ML20128C178
| ML20128C178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Chrissotimos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C147 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-85-21, NUDOCS 8505280212 | |
| Download: ML20128C178 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1985021
Text
F
..
U. S. NUCLEAP. REGULATORY C0fEISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/85021(DRP)
Docket No. 50-341
Operating License No. NPF-33
Licensee: Detroit Edison Company
-2000 Second Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
Facility Name:
Fermi 2
Inspection At:
Fermi Site, Newport, MI
Inspection Conducted: April 7-30, 1985
Inspectors:
-P. M. Byron
M. E. Parker
D. C. Jones
N.f..fr~issotimos, Chief
--
-
6-20 - 8 6
Approved by:
Projects Section 10
Date
Inspection Summary
Inspection on April 7-30, 1985 (Report No. 50-341/85021(DRP))
l
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by resident inspectors
of licensee action on previous inspector identified items; regional requests;
'
i
independent inspections; preoperational test witnessing (recirculation system
flow control test and containment isolation valve); operational safety
'
verification; monthly maintenance observation; monthly surveillance
observation; and surveillance--initial fueling.
The inspection involved
a total of 283 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspectors, including
59 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or
deviations were identified in seven areas. Within the remaining area, one
item of noncompliance was identified (Paragraph 2.b. - failure to follow
,
procedures).
'
DR
D
G
'-
,
< .
,
o
.-
DETAILS
1.
- Persons Contacted
- F. Agosti, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- L.-Bregni, Licensing Engineer
J. DuBay, Director, Planning and Control
0. Earle,_ Supervisor, Licensing
R. Eberhardt, Rad-Chem Engineer
- E. Griffing, Assistant Manager, Nuclear Operations
W. Holland, Vice-President, Fermi 2 Project
'
- W. Jens, Vice-President, Nuclear Operations
_S. Leach, Director, Nuclear Security
'J.
Leman, Maintenance Engineer
- L. Lessor, Assistant to the Superintendent
- R. Lenart, Superintendent, Nuclear Production
R. Mays, Director, Project Planning
- WJ Miller,-QA Supervisor, Operational Assurance
J. Nyquist, Assistant to Superintendent, Nuclear Production
- G. Overbeck, Assistant Plant Superintendent, Startup
J. Piana, Director, Nuclear Administration
.J. Plona, Technical Engineer
.
'E. Preston, Operations Engineer
W. Ripley, Startup Director
C. P. Sexauer, Nuclear Production Administrator
.
- G. Trahey, Director, Nuclear QA
- Denotes those who attended the exit meetings.
,
The inspectors also interviewed others of the licensee's staff during
this inspection.
-2.
Followup on' Inspector Identified Items
[
. a.
(0 pen) Open Item (341/84039-01(DRP)):
Accessibility of valves for
l
serviceability and manual operation of safety-related valves during
i
abnormal conditions.
This item identified numerous safety-related
valves that would require mobile platforms to operate, inspect, and
,
L
maintain the valves.
The licensee is currently reviewing the
accessibility of valves that require manual operation during
L
emergency conditions and the ALARA considerations as recommended in
,
(-
i
Pending further review by the inspectors, this item remains open.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (341/84053-03):
This item has been determined to
L.,
be an item of noncompliance.
On November 30 and December 1, 1984,
the inspectors noted that~one penetration test connection (T46-F009)
was not capped.
Test connections must be administrative 1y
controlled to ensure their leak tightness or otherwise be subject
L
to Type C testing.
In response, the ifcensee issued an Engineering
L
Design Package, EDP-1996, with the intent to:
L
-2
,
._m
-
,_..m
._,_.,-rc.,
,,,._...-m.
,, _ . _ - u , . , , , . . _ .
,,._ . ~ ... __ _ ,. m
_,r,--.,.
. _ - . . . , , __ _ _ ,
.-e
, , _ _ . . _ .-
-
-
-
.
1)
Identify those connections that required caps.
~)
Perform a production check to determine if caps are installed
2
'
and if no cap is presently installed, install caps per the
guidelines of this EDP.
3)
Update the drawings identified in this EDP to show caps where
required.
Although the EDP is to be followed as a procedure for installation and
verification of these caps, the Engineering Change Request, ECR-1996-2,
that was written to delete four and add two TVD caps, was not implemented
into the verification sheet resulting in the omission of vents E11-F091
and E41-F151. The inspector, by visual observation, found one of these
two vents (E41-F151) was uncapped. Also, upon review of POM Procedure
47.000.77, " Test, Vent, and Drain (TVD) Cap and Plug Verification," the
inspector found that penetration X-220 was omitted from the procedure's
verification sheet.
This resulted in the absence of eight vents from
this procedure.
This is considered an item of noncompliance
(341/85021-01(DRP)) with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V, in that there was inadequate implementation and review of
EDP-1996 and the accompanying Engineering Change Requests (ECR), which is
a failure to adhere to administrative procedures, specifically Plant
Operations Manual (POM) Procedure 12.000.64 "EDP Implementation
Procedure."
One item of noncompliance was identified.
3.
Followup on Regional Requests
The inspectors were requested to review the licensee's program for
complying with licensed operator staffing as a result of recent problems
involving reactor operators at other facilities.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedure POM 21.000.01, " Shift
Operations and Control Room," Revision 10, to determine if the licensee
was complying with 10 CFR 50.54(k) and 50.54(m) requirements concerning
licensed operator and senior operator staffing and shift manning. The
inspectors' review determined that the licensee's procedure does comply
with these requirements and that the licensee is currently implementing
these procedure requirements.
The licensee is also meeting the
guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.114, ' Guidance on Being Operator at the
Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant," and has provided a sketch in their
procedure clearly defining "at the controls." The inspectors have also
reviewed different aspects of operator staffing 'as a result of verifying
implementation of TMI requirements in the Safety Evaluation Report as
addressed in Inspection Report 50-341/85013(DRP).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
,
,
e
3
.
_
__
. _ , _ _ __ _ _ _ _
..
. l
>
.
4.-
Independent Inspections -' Operational Readiness
-The inspectors and Region III management met with licensee management
on' April 16, 1985, to review the licensee's readiness for issuance of
the full power license and the ' status of the license condition items.
The meetings will.be held biweekly until the issuance of the full power
license with the next meeting scheduled for May 3, 1985.
The inspectors continue to review the licensee's operational readiness
in preparation for the issuance of the full power license.
The licensee's
ability to respond in a timely manner is perceived by the inspectors as
an area in which they need to devote additional effort.
The inspectors
continue to observe vestiges of attitudes'which were prevalent during
-
the construction phase.
Various organizations work within their own
. sphere which results in minimized inter-organizational communication.
Each organization develops its own set of procedures, rules, and ways of
doing business.
Individualistic approaches do not foster a sense of
teamwork.
There has been a drastic improvement in this area but it has
been due primarily to the demobilization of various organizations and not
as a result of management attention.
The inspectors have observed that the Operations, Maintenance and
Modification groups all utilize PN-21's (work orders) yet have their
own data base, language, and cross referencing data.
Reports generated
by each organization are not compatible with the needs of the others.
This is a contributor to the inter-organizational problems that the
inspectors have observed. The inspectors consider that the use of a
single data base would enhance communications between organizations.
. The licensee needs to take action to improve inter-organizational
communications.
The inspectors consider that a solution to the
communication issue should result in a more cohesive organization
which.in turn will aid in the licensee's ability to respond to problems.
The inspectors have discussed their concerns with licensee management.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
5.
Preoperational Test hitnessing.
The inspectors reviewed portions of preoperational test procedures,
reviewed procedure results completed to date, toured the areas containing
system equipment, intervi+wed personnel, and observed test activities of
those preoperational tests identified below.
During this review, the inspectors noted that the latest revision of the
test procedure was available and in use by crew members, the minimum crew
requirements were met, the test prerequisites were met, appropriate plant
systems were in service, the special test equipment required by the
procedure was calibrated and in service, the test was performed as
required by approved procedures, temporary modifications _ such as jumpers
.were installed and tracked per established administrative controls, and
test results for the tests observed by the inspectors indicated that
acceptance criteria were met.
4
)
--
,
r
..
a.
Recirculation System Flow Control Test
-
The inspectors observed the performance of portions of
Preoperational-Test PRET B3100.001, Revision 2, " Reactor
Recirculation System":
Initial Pump Operation Test and Two-Pump
Operation.
b.
Containment Isolation Valve
The' inspectors observed the performance of portions of
Preoperational Test PRET T4804.000, Revision 2, " Thermal Recombiner
System": Division-I Logic Verification and Division II Logic
Verification.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
6.
Operational Safety Verification
l
The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs-
and conducted discussions with control room operators during the period
!
from April 7 to April 30, 1985. The inspectors verified the operability
of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records, and verified
'
' proper' return to service of affected components.
Tours of the reactor
L
building,- turbine building, and RHR complex were conducted to observe
, -
plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid
-leaks, and excessive vibrations, and to verify that maintenance requests
had:been. initiated for equipment in need of' maintenance.
<
i;
During'the inspection period while the' reactor was in a maintenance
outage,:the inspectors verified that-surveillance tests were conducted,
'
.
secondary containment integrity requirements were met, and emergency
systems were available as necessary.
The. inspectors, by observation-and direct interview, verified that the
physical security plan was being implemented in'accordance with the
station security plan.
The inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
During the
t
inspection, the inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the
Core Spray System and the Low Press'ure Coolant Injection System to verify
,.
operability by comparing system lineup with plant drawings, as-built
. configuration or present valve. lineup lists; observing equipment
conditions that could degrade performance; and verified that
instrumentation was properly valved, functioning, and calibrated.
The inspectors reviewed new procedures and changes to procedures that
were implemented during the inspection period.~ The review consisted of a
3.
verification for accuracy, correctness, and compliance with regulatory
4
~
requirements.
[
h
i
i
5
. - - ,
. . - . . - , - , . . - .
.
. - - . - - - . - . - . , .
-.-
.-
n
)
'
. . .
These reviews and~ observations were conducted to verify that facility
operations were in conformance with the requirements established under
technical specifications, 10 CFR,-and administrative procedures.
No11tems of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
- 7.
Monthly Maintenance Observation
"
Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components
listed below were observed to ascertain that they were conducted in
accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes
or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting
- conditions for operation were met while components or systems were
removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the
. ork; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were
w
.
inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were
performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality
control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by
qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified;
radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls
were implemented. Work requests were reviewed to determine status of
outstanding jobs-and to assure that' priority is assigned to safety-
related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following' maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
24/48 VDC Battery Replacement
. Removal / Installation of Control Rod Drives
Control Rod Drive Rebuild
Position Indicator Probe Changeout
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed in this area.
8.
Monthly Surveillance Observation
i:-
The inspectors observed surveillance testing required by technical
specifications and verified that:
testing was performed in accordance
with adequate procedures; test instrumentation was calibrated; limiting
conditions for operation were met; removal and restoration of the
affected components were accomplished; test results conformed with
. technical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by
'
personnel ~other than the individual directing the test; and any
deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and
resolved by appropriate management personnel.
l'
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following test activities:
i
'
Pre and Post CRD Removal Verification
Division I/ Division II 130 VDC Battery Charger Calibration
L
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
i
!
6
f
.
.
- .
.
,_
..
-,
.
9.
Surveillance - Initial Fueling
The. inspectors observed the following surveillance testing conducted
during initial fueling to verify that:
the tests were accomplished in
accordance with properly approved procedures; the procedures used were
consistent with regulatory requirements, licensee commitments, ard
administrative controls; minimum crew requirements were met; test
~
prerequisites were completed, special test equipment was calibrated and
- in service, and required data was recorded for final review and analysis;
the qualifications of personnel conducting the test were adequate; and
the test results were adequate.
' Shutdown Margin Demonstration
Control Rod Drive Friction Testing
Control Rod Drive Timing Tests
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
10.
Open Items
- Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
on the part of the NRC or ifcensee or both.
Open items reviewed during
. the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 2.
11.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with. licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on April 29, 1985, and informally throughout the inspection period and
summarized the scope.and findings of the inspection activities.
The
inspectors also discussed the likely informational content of the
- inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the
inspectors during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such
documents / processes as proprietary. The licensee acknowledged the
findings of the inspection.
!
lL'
i
e
B
!
- ...
.
[
!
7
'
. - -. - - --
- . - - . -
. - . - - - . . _ , - - . . . - , .
, _
- - - . - - - . . - . - - - . - - . - -