ML20207L768

Summary of 860908 Meeting W/Util at Facility Re Testing of Recently Installed Alternate Shutdown Panel.Attendee List Encl

ML20207L768
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	01/08/1987
From:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8701120341
Download: ML20207L768 (6)

Text

. . _ _ .__ .. _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _

i s January 8, 1987

• Docket No. 50-341 LICENSEE: Detroit Edison Company FACILITY: Fermi-2

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 1986, MEETING ON THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN PANEL On September 8, 1986, members of the NRR staff met with the licensee to discuss their testing of the alternate shutdown panel (also known as the 3L panel) recently installed at Fermi-2. Enclosure 1 lists the attendees.

On August 19, 1986, the staff sent the licensee a draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of the staff evaluation of the licensee's proposed technical specifications for the 3L panel. In that draft SER, the staff indicated that it expected the i licensee to perform testing of the 3L panel in conformance with the licensee's commitment to comply with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68. This meeting was held at the request of the licensee to discuss the testing that they had performed and their basis for not conducting further testing of the 3L panel system.

1 The licensee first discussed the difference between the 3L panel and the remote shutdown panel recuired to meet Appendix A (10 CFR 50), General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 requirements. The remote shutdown panel is the standard General Electric supplied panel with some plant specific modifications. The licensee stated that this panel was not intended to be used in the case of fire in any of the 3L defined fire zones. For fires in d er than the 3L fire zones, the 3

licensee would plan to stay in the control 4 They further stated that the

, abnormal operating procedures directed the operator to the correct panel. It is this remote shutdown panel that the licensee has tested in accordance with Regu-latory Guide 1.68.

l The 3L panel has been tested by testing every component that is operated from the 3L panel and all satellite panels. All controls were tested and " negative" tests were conducted, i. e., tests were conducted to assure that transfer was made to the 3L panel and that inadvertent actions could not be corducted at the control room or the remote shutdown panel. Fach instrument was checked and there are monthly checks against the control room instrumentation. Because the instru-mentation is redundant and routed from the same sensor, the licensee believes this is sufficient to detect any incipient failures. Equipment not common to

the remote shutdown panel, e. g., the Combustion Gas Turbines (CTG), and the standby feedwater system, were not tested as part of the Regulatory Guide 1.68

' remote shutdown test. These were tested separately. The staff questioned if the CTGs had been tested with them already loaded to see how they dropped off

~~

8701120341 870108 PDR ADOCK 05000341 OE PDR

Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Facility cc:

Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq. Ronald C. Callen LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Michigan Public Service Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 John Flynn, Esq. Lansing, Michigan 48909 Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Company Regional Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Dennis R. Hahn, Chief Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Robert Woolley Acting Supervisor-Licensing Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 >

6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Rogers U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Jixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161

a-. . 4-2 l

the grid and picked up the loads required to bring the plant to a cold shutdown condition.- The licensee's representatives were unaware if the. testing had been conducted for the load rejection capability and promised to provide that infor-mationlto the staff. The standby feedwater system was pre-operationally tested, and the two pumps are to be tested monthly on a staggered basis. As the main steam isolation valves (MSIV) are de-energized, they are not tested as part of the transfer'to the 3L panel. Manual stripping of AC and DC busses removes the power from the MSIVs.

The licensee stated that there had been only one change to the 3L panel since the testing of the components, and that was the addition of a torus level indication switch at one network panel.

The staff also discussed with the licensee the processing of a change order. The licensee stated that engineering changes went to the proper technical group with the appropriate drawings after all the safety reviews had been conducted. The licensee then changed procedures to reflect these changes. They further stated that modifications-to. equipment on the 3L panel would be tested from the 3L panel, if the change were to the control function.

~

The licensee represented that their method of testing the 3L panel overlapped and was sufficient to assure the panel would work when called upon. They stated that the remote shutdown panel was the panel designated as the panel used to meet their Regulatory Guide 1.68 commitment and that, furthermore, they did not vtant to use the 3L panel to shutdown the plant for a test. They argued that no one had tested a 3L panel at power to shutdown a plant. They iterated their interpretation that the remote shutdown panel was the one meant to be tested in Regulatory Guide 1.68. They further contended that it was a hardship to test from Mode 1, in that they might operate the RHR valves inadvertently.

The staff stated that they needed the licensee to provide the following information:

1) Verification of. the load rejection capability of the combustion gas turbine,

2) Description of how the 3L panel was tested,

3) Explanation of how the licensee believed they met their commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.68,

-4) Discussion of how changes to the 3L panel were verified.

i

l In a letter dated October 14, 1986 (F. E. Agosti to E. G. Adensam) DECO provided the test data addressed above, and a request for additional infomation related to the 3L panel was subsequently submitted by E. (i. Adensam's letter to DECO dated November 21, 1986. Deco has committed to respond to the November 21, 1986, letter in early January 1987. A license amendment, implementing the Technical Specifications for the 3L panel, is pending the satisfactory resolution of this matter.

/S/

Elinor G. Adensam, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page l

! /'

U N BWD-3: DBL lap 3 fDBL 4 D Dy BL

\1Stefano/hmc ERylton GTtrimin E niam

$/07/8$ 1%/6/8p M/7 /Pf 1//g/8f

.y ._ , , , , - . - _ _ _ _ - . , . . - . . . - . - - . -

ATTENDANCE AT FERMI ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN PANEL MEETING 09/08/86 NAME AFFILIATION E. G. Adensam NRC/BWD-3 K. M. Campe NRC/ DBL /PSB S. R. Frost Fermi Licensing S. V. Heard Fermi Operations John N. Ridgely NRC/DBWRL/PSB Jerry Pulman NRC/PSB l

January 8, 1987 MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION

'dDo"ck'eh No(s)if T50-341?

NRC PDR Local PDR BWD #3 r/f J. Partlow E. Adensam Attorr.ey, OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS (10)

Project Manager J. Stefano E. Hylton NRC PARTICIPANTS E. G. Adensam K. M. Campe John N. Ridgely Jerry Hula n bec: Applicant & Service List