ML20134B855

Notice of Violation from Insp on 960914-1025.Violation Noted:Test Personnel Failed to Stop Test & Promptly Restore Shutdown Cooling IAW Sequence of Events Test 96-07 Re Infrequently Preformed Test or Evolution 96-05

ML20134B855
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	01/23/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134B834	List: IR 05000341/1996010 ML20134B831 ML20134B855
References
50-341-96-10, NUDOCS 9701310116
Download: ML20134B855 (3)

Text

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

l NOTICE OF VIOLATION i

l Detroit Edison Company Docket No. 050-341 Fermi 2 License No. NPF-43

^

During an NRC inspection conducted on August 2 through September 13, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

NUREG 1600, the violations are listed below:

1. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control," required that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in service be performed in accordance with written test procedures, including provisions for assuring that adequate test instrumentation was available and used.

Special Test, Sequence of Events (SOE) Test 96-07, " Shutdown Cooling Outage," Revision 2, Section 4.1, requires in part "should a failure of a thermocouple occur, the SOE may continue, at the discretion of the Senior Line Manager, provided that the other three thermocouples monitoring the same parameter are functioning."

Contrary to the above, on October 21, 1996, test personnel failed to stop a test and promptly restore shutdown cooling in accordance with Sequence of Events Test 96-07/ Infrequently Preformed Test or Evolution 96-05 upon the loss of all core thermocouple indications.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

2. 10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests and Experiments," permits the licensee to make changes in the facility and procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question. It further required that records of changes to the facility and procedures be maintained, including a written safety evaluation which provided the bases for the determination that the change did not involve an unreviewed safety question.

Contrary to the above, on October 11, 1996, the safety evaluation for Temporary Modification 96-0015, Revision A did not provide an alternate water supply to the facility during the maintenance outage of the General Service Water (GSW) System. This modification failed to provide an alternate source of makeup water to the Ultimate Heat Sink, normally supplied by GSW as described in UFSAR Section 9.2.1.2.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

9701310116 970123 PDR ADOCK 05000341 G PDR

l l

l Notice of Violation 1

! 3. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Actions," required in

' part that in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.

Contrary to the above, on October 16, 1996, corrective actions for a 2

previous violation (October 3,1995) failed to prevent the loss of a Fafety related DC power bus when the 2A-2 battery charger was secured.

Maintenance personnel failed to properly connect a test battery to the 2Al-2 Battery Charger during setup for Maintenance Procedure 42.309.05,

" Division 1/2 130/260 Battery Capacity Test," Revision 24. The previous 1 violation also involved the inoperability of the 2A-2130V safety 4

battery while testing the 2A-2 battery charger on October 3, 1995. In both cases, the procedures did not provide adequate instructions. The corrective action from the October 3, 1995, violation to review all preventive maintenance procedures to ensure adequate level of detail was not sufficient to prevent the October 16, 1996, event.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

4. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and i Drawings required, in part, that activities affecting quality be

prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a j type appropriate to the circumstances and be accomplished in accordance l with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.

i Contrary to the above, on September 13, 1996, Surveillance Procedure

! 42.302.11, " Channel Functional Test, Bus 64C and 12EB," Revision 24, an l l activity affecting quality, was inappropriate to the circumstances.

i Specifically, the procedure was not sufficient to prevent inadvertently rendering Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump C inoperable without the operating crew's knowledge.

\ This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

1 i Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Detroit Edison Company is j hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Cormission, ATTN

Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

20555 with a copy to d e Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is subject of this Notice, within 3 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation

(1) the reason for the violati c , or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately

_ -- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

! Notice of Violation  !

i i

! addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within j the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be  ;

i issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or  !

! why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause j is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

i Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to

the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, j or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without i redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to i

provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you nut specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g. explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

1 Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 23rd day of January 1997 l

. _ . - . __