IR 05000341/1987021
| ML20154E255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1988 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| EA-87-233, NUDOCS 8805200146 | |
| Download: ML20154E255 (2) | |
Text
.
- .
MAY 121988 Docket No. 50-341 EA 87-233-The Detroit Edison Company ATTN:
8. Ralph Sylvia Group Vice President Nuclear Operations 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Gentlemen:
This refers to the special safety inspection documented in Report No. 50-341/87021(DRP) and forwarded by our letter dated December 16, 1987.
During this inspection, certain.of your activities appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed notice. An Enforcement Conference was held on December 22, 1987, to discuss the apparent violation.
Subsequently, you provided your written position on this matter in a letter dated January 15, 1988. Our further review has categorized this violation as Severity Level _IV based on minimal safety significance. A written response is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosure, and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The response directed by this letter and the accompanying notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
"Original $fgncd by E.C. Orc:rmn"
'
Edward G. Greenman, Director Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: Notice of Violation See Attached Distribution
' 0 8052.oo M f y.
'
k I'
MOl
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-a s
MAY 121988 The Detroit Edison Corpany
Distribution
)
cc w/ enclosure:
Patricia Anthony, Licensing j
P. A. Marquardt,-Corporate Legal Department
.DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management' Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service-Commission Harry H. Voight, Esq.
Michigan Department of Public Health Monroe County Office of Civil. Preparedness
'J. Lieberman, OE F. Miraglia, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC
,
,
.
i
'
d u
RIII.f QZZ,c^/
I RIIL RI I RIII Y
j,lf f,4%
Whw W
f Pelke/mb cg ers Cooper b
Virgi Tio Greenman kNcf f (
{b ($y Sft/?J 5l$
fi^
Sl4lY
^
,
-,vm-,.-,,mv#w-.r-y,wem,.,-,y w,-rww-.--,,-,-=
,,em-,-,--
-,,,,.--n re r-*
1-N-w*T'
e
- --w'"**"-~--"-t----rr-*-F
--_ - _.-__ ___------------
. _ - - - - - - -
-
- -
- - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - _ - - - _ _
.
.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Detroit Edison Company Docket No. 50-341 As a result of the inspection conducted on April 13 through October 19, 1987, and in accordance with the "General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the following violation was
-
identified:
10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) requires, in part, that the holder of a license authorizing operation of a utilization facility may make changes in the facility as described i
in the safety analysis report, make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
10 CFR 50.59(b)(1) requires, in part, that the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes, tests, and experiments.
These records must include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
10 CFR 50.59(c) requires, in part, that the holder of a license authorizing operation of a utilization facility who desires a change in technical specifications or to make a change in the facility or procedures described in the safety analysis report or to conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, which involve an unreviewed safety question or a
,
change in technical specifications, sball s,ubmit an application for amendment of his license.
Contrary to the above, j
A.
On April 9, 1987, 1.
A written safety evaluation was not conducted for a condition outside the analyzed licensing basis of the facility in that the moisture separator reheaters (MSRs) were removed from service at approximately 30% power when this equipment was assumed to be in service in the safety analysis that generated the curves of Technical Specification Table 3.2.3-1.
2.
A license amencent was not sought for an unreviewed safety question / technical specification change in that a Technical
Specification change to the Taole 3.2.3-1 curves is necessary for the MSRs out of service, and the circumstances of having the MSRs out of service had not been previously evaluated in the safety analysis report.
Q f
.__
<
[
.
,,
B.
From March 4, 1987 through March 12, 1987, a change to facility operation was made by removing feedwater heating while at 50*4 reactor power without performing a written safety evaluatio, to provide the bases for the determination that the change did not involve an unreviewed safety-question.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the pruvisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including-for each violation:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
Sf l2. Q oka
%b)/n 3 Datedi Edward G QGreenman, [@irector Divhion of Reactor Projects i
i
-... ~,~
.,. _.... - _ _
_ _
_.
..
_._,..,.,,,._.- - _. _.__ _,___._ _ = _. _ ___,, _ _,
-