ML20198E597
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511140112 | |
| Download: ML20198E597 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1985043
Text
. _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
'
p/
-
..
.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
the weak area.
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
ADOCK 05000341
i
G
r ()I
y
.
,
y
)
I
..
_
.
.
-
- . _ _
.
.
,
-
i
.
The Detroit Edison Company
2
8 88t3
We will.l gladly discuss any question you havt concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
.
f&k.k
.m&
_
C. E. Norelius, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
4
-
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 Fee Management Branch
u
- 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
Gr$nf
11}T
Lan$5. n/jlk
WMght
C
q imos
eendan
N
fus
10/2f/85-
ti
f
(
,,
._-
..
.
.-
-
-
,
'
l
Appendix A
LICENSEE STRENGTHS
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.
!