IR 05000341/1986010

Safety Insp Rept 50-341/86-10 on 860326-28.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Actions Re Previous Insp Findings

ML20155A833
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	04/04/1986
From:	Danielson D, Norton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155A820	List: IR 05000341/1986010 ML20155A816
References
50-341-86-10, NUDOCS 8604100072
Download: ML20155A833 (3)

Text

V

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FNISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/86010(DRS)

Docket N License No. NPF-43 Licensee: Detroit Edison Corr.pany 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48224 Facility Narre: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Enrico Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, Michigan Inspection Conducted: March 26 - 28, 1986 Inspector: _

d f7, Date Approved By: D Materials & Processes Section dh Date Inspection Summary DRS Inspection Areas on March Inspected: 26-28, Routine 1986ins'pEtion safety (Report No. ~

50-341/86010]itl)o)nsrelatedto of 1Tcensee a previous inspection finding Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspectio .

860404 0500g1 i 8604100072ADOCK PDR i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. .

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted DetroitEdisonCompany(DEC,oj

_

• S. Noetzel, Nuclear Engineering

• L. Simpkin, Nuclear Engineering

• M. Batch, Nuclear Engineering A. Colandria, Lead Engineer, Architectural / Civil R. Buck, Engineer, Architectural / Civil l

• J. Conen, Licensing Engineer U.S. Nuclear Reoula_ tory,Conmission W. Rogers, Senior Resident Inspector

• H. Parker, Resident Inspection

• Denotes those who attended the exit meeting conducted March 28, 198 . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings l

! (Closed) UnresolvedItem(50-341/84021-02): The Duke Power Company

!

Construction Assessment Team identified certain deficiencies in plant safety related watertight doors. The Construction Assessment Team (CAT)

inspection performed by Duke Power Company at Fermi included evaluating ccnstruction/ installation of safety related watertight doors.

l l There are eleven safety-related doors designed for watertightness at

Fermi. Ten are located in the Reactor and Auxiliary buildings and one is located in the Turbine House structure. The doors range in dimension i from 3 feet by 7 feet to 17 feet by 22.5 feet. The Assessment Team l inspected doors R-1-8 and R-1-11. Both of these doors are located in

! the Auxiliary Building.

l Doors R-1-8 and R-1-11 were determined to be unacceptable. Door R-1-8 would not close properly because the locking sleeves were not installe Also, honeycombed concrete was found adjacent to the door frame. Door l R-1-11 would not lock properly because locking pins would not fully

! engage. Both of the doors had loose and missing hardwar The CAT recontr.endation was that the two inspected doors be appropriately repaired and all other watertight door installations be inspected for conformance to contract docurrents. The licensee agreed to fully meet the recontendations.

l In addressing the deficiencies of door R-1-8, the licensee generated punchlist cards to assure appropriate repair or replacement of the i loose / missing hardware. Incorrectly installed locking sleeves were

! corrected and the locking assembly mechanisms lubricated. The unsound concrete was removed and concrete repairs were accomplished in accordance with appropriate repair and QC procedure _ _ _ . _

. .

For dcor R-1-11, punchlist cards were also generated for the hardware deficiencies and also to correct the locking pin engagement.

l The licensee performed detailed inspections of the remaining nine doors 4 not addressed in the CAT inspection. Several deficiencies were documented in the process, including loose, broken, missing or improperly installed hardware, improper adjustments which prohibited free closure and proper

seal, inadequate lubrication, and malfunctioning latches. Also, door RB-1 4 required a small area of concrete repair above the top of the fram The NRC inspector reviewed docoaentation relevant to the inspections and corrective actions. Also, a visual inspection of the eleven doors was accomplished in the presence of an engineer from the Architectural / Civil group. Individual review was accomplished to assure that construction was

.

in accordance with design. Nonconformance report dispositioning, design

' drawings, procedures and CA/QC documentation were found to be appropriat No discrepancies were discerned between design drawings and constructio Based on the above findings, it is concluded that the licensee has fully l implemented the CAT inspection reconsnendations. There is reasonable

'

assurance that all of the safety-related watertight doors will withstand the specified design loading conditions without impairment of integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.

1 3. Exit Meeting l

'

The inspector met with the licensee representative (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 28, 1986. The

inspector sunmarized the scope and findings as reported herein. The

,

inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspector's report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar i

'

!

,

j

'

'l

'