ML20198E597

Forwards Operational Readiness Team Insp Rept 50-341/85-43 on 850818-20 & 0916-20.No Violation Noted.Insp Findings Listed as Program Strengths & Weaknesses & Documented in Encl App a & B,Respectively

ML20198E597
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	11/08/1985
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20198E602	List: IR 05000341/1985043 ML20198E597
References
NUDOCS 8511140112
Download: ML20198E597 (4)

See also: IR 05000341/1985043

Text

. _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

'

..

-

p/

NOV .81985

Docket No. 50-341

The Detroit Edison Company

ATTN: Wayne H. Jens

Vice President

Nuclear Operations

6400 North Dixie Highway

Newport, MI 48166

i

-Gentiemen:

This refers to the special operational readiness team inspection conducted by

E. G. Greenman, G. C. Wright, A. J. Mendiola, M. E. Parker, and M. J. Jordan

of this-office on August 18-20 and September 16-20, 1985, of activities at

Fermi 2 authorized by Facility Operating License No. NPF-33 and to the

discussion of our findings with F. Agosti and R. S. Lenart and other members

of your staff-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.

No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this

inspection. Inspection team findings have been characterized as program

strengths, 'or weaknesses, as appropriate, and are dos.smented in Appendices A

and B, respectively, to this letter.

l

A number of the weaknesses, in Appendix B, have been addressed in your " Reactor

Operations Improvement Plan" which we are currently reviewing and will address

in separate correspondence. Item F of Appendix B is not addressed in the Plan

and as such you are requested to respond to this item within thirty (30) days i

of the receipt of this letter, stating actions taken or planned to improve l

the weak area. l

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's

Public Document Room.

8511140112 851108

PDR ADOCK 05000341 i

G PDR

y r ()I

.

,

y

) I

.. _ . . -

- . _ _ .

.

-

,

i

.

The Detroit Edison Company 2 NOV 8 88t3

We will.l gladly discuss any question you havt concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

.

f&k.k _

.m&

C. E. Norelius, Director

4

Division of Reactor Projects -

Enclosures:

.l. Appendix A,

Licensee Strengths

2. Appendix 8. Licensee Weaknesses

3._ Inspection Report

No. 50-341/85043(DRP)

cc.w/ enclosures:

L. P. Bregni, Licensing

Engineer.. -

,

P. A. Marquardt, Corporate

Legal-Department

DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensin uFee Management Branch

Resident _ Inspector, RIII

Ronald Callen, Michigan

Public Service Comission

Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

Nuclear Facilities and

Environmental Monitoring

Section

Monroe County Office of

Civil Preparedness '

RII RIII RIII RIII RI

1 N 11}T

Lan$5. n/jlk WMght C q imos Gr$nf

eendan N fus

10/2f/85- ti f ,,

(

._- .. . .- -

-

,

'

I

l

Appendix A

LICENSEE STRENGTHS l

The inspection team noted specific features of the licensee's programs and

activities which have been characterized as strengths. A strength is a

positive attribute or feature, which exceeds regulatory requirements, or

feature, which may contribute to the safety or effectiveness of plant

activitie:..

A. Moving Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisor (NASS) into the control room

giving more direction and supervision in the control room.

B. Comunication from the control room to the plant was considered good at

the time of the inspection.

C. Nuclear Supervising Operator (NS0) and Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS)

logs were well written and were complementary to each other rather than

being duplicates.

I

.

.

Appendix B

LICENSEE WEAKNESSES

The inspection team has identified items of concern which have been

characterized as weaknesses. A weakness does not constitute a violation

with regulatory requirements, rather it is related to effectiveness of a

program, activity, or organization.

A. The communications from management on current issues were not well

transmitted to the shift to allow for a clear understanding of what

was expected and why.

B. The inspectors observed problems with the team effort of the control

room. operating staff.

C. The Shift Operating Advisor (SOA) and Shift Technical Advisor (STA) and

the Reactor Engineer need to be integrated into the shift.

D. Upper level management review of NSO and NSS logs was not evident.

E. The licensee has no mechanism for tracking short term LCO's.

F. Shift check sheet needs to be revised to give acceptance values rather

than a checkoff as " SAT".

G. The Control Room Information System (CRIS) dcas not provide immediately

accessible information or equipment status. The " dots" associated with

the CRIS are difficult to ident.ify on the panels.

!