ML20237J382
| ML20237J382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1987 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709030576 | |
| Download: ML20237J382 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1987026
Text
- - _ _ - - _ --.
-.
-
--
,
_.
!
l
,
.
3.
ts.m
j
,
,
,
. . .-
.
!
l
. Docket No. 50-341
!
The Detroit _ Edison Company.
ATTN:
B
R. Sylvia,
l.
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
!
. and M. E. Parker of this office on June 9 through July 20, 1987, of activities
at Fermi 2, authorized by Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 and to the
discussion of our findings with Mr. R. S. Lenart at the conclusion of.the
!
o
inspection.
(
i-
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
i
s'
interviews.with personnel.
]
During this inspection', certain of your activities appeared to be in violation.
t
of NRC requirements'as described in the enclosed Appendix.
These violations
y
l
have been carefully reviewed with respect to the recent civil penalty involving
surveillance program deficiencies proposed on May 12, 1987, and your June 12,
1987 response. to the violations involved in that proposal.
Consideration was
also given to combining the violations described in the enclosed Notice where
's
surveillance were not completed within the required time constraints. A
decision was made to separate those issues due to the varied causes of the
o
violations as perceived by NRC.
'
i
Our overall evaluation is that while the corrective actions described in the
',
June 12, 1987 response to the civil penalty appeared adequate, looking beyond
(
the instances where personnel error was involved, we are of the view that the
'
overall problems in this area were deeper and more varied than our original
conclusions. We are also of the view, based on the results of this inspection,
that you should reassess the scope of your' surveillance rewriting effort and
that further familiarization of operators with the administrative aspects of
successfully performing surveillance should be considered.
s
With respect to Item 3 in the Notice of Violation, the inspection determined
that actions have been taken already, to correct the violation and to prevent
recurrence. Our understanding of the corrective actions are described in
paragraph 4.b of the enclosed inspection report and includes evaluations
contained in LER 87.-019 and your June 12, 1987 response to the civil penalty.
No additional. response is required for this item.
8709030576 870831
t
ADOCK 05000341
I
O
NOl'
m
---
_ _ _ _ _ _
._
>
. .L
. . .
l
The Detroit Edison Company
2
]
}
l
l
Regarding the remaining items, a written response is required.
Please give
I
l
the underlying causes your particular attention.
'
,c,
- -
In accordancs 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
,".
l
in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
E. G. Greenman, Deputy Director
,
Divisf ori of Reactor Projects
,s
Enclosures:
!
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/87026(DRP)
cc w/ enclosures:
S. R. Frost, Licensing
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
DCS/RSB(RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service Commission
'
Harry H. Voight, Esq.
,
Michigan Department of
'
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
L, b, ,.
-
p
-
.
a
-
,
RU
RIIL
RI
,
Q
(l y
Nik /mb
Greenman
o
.
Cf 31O
_ _ _ _ - -
. - - - - - - - - . -
_-
(
' . .
J :-
I
i
t
l
!
i
w e v t- ona,
SG-08Hgn
1
,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -