ML20247N296
| ML20247N296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N291 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-89-15, NUDOCS 8906050308 | |
| Download: ML20247N296 (1) | |
Text
. _.
4
Detroit Edison Company.
Docket No. 50-341 1
~
As a' result of the inspection conducted on May 15-19. 1989, and in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C - General Statement of'Fub cy and Procedure
.for NRC Enforcement Actions (1988), the following violation was identified:
!~
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part, " Activities affecting.
quality shall be ' prescribed by documented... procedures... and shall be accomplished in.accordance with these... procedures...."
o Procedures P0M-11.000.52, Revision 1, dated September 11 1985 and P0M-12.000.052, Revisions 0, 1, 2, and 3 dated July 21, 1986, October 20, 1986, March 26, 1987 and May 4, 1987, respectively, " Deviation and Corrective Action Reporting," Section 2.0 states that DERs shall be implemented for conditions adverse to quality of safety-related activities, items, and services. Section 7.1 in P0M-11.000.52 and 8.1 in P0M-12.000.052 states that the supervisor shall review the DER, and if he agrees that a Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ) exits, shall sign the DER.
If the supervisor feels no CAQ exists, he shall return the DER to the initiator with a written explanation.
Contrary to the above, between June 19, 1986 and July 24, 1987, a licensee supervisor failed to either sign and process several DERs prepared by subordinates or provide the initiators with written explanations justifying the reasons why a CAQ did not exist.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required -to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply.
Your activities to address the specific programmatic concerns identified in each of the three DERs referred to above and in paragraph 2 of the attached inspection report have been documented previously, therefore, your reply should focus on the failure to follow the DER control procedure 1:sluding:
(1) the correcthe actions that have been taken and the results achieved; (2) the corrective actions that will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
MAY 31 1989 hi [jg.
Dated
/A Edward G. Greinar(n, Diree44r
') Division of Reactor Projects 8906050308 890531 ADOCK0500g1 DR
- _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - __-