ML20149D638
| ML20149D638 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1993 |
| From: | Jorgensen B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149D641 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309210117 | |
| Download: ML20149D638 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1993016
Text
%
f
gt.5 8 tic
UNITED STATES
o
4
g
NUCLEAR REGULATOR Y COMMisslON
y
y
p,
REctoN fH
5
(
0,,,
,0'g
CLEN ELLYN, ILLINOl$ 60137
SEP1.3%
Docket No. 50-34]
License No. NPF-43
The Detroit Edison Company
ATTN:
D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
6400 North Dixie Highway
Newport, *I
48166
Dear Mr. Gipson:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. J. Kropp.
K. Riemer, R. Twigg, A. Vegel, N. Jackiw, and Ms. M. Gambrioni of this office
from July 27 through September 9, 1993.
The inspection included a review of
i
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
eaclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
I
these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures
and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
Your organization demonstrated excellent teamwork among the various
departments in response to the degraded Modular Power Unit (MPU).
The Shift
Supervisor's questioning attitude concerning dim indicating lights on one of
'
the main control boards resulted in the identification of the degraded MPU.
The inspectors considered the quality assurance audit of the Technical
Specification Surveillance Program, the operator's response to the degraded
,
'
general service water (GSW) system, and engineering's approach to identify a
i
leaking fuel bundle, indicative of good plant performance.
i
i
Conversely, the inspection also identified weaknesses concerning the conduct
s
of an observed firewatch that did little more than hurry from room to room to
J
complete the task without verifying fire barriers were adequate, the less than
adequate actions by operations and engineering to implement a gland seal
,
1
modification or provide compensatory actions to reduce operator challenge
during a reactor trip, and the inadequate assessment by engineering and the
Safety Engineering Group of _Information Notice 87-10 and a related 1993
'
Deviation Event Report.
In this latter case, the problem appears to be
3
repetitive in that a previous inspection report (IR No. 50-341/93010) also
documented a less than adequate assessment of a DER by engineering and safety
engineering.
We request that you respond to these issues describing actions
you have taken or will take to ensure plant tours by firewatches are adequate
to meet management expectations and to improve safety engineering and
3
engineering processing of DERs. We understand that the weaknesses identified
in this inspection report pertaining to the August 13, 1993, reactor trip,
j
,
I
9309210117 930915
/
ADOCK 05000341
l
L.
G
-
,
.
_ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _
<
'
I
l
I
The Detroit Edison Company
2
such as the less than adequate actions by operations and engineering to
implement a gland seal modification or provide compensatory actions to reduce
operator challenge during a reactor trip and the multiple distractions that
occurred, will be discussed in the appropriate Licensee Event Report.
'
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements.
However, the violation was a licensee identified item
and, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section VII.B, a Notice of
,
Violation will not be issued.
i
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
j
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
!
-
',
Ctg,,
<A
J\\M-
--,
l
B. L. Jor en
n, Acting Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Enclosures:
,
i
Inspection Report
l
No. 50-341/93016(DRP)
!
J
cc w/ enclosure:
!
John A. Tibai, Supervisor
'
'
of Compliance
i
j
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
1
Legal Department
!
OC/LFDCB
l
Resident Inspector, RIII
l
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
i-
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
k
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
j
Fermi,' LPM, NRR
,
,
&
I,
r
l
4
I
-
1
i.
4
_ , , _ _
_-
- -
. -
.
- . - _ _ .- , , .-- .
-
. .
. . . -
-
. . . . . . . . - - - - -
- . .
-
- .
.
.
. ~ .
i1
4
l
SEP 151993
\\,
&D
The Detroit Edison Company
2
/
such as the less than adequate actions by operations and engineering to
implement a gland seal modification or provide compensatory actions to reduce
operator challenge during a reactor trip and the multiple distractions that
occurred, will be discussed in the appropriate Licensee Event Report.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements.
However, the violation was a licensee identified item
and, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section VII.8, a Notice of
Violation will not be issued.
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.
Sincerely,
Or h.al d*ncd by
,
b b d'T! Earl
B. L. Jorgensen, Acting Chief
'
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Enclosures:
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/93016(DRP)
cc w/ enclosure:
John A. Tibai, Supervisor
of Compliance
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
DC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, Rlll
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
Fermi, LPM, NRR
l3cr
Yah/VC
I1
pl FIS
RI11
J(oip "D
,ev
_y
Q!
q
Ph' Iips
Pd rok
ensen
,f
20000?
ff
2~
e,