ML20059M542
| ML20059M542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1993 |
| From: | Jorgensen B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059M544 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311190155 | |
| Download: ML20059M542 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1993018
Text
.
.
[e' 8%\\\\,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES
{
) p
g
REGION Hi
c
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
'o[ 4
[
GLEN ELLYN, ILUNOIS 60137-s927
%
$
yw v. ] ' 993
"...=
Docket f40. 50-341
License fio. f4PF-43
The Detroit Edison Company
,
ATTfh
D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
fluclear Generation
6400 fiorth Dixie Highway
flewport, MI
48166
Dear Mr. Gipson:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. J. Kropp,
K. Riemer, and T. Vegel of this office from September 9,1993, through
flovember 5,1993.
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 of 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 f4RC requirements, as specified in the enclosed flotice of Violation.
The
i
violation is of concern because reactor pressure had to be controlled using an
Emergency Core Cooling System when main condenser vacuum was lost following a
reactor scram.
The loss of n m condenser vacuum was caused, in part, from
weakness in your licensed y
> % r simulator training program.
In your
response to the violation you should address what actions you have taken or
plan to take to ensure that conditions in the simulator training sessions
accurately reflect actual plant configuration.
Additionally, the inspection noted that inadequate pre-authorization
,
of maintenance and poor communications between maintenance groups on
September 17, 1993, resulted in repair activity on a valve with inadequate
personnel safety and equipment controls in place. As a result, maintenance
,
workers received minor burns, and the reactor feedwater system was breached
requiring a manual reactor scram. This event is of concern to the f4RC since
there have been previously noted problems with work control identified by your
staff and the f4RC. This event will be further reviewed by the f4RC in
Inspection Report fio. 50-341/93022. Weaknesses were also identified in
engineering activities that pertained to operability determination and the
cancellation of a Potential Design Change (PDC).
The cancellation of the PDC
is of concern since the PDC, initiated by your maintenance organization in
,
'
January 1993, requested engineering assistance in resolving a recurring
9311190155 931110
ADDCK 05000341
/
G
i
r
{
'
_ . - ___
_ _ _ _ _ -
.____
d
?'
u
.
NOV 1
m3
s.a
\\\\ p '
r
V
The Detroit Edison Company
2
problem with auxiliary contacts for motor operated valves (MOV).
The PDC was
cancelled in February 1993 by system engineering without adequate followup by
maintenance and engineering to address a potential common failure mode for
MDVs.
This issue will be reviewed in subsequent f1RC inspections.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
I
specified in the enclosed flotice when preparing your response.
In your
'
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
flotice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the fiRC will determine whether further !;RC enforcement action is
,
necessary to ensure compliance with f1RC 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 IIRC
Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying flotice 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, co-'
. 'h
b. L. u .
3
..
B. L. Jorgensen, Acting Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Enclosures:
1.
flotice of Violation
2.
Inspection Report
l
T40. 50-341/93018(DRP)
1
cc w/ enclosure:
John A. Tibai, Supervisor
l
of Compliance
!
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
GC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, Rlli
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
I
Civil Preparedness
fermi, LPM, f1RR
bec: Public
,
( *)
W
RTTI
Rill
I
RIII
>
g
s
ok
en
p
4
-
o-
,
<
. .
.
.
NOV 1 ' 993
The Detroit Edison Company
2
problem with auxiliary contacts for motor operated valves (MOV).
The PDC was
cancelled in February 1993 by system engineering without adequate followup by
j
maintenance and engineering to address a potential common failure mode for
MOVs.
This issue will be reviewed in subsequent NRC inspections.
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.
After reviewing your response to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections. the NRC will 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 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 quest.ons you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
b
B. L.
o
nsen, Acting Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Enclasures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/93018(DRP)
i
cc wfent osure:
John A T1bai, Supervisor
of Compliance
P. A. harquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
OC/LfDCB
Resident 15spector, Rlll
"
o ce. :
Padgett, Michigan Public
i
.
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
Fermi, LPM, NRR
1
-
-
-