ML20197F232
| ML20197F232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F236 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8806100248 | |
| Download: ML20197F232 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1988006
Text
.
.
.
,
a
.
.
htAY t 71999
.
Docket No. 50-341
The Detroit Edison Company
ATTN:
B. R. Sylvia
Group Vice President
Nuclear Operations
6400 North Dixie Highway
Newport, MI 48166
Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. G. Rogers,
M. E. Parker, P. Pelke, T. Reidinger, S. Stasek and G. Nejfelt of this office
on February 6, 1988 to March 31, 1988 of activities at Fermi 2 authorized by
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 and to the discussion of our- findings
with Mr. W, Orser at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. 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 NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response
is required.
In reviewing the inspection findings, we are concerned not only with the
number of violations identified, but with the causative factors involved. With
respect to the failure to complete adequate checks on core spray differential
pressure instruments, the violation is complicated by the fact that operators
and Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisors did inadequate reviews and sign offs.
Further, unacceptable test equipment was used by qualified personnel involved
This violation is not mitigated in our view, by
the absence of a procedural requirement specifying the use of calibrated
timing equipment. Qualified test personnel are expected to be knowledgeable
of requisite testing requirements. We are also of the view that your
failure to properly process a Technical Specification change request before
implementing certain organizational changes is indicative of a lack of
appreciation for admini trative regulatory requirements.
These examples
appear to indicate that the nuclear philosophy your various programs are
designed to instill is still not effective.
In your response, please
specifically address this concern as it relates to each of the violations
identified.
'5 - ,1
~
~ O'806100248 880527
ADOCK 05000341
Q
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
._
_
.
_
. . . _ .
_ - - _ _ _-.
. _ _
_
-
.
)
.
.
The Detroit Edison Company
2
g 4y.) 1 1999
Our overall concern is emphasized by the additional apparent violation in
Paragraph 11.f. which is being reviewed .'or potential enforcement action in
conjunction with the apparent violation in Paragraph 2 of Inspection Report
No. 50-341/87048(DRP) and the circumstances surrounding Licensee Event Reports87-048 and 87-047, which will be inspected and documented in Inspection Report
No. 50-341/88017(DRP).
The apparent violation in Paragraph 11.f. is similar
to those that resulted in the Notice of Violation of September 1, 1987, and
appears to be indicative of a Sreakdown in *.he overall appreciation of
Technical Specifications as exhibited by su:cessful performance of required
surveillances within the specified time in'.ervals.
Consequently, it appears
that the corrective actions descr1 bed in your October 1, 1987, response to the
September 1, 1987 Notice of Violation have not been completely effective in
preventing the recurrence of similar problems.
You will be notified by
separate correspondence of our decision regarding enforcement action for this
issue. No written response is required until you are notified of any proposed
enforcement action.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
OW N E E U ##
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/88006(DRP)
cc w/ enclosures:
Patricia Anthony, licensing
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Harry H. Voight, Esq.
,/
Michigan Department of
{lk [I
.
Public Health
[
Monroe County Office of
Civil Prepared ess
1@
@
RII
RIII yo
"fW
ae)
%*
Vi giVio
Rdihs a
y
ru
Pelk /crr
Weil
ooplr
Gr fiman
e
4
01S
sp
Kno#p
'
S