IR 05000341/1985038

Insp Rept 50-341/85-38 on 850625-27.Violation Noted:Failure to Control Special Processes for Cable Trays & Supports

ML20129A899
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	07/10/1985
From:	Danielson D, Jeffrey Jacobson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20129A853	List: IR 05000341/1985038 ML20129A848 ML20129A873
References
50-341-85-38, NUDOCS 8507150408
Download: ML20129A899 (3)

Text

~ _

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No: .50-341/85038(DRS)

Docket No: 50-341 License No: NPF-33 Licensee: The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48224 Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Enrico Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, MI Inspection'C ndu : ne 25-27, 1985 Inspect : .J obson 7/'Ok Date ob7fb nst.LC W 7 /e!#C Approved By: .D. H. Danielson, Chief Materials and Processes Section Date Inspection Summary e

Inspection Areas on June Ins)ected: 25-2L 1985 ,(Report No. 50-341/85038_(~DRSJ)ldingprocedur

-

~DFainouiice~d,'specTaTTnspection tFi~evlew we used by t1e electrical contractor for cable trays and supports. This inspection involved a total of 16 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure

.to control special processes - Paragraph 2.a).

hk G

D

.

.

DETAILS 1. P_ersons Contacted Detroit Edison Company

• Jens, Vice President, Nuclear Operations-

.L. Bregni, Licensing Engineer

• J. Mullens, Welding Engineer

• J..Conen, Licensing Engineer

• G. Trahey, Director, Nuclear Quality Assurance

• J. Rotondo, Supervis.cr, Quality Control

• Denotes those~ attending the exit meeting on June 27, 1985.

2. _ Review o_f__L.__K_.Com_s_t_o,c_k_We_lding Procedures

_

_

_

A comprehensive review of all welding procedures used for fabrication and installation of cable trays and supports was performed. The procedures -

and revisions reviewed are as follows: Procedure 000-03001, revisions dated September 27, 1982; June 16, 1981; April 11,1980; April 27,1979; October 18, 1978; and February 22, 1977, do not address the progression for vertical welding nor the single pass / fillet size requirements of AWS D1.1-75 (the applicable welding code). The AWS code allows the use of certain welding procedures without having to perfonn a qualification test, provided all stated requirements are me The "prequalified" fillet weld procedure requires that a specific size fillet be applied dependent material thickness, and that it'be acccaplished in a single pass thus controlling heat input. Failure to observe heat input requirements may result in weld crackin All revisions of this procedure fail to incorporate this requiremen The AWS code further requires that the progression of vertical welding be in the upward direction. Again all revisions fail to incorporate this requiremen Since these procedures claim to be "prequalified" yet do not incorporate all requirements, they require a qualification in accordance with AWS D Failure to properly qualify this welding procedure in accordance with-AWS D1.1 code requirements is a violation of10CFR50,AppendixB,CriterionIX(341/85038-01(DRS)). Procedure 000-03-04 dated May 20, 1980 was reviewed and found to be acceptabl . Review of Beam 5028 Weld Repair Beam 502B is a radial box beam which required repairs for linear indications identified during magnetic particle examination. The repair was attempted, however, linear indications remained under an attachment for a pipe whip restraint. S&L was asked to analyze the beam with the

-

.

,

linear indications present and recommend a solution. The analysis shcwed that.a modification consisting of an additional reinforcing plate would.be acceptable. This is considered an open item pending NRC review of the S&L analysis (341/85038-02(DRS)).

4. Open Item Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph . Exit Interview The inspector met with representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector sunmarized the scope and findings of the inspections noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar <

J T

.