ML20197F232

Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-341/88-06 on 880206-0331 & Notice of Violation.Nrc Concerned W/Number of Violations & Causative Factors Involved

ML20197F232
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/27/1988
From:	Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20197F236	List: IR 05000341/1988006 ML20197F232 ML20197F240
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8806100248
Download: ML20197F232 (2)

See also: IR 05000341/1988006

Text

.

.

. ,

a

. .

htAY t 71999

.

Docket No. 50-341

The Detroit Edison Company

ATTN: B. R. Sylvia

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,

M. E. Parker, P. Pelke, T. Reidinger, S. Stasek and G. Nejfelt of this office

on February 6, 1988 to March 31, 1988 of activities at Fermi 2 authorized by

Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 and to the discussion of our- findings

with Mr. W, Orser 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.

During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation

of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response

is required.

In reviewing the inspection findings, we are concerned not only with the

number of violations identified, but with the causative factors involved. With

respect to the failure to complete adequate checks on core spray differential

pressure instruments, the violation is complicated by the fact that operators

and Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisors did inadequate reviews and sign offs.

Further, unacceptable test equipment was used by qualified personnel involved

in local leak rate testing. This violation is not mitigated in our view, by

the absence of a procedural requirement specifying the use of calibrated

timing equipment. Qualified test personnel are expected to be knowledgeable

of requisite testing requirements. We are also of the view that your

failure to properly process a Technical Specification change request before

implementing certain organizational changes is indicative of a lack of

appreciation for admini trative regulatory requirements. These examples

appear to indicate that the nuclear philosophy your various programs are

designed to instill is still not effective. In your response, please

specifically address this concern as it relates to each of the violations

identified.

~

'5 - ,1

~ O'806100248 880527

PDR ADOCK 05000341

Q DCD

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

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

.

-

. .

)

The Detroit Edison Company 2 g 4y.) 1 1999

Our overall concern is emphasized by the additional apparent violation in

Paragraph 11.f. which is being reviewed .'or potential enforcement action in

conjunction with the apparent violation in Paragraph 2 of Inspection Report

No. 50-341/87048(DRP) and the circumstances surrounding Licensee Event Reports87-048 and 87-047, which will be inspected and documented in Inspection Report

No. 50-341/88017(DRP). The apparent violation in Paragraph 11.f. is similar

to those that resulted in the Notice of Violation of September 1, 1987, and

appears to be indicative of a Sreakdown in *.he overall appreciation of

Technical Specifications as exhibited by su:cessful performance of required

surveillances within the specified time in'.ervals. Consequently, it appears

that the corrective actions descr1 bed in your October 1, 1987, response to the

September 1, 1987 Notice of Violation have not been completely effective in

preventing the recurrence of similar problems. You will be notified by

separate correspondence of our decision regarding enforcement action for this

issue. No written response is required until you are notified of any proposed

enforcement action.

In accordance 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

in the NRC Public Document Room.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

OW N E E U ##

Edward G. Greenman, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-341/88006(DRP)

cc w/ enclosures:

Patricia Anthony, licensing

P. A. Marquardt, Corporate

Legal Department

DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII

Ronald Callen, Michigan

Public Service Commission

Harry H. Voight, Esq. ,/

Michigan Department of .

Public Health {lk [I

Monroe County Office of [

Civil Prepared ess

1@ RII @ RIII yo

"fW

Pelk /crr

ae)

Weil

%*ooplr

ru

Vi giVio Rdihs a

Gr fiman

y

4 01S sp '

e

Kno#p

S