ML20214K876

Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant.Records Subj to Request Identified by Accession Number on App B.Records Available in PDR

ML20214K876
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	08/07/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Puntenney J SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF MICHIGAN
References
FOIA-86-430 NUDOCS 8608220145
Download: ML20214K876 (2)

Text

'

g PDt-oth c '

4 Marg UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-p o W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555' S

• -l AUG 7- 1986

- g,, .....f Ms. Jennifer E. Puntenney Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan P.0, Box 331 IN RESPONSE REFER Monroe, Michigan 48161 TO FOIA-86-430

Dear Ms. Pu n t.eruiey :

This is in regard to your request, pursuant to the Freedom of Itsformation Act, to which the-NRC assigned the above number.

_X__ This is a partial response to your request. We will notify you upon completion of search fvr and review of any additional records subject to your request.

_ _ _ _ . The staff has completed the search for arul review of records subject to your request, .and this is the-final response to your request.

The NRC.has no records subject to your request.

X__ Recorde subject to your request are available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, as noted on the enclosure (s). The PDR accession number is t- identified beside each record description.

_X _ Records subject to your request are being made'available.

for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document. Room (FDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in the PDR file _ folder under the above-number and your name. These records are listed on the enclosure (s).

We are enclosing a notice that provides information about charges and procedures for obtaining records from the PDR.

Sincerely, 1)Ltd h ,/ J'e-Donni.e H. Grimsley, Direc.er Division of Rules and Recorde Office of Administration Euclosure(s): As stated m .,

860822014S 860807 j, PDR FOIA in PUNTENN86-430 PDR L

F01A-86-430 Appendix B

1. 09/12/85 Memo to H. Bonher from L. Crocker, Trip Report, Meeting with Detroit Edison Comp at RIII - Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant

2. 05/20/86 Ltr. to Detroit Edison Comp. from J. Keppler, RIII, EA 86-66 l and 8606030300 4

. ?

e9

SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF MICHIGAN P.O. BOX 331 MONR0E . MICHIGAN 48161 memon w seesmassa Freedom"of Information Officer FoI A-2(o-430 U.S. Nuclear Regula' tory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 fg

Dear Sir /Ms. :

Pursuant the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552 et Seq. as amended, the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan hereby request material as described below .

(1) All information including documents, notes, memos, reviews, re-ports, etc. regarding Fermi 2 (Monroe County, Michigan) produced '

by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO),

(a.) This should include, but not be restricted to the September, 1985 and the April, 1986 review of the operations and management of Fermi 2 and its owner the Detroit Edison Company, (b.) Also included should be any Nuclear Regulatory Commission information, reviews, reports, or responses, etc. to INPO  :

in regards to th? Fermi 2 nuclear power plant.

(2) All information , including reports, reviews, documents,, notes, memos, etc. regarding the security problems and violations issued at the Fermi P nuclear planti since 1984.

(3) All information, including documents, reports, minutes, memos, transcripts, etc. from all meetings held on June 2nd and 3rd, 1986 with Region III staff and other. -parties, such as the Fermi 2 In-dependent Overview Committee (IOC) Detroit Edison Co. , Konroe Coun-ty government officials, INPO, financial institution representatives, press, etc. regarding the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant.-

Pursuant, 5 USC 552.(a) (4)(A), we hereby request waiver of all fees in connection with this request "because furnishing the informa-tion can be considered primarily benefitting the general public." If any fees are to be charged in connection with this request, please notify us in advance for approval at the above address or at this telephone number 313-477-3441 or 313-477-1670. This advance notice shall not be necessary if the fees are to be. less than $ 15 00 in total.

We look forward to your response within ten (10) business days i after you receive this request, as specified in the Act, (FOIA). Thank ,j you for your h'lp'in this matter.

e '

Sincerely, nb t D^m% , C)y Jennifer E. Puntenn ,

u w ,s w m -

V4.--. @

6 =

• I me g n g-e y =g 4 giy DISTRIBUTION:

. Central Files LQB R/F L. Crocker SEP 12 2 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety FROM: L. P. Crocker Section Leader Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT, MEETING WITH DETROIT EDISON COMPANY AT REGION III - FERMI 2 NUCLEAR PLANT On September 10, 1985, I attended a meeting at the Region III office to

• discuss problems at the Femi 2 Nuclear Plant with the licensee. Detroit Edison Company (Deco). The meeting had been called by Region III to assess plant operations to date and to have DECO explain the corrective actions that have been taken to improve performance.

The Regional Administrator and other Region III staff members were in attendance, as well as the Resident Inspectors from the Fermi 2 plant. From

Deco, the VP-Nuclear Operations, the Assistant Manager-Nuclear Production, and several other DECO personnel were in attendance. I was accompanied by the Fermi 2 Project Manager. A number of reporters were present in the audience as well as several representatives of local government offices and some intervenors.

Fermi 2 received a low power license on March 24, 1985, and a full power license on July 15, 1985. However, Region III has limited the plant to operations not exceeding 55 power. The power limitation will remain in effect at least until completion of an OI investigation into the circumstances involved in an unplanned power excursion that occurred prior to receipt of the full power license, but which was not reported to the NRC until after the full power license was issued.

In addition to the unplanned power excursion, there has been a series of violations during the start-up testing. The Senior Resident Inspector mentioned an eight page list of violations. The licensee shut the plant down from August l'to August 10 to take corrective actions. It was restarted on August 10 and the low power testing is now almost complete.

The licensee's representatives provided an oral description of the actions the company has taken to correct the many problems that have occurred. In addition to self-analysis, the licensee has had the benefit of an INPO assistance visit and some input from the Management Analysis Corporation. On the bases of these efforts, both short-term and long-term corrective action programs have been developed. The short-term program is now being

'"'?' C C"t?d , h't t' 10";-t?""' ?"20"P" i! "?t !? ?d"l b

?d #?" C""? ?t i ?" '.'"H I l

Y ................... ..................... ..................... ..................... . .g g.g. . .,. . ...,.p.f..,.......... ...................

"; ""' > ................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .. v. 4.. ./.. e t?..M.7. 9.f... .T...... ...................

..... v'57M):.... .................... .................. ,

";c Fo:" 3'* "o'*06 NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u.s. apo ms-4oo.24 i u '~ ' ' " ' ~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ .~' - - -+--a-. )

b," -

J @! b after the 5% power level is exceeded. The objectives of the improvement plans are to 1) provide greater mana

2) improveshiftmanagement,and3)gementsupportofplantoperations, provide improved administrative systems.

I am not aware of all of the specific problems that have occurred, but after listening to the licensee, the Regional personnel and the Project Manager, it appears to me that the difficulties that have been experienced fall almost completely within areas of interest to DHFS and more specifically to 1.QB.

Apparently, the problems have involved poor communications within and ~between shifts; poor comunications between plant operations and the maintenance .

engineering and training support areas; and a lack of adequate contact t.nd communication between plant management and plant operations.

The problems that have occurred can be inferred from the corrective actions that have been initiated. These are sumarized as follows:

4 At the plant management level:

• The' Operations Superintendent is now overseeing control room operations, including visits on some back shifts. .

• The Advisor to the Assistant Manager-Nuclear Production (the " plant

- manager") and members of the Regulatory and Compliance staff will now conduct surveillances of control room operations.-

• The Assistant Manager-Nuclear Operations and/or the Superintendent-Operations are reviewing responsibilities in one-on-one sessions with the Nuclear Shift Supervisors (NSS), the Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisors (NASS),andtheShiftOperatingAdvisors(SOA).

• The Superintendent-Operations now participates periodically in the shift turnover process.

l, l

• The Operations Engineer now follows and reviews performance of shift l

activities against the established plan.

I

• Shift personnel now have an input into the staff status meeting.

• The Technical Engineering staff more closely screens change requests, with the' objective of reducing the number of changes.

• Preventive maintenance is now integrated into the daily / weekly work plan and priority is increased on PM work packages.

At the shift management level:

• The NSS is now conducting briefings of shift personnel following shift l

turnover and is reviewing upcoming sh.ft activities.

" c'> .................. ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................

"""*"'I ................... ..................... .....................

..................... ~.. - .............. ..................... ...- ~ ~ -.....

ous) .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ... ................. .................... .................

• u.s.apo assoo.:

l " c 'o:" 8'* "o'80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. . .. . . . . . . . .. ...--.-.e

l

. $ &* rKOY E N~

The NSS now is participating in significant plant evolutions.

The NSS now is participating in planning meetings.

A program is underway to upgrade the logbook.

• The NASS now is assigned to the control room in the control board' area.

The NSS now can require briefings on planned test activities.

• The NSS now will provide full time direction of control room activities and will be relieved of many administrative duties.

• The NSS now controls plant activities. He determines relative priorities and workload and he has the authority to reject activities if he feels the crew is or would be overloaded.

4 An improved system of equipment statusing is being developed. The licensee now uses colored " dots" on the control board to indicate status instead of the more common tags. There are eight or nine colors of

" dots" to indicate status. _

Planning / status meetings are now being held four times daily.. The principal meeting is at 1:30 p.m., with update meetings at 6 p.m.,

1 a.m. and 6 a.m.

As regards advisors:

• The Shift Operations Advisors (SOA) are now to be involved in the details of shift operations. (You will recall that Fermi uses shift advisors - their SOAs - to provide a background of operating experience

- to the shifts. However, I to some sort of non-role.) gather that initially the SOAs were relegated

• The Shift Technical Advisors will now focus on identifying and resolving control room problems, particularly annunciators and alarms.

• The Reactor Engineers will increase their participation in plant operations. (These are extra engineers assigned to the shifts for the

. start-up testing period.)

• (The STAS, who rotate with the shifts, reportedly have a good working relationship with the shift personnel. The SOAs have had a relatively weak relationship, caused by lack of management emphasis and the fact that they were assigned extraneous duties.)

" " " ^ " ' >................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ...................

• ^ " > .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................

• u.s.apo me-4ao.n

""c '8" 85 "o'808 NRCM O24 0 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY - -- --~ - .--

_ - _.._... ..s -

l

. W[ Wb i Wk k As regards training:

• The Training Department is now preparing and will conduct additional training emphasizing:

- nomal and routine operations, rather than concentrating on abnormal operations

- comunications

- specific a&tinistrative procedures

• Plant revisions are being incorporated into training. Training in key /significant plant or procedural changes will be conducted on shift.

If one looks at the flip-side of the improvements that are being made as

• being indicative of shortcomings that have been encountered (which is not necessarily totally correct), it becomes rather obvious why so many problems have been encountered during the low power testing. Looking over the list of improvements, I can find little that we would not have wanted from the very start. Further, with all the guidance that has been put out during the last few years, I believe we had every reason to expect the " improvements" to have been built into the initial plant operations.

A number of longer-term improvements are planned, generally in amplification

- of the short-term improvements noted above. They involve:

• Preventive maintenance program

• Incorporating plant revisions into training

' Changes to the maintenance procedures

• Acquiring and maintaining maintenance expertise

• Review and implement INPO findings

• Rethink and revise as necessary the procedures for handling work orders

• Monitor operations via monthly progress review with the Vice President and Manager

• Management review of control room activities

• Improve support to and get feedback from the NSS

• Operational assurance monthly reviews

• Tracking / trending of LERs

~"at ..............*....M...W.9a.d..a.n.@.'5.................. ..................... .....................

~ ~> ................... ..................... .....................

om> .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................

• u.s.am au 4ao.2, we ronu sie no,.o wac" *2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

_ . . , . . , . _ . _ ..,.,s.., , , _ , , , , _ , . _ ,

k s

R W g / .f~

5-The licensee representatives closed their presentation with a promise that DECO management will closely monitor and evaluate plant performance on a continuing basis. They are confident that the improvement actions they have taken will provide the controls necessary to ensure that operations are performed with minimum risk. DECO asked for Region III approval to exceed the 5% power level on September 17, 1985.

After a caucus with the NRC members present, the Regional Administrator infonned the licensee that: ,

1. He would like to have the information presented during the briefing submitted on the record complete with the details that had been discussed.

2. Region III will want to observe plant operations at up to the 5%

power level for some period of time in order to assure ourselves

• that the new systems are working before proceeding beyond 5% power.

3. No decision would be forthcoming until after 01 had completed its investigation.

~

This was my first personal contact with the licensee's personnel. My impression from the presentation is that there has been an "us and them" division between plant management and the shift personnel. This may not be accurate, but the provisions the licensee has made to have plant management

- personnel get involved in plant tours and control room observation should certainly improve the relationships. If anything I would recc. mend even more involvement by plant management during the start-up testing.

At this point, I do not see anything to be gained by having the licensee come in for a management meeting with NRR. The improvements that have been or are being implemented by the licensee are little different, if at all, thanUntil we would have recomended following a briefing on what they had before.

the licensee has had an opportunity to really implement these changes and~

the Region has had an opportunity to assure that the changes are achieving the desired results, a meeting seems premature. At this point, the low power testing is virtually complete, the plant is limited to 5% power, and no decisions will be made until after OI has reported to the Commission the results of its investigation of the delayed reporting of the unplanned power excursion. The Region seems to be fully on top of the problem. While we might offer t'o assist in their evaluation of plant operations, I fr 1 we should not attempt a separate action on our own.

L. P. Crocker, Section Leader Management Technology Section Licensee Qualifications Branch DW/LpC5/ TRIP REPORT - FERMI Division of Human Factors Safety a*** .L,qB/,@ j,,  ?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

-> .Lcr.9.ck.s.r/..r..................... ..................... .....................

om> .9 ./..$. ./. 8 5......

• nc ronu m no,eomacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY m.;- -

• "? **