ML20002A575
| ML20002A575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1980 |
| From: | Barrett P, Fiorelli G, Knop R, Landsman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A569 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-80-11, NUDOCS 8011200160 | |
| Download: ML20002A575 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1980011
Text
O
J
'
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/80-11
,
Docket No. 50-341
License No. CPPR-87-
Licensee: Detroit Edison Company
2000 Second Avenue
. Detroit, MI 48226
Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Station, Unit 2
Insection Conducted: July 28-30, August 13, and September 10-12, 1980
Inspectors:
R. B. Landsman
[8 -4 - M
P. A. Barrett
0
/C " 7 ' {
Accompanied by:
R. C. Knop
(September 11, 1980)
G. Fiore111
(September 11, 1980)
/d " 7'
Approved by:
R. C. Knop, C'h f
Projects Section 1
Inspection Summary
Inspection on July 28-30, August 13, and September 10-12, 1980 (Report
No. 50-341/80-11)
Areas Inspected: Follow-up of previously identified noncompliances, 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports, and unresolved items; plant tour, and review of noncomfor:n-
ance reports. The. inspection involved 53 inspector-hours onsite by two hTC
inspectors.
Results: Of the areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified.
'(Infraction - failure to take prompt corrective action to control design
change documents. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 79-17-02
8011200 16 0
.
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
+T. A. Alessi, Director Project Quality Assurance
+W. J. Fahrner, Manager Fermi 2
- +H. A. Walker, Supervisor Construction QA
- +R. A. Vance, General Director Engineer
- +G. J. Carter, QA Engineer
- J. J. Gessner, Assistant Director Project Quality Assurance
- J. A. Cartmill, Assistant Project Construction Superintendent
- R. F. McCraney, Quality Verification Supervisor
- C. R. Bacon, Assistant Director Field Engineering
- S. H. Noctzel, Director Project Field Engineering
- M. Albertin, Assistant Project Manager, Daniel Internation1
- L. Jones, Director Project Records Management
- T. H. Dickson, Director Project Design
D. Cawood, Project Quality Verification Lead Inspector
S. Spence, QA Engineer
+ Denotes those attending the exit interview on July 30, 1980.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on August 13, 1980.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Upgraded Noncompliance (341/79-17-02): Design documents which have
had numerous unincorporated design changes listed.
Inadequate corrective
action to assure accurate and current documents were being used at controlled
distribution locations.
As address in the IE Reports No. 80-01, No. 80-04, and No 80-06, a problem
in which design change documents could not be assured to adequately be con-
trolled at distribution locations, was identified. As part of the assurance
to correct the problem, the licensee committed to issue a directive by
June 6, 1980 requiring a 100 percent purge of all documents at all distri-
bution locations using an updated (accurate) control reference (Automatic
Records Management System, ARMS). The directive was issued. However, as
of August 13, 1980, the directive had not been implemented.
The apparent
holdup of the implementation appeared to be a combination of an individual
decision to wait until the ARMS was completely updated and the lack of
communication to obtain the needed manpower to update the ARMS. This
inadequate corrective action is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion XVI and the Enrico Fermi Unit 2 Quality Assurance
Manual, Section 17.0 as described in Appendix A to the transmittal letter
to this report.
(341/79-17-02)
Subsequent to this finding, the licensee
gave a letter (EF2-49, 840) dated September 8, 1980 to this inspector,
which stated that the update of the ARMS was completed on August 25, 1980
and the purge of the design documents was expected to be completed before
September 30, 1980.
-2-
,
.
'.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (341/79-4--03): Satisf actory completion of
concrete anchor testing. The licensee-indicated that testing is being
done with respect to IE Bulletin No. 79-02.
The inspector reviewed the
proposed 79-02 verification program and determined that the licensee
will test one anchor in every pipe hanger plate.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (79-05-06): Failure to take required density tests
by RHR Building. Density tests were performed which indicated that the
backfill in question does not meet density requirements. The licensee is
. waiting for the engineers evaluation.
(Open) Noncompliance (79-05-07): Failure to document nonconforming density
tests by RHR Building. Additional density tests were performed which indi-
cated that the backfill in question does not meet density requirements. The
licensee is waiting for the engineers evaluation.
10 CFR 50.55(e) Reportable Items-
(0 pen) 10 CFR 50.55(e) (79-XX-11): Cut reinforcing Bar in 12 floor slabs.
An engineering evaluation has been completed on five slabs using detailed
field as-built layouts, and the analysis indicates that rebar cuts have
not significantly reduced the capacity of the slabs. The original analysis,
based on preliminary information, of the remaining seven slabs indicated
that derating the original design live load was necessary. However, the
licensee is now reanalyzing these seven slabs utilizing detailed field as-
built layouts to determine if derating is necessary.
(Closed) 10 CFR S0.55(e), (79-XX-05): Damaged penetrations. An engineering
evaluation by the asseably manufacturer indicates that the penetration bellows
should function in accordance with the design specification. Also, each of
the bellows, except X-17, has been successfully leak tested. Penetration
X-17 is documented on a Deviation Disposition Request (nonconformance report),
which will require a leak test of the bellows.
(Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e), (79-XX-08): Reactor Building HVAC fire damper
closure springs failure. The closure spring failures are documented on a
DDR (nonconformance report). The disposition is to replace toe defective
springs with new springs which will be documented to conform to the site
design requirements.
(Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e), (79-XX-10): Defectiv. Westinghouse switches.
The defective switches are identified on a nonconformance report. The
,
switches will be replaced with other' suitable equipment.
(Open) 10 CFR 50.55(e), (80-XX-02): General Electric receptacle pins for
the main reactor control panels. A number of wire connections appeared
to be loose. A G.E. Field Deviation Disposition Request (FDDR) has been
written to identify-the conditions. The corrective action, which was in
progress at the Fermi 2 plant control room, was to reterminate all of the
-G.E. terminations in the above panels. The reterminations, the scope, and
the impact will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
3-
-
..
y
-
--
y
w-
.
-
-ww-r--
.
'
Secticn 1
. Prepared by P. A. Barrett
Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief
Projects Section 1
1.
Review of Deviation Disposition Requests (Nonconformances)
The RIII inspector reviewed and researched the dispositions to Wismer
& Becker Deviation Disposition Requests #394,1301,1302, and 1318.
These DDRs were selected on the basis of the type of disposition
(i.e., use as is, void, and other). The types of dispositions to these
DDRs initially looked inappropriate. However, research into the back-
ground infor..etion revealed that the dispositions were appropriate.
No items of noncompliance or deviatioas were identified.
2.
Plant Tour
On September 11, 1980, the RIII inspector, accompanied by NRC regional
supervision, took a thorough tour of the Residual Heat Removal Building,
the Reactor Building, and the Auxiliary Building. The general plant
conditions were observed. The plant status, including current and
scheduled activities were discussed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-4-
-
1
e.
'
Section t
Prepared by R 5 Landsman
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief
Engineering Support Section 1
1.
Site Tour
A site tour was conducted following the entrance interview on
July 28, 1980.
The inspector observed numerous form tie holes on the exterior walls
which were never patched. The licensee indicated that they were
never noticed before. The walls have been standing since 1976.
Specification 3071-17, Revision B. " Concrete Construction" states that
form tie holes will be filled. The licensee, when questioned about
this, indicated that they would issue a DDR on the holes and require
that they be filled.
Subsequent to the inspection, the licensee located a letter listing
the remaining civil activities to be performed dated January 5,1979.
The letter lists the patchwork of form tie holes to be completed by
May 1979. This item is considered unresolved pending the licensee's
response to when the form tie holes will be filled.
(341/80-11-01).
2.
Shore Protectioq
The licensee is preparing to construct a 1000 foot shore protection
barrier on Lahe Erie. Excavation work was begun during the inspection.
The following documents were reviewed for consistency with industry
practice:
Specification 3071-176, Revision A, May 1980, " Shore Barrier
Construction."
QA Procedure 9.513, Revision 0, July 1980, " Inspection and Testing of
Shore Barrier Construction."
Specification 176 requires that clay be placed in 12 inch layers and
compacted to '95 percent modified proctor density. The inspector
cautioned the licensee as to whether a 12 inch. layer of clay could be
compacted. The licensee indicated that the matter would be pursued.
The remaining portions of the specification and procedure appear to
be satisfactory.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved. items are' matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-
ance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection
is discussed in Section 2, Paragraph 1.
-5-
i
..
Exit Interviews
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives on July 30, 1980 and
AuRust 13, 1980. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the
inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings as reported,
l
4
-6-
- , .