ML19324C256
| ML19324C256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1989 |
| From: | Lieberman J, Luehman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| EA-89-106, EN-89-104, GL-88-14, NUDOCS 8911160024 | |
| Download: ML19324C256 (2) | |
Text
m,
.D G i'-
hovemb:r 7, 1969 l
v' EN 69-104 i
0FilCE OF ENFORf,LMENT NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT S T E LMENT ACTION f
f Licensee: Detroit Edison Company (EA89-106)
(retui2)
Docket No. 50 341 l
i Lubject:
This is to infots the Commission that the staff intends to exercise broad l
discretion and not propose a civil peralty for a severity Level III violation i
at formi-2.
Prior notice to the Consnission is required before exercising this authcrity in accordance with Section V.G of the Enforcement Policy. This action is based on the failure to implement secondary containment design that would ensurs releases of radioactive material under accident conditions would be below the limits of 10 CFR Part 100. Specifically, the licensee failed to implement an adequate design for the air supply syst a for the pneumatic seals on the plant's railcar doors which provide a portion of the secondary contain-i sent beundary. The supply system was not designed or installed as a safet)-
t
' related, seismic system with suf ficient redundancy or independence.
r Briefly, on August 8,1988 the staff issued Generic Letter 60-14 which discussed, in general term, problems with instrument air systees. Some time after issuance of the Generic Letter, the railcar door seal problem was discovered by Boston Edison at Pilgrim. The hkC Resident Inspector at Fermi became aware of the problem and began to 1cok into it at Fernt.
Because the inspector's questions i
and inspection efforts occurred prior to the Generic Letter response d(adline.
it cannot be stated that the licensee would have, with only the general guidance l
cf the Gentric letter, idantified and corrected this problen.
Conversely, while the staff concludes thtt the licensee would have likely overlooked some aspects t
of the problem without the inspector's input it cannot be concluded that the licensee would not have identified the problem prior to the response deadline.
l But for the exercise of broad discretion, a civil penalty would have been proposed as f ull a.itigation would not be applied given our involvonent in the I
identification of thit violation.
Identification of this satter is not considered l
licensee toentified under the Enforcevent Policy because ciscovery prorpted by the general information provideo by that Gtneric Letter and specific questions by an NRC inspector. Application of the normal guidance in Sections V.B and V.G.4 of the Enforetaent Policy is not warranted and a civil penalty is not pro >osed because the licensee appeared to have the intent to examine the issue wit11n timeframe of the Generic Letter and the corrective actions were comprehensive.
It should be noted that the licensee has not been specifically informed of the enforcerwnt action. The schedule of issuance and notification is:
Mailing of Notice Noverber 14, 1989 i
Telephone Notification of Licensee November 14, 1989 l
l The licensee has thirty days from the date of the Notice in which to respond.
Following NRC evaluation of the response, the civil penalty may be remitted, mitigated, or imposed by Order.
Centact:
J. Luchman, OE, 23280 J. Lieberman, OE, 2074) f 8911160024 891107 o
I l
W: 33
, )
i i.
i
(
j ;. '. EN 89-104 Djstribution
\\
OhTN J!.A > o OWTN /A / / e MNBB /1 / o y1 Chairmen Carr.
EDO OC r.-
L Conn. Roberts -
DEDR AEOD Cosaa. Rogers DEDS Conn. Curtiss' OE i
)
SECY NMSS 4
, i ACRS.
?
CA
~
01 1
4 GPA OGC 4
Regional Offices MAIL i
RI go RIV h.* / o ADM: Doc. Hgt. Dr.
,s RII/ g eRV -n ue PDR c
i Rlll f. / e RES olG
...~
PREllHlhARY Ihf0RMATION - NOT TOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNTIL PUBLICLY ANNGUNCED 4
i k
?;
e 4
F
..