ML20134B831
| ML20134B831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1997 |
| From: | Caldwell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B834 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701310104 | |
| Download: ML20134B831 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1996010
Text
. ._ . _ . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
.- _
_
!
.
I
January 23, 1997
i
1
.
l
Mr. D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
)
,'
Nuclear Generation
L
'
The Detroit Edison Company
l
6400 North Dixie Highway
,
Newport, MI 48166
j
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/96010
Dear Mr. Gipson:
.,
j
On October 25, 1996, the NRC completed an inspection at your Fermi 2 reactor
facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
i
- !
During the 6-week period covered by this inspection, operations of your Fermi
2 facility was safe. However, conduct of several activities remained
3
inconsistent.
For example, operators performed a carefully controlled
shutdown to begin the plant's fifth refueling outage. However, as the outage
progressed, several events occurred that unnecessarily challenged operators
and maintenance personnel and resulted from inadequate work planning or
4
j
inadequate procedures.
These are examples of continuing problems.
.
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that four
violations of NRC requirements occurred.
These violations are cited in the
enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them
are described in detail in the subject inspection report.
The first violation pertained to a test that was not stopped as required by
the test procedure.
The test was to verify reactor core cooling by natural
circulation was established when shutdown cooling was secured. When the
4
4
output of all special instrumentation was lost before cooling was verified,
the test was not stopped as required.
[
The second violation pertained to an inadequate safety evaluation for removal
f
of General Service Water (GSW) system from service. The GSW system was
- removed from service for maintenance. The safety evaluation did not consider
the need for the makeup function of the Ultimate Heat Sink (VHS).
This
i
resulted in lowering of the UHS level. Actions were taken to provide an
alternate path of makeup. However, this demonstrated the lack of thoroughness
during preparation and review of the safety evaluation to ensure that a
safety-significant function of the system was maintained.
1 I
tb
(/[
9701310104 970123
ADOCK 05000341
G
a
. ._
D. R. Gipson
-2-
The third violation pertained to ineffective corrective actions for a previous
violation. While preparing for a safety battery test discharge, the fuses for
a test battery were not installed when it was connected to the bus. As a
result, the bus was deenergized when attempting to restore power after the
test. This resulted in ESF actuations. The cause was similar to a battery
charger testing violation in October 1995. The corrective actions to the
October 1995 violation were ineffective and did not prevent this failure.
l
The fourth violation occurred when a surveillance procedure inappropriately
rendered a Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump (RHRSW) inoperable.
1
During a routine safety bus undervoltage surveillance, operators were unable
to start a RHRSW pump. The surveillance procedure was inadequate and rendered
the pump inoperable whenever it was performed. This condition was not
recognized by your staff. As a result, appropriate actions per technical
l
specifications were not performed.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will
i
use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
this letter and its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely,
/s/ John A. Grobe for
James L. Caldwell, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No:
50-341
License No:
Enclosures:
1.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/96010
2.
cc w/ enc 1:
N. Peterson,
Supervisor of Compliance
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
'
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County, Emergency
Management Division
(See attached continued distribution)
,
4
D. R. Gipson
-3-
Distribution continued:
Docket File /w encl
Project Manager, NRR/w encl
PUBLIC IE-01/w enci
DRP/w encl
OC/LFDCB/w/ encl
RIII PRR/w encl
SRI Fermi /w/ encl
CAAl w/ enc 1 (E-mail)
A. B. Beac h, w/ encl
H. B. Clayton, w/ encl
W. L. Axelson, w/ encl
g , .
.. ,,.es.nsprpts\\ powers.\\.f.erm\\.fer96010.d.rp
Docum.ent: R:\\i
.
- ..iwi
.
e-c.,,.is
... f
i-r-c.,,.is.t
f i =-
0FFICE
RIII
RIlijk)
b
RIII8pNb
RIIVrh7
I
klalbleb
NAME
Jordan
Crek
Kozak
DATE
01/ F/97
01/?0/97
01//B/97
\\bl/ 7)[97
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
\\'
,
g*"'%,
UNITED STATES
fo
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ {'
S
REGION 111
E'
i[
801 WARRENVILLE ROAD
i
- [
LISLE, ILLINOIS 00632-4351
' *****
January 23, 1997
.
.
.
J
Mr. D. R. Gipson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
The Detroit Edison Company
.
6400 North Dixie Highway
Newport, MI 48166
'
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/96010
Dear Mr. Gipson:
On October 25, 1996, the NRC completed an inspection at your Fermi 2 reactor
facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
,
During the 6-week period covered by this inspection, operations of your Fermi
2 facility was safe. However, conduct of several activities remained
inconsistent.
For example, operators performed a carefully controlled
shutdown to begin the plant's fifth refueling outage.
However, as the outage
progressed, several events occurred that unnecessarily challenged operators
and maintenance personnel and resulted from inadequate work planning or
inadequate procedures. These are examples of continuing problems.
Based on tlie results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that four
violations cf NRL requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the
enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them
are described in detail in the subject inspection report.
The first viviation pertained to a test that was not stopped as required by
the test procedure. The test was to verify reactor core cooling by natural
circulation was established when shutdown cooling was secured. When the
output of all special instrumentation was lost before cooling was verified,
the test was not stopped as required.
The second violatioc pertained to an inadequate safety evaluation for removal
of General Service Water (GSW) system from service.
The GSW system was
removed from service for maintenance. The safety evaluation did not consider
the need for the makeup function of the Ultimate Heat Sink (VHS). This
resulted in lowering of the UHS level. Actions were taken to provide an
alternate path of makeup. However, this demonstrated the lack of thoroughness
during preparation and review of the safety evaluation to ensure that a
safety-significant function of the system was maintained.
. - . - - . - . . --
.
D. R. Gipson
-2-
The third violation pertained to ineffective corrective actions for a previous
violation. While preparing for a safety battery test discharge, the fuses for
a test battery were not installed when it was connected-to the bus. As a
,
'
result, the bus was d energized when attempting to restore power after the
test. This resulted in ESF actuations.
The cause was similar to a battery
i
charger testing violation in October 1995.
The corrective actions to the
'
October 1995 violation were ineffective and did not prevent this failure.
The fourth violation occurred when a surveillance procedure inappropriately
rendered a Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump (RHRSW inoperable.
During a routine safety bus undervoltage surveillance, oper)ators were unable
to start a RHRSW pump. The surveillance procedure was inadequate and rendered
the pump inoperable whenever it was performed. This condition was not
recognized by your staff. As a result, appropriate actions per technical
specifications were not performed.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will
,
use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
,
i
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
this letter and its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC
i
Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely,
t
-
ames L. Caldwell, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No:
50-341
License No: NPF-43
Enclosures:
1.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/96010
2.
cc w/ enc 1:
N. Peterson,
Supervisor of Compliance
P. A. Marquardt,-Corporate
Legal Department
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County, Emergency
Management Division
i
,
. .
,
.