IR 05000389/1981012
| ML20030D429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | Coley J, Economos N, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D428 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-389-81-12, NUDOCS 8109010381 | |
| Download: ML20030D429 (4) | |
Text
a o#
%r c
o UNITED STATES
/
di NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
h U
REGION 11 R
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Raport No. 50-389/81-12 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
St. Lucie
,
Docket No. 50-389 License No. CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Luc'e Site ear Fort 'erce, Florida Inspectorsi
>>
FxcM77M 7 eff
/
,,
N. Ecorfodios
-
(
Wa/igned7/6/
/ Date M
@kk
'
-.n J.
ley
\\
Dat(figned 7/07/8/
Approved by:
- /
'
.
A. R. Herdt, Sect ; 3n Chief
'Dath Signed l
Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on July 6-9, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection invo;ved 54 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of radiographic review of primary loop welds before and after weld repairs
.
resulting from preservice inspection findings.
Results No violations or deviations were identified.
!
-
8109010381 810806'
PDR ADOCK 05000389
.
.,
..
.. -
- - -
. - - - -
. - - -. -. - _ - - - -
-- - _ _ - -.
.
.
-...
. -..._ -
._.
,
l/
,
.!
1
REPORT DETAILS j
1.
Persons Contacted e
j Licensee Employees
- B. ~J. Escue, Site Manager
,
i
- W. M. Hayward, Supervising QA Engineer l
- A. E. Siebe, QA Manager
- N. T. Weems, QA Engineer
,
i D. Behres, Area QC Supervisor, Mechanical j
- K. V. Smart, QC Level III Examiner
- J. L. Parker, Project QC Supervisor
- E. O. Poarch, Services Superintendent
,
- E. Sherman, QA Engineer
'
- J. W. Adams, QA Engineer
- P. W. Heycock, Pre Service Inspection Engineer Other Organizations
- R. W. Zaist, Project Superintendent, Ebasco Services, Inc.
NRC Resident Inspector
- S. A. El rod
- Attended exit interview.
,
,
2.
Exit Interview
,
l The inspection scope and findings were summarized"on July 9,1981 with those
.
persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspectors described the areas J
inspected and discussed in detail the. inspection findings. discussed below.
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items l
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
$
5.
Review of Primary Loop Weld Radiograohs - Before and After Baseline Inspec-tion.
This inspection was performed in order to review welds which were initially accepted by radiographic inspection under ASME Section III requirements and later rejected by ultrasonic inspection performed as per ASME Section XI'
.
.- -
-
-
. -.
-..
.
. -. _. -. -.
. - - _
...
-. -
- -
e'
>
,
1 requirements. Discussions and interviews with cognizant licensee personnel disclosed that tne UT examination (btseline) identified rejectable indica-tions in eight of the 28 loop welds inspected. Judging from the information
j on available reader sheets, weld repair reports (WRR) and rad'ographs, the
,
indications which were not evident on the code required radiographs were
j interpreted by the licensee to be for tha most part, lack of fusion (LOF).
i Discussions with licensee personnel disclosed that'all main loop welds were fabricated with the automatic gas tur.jsten arc (TIG) process which has a i
tendency to produce such defects.
It is this type of defect (LOF), that
f could go undetected by RT depending on defect size, location, orientation and weld thickness.
In response to further questioning concerning in process information type radiography, used i detect these and other fabri-
'
cation type defects, the licensee represencat1.e stated that after in i
process radiography showed the first two welds to be defect free, management i
decided to discontinue this practice and radiograph the welds after fabrica-
.;
tion.
Observation of repair work and review of related QA/QC records was discussed in IE Report 50-389/81-10.
d The eight welds repaired on
.I e basis of rejectable UT (baseline) indica-tions were as follows:
.!
WELD NO CONDITION STATUS
!
112-01 10" LOF, WRR #4205 Repair Complete
- 112-04 2A1 Coolant Pump Weld; Repair of base metal
!
base metal discontinu-in progress
!
i ti e s.~ No weld repair
.
required
,
i 115-03 3" LOF/ Slag, WRR #3999 Repair Complete 115-06 5 " LOF, WRR #4269 Repair Complete j
'
121-02 3" LiOF, WRR #3999 Repair Complete i
.
i 101-03 23" LOF/ Slag WRR #4282 Repair in Progress i
124-01 3-5 " LOF, WRR #4025 Repair Complete I
124-02
LOF, WRR #4093 Repair Complete
124-03 3" - 5" LOF, WRR #4276 Repair in Progress
i
- This weld did not require repair. However, radiography showed casting l
defects in the area of interest of the base metal. The licensee has
!
submitted a potential construction deficiency report (CDR) on this l
problem,which was being evaluated.
t
'
i
,_
,,, _.... _ - -.,.,,.. -., _,.. _ _
,,.m._,.....,.
., _,... _. _. - _... - _.. _., _. _ _ - _ -. _. _ - _.... _ _ -.
.
..
_-
i,
.. -
For the above welds the inspectors reviewed the radiographs taken to satisfy ASME Section III (77) requirements, including those taken for information purposes (biased) and those tak^1 subsequent to the repair of UT identified indications. In addition, the inspectors selected at r.andom radiographs of welds found acceptable by radiography and ultrasonic inspection. The welds selected were: 121-05,124-05,112-05,115-02,121-06,114-01 and 114-02.
Within these areas, the inspectors concluded that their findings /interpre-tations concurred with those of the licensee in that the indications detected by UT were not discernable in the code required radiographs.
In discussions relative to this subject the inspectors ascertained that the automatic TIG weld process was being used to fabricate other large diameter field welds including those in the main steam system.
However, in this case, the licensee representative stated that confirmatory ultrasonic examinations have shown these type defects were not a problem.
Finally the licensee stated that a special effort is underway to better organize the data package for each RC loop weld and thereby facilitate film review and fabrication history.
Within the areas no violations or deviations were identified.