ML20204H150

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC Re Noncompliance Noted in Insp Rept 50-341/84-38.Corrective Actions:Project Instruction PI-EF-24 Issued,Detailing Process to Be Followed for Implementing Design Info Transmittal Procedure
ML20204H150
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/26/1984
From: Jens W
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20204H139 List:
References
NUDOCS 8411120178
Download: ML20204H150 (4)


Text

- - -

l: ~ - - T

[a s%' ,

N '

9' Wayne H. Jens -

. Vici Presiderd Nuclear Operat s Ferme2 - ,

6400 North Dixie Highway l n Newport.

(sis > Michigart ses" 48166 October 26, 1984 EF2-70035 Mr.. James G. Keppler

- Regional Administrator Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Dear -bur. Keppler:

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341

Subject:

Detroit Edison Response Inspection Report No. 50-341/84-38 This letter responds to the item of noncompliance described in your Inspection Report No. 50-341/84-38. This inspection was conducted by Messrs. P. D. Kaufman and J. W. Muffett of

.NRC Region III on September 7, 19, and 28, 1984.

The item.of noncompliance is discussed in this reply as

. required by-Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"

Part-2, Title 10, code of Federal Regulations.

. We. trust this letter satisfactorily.-responds to the non-compliance cited in.the inspection report. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Lewis Bregni, (313) 586-5083.

Sincerely, cc: P. M. Byron P. D. Kaufman R. C. Knop USNRC Document Control Desk Way

, 8411120178 841107 Ikk3(

PDR ADOCK 05000341 G PDR

.<~

j;: 3

(

l ,

+

2 e

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY

- FERMI 2 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION-a . .

l; .

4 C

RESPONSE TO.NRC REPORT NO. 50-341/84-38

' DOCKET NO.-50-341 LICENSE'NO. CPPR-87 v.

~ INSPECTION'AT: SARGENT AND LUNDY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-INSPECTION-CONDUCTED: SEPTEMBER 7, 19, AND 28, 1984 t

~

J 4

a T

+

! &7 v , - * . - - - ,<e--- s , - , , . .%- - - , - .-c.,-.--y .-,-- - - , . , - -r- --

-,,y ,,y- . = - - ---e ,+ - . , nww+-

,,< ;V & -

}

g.7 7. 1- o u

,-^-. '

s

' - ' .-RESPONSE:TO,NRC-. INSPECTION REPORT NO.. 50-341/84--38 ffh - "~

^

ji  ? '

' ~

m/N -~-

iStatement'of: Noncompliance, 84-38-01', Criterion III

./ -

ni. - . .. . 5 , ,.

107 CFRj50,JAppendix.B,1 Criterion III, as implemented by' DECO i'
QualityAssurance Manual, Section 3.1.4, requires that de-isign: changes,~ including field changes,'.and deviations.to de-

. . signirequirementsLbe processed.-in accordance'with config-c' guration control procedures which. delineate the design pro-cess fromLinitiation through. final approval an'd release, and

_ 'that. design activities have been and are carried out in a planned and controlled, manner.

u X> Contrary to the
above,~a Sargent'&-Lundy. interoffice. memo-

'randum1related to the design of-U-Bolts-which had not been

,. ,. ' reviewed for' adequacy-or approved for release was utilized

for design purposes.-

i

- _'~

Corrective Action Taken and-Results' Achieved s -
During the reconciliation of piping as-built stress reports gcp

-with pipe" support design calculations for the RHR Complex, Engi~neering: Mechanics?DivisionL(EMD) File No. 042587' dated

^

MFebruary 18'41983- , was used to qualify-certain U-bolt pipe i4 supports.-'During:a' record review conducted in the first t' " tweek of? September, 1984,'S&L' discovered that this:EMD file-

. _ s waslu' sed _in-thesefsafety-related calculations without having

.the approvals required,by-QA:Procedurec3.08, " Design

~

1 Calculations." _Sargent &'Lundy QA Division.was immediately-

  • 4 W'... .o notified.- The EMD: file was. reviewed and approved in accor-p'c - dance with-QA Procedure 3.08 and no discrepancies were cidentified. -Subsequently the design information.in.this ~

, -file.was^ issued in De' sign Information Transmittal F2-EMD- 0016 on ~ September 6, 19 84.

Y L

! Corrective Action Taken to Avoid Further. Noncompliance ,

s m.

^

The. root cause~ofIthis problem was recognized.and' addressed

. on-Mayfl',51984,..when S&Ll issued Procedure 3.17 entitled

- *- < ' " Design--'Informationi Transmittal . " ~ Project Instruction

',PI-EF-24 was. issued.on. June 16,7 1984, detailing'the process s to be.followed for,lmplementing this procedure forfthe Fermi

^

.2cProjects: This procedureirequires preliminary design O. linputs to-be clearly-identified-as such arid requires subse-N '

(quent; verification-offthe preliminary data. Due to the .

s _ 1 occurrence of the specific deficiency, S&L.re. emphasized the w, - : ?importance of:using properly reviewed and approved design

~

P' C

- DW ~ input infall? Fermi 2 safety-related calculations during the

+ S&LjFermil2' Project Team Meeting of October 15,1984.

W ' s

- c '

U '

,17 - - _

, .r . ,

~

$ ,-v y -

~,. !Y ~. -
  • i

., .. . s 4 $

ff g . N ' g i, '

  • s
s. -

' , b

~

{RESPONSEITO KRC' INSPECTION REPORT NO.~ 50-341/84-38 f

Date When FullCompl'iance Will be Achieved K Ft$11/ compliance-has bee'n-achieved..

k i

5

)

'. [ f 3.'

~ ,

g w

4 1

9 a -;

J A

h 1

4 s I t

sa M

N.

k. - . . .

L l, i W

k 1 . , .

- 9.; .

i ,y . ~

t 3

5 .

e

~

  • ,c - --- , .

'-m-,

.-. , g -,e.e.-,v.,.c.e, p s. .-,, ,-w_....,.-,. .-o.m.c,w ,,p.,,,w 7-,~ ,,,, . , - , ,, . , . , ,,,.-r--,ye.w.,-.,-----,,,-_c