'

[ TUA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-17-SQN f

SPECIAL PROGRAM

REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1

TITLE: Vendor Weld Quality

REASON FOR REVISION: Added additional infortnation based on NRC conunents.I

:

|PREPARATION ;

PREPARED BY:

Originni signed by E. R. Schofield 7/20/87SIGNATURE DATE

I

|

REVIEWS

PEER:

Original signed by J. E. Rose 7/20/87SIGNATURE DATE

TAS:p i

0 (A> C 7 87#

SIGNATU$ / [ ATECONCURRENCES ]

|,

CEG-H:f., ,,,.) T 8nm n- ye -p 9 .;

1SRP: O ps,n r ;/ tv C -y'~~ 77 9 27-77SIGNATURE DATE / SIGNATUREf'// DATE j-

APPROVED BY:

1*28*bT N/AwaECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NU'' LEAR POWER DATE -

3

CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

*SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.4

5957T :1

f

8708110200 070730PDR ADOCK 05000327P PDR

_ - .

__--____________j_

_

-,,

.

WELDINO PROJEO~

IGENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN I

EVALUATICF REPORT I

REPORT NUMBER: WP-27-SON, R1

'

DATE 07-10-87|

SUBJECT: VENDOP WELD OUALT"'Y|

| |1 |

|

CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-127-001 |

*IN-85-007-003 |

IN-85-057-001 |

*SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATED BY NSRS IN REPORT I-85-753-WBN |

l

ed E. # T N o DI/A 7-f(: 'E7 00, WPPREPARED BY ,

~

f

] b 00, WPREVIEWED BY b- % ,

.

RETIRED BY QA, WP,

REVIE'JED BY CEG-H, WELDING,

AFPROVRD BY PROGRtd MANAGER. . .

-

Revision 1 added additional inf ernation based. on US ITitC comitments.. -

e

4

00360

4

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ __

.

..-

,

.

CENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN

SUMMARY SHEET

Keport Number: WP-17-S0t!. F1_

Report Title: VENDOR WELD OUALITY_|

1

|

I. CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-127-001*IN-85-007-003

IN-85-657-001 1

f*Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBNAttachment 2)

.

II. ISSUES INVOLVED \

Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.1.

Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.2.

III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY

Validity: Y I ,N , Substantial <,d: Y I ,N .

IV. EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM

None <

V. JUSTIFICATION (i

Vendor welds and equipment are inspected against contractrequirements.

RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDEDVI.

None

VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N I .

,

VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE. -

By this report.

II. ATTACHMENT

1. Text of Employee Concerns*

NSRS Investigation Report - I-85-753-WBN2.

Page 1 of 1 ;

)!00360Ii

.b.

i.

.-

d

1'

.

,

1

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERNj

Report Number: WP-17-SON. R1

1

I

iReport Titic' VENDOR WELD OUALITY

I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION

This engineering analysis covers the following WBN concerns determinedtc. have possible generic ir.plications at SQN:

IN-85-127-001| *IN-85-007-003|

IN-85-657-001

*Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBN (Attachment 2)

II. ISSUES ADDRESSED BY CONCERNS

Each concern was analyzed to determine the issues voiced by theconcerned individuals. These issues are as follows:

)

Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.1.

2. Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.

III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION

NSES has investigated and substantiated the general condition of vendorwelds as they relate to WBN in Report I-85-753-WBN for E=ployee Concern

The conclusions of this report which are WBN-specific areIN-85-007.also applicable to SQN. These conclusions are as follows:

The employee concerns are substantiated as they relate to the1.observed general condition of vendor welds.

A similar problem had been identified, reported, documented, and2.disporitioned -in accordance with applicable QA program requirementsat WBN.

Due to the general nature of the concerns and issues voiced by the_seconcerns, the conclusions are applicable to vendor welds in general.

,

page 1 of 2

00360

- -__-_ ____--_-_-_ - - ___-___ _

*

. . .

.

WP-17-SQN, R1

TVA invokes technical and quality assurance requirements in contractsfor vendor-supplied materials and equipment by reference to industry

These contracts are reviewed to assure that required technicalcodes.standards.and quality assurance requirements are included. Many timesthe governing codes and standards that control vendor weld quality haverequirements Which are less stringent than the TVA constructionstandards in Process Specifications G-29M or G-29C which contain welding

Vendor-supplied materialsquality requirements of ASME, ANS1, and AWS.and equipment may be source inspected by TVA prior to shipment orshipped without TVA inspection from vendor facilities. This program isoutlined in the OC and NO QA Programs, as applicable. When sourceinspection is required, it is performed by TVA Vendor Surveillancepersonnel to determine compliance with code, standard, and contract

Items not required to be source inspected are inspectedrequirements.when they are received et the site to determine compliance with code,standard, and contract requirements.

Additionally, for concerns IN-85-127-001 (Bergen-Patterson) and 1N-85-657-001|(YUBA) based on reviews of Procurement Quality Assurance Branch (PQAB) contract

listings and discussions with the Procurement Branch neither Bergen-Patterson or |'

YUBA were awarded contracts for SQN construction cotoponents.l

In summary, both the field and vendor welds are required to meetapplicable code requirements. TVA field welds are visually inspected to 4

a more conservative interpretation of code requirements relating to i

visual weld attributes. The final appearance of TVA field welds isgenerally superior to vendor-supplied equipment.

The issue concerning vendor welds not being inspected is notsubstantiated due to the vendor surveillance program and receiptinspection programs.

The effect on the hardware is of no consequence because the materialsand equipment are inspected in accordance with contract requirements.

.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the issues considered in these concernsare closed.

!

|

I

- -

i

.

Page 2 of 2

00360

- .- _-___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. ..

- Attachment' 1D3/29/05 (CMPLOYEE CONCERNS) PAGE 1 of 1:11:4D:58 -

LOC STATUS RESP -CIC- 'PPP CFR ItJSP TC ------CONCERN------- PRDELEM-.__ ______ ____ _____ ___ ___ ____ __ 3a,'

355 ,EGLG GD NR, IN-55-127-DD1 - -tJCr1UW-,

,::. f WORDS : UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES.' X: W Y: C E: Ni|

''

INCONSISTENCY IN CRITERIA USED FOR UELD INSPECTION OF EER3EN-PATERSON AND TUAHANGER WELDS. E.P. WELDS LDDR BAD, WHILE SETTER LOOKING TVA WELDS ARE REJECTEDFOR CDSt1 ETIC REASONS. HANGER FAB SHOP. LCCATED AT SOUTH EAST CDRNER OF TUREINE{ELDE., HAS SINS FULL OF E.P. HANGER PARTS WHICH EXEMPLIFIES THIS CONCERN. CIDOES I!OT Nfl0U SPECIFIC HaflGER tt 'S OR AREAS Ill THE PLaflT UHERE THIS CONDITIDilEXISTS. '

'' ' ' " '

TECHNICAL CDt1MENTARY: ",''

ISSUE CONSIDERED: UENDOR WELDS ARE iP OF THE SAME DUALITY AS TVA FIELD WELDS.jLOC STATUS RESP -DTC- PPP CF t: INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PRDELEM

to |____ ______ ____ _____ ___ ___ ____ __ _

753 N5RS JD -

SR IN-55-DD7-DD3 WCMUW!

I'EYUDRDS: UErlDDR UELD DUALITY NONSPECIFIC N: W Y: C 2: N!.

GEt!ERAL LDDK DUER UENDOR WELDS SHOULD EE PERFORMED. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT IN- iSPECTED AT WBNP 1 DR 2. THEY ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FRDM FIELD WELDS EECAU$OF THE EAD DUALITY OF THE VENDOR WELDS. UENDDP. WELDS WOULD NOT PASE THE SAME I

ACCEPTANCE -

_tJSP RPTH I-BS-753-WBN)- .

'

(NICAL CDMMENTARY:.

ISSUE CONSIDERED: 1. UENDOR UELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED IN THE FIELD.2. UENDOR UELDS ARE NOT OF.THE SAME DUALITY AS TVA FIELD WELLDC STATUS RESP -DTC- PPP * CTR . INSP ' TC ------CDNCERN------ PRDELEMj.

IDJD NR IN-55-557-001 UCMUW, *

KEYUDRDS: UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES -['

X: U Y: C 2: N1

SEVERAL UENDDR WELDS HAVE SEEN INSTALLED IN THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF POWER HOU$UNIT 1 & 2 WHICH DID NO2 MET _I THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA C5-25 M) DF TUA WELDING!

SPECIFICATIONS. AS AN EXAMPLE: HEATER C1 LOCATED AT T15 & G LINE ELEU 709'-D" '

TURSINE EUILDING.~NAME OF UENDOR: YUBA, HEAT. TRANSFER CORP. CDNSTRUCTIDN DEPTCONCERN. CI HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION." "

.-,

TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:' '

-- - -

.

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

a

,.

(,.. ... . .

.

' .'. , -( r , . J. ', . .-,,.' '' '

I. -

,' ;

. , .. ,- <. t:.

.,

I'

,e.

_. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

(ttachment- AR_ ~j ~ A - MN~"'

' *1 -" ' ' ' ' * * * * ' page 1 o( 8 FILE CO.W.

UNITCD STATES COVERNLIONT

h[C7710TdM d um'

TENNESSEE VMEY AUTHOPyY - ls|..

|

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

To :

Page 1 of 8 - - - -

K. W. 'hitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-Krno31 :

F

' J A N 141986 lonc =

REPORTS SUBMITTAL FOR " NUCLEAR SATITY UPDATE" |3gg;gg7,

-

Attached is one copy each of the following final reports of investiga-tion or evaluation of' employee concerns for your use, summarization, '

and publication in Nuclear Safety Update. All'1iave been reviewed andaccepted by NSRS. ,

*-

Investigation InvestigationConcern No. Performed by Concern No. Performed by-

IN-85-001-005 NSRS

IN-85-007-003 NSRS -

IN-85-278-002 NSRS.

i; - Di-85-955-001 NSRS

IN-86-064-001 NSRS <.

.

IN-86-2 00-003 NSRS

IN-86-221-001 NSRS '. , .

s. .

*D7-8 6-3 05-002 NSRS- "

PH-85-038-001 NSRS

-. _

. - - - ..

/.

_

-o..

- .

#/r .

f K. W. WnittAttachments f

Please acknowledge receipt by signing, copying, and returning thistransmittal form to J. T.'Huffstetler at E3B37 C-E.

'

.

.

( o- .

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

' ''D. R. Nicho'Is, E10A14 C-K '.

J, QTC /ERT, CONST-k'EN. ' '

* . .

Q. E. K. Sliger, LP6N48A-C '*'

4 J .1

'*

.-

. -

C______________________________.__._____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-___-

l

1

1,

Attachment 1- i*' ~

* o Page 2 of 8. ,. ;

"

u -,

. .. .. -.

m Jl.

~

"-

.

. ..

,.\i ~. a -

1*, ......

-. .

. -),,

.

,.,

I,

TEilNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ,

s., . . .

"

NU:'' LEAR 13ATETY REVIEW STAFF . " '' .. .

)!

. ' . - s-

,,, , . \

NSRS INVESTIGATION REFORT NO. I-85-75~~WBN -l.

3

4..i

i

EMPLOYEE CONCERN 5 I.N-85. OO.1-OO5 AND . I.N-85 ,OC 7-DO3 .-..

*~.~.~,~ .K;, , '.*m r . ..' 1 m, . ,& d, ,".>. ..?.''.'.,. ' .

,

,.

. . . s .?), V

.. v. J, N .+ .u 3,i.&. .. .. s. , j .9 ; .ai . . .|,,: M, I L E S T O N E6..,.3 :%g E.. ,,p|,t.u'. :.

.; : ,;.' . : .i

. .- .-,

. $s. 3. .

..

:i'3./..%',;://.. .a. ; ' . ., , . .. ; ,

'., . a', :: .

', ,'l . " . :1,'

;; . . -. . Pv

- . . . ,.

\' ' .J . .. . ..- .+:

', , < . ,4-

', a -..

3.R: . v;, ..,. . . .,

. . . . .g.;. j ;< g., :1. ff. . ,',',- .'

;.<>.,v........

-

,, . ....-t,,.>. . . . .

..a. . . , . - . -. . - , ", ,. .s :,. '

. ... , , . , . J .;

l, - , ' , ' ,-.

- .v . -*,.

is' --

4 *+ . .f *T, s*

,-* s

'" " '

VENDOR' WELDING'EUEJE T: - . , .''. :f, ,( ,,s.'

.

>.e - ,. . . .-. 1: - -.:. ',

- '

DATEE OF INVESTIGATION: Novemoer'12,' ICE 5 T7, p'. ,

*2 .r,

5'gi '. '..

~b ' '/ / ~ -

INVESTIGATOR: . W L/- - . ----'

.- .--------

' " ;;Date '

i.. . .-- J. C. Cat 1in

.>

. .

..,. .g . s'. i9 I . , ,. .# 6. * *- . , q.*

. . . f !.~. *;

~.9*

.,.4,,. - . . 1. . .a.:. -. . , . . , . *: _f~ ~

. ;.0*"'( JEWED BY:

. d..~~ ~ ~ ~ D2te i-.

.

d~' O. DISEEh. .' s u. .e .1,

.1 . ,

.. o~. . . , . ,.

." - s,., ; .

h-^ /D * ' .' l[ )-

AFFROVED BY: V *J. .

Dateft A. Har r.i .s on . > ,.. \.

. ol.. . u . . .p- i[y .. , .-

s .+, {. . ., ,. .,.. ,,

,*i I

* - . - s- , , ., . .+.i . . - 4 ,1' . '

{' g.*.

. ,, , I* ite-

,6" * / (' ( , .* , ,|,i

J .,i - ., ,.- ,

''.|. .I-

, , . . ' , ~ .e *

1'P , |c,, (

8'' i . ,

.-. ''

.

. ,,,,;. .' ',' I $[ r .J i k <', .i. . .

* *|5,

-' *, ,

.

''

?; .u, a ',. ;.

.. '.. . . . . . ,

' f, .J .' t , . W),; ei

! .j:-. . . - . . ._.

* .'"

,,..g, .2.. a,

t. 3 ; , *

_ . . .7 ,

., d,,-.i .s..,.., , . _ _* e o ~ ~ ^ - ,.<

* ' , , --.--s--:--

}..- ;, . ,

, , , , . . - . . .-,

'

4' f g y- *h -

j. 4'.; , * -t',.-

, -C'..-. . , ,.

t-.%- , *,

6 e - k,

.,,

,ee ,

Een,

y4el'

f

e

I l'

!,

,

f ., |.-g

. - )9 . f f. 8'

i 8, . ,s'. | s. *'

. %. ,

,,{. ' ' .

\ ..,.. * ,

' . * . , * ' ,. . , , . ),*" ,,

. - . o , .e,of I,g, .e , *

.6

0]Attaenment

( Page 3 of 6.

( - *'*

-c

*. ;.

.a ...

1 g, -

. w. -.

***- J~

%. BACKGROUND ,

investigation regarding tero' emclovee honcerns heceivaNERS conducted anby Duality Technology Comcany (UTC).- Concern IN-E5-OO1-COS received oh.

October 15, 1985 stated: "Vencor. welds were bought off even though Ehc:

e::hi b i t e d 'shoddv wer kmanshi c ' . "The allegation was nonspecific. -

10. loS5 stated: " Gen er.al look ov:IN-25-OO7-OOO received June i

shoul d be perf ormed. "^ ' Vendor.:wel ds are n"ot inspected atConcernvencor welds because:are easily distinguishable f rom field weldsWBNP 1 or 2. They

|cf the bad quality of the vendor welds. LVendor welds .tould not pass tThi s all egation was al so nonspeci fi c. During.

."same acceptance. investigation ,a simi,lar concern was noted: 1.e.,..

the course of the Office of-This concern had'been, investigated by theI

, . IN-85-372-OO1.,

, f .s b y,. QTC. ,' d y.M,7'? . . .-

,; r..; .s.SI,gs v;.".4,m|.y - .N_,,

',, Construction and closed out'M.; c.. w ,,

m'- c _. . - . ,a.

}i' H -,

II. SCOPE 1- ;,

investigation included attempts' to find-a more speciff,-

,,

|T'o stoce'of the'

~ e::smol e of the allegation and to track the e:tample to its conclusion.hi

OTC could provide no aeditional information other than to verify that.

f.the concerns were similar to.IN-SS-37,2-OO2.. -

,

<.t . 43 , 3 3. .,.. . '

III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 9 ', ., 3, %. ". C " ,Ph; *.

i|.

.. ,

j,..

.. . j

.- ; A., R,eouirements.and Commitments . . .q. , ,,,-

*

.

The nonsoetific nature of the' allegations rendered all requirementh;:h,:Q4 ,.

a.- '7: -

13 and commitments indeterminate. q,;. q

(, ' . , | ' ., ..

:!.

..*m

.

--, , ._- .

.i -B. Findines- '., - . !"

~ * - : j..c. covers as aj:;

Employee Concern.IN-EU-572-OO1 cited manway hatch.

1."

specific example of, substandard vendor welds. . ;

V ! |'

.~ -

i p NCR 6341 was written on September 25, loES which defined the !.

2. ' " Contractor. wel.ds f or stiffener |nonconf orming condition as:

4plates on hatch covers appear to not meet requirements of AWS;D 1.1. Welds appear to be undersited in places 'and have under(

.._.2 _

Ref erence empl oyee . concern IN-85-072-OO1. ". j.

,

- _. - and- 6verl ap.7. ,, __ !. , m ;; - m p,g;,,g;<g g; 3,. ..; , ~. , . .

1985: - - ,q NCRs 6045 and 6345A were written on September 25 and 26,i __ _ ' O._

covering Units 1 and 2,' respectively. ~The nonconforming ,d

of NCR 6341. ;,g , condition noted on the NCRs was similar to that _'

y,.,

A statement was issued on Employee Concern IN-85-372-OO1..whisa

tN4. in part'that 00 agreed that these welds were not of'

;statedcuality e::pected of TVA personnel and that the contractor wel,.

for stiffener plates on these hatch covers did not appear to|AWS D1.1 and also that the Welos t

meet the requirements of,

appeared t6 be undersited in places and have undercut andwere d(

7 '.

overleo. These were structural attachment welds'whichand. therefore, thet:, part of the reactor primary containment;',"(- did not rec;uire a l eak ti ghtness test.,,,

., ;> v. :. . , . .. ..

-,

, . three NCRs by.Encineerino was to "use as d.

Di sposition of all5., *

in accordance with memorandum E06 E51018 007.. ,

,.

h____._.______.__.________. _ _ -. - -

_-

Attachment 1** Page 4 of 8, ,

, oli =|

-*4j 4 f.

CDrCLUSIO*E AND F:ECOMMENDATICNS._ ..

~.

-

,

A. k"o_n _C _3 _u _T _* O_n _T,. ,

' *

_ _' + w ,

, . . ' -,.

1. The ob,j ecti '. e evi dence of a similar emplovee concern_

.

sut st anti c.t e d the observed allegation of both conCEfned'

i ndi vi dual s (C ). . . . .

- . . .. >,_,..

... .

| C. A typical case of a similar problem had been identified,,

l

reported, and documented in.accordance with applicableprocedures. Di sp osi ti on was to."use as i s. ";.

Specific conclusions regarding these nonspeci Fic allegations, , ,.could not be reached. .

..

. . . , _ ~ , ' .. , .w d". i. ,zw. .-= 'a '' , .- '

;,s:,3 - . ,o r-- .

.

. ' ,. . ,

',,n ~,,

. ... . .

, , , ,E. F e.r.cmm_a n.d a.t__i o_n__s-

,,

. ._ . _ .

I-

',|.f.: None.'

,

. .i' . , , , , )-

6 .

,. .. ..,, ..1

8 . , , , , , , , , . .

.|

,:, .f .- ,

|

.g ' , ,,

. ,

. . - ,,

. *,

'.

. . . , ,

c;,,- .,- ..

, c 'e, -, ,,

. . . . . . .

... ..e....3 . >... |

g, . -.

. e. f'w [, .

;

e ..:- e. .3. . j,e.

i. ~.

* ,

s '

'4,

.

. - ..,.. . . , , . . 'o;- '

..

.. , ,, .s e a.f.. . - , r ._ . . .

, ..- : . e.

..y . :>

. '. ,' .-

. ., .ij i; . ; - **

. - .

|% y

' ,. . ,-

. .i $.

.

,

E

,- .* * '' ^[ ,~ * , g

,----*:"*;- - * ' , , g, ,,".,, ' ],,q.4 ) d ' g5, hof; '. ,,. - - . . - - - - - - - - , _ , , , , , . . , _ . , . - . ~ .

.n., , y.p i 1 . * * ; ,'] *

. .- .. , g . ; .. n . .- it

,? ; . . 6. . e ** *e

, ,, . %. . e, ; ; g.. *

. . , ,.

.. ._ - - - - - _ _ . e._. . ' . .! , ;. .! I i ,f "U, ,M,(E M .-....4...'

-

f ; ''.

. .*

. , 7 ,, g.. g.. ,

..\*..

,..

.. -*.| 2 , a

. ' ,' -s .,,

li; -,

.s,g.,..

. . .

. . . ,

I !

e.1'g l 8"

',. (

a

$ k'

.I

*e

9

e

9 .|,'

.*f

p* *

If . ' 89 Si'o s. .*,

* *.

P

S

a

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ___ _ _

Attacament 1.

Page of B {C ]

,

' '

~

A.. -

j

- ;..

I,*

.

- ,\~

EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISPOSITION REPORT|t

CONCERN NO. IN-85-OO1-005

DATE OF PREPARATION: 1-9-86 1

1

)

CONCERN: Vendor welds were bought off even though they exhibited j

" shoddy workmanship". ||

.

l11

.

INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY: TVA NSRS

FINDING (S): See investigation report.

J'

.

.

(*v. a

i. ,

|

~

|CORRECTIVE ACTION (S): Similar problem was identified,, reported anddocumented in accordance with applicable procedures. Disposition was j

3

to "use as is"..

_ .

*- . - - - . . - - - . . -- -=__

-_ ._. . _ . _ .

,,

- - - -

_ , _ _ _

.

-. .. - - - -

..

~~

; CLOSURE STATEMENT: This concern was substantiated._

,

(. .- ERT. Form Q''

< .

,.

'6. ,

- -- - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

, . .

, ( _

'. ' ~ [ Attachtnent1

hb-, . Page of 8'

--

' -

A.. ,-

i.

.

EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST~

..~

To: Director - NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUttBER T50011. IERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has

'

assigned the indicated category and priority ,gjd;,,

priority: 1.

Concern # IN-85-007-003Category: 05 Confidentiality: YES _NO (I L H)Supervisor Notified: YES X NO NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED YES -Concern: GENERAL LOOK OVER VENDOR WELDS SHOULD BE PERFORMED.VENDOR WELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED AT WBNP 1 OR 2. THEY ARE EASILYDISTINGUISHABLE FROM FIELD WELDS BECAUSE OF THE BAD QUALITY OF THE

,'

VENDOR WELDS.VENDOR WELDS WOULD NOT PASS THE SAME ACCEPTANCE

;..6'

Q.4,-

4 .:... ' ' _y:

, .i. . . .

._

'

..

!~

i

, s.*

. 2

.

<.

-<

_. . .>/ -

.

..

, ::--

., ' G

- -~" ~

q., .,

I ' MANAGER,.ERT DATE ~:- -t. - ..

I.s

I NSRS has assigned responsibility fo.r investigation of the above-.

! concern to: ,

I-:

ERT e, ,

! NSRS/ERT / g gggNSRS. I g //|/f/{T |L_ f .

.'

OTHERS (SPECIFYi)' _ * lli -~ ~W

Y W.-.

f

-- _ -____

~

Attachment 1

. c (-1are 7 of 8

--.

'

:::ren =

' ''

|mas .

.

.

~'

REQUEST FOR REpDRTABILITY EVALUATION

1. Request No. _IN-85-OO3-OO5'

(ERT Concern No.) (ID No. , if reported).

2. Identification of Item Involved: VENDOR WELDS ,, _

(Nomenclature, system, manuf.,8N,Model, etc.) ,

t 3. Description of Problem (Attach related documents, photos, |

I sketches,etc.) ,

SHODDY jVENDOR WELDS WERE POUGHT OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY EXHTBTTED _

1

WORKMANSHIP.

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

A. This design or construction deficiency, were it to haveremained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safetyof operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughoutthe expected lifetime of the plant.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

1

.. |DND

B. This deficiency represents a significant breakdown in any l*'

portion of thn- quality assurance program conducted inaccordance with the requirements of Appendix B.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:1- ..

.

-

!

DR~ -

C. This deficiency represents a significant deficiency in finaldesign as approved and released for construction such that thedesign does not conform to the criteria bases stated in thesafety analysis yeport or construction permit.

'

No X Yes- If Yes, Explain:

g.t e I

p

*g |,,* ,

,

e

ERT Form M

_ _ _ _ _

. .. . .. .. . .... . _ _ _ - _ . .. . --__- _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ . - - . .

.

( ('*

-..

.

At taciunctit 2 .W;f .*} T 5

''Page 8 of 8

&- fV vu .u LI:3s

Il

' REQUEST'FOR'' DEPORTABILITY EVALUATIONl

. . , , . ,_. . . .. .

D. This deficiency ' represents a significant deficiency in l

1| construction of or significant damage to a structure, system or*

j component which will require-extensive evaluation, extensiveI redesign, or extensive repair t o 'rneet the criteria and bases j

| stated in the safety analysis report'or construction permit or |

! to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, j-or component to perform its intended safety function. l

. Nc% X_,_Yes. . a a.I f.-.Yes,... Ex p l a i n : . . - - jl

|

|0,_ R ]

E. .This deficiency . represents.a significant deviation from thei

performance ' specifications 'which will require extensiveevaluation, extensive redesign, or -extensive repair toestablish the adequacy of the structure, system, or componentto perform its' intended'-safety function.

[ No __X Yes _ If Yes,. Explain:,,,

N i

.. .-

. . . . .

.

IF ITEM 4A, AND 4B OR AC OR 4D OR 4E ARE MARKED "YES", IMMEDIATELY jHAND-CARRY.THIS.. REQUEST...AND. SUPPORTING.. DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS. i

)|,

This Condition was Identifi d -by : hl he-

ERT Group Manager!

&_ .

. / ERT. Pro,)ect. Manageri

Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS_

{4,

t

O3egg _A. Date TimeSigned / .- .

|!

i!

ERT Form M j>

i-

|_ __- a