ML20059M542

Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-341/93-18 on 930909-1105 & Notice of Violation.Violation of Concern Because Reactor Pressure Had to Be Controlled Using ECCS When Main Condenser Vacuum Lost Following Reactor Scram

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: IR 05000341/1993018 ML20059M542 ML20059M558
References
NUDOCS 9311190155
Download: ML20059M542 (3)

See also: IR 05000341/1993018

Text

. .

UNITED STATES

[e' 8%\\, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ ) p g

c

REGION Hi

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 I

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 I

September 17, 1993, resulted in repair activity on a valve with inadequate

personnel safety and equipment controls in place. As a result, maintenance l

,

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

PDR ADDCK 05000341 /

i G PDR r '

{

_ . - ___ _ _ _ _ _ - .____

d

. ?' u

NOV 1 m3 s.a

r

\\ pV'

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. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-341/93018(DRP)

cc wfent i 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 1

Monroe County Office of I

Civil Preparedness

Fermi, LPM, NRR

1

-