IR 05000341/1979023
| ML19291C220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1979 |
| From: | Little W, Manra F, Mcgregor L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19291C218 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-79-23, NUDOCS 8001230149 | |
| Download: ML19291C220 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. \\ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/79-23 Docket No. 50-341 License No. CPPR-87 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Fermi Site, Monroe, MI Inspection Conducted: November-4, 1979 Inspectors: F Maura ' ' // // [[ f ff cGre / 8 // / Approved By: W. Little,/Ac pig Chief M // 7f Nuclear Support Section 1 / /' Inspection Summary Inspection on November 6-9, 1979 (Report No. 50-341/79-23) Areas Inspected: A routine, announced inspection to meet with key site canagement personnel involved in the preoperational test program for an exchange of information regarding the implementation of the test program; the establishment of a program for receipt, review and disposition of selected licensee procedures and a review of the administrative controls over preoperational testing. The inspection involved forty six inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
. .- 1792 014 800123019 9
s-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- E. Hines, Assistant Vice President and Manager Quality Assurance
- W. Fahrner, Project Manager
- W. Everett, Project Superintendent
- T. Dickson, Assistant Project Manager W. White, Plant Superintendent
- R. Lenart, Startup Engineer
- H. Arora, Startup Director
- W. Ripley, G. E. Operations Superintendent
- E. Newton, Plant Quality Assurance Engineer
- H. Walker, Site Project Quality Assurance Engineer The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and eng-ineering staffs and corporate Quality Assurance persons.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Startup and Preoperational Testing The inspectors met with the licensee for a preliminary review of their proposed startup and preoperational program.
Items discussed included: a.
Startup Organization: The licensee explained its startup and preoperational site organization, its interface with the con-tractor, Daniel Construction Company, and the Detroit Edison Production Organization. The startup group accepts systems or portions of systems from the contractor and performs checkout and initial operations before preoperational tests are complet-ed.
Detroit Edison Production Organization is responsible for plant operations throughout the plant life.
b.
Systems Turnover: The licensee described the system turnover package concept which the contractor gives the startup group.
System boundary package, tagging procedures and the control and responsibility for a system belong to the startup group once they have accep:.ed the turnover package from the contractor.
This control and responsibility rests with the startup group when a system requires rework or when a plant modification is performed by the contractor.
c.
Test Procedures: As stated in chapter 14 of the FSAR there are two types of test procedures: preoperational testing procedures for safety related systems and acceptance test procedures for . 1792 015-2-
I nonsafety related systems. The lice.. . that ali accep-tance test procedures (nansafety relai s) will be writ- .ad with the ten, reviewed and analyzed in a simil, ,. same concern as the preoperationsi test . ores. The only difference between the two types of procesarcs is that the acceptance test procedures do not require the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to approve, release for performance or to review the rerults.
d.
Pipe Hangers and Seismic Restraints: The licensee stated that it is their plan to have all pipe hangers and seismic restraints completed before system turnover for preoperational testing, however under no circumstances will fuel loading take place until all hangers and seismic restraints are completed in all systems important to safety.
e.
Plant Cleanliness: Procedures and responsibility for plant cleanliness during the turnover phase were discussed with the licensee. The inspectors asked the licensee to include such procedures in the,tartup manual either by referencing existing plant procedures oc by writing a procedure applicable to the startup program phase.
f.
Quality Assurance: The licensee explained its quality assurance organization: Edison Quality Assurance Department and Edison Site Q. A. in conjunction with the quality assurance program of Daniel Quality Control and the quality assurance organization of each subcontractor. All quality essurance programs interface during the startup phase to a large degree and audits will be performed by the licensee. The licensee stated it did not have plant to complete a one hundred percent audit of the quality assurance and quality control documentation generated during the construction phase. The inspectors stated a concern for the completness of all records turned over to the licensee by the contractor. The licensee felt its quality assurance sys-tem was adequate to monitor these records.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Personnel Qualifications The inspectors noted that plant operating personnel assigned to the startup group, (plant instrument and control personnel) were not qualified in accordance with ANSI 18.1 - 1971. As stated in the startup manual, page 4-19, paragraph 4.5.1, " Plant operating personnel who are assigned to work in support of the startup group, but are not fulltime members of the startup gro..p, are certified in accordance with ANSI 18.1 - 1971." This item is unresolved (341/79-23-01) and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
. 1792 016' 3_
a
4.
Plant Tour The inspectors conducted a tour of various areas of the plant to observe operations and activities in progress, general housekeeping, plant cleanliness, safety precautions and tagging of systems under the control of the startup group. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Unresolved Item Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragrpah 3.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on 9 November 1979.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
. . 1792 017' -4- }}