IR 05000341/1985033

Insp Rept 50-341/85-33 on 850624-26 & 0708-09.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Testing of Pipe Support & Restraint Sys,Anchor Bolt Spacing & Previously Identified Insp Findings

ML20133E236
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	07/23/1985
From:	Danielson D, Kaufman P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133E199	List: IR 05000341/1985033 ML20133E195
References
50-341-85-33, NUDOCS 8508070613
Download: ML20133E236 (3)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/85033(DRS)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-33 Licensee: 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, Michigan Inspection Conducted June 24-26, July 8-9, 1985

'

\ /

()- + e l I Inspector: 'P . . Kaufman 7/F5 I O'-

Date

'

&v , , -

Approved 8y: D. H. Danielson, Chief 1 f't,3 l8 4 Materials & Processes Section Date Inspection Sununary Inspection on June 24-26 and July 8-9, 1985 (Report No. 50-341/85033(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced safety inspection to review testing of pipe support and restraint systems and related inspection documentation; review anchor bolt spacing problems; followup on previously identified inspection findings. The inspection involved a total of 34 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto _Results: No violations or deviations were identifie PDH ADOCK 05000341 g PDH

r ,

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted D_etroit Edison Company (DECO)

• H. Jens, Vice President / Nuclear Operations F. Agosti. Manager / Nuclear Operations E. P. Griffing, Assistant Manager / Nuclear Operations G. M. Trahey, Director NQA

• A. Colandrea, Principal Engineer / Civil

• W. D. Ackerman, Senior Engineer NQA

• J. E. Conen, Engineer Licensing J. F. Malaric, Supervisor / Field Engineering T. Young, Lead Design Field Engineer A. K. Lim, Systems Engineer M. W. Shields, Lead Startup Test Phase Engineer

• Denotes those attending the exit meetin . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed)OpenItem(341/84-59-01): The ifcensee's evaluation of Multiple Dynamics Corporations (MDC) revised analysis of postulated high and moderate energy pipe breaks outside primary containment had not been completed. DECO Qualification Engineering group reviewed the revised MDC report and concluded the changes to the report would not impact the hardware configuration of the plant. DECO perfortned a detailed stress analysis, Design Calculation DC-3098 to Sargent &

Lundy's Stress Report RWCU-01, Revision 4, to relocate two postulated break locations on a 6" diameter Reactor Water Cleanup System suction line in Room 223 of the Reactor Duf1 ding. DECO also has prepared FCN-85-058 which will be submitted to NRR for an FSAR change to identify the new break location outside the roo . _ Testing of Pipe Support and Restraint Systems The licensee's FSAR cornmitments and procedures relating to examination and testing of safety-related supports and restraints were reviewed during previous inspections and documented in Region III Inspection Reports No. 50-341/84-31 and 50-341/84-5 Duringthisinspectiontheinspectorreviewedtheintermediate250(+25)"F thermal expansion test data on the piping of the NSSS and related auxiliary systems. The actual observations and/or recordings of the systems thermal movements were performed by DECO's Startup Test Phase group and Project / Nuclear Engineering organizatio The personnel utilized in the data-taking assignments were supervised by individuals qualified to ANSI N45.2.6 and attended a training class of the required verification to be conducted to Startup Test STUT.XXX.017. " Thermal Expansion Walkdowns."

_ _ _ _ _ _ .

_ _ _ - _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

-

.

,

l The post test system ex)ansion evaluations of the test data and out-of-tolerance deviations were judged to be acceptable, even though some expansion displacenents exceeded the specified tolerances of the calculated values. The inspector determined the ifcensee's intermediate thennal system expansion test and evaluations are acceptable and that the piping is capable of performing its design functio No violations or deviations were identifie . Control Center Anchor Bolt Spacing problem At the request of the Senior Resident Inspector, the RI!! inspector reviewed the licensee's Nonconformance Report NCR 84-905, Revision A, l

'

dated August 2,1984, that pertained to numerous anchor spacing violations that were found in the cable spreading room and relay room of the control center and which had not been dispositoned. A total of 123 spacing violations were found and documented on the NCR, i but only 79 cases could be specifically reinspected to obtain actual anchor spacing distances due to extensive fire wrapping on the other i cases origini11y identified on June 13, 1984 by NCR 84-905. Several l of the spacing violations included self-drilling anchor installations l on QA-1 cable tray support Since numerous unverifiable conditions still exist due to the fire wrapping and the licensee not wanting to remove the fire wrap to l conduct a reinspection to obtain the actual anchor spacing distances, l the licensee perfonned a worst-case analysis as documented in DECO's l

'

Design Calculation DC-3259, dated July 8, 1985, which generically evaluated the effect of anchor bolt saacing violations of self-drilling anchor The analysis demonstrated t1at the stress levels in the anchorages would still be acceptable and the reconnended factor-of-safety per industry standard ACI-349, Appendix 8, was not compromise No violations or devi3tions were identified.

l S. Exit Interview l The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

! on July 9, 1985, and discussed the scope and concerns of this inspection, j The inspector also discussed the Itkely informational content of the j inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The Itcensee did not identify any such

'

documents / processes as proprietary.

3 l

t