ML20076C018

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:47, 27 September 2022 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-341/83-14.Corrective Actions:Review of Records for All Dravo Supplied safety-related Pipe Spools Being Conducted
ML20076C018
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/09/1983
From: Wells D
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: Spessard R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20076C014 List:
References
830808, EF2-64311, NUDOCS 8308220149
Download: ML20076C018 (4)


Text

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

. e a .t M3 ihYk * ' **

August 8, 1983 EF2-64311 Mr. R.L. Spessard, Director Division of Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Subject:

Nonconpliance at Enrico Fermi Unit 2 - IE Report 50-341/

83-14

Dear Mr. Spessard:

This letter responds to the item of nonempliance described in your IE Report No. 50-341/83-14. This inspection of Enrico Fermi Unit 2 construction site activities was performed by Messrs. K. Ward, R.

Cilimberg and D. Keating on Mey 31 through June 3,1983.

The item of nonempliance is drscussed in this reply as required by Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

The enclosed response is arranged to correspond to the sequence of items cited in the body of your report. The ntunber for the item of nonempliance and the applicable criterion are referenced.

We trust this letter satisfactorily answers the concern raised in your report. If you have questions, please contact Mr. G.M. Trahey, Assistant Director - Project Quality Assurance.

Very truly yours,

/

DAW / WEN /cp cc Mr. Richard DeYoung, Director

-Office of. Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission l

Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Paul Byron, Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission 6450 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 8308220149 830816 AUG 121983 PDR 0

ADDCK 05000341 PDR t

. -t

' DIE DETIROIT EDISON COMPANY PRQJECF QUALITY ASSURANCE ENRIM FERMI 2 PROJECF Response to NRC Report No. 50-341/83-14 Docket No. 50-341 License No. CPPR-87 Inspection at: Fermi 2 Site, Newport, Michigan Inspection Conducted: May 31 through June 3,1983

. .t Response to NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/83-14 (83-14-01)

Statement of Noncompliance, 83-14-01 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, states in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that special processes, including...nondertruc-tive testing, are controlled and accxplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes, stan-dards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements".

The Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, FSAR Section B17.1.9 states in part, " Procedures and practices are established and docu-mented to provide assurance that special processes such as...non-destructive examination (NDE) are acccmplished under controlled con-ditions. These special processes shall be accamplished in acccrdance with applicable codes, standards...and other special requirements using qualified personnel, procedures, and equiptient".

American So:icty of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III,1971 Edition, Winter 1971 Addenda, para-graph NB5352 and all later editions of the Code state that linear indications are acceptable when found by liquid penetrant examina-tion. The Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 FSAR Section 3.9 and Table 3.2-1 specify the codes applicable for the design and installation of safety related piping systems.

Wismer and Becker Liquid Penetrant Procedure, No. WB-0-102, Revision 15, states that linear indications are unacceptable.

Contrary to the above, linear indications were found in Instrunent Weld Nos. TEN B21-N040 and TEN N11-N413A after they tal previously been liquid penetrant examined and accepted by Dravo.

Corrective Action Taken and Results Achieved As described in the NRC's inspection report, the two Dravo welds were liquid penetrant examined by two different certified Level II NDE inspectors and found to be unaccepteble. Both welds had been previously examined and accepted by the same Dravo ICE Inspector.

These welds were documented on a Nonconformance Report. The evalu-ation described in the " Corrective Action to be Taken to Avoid Further Nonccupliance" paragraph will provide effective corrective action.

Response to NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/83-14 (83-14-01).

Corrective Action to be Taken to Avoid Further Noncortpliance A review of records for all Dravo safety related supplied pipe spools is being conducted. This will determine the number of welds that were dye penetrant examined by the inspector .in question. A dye penetrant examination will be performed on a suitable sanple size. It should be noted that the inspector in question is no longer employed by Dravo.

The Date When Full Conpliance will be Achieved The review, re-examination and repair, if necessary, will be ompleted by Noveniber 1,1983.

l r

l t