ML20012D831

Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-341/90-03 on 900212-16.No Violations Noted.Exercise Weaknesses Identified During Insp Will Require Corrective Actions

ML20012D831
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/16/1990
From:	Greger L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20012D832	List: IR 05000341/1990003 ML20012D831
References
NUDOCS 9003280436
Download: ML20012D831 (3)

See also: IR 05000341/1990003

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:m _ _ , 7 a , , %

(,2 . Y ', ' e , p MAR 161930 , n Docket No'. 50-341 ,

L 'The Detroit Edison Company ATTN: B.; Ralph Sylvia Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations , 6400 North Dixie Highway ' Newport, MI .48166 - - Gentlemen: ' . This refers to the routine safety insptction conducted by Mr. J. Patterson and others of this office on February.12-16,'1990, of activities at Fermi Nuclear Power. Plant, Unit 2, authorized by License No. NFP-43, and to the discussion .of our. findings with Mr. S. Catola, Mr. S. Orser, and others of your staf f

at'the conclusion of the. inspection. l No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this - inspection. However, two Exercise Weaknesses were identified during this . inspection which will require corrective actions. These weaknesses are > identified in the Appendix to this letter. As required by 10 CFR 50, . s ' Appendix E (IV.F), any weaknesses that are identified must be corrected.

- Accordingly, you are requested to submit a written statement within 45 days ' of the date of this letter describing your planned actions for correcting ' s ' the: weaknesses identified in the Appendix. ' , .m , e a+ '4 g ,'In.accordance with'10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy- '

, s,

of!this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the'

, A NRC Public Document Room. , i - Weiwijlj ladly d'iscuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.1 ', .My . , , , ~ ' Sincerely, , s' a - ', _. .. , J . , ~ Chief > . Reactor Programs Branch ! , , . . -; Enclosures: '

1., Appendix, Exercise Weaknesses ~2. Inspection Report No. 50-341/90003(DRSS) r See Attached-Distribution .g ' . Rb R[II I RI II RII daCS Nell (hh - i GO' U LD , Patterson/gmd arss re r ht,lfo YQ Yb ~ 9003280436 900316 PDR ADOCK 05000341 i s Q PDC / . . - . . . - . .

m wa yr w)*6ppN n &..: y ; Y. a ,.b.m* y~?a W * . - W, . ?. V' \\,?' ;< ,. M, - , ,- /. ' p* ' . N.y, ;x .ya i , s. ,- (, - - t 3 p .-y ,

ag .g,,, # - - fp ( _4 - : ~$_. < s y' e , - . . ., ,b m t. <, , ,- r. , - , ' ' / 7 . . . , s. - p - .. P [6* '5' . y

El . 3 Pr F {h g% %[ g j j y d j < 'W ,

ga,y g g g

, t - . ' . s, . ' " , ,, g +g . g e ~ , 3 9. g

=

. , 4 }k J J +' ' ( ; . . , . t ,

< - j.p*-]a 13 a ," , .] p , cm:

' . p , li i .t* ! y. ,, f. . g Q 4

. , . , , ._ . - - - 3 ,Y. .. y? f)4 .-, . . ,r. F T : f* n, e , A- y. . .jl$^s+ * A " ' 3_

s ' 3; * , , ,

- - ., , - s + -t ' p > x . i, e . q iThe' Detroit Edi ,on~Co, i _ s ..jne . , 2' NAR 10"1990 ' s , 1 , , e , ~ x g. . J ) rE f , _ .o 'W% ~ ' , ., r - ', l s , , , _ . m , e. ,, J I L % - - . [a, o .W Distribution: m - - .- i l W' cc w/ enclosures: . ~ ; i D;._R. Gipso4 Plant' Manager - p ' mif Patricia-AnthonW Licensing s . ' *? ; ; ?P. A Marquardt, Corporate,

' M' ,.. Legal Department

, ! ' A ,' 1 0C0/008 (RIDS) , 4 .t -

Licensing fee Management Branch

<G - 't . . ' y a: Resident-Inspector, RIII . - ,, ' ' e , m' g James'R, Padgett,' Michigan;Public '

m" . m WM . . Service 1CommissionL _ J 1

%Y e ,, J Harry Hi Voights Esq; .

• . i

m ' ' Y# Michigan' Department of: - . J

Public Health

' ' - , , , Monroe' County Office'.of ' ' ' >

Civil, Preparedness

L, ' <1 ,18, , .. " l LGl R. Erickson, NRR,:EPB ' - s , s D/ Bement( FEMA, Region V- " i 7'5; . ,

n.o ' 4- 4 1 h* ,

4

) h- + .- E '

1 J , , s

.. ' / ;* .d Y I . <> ' ' , c'y1. s . - e , .h [ ~ s

I , i.$ + , ?. t* < + - ' 6 4 . j 4

{} i.7 o . , .y, %,j ;' i ,g] 1- . -

, ..'. ;g- /jy;

? _ y - '

. > , i h. ~ - ', - 4 - r k

, t, .!b V ,[: s y l 1

. y

s .5 9 $ y. ' . % ', t > , , 'A t . y ""M $ 7 ,., ,

'1 ; tr><. ~.

2. 4

f - . g' cI'f , , 3 i ' %,'.- ' 4 r 3  % . ' 4 '.f", . y . g. , ' 7

r- ? T

\\- 21

< - ' , , , , d jfg. l * 4 - , , < > t _- - - % _w; . s - 3 s- , -t ' 9 - ',E ! A ':,' . k: , , , ~ 'l pY-- .

vt

. y,e 3 . , M f,, ,* < s i ^ , 6 y; ' - . - , 'W; ,jy . Ug@bi - ' ,s et- '

' , < , ' 9', . s M 1 -i ', ; )p. p F g. _ ,_ c . b

' s .; . , > , oe ~ ,, ,# . . ,.{' t " . f( . [.7 % '-{g . p. , t',ra .. 24 - ~

, t 3 s , , 5 4 , W. 2 , r>

.'

- y (. , ~+ , ,-} fy q ' l[

% (,j f, g : f 3 y" k kh , + ,W ,j, se -, q ' ' S- [ ,h ., , , k t k ? _ (0 -ih [

• ^

f $ E- -

t x-

4

?- 'ly ' p , ,*; 6 ! r ,M - n Q; -eb ..,, y , 9, N, - '; a 4 , c. 4 , k '4-'o e _4l } ' _. %* ;4- ' y'*,*- _ i- ,~ b ': .t% , , -~4'.: , , - W.. ! b + f.[ -.; .- o i u t- j , %gt w w'k, y^ v _ w E .}{ . 4, 9 _ 1 - . , - - . , , r

Fr N44 a ~1 , n. m-- .. o , . . , ,.

s y J't , q [ g '

- ' . r

s , ! , . 'F t T APPENDIX ' ' s , , i J - +- < h,, j ' EXERCISE WEAKNESS NO. I t ' > e , .; , , ' ' l (__

,- The Nuclear. Shift Supervisor did not recognize that conditions satisfying an , Emergency Action Level (EAL) existed when,the Off Ga's Radiation. Monitor' ll ^ High-High alarm was confirmed at approximately 0736. As a result, the ', . i s , , C ,. V Notification of Unusual' Event (NUE) was never declared. 'There was no record ! F of any log entry by the NSS or his assistant that indicated that the EAls were.. I

• !

r ever referred to when these scenario conditions occurred. 'Also, when'the Alert . - b Notification was made to the NRC following declaration at 0750, no. information i ,was provided by the Control Room to. indicate that the conditions for the NUE ' 1 [ -had been recognized or acknowledged. ) n

.. .

' ' + Open Item No. 50-341/90003-01 (Section 5.a). l >

_ * s EXERCISE WEAKNESS NO. 2 j 4 - V b .. . During the medical drill, the: licensee failed to adequately demonstrate.the:

monitoring of-personnel exposure. The contaminated injured victim and l . ambulance personnel were not provided with proper dosimetry to record a l

permanent. record _of exposure during transportation to offsite medical

. facilities. These were required by Procedure EP-225, Radiological Medical a , ' Emergencies. The area in which the medical drill was staged was not posted

" Airborne Radioactivit9 Area" as required by the scenario. The radiological - ~information as conveyed to the medical personnel was not documented at the accident scene. .A body map was not provided to ambulance personnel when the '~" victim was transferred as required by Procedure EP-225. Also the scenario -, = lacked. sufficient radiological data and Control.ler expertise.

, .These specific items plus others identified in Section 5.f contributed to an- inadequate performance of this medical drill. ~ . Open Item 50-341/90003-04. . i .. 9 f p r -s l , - p , + 4 . - - .. -. . . , - 2

, '

..

. . o , ,

. -

' APPENDIX .c - L EXERCISE WEAKNESS NO. 1

, } The Nuclear Shift Supervisor did not recognize that~ conditions satisfying an L, Emergency Action Level (EAL) existed when the Off Gas Radiation Monitor ' f: High-High alarm was confirmed at approximately 0736. As a result, the '4 Notification of. Unusual Event (NUE) was never declared. There was no record r ' of any log entry by the NSS or his assistant that indicated that the.EALs were. P ever referred to when these scenario conditions occurred.- Also, when the Alert

- Notification was made to the NRC following declaration at 0750, no information was provided by the Control Room to indicate that the conditions for the NUE f - had been recognized or acknowledged, p Open Item No. 50-341/90003-01 (Section 5.a). EXERCISE WEAKNESS NO. 2 During the medical drill,_the licensee failed to adequately demonstrate.the monitoring of personnel exposure. The contaminated injured victim and ambulance personnel were not provided with proper dosimetry to record a permanent record of exposure during transportation to offsite medical + facilities. These were required by Procedure EP-225, Radiological Medical Emergencies. The area in which the medical drill was staged was not posted " Airborne Radioactivity Area" as required by the scenario. The radiological information as conveyed to the medical personnel was not documented at the accident scene. A body map was not provided to ambulance personnel when the victim was transferred as required by Procedure EP-225. Also the scenario lacked sufficient radiological data and Controller expertise. These specific items plus others identified in Section 5.f contributed to an inadequate performance of this medical drill. Open Item 50-341/90003-04. < i

. k 2 }}