Text

Forwards Insp Rept 50-341/96-017 on 961004-1206.Violations Noted Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action. Predecisional Enforcement Conference Scheduled on 970218 to Discuss Violations
	ML20134H128
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	02/03/1997
From:	Caldwell J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Gipson D; DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20134H131	List: IR 05000341/1996017; ML20134H128; ML20134H147;
References
	EA-96-543, NUDOCS 9702110163
	Download: ML20134H128 (6)
	v • d • e

.

m ...

O

"L

4

\\f

s

\\

l

'-

s

,

February 3,1997

'

/

EA: 96-543

l

Mr. D. R. Gipson

,

l

Senior Vice President

l

Nuclear Generation

l

The Detroit Edison Company

i

6400 North Dixie Highway

i

Newport, MI 48166

l

SUBJECT:

NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/96017

Dear Mr. Gipson:

l

On December 6,1996, the NRC completed a special inspection at your Fermi 2 reactor

'

facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection. The purpose of the

inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by the license were conducted

,

safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. At the conclusion of the inspection, the

I

findings were discussed with those memboss of your staff identified in the enclosed report.

j

l

Based on the results of this inspection, three apparent violations were identified and are

'

being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General

Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy),

NUREG-1600. The three apparent violations are of concern because technical

l

specification action requirements were not implemented or adhered to. The first violation

!

pertained to the failure of your staff to recognize that a technical specification limiting

condition of operation had been exceeded. Because of this, the residual heat removal

suction pools were not cross-tied and the ultimate heat sink was in a condition prohibited

by technical specifications for greater than 28 hours3.240741e-4 days 0.00778 hours 4.62963e-5 weeks 1.0654e-5 months . The second violation pertained to an

occurrence where your staff could not comply with technical specifications and failed to

i

either amend the technical specifications or request enforcement discretion. The final

violation involved a change in mode of operation without complying with a technical

'

l

specification.

A predecisional enforcement conference to discuss these apparent violations has been

scheduled for February 18,1997. The decision to hold a prececisional onforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or

that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information

to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of

the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the apparent violation sooner,

corrective actions, significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective

corrective action. In addition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our

4

!

inspection report and for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on

1) the severity of the violations, 2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers

'

f

9702110163 970203

/ \\ /,

PDR

ADOCK 05000341

V

a

PDR

,.

..

.

-

.

e+

%4

-

e

r

_

e-,

,_ --

-._a

,_ -,, .

w

_

._

-

-.

- -_

- -

.

.- .

_

.-

. -

.

_-

.

- .

.

D. R. Gipson

-2-

when it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with

Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy, and 3) any other application of the Enforcement

Policy to this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.

This conference will be open to public observation in accordance with the Commission's

Enforcement Policy.

In addition, you should discuss personnel performance issues as noted during recent

inspections. This discussion should address the effectiveness of your personnel

performance improvement initiatives. Another issue that you should discuss at the

conference is the event documented in the Licensee Event Report (LER) No.96-019. The

event involved a inoperable standby feedwater system flow path. Some of the

characteristics of this event are similar to the events discussed in this report. These

similar characteristics included operating the plant in conditions prohibited by technical

specifications.

You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this

matter. No response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter

and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

John A. Grobe for

James L. Caldwell, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Docket No: 50-341

License No: NPF-43

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 50-341/96017

cc w/ encl:

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

!

t

l

.

-.

..

.

_ _ - .

_

-

- - . . - _

.-

.

. _ . .

.

D. R. Gipson

-3-

Distribution continued

Docket File /w enct

Project Manager, NRR/w enci

PUBLIC IE-01/w encl

DRP/w enci

OC/LFDCB/w/enci

Rlli PRR/w enci

SRI Fermi /w/ encl

CAA1 w/enci(E-mail)

A. B. Beach, w/enci

H. B. Clayton, w/enci

i

W. L. Axelson, w/enci

I

,

1

(See attached concurrence)

Document: R:\\inspr pts \\ pow ers\\f erm\\fer96017.d rp

g g i- . . ,.e smi. -

s. swi

s. i. .

. c - cm -is

.ss-nf.=i -c - cw ism .ss-mi-i

=-

0FFICE

RIII

( \\

l

NAME

DuPont/ Jordan

Clayton

GrdbMldwell

DATE

01/ /97

OV)/97

OFFICIAL RECORD C0P1

l

.--

- -

.

-

.

- _

- . .

-

.

I

D. R. Gipson

-3-

1

Distribution continued

Docket File /w enct

Project Manager, NRR/w encl

PUBLIC IE-01/w enci

DRP/w encl

l

OC/LFDCB/w/enci

Rlli PRR/w encl

SRI Fermi /w/enct

CAA1 w/enci(E-mail)

A. B. Beach, w/enct

H. B. Clayton, w/ encl

W. L. Axelson, w/enci

Document: R:\\ ins pr pts \\powe rs\\ferm\\fe r96017.drp

v

n-

g gi . . , ., smi.

- . . . .. . sm.

-c . c, ., ism

...

f-i c - c,

sm .ts m/ i

0FFICE

RIII

6

RIII

}tH.I

[

DuPohordan

Clayton MC-

Grobe/Caldwell

Axe 1 M ach

NAME

DATE

01/15/97

Ol/Lt/97

01/ /97

d /97 \\

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

_.

._ _. _ __

_ _ _ _ _ _

_ ____ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _

l

.

p0 %<,A

UNITED STATES

-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

g ..

S

REGION m

l

3

!

801 WARRENVILLE ROAD

{

f

USLE, ILUNOIS 00502-4351

.....

February 3, 1997

EA: 96-543

Mr. D. R. Gipson

Senior Vice President

Nuclear Generation

4

The Detroit Edison Company

l

~

6400 North Dixie Highway

Newport, MI 48166

i

. SUBJECT:

NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/96017

Dear Mr. Gipson:

On December 6,1996, the NRC completed a special inspection at your Fermi 2 reactor

. facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection. The purpose of the

inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by the license were conducted

safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. At the conclusion of the inspection, the

findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.