IR 05000341/1985032

Insp Rept 50-341/85-32 on 850610.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiographs of flange-to-pipe Welds on Torus/Drywell Vacuum Breaker Lines

ML20128H029
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	07/02/1985
From:	Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128H027	List: IR 05000341/1985032 ML20128H022
References
50-341-85-32, NUDOCS 8507090388
Download: ML20128H029 (3)

Text

-

_ _ - _ _ _ _ -.

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/85032 Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-33 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant Inspection At: Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, MI Inspection Conducted: June 10, 1985 ob?YTbs%ur& W 72)3E Inspector:

K. D. Ward Date ob7Y Y

%

7!4)dd

-

Approved By:

D. H. Danielson, Chief Materials & Processes Section Date

'

Inspection Summary Inspection on June 10, 1985 (Report No. 50-341/85032(DRS)

Areas Inspected: Announced, special safety inspection to review radiographs of the flange to pipe welds on the torus /drywell vacuum breaker lines. This inspection involved a total of 5 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

8507090388 850702 gDR ADOCK 05000341 PDR

,

--

-,

--.m--,

,av,

-

w

-.,

.---y

- - - - -

, - - - -

-n,

. - -

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Detroit Edison Company (DECO)

• J. Nyquist, Assistant to Superintendent, Nuclear Production

• J. Leman, Maintenance Engineer

• J. Quinn, Maintenance Welding Engineer

• P. Fessler, Asssistant Maintenance Engineer J. Rotondo, Senior Quality Spec.

Nuclear Energy Services (NES)

B. Dycus, NDE Level III USNRC

• P. Byron, Senior Resident Inspector

• C. Jones, Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employees.

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 10, 1985, 2.

Radiographs for Torus /Drywell Vacuum Breakers t

Reactor Controls Incorporated (RCI) prepared the ASME N5 Data Reports prior to turnover to DECO. When RCI prepared the N5 Data Reports nondestructive examinations (NDE) were not required to be performed on the twelve flange to pipe welds on the vacuum breaker lines.

When DECO QA was reviewing the ASME N5 data packages and preparing the ASME N3 Data Reports, it was observed that NDE had not been performed on the twelve subject welds. DECO Engineering confirmed that radiography (RT)

,

and liquid penetrant examinations (PT) were required to be performed in

'

accordance with the ASME Code.

Subsequently, NES radiographed the following 18" diameter raised face flange to pipe welds and found them all unacceptable to ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, Summer 1973 Addenda.

1. 10-1

1. 10-4

1. 10-7

1. 10-10

1. 10-2

1. 10-5

1. 10-8

1. 10-11

1. 10-3

1. 10-6

1. 10-9

1. 10-12 The Certified Level III of NES and DECO and the ANI interpreted the reradiographs for the above welds and found them to be acceptable. The

NRC inspector interpreted the original and the final radiographs for welds #10-4, #10-10 and #10-11 and found the final radiographs to be acceptable.

It should be noted that the original RT found some welds to contain unacceptable defects. These welds were subsequently repaired,

,

final RT'd and accepted.

'

.

-

-

-

-

--. _ _ _ - -

- _.

_. _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _.

l

.

The NRC inspector visually examined the above three completed welds,

reviewed the repair packages including drawings, weld material requisition, clean area access records, NDE reports, work orders, processing and

- status inventory sheets and maintenance inspection checklists. The NRC inspector also reviewed NDE and welder personnel certifications,

procedures, verified welding rod being used and toured the weld rod issue room. The NRC inspector agreed with the licensee's actions.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3.

Exit Interview The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection 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 document / processes as proprietary.

t

!

l l

!

,

p

e I

- - -.

-

. _ -_ -

.. -

... -.

.

- __,.- _

... -

-

..

.

.

.. -

- - -

-