IR 05000341/1986038

Safety Insp Rept 50-341/86-38 on 861209-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings,Design Change Documents Control & Proposed Corrective Action to Resolve Electrical Problems

ML20207J346
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/31/1986
From:	Falevits Z, Muffett J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207J338	List: IR 05000341/1986038 ML20207J337
References
50-341-86-38, NUDOCS 8701080408
Download: ML20207J346 (7)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/86038(DRS)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-33 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company

'

2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48224

&e Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Enrico Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, Michigan Inspection Conducted: December 9-12, 1986 m od km Inspector: Z. Falevits 8 z /si /SG g Date Approved By: J. W. Muffett t 1/31 !B G Date Inspection Summary Inspection on December 9-12, 1986 (Report No. 50-341/86038(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Safety unannounced inspection conducted to review licensee action on previous inspection findings; review of design change documents control and proposed corrective action to resolve identified electrical problem Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000341 Q PDR

.

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Detroit Edison Company J. J. Wald, Supervisor, NQA S. P. Zoma, Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering T. Okeefe, Technical Engineer, Nuclear Production G. Carter, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Production W. E. Miller Jr. , Business Planner, Staff F. Sondgerath, Senior Engineer, Licensing G. Preston, Operations Engineer, Nuclear Production S. Frost, Licensing Engineer, Licensing All the above attended the exit meeting held on December 12, 198 Additional contacted by the inspector during the course of this inspectio . Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (341/86028-01): This item concerned a wiring error identified by the NRC inspector in the control circuit of the High Pressure Core Injection (HPCI) pump minimum flow bypass valve E4150F01 This error was identified during the review and investigation of a fire at the 260VDC MCC 2P8-1, Cubicle 4C, which damaged the electrical equipment and cabling associated with the power and and controls to valve E4150F01 As part of the corrective action the licensee has hired an investigative team from Failure Analysis Associated (FAA) to examine the circumstances associated with this event, and determine the root cause of the fire. FAA inspected, documented, and retained pertinent accident and exemplar evidence of the fire at the sit The evidence was examined in the FAA laboratory during testing under simulated operating conditions with the identified wiring error as part of the control circuitry. Preliminary test results indicated that this error caused 130VDC of power to be applied simultaneously to both the opening and the closing contactor coils when the opening push button was activating and mechanically as well as electrically, locked out the closing contactor which jammed itself partially close During this sequence, an arc developed spontaneously and melted the coil lead. The intermittent high current arcing that developed ignited the fire in the contactor hndy. Based on the FAA preliminary determination it is apparent that the wiring error was the major cause of the fir _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

l

l

l The inspector was informed by the licensee that a FAA draft report ~ I dated December, 1986 is being reviewed, and that the final report would be issued in January, 198 The licensee has conducted a comprehensive review of procedures associated with electrical maintenance activities; the following procedures were revised to include appropriate checks and reviews to mitigate, and prevent recurrence of the wiring error: l

• Maintenance Instructions and Designated POM Procedure MI-E 0043, Revision ,

• Maintenance Instructions MI-M402, Revision 0. " Guidelines for i Determining Component Level Testing Requirements."

• Administrative Procedure No. 12.000.080, Revision 5, " Conduct of Electrical Field Activities."

In addition the licensee has been conducting training of maintenance and modification personnel to assure their awareness of the procedure requirements. The inspector reviewed training attendance sheets dated August 21, 1986 and lists of personnel who completed the required reading list Subsequent to the finding of the valve wiring error, the licensee has inspected 14 additional valve circuits, none was found to be I deficien '

The inspector has no further concerns regarding this issu b. (0 pen) Violation (341/86028-02A): This item concerned a Temporary Modification Tag containing the incorrect description, incorrect i name of installer, and which omitted the date of installatio During this inspection the inspector noted Deficiency Notice Tag No. DNT-5297 attached to panel 203A This tag was apparently placed on the panel by an unknown individual. The tag did not denote that main panel ID nameplate was missing, nor did it contain the name of the installer or the date installe The inspector expressed the concern that identified deficiencies are not being properly documented and promptly correcte This item remains open pending licensee action to correct this problem and NRC review of the i resolutio !

c. (Closed) Violation (341/86028-028): This item addressed failure of licensee to write Engineering Change Requests for 13 valves, when the operators were replaced and the valve internals rewired. The work direction stipulated in the Engineering Design Package or Engineering Change Request conflicted with the requirements of plant procedures. Licensee corrective action is delineated in document NE-86-0191 dated November 5, 1986, whereby instructions are given to assure that written direction given in design documents does not conflict with current plant procedure n

'

. (Closed) Unresolved Item (341/86028-04): This item concerned deviations noted on Deco's valve control design logic philosophy and the interpretation of General Electric (G. E.) design requirement Based on G. E.'s recent review and formal acceptance of the Fermi-2 MCC/MOV logic as depicted on the G. E. Elementary and Functional Control Diagrams and as translated onto the DECO schematic diagrams (refer G. E. letter T0EC-5409, dated October 6,1986) this item is considered resolve (0 pen) Unresolved Item (341/84021-07): This item originated with a prior inspection for construction verificatio It concerns discrepancies in nameplates and taggin During this inspection the inspector conducted a sample review of nameplates and tagging requirement The following components were examined:

• 4.16KV switchgear 648, Cubicles 84 through 812 as denoted on one line Diagram 65D721-2500-3, Revision * 4.16KV switchgear 64C, Cubicles C5 through C11 as denoted on one line Diagram 6SD721-2500-3, Revision * 480V switchgear 72C (Div. I) Cubicles 1A, 18, 1C, 2A, 28, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 48 & 4C as denoted on one line Diagram 6S0721-2510-1, Revision * 260/130VDC distribution cabinet 2PA-14, positions 1 through 10, as denoted on one line Diagram 650721-2530-10, Revision * 260/130VDC distribution cabinet 2PB-2, positions 1 through 8, as denoted on one line Diagram 650721-2530-11, Revision * 260VDC MCC 2PA-1, positions IA, 18, 1C, 2A, 28, 2C, 3A, 3B & 3 * Main D. C. distribution cabinet 2PA-2 position 1 through 8, as denoted in one line Diagram 6S0721-2530-10, Revision This review revealed that a problem exists in the as-built review and incorporation of Engineering Change Requests (ECRs) into the applicable design drawings. Therefore, the nameplate and tagging deficiencies have not been fully resolved ye Further details of this issue are given in Paragraph 3 this repor This item remains open pending licensee action and NRC revie . Review of Design Document Changes Controls During the field inspection of previously identified findings the j inspector observed the following discrepancies relating to implementation of Engineering Change Requests (ECRs):

~

4

!

i

,

.

'

,

I (1) Position 1 of 260/130VDC distribution cabinet 2PA2-14 was tagged spare in the field while on line Diagram 6SD721-2530-10, Revision T shows position 1 feeding Remote Shutdown Panel H21-P10 (2) Position 7 of 260/130VDC distribution cabinet 2PA2-14 was shown as spare on Drawing 650721-2530-10, Revision T, while in the field it is denoted as feeding panel H21-00P62 (3) Position 8 of 260/130VDC distribution cabinet 2P82-15, was shown as spare on Drawing 6SD721-2530-11, Revision T, while in the field it is denoted as feeding SRV Relay Cabinet 821-P40 Further engineering review of above findings revealed that ECR-5126-4, Revision 0, was written to revise EDP-5126 by changing distribution cabinet load position from position 1 to position In addition, ECR-1702-9, Revision 0, was written to revize EDP-1702 by changing the feed to cabinet B21-P401 from distribution cabinet 2PB-2 position 7 to 2P82-15, position 8. Review of EDP status indicated that both EDP-1702 and EDP-5126 have been completed, field as-built verified; and incorporated into the design drawings; however, ECRs 1702-9 and 5126-4 have not been incorporated into the applicable design drawings, nor were they as-built verified; the document control computerized list indicated that both ECRs have been incorporated. The inspector informed the licensee that all ECRs written against EDP-1702 and 5126 need to be examined to .

assure that they have been properly implemented in the field and l incorporated into the applicable drawings maintaining the as-built configuration of the plan The inspector reviewed Audit No. A-EA-S-86-41 dated November 13, 198 The audit was conducted by the licensee to determine the adequacy and implementation of Stone & Webster (the AE) to incorporate design change documents into design drawings. The audit results indicated among other fundings that the outstanding design change documents were not correctly incorporated into design drawings; ECR-5126-1 was not incorporated in its entirety. The recommended actions to these findings stated that personnel performing incorporation of change documents into drawings should be made aware that whenever EDPs are incorporated into design drawings, the ECR 's written against the EDPs be reviewed for impact to the design drawings. Subsequent to the inspectors findings the licensee has promptly issued a DER to address this issue. Pending licensee corrective action and NRC review this item is considered unresolved (341/86038-01(DRS)).

b. During the review of ESS MCC 72C, the inspector noted that the PIs (equipment number) engraved on the nameplate of position 1A did not conform to the requirement of Drawing 6SD721-2510-1, Revision Field nameplate indicated PIs No. R14005023 instead of No. R1400504 m

.

,

,,

This occurred due to a drafting error in Revision "P" of the drawing. Operations engineers noted that the existing ID nameplate did not conform to Drawing 650721-2510-1, Revision P, requirement and had it replaced with an engraved nameplate matching the drawing which was erroneous; no engineering review or concurrence was required prior to replacing the ta The inspector requested that the licensee review the current procedure and cansider adding engineering concurrence prior to replacing nameplates that are found not to be in conformance with the design drawing The inspector discussed the following issued with Fermi technical personnel:

(1) Loss of MPU No. 3 event due to overloading (LER-014).

(2) Design concept of 120KV and 345KV offsite electrical distribution system as compared with the requirements of General Design Criterion 17 of 10CFR50 Appendix A for two physically independent feeds from the offsite transmission network (ref. open item 8515-01).

Due to the lack of inspection time further review of above issues will be conducted in the office and in a future inspectio . Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a deviation, or a violation. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph . Exit Interview The Region III inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 12, 198 The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged this information. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio The licansee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar .

.

This occurred due to a drafting error in Revision "P" of the drawing. Operations engineers noted that the existing ID nameplate did not conform to Drawing 6SD721-2510-1, Revision P, requirement and had it replaced with an engraved nameplate matching the drawing which was erroneous; no engineering review or concurrence was required prior to replacing the ta The inspector requested that the licensee review the current procedure and consider adding engineering concurrence prior to replacing nameplates that are found not to be in conformance with the design drawing The inspector discussed the following issues with Fermi technical personnel :

(1) Loss of MPU No. 3 event due to overloading (LER-014).

(2) Design concept of 120KV and 345KV offsite electrical distribution system as compared with the requirements of General Design Criterion 17 of 10CFR50 Appendix A for two physically independent feeds from the offsite transmission network (ref, open item 8515-01).

Due to the lack of inspection time further review of above issues will be conducted in the office and in a future inspectio . Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a deviation, or a violation. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph . Exit Interview The Region III inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 12, 198 The inspector sumarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged tais information. The inspector also discussed the likely infonnational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar