ML20235F591
| ML20235F591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1987 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235F593 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-87-133, NUDOCS 8709290223 | |
| Download: ML20235F591 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1987027
Text
f
j[Q
_
\\W
p
1
SEP 2 41987
,
Docket No. 50-341-
.
License No. NPF-43
E.a
The. Detroit Edison Company
$5
ATTN:
B.' Ralph. Sylvia
.g
y
Group'Vice President
to o
.6400 N. Dixie Highway
I-
Newport, MI 48166
> j$
'
-4
Gentlemen:
(n
"
.
..
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
.(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-341/87027(DRS))
This refers to the NRC inspection conducted during the period July 1-10' 1987,
,
' of ' activities authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-43 and to the
circumstances surrounding the unplanned and uncontrolled reactor water
temperature increase that occurred on June 26, 1987 requirements. The
details of the events that led up to these violations are presented in the
subject inspection report which was sent to you by letter dat.ed August 12,
1987. On July 31, 1987, we held an enforcement conference with you and
members of your staff during which the violations, the root causes, and your
corrective actions were discussed.
Violation A occurred when on-shift licensed operators failed to remain
continuously cognizant and.in control of plant conditions and evolutions
in progress resulting in the reactor water temperature increasing to 220
degrees Fahrenheit in an uncontrolled manner. This caused an unintentional
change in operating corditions from Mode 4 (cold shutdown) to Mode 3 (hot
shutdown). The inattention of licensed operators described in Violation A
resulted in Violation B which occurred when the plant entered Mode 3 without a
required emergency diesel generator being operable contrary to Technical
Specification requirements.
Violation A is of particular. concern to the NRC because it involved a failure
.of four licensed operators to discharge their duties in a responsible manner.
The Nuclear Supervising Operatcr (NS0) who was primarily responsible for moni-
toring and controlling plant equipment delegated to a trainee the responsibility
for monitoring' the reactor water temperature. This was done without adequate
oversight or instruction of the trainee regarding action to be taken if the
temperature exceeded a particular limit. As a result, the NSO was not cognizant
of the reactor water temperature and made no attempt throughout his shift to
obtain this information.
During this period the reactor water temperature rose
in an uncontrolled manner, reached 220 degrees Fahrenheit, and the plant
0709290223 870924
ADOCK 05000341
G
PbR
\\
_ - _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
_
_ _ _ _ -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __
_
_
,
.
.
SEP 2 41987
The Detroit Edison Company
2
operational status changed from Mede 4 to Mode 3.
The Nuclear Assistant Shift
Supervisor (NASS), the Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS), and a relief NSO, all
licensed operators or senior operators, were also unaware of the uncontrolled
reactor water temperature increase. The NSS and NASS did not take positive
steps to ensure that the control room personnel were properly discharging their
responsibilities ana the plant was being maintained in a safe condition.
A premature criticality event which occurred on July 1,1985 resulted in the
issuance of a $300,000 civil penalty. That event was similar to the June 26,
1987 unplanned mode change event in that licensed individuals failed to
exercise proper supervisory oversight, failed to be sensitive to the ongoing
plant status, and in some cases failed to carry out basic activities that are
the responsibility of licensed operators.
In your August 1, 1986 response to
the NRC Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, you
stated that a control room audit program haa been implemented and that the
Plant Manager or the Superintendent of Operations had met with each involved
individual to clarify their roles and to emphasize their onshift authority and
responsibilities.
You also developed extensive procra,s to improve control
,
room operations and nuclear activities in general.
In spite of these efforts,
!
the June 26, 1987 unplanned mode change occurred and the root cause again
I
appears to be a lack of oversight, control, and sensitivity to the ongoing
l
plant operations and status by licensed operators.
The NRC recognizes that
I
this event occurred while the plant was shutdown.
However, had similar
inattention by licensed operators occurred with the plant at power, a more
significant event could have resulted.
To emphasize the importance of ensuring that licensed operators are in control
and cognizant of tne plant status at all times, I have been authorized, after
consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive
Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enciesed Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the cumulative amount of Seventy-Five
Thousand Dollars ($75,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy),
the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized as a
Severity Level III problem.
The base value of & civil penalty for a Severity
Level III problem is $50,000. Tne escalation and mitigation factors in the
Enforcement Policy were considered and, in this case the base civil penalty
amount was increased by 100 percent because of your past poor performance in
the general area of concern.
Howevar, your unusually prompt and extensive
corrective actions, including disciplinary actions against the individuals
involved, warrant a 50 percent reduction in the civil penalty.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response,
you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you
plan to prevent recurrence.
Further, you should explain why adequate mant.gement
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
= - _
.
.
.
SEP 2 41987 '
The Detroit Edison Company
3
controls were not in place. to ensure shift and watch relief turnovers were
effectively carried out and why you believe your corrective actions will provide.
assurance that in the future licensed operators will be attentive to their
duties. After reviewing your response to this Notice,' including your proposed
'
' corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will uttermine
whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
~NRC regulatory requirements.
Enforcement action. is also being taken against four of your licensed employees
who were directly involved in the unplanned mode change event including:
a
Nuclear Supervising Operator (NS0), a Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS), a Nuclear
Assistant Shift -Operator (NASS), and a relief NSO.
Copies of correspondence
sent to these individuals are enclosed for your information.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure
will be'placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Nctice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office nf Manacement'and Budget
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub, L. No.96-511.
Sincerely,
Dricinal ed ged by
l
WL,. Bert Davis
l
A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
and Proposed Imposition
of Civil Penalty
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/87027(DRS)
3.
Letters of Reprimand
a.
Thomas M. Given
I
b.
Michael T. Koralewski
i
c.
Robert M.' Trimai
d.
Lloyd J. Clark
See-Attached Distribution
RII:
RIII
RIII
RIII
No{r
/mnj)Mfiller
w%
'
)
l
i
i
I
Schultz
ello
Davis
V
9g
witm
94 s 1
1/n_
t p
1
i
_______-_A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
The Detroit Edison Company
4
SEP 2 41987
Distribution
cc w/ enclosures:
S. R. Frost, Licensing
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
.
Legal Department
DCD/DCB(RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Harry H. Voight, Esq.
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Monroe County Office of
Civil Preparedness
i
i
1
-)
._7
. - . -
.. . . -.- _ - - - -
. -
--. ...
.
-. -
- __.
_-.
g.
. -
l- ,
,
- The Detroit Edison Company
'
-
' 0 DISTRIBUTION:
I
' PDR
SECY
- CA
u
J. Taylor,-DED0-
T. Martin,~DEDRO
- J. Lieberman, 0E
J. Luehman, OE
A. B.. Davis,'RIII
L. Chandler, OGC
<
- Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
T. Murley, NRR
F. Ingram,'PA
B. Hayes, OI
S'. Connelly; 0IA
E. Jordan, AE00
.
-____.__m__-__m.-___.___
_ _ _ _ _ . - ._ _ _ _ _ ________-__.-_____
_.
_ _
_