1 d
!
,
i
)
.
I
,- . - ~ . - - , - - _ . , _ , _ _ . _ _ - , - . _ , , , _ . . , , . . . , _ , _ , _ .___ ___-..,-._,,,__,_r,. , _ , . -
,
.
. .
.
.
? INSPECTION SCOPE ANO OBJECTIVES The scope of this inspection included (1) a review /closecut of open issues from NRC inspections conducted during January-February 1986, (2) a sample review of the employee concerns at the site, and (3) confirmation of the data and analysis in TVA's Welding Project Phase II Repor The objectives of this inspection were to (1) verify that TVA has an effective QA program to review, address, and close out issues identified by the NRC inspection program, (2) verify that.TVA has an effective program in place to address and dispose of employee concerns and that these concerns are handled and processed in accordaace with this program, and (3) confirm that TVA's reinspec-tion effort at Sequoyah was performed in accordance with the commitments stated in its written program and that the data and analysis in the TVA Welding Project Phase II Report accurately reflect the present status of the inspected hardwar To accomplish these objectives, the team reviewed selected portions of the original construction records and project control and quality assurance proce-dures. ihe team reinspected installed hardware in the field and reviewed engineering calculations for welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection effor The team also conducted interviews with cognizant TVA personnel concerning the status, progress, and resolution of employee concerns at Sequoyah. To close out open issues identified during previous NRC inspec-tions, the team reviewed TVA's corrective actions for each open issu .
9 o
,
a
.
I DISCUSSION
,
The NRC welding inspection team reviewed eight open items that were identified by previous NRC inspections and closed out seven of these items. The licensee is committed to address and resolve the remaining open item before startup of the plant (see Section III for details).
The team could not formally review employee concerns since TVA had not com-pleted their reviews'in this are The NRC inspectors conducted informal interviews with plant personnel concerning status, progress, and resolutions of employee concerns at Sequoya The NRC inspectors reviewed the data and analysis contained in the TVA Welding Project Phase II Report. During this review, a number of pipe and structural welds were selected to verify compliance with the governing codes and project specifications. The s6mple selected included welds from most of the major areas of plant constructio Among these were piping; pipe supports; electri-cal installations; instrumentation installations; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) irntallations; and structural steel installation The NRC welding team inspectors selected a few additional items from the
. instrumentation and electrical installations to make the sample representative to the existing general weld population in the plant. In the sample, the NRC inspectors included the " worst" welds from TVA's reinspection sample as well as welds selected during the initial walkdown at the plant. Other items reviewed by the team inc1rded (1) the supporting engineering calculations related to' welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection; (2) a sample of welding procedures, welder qualification test records, welding inspectors records, base materials and filler metal certifications reports; and (3) a number of licensee events reports (LERs) and potentially reportanle occurrences (PR0s). Tha LERs and PR0s were revie.wed to ascertain that no previous welding problems were identified during the operation period of the plan The inspected welding activities generally were found to comply with the requirements of the governing codes and specifications. However, irregulari-ties were identified in the areas of drawing weld details, welder qualification test records and weld filler metal documentation. Some welds were also found to be deficient with respect to the specified acceptance criteria. Exam'ples of these deficiencies involved undersized fillet welds, underfilled flare bevel welds, weld spatter, arc strikes, slag, incomplete fusion and weld undercu Most of these irregularities were identified during the TVA reinspection effort, which indicated that the TVA welding project program was effective in identifying weld deficiencies. The items requiring corrective action by TVA are identifitd in the notes of the inspection details tables as an inspector followup item (IFI). Region II will be following your corrective actions for these items during future inspectioqs. See Section III of this report for detail ,
. i e
- . ,
.
. '.I INSPECTION DETAILS
, Review / Closeout ' Open Issues from the January-February 1986 NRC Inspections
]
The status of the followup items from the previous inspections are as follows: (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-09-01, Applicable Codes for NDE of Pipe Welds. This item pertained to the fact that the NDE procedures used for the TVA reinspection were written to ASME Sections III and XI when the TVA reinspection plan specified inspec-tion to ANSI B31.1 and ANSI B31.7 Codes. TVA justified the use of the ASME nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures in paragraph 4.2.1 of the TVA Welding Project Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Phase II Review and Program Results Report (Phase II Report). (Clo ed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-09-02, Revision of MT Procedure to Provide for Calibration of MT Yoke. This item pertained to the fact that procedure N-MT-1 did not provide details for checking calibration of the MT yoke. Revision 31 to site proce-dure TI-51 has been issued incorporating new revisions to MT proce-dures N-MT-3, N-MT-2, and N-MT-1 detailing requirements for calibra-tion of MT yoke . (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327/86-09-04, PT'Inapection of
'
Weld 1AF0F-92 After further cleaning (brushing, removal of paint, etc.), TVA was able to obtain a satisfactory PT on this weld althcugh the surface was still very rough (see Appendices 4.8 and 4.9 of TVA's Welding Project Phase II Report for details). In addition, the NRC NDE van team performed an acceptable PT on this weld (see RII f
Inspection Report No. 50-327,328/86-13).
Annther question relative to this weld pertained to the welding process used. The original fabrication documentation indicated that the GTA welding process was used for the entire weld even though the procedure allowed the use of the SMA process. It was evident from visual coservation that the final weld was welded using the SMA process (see Appendix 4.9 of TVA's Welding Project Phase II report for a discussion of weld data sheet documentation problems). After investigation of the problem, TVA decided to cut out and reweld welds 1-AF0F-92C and 1-AF0F-96 . (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-01, Review of
Reinspection Summary for Package 28 and Welds M2 and M3 in Package 2.
, Questions relative to package 28 and welds M2 and M3 of package 2 are
,
covered in TVA's Welding Project Phase II Report (see Table 4.2 and Section 4, Page 14 of the Phase II Report). (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-02, Review of Process for Olsposition of Inspector Findings. This item was identified durir:g a preliminary review of TVA's process for evaluation and disposition of reinspection findings. As a result of NRC's ques-tions about the evaluation / disposition process, the process was ,
-3-
. _ , _
- - . _ _. _ - ___--. - _
- _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _
-- - - - --
.
. .
,
.
.
changed. The final evaluation and disposition process'is defined in the following documents:
-
TVA Welding Project Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Phase II Review and Program Results Report - Section IV and Appendices 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and DE Plan for the Evaluation of Inspection Results, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, WP-05, R OE Calculations SQNSS65-001, Revision .
' (0 pen) Unresolved Item 327, 328/86-13-03, Resolution of NRC NDE Van Inspection Findings. The inspectors conducted field verifi-cations, reviewed additionally supplied drawings, and reviewed documentation as necessary to determine the adequacy of the action taken on the items listed below. Although nearly all of the many individual items that compose a part of this item have been addres-sed, only those items or individual welds listed below can be considered dispositioned completely by the licensee and, therefore, closed out by the NR Pipe Weld 0-EA-1510: The undersized fillet has been determined to be acceptable as is. The loose bolt on the adjoining flange has been tightened and the torque verified. This item is considered close ' Pipe Weld CC-1930-H: After this weld was completely cleaned of all slag, paint, and weld spatter, it was determined that what
. originally appeared as an undercut condition was instead a slight overlap at the weld toe with essentially no undercutting evident. The inspectors verified this condition and consider i
this item close , Pipe Support, Item 20 - Welds C1, 2, 3, 4: Additional drawings were provided showing proper weld symbol This item is close Pipe Support, Item 23 - Welds B and C: Additional drawings were provided showing proper weld symbols. Weld I was found acceptable after the engineering calculations were reviewe This item is considered close Structural Weld, Item 18 - Welds B and S ONLY: These welds were found acceptable after the engineering calculations were reviewed. However, welds N1, AA, and CC of this item remain open; only welds B and S are considered acceptabl ' Duct Support Welds, Item 12:' Welds Al-10, B1-2, C, El-2, and F were found to be 1cceptable after the engineering calculations were reviewed. Additional drawings were provided for Weld D showing fillet weld sizes were correct as built. This item is considered closed.
i
,
- - . _ , , - ._ ,,- _ _ . . - - - . - . . - - , - , _ . _ _ , . _ . - . , . , - - -, ,, _ . - - - -
. - - . . - - _ - . . - - . - ._ - - - . . - - - ..
. .
j . .
..
t- Pipe Support, Item 26: Welds B, C, and H ONLY were found j -
acceptable after the engineering calculations were reviewe ,
Welds F and G of this item remain open; only welds B, C and H '
l- are considered acceptabl )
- Pipe Support, Item 9: Welds El, 2, 3, and 4 ONLY were found
acceptaole after the engineering calculations were reviewe Weld C of this item remains open; only welds El, 2, 3, and 4 are ,
j considered close !
' (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-04, Correction of ,
Weld Discreparcy Report During review of weld inspection pack-
, ages, problems were identified with weld discrepancy reports for
. welds 1-CCF-15A and 0-ER-1995E. In addition, questions were raised
, related to the way base material and certain visual indications were
! recorded. The problem data packages had been corrected before this i inspection; a sample of corrected data packages were reviewed by the
- inspectors and found acceptabl ! (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-05, Review of Final i
!
Disposition Documentation for Eight Pipe Welds Requiring Rework. As
.
a result of the TVA reinspection, eight pire welds required more
! extensive evaluation and in some cases had to be reworked for accept-
dnce. At the conclusion of the previous inspection, TVA had not made final disposition of the eight welds. During the current inspection, j the inspectors reviewed the completed reinspection and rework pack-l ages for the eight welds; these were found acceptabl i Review A Sample of the Employee Concerns at the Site
- TVA informed the team that two more internal reviews will be performed j before finalizing the review of the employee concerns related to Sequoyah.
l The NRC welding team inspectors reviewed this item by conducting inter-i views with TVA personnel. A minimum time was spent on this item because
- ,of its incomplete status.
t Confirm the Data and Analysis in TVA's Welding Project Phase II Report ,
!
I The welding team spent most of the inspection time in reviewing this ite To facilitate the NRC evaluations, the TVA's Phase II Report was sorted out into the following groups: (1) piping, (2) pipe supports, (3) instru-
, mentation tubing; (4) instrumentation supports and instrumentation panels
-
' installations; (5) electrical installations;' (6) beating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) installations; (7) structural steel installations;
, (8) refuel cavity liner, spent fuel liner, and transfer system integrity;
! (9) review of engineering calculations; and (10) review of operating l experience related to welding problems.
{ Piping
,
!
j Inspection Scope:
1 A total of 30 pipe welds were selected for inspection by the NRC
{ welding team. All 30 welds were selected from TVA's reinspec-
! tion sample. The weld sample included welds which the team f
i -5- i
!
! .
t __ _ .____ __ . _ _ _._ _ _ _ ___
.
. .
. .
~
selected during the plant walkdown and the " worst" welds identi-fied by the TVA reinspection effort. The team believed that the sample was representative with respect to the existing pipe weld plant population because the selection included the following considerations:
Welds joining different types of base materials e.g.,
carbon steel, stainless steel, cast materials, forged materials, and dissimilar material ,
Welds fabricated by different responsible TVA organizations e.g., Office of Construction vs. Office of Nuclear Operation Welds made under different construction codes, e.g., TVA Class C, D, G, ANSI B31.7 Code, ASME Code Sections III, XI, and ANSI B31.1 Cod Welds having different connection configurations, e.g.,
tee, elbow, valve, and attachmen .
Differentweldjoir.ttypes,e.g.,buttweld,socketweld, lap wel Different pipe diameters and thicknesses were selected.
l Selected items ranged from 0.5-inch diameter through 24-inch diameter and from 0.047-inch thickness through 0.562-inch thicknes The sample included eight " worst" welds identified in the TVA Phase II Report and welds selected during the plant walkdow *
Weld filler material review included covered electrodes, flux core wire, and bare wir Weld process review included most commonly used processes such as: shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), gas metal arc welding (GMAW), and the flux core process.
'
The sampled welds were made between 1975 and 1985,'thus covering fabrication performed during different time span In addition, the team reviewed the welding procedures, welder i qualification test recoros, welding inspector records, base materials certification reports, and NDE examination records for each of the sampled welds. A random review of weld filler metal certification reports was performed and the sample included electrodes procured under the most widely used purchase specifi-cations. TVA does not maintain weld filler metal traceability '
to the individual weld. Instead the licensee ielies on a system to ensure that only ASME Code approved weld materials are purchased and used at its site (see Tables 1, 7, 8, 9, or 10
- as appifcable for details).
-
6-
,
--
y --
g ,e, -. _, ape p .- - _ , - -,e,,. - -
-e+-- - ,--- - - , -- - - -- --s-- g
.
. .
, Inspection Findings:
-
The inspected pipe welds generally were found to meet the requirements of the governing codes and specifications. How-ever, the NRC welding team identified weld documentation which did not accurately reflect which welding processes were use Some weld filler metal certification reports were incomplete and the qualification test records for welders qualified using dual processes erroneously showed that the welders are qualified for unlimited material thickness (see Tables 1, 7, 8,.9, or 10, as applicable, for details). Conclusions:
With the exception of the items discussed above, the inspected welds were found to comply with the requirements of the goverr.-
ing codes and specifications. No new items of significance were identified as a result of this inspectio Programmatic and
'
hardware discrepancies identified by the NRC welding team inspectors were in most cases identif,ied and evaluated as a result of TVA reinspection effor . Pipe Supports . Inspection Scope:
The NRC welding team inspected 32 pipe supports involving approximately 562 structural welds. Whenever the weld configu-ration permitted verification for fit-up, the weld fit-up was verified. The welds were not inspected in detail but only as necessary to ascertain the general condition and verify the TVA reinspection results. All of the inspected welds had been previously inspected by TVA as a part of its welding reinspec-tion progra The NRC team considered the sample to be repre-sentative of the general pipe support population because the sample contained most of the typical and special supports configurations in existence at the plan In addition, the applicable project procedures were reviewed for adequac The specific welding procedures, welder qualification test records, welding inspector records, and the ma:erial certification reports could not be reviewed for the sampled supports because TVA project requirements do not require trace-ability of materials, welding procedures, welders, and inspec-tors for Quality Level 2 supports. However, the team reviewed the most widely used structural welding procedures and a sample
'
of welder, inspectors, base material and weld filler metal certification The supporting engineering calculations related to welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection effort also were reviewed for accuracy (see Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11, as applicable, for details).
-7-
O
.
.
- Inspection Findings:
The inspected welding areas generally were found to meet the requirenents of the governing specifications. However, five supports had flare bevel welds which were not shown on the drawings; two supports did not have adequate weld details; four supports had missing welds; four supports had a shimming plate ad'ied that were not shown on the drawings; and the vertical position of one support was in error when compared with the support drawing. See Table 2 for details. TVA had identified most of these weld deficiencies during their reinspection effor The deficient welds were evaluated by TVA engineering and determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC reviewed'the engineering calculations for those welds and no problems or discrepancies were note During the review of skewed connection weld details, the NRC welding team identified welds which did not have the required sizes indicated on the drawings and in some cases the drawings
'
called ter fillet welds while the actual welds were found to be flare bevel welds. As a result of this observation, the licen-see provided the NRC team with nonconformance report (NCR)
BLNPLP8007, which was written on November 6, 1980 for the Bellefonte nuclear plan The NCR BLNPLP8007 was resolved by establishing a test program that destructively' tested by loading various skewed connection details using different weld sizes. The purpose of the program was to determine the load capacity of welded joints for steel supports fabricated under various construction conditions and to allow the use of flare bevel welds in cases where the engineer-ing drawings required fillet welds. Engineering calculations also were performed for each tested weld detail and compared with the actual test failure loa .
In.all tested conditions the results indicated that the weld connections had an adequate surplus-capacity factor ranging fram 2.06 to 6.29 for prequalified joints and from 2.29 to 3.78 for joints that were not prequalified. The NRC welding team inspec-tors reviewed the results and calculations contained in the report and no irregularities were identified as a result of this revie '
Another area of concern to the NRC welding team was that the governing drawings and specifications did not provide adequate
-
guidance concerning inspection requirements of supports. The team could not clearly identify which supports required Quality Level 1 inspection and which required Quality Level 2 inspec-
. -
tion. The Quality Level 1 inspection requires documentation for i
each weld, while Quality Level 2 requires documentation only for the completed support. All of the NRC-inspected supports had documentation meeting the requirements for Quality Level 2 support .
!
-8-
.
.
.
.. Conclusions:
With the exception of the items identified above, the inspected welding activities were found to comply with the applicable specifications. Most of the identified weld deficiencies have been identified and evaluated as a result of the TVA reinspec-tion effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC inspectors reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for those welds and no problems or discrepancies were note . Instrumentation Tubing Inspection Scope:
A total of 31 instrument tubing welds were selected by the NRC welding team. The welds were selected to include different type joints, and the welds were made using different welding processes and procedures. The sample included three different grades of couplings welded to the tubing, carbon steel valves
, welded to tubing, and tube-to-tube welds made by an automatic welding proces In addition, the NRC inspectors reviewed the weld documentation, welding proc?dures, welding inspector records, welder qualifica-tion test re;ords, base material certifications reports, and the NDE documentation for each of the sampled welds. A sample of weld filler. metal certification reports was randomly selected for review because the TVA project requirements do not provide for unique traceability of weld filler metal to the completed joint. See Tables 3, 7, 8, 9, or 10, as applicable, for detail Inspection Findings:
The inspected activities were found to comply with the require-ments of the governing codes and project specifications. TVA reinspection identified 9 of the inspected 31 welds as having one or more deviant attributes which the NRC welding team censidered to be beyond the requirements of the applicable codes and specifications. For example, the suck-back rejected en welds 1-SE-158,1-SE-171, and 1-SE-746 was acceptable per ASME nuclear code case N-127. In addition the Nuclear Power Piping Code
-
B31.7-1969 has a larger tolerance for offset and does not require inspection fcr arc strike and weld spatter. See Table 3 for detail =.
c Conclusions: .
~
No problems were identified during this inspection. Activities were found to conform to the requirements of the governing codes and specification ~_
l f-9-S
,
.
. .
.
.
4. Instrumentation Supports and Instrument Panels Installations Inspection Scope:
The NRC welding team inspected eight instrument supports involv-ing approximately 120 structural welds for compliance with the requirements of the governing specifications. Whenever the weld configuration permitted verification for fit-up, the weld fit-up was verified. In additio'n, two welding procedures, five welder qualification test records, and eight we.lding inspector records were selected for review. A sample of base and weld filler
_ metal certification reports also were reviewed to ascertain com-pliance with the TVA purchase specifications. See Tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, as applicable, for detail The supporting engineering calculaticns related to TVA Items IA, 2A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, and 8A were n6t reviewed by the NRC team
-
because they were not included in the original submittal. The -
NRC is planning to review those calculations for accurac The team also did not reinspect instrument panels because'the panels were purchased from a vendor and were installed using expansion anchor bolt Inspection Findings:
TVA reinspection identified a number of welds as having one or more deviant attributes. These deviatant attributes included underfilled or undersized welds, undercut, slag, overlap and incomplete fusion. Also welds were identified that deviated from the requirements of the applicable design drawings. The drawings required one type of weld when in fact the actual weld was found to be some other type of weld. In addition to the TVA reinspection findings, the NRC team also had difficulties in establishing which supports required Quality Level 1 weld
.
inspection and which required Quality Level 2 inspection. The l reviewed weld documentation met the requirements of Quality l Level 2 inspection. The NRC inspectors also noted that in some l cases the drawing required a full-penetration weld between l two structural tube steel members of the same size. This type of connection is defined as a K, Y, or T c,onnection by the AWS -
01.1 Code and requires a special qualification testing for the l welder. The actual connection found on the support inspected by the NRC inspectors was found to be single-flare-bevel groove weld. The reviewed welder qualification test records indicated l that the welders were qualified to weld flare-bevel groove welds ,
'
but some welders were not qualified to weld on K, Y, or T connections. The NRC inspector's concern is that unqualified welders may have been used to weld on a K, Y or T connections
'
since some of the drawings required the use of full-penetration
- weld. See Table a for details.
l-10-
!
.
. Conclusions:
, With the exception of the items identified above, the inspected activities were found to comply with the requirements of the governing specifications. The weld deficiencies were identified and evaluated by TVA during their reinspection effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended applications. The NRC is planning to review the suppcrting engineering calculations for those weld Electrical Installations Inspection Scope:
The NRC welding team inspected approximately 130 welds on three cable tray supports, three conduit supports, two junction boxes, and the installation weld on one electrical panel. Whenever the weld configuration permitted verification for fit-up, the weld fit-up was verifie In addition, the applicable project procedures were reviewed for adequacy. The specific welding procedure, welder qualification test records, welding inspector records, and material certification reports could not be reviewed for the sampled supports because TVA dnes not require traceability of materials, welding procedures, welders, and inspectors for Quality Level 2 supports. Hovever, the NRC welding team sampled and reviewed two welding procedures, four welder qualification test records, and five welding inspector
-
records to verify compliance with the applicable project proce-dures. Most of the supporting engineering calculations related to welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection effort were also reviewed for adequacy. The NRC did not review the calculations for TVA items 9A, 10A, 11A and 12A because they were not included in the original submittal.~ The NRC is planning to review these calculations for accuracy. See Tables 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11, as applicable, for detail Inspection Findings:
The inspected welds generally were found to meet the require-ments of the governing specifications. However, TVA reinspec-tion found welds that were undersized. a stitch weld was found to be deficient with respect to the requirements stated on the drawings, and in some cases the drawing symbols did not match the actual weld configuration. In addition to the TVA reinspec-tion finding, the NRC welding team identified drawings which did not provide details for dust covers and a variance drawing did
, not show one cross member in side vie The NRC welding team also encountered difficulties in determining which quality level requirements applied for the inspected support. The reviewed weld documentation for all of the inspected supports met the requirements for Quality Level 2 inspectio See Table 5 for detail .
-11-
,
_
'
.
,
'
- Conclusions:
With the exception of the irregularities identified above, the inspected activities were found to meet the requirements of the applicable specifications. Most of the identified weld defi-ciencies have been identified and evaluated as a result of the TVA reinspection effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for most of those welds and no problems or discrepancies were identified. The NRC is planning to review the calculations for TVA Items 9A, 10A, 11A, and 12A to determine their adequac . Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Installations Inspection Scope:
The NRC welding team inspected approximately 273 welds involving six HVAC supports. Whenever the weld configuration permitted verification for fit-up, the weld fit-up was verifie The welds were not inspected in detail, but only as necessary to ascertain the general condition and verify the TVA reinspection results. The NRC inspectors reviewed two construction specifi-cations, one purchasing specification, three governing construc-tion procedures, two weld filler metal and two base material certification report In addition, the qualification test records for five welders, and certification records for seven visual examination inspectors were sampled and reviewed for adequacy. Also, TVA reinspection results and NRC NDE van inspection results were reviewed. Most of the supporting engineering calculations related to welds that were found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection effort also were reviewed for accuracy. The NRC welding team did not review the calcula-tions for TVA Item AIS because they were not included in the original submittal. The NRC team is planning to review these calculations for accuracy. See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11, as applicable, for detail The NRC welding team did not inspect duct-to-companion flanges and duct-to-duct stiffener connections since those connections were riveted connections. The HVAC equipment installations also were not inspected because the equipment was installed using expansion anchor bolts.
' Inspection Findings:
l
!
The inspected welds generally were found to meet the require-
ments of the governing specifications. Exceptions agreed with the findings of the TVA reinspection and the NRC NDE van inspec-tion. Undersized welds were identified and in some cases welds differed from those required by the applicable drawings. In
'
some cases, the variance drawings were of poor quality and weld
'
symbol details were not clea The fit-up gap for one weld was greater than the specification allowanc The team encountered difficulty in determining whether supports required Quality-12-
R
.
'
. .
j
. Level 1 or Quality Level 2 inspection See Table 6 for i details, Conclusions:
With the exception of the irregularities identified above, the inspected activities were found to meet the requirements of the applicable specifications. Most of the identified weld defi-ciencies were identified and evaluated during the TVA reinspec-tion effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for most of those welds and no problems or discrepancies were found. The NRC is planning to review the calculations for TVA Item AIS to determine the adequacy of those calculation . Structural Steel Installations -
Inspection Scope:
' The NRC team inspected approximately 100 welds on one platform (TVA Item 31) and one missile barrier (TVA Item 18). Whenever the weld configuration permitted verification for fit-up, weld fit-up was verifie In addition, four welder qualification test records, three welding inspector records, two welding procedures, and a sample of base and weld filler metal certifi-cation reports were sampled and reviewed for adequacy. The supporting engineering calculations related to welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinspection effort also were reviewed for accuracy. S?e Table 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11, as applicable, for detail ) InspectionFindidgs:
The inspected welds generally were found to meet the require-ments of the governing specifications. However, during the review of drawings for the structural platform, it was noted that there were no welding details on the applicable design drawing As a rc:sult of this finding, the licensee revised the existing NCR and the drawings will be revised to incorporate weld details. Since the buildings at Sequoyah are concrete buildings, not many structural steel welds were found at the plant. TVA had identified undersized fillet welds during its reinspection effort. The deficient welds were reviewed and evaluated by TVA engineering and were determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC reviewed the engineering calculations for those welds and na problems or discrepancies were note Conclusions:
With the exception of the missing weld details for the struc-tural platform and the undersized welds identified by TVA, the inspected activities were found to meet the requirements of the applicable specifications. TVA has determined that the defi-
'
-13-
.
.
cient welds are adequate for the intended application. The NRC reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for those welds and no problems or discrepancies were note . Refuel Cavity Liner, Spent Fuel Liner, and Transfer System Integrity Inspection Scope:
No physical inspection was possible of the reactor cavity liner and spent fuel pool because they were full of water. The NRC welding team inspected the ends of the telltale pipes of the reactor and spent fucl pool leak detection system to ascertain that no leakage had taken place during the operation of the plant. In addition, the NDE documentation for the transfer
'
system was reviewed for two welded sean Inspection Findings-No welding documentation was available for the reactor and spent fuel pool liner during this inspection. However, the licensee had reviewed this item in 1977 and had determined that the pools were constructed in accordance with the project requirement No leakage was found to exist at the ends of the inspected telltale pipes for the reactor and spent fuel pool leak detec-tion system ' Conclusions:
No problems were identified in the inspected welding activitie Activities were found to meet the requirements of the applicable specification . Review of Engineering Calculations Inspection Scope:
The NR'C inspectors reviewed the engineering calculations related to welds found to be deficient during the TVA reinsp'ection effor A total of 29 TVA items involving 607 pages of engineering calcula-tions were reviewed for completeness, consistency of documentation, engineering evaluation and mathematic accuracy of calculation In addition, the supporting engineering calculations in Appendix B of report number BLP810812, which was provided in conjunction with the TVA evaluation of NCR BLNBLP8007 also was reviewed for accurac The NRC inspectors did not review the accuracy of the design loads used in the calculations since such a review is considered to be outside the scope of this inspectio Inspection Findings:
The reviewed engineering calculations generally were found to be complete, accurate, and conservative in evaluating the deficient weld conditions identified during the TVA reinspection effor However, in some cases the calculations contained numerical errors, did not provide design load values, and had missing weld i
,
-14-l
- _ .
.
. .
. sketches. These discrepancies related to consistency of docu-mentation and in all cases the identified deficiencies did not change the end result and the overall conclusions for the reviewed TVA ite The NRC inspectors requested additional
,
information and since then the licensee has resubmitted the calculations which ara now included in Volume 1 (SCG 3072),
Volume II (SCG 3073) and Volume III (SCG 3074) of the submitta The NRC is planning to review this submittal to ascertain the consistency of the resubmitted calculations. See Table 11 for detail Conclusions:
With the exceptions of the numerical errors and the. missing design load values and weld sketches, tne reviewed engineering calculations were found to be complete, accurate, and conserva-tive in evaluating deficient welds identified curing the TVA reinspection effor . Review of Operating Experience Related to Welding Problems Inspection Scope:
The NRC welding team conducted a computer search using " weld" and " crack" as key words to search the licensee event report (LER) and potentially reportible occurrence (PRO) files. The system identified 11 PR0s and 18 LERs as having been related to welding. The team reviewed these items and reviewed another 121 LERs and 75 PR0s from the hard copy book Inspection Findings:
A total of seven LERs and four PR0s were determined to relate to welding. The NRC welding team reviewed the information con-tained in these LERs and PR0s and concluded that the welding related items were properly addressed by the licensee at the time of occurrenc Conclusions:
A relatively few welding items were identified during the review l of LERs and PR0s which indicated that no major welding problems had occurred during the operation period of the plant.
i
!
l
-
_
'
-15- ,
.
,
. .
. IV. TABLES OF INSPECTION DETAILS
.
TABLE 1 PIPE WELDS
-
,
Weld Type Weld ID Size (Inch) System Class Material Note
. Pipe to Tee 1-CCF-71 20 x 0.375 CC C CS 1 Flange to Pipe 1-AFDF-92C 6 x 0.562 AFD C CS 2, 3 Flange to Pipe 1-AFDF-96C 6 x 0.562 AFD C CS 2, 3 Valve to Pipe 1-AFDF-38 8 x 0.322 AFD C CS 3, 4
'
Flange to Pipe 2-AFDF-25AA 4 x 0.438 AFD C CS 3, 4
. Flange to Pipe 2-AFDF-25BB 4 x 0.438 AFD C CS 3, 4 Valve to Pipe 1-AFDF-39 8 x 0.322 AFD C CS Valve to Pipe 1-AFDF-40 8 x 0.322 AFD C CS 5 Valve to Pipe 2-CCF-84x1 4 x 0.237 CC
'
C CS 3 Pipe to Pipe 0-ER-1996x1 24 x 0.375 ERCW C CS 3
,
Pipe to Pipe 2-CCF-68 4 x 0.237 CC C CS 3 Pipe to Fitting 1-CBT-3WP 3 x 0.120 CBT G SS
~
Pipe to Fitting CBT-18WP 2 x 0.154 CBT G SS Pipe to Fitting 0-CV-2747 2 x 0.154 CVCS, D SS Reducer 0-EA-361 1 x 0.133 EA C SS Reducer- 0-EA-400A 1 x 0.133 EA C SS Reducer Bushing 0-EA-1494B 4 x N/A EA C SS Reducing Coupling 0-EA-1536 0.5 x 0.109 EA -C SS Flange to Pipe 0-ER-1995-1 24 x 0.375 ERCW C CS Sock-o-let 0-ER-7926A 1.25 x 0.140 ERCW C SS to CS Coupling .0-ER-19790 2 x 0.154 ERCW C SS to CS Valve 0-ER-19948A 2 x 0.154 ERCW C SS to CS Thermoweld 0-ER-19949 1.25 ERCW C SS Pipe to Fitting CBT-14WP 0.75 x 0.113 CBT C SS-16-
__ .
.
. .
.
-
TABLE 1 PIPEWELDS(Continued)'
Weld Type Weld ID Size (Inch) System Class Material Note Weld-o-let 0-EA-409 2 x 0.154 EA C SS 6 Weld-o-let 0-EA-410 2 x 0.154 EA, C SS 6 Lugs 1-CCF-74A NA x NA CC C CC 7 Thermoweld 0-ER-19913 1.25 ERCW C SS Weld Neck Flange 0-ER-19953 2 x 0.154 ERCW C SS Reducer 0-SE-5027x1 1/2 x 0.047 SE C SS Notes: No welder performance continuity test record was available for period prior to completinp the wel . Visual inspection of the weld revealed that the shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process was used. Weld data record shows incorrectly that gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) process was used. This was noted by previous NRC inspection . TVA's reinspection indicates that the weld was rejected by ND . The weld documentation showed that a single weld material verification was performed by the quality control inspector. Dual process welding procedure was required by the weld data sheet. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-01) Visual inspection of the weld revealed that the SMAW process was used. Weld data record shows incorrectly that the GTAW process was used. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-01) Underfilled wel (IFI 327, 328/ES-33-01) One of the eight inspected hanger pads was found to have' a missing hard stamped material heat number. The heat number verification sign off was noted on the weld data record with no notation as to the number of pads checked. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-01)
,
f-17-
. . _
'
.
. .
,
TABLE 2 PIPE SUPPORTS ,
i
'
TVA Type Of1 System Type Of2 Materia 13 Item N Support Drawing Connection Shapes Used Note 1 T ERCW A,B,F TS, BP, P, 1 47A053-118 SS, U 5 S CCS A,B,F,G P, TS, 18, BP 2 H10-1158 7 5 CCS A,B,F,G,E TS, BP, P 3 H10-481 ,
8 S ERCW B,C,D,F,G
.
,
TS, P, IB 1, 2 HERCW-325 9 5 0, C, F, G ERCW TS, IB 2, 4 HERCW-332 .
16 S CCS F TS, BP, E !
H10-494 17 S CCS F,G,E IB, P, BP, TS, ;
H10-561 E
-
l 19 T CCS F AI, BP, SS, P, 5 47A053-4A B, IB 20 T CCS B, F
.
TS, BP 6 47A053-136 22 T CVCS F TS, BP, AI, E, 7, 8
.
47A053-16A P, SS 23 T A, F ERCW IB, E _
j HERCW-8 25 T Aux. Boiler F TS, BP 47A431-7-3 26 S Aux. Boiler A,B,F,G,E TS, E, P 1, 2 HGS-487
27 T HVAC A, B, F, G TS, BP, E, P 1,2,4 47A920-28-1 29 T Fire Prote F, E P 478100-3
.
i-18-
. , _ , - - . . - _ . _ _ , . _ _ - _ . , . _ , . _ - - - - - - , - - - . __ , . -
. -
. .
TABLE 2 PIPE SUPPORTS (Continued)
Nstes: Some welds were missin , Flare Sevel welds were not shown on the as-built drawing . This item included two support . Weld details incomplete on drawing . This item included 14 support . Vertical location of support in error by 3'-6" when compared with drawin (IFI 327, 328/86-33-02). Shim material ,added but ndt shown on drawings. However, general notes of drawing 47A050 allowed for-minor fabrication to be made without having to document the alteration on the support drawin . This item included four support ~
Legend:
T - typical support, S - special supper A - skewed connection, B - flare, C.- beam stiffener, D - full penetration, E - single V butt, F - fillet, G - limited acces TS - tube steel, BP - base plate, E embedment, AI - angle iron, SS - strap plate, IB - I-beam, U - unistru ~
steel, P
. -19-t B,
--- - - - -
_ .
'
.,
.
TABLE 3 INSTRUMENTATION TUBING
,
Weld ID TVA Class Drawing Joint Type * Note 1-SE-748A C 1-SEN-33 Sch 40 1" SW 1 1-SE-748B C 1-SEN-33 Sch 40 1" SW 2, 3 1-SE-748C C 1-SEN-33 1/2 SW' 3, 4 s 1-SE-748D C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 1-SE-748E C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 1-SE-134 D 1-SEN-9 1/2" A 1-SE-142 D 1-SEN-9 1/2" A 1-SE-150 D 1-SEN-9 1/2" A 1-SE-158 D 1-SEN-9 1/2" A 5, 6 1-SE-166 D 1-SEN-9 ;,,,s1/2" A
1-SE-171 D 1-SEN-9 1/2" A 6 1-SE-1972 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-1976 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-1980 '
C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-1988 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-1989 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-1990 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A
'
1-SE-1997 C 1-SEN-72 1/2" A 1-SE-722 B 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 3
'
1-SE-723 B 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 1-SE-733 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 1-SE-734 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 3 1-SE-735 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 1-SE-736 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 1-SE-737 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 1-SE-738 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 1-SE-739 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" SW 1-SE-740 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" 5W 3 1-SE-741 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 1-SE-746 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A 6 1-SE-748 C 1-SEN-33 1/2" A
- Notes
- Surface spatter foun , /16 inch deep by 3/16 inch long undercut found.
' Arc strike foun '
. Three notches. found in wel . 1/16 inch offse . 0.01 to 0.03 inch suck-bac Legend
- SW - Manually welded socket joint, A - Automatically welded butt join .. . .- .. ..- - ---_--- _ - _ _ , -- . - . - -
- ._ - - - - - -_ - ~
,
'
. l
.
~
'
. TABLE 4 INSTRUMENT TUBING SUPPORTS l
TVA Joint Item Weld ID Drawi Design Actual
'
IA (0350 HIAB680A1103S 005 Floor-Mounted Support): ,
'
'
A 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet B 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet (1)
'
C 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet D1 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet (2)
D2, 04 47A051-16 Full Flare (3)
D3 47A051-16 None Fillet El 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet'(2) s
. E2, E4 47A051-16 Full Flare (3)
'
~
E3 47A051-16 None Fillet F 47A051-16 Fillet Fillet G 47A051-22 Bevel Bevel
,
X VAR 51-16-2 Bevel Bevel ,
) 2A (0-HOR-350-0000 2056 Wall-Mounted Support): ,
X 47A051-12 Fillet Fillet 4A (0-HGR-350-000-2478 Wall-MountedSupport):
47A051-20 Fillet Fillet
. B 47A050-2 Fillet Fillet
'
C1, 3 47A051-20 Full Flare (2) (3)
C4 47A051-20 Fillet Fillet (2)
D1, 3 47A051-20 Full Flare (3)
,
,
!
-21-
.
- Ty* -. -
y . - _ - _. - . - _ , + - ,.
- _ . _. _- __ - -. - - . .- . .- .
.
.
.
'
TABLE 4 INSTRUMENT TUBING SUPPORTS (Continued)
/ '
TVA Joint ,
! Item Weld ID Drawing Design Actual D2 47A051-20 , Fillet Fillst (2)
E 47A051-20 Fillet Fillet (2)
F 47A051-20 Fillet Fillet (2)
G VAR 51-20-6 Fillet Fillet C2 47A051-20 Unknown D4 47A051-20 V'nknown 5A (2350HIAB722A060 8T001 Wall-Mounted Support):
X g 47A051-19 Fill.et Flare
~
'
G 47A051-19 Fillet Fillet i 6A (0350HIXX16681 Wall-Mounted Support):
4 A 47A051-19 Fillet Fillet
'
B VAR 51-19-221 Fillet (4)
'
'
-
C 47A051-19 Fillet Fillet (5)
7A (0350HIXX14639 Wall-Mounted Support):
A A7A053-136 Fillet Fillet (2)
B i 47A053-136 Fillet Fillet C1, 2 47A053-10A Fillet Fillet '
C3, 4 47A053-10A Full Flare (6)
.
8A (OHGR-350-0002285 Wall-Mounted Supports):
A 47A051-12A Fillet Fillet (7)
B 47A051-12A Fillet Flare (7)
,.
'
-22-
.
- - . . - - . . , ---. , -. - . . . - _ . - . _ _ . , - - _ - _ _ . - - . - - - - . . - _ _ . _ . - - _ _ . _
. - - -
.
.
.
. TABLE 4 INSTRUMENT TUBING SUPPORTS (Continued) .
'
TVA Joint Item Weld ID Drawing Design Actual 8A (OHGR3500002286 Wall-Mounted Support):
C 47A051-12A Fillet Fillet (7).
D 47A051-12A Fillet Flare (7)
'
Notes: -
(1) The weld contained undercut, slag, overlap and incomplete fusio s (IFI 327, 328/86-33-03)
,
(2) The weld was underfilled or undersize (IFI 327, 328/86-33-03)
(3) The drawings specified in two places that the connection between pieces l of square tubing be full-penetration square groove butt welds. This type of joint is defined as a K, Y, or T connection by the AWS D structural welding code. The AWS D1.1 Code requires a special qualifica-tion testing for welders who weld on T, Y, and K corinectior.s in
. structural steel tubing. The review of a sample of welder qualifica-tions indicated that some welders were qualified on a plate using backing strip which does not qualify them to weld on a T, Y, and K connections in structural steel tubing ,(IFI 327,328/86-33-03)'
'
The actual connection found on the support was a single-flare-bevel groove weld, which is designated as weld type 10 in paragraph 2.4 of TVA specification 1.C.1.2(a).
(4) The support was constructed in accordance with Support Variance Sheet 51-19-221 which allowed a gusset to be added so that the support could be installed at an angle to the base plate. Calculations for this variance were not found and new calculations have been requested.
'
(IFI 327, 328/86-33-03) ,
(5) The weld had an unacceptable crater and contained porosit (IFI 327, 328/86-33-03)
(6) The support was constructed in accordance with drawing 47A053-10A. The drawing specified that the connection between the unistrut and the supporting steel be a full penetration square butt wald. The drawing symbol is incorrect because in this case it is not possible to make a square butt wel (IFI 327, 328/86-33-03)
(7) The length of the intermittent welds were too short, but the weids were closely space (IFI 327, 328/86-33-03)
.
-23-
. ,_ , , - _ - , - - _ _ _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ . . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - - , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ ~ , _ .
.
'
.
,.
, TABLE 5 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS AND SUPPORTS
.
TVA Item Support Drawing Note
, 3 Conduit 47A056-16 1, 2 47A056-16A 6 Conduit ,47A056-16 1, 3 47A056-16A Var 56-150-7 11 Cable Tray 48N1301-R28 4 14 Cable Tray 48N1322-R4 3, 5
,
21 Cable Tray 48N1321-R11 3, 6 48N1322-R4 9A Junction Box 47A056-101 1,7,8 Var 56-101-161 10A Conduit 47A056-80 1, 3, 8 Var 56-80-83
11A Electrical 45N326R23 8 ,
Panel Detail A 12A Junction Box 47A056-101E2 1, 8
Notes: The drawing did not specify which material and weld quality level requirements apply to this item. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-04) - The stitch weld was deficient with respect to the requirements stated on the drawing. Drawina required 2 on 6 weld, while the actual weld was 2 inches long on 8-inch centers. No calculations were made to evaluate the deficient stitch weld. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-04) The drawing symbols do not match the actual weld configuratio (IFI 327, 328/86-33-04)
i No weld details were found for the dust cover (IFI 327, 328/86-33-04) No record of weld inspection was found for this item. The licensee evaluated this condition in 1979 and fourd it acceptabl . Undersized weld found on floor connection, ho calculations have been made to evaluate the undersized wel (IFI327,328/86-33-04) Variance drawing does not show one cross mcmber in the side vie (IFI 327, 328/86-33-04) Item not included in the original TVA reinspection sampl ..__ . . . - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _-- - __
.. - .
. >
>*
,
TABLE 6 HVAC SUPPORTS
.
'
TVA Type
,
Item Drawing Mount Connection Note 2 47055-170 Wall F 1
'
47W920-8H B 47W920-16H A Floor
~
4 47A055-159 F 2 47W915-15H D
.
'
12 47A055-35 Wall F 3 47W915-15H
,
24 474055-155 Wall F All Welds accepted by 47W920-3H TVA AIS 47A055-93 Floor F 4 47W920-16H Wall B
"
'
AI8 47A055-90 Wall F 5 47W920-13H B D
Nctes: TVA's reinspection rejected a number of welds for being undersized fillets or underfilled flare welds. Also, a number of welds were identified as missing. In some cases the weld specified on the drawing could not have been made because of the joint design. Some weld symbols on the drawing did not show weld sizes. The NRC NDE van inspection identified similar problem A number of welds were considered to be inaccessible by TV The structure was inspected by the NRC NDE van team and many of the welds identified as inaccessible were inspected by the NRC. Weld surface
- problems such as craters, weld profiles, undercut, weld surface slag, and one missing weld were identified in addition to the problems identified by TV During the current inspection, the NRC inspectors noted that the drawing and variance were not clear as to the weld size required for weld "A."
- The weld size was accepted by TVA inspecters with a rote that no weld size was specified on the drawing. Engineering accepted the weld by calcula-tions based on the fact that only a 0.050 inch weld size is neede The fitup gap for or.e weld was greater than the maximum allowed 3/16-inch gap. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-05)
>
-25-
_ _, _ _ , . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ _ . , _ _ . . - . _ - - _ . _ --
. _ , _ -
.
.
a-
. TABLE 6 HVAC SUPPORTS (Continued) TVA's reinspection rejected a number of fillet welds for being undersiz The NRC NDE van inspection team did not inspect this suppor During the current inspection, the NRC team noted that for pad to-beam welds, the 'ariance v drawing was poor and did not specify where the 3/16 inch fillet was to be welded. The pads are 4" wide welded on 4" wide beams. Therefore, the 3/16 inch fillet w' elds must be welded across the beam even though the variance drawing was not clear. Those welds were undersized. The seams between the edges of the pads and the beams were seal welded even though the variance drawing did not show the weld (IFI 327, 328/86-33-05)
3. TVA's reinspection rejected a number of fillet welds for being undersize The NRC NDE van team inspection identified similar problem '
During the current inspection the NRC team noted that the variance drawing was very poor and did not detail the full-penetration weid for weld "A-10." (IFI327,328/86-33-05) This support was not a part of TVA's reinspection sample. The NRC NDE van inspection identified that the spacing on skip fillet welds did not meet drawing requirement ,
During the current inspection, the NRC team noted that the welding symbols on the variance drawings for the square-tube-to-square-tube welds did not agree with the type of welds that are in place. The drawings are not clear whether fillet welds or flare bevel welds are required. The variance drawir.gs also were found to be of poor quality. Only support number 824 was inspected. (IFI327,328/86-33-05) This support was not a part of TVA's reinspection sample. This item was
~
inspected by the NRC NDE van tea During the curreat inspection, the NRC inspectors noted that the drawing welding symbol for the corner joints connecting the square tubing is incorrect. The symbol shows a flare bevel all around. It appears that a partial penetration weld was used on top and bottom, a fillet weld on the inside, and a seal weld on the en (IFI 327, 328/86-33-05)
Legend A - Skewed connectian, B - flare, D - full penetration, F - fillet-26-
. . .. __ _
.- _ _ - . - .-
.
y-
.
. TABLE 7 WELDER CERTIFICATIONS REVIEWED Welde'r Stamp Welder Stamp '
Number Craft Number Craft 6 PAG Pipe Welder 6 LAK Pipe Welder 6 YAA Pipe Welder 6 LBM Pipe Welder 6 GBE Pipe Welder 6 JCA Pipe Welder 6 HEJ Pipe Welder 6 BBA Pipe Wolder 6 LBM Pipe Welder 6 PAG ,
Pipe Welder 6 DAB Pipe Welder 6 DAB Pipe Welder 6 MAL Pipe Welder 6 MAL Pipe Welder 6 AAR Pipe Welder 6 AAR Pipe Welder 6 DBE Pipe Welder 6 DBE (1) Pipe Welder 6 RAH Pipe Welder 6 FWW Pipe Welder 6 WB0 Pipe Welder 6 AGG Pipe Welder 6 CCK Pipe Welder 6 RCZ Pipe Welde RA0 Pipe Welder 6 DUU Pipe Welder 6 LAK Pipe Welder 4 BAH Electrical Welder 6 DBL Pipe Welder 4 ZMB Electrical Welder 6 GAE Pipe Welder 4 ZWB Electrical Welder 6 HDF Pipe Welder 4 BAC Electrical Welder 6 MAR Pipe Welder 5 ZCA Iron Worker 6 SCF Pipe Welder 5 ZBI Iron Worker 6 DBN Pipe Welder 5 HAB Iron Worker 6 CAC Pipe Welder 5HAD(2) Iron Worker 6 HAQ Pipe Welder 5 HAI (2) Iron Worker 6 MAB Pipe Welder 5 HAC Iron Worker 6 RBK Pipe Welder 5 DAA Sheet Metal Welder 6 RAH Pipe Welder 11 2V Sheet Metal Welder 6 WB0 Pipe Welder 11 B'G Sheet Metal Welder 6 CCK Pipe Welder 11 CQ Millwright Welder 6 RA0 Pipe Welder 3 HAV
-
Notes:
. Welder qualification test record showed that a dual process GTAW/SMAW was used to we'ld a 7 inch diameter A-106, 1" thick test coupon. The record also showed that this test was used to qualify the welder to weld from
'
3/16 inch to ur.lfmited thickness. There is no record of deposite thickness. Above is not in compliance with Section IX of the ASME Code. (IFI 327,328/86-33-06) The required visual examination of the test coupon was not recorded on the qualification test recor (IFI 327, 328/86-33-06)
-27-
_ . _ _ _ . ._ - _ _ _
-_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.
...-
- .
-
TABLE 8 WELDING PROCEDURES REVIEWED Welding Procedure Specification Revisions Note GT11-0-1 All revisions SM88-0-1 All revisions GT11-0-1A Rev. 3, Rev. 6 1
'
SM11-0-3 Rev. 5 1, O '
GT18-0-1 Rev. 3, Rev. 5 1
- GT88-0-1 Rev. 3, Rev. 4, Rev. 5, Rev. 6 1
.
GM11-B-1 Rev. I 1
.
GT-SM-11-03B Rev. 5, Rev. 8 1, 2 GT-88-S-2 All revisions SM-U-1 All revisions
SM-P-1 All revisions SM-U-1A All revisions
'
SM18-B-1 All revisions
'
Notes: Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) does not provide information
! concerning thickness qualified. Specification G29M/N73M2 provides control for selection and assignment of welding procedures, i WPS qualification for impact tested applications is not in compliance with ASME Section IX of the Code concerning separate qualification requirements for P-1 Group 1 and P-1 Group 2 materials, j (IFI 327, 328/86-33-07).
.
,
f-28-
.
- . , , , - . . , _ . . . _ - -
__
.
e'
. TABLE 9 WELD FILLER METAL CERTIFICATIONS REVIEWED
.
Class / Type Heat / Lot Class / Type Heat / Lot E7010 02T171 E8018-C3 31073 E7018 05P018 E70S-1B 10753 E7018 422 E7018 422C8411 WIZ-18 17921 70S-3 08T936 (1)
E7018 N56871 E705-3 422C3841(5),(3)
E7018 642818 E70S-3 432C1271(2),(3)
E7018 77061 E70T-1 99776K3 E309-15 06411 . E70T-1 48177A3 E309-15 109-2000 E70T-1 94025
.
E309-15 107-3070 E70T-1 6777Al E309-15 H-92033 E70T-1 6277Al E309-15 WO6438 ER309 713920
'
E308-15 106-3090 ER309 T5636 ,
E308-15 T-9779 ER308 7-41227 E308-15 12783C ER308 346677 E308 15 336266 ER308 56092 E7018 B15758 Notes: The TVA PF-1019, Revision 2, specification requires mechanical test data after post-beld heat treatment (PWHT). The record shows no test data for yield strength and reduction of area of the materia (IFI 327, 328/86-33-08)
. TVA specification requires 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> PWHT and the. record shows that the material was PWRT for 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> onl .
i The record shows tensile test values to be less than those specified by i the ASME SFA 5.18 specification. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-08)
-29-
^
._ _ _ _ . . _
___
- . _ __ _ _ _ _
.
.
n'
y s
,
TABLE 10 BASE MATERIALS CERTIFICATIONS REVIEWS Mark / Heat Numbers Product Form 277XP4 Valve Bodies 277XPI Valve Bodies 235-YPB Valve Bodies 9212 Valve Bodies 6336 Valve Bodies 72491 Square Tubing 12420 Square Tubing 171K485 Structural Beams 70926 Structural Channels 67976 Structural Channels 66714 Structural Channels 72157 Structural Channels 72134 Structural Channels 67272 Structural Beams 71930 Structural Beams 53124 Tube Steel 76800 Tube Steel 72107 Tube Steel 77927 Tube Steel 63006 Tube Steel 43600 Tube Steel 63006 Tube Steel 6413 Angle Iron
. 4066 Angle Iron 7662 Angle Iron -
16733 Tube Steel
'
. 67625 Tube Steel 12601 Tube Steel H04140 Structural Shapes J07016 Structural Shapes 38704 Plate J07017 Structural Shapes M6362 Piping Material i
481053 Piping Material 433392 Piping Material 481053 Piping Material P53761 Piping Material 455145 Piping Material W6154 Piping Material '
N9883 Piping Material 666BB Piping Material i F456 Piping Material
! L84432 Piping Material 746962B Piping Material 131403 Piping Material N50819 Piping Material 72C54-76081 Structural Shapes (1)
s
!
-30-
_-. . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - , _ - - -.
. -
_
.
e- ,
, TABLE 10 BASE. MATERIALS CERTIFICATIONS REVIEWS (Continued)
.
Mark / Heat Numbers Product Form C Pipe Materials DCW Pipe Materials 804X Pipe Materials
, 844X Pipe Materials N1015 Pipe Materials SDLW Pipe Materials SDLT Pipe Materials ZA Pipe Materials VWO Pipe Materials ,
433780 Pipe Materials N-73876 Pipe Materials L61405 Pipe Materials 330431 Pipe Matsrials L65518 Pip.e Materials N95388 -
Pipe Materiais UM3X Pioe Materials L65518 Pipe Materials 4BLD Pipe Materials 01514 Pipe Materials AFR Dipe Materials '
TW-67-333 Round Stock 2TW-67-393 Round Stock '
2TW-67-497 Round Stock Note: The recorded tensile strength was below the required minimum strength for the material. (IFI 327, 328/86-33-09)
i _
'
i
.
I
.
-31- _
l
__ _ _- .. . . . . ._ ___ ... .--- .
_
.
n'
- TABLE 11 ENGINEERING CALCULATICNS REVIEWED TVA Item N Description Notes
'
Pipe Support 2 Duct Support 1, 2 3 Conduit Support 1 4 Duct Support 1 5 Pipe Support- 1 6 Conduit Support 1 7 Pipe Support 8 Pipe Support 3 9 Pipe Support 3, 4 11 Cable Tray Support 1
'
12 Duct Support 1, 3 13 Cable Tray Support 14 Cable Tray Support 5 15 Instrument Support 16 Pipe Support 17 Pipe Support 4 18 Protection Barrier 1 19 Pipe Support 4 20 Pipe Support 21 Cable Tray Support 4 22 Pipe Support 4 23 Pipe Support 24 Duct Support 25 Pipe Support 26 Pipe Support 2 27 Pipe Support 2, 6 28 Conduit Support -
29 Box Anchor 31 Platform 2 1A Instrument Support 7 2A Instrument Support 7 3A Instrument Panel 7 4A Instrument Support 7 5A Instrument Support 7 6A Instrument Support 7 7A Pipe Support 7 8A Instrument Support 7
'
,
9A Conduit Support 7 10A Conduit Support 7 11A Electric Equipment 7 12A Conduit Support - 7 AIS Duct Support 7 i
I i
'
-32-
,
.- , , , _ ~ ~ - - .. , _ . . _
__ __ _ _
. '
e ,
. TABLE 11 ENGINEr71NG CALCULATIONS REVIEWED (Continued) '
.
Notes:
. Design loads not shown for some weld . Calculation errors were foun . Further engineering evaluation is neede . Missing or vague sketches for some weld . Weld sizes not shown for some weld . No calculations were provided for some weld . The calculations for these supports were not included in the original submittal and were not reviewed by the NRC welding team during this inspection. The NRC is planning to review these calculations for accuracy.
,
f r
s a
!
-
!
-33-
. - - . . - , - , - - , - - - - , .-- ._._,,a ,-y.-.-. - - _ _ , . . . , , , ,
e r
,
.
V. PERSON CONTACTED AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED - Persons Contacted
.
1.icensee Employees:
H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director P. R. Wallace, Plant Manager L. E. Martin, Project Manager C. W. Hatmaker, Welding Project S. P. Stagnolia, Project Engineer D. H. Mickler, Coordinator G. J. Pitzl, Welding Project
. G. L. Wade, Welding Project R. H. Shell, Manager Nuclear Licensing R. M. Jessee, Welding Project J. H. Fox, Supervisor Welding and Material Section R. Hoekstra, Welding Project R. A. Montgomery, Welding Project NRC Resident Inspector:
K. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspector L. Watson, Resident Inspector P. Harmon, Resident Inspector Documents Reviewed MI-6.17A R3, Instructions for the Implementation of Isometric Walkdown MI-6.17C R1, Procedure for the Implementation of NRC IE Bulletin 79-14 Requirements for Unit 1 Alternately Analyzed, Safety-Related Piping, 2 Diameter and Larger SNP Inspection Instruction No. 05, Piping and Supports Walkdown Procedure SNP Construction Procedure No. M-20, Pipe Support Installation and Documentation SNP Construction Procedure No. P-47, Pipe and Pipe Mcnger Analysis Drawing Walkdown Inspection SNP Inspection Instruction No. 75, Visual Examination of Weld Joints ,
- ,
SNP Inspection Instruction No. 66, Inspection of Supports Process Specification 1.C.1.2(a), General Welding Procedure Specification
'
Welding Modifications Letter Dated 7/29/75, Basic Engineers to TVA
, -34-
<
.
?
.
Construction Procedure I-5, " Fabrication, Installation and Inspec-
. tion of' Seismic Instrumentation Line Supports and Wall-Mounted I Panels Construction Procedure W-3, "We'ld Procedure Assignment and Welding Suiveillance"
'
Construction Specification N2G-877. " Identification of Structures, Systems and Components Covered by the Sequoyah Nucle'ar Plant Quality Assurance Pregram" Construction Specification N2M-865, " Field Fabrication, Assembly, Examination, and Tests for Pipe and Duct Systems" General Construction Specification G-29, " Process Specification ,
for Welding, Heat Treatment, Nondestructive Examination, and Allied Field Fabrication Ooerations" Liquid Penetrant Examination N-PT-1 Revision 6 Frocerss Specification 0.C.1.1, " Specification for Welding of Structures Fabricated in Accordance with AISC Requirements for Buildings" Process Specification ?,0.5.1, " Visual Examination of Welds" (D1.0-69)
Process Specification 3.C.5.2, " Visual Examination of Welds" (01.1)
Special Maintenance Instruction SMI-0-317-24 Revision 1 Approved January 17, 1986, " Reinspect. ion of Selected Welds as Part of Weld Projects Evaluation" Visual Examination N-VT-3 Revision 4 P-30 - Fabrication and Installation of Seismic Supports W-2 - Welder and Welding Operator Performance Qualification W-3 - Welding Surveillance and Weld Procedure Assignment
,
M-23 - Fabrication, Installation and Inspection of Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Duct Supports M 27 - Fabrication Installation and Cleanliness Requirements for Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Duct Systama G-1 - Fabrication and Installation of Seismic Supports Purchase Specification PF-1012, Purchase Specification for Carbon Steel Covered Electrodes t-35-
~
' - '