ML20045G249
| ML20045G249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1993 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045G250 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307130093 | |
| Download: ML20045G249 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1993011
Text
G
a
-
.
l-
t
JUi. 0 21993
,d
u
'd
\\
,
The Detroit Edison Company
2
The second violation is of concern because it was indicative of inattention to
detail on the part of control room personnel, who failed to identify an
inoperable instrument during two shift turnovers.
In areas where verification
i'
activities were reviewed by the inspectors, a relatively high incidence of
personnel errors was identified.
Contributing factors to these errors were
,
failure of management to make its expectations clear to plant workers,
,
confusion between various plant procedures, and inattention to detail on the
part of plant staff as evidenced by the above control room recorder violation.
.
In light of the fact that there appeared to be an issue of management
effectiveness in reducing personnel errors over the last 2% years, our
l
inspectors discussed with your staff the Independent Safety Engineering Group
(ISEG) requirement to assure that personnel errors were reduced as much as
practical.
In your response to this inspection, please address your views as
to the effectiveness of ISEG in discharging its responsibilities and any
i
planned efforts to resolve the broader issues related to the violations in
this inspection.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
j
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
-response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
'
actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
In addition, we request that ycu
respond to the unresolved item discussed above.
Your response should provide
the basis for determining whether the associated regulatory requirements have
been met. We also request that you provide a description of actions you have
taken or plan to take to reduce the rate of personnel errors at your facility.
.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed
!
corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will
i
determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
j
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
l
Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required
t
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96.511.
,
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
!
Sincerely,
C:2:r ' " ~.
-
S
,
,
ba'*,/Ss4
Edward G. Greenman, Director
'
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
,
No. 50-341/93011(DRP)
,
See Attached Distribution
RIII
I@
RIII
RI,I{
RIII
RIgg
b
h,
wigg
n
ips
k
Gr
3
YO
&~
\\
'fffJ
,
'
'
9307130093 930702-
!
ADOCK 05000342
G
,
AD Q'%
UNITED STATES
(
%
MUCLEAR REGULATORY COfMisstOM
D
REGIO >N ill
$
f
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
S
4/
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
%,
- +
JUL 0 21933
.
Docket No. 50-341
License No. NPF-43
The Detroit Edison Company
ATIN:
Mr. D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Operations
6400 North Dixie Highway
Newport, MI 48166
Dear Mr. Gipson:
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/930ll(DRP))
lhis refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. Stearns, K. Riemer and
R. Twigg of this office from May 4 through June 3,1993.
The inspection
included a review of activities authorized for your Fermi 2 Nuclear Generating
Station. At the conclusion of the inspection, the preliminary findings were
discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
In addition, a telephone conferenLe was conducted on June 24, 1993, to present
the final results of this inspection with those members of your staff
identified in the enclosed report.
9
,r
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.
The
purpose of this inspection was to assess the self-checking, verification, and
independent verification practices used at Fermi 2 and to determine whether
activities authorized by the license were conducted safely and in accordance
with NRC requirements.
Some of the results of this inspection appeared to be in violation of NRC
requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). One
apparent violation involved three examples where procedures were inadequate to
ensure acceptable performance of the intended task.
This violation involved
multiple examples of inadequate procedures for the performance of independent
verification requirements.
One example of particular concern was with the
Instrumentation & Control (l&C) department procedures.
The adequacy of these
procedures in meeting your Fermi Management Directives on Independent
Verification (IV) was identified as a problem by your staff in June of 1992.
In addition, an audit performed by your QA organization in September 1992
f ailed to identify any specific examples of inadequate IV in 1&C procedures.
As a result, your corrective action of reviewing all 1&C surveillance
procedures for adequate IV was not developed until April 1993.
Given the
earlier opportunities to conclude that this corrective action was needed, the
exercise of enforcement discretion was not deemed to be warranted.
gd_I
120004
j
v
-- - -
-.
.- .
. - -
__
.
I
I
-
JUL 0 21993 <
The Detroit Edison Company
2
The second violation is of concern because it was indicative of inattention to
-
detail on the part of control room personnel, who failed to identify an
inoperable instrument during two shift turnovers.
In areas where verification
activities were reviewed by the inspectors, a relatively high incidence of
!
personnel errors was identified. Contributing factors to these errors were
'
failure of management to make its expectations clear to plant workers,
confusion between various plant procedures, and inattention to detail on the
part of plant staff ar evidenced by the above control room recorder violation.
In light of the fact that there appeared to be an issue of management
effectiveness ir. reducing personnel errcrs over the 'last 2% years, our
inspectors discussed with your staff the Independent Safety Engineering Group
(ISEG) requirement to assure that personnel errors were reduced as much as
!
practical.
In your response to this inspection, please address your views as
to the effectiveness of ISEG in discharging its responsibilities and any
planned efforts to resolve the broader issues related to the violations in
this inspection.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
!
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
In addition, we request that you
respond to the unresolved item discussed above.
Your response should provide
the basis for determining whether the associated regulatory requirements have
3
been met. We also request that you provide a description of actions you have
taken or plan to take to reduce the rate of personnel errors at your facility.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your propo. sed
corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NR W ill
_j
determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
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.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject
j
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96.511.
I
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
&
-
-- &
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/93011(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
. _ _ _
-
.
.. -
.
-
. - - .
!
JUL 02 3993
The Detroit Edison Company
2
l
.
Distribution:
cc w/ enclosures:
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
,
,
,}
i
'!
.
1