iQ m <,,

, ,

(a ih . -H y' 'i s' % +'

,

;; gg ' _ h.- ' s. Reips sybi- . .[ps 9 d;Q 'n'.y ,

,

'

& sen a y$. ee w oent.

a..

,

.'i,' *

,i, ' h4@NOf th Okane H691W Ak .1s

,| | . Newpwt. Msctugan 48166 *

s M1315e44150 -,

T! ' ,

. . .

December 4 1989T NRC-89-0243

| W. . .

y+ ,

[j'

.Offic'e.of Nuclear Reactor-RegulationU.'S. Nuclear' Regulatory, Commission

f' ' , . Washington. D. C. 20555mW

-Reference' (1) Fermi.2di

. . . NRC Docket No.'50-341'' -NRC License No. NPF-43,ae

RC (2) NRC Inspcetion Report 50-341/89-200 dated

}{ October 3. 1989

(3 )- D'etroit Edison letter to NRC. NRC-89-0139'

,

o dated August.25, 1989

Subject - Response to Safety Systems-Outage ModificationInspection Report Concerns

*x Attached'is DetroitrEdison's response to the concerns-expressedin' Inspection Report 89-200 regarding the Safety Systems Outages. Modification Inspection (SSONI). In the cover letter for

', ,

Reference 2..it was requested that Detroit Edison respond to1* the openiitems-and weaknesses identified in the report.- The

four weaknessesLidentified in the report correspond to Items89-200-01, 89-200-03. 89-200-06 89-200-07 and'89-200-09 and

b will be addressed in those sections of the attached-response.

Detroit Edison-(DECO) is pleased that the NRC recognizes itsefforts.in the areas of safety evaluations, design document

a control, quality oversight of engineering activities andM

4~. maintaining the physical condition of the Emergency DieselGenerators. .These areas are representative of the-quality of.,

L work that this organization aims to bring to all of itsefforts.

' Deco also, acknowledges the four weaknesses identified by theteam. Two of these weaknesses involving calculational errors

. and the definition of post-modification testing requirements'

had already been identified within the-Detroit Edisonorganization. A third weakness. inconsistencies between designdocuments and the plant, specifically involving installedpiping supports, had been previously identified to DetroitEdison by.the NRC Diagnostic Evaluation Team. Efforts toresolve inconsistencies in the design versus as-built area

p[8912130477 891204 "vp0PDR' ADGCK 050003410 PNVI|

,

,+ .

$$$ WIRY N?26, ..

y . ,W 4~

7'

$MP (..

o ,

'M ilQ p;" Mf?6 ij 1*

,,;;.e o-

m , h%w' Ai , , >.

g ,- +

(YQ"!lW;m| |,'

s

%,; ;g W'

4 . .. . / y-' >

,,,,

s- .t .-- ya n: 4 -p g; ' Office 4ffNucidar-'Rea$ tor:Regulati'onh.

:dk 't!.a St Nuclea r.f Regulatc ryj Commission -" ' ''

s ' ;s i DecemberJ4 N1989 '~ "

,

|pg. G.. ?NRC-89-0243; -

+ .pp. .Page 2_, ' "'

?'. -a v~ m1] f 's ,';'41' Wn . - ,

'

h:Jw iwereVreassessedJto? ensure: the' appropriate;prioritiest were being.:.

Y, c ..

.placedfon the; items. JThe fourth <weaknens.1 control of: vend'or'

- xm. '-g -information..was. addressed promptly upon.its< identification"

hffL :(seeire f erence | 4) . -,

p|^ xl'

G s \ . . . _ . . . ...

k, G: ' .If6therelaresany questions.inLregards t o~. thisc response. < please:-

y!}T6M'contact Terry Riley. Supervisor of. Compliance'and.Special

'.

s P roj e c t s'. J a t ; -(313 ) ! 5 86-16 8 4 ' o r - Pa t ricia ''An t hony. - Complianceb'', Enginee r,: a t f,(313 )' 5 86 1617.'

g . pc.i *

b@;- J-au .

[#[ J.? 1 . Sincerely.s( ,

,'-. .

-. * -

:;- . ps

>,,-

t y* |:

htf(' '

_r<:...\, .;,

3 . ,. ,

; , , . .s 1 a

!! ' , i -ec t E A.c B .::Davi s .'.

"

Ji' , .R..W 4Defayette/W. L.EAxelson'

;

@ ' g ' '3..W .sG.-- Roge ra : om y

l -J. F.1-Stang-U,, I 7 Region?III-

' Document'. Control Desk-

,, ,

nu .

pg., cp y,

f

i 1 .

, 'c' ! i.

' , , w. : i .j

'fj

r. :|. , . . ..

~:. 3.

f5 " -li!i

A

.I#

3 ;;

..n y ".

g- 9i .4 q-4

fi s

-

. . . ,

.i

--f._

g_) -

5-" :.

'

,

!,

"I

& t

l'

.

'

.

>,

f~,j } (__ }* '

Lia i > .a G' a . j-

4

on a emqt n4 m,; ;' 4 ,

=-

> - , ,u wp~v

e,n g ?.Tf p g. _s, v ; ;.y:m w1 ., -,,1- > , - ,9

t 1- #

, ;, r

- -4 .

s e c.-

e _

, , igsym y sk ;Qy', 37 .-* q : ,o ; ti: a

. 3.i

o. ,_m , , ;sJRynb .. . .' Nj L3;'

T k'

* -* ^ 'wn W;f'/.j : . .~ 2::p, ;-. .

< i,-

,'

'4._- A, .

.v;y%,,eqMb;q.w' 1

:y -

.

p y' G:" ;- y' ,-

, '' ' M

g%;3W; ,, 3 , ,-,

' ..M -W i t c

VR e a i +a- , , . _ -e . w. 4m

@ ., ' a') . .g I.,w. s ,- ' 't t *

bhh ,. ,

,. . i, . . . Jj~-eii@;;.d Y.

i

!aRESPONSE TO NRC.INSPECTIONLREPORT150-341/89-200'

.h| 4;o ,

M "SAFETYi SYSTEMSJ OUTAGE HODIFICATION' INSPECTION'!%p@ A: ,

h.Wi.g M ,'

A> .

;-

w-My ww& ;; .mqw m ' = ;. . .. =

y~ . e-

,,sy. f j :' 'd.

%ny'jn, ,

'i7. i 334 ' ' ; e .: |; y,-4: ,

,o

No,rk_ D/...E |, .. .

,t 1x. +. p:Table ofIChntentL *-St l'

u$w;. w -um . , . . - a.

s@< s

:- v -:;t .a a,va m, 1 '%~ .s 4 n ,/

Wi%p;;" qd+-- c ,

, ,.- _ f is .

<jf,. .

,

g.yw * ,LItemt -Description: + Pane =,

i

<w, <.

PO!.t_4 , . W..t , a,

g msk 289.200-01:1 DDiscrepancies'Betweenfthe1LPiping7 Design _and- -2.

n< ,

S- | A s-Buil t ;Condit ion . . . . .:. . , i,. ' <

r. \' t 'w +. _ .

.

1

,x;g s 1

.

,; y. .i

- . . , . . .

H 0@. ;89-200-02:1 E s e t p o i n t, = C a l c u l a t i o n s . . ... . . . . . . , 6:-

sW w:( ]d ' it a.3 ,w ,

5 ' 3.j89 200-0':{ ' Failure toSSpecify Post ModificationLTest 8-.! OW:cm w.7~3 <a Requirements..'........." '

6 m.. - = -

t

*ki !t, , '' .h!

.k , .yy '' i

M1 ? L89-200.-04:; -_ R e l e y' . C o i l f V o l t a g e . . . . . . . . . . 11.*

i's 9 . ++ ' .li(") * s ' [~

.

_

.. .- . .

, ,

.,

'

.89'-200-05 .MOVATS Test: Procedures.......... ;12"

:.

: ' y' g - ' - x*~ ,

t +,

,

y, . - . - 1. . + . . .. f

gA e s.89 200H06:~ 1 Discrepancies 4Between:An-Built Piping and; '13; .

4Muf , the.Pipin's Analysis...........- .w4

'

'1*

; ;In ::;, ,1

,

:c:w ., u-y

289 200-0[:' 1EDG Sizing Calculation....~...... 15-1O '* A 4 m,p,

.

sij : ''-

a I .4 i ''l | 2 4- . . ..

,,w J 8 9.e 2 0 0- 0 8 : Residual' Heat Renoval (RHR) Motor :164

-% w,

' ; y Overcurrent . Relay..........,

< . < >- ,

e,&

><.

: w,, < J89-200-09:- 'Controlsof Vendor Information.......... 18 4

y:a , , ' , . -]'

c ,.

< J.a 9 .,.,

| '' n .- -

, - - ,,

,I ''y /,k',

]; 3 .h, f

ddOyJ , -<

11

I. F

r ,- .

am 4'

,

-}''..<(|g 'a .-s

*

5

.

,Page 1n.

m,..

.-} .1| F' e

i2>

@ ?! : t.,,

a - y

gn Wg ' '

, ..- s

,.

Qi| y<'g - , _ >~ ^ *~

y

$b9R ~'i e%; .

e

,

' '

gvt 4 --

,,

h7 (U[ .N ''

;A< i 1e i -;.

e | RESPONSE 1T0!NRCTINSPECTION.REPORTL50,-341/89-200' '

D Yt;s ;c>

.|'' %" '

.'

i

kP7[ '

89-200-01- : Discrepancies Between the Piping Design 1i

,' 'Deficlency.

p@y"E -i

and As-Builticondition- ,j.

.- ,-

i;% . o

[ 3!- '' vin _Ref e renc el 2', Lit fst at es :&- gb. r 1

- - -

yw* <

g q y 1'. < During the.reviewsof theLnitrogen-purgelto-TIP system '-.

,

Q,^

! discovered;that.thefpipeisupport that< presently _ holds the.modifications associate;d with the~EDP-49406 the teams

(T . , ~

h|[w- Eseismic Category I? pipe from the drywell_linercup to-the ~Et. |t

L c o n'.ie c t i o n toLthe tubing in the TIP'driveiroom'at penetration I

ST -' LX-35G|is not.'shown!inLthe. baseline design drawing.2

[ -t.

i.6I721-2837-9.: Theiexisting; pipe supportirestrains the 1-1/2"! *

O lm

h[g]~'pipeninithe_ late'ralshorizonta1> direction and in the.downwards !,

' direction. . However. the' support does-not. restrain the motion.

,

fof the-pipe in?the? upwards _ direction. -Furthermore, the !" *"~ ' ~

licensee wastunable to show design-calculations: qualifying.,

( theipresentspiningc nd: pipe support; arrangements.' ' *a?;g '

The licensee! issued a DER that evaluated the'present piping:,

* "

|and? pipe support configurations and found them acceptable.The' DER. recommended that the piping system and =primaryJ,

~ q"containment remain operable until a documented des 1 n basisE, s

| .

isJprovided for'the. existing'~ installation or when EDP-4940 is'

%' installed. ' Modifications planned for the coming outageN .(EDP-4940)-wil'1 modify this specific piping and pipe support'. *

m#

L '2./ .TheD team-also' reviewed the-modification-for.the elimination-

k of the2 cross-tie floodLeontrol valves from the reactor'

buildingisub-basement sumps associated with EDP~5299.' The d'

. team discovered that.four:small bore pipe. supports had not j,

!J -been installed. The missing pipe supports -shown in the. 4analytical isometric'.6WM-E21-5110-3 and drawing 7g ,

6 6WM-E21-5086-11 affect the Division 1 core spray pump casing"% -vent, seal. leak-off and-casing 1dral' lines..

Two of'the-missing supports (G02 and-G03) were designed to be ,

located.in the,3/4" casing' drain line in the i

seismic /nonseismic_ interface area, downstream of the jsafety-related_ isolation valve V8-2052. Support G02 is a j

guide and support, 003 is.a deadweight hanger. j'. 1

l-The other two missing supports (G06 and 008) were designed to'

be located.in the 3/4" casing vent line and 3/4" seal_.

leak-off line, respectively. Both were deadweight . hangers. j"

P 1

15 .

't

a

I

I

Page 2L -

i

@%@@R?f, * % ;| "9 . , y* ' ,: .

''* *

'M V . ' MbM ',( ; '|; U M; _ sy

,

w A.,> W,.g W 14

m a.j ; . . g ~

k, 'i 59 { [ !; 'z4'

$,> t | RESPONSE T0!NRCEINSPECTION REPORT-'50 341/89-2001p'sy

@[|i ' :The211censeejissued-a DER with evaluationstthat showed that:,. . .

. . .. . .. .

,,

h i M the threecaffected; pipe'1'ines mee.t all:theLdesign_ code L1

F"

lirequirements''in the as-installed' condition. The' DER-'

'

1 ; 1 recommends that all?the_affected pipingLand!thex core spray-,

;, pumpiremainioperable~until thefdesign basis calculations are~

<

l' ;updatedsto rsficetTthe 1notalledEcondition or..unti1*EDP 5299 41

gg $ , ' fis: in"s till e d'.: ' Modifications planned for'the-| coming outagey'p ; $(ED 65299);will;modiff the.routingLand supports,of thesek~ 1three-' lines. The' licensee - also_ agreed (totverify.'on a4"

$ [samplingfbasis, the' actual installationio'f small bore.,

gi : safety-relatedLpipeisupports ~ against:the representativeismall-, ,

M . bore? stress; isometrics.-,

p%s

C ' (. ."In:t h i~al Ac t ib n s I Taken:;

6y

[' m' 4'Upon?. discovery.-offtheseldeviations..therexisting Nitrogen Purge'

,,

?ond; Core Spraygpump.A1 casing' drain piping' systems (part 1), and.

drywell penetrationisupports |(partL2),Lwere evaluated <and?foundyy i,

to? satisfy the UFSAR' design requirements in'their existingo,

p Jconfigurations_'. Therefore.,the. piping systems ~ primary'

1.' , TcontainmentLand:associatodi components remained operable,ov*j } Duiing the-'Iirstirefueling outage, the Nitrogen Purge piping

t

gg systemJand; penetration supports were modified by EDP-49.40 and the.C CorejSpray: pump?AJcasing; vent, seal ~1eak-off and casing drain-

.

'

_ piping (systems were'modifiedoby EDP.5299. The modified; systems; j,

s Halsoisatisfys the. UFSAR : design. requirements. . , Design calculation' jtreVi's'ionsUsupporting theJmodified piping _ systems'have been j+

,

@A ! completed._ ]+

1-nic tions~ 'toi Prevent Recurrence:'>

@

'( w \1) ,'Nitronen Purge:Line' '

'

added'to containment:|The< penetration supports werepenetrations:X-35A through X-35Giby Design Change cPachage'

,,,,

-(DCP) C5116'.101.(the predecessor:of EDPs)-prior to initial, .

ifueliload -but.only the; supports for X-35B through X-35F areM ,' | chown| .onJ drawing - 6I7 21-2 837-9. The DCP failed-to identify

ialli the = p rope r d rawirigs to be revised; resulting in the,

' '

.

- _ penetration supports for X-35A and X-35G not being shown on=any drawings.

w _The Nitrogen Purge piping from penetration X-35G was modified ,

_by;EDP 5100. The ' design calculation--that supported thisy

V, -modification was not complete when the.EDP was issued.. , Engineering-procedures at that-time did not provide a means 3

f to. issue EDP's without complete documentation (such as vendor !Q 'ecrtifications, drawings or calculations) and track the

documentation to completion prior to declaring the systemg,'

operable after modifications. Procedures since March 1986provide for " Engineering Operability 'onstraints" which allowa design change document to be issued to allow field work tor

;y n Page 3'

n i ,s ,

i, 3 - :

j-p ,

14@W dj (p @'n;i :#WRi y M"**" P- _ , dem '

'

-* <

,2c y; 4' ' *-+ 4 ;

~i ! c* 3" '

n; &[ S $' p. !g d M , N ,<

s r

;Q ; ;% M:; .# W - # ,"'

1,

" '

m,

- ,, ,,

?;s fYdG ?Q ' Yk y$ ,, ff;% ..

'

' "k +

h hhY , -

'

. ,

!u:, m .g ,,..,b i t (rp / U$ , e, .i _.3s. 'id , ) >-

'-

~ .

i

A q[y % 5,b e\ ^gintwithout;calculationsior.,other selected 1 documentation''P - -

$$M/ME "" Yb e i tig /c ompl e t e ~.y The ten g irie e rin g . -Op e r a b ili ty ? C on s t r a in t' 1 hL pl FprovidesfaDmeansttoksupportLfieldLwork-:with1 timely; design-

4 * e b_53/JchangesJwhile: ensuring thatJa11? design documentationVis ' SC M4 icomplete5before the1 system;isLdeclared| operable ^a'fter 1?

h M [A> <2, ' , , (modification.; ;''

,g .. v ,- ;ic.

. . _ .

determinceif 'ne -

y W TheidesigE M icul'ationLlog:wasireviewed"toiw.7j$p % '

, >

$ taimilarLprpblems>Joccurred with1calculationsbsupportingfotherfQ4 ['@K; ','fsa f e tyf rela tedi EDP3 s .t .: Nolfurther'; problems were; identified;-djiM' f jthisLmissing calculationiappears(to?be.'an isolated 1 event.g ;,1

'

7

k [Q,h' A MLines;W '

r, :. ,.

,,

d 2)kCobESp'ra'y PumpfAMCasing Vente' Seal Leakoff 7and=Casinn4 Drain < fpa _ .Mdjj , ,

,y qq.-

,

c , 9. ug' @g , jThefsupports[= f or: the: Core Spray-pumpjA casing vent.iseal' _ jI , $ ,}y

'

is Glenkoff andfcasing;draingpiping were not' properly;inctalled. q-

MMy W JNoti .saf etyo supports,7 003 006i and-- G08,; vere _ missing.s butD an |-

iequi. valent:Edegree Lof fouppo rt was provided by the; embedded ;,',a- ,

,' Ld rain ' p'ipe? f unnelf. 4 Safety related: support?G02?was installed d"'>>

i ' QWE f ore t he ' a'dj acenth s eal l'eak- of f; piping ?instead" of E t he casing; %

,.- ]9

Jth , - d r ain); p ip in g .' _ ThiuLdeviation:was analyzed.ualong.with'

a -

W C//T. / deviations 1;identifiod b 1 Detroit Edison inithe-control? air#o w MU , ' 'Lafter c o ol'e r1 d r dinL piping 1and;the contro1Jair receiverntank.'

-

'

1

W ]: F $dra'in :; piping.;'Landithe, f ollowing .'simila ritie s; wo re identified:'P- '

''

g 79.

-

''

q.mf d; s

.. ;.,s . , . . . .

-t

m ,p VA.- LAl'1SdeviationsLeoncern piping or s u p p o r t s. n e a r... a change., t i -.

J~ 4 <; Lin pipidg?classificationLfrom' safety related'to ydu. k[1

.

' n'o n- s a f e ty, ' r el a t e d . . j7 m ,

^ $ q. : B .1 iA11'areJama111 bore:(NPF t 2-1/2"). mechanical piping.- _|'

+

.J [ ^ M' systems..

: ma e

3 r

re dfains or. vents versus' process' lines. |[ r? |C. 'A11W t -

m >

i >,

'I 3 D.- All are attached to equipment versus piping or ductwork. *

,

yya q-7

eM , -: E '. - All-'are-located inside the Reac t o r- Auxilia ry Buil_ dinge

f" m -versus Drywell or ' Residual 'llcat Removal Complex..*

s ,3 , : F.- _'All systems were originally designed'by.theLSmall B. ore.. .. . . .

%s , G y Design Group'.-*7

t< |'

%g KDased'on,these similarities. a design revicu and plant' 4

. .

'_ W , ' $ :walkdown, plan was developed. The plan involves _a design .in4 - treview'of small bore mechanical trim piping attached tofg' ! safety.related equipment and large bore piping in the

!

$3

#'

I <..*5'

- > f' page 4,'w

' :d fyrjft''

Q ;)|. ,

g

4--: L , |t: , ,

. ,qm re. 5 ;,a_

-

''

-t'. a. c. ,

,

;c. ,-

'

-

-

,

g[ > RESPONSE 1TO'NRC. INSPECTION-REPORT 50-341/89-200

.. Reactor-Iuxilary Building. Based on the number.-of' pipe i.

'

n', -. supports'on~these lines and line. accessibility under poweroperation. .the< plan will involve walkdown of a' statisticallyo; g. .

:'significant. number.of. pipe supports near the~ boundary between.

. . ' nafety-related and non-safety'related pipinC. -The design!i,p review and.pla'nt:valkdown effort'will-be completed by-the_-end

-of-February of 1990..,

, i,

,.

'

i..

'' ,-I

i

>

5 )g

f. i

4

)

i

f

Page 5

*

.

h(N hMg [ * :t'*' '

b ,;f ''

' 't q<

W '; pg v y;| t 'L, <, - * " m' ,F '

>.,r . W zq. g . :..q, 3 r .v_

&|-

i ' #$; y 7a <,

g ' -

m,u, .

; >> ,; i <

yQg",4~|:e ,

l ,' ! RESPONSE?T0iNRC cINSPECTIOW REPORT L5 0 -341/89-200,

;. m m .~. . ,

k ,

nw jDeficisney 89-200-02: :Setpoint: Csiculations'

, y # , -,

g d Thaisecondiconcernfof'the' team was.~as follows:--

u n , ' in t . .* >,

[([E,'%DuringFthis71nspectibnithelteam' reviewed! Calculation.4522..Tj!J ' -

# " Instrument SetpointvValidation".:'

' '

cThe team notcd that the, . ]c ' setpoint?calcul'ationifor the steam 1dgmeihigh pressure scram was=s

F j^ s:Lperformedj_on(Junt''17 <1989 using.135 F;as o'drywe11' ambient '-

itemperature; evenL though certain areas .in : thet drywell were hnown . t o:n}% .

M)'fAlthoughJengineeringfpersonnel-were_ aware of higher;drywell' . [

's

{ggj|*?Wbefatatemperaturectsubstantially-higherEthanthis, number.it

temperatures for two years. theyLfailed to use the-. actual ambient" '

A(M y . s] calculation.!g.g t empe ra ture2valuejf orldensit'y! c ompensationif or. the scramisetpoint'

Increased temperature lowers'the' density-of water'' Qr6sult|is inCaDiower value of static head.-- 'As a. result.- the.'s M 1

'

c$ |high-pressureJs,cramisignalimays n o t' ' b e : . generated at.the designated4[ , ,7 ripfsetting? LAlth_ough-theiovera11.effect of the. higher:

.

t~

4

(gj % ttemperature on1theLinstrument"accuracytappeared to be negligible.i4 , thesiicenseeingreed to: revise the calculations'as necessary to

R', sincludefthe appropriate temperature inputs.? 3: . - vLyj C |InftialGActionsir

et

,3 _

,M,, OA>sens, itivity Yanaly'ais was | perf ormed' in? 1985 and - retained in-'

Yif b (Nucle |ar[Enginoeringis; working: files. This analysis showed'that'

gf ; tempera ture ? variation'"in the.'drywell'has negligible effects!o_n ;

.

' l; "Lhigherftemperature areas which were identified in thendrywelicin

,

'

4processs measurement.: ' Based-upon the sensitivity analysis.Lthef'.

h.. e J1987.iwere1 considered to-be analyzed conditions'. The actual''c

:3 -

C R. itemperatures: didcnot significantly affect instrument loop~

6 * lperformance:.13, >

;g s

L,The higherYtem'eratures;would''cause-a 0.2-psig differen'ceEbetween 1p1

LaMransmitt'er4 calibratedL at 135 degrees Fahrenheit and one7

S calibratedEat'the. maximum higher drywell temperatureLfound. This; .i'ajarnegligible! difference for.the high pressure trip'since the qsg ,

LL4 ; sinstrument! span is 1500 psig. j~

a:y , .

, w , ,

|Forfievel'. measurement,' '

instrumentation would vary a maximum'of Lj,

y, ~0.L51/ inches'due to the drywellitemperature variance. The process ;'

; measurement accuracy w'as accounted for in the design calculation,

issuedEin-1988.- The Technical Specificatione setpoint and i. +a * ,i!"

La11owable vclues were validated and met thc C 2eral Electric's j-setpointimethodology requirements. !,

w' .. l.P, iThe ' average area temperatures for the thermocouples located near -

theRaenc~ing. lines for the instruments on racks H21-P004 H21-P005, j|1- fH21-P006 H21-P022, H21-P009 and H21-P010 were determined. For

1the? instruments on racks H21-P009 and H21-P010, which were, ,

'

dep1' aced during the first refueling outage, the higher drywell,

:g

Page 6 ),

A< w:. aygc .,

m .'' I-

.,3

/t; 9+

e

['i a- KW ' ~

,,

'~

V r

'

. .

50-341/89-200* RESPONSE TO NRC. INSPECTION REPORT-*

'',

-temperatures were used to calculate the required headt corrections. In addition, the deaign calculations for the rocksnots beingEreplaced during the first. refueling outage have beenre'visodsto-consider the' higher drywell temperatures when

'.calibrating 1 the.. existing' transmitters.

nThe existing 1 calibration of each' transmitter'has been' reviewedagainst the--calibration at. elevate'd drywell-temperatures. It hasbeen=det'erminedithat the1 resultant differencoc .are very small..

i The'refore,_the Technical Specification and setpoint validation-contained-within'the design calculations'is still valid'since the,

process. measurement' accuracy accounts.for the-drywe11' temperaturevariations..

' Actions To Be Taken'To Prevent' Recurrence:

'Th'e following design calculations listed below'will be revised toLaddress~the effects of. elevated drywell temperatures by the end ofJJanuary'of 1990:

t'

DC-4522 Reactor Done Pressure,

:DC-4523.-Uide Range;-Water Level,,

-DC-4528, Narrow Range Water Level,,

DC-4556,' Remote. Shutdown Reactor Pressure,

DC-4573.EAlternate Shutdown Reactor Pressure and ;

DC-4579. Accident Monitoring Reactor Pressure..

Calibration of all the affected instruments will consider elevateddrywel'l-temperatures after that date.

Theretare several prograus in progress to verify that actual plant: parameters are as. originally assumed. These. programs include:the besign Basis Document (DBD) Program, which is upgrading,consolidating and clarifying the system design basis; the DesignBasic Task Force Program, which is reviewing celected key systemsfor design basis deficiencies; and, self-directed Safety SystenPunctional Inspections (SSFI) which review the effectiveness oftho'overall configuration management program as well as the designbasis.

'Page 7

_ _ ---__

Q & W @"W | W ,' ~ ?~"

* ! *f g i '+' % y' ,

5;, A< $

"

,

i

- ,

4-yg .0 . . . ,

M@u n)AoMP' m u'

, , ,g ,

.Ts44, _ g-- , .

( 3 . j-J . - ..

. 4'

- - ( + -

W L bRESPONSE : TO 'NRCEINSPECTION REPORT 50-341/89-200.i

,

v_V e, sJ ) >' t&M,; , ',

7s,mJ,

,s* _

y$[hg;'(DefidiYnc[892200 O3 IFa11ure;to Spec i f y, Pos t-Modif.ic a t,l on L Te s't :i'

'

4.e ,. Requirements, +-s,

s i |4 :"Thelinspectionyreportestated:'-ga -e .

;

'.

w wuOt

' ' '- s .. .i '

'

$;_p'dg & -? t

cThe1 team:revi:ewed EDP)9094'which1wa'sLissued to, replace'the ".4, - ,

I L esi|s t ingiQ Ah leve1L 1',1Sei|smic .- Ca t ego ry . I,; R'osemount. Mode 10115 2 -'

yte iserie'sJpressure andflevel transmittersJon the primary containment-p* JaccidentEmonitoringj(PCAM)Lsystem w'ith .Rosemount Mode 1V1153 series: -

'

",O,> : transmitter.s toscomply'with current environmental qualificati.onE"n .r e q u ir'em e n t s and to?reducelfuture environmental qualification 1

,

Mt - ' ma in t'e n a n c e1 r e q ui r em e n t s . -

% 4|a ' ' , . .. . 1

@!JTheiteamanotedlthat;the EDP:did not-specify'requiremento foL the'

.

,

? {po s t1m od i fic a tionit'e s t ; (PHT) .acceptanceLeriterial ins'tead. .in - '

g

W ; :Section 91of|the EDP..a nfew surveillance. procedure numbers were:: n. . . 1 included |i'n lieutofJapecific acceptance-criteria-for-the'PMT. Th'e IN

E % | team:vaaminformed.byL11censee; engineers that'the plant main tien an c eSLataff establishes the test' acceptance criteria on the basisLof the v

'

>* 2 design? ch|angenfin; the EDPLand performs =the testEto the: test- '

& acceptance-criteria established.by the plant maintenance' staff;.d ' ,4 :The sitetprocedures require that PMT acceptance criteria shouldEbe;-

y" 1 v ' Japec'ifiedUby,the;' design engineer involved in'the modificationiand''

LahouldanotShe'left'for the'interpretatio.n;of in s t rumenta tion : t es t'.-

! "n et'echnicians 1who' may 7 not' be familiar =with;the-design objectives of 9-

@ *a Lthe'imodification.';Thesteam was in f ormed -'that- t he. PMT ' res ult shwe re -' '

". not'reviewe;d by|theLdesign engineer.~

]l.

<

q; -i

ETheLteam:wasualsoLeoncerned that a_ proper design verification of-''4

' W ythe/PMT.; acceptability |could not be done when the EDP'is issued4 'y9 (b.ecause thexreferenced PMT procedures may be later. revised without' '

4

3, ,

. reverification'of thelPMT requirements. Although Procedure-U[ LFIP- CM1-12 was : issued 'in March 1989 and provides explicit

-

,

,

g - ; requirements for inclusion <of.PMT-instructions"and acceptance'

criteriaLwithinmthe EDP. it was' evident to the team that this9 y | procedure had not been fully a'dhered to during the generation of

_

{] , '7thelEDPs. -The licensee agread: to ensuring.that the engineering ;-

: personnel- would-review the-adequacy of the EDP PMT requirements'as!", ;part'oftthe new EDP-ownership program,

y

', iThefteam also reviewed a DECO qua31ty assurance audit report j

sc ?88-252fthat had previously identified that PMT requirements were- ]1 Jnot,-adequately defined within the EDPs. The engineering 1

9' organization had initiated a review of several hundred EDPs forgp 'PMT adequacy as part of the corrective action. j'

s,

Initial Actions Taken: g,,

.-

'

f Nu.clea r Engineering has taken a number of positive steps to -Iaddress concerns about inadequate specification of PMT in EDPs. j

aj

4 ,

Page 8 aj,

'

4a

f_

k k Y ' "" '*

s : ,

m& j wa. ;w & - 4

. ,

u% wn we a'~ ><

q r'!+,.

3$ SAjj ? ' y : V :Lwma *"nr . _ . . . . .

. ... . .

''

- JRESPONSE 1T0. / NRCJ INSPECTIOUL REPORT f 5 0-3 41/89-2 00'Mg i|u ,

g .~ .-

,[,.

!yet'

\ : :

Nt

N '

4- y% .s ,s a ,

g" g( V Prior to:-:the^SSOMI team's finding.cDER 88-2013. was written to-,. 't-

.

~ ( ,Laddressithistissue? LNucicaroEngineeringlu,' corrective-acti'onsN M y ?iricluded( reviewing 1'approximat elyj 3 00: EDPa 'i'a sued s but not yetL <

p. , , @ La~s-b uilt .s whic h1we re .-t o f be' implemen t e d ' du ring. the'~ f iro t - reiueling - .-

-'

X X outage,cfor|purposca:ofLidentifying and incorporating-adequate PMT_ ".

" im Jrequirements.- (Nuc. lea riEngine e ring ' uJ review p of: firstirefuelingi.

gf$ . 9EDPsiissuedibutLnotsyet'as-built,was completed as-of August;8,' ')

6[,[W(j'frefuelinghoutage/wereincorporatedintioffutureJNu'elearEngineering jL1989.1.The"remainingfiscuedLEDPs2 not required f.or the first?7 4

*

Tg ' y planned activities.- 1

'. |,.'

(LI ' J. ..

' '.

$/h % LActiondI iTak'en To'PreventERecurrence: jW :'. . , . . . . . .,1-

, .

%m..

ggp tri J EInfadditiontt'ofperfprming.a; review 'ofDiscued but not'as-built EDPs. jD >t ifor1 adequate"PMTfspecifications, the following; procedures''were= J,

f$, ; revised-oriwrittentshort1yfbefore or,cubacquent to'this NRC Q~

,

R .

; inspection with~ respect to PMT: '

.--

-

.m w#

g' . $,.t, L ,oS,. , , .. .i;s

: FIP-CM1- 12; (Rev~ ; 0 is sued f 3 / 2 2/ 89)~, "Enginee ring Da cign i

NQ''' Pachagec'' 4 The procedure f or preparing Engineering Decign1

9Mm M LPackagenLwauprovised to-strengthen and clarify already'

e",Z$of : existing?PMT requirements.~

,y? .y

% [FIP-CM M S.."Decign= Verification"'- The checklist for@@" ''

|perf orming1 esign ' verification reviews _(DVRP) 'alreadyd

: required 1theJreviewer to check the= adequacy of PHTR#'

*s

,

Ed Tr o q uir un e n t a '. .<yp t ., s

-- < ,

' N Vj o i, LNPP-CM1-01::(Rev.J 3 'is sued. 8/17 /89) , " Implementation of i,

g4 Modificatio'ns""- The procedure requires the Maintenance Job '

_'"| Plann e r L t o / c ont a c t Nuclear Engineerin'g if PMT is.not listed-(M' LinEtheDEDPlor if-the.EDP was issued prior to' January 1 1989.,

'

c , .. . ... ..

\

Ki@ 'oL [UPP-CT1-06-(Rev. 0 issued 2/01/89), " Post Maintenancei

. Tes ting.!'"- Thic ~ revision enhanced the me't hod ol f or selecting,;"

@,,, .

-documenting, and performing' testing to demonstrate. equipment-'" *

u Loperability-following the completion of maintenance and-* - " modification activities.+$$ [Further Nuclear Engineering' action to addreas Pl!T requirements-

y lopecified in EDPs was. implemented during the first refueling4

VT [ loutage. This: involved:the'EDP "ounership"| program. This program~

^

, _ ~ p' was: developed to. assign a.cingle individual the responsibility for* "

; monitoring all aspects of the~EDP cycle including design."

Grocurement.-installation and testing. One of the specific EDPbownership responsibilities was to review each EDP for adequacy and

\, ' ' completeness ~ requirements. If the PHT appeared inadequate,

of'PMT,

if for1 incomplete, the EDP owner was directed to either issue anEngineering-Change Roquest against the CDP to clarify the PMTrequirements.or work directly with the organization implementing

&;nMm .

r * } .,

0, Page 9'

,

,

'

s

ER~

o

[ a: |',

h ::a-

2 RESPONSE TO NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-341/89-200'

g|- .

L sthe PMT to provide clarification. Direction has been-given to'

Nuclear Engineering personnel to ensure that future EDP's clearlye state' the.PMT acceptance criteria and do not .just refer to test

L ; pr oced u r es . -

Based on' feedback from the EDP owners, Maintenance, Modifications'c and .the;NRC Maintenance Inspection Team, it was determined thatL, . additional 1trainingLis needed with respect to incorporation of

acceptance criteria'in EDP's. This training .will be completed by 'February 1990. In the interim, PMT requirements,.as provided in

[. EDP 's are .beingf reviewed for. adequacy at the GeneralSupervisor / Director level.7

,

i

s

'|1

N 'l

l

i

1

!

I

i

Page 10

. ... . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

' )o m>h f ? M k ~ *_; , y''

. c- ^ '^ k,

, ,yo m~

, . , ,

f;,,; f@ MO R, . 5" *Wi~,-y

1,] 7 /d, . U|- 3 ; ' ; r,s

,

i ' #,

.

r,

- qt - ,? ,

rsM oy M

yd j g ;cg,~ q;- ya

,,

c y ..

kM '' ', - 1 RESPONSE IT0lNRC iINSPECTION- REPORTL-5 0-3 41/ 89-200 =,

> '.c<8; ,

, >

[[ . .,?;Deficlincy 89-200-04:1 RelayE ColleVoltage j'

O s, 4zn.. ,

Nm- - . ; 7.4

,

K Th'evfourth7 concern identified wasaas'follows: it%p, . w m ug5' ~ ,j- '5, ,;_ |., , . .

... ,

.

_ _{A1

k f_. . . Rev iewfo'f G EDP s s 102 21andJ7838-identified thatsreplacementirelays 1,

N Q A ihadgbeen)specified.;byhengineering.J substantiatei thatJa1 review :had ' hoen -perf ormedito ossess < the = w) to.sNo documentation was found t

D 11voltagel tatingTof;ther relay; coils'with respect t oit he: an tic ipsit ed '% S;E :

QN 5sy s t em is ou rs e s v ol t'.a ge s . ,Tho'' licensee evaluated 1the. rated pickup'.-

>

T'3s ,

;v o1Lt a gef an'dithelaximu'm Jpermis sibl e c on t inu ou s | c oil voltage offthelk X '| rep 1acement(relays'versus"thebanticipatedimaximum voltage-during-~

~

>

1 ,

s : h'a t t e.ry e q ualiz a t i~on~ : an d L t he' l ow e s ti b a t t e ry ,vol t a ge s . , -The/@M Lanalysist f oundf th'ef replacement . relaysiveressatisf actory :f or the.

<

Q. #.9 Kintendednservice.%~ : 1 + V

'

s

'';. Th e ~11 c e n s e cT a g re e d ', t'o revise ''t he( p roc essL t o sincorporats fan '4 1 y | explicit-check"ofsthistaspect)forJfuture, design' changes.- The

.

,

;y ,, Q 'Elicensee sddition'allyfagreed;to;analyzeLthe; existing relay 1cf installationsewith respect to relay. coil characteristics..'

y ~, ,

h' Initi'aliAEtions Taken: :m >

M e

'A.ststatediabove... analysis has'shown that the replacement relays 7. .,

'

' , . !were found to be, acceptable. In. addition, . Nuclear'Engineeringthas-

,

idetermiredLthaf Design: Calculations- 900.-835 andE539.had-'

,[ ' sadequathly verified th't.AC-and DC electrical and~ control' 'afg components.c,inclnding' relay = coils, designed.' procured and M&N presently? installed were appropriate,

t-- | Actions Taken to' Prevent: Recurrence: 5~

y.

d,, ,

, 1,.

cIni rderato ensure that: future relay. installations are-assessedito - !FQ W - o

(~~

jverify'thetcoil' voltage' rating'are acceptable-for the-. intended i, ,

=se rvic e . ..p rocedu r'e : FIP-CH1-13 " Design Verification"..was revised.

'

.to.. require verificati'on -of maximum and minimum voltage-limits'for- :-

.

jele'etrical and-' instrumentation and control components.,

! ,

I

-fb(3

.

a<

y

?

:tt

1 -

a +x ,

m. ;Q ; a. G,

a ;)

h

p 7H;~ 1

; -(-

> 'q

EE.

L, Page 11 ,

J n. |

|ep yy pyw t

,- ,, f ~ w: =,

4 su.; ,.

a | E.

....,

* RESPONSE T0 NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-341/89-200,

h! Deficiency 89-200-05: MOVATS Test Procedures

- In the SSOMI report, it states:

During the review of the DECO procedures for performing MOVATStesting of MOVs,-the team identified that proceduresNPP 35.306.010 and NPP 47.306.001 did not delineate where thethrust acceptance values are obtained. While PDC 8505 wasindicated'to be the source, the PDC contains both thrust valuesthat are calculated by Limitorque, Inc., and thrust values from- the MOVATSi-Inc., database. No formal mechanism was in place toensure the engineering defined acceptance criteria were utilizedduring the. performance of site MOVATS testing.

Initial Actions Taken:

In order to address this concern, Nuclear Engineering hasrequested via an internal memo that maintenance personnel contactNuclear Engineering to obtain the appropriate thrust values priorto performing MOVATS testing on an interim basis.

Action To Be Taken To Prevent Recurrence;

Detroit Edison will update its Central Component (CECO) databaseto include the thrust values. This action is included in Fermi2's-Long Term MOV Action Plan as follows:

1) Incorporate the thrust values for Q1 motor operated valves-into. CECO by December 15, 1990.

2) Incorporate the thrust values for Q1M and Q2 motor operatedvalves into CECO hy July 15, 1992.

3) Revice the motor operated valve. maintenance procedurec todirect the users to CECO for thrust values once theinformation is available on the CECO database.

Page 12

K: Q' ; MM@ , _ ,' :g

'

Tp ; -

, ' ' ' ' n,"r,'>

.S , . ; b 1Vhi; A

r t,,.

' : ng e$w W' '

-

' ' , 'gy f 7" i =sj ,

xm :? L a', .s ,. m

j4@: .: RESP 0NSE T01NRC? INSPECTION REPORT'- 50-341/892200 j

'

i m,

s

m'. , rrr~ 3 . . , _ . . _ , ~ . - .

v ,''- Deficiency 189-200-06: . DiscrepanciesiBetween As-Built Piping and-'

g

'1 the Piping Analysis, s7'

5: m.

4: 1.e !Inithe-Linspectiontreport. it1statest.- .swr ,e

-,

my'

~

forg%

['DuringitheEreview-of piping--calculations-and: plant salkdown's. y

;thejEDGjservice7 water, system.=therteam discovered several ;*

> s

f' m(discrepanciesJ1setween.theLpiping~analyals.and the as-built-J:7 iconditions. CalculationLDC-2924 provides_the piping a t r'e s s7

SM Hanalysiscior-the 8"LEDG1 service. water return line from the'EDG=11- Hp 'L(R3001S001)fupIto.theitle-in'.with the 24"! residua 11 heat removal-

% ! s e rv i c e[w'a t e r ) (RHRSW) l lin e , - The' latest revision to thisu>,<

~

' icalculation,7done on' November-20, 1984', is designated as Addendum~

4

\[ ~. revision was done to reconcile thefas-built. gaps of U-bolt type.of} (C)|:: t of the piping : s t res s_ repo rt l f or -'.subsys t em - SX-10. This j

.

' '"

d ' ' s'upports(withsthelpiping. analysis._ Sketches depicting the actual'

-

tP U-b ol'.t'. gap s = a r el. s hown fin? the Adden'dum C't'o'the calculation, pages- '

p -

. ,

f !15EthroughK20F 'Th;e team ~ discovered: that-one of these sketches.

q7 |doesanot: agree with'the|actu,a1 as-built condition. The sketch for-.Ihange'r'R30-2181-G13 shows.the.U-bolt with the strong axis located-'

-

3', >E horizontally'and(with'-gaps'all around the pipe. In the actual

'

faupportEconfigurationJan.. confirmed by the-team's walkdown, thei e

'EU-boltLis located with athe strong axis in the vertical di'rectioninn.d with no: noticeable gaps-in the vertical direction. ~ The'

+

* , _[ orientati'on'ofFU-boltspand'theLlocation.and magnitude'of the gaps

Linfluencefthe modelingLofirestraints in the piping analysis and .

'

. t t h e' g'ene ra tion s o f c p|ipe s upp o r t -l oa ds .'

,

q IThbfteaE'siwalkdown also confirmed that-the U-bolt for hanger^- LR30-2181-G08 is installed with a gap at the bottom of the pipe.

,

IThisTU-bolt-does.not' presently. touch the pipe.and consequently, "4,.

QJ [d o e s 7n o't carryL;any-deadweight load. The' piping analysis, however, j'

assumes this-hanger to be a: deadweight support.and to carry a4

* - Edeadwei'ght load-of 690 pounds. This assumption is not in *

, uf- . agreement: with thenas-built condition. This particular piping ,

- subsystem-appears to.be' conservatively supported and the effect of#

:these discrepancies does notnappear to be significant. The !n 1icensee agreed to evaluate'and reconcile the effect of these ;!

discrepancies in'the piping. analysis of record.

Actions Taken:,

', fNuclear Engineering reviewed the 25 U-bolt installations covereds

dn several Residual Heat Removal Complex piping system stressg ianalysis reports. This was the only error found; the remaining 24 ,

f sketches accurately reflect the field support orientation. In the'

9, . discrepant condition, the U-bolt was modeled as a two-directionalsup' ort and, therefore, did not affect the stress analysisp. presented in DC-2924.

.

,,

/

P Page 13

k~'

_.

g%w a wg|%.m . +A ew '

r - .Y.';. , ,+ .:a . gi -m 4,. ,

fi h:Y. Nfk 1.,- + e

'| ~ j'', .i: %i e. m ' %:p" ' )'

., u:V' '

,.

* ' ' ^> u

.

"''' -)!i *g$_WGefk.&; ',

'A,'''s ,\MQ 3: O r%, t '-

s (r .i-

M y& W o,yn b'i q''-

;;Q . ?IC.

4' %:. '. .,1 -

,e -

<~i <: an >

't., : ,

r i, o . ~5 - a -mt., v

'

> ^7

e - , .cp p :v, ,,><ms . ; RESPONSEU TO: NRC LINSPECTIONJREPORT45 0-3.41/89-200 e4Iw; g w a '<

w , .m;bI ,

k tp h. 'o - *

M, '{ p-

,

7 -v -,,,i ; f

,M!.cr;y b + .31, s

, , .,nn .

,.

m@s; A. m'gy a m a: . < .

.

revis. - _ .

.

c T h i s t.i c y e x p e c t. e d s S !

9,Mff , E of beic.iord o f F DC-292 41 wi,lli.c o. rre c t c t her ahotch.

.

< .- . m . x = - -

.

omplete byg thc7 cndtof R Febru'aryR1990.: .LThefpipeVerecti.onvt

W pd ' EspecificationVdoesJnotSa11owngapajbetween the.Lbottom of thelpipef >

,

f@hp]j$g f and? theisupportlniember ff or7 ead_ weighty cupportsu Extensive 1 pipei.

d.

''

'

X jupportigapywalkdowns?were' completed Lini1983?inE response | to f aniNRC - Hij$:9C.

.Confirmatoryf Ac tionE Lette ri dated tDecember

%)Q]N ".

10 11982.. ._regardingi ,,

L tinadequa'.t CpipcYsupportTQualityJAccu'rance(inspection.--Thereforo, 11

M;49, ' ino;genericsproblemtwith:pipo support 7 sapo-isipreacntJat Fermi.~ 1r #,

-, - 1 ,

[se go} v gggli,[n$tiunusua5foriaLp'ipeisupportito:c2 r ry' aid e adw eight '1.oad .,. * '

,

~~

,

k 'thatYisidifferentf!tha'n1thattpredicted byJ 5eJutressaanalysis.due ai:

n%. h ItoLin~stallationftechniques.fjitowever.Ein :nia instance.fthe; +

)%FES C Inffhetedical'eulationalwill?befupdated(to ruficct,the:lach ofiM},y'A'(zeroEcicaranceon"theMbottom;

id eadycishtfa up' port f atiR30-218|1'-G08Jor = t hen cap 'will( be2adj u sted J o . it .

These'' action will be.Jcompleted byL i,

i{ w>J tthc[endbof/ February, 1990.e'

>

k 4 5- 'w c' j ,s ,,

'

,,4;p - :' t :s j.:

._- ') s

i $f,

.

~ , .n ,.'

g%d:,% 7- s 5

,'

p{' -!'

8,

[ 5 i ? h; " 1 t};,

-w a. , w a,[O |""sy. 4 .< m

,

so

1.. ._ <..,;.

.

>q..,~.

$ .% L' ,,-

w[" ry.' ,

I.

, ,-

ff U N l{ | |>i

.%1[ {. * .y-U 5 i

Y .- }~

,., 4

'y; > " '

,

. 7s !<

n . p(y,Wy '+

,

.; >n c ')(' +yp, g '-, e

'

1

#-

Qj$ ,'k ^.Y'1a ?

'

- - ', ,

,+3,.-- n

y. a) y g. c. p r

5 .~. )1

uc,-- ,

.

m , a. w =tU 1[

! ,-ig_

. j,..a--

.,;

bAun @E * ,- :y .

'.f ' [ f- i ~. i~

YL! ''4

i(n m m ,L F 'yy '

, . . . s+

W }}v (,

'1

1

h

4 . .

3iiQ V

'

' .y ;

||um. .

m,',T Page 14;~> n:

4s

L: q

3 7 i 'il ' ..

i,

$gmy gIMME4k YIdM , NN A 'f' ',*' '

,

qb p p 'g ,,q ,,,' _ q'

b WTg C #W 's

W :; N D ;j @ ?p ,y "P'o ,

'

' ' 'g;

''i

,

. , , ,m -gg gy y m

[DM kN RESPONSE}TOSNRC1 INS'PECTI'ONTREPORT/50 341/89-2002''

MMGS % sP ;-s

h -[@ p f ,,

!,Wi

h -

:DAffilencyiB92200 07t.E LEDG SizingLCalculaticn1 ~'

-

..

ty -- :n, ;- 7 m .y | ,'1 Thelsev,enthJdeficiencyrvast: ;

W.p w ',. ~

, . , _ .

' '

h, , , 1 4 alculations 5_003/andt2116:pertainingjtoithe' loading-of;the EDGC. ,

.

V C ._ @ wereyreviewedibiftheXteami -;The. team noted that?the size of'EDG 'yg ? g ,fappeared? adequate 1basedvon1:the l'oaditablesJincludedtin the- ;

..

g7 q > aic alc u1'a tion s .; 'Howeve r , the: validity of the-loadTvaluesslisted In 496 4 JtheTealculations "could-: noti be;ve rified Thecause of'the u'

' l1:uri'av a il ab ili ty - o f I the}related d'ocumentation? Specifically. . i n.gf',' : calc ula tion 1 DC f 21'16ff u11' ;1oad ecu rrent s1 were ! not. alway a n us.ed an'd1Q, 'swhenefull; load currentfwerejused.Jadequate justifications -for the" j-

b;y ^ ~

fa'a s ume d ;v alu e s1 w e re 1not'provided. 1 Additionally.iin- Sec tion 72B-2A - ;F TMLoffcalculati'on15003.- a 45; brake horse powerz(BHP)fload was. ,

P L e o nv er't ed (t o | 3 3. 3 ' kil'owa t t's ? (KW) . ra t he r thani. assuming:::a 90 percent-

Jt effici'encylandsconversion factor'of itHP=746' watts 1which'would" ?;'

o - 'y'ield:(3 7. 3 KW .. ;y;h .

*a. .- .. . . . .

currently revising these

< c s n.

,

m. .

W.1

1Thenteam3was"informedIthat' DECO l's. . z', . ,

,

Jg > ' ;calculationsgandrthatt int the! future-onlyifu11~1oad' currents-will' |ibekusedR This71 tem-will remainLopen until the appropriate j*

: calculitions arecrevised. u

1" mR^ _'4 #m aInitia1* Actions Taken To'Reco1ve' Concern: '

";,,

- 7 8 [iInforder'to"resolbe the inspectors: concern, Di DC 2116 was revised.to.6 Lutilize-full' load currents and;totannotate.:that the horse power :

values;werensuppliedLfor-_information_only.? Also, the note;'e, ,: explains 7that when using horseipover'to(compute?kilowa.tts,. 1

,

j (11ovo'It-amperescor_kilovoit-amperes reactive,-that the'officiency. qOfi thesloadtmust;be considered.,

''"+ 'Dd 321161usedi the'' f u11| load . current to calculate-the motor loads in. >

'

Ekilowattu. These fullfload' currents along with those-of loads,

thatnwere n'o t motors, were obtained from/walkdowns o r . .v e n d o r. "['' -

'

'Edocuments.- The load in kilowatta was then documented in the '''

* i c al c ui n t' ion . - No loads inLhorse power were used to derive the c;,

' LkilowattHvalues. iAireview-of.DC 5003-determined that it was adequate ar-is since it .. ;

'1 (used kilowatt-v'alues only and thus, required no changes.'

,

Di '

.>

n

- qs

C

1-

't.

o ,

t

Page 151

r+:. !

. + _ _ , ,

$@$ Q$G@ @W|?w~ i%g Q h y Q' W g i " ~ 'am 4 J N%. .b ' Ni * d' ~ ~'

M '

u e ,-

,~ +

, a v,

#: - ~ ~ *r

,,

@9 $hQ * N* '

'*

,- ',

We? _ Wa*_ ;

@d'!? M ? YRESPONSE T06NRC INSPECT 10NTREPORT$50-34'1/09H2005 -

'pn ''m >, , i

A@y@,* '

+ y ,,

. - --

--, s ;

%g@, IDsf sciency 7 89- 200-08 h IResidual|Hsat/ Removal (RHR)[Motory j".

iL |0vercurrent(Relay? 1' * '

Ew' j . ,

. ... _ . . ,-

.. - , d$

+ > u -

S >

T''?' JInk( t h e *r e p o r t , the eighthnconcern(identified ~was?-astfoll'ows:, .Gy

L; .

[bf [g' M @[Theitea revieweditheizero block 11oadsLof$the EDGLload? sequencer ( 9'

~~

lncluding/the'tripLs'et. tings 1of the-'RHRipump4ov3 reurtenthelays!-

'JXZ51~IAC66DLtype.b: Thiafrel'ay wa s_ s et; at:! a. t ap Eset t ing ,o f 13.' 5:~

',. T.. ' g amps. JThe:dataireviewed1 indicated theltripitime'of t his Erelay):|is! ' '-

'

' ~ 7

.f ~ lequal";to1212:Leycleafatf15;2 amps. 320 cycles ats9W5Jamps;-Jand'ithats "t

J" - miithw1111 trip 1 instantaneously?at.28Lampst The currenty t'r a n s f o rme r= , ~c,

" i; - 'rationwas1500/5?and?the'lockedLrotor current anditheifulltioadt'

,

>

[dp%#' ic u r ren t f a ti416 0 Lv ol t s';wa s L 13 60 L amps a n d - 2 4.5 ' a m p s , respectively(

]jPreviousstest dataCand FSAR'section'813:.8.showed: that1 'duringhthe y>.,

|worsticasekstart3of;the ESF: loads, the acceleration 1timerforfthe:'

"ii,< ,

'1

c[*j, T .RHRJpumpfwas" '

- V4.5'secondal LItfappeared thatftheLrelayfwould; trip)( ~ 'iniapproximatelyE240-255 cycles.;i.e..--during pumpgstartup. .No

_ r

,c ! versus? relayl characteris; tics.n

~

f.' spec;ific ~ calc ula tionL had Theen performed;"to show;the pump _atart|>

J g -

'>

y .c ,. 3

iy . : Sulisequently. the; team: was informed-.by the:11censee'engineerssthat?gp M icarlieridata S ve: to_the team-was incorrect. The team was then, Lii

M, =show'nia preliminary?-draft calculation using'the correct'' data that|"

0' showed the margin:between the' relay _ curve'and the accelerationj

'

lc_ 7g

* p. ^ etimeucurvelwas isufficientEtoLpreclude premature tripping:.of the't, 1RHRLpump.' iThei: licensee 1 informed'the-team that=a final calc'ulation

Landlanalysisfofjthe pump,' acceleration and overcurrent relay would .N:,

/4 thelperformed for.the.RHRuand core spray pump's -.;I

[s InitialtActions Taken: ]<

'," ''. .

x~n. ,

''Whe nla |Vonc e rn ' wit h p remat u re,' .t ripping o f t'h e relay wasi j9,; aidentified.: Nuclear' Engineering initiated DER.89-0806.and: started'

J[i,

, " ' + Fan'[inves tigs tion ~of? t he_ jiroblem. During the inspection. Detroit(Edis on?:wa s n ableL to7show-that>a_dequate. margin exists duringr

_

f'f Ldegraded; voltage: conditions by_ plotting-actual motor starting;^,

$ currents versus the~ relays trip curve. While: performing this >

$ faction.''it,was discovered that inaccurate data was used when -

"esthb11shingLthe relay- tirip se t ting. Although.the setting is,

F sbased upon inaccurate information.-the curves show that it. is' 1* ~

;4, faccoptable'as-is.- ,

, . . . _ . . .y

The overcurrent relay: settings for the core Spray pumps were also 'W >

(.. , f9- reviewed since'they~were developed from the same inaccurate

in f o rma t ion.. In this case as well, the netting was found to beg .acceptableLas-is.r '

m a

; Nuclear Engineering has reviewed the 4160 volt and 480 volt motorsy: ; fed.from QA Level I switchgear buses. The existing motor data was

compared to the relay settings sheets. None of the overcurrent'

yP -relays reviewed were found to have an unacceptable setting.>

1;,-

t,

,

' ! -

; Page 163$

b ,.

, % C, " _ jW3 -

r '

&wa&n%.k<,,VMFT TMod ' WO NWw8 0s ? ? ? ? W ?~ ?O W~ ?' W N~ ?,

*

. g m .

% _

,

, w. mN W ,- 'W44 . . 4

h hf yN','

H- '.. . - - ' ' La

,

~ '>

''

b,g}ewpfgds e g ,' 0n4 ,, , +, .

c. .y : c, s m j - -. , ,,

WW p 3. g e w ::n . . ... . . .-

.

'Yf M MW V, e. RE.SP. ONSE !!T03:NRCTINSPECTIONEREPORTy 5 0- 341/ 894 200! '-

md e 5".~,

1 5emm ,

OteSa miv, k'( Wh>|i ti- '4 , .| , <-

+ . f

^

| {is + - . , ,+q enan-- - . . ' ._).. . (y ?-

ci

%p > s,

d@:g% :wi -'

2 DA$tions ToTBNTdeni TsiPrevent Recufrencess'

%o n3 y u m b- y< d2

wnu.''m

.,.5

.:. Q V Q }} C_'}'-- s,9 ,, , ,,c,'o e,

3 _f , , ,

d.i. f, eC$, { A,fd e's:l ghe alc ula't ion iDC Sa ll J Uiili be vis s uedE,in.iDec'embe r 19891t o - '.m . . . .. .

,' dB Qig. 5 4.Sd_ocu~mentsthe.Nrel'ayfsetting;tripEcurvecversusithe: motor c:

MwaQMa c e'el e ks tii'on L time s c ur re n.t , p rofil e do ri t he; RH Rtan dlCo re tsp r, ayepump L,4% -.

, ,

J' ~-ne Wyn m 6ti o'r s'. c

,

,

m . ..

'-

' mne _ .w;

. y-

'h-1 , i > '%M% ; 7yIb ( m jQ.:m,

<, , ! - . , .

4'

i j{"-

'dTA(.W W W Detroitt;< Edison? Relay Divisi^on $ 1111revis~eithe' relay settingisheetsk,$ %$M$jt$ref erencetDC)5111tandCcorrect - thetinaccurate r; data" by:-thef endiofi

'

y v < W anuar'yfof1.199_02s T ,%-rwo m .. .

,1,

, ,4

. , ,5;ga;u s e -yi 8 -

;m -.,%;j f:z ,, ,

cy ,

, ytm' c, 2;;c_ a.s

, a, ,

+|| ~ ; . . s - % . i,

' a- v,,, ,

O f f .;. . (..c g

Qp J g',..-

f * gp' q- ,

dr

<

q w ;_ c. . ,,

L %u . .<mm . ;,>

at,-.y.,'w g

a'n,1?e \ ) ' A t ., k 1

yv :g~g % m . ,,

g. , ,, et,

, m. ',,

,

-

.-, , syrp

>Ii w ,.

a,

p ? it, i,

I:#] w . ,' 4 :g

,

, .m , o<,

Yiyg ./ *.g

gMyj ip '. ,,-

.7 ~~1'gg -3 4. :.. 2

gi

Lc :.

, -- ,, .

s. < > .-

'% w., *'

g% ~y, g :

'

,

!$ v ' 1,' >

. %_ +

.+ib

}]' ;(, xn p c_t I - l * '

j '.

'?%,!pv,.t_'.P ; > nv

' ' -

NM

y. J . M; :.' 77.| 3.

54 EE

t_

-, , ,- ;,

, " QMs

,

-

+-.i . f j _. _ - '_1.') ., , j ?pg ., .

,

y M., f 1. , ~ y - m ,4 ,:s- r .

-- y. g qt .. I hg5

..q:c xv - ;

me % p' 1; s y' .* n. .

>'

x - ,

m. ,..p , < ,

.yM : : . . x -

i :. .j

2sp i

g ;-? j q}.&|' , ; \y, e (- - ,! '''''

~j.\ . i+

gj g .,; ,1g~ -

.

.

.

a. ..cg- e-,,y'.i

,_ ..,

;--

ca - . .a. 33 -g. . . . , , ,

.,?O hf,i_ ' Y 0.- N II ^r '

>

~,

- . ' J,.S

_',.M '. e#s u

- Iy? '- h, ].,f y.$,

#

' )'}g 's,.,

^I-~~ i ,g,, i

did } T ; f;D j.y) T i ' ;.,, i -p

w m, f si .) '}<,

'4xy-. . , . ,

I... < m

- e,3gg ,J - .-an. M ;b' ' '

ws ',y &&w.,,

,W '

~q ; - - W \.

[- .[I32 '6 -t

6

:

\+

\e

'f4 4 , '}<

,= .5;

f,2 1-

fm , ,y

4I & $

.$

g ,

cf . .r., , . ,i / }p'',,.d,''' i,i ~ , '7 ,m. e m..- s Page 17 >

m

. , f, a ' .,- 'i 4

t

4. f %- s.; M7av.<,Ib f,

., ,

n.. . ga - m'm,% '

osr . d i i - s" , _ , ,,

;yggme y

E -

3,

f

(RESPONSE-TO HRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-341/89-200'

Deficiency 89-200-09: Control o'f Vendor Information'

.The last deficiency. identified was as followc:

The receipt and evaluation of the diesel generator manuf.acturerservice information lecters was reviewed. These letters contain4pertinent information regarding maintenance recommendations,material deficiencies, .cperating information, .and other-information germane to the reliable o p e ra t-l o n of the diesel'generators. The last seven'information letters had not beenevaluated for applicability. Additionally, upon further review-

the E team found that there is no program or procedures in place atFermi 2 for the receipt and evaluation of this' type of vendor'information.

The licensee acknowledged this concern and agreed to establish alist of critical components, to set a time frame to contact theassociated vendors and to revise the site procedures as necessary.to ensure that vendor information is received and evaluated. As aresult of the inspection, DECO committed in letter NRC-89-0139 torevise procedure FMD-AD3 to designate that Nuclear Engineering is-

L responsible for the receipt and disposition of vendor technicalinformation.

Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence:

As-previously described in Reference 3 and above, Detroit Edisonenhanced its program for receipt and disposition of vendortechnical information. Included in the enhanced program wereperiodic contact with selected vendors to verify receipt ofup-to-date information and establishing a centralized _ point forreceiving vendor.information.

FIP-DC1-02 and FHD AD3 were revised as described above. In

addition. FMD CA1 and FIP-CA1-01 were revised as comnitted to inreference 4 to contra 11ze the responcibility for processing vendorinformation. Since the beginning of August 1989 Fermi hasprocessed 36 vendor issuances including Part 21 reports, ServiceInformation Letters and other issuances.

Page 18