IR 05000341/1986010
| 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: |
| 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 No.
50-341 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 d
f7, Inspector:
_
Date dh Approved By: D Materials & Processes Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on March 26-28, 1986 (Report No. 50-341/86010]itl)o)nsrelatedto
~
DRS Areas Inspected: Routine safety ins'pEtion of 1Tcensee a previous inspection findings.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
.
860404 0500g1 8604100072ADOCK i
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, 1986.
l 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
(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 installed.
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 hardware.
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 procedures.
.
- -
-
-
_
_
_
.
_
.
.
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 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
required a small area of concrete repair above the top of the frame.
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 appropriate.
'
No discrepancies were discerned between design drawings and construction.
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.
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 proprietary.
i
!
'
,
j
'
'l
'
.
.
.
.
.
-