ML20036A377
| ML20036A377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1993 |
| From: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036A378 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305110147 | |
| Download: ML20036A377 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1993006
Text
- 8 ticoq
UNITED 1 'ATES
[
k
NUCLEAR REGULATURY COMMisslON
y
g
nEcecu iii
7e
- [
799 ROOSCVELT ROAD
,p
ctru cttvu. itusois soo7
.....
F N 0 5 1993
Docket No. 50-341
The Detroit Edison Company
ATTN:
D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
6400 North Dixie Highway
Newport, MI 48166
Dear Mr. Gipson:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. J. Kropp,
K. Riemer, and R. Twigg of this office from March 10, 1993, through May 3,
1993. The inspection included a review of activities at your Fermi 2
facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed
with those members cf your staff identified in the enclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures
and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
,
of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation. The
-
violation is of concern because components were not adequately tested in
accordance with Technical Specifications.
Although Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 20 days
,
of your receipt of the Notice, a written statement of explanation, we note
l
that this violation had been corrected and those actions were reviewed during
this inspection. Therefore, no response with respect to this matter is
required.
During the inspection, a concern in paragraph 3.a was identified that
pertained to the lack of attention to detail by the Operations Department.
There were four examples noted where the Operations Department did not
identify in a timely manner the correct status of equipment.
One example
involved inoperable Technical Specification instrumentation.
We recommend you
review this issue and address the results of your review at the next scheduled
management meeting.
Another concern was identified as a Unresolved item in paragraph 6.c that
pertained to the "at risk" Potential Design Change (PDC) process. The NRC is
concerned that modifications affecting Technical Specification equipment might
be installed under the auspices of the "at risk" PDC process without adequate
post modification testing prior to declaring the equipment operable.
We
/
kI
9305110147 930505
ADOCK 05000341
0
/
Al
U
.
i
1
MAY 3
. ,
a
.
The Detroit Edison Company
2
!
l
,
understand that you have curtailed the use of the PDC "at risk" process
pending an indepth review. We would appreciate that you communicate the
results of your review to the NRC staff including any actions to improve the
,
process.
l
'
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
t
l
'
Sincerely,
.
aswg) awp -
'
-=-
,q g;.W. D. Sh g Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
-
Enclosures:
1
l
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/93006 (DRP);
cc w/ enclosure:
John A. Tibai, Supervisor
of Compliance
'
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
1
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
'
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
i
Civil Preparedness
Fermi, LPM, NRR
'
l
1
>
l
>
_
,
_ - .
. . _ .
i
NAY 0 5 993 h
p
a
%
The Detroit Edison Company
2
Y
l
00
understand that you have curtailed the use of the PDC "at risk" process
pending an indepth review. We would appreciate that you communicate the
results of your review to the NRC staff including any actions to improve the
process.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regubtions, a copy of
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will b placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
l
Orilinsi siarn! by
B L. J o ' r en
i
W. D.'Shafer, Ch'ief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
l
Enclosures:
!
I.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/93006 (DRP);
cc w/ enclosure:
John A. Tibai, Supervisor
of Compliance
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
Fermi, LPM, NRR
bec ' Pawc"
100020
g
RIII
RIII
Phillips M Sh
9 03
O(
r
,
!.k
-