ML20097K048

Requests Approval to Make Changes Which Would Reduce Stated or Implied Commitments to QA Program Description in Fsar. Changes Deal W/Offsite Review Committee Designated Nuclear Safety Review Group

ML20097K048
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	09/12/1984
From:	Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
EF2-72-792, NUDOCS 8409240180
Download: ML20097K048 (3)

Text

--

- ,y - r ..

-' s -c

.c

6

_ Vtryne H. Jins i g y

=

Vice Presrdent -

Nuclear Operatens

[ Ferrnh2 --

. ~6400 'Jorm Dme Eghway.

2 Newport. Mchigan 48166 -

asia >suatso: September 12, 1984 EF2-72,792

'Mr. James'G. Keppler Regional Administrator-

. Region -III_. .

U. - S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 7 RooseveltcRoad Gle'n Ellyn', : Illinois . = 60137 '

~

Dear Mr. Keppler:

1

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket-No. 50-341-t

Subject:

FSAR Changes Relative to the Nuclear Safety Review Group a

l Pursuant to '10CFR50.55(f),. approval is requested to make two changes which would reduce = stated or implied commitments to

. the Quallity Assurance program description in .the FSAR.

1Both changes deal with the off-site review committee desig-nated the Nuclear Safety Review Group (NSRG) . The changes

-are as'follows

~

Ll._ -FSAR Section 17.2.15 Description (See attached marked-up)

REMOVE LAST SENTENCE OF FIRST PARAGRAPH This change removes the implied requirement that the Nuclear Safety Review Group (NSRG) approval of proposed corrective action is required for noncon-forming material considered to be a significant condition adverse to quality.

Ra t!.onale :

The NSRG is not st actured to operate in such an inline fashion. ThereJare no NRC or standards requirements (Fermi 2 Technical Specifications;

'10CFR50 Appendix B, ANSI N18.7-1976) that NSRG

. approval be obtained prior to implementing corrective actions except if an unreviewed safety

. question or Technica1' Specification revision is involved. Section 17.2.16 of m

MM a $k EP17 w4 ge oI g

s [,~.;,-s n ' .; ? , .

li '

*4 CMr/ Jam:sfG.E Kcpplcris' H

~

- * . >  : S':ptcmbar 612, L 198 4 .

Q.  ; EF2-72',j792, 41] ,

m _ Pa'ge'2j

,yy w ,

/

' .:the: Fermi,2 FSAR,.which' deals with corrective Jg~ .

~

..~ action,'Jalready provides' that correctivex actions ~

i 1. , for significant conditions adverse to quality be

. documented and reported--to the NSRG chairman as well~as'.to.the' Superintendent - Nuclear

~ ' '

i Production.

^

(2. LFSAR Section 17.2.15

^

1i _

~

PDescription-(See' attached mark-up FSAR page 17.2-23):

{AT THE.END OF THE LAST SENTENCE REPLACE "...and the NSRG for their review:and' assessment":WITH~

~.

"for his review and' assessment" This change' removes the' requirement that NSRG ~

- review all' trend analysis reports generated by OA.

L Rationale:

'While the NSRG would :likely- review any - such ' report .

' ~

of significance, as well as some.of~the base docu-ments such as audit and inspection reports,: it-

. y

.should not be burdened with another all: inclusive

, specific? review-requirement adding to an already lengthy list. This specific review requirement ,

s does- not appear- in 10CFR50 Appendix B, the Fermi 2 Technical Specifications or- in' the related

' y; , . .

standard, ANSI N18.7-1976.

Neither of'these. changes:is considered to reduce the.

- effectiveness of the = Quality Assurance- program. Your:

prompt review and.approva1cis requested..

~^

] , ,

Please~ direct anyLquestions to Mr. O. Keener-Earle at

, ~ s 313-586-4211.

Sincerely, p g- j

<cc '

ccs: iMr. P.~M.LByron*

Mr. F..Hawkins*

Mr. M.'D. Lynch

• Jw USNRC, Document Control Desk *

((

c- . , .

.W ashington, D. C. 20555

~

' *With Attachment E

J e f 4

4, A

F -%. = , $'

• a

^'

,,en[--w-. 4 w v ew - c-4 *,~ec-,w-e E re--k,.. g y p er -o ww - e ws aaree- +v,m-e, -

-ere- y e ,**wer""T fat

V -

,3 -

.. EF-2-FSAR Correctiva ection will be proposed by technically qualified organizations and approved by supervisory personnel having re-sponsibility for the nonconforming item. If th; nonconferm:nce i  ::.7;idered'tc bc : cignificant ccaditier adver:0 te quality, ,

the propcsed ccrrective :: tier will 21:c he revicued by th NtHtO.-

56 Copies of completed nonconformance documents are maintained in the~plantrfiles.

The acceptability'of rework, repair, or replacement of mate-35 rials,. parts,-components, systems, and structures is verified by' inspecting and testing the item for conformance with its original. requirements or acceptable alternatives. The inspec-tion and test -records are documented and become part of the QA records for the item.

The Nuclear QA Department periodically analyzes quality data obtained from various reports, such as nonconformance documents, 56 inspection reports, and audit reports, to determine what quality trends exist. The analysis is reported to the Superintendent -

Nuclear Production 7 d th: MCRC for their revice nd Ocgo;;=ent.

17.2.16 Corrective Action Ridu w{ ~-- f

- ~ ~ '

Measures are established to ensure that conditions adverse to.

l quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, devia-tions, defective material-and. equipment, and nonconformances

.. are promptly identified and corrected. .In the case of a.sig-1 nificant condition adverse to quality, procedures require that the cause be determined and corrective action be taken to i . preclude recurrence, and that the significant condition, its cause, and the corrective action be documented and reported

[. to the Superintendent - Nuclear Production and the NSRG chair-i man. The Nuclear 0A Department reviews all nonconformance L 56 documents to determine whether the cause of the problem has been

!. identified an4 adequate action initiated. The Superintendent -

l Nuclear Production is notified'of conditions requiring further action. The QA requirements'in procurement documents or con-tracts require the vendor or contractor not only to identify material or parts that do not conform to the procurement require-ments, but also to determine and correct the causes for the 35 nonconformances.

l-fi When vendors furnish products that do not conform to the re-quirements of the applicable purchase contract, the Nuclear QA Department conducts a reappraisal of the vendor's QA program when~appropriape. Results of the reappraisal, together with a request for specific-corrective actions, are transmitted to l' the vendor. If the vendor does not improve his OA program and

! products as requested, the Nuclear 0A Department may have the g

56l vendor removed from the list of approved suppliers.

- a

/

L 17.2-28 Amendment 56 - April 1984 y ,#.-. , - .