ML20236R116

Discusses Insp Rept 50-341/98-05 Completed on 970922 & Forwards Notice of Violation

ML20236R116
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	07/15/1998
From:	Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20236R118	List: ML20236R116 ML20236R125
References
50-341-98-05, 50-341-98-5, EA-98-201, NUDOCS 9807210250
Download: ML20236R116 (3)

See also: IR 05000341/1998005

Text

.

,

July 15, 1998

EA 98-201

Mr. D. R. Gipson

Senior Vice President

Nuclear Generation

The Detroit Edison Company

6400 North Dixie Highway .

Newport, MI 48166

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-341/98005(DRS)

Dear Mr. Gipson:

On September 22,1997, the NRC completed an Engineering and Technical Support inspection

(Inspection Report 50-341/97011(DRS)) at your Enrico Fermi, Unit 2, facility. One of the issues

reviewed during that inspection, and subsequently addressed as an unresolved item, was your

practice to eliminate response time testing (RTT) for certain instruments in the Reactor

Protection, Isolation Actuation, and Emergency Core Cooling Systems per 10 CFR 50.59,

" Changes, Tests, and Experiments." However, resolution was deferred while the NRC

reviewed the generic applicability of this issue because of similar concems at several other

boiling water reactors.

A follow-up inspection (NRC Inspection Report 50-341/98005(DRS), March 20 - April 6,1998)

formally transmitted the NRC's decision relative to the generic concems. The conclusion was

that the elimination of RTT via 10 CFR 50.59 was not appropriate. The unresolved item was

addressed in the report as four apparent violations and you were requested to respond to the

apparent violations.

We subsequently met with you on May 6,1998, to discuss your: (1) evaluation of the causes of

the apparent violations, (2) corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and (3) understanding of

the safety and regulatory significance of the apparent violations. You stated that the cause of

the inadequate 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was your staff's failure to recognize that instrument

response time testing was required by technical specifications and could not be eliminated by

10 CFR 50.59. You also indicated that the failure to conduct the testing at the appropriate

times was: (1) a direct result of an inadequata 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, (2) that the safety and

, regulatory significance were minimal since instrumen't response time testing was being

performed using NRC accepted methodology, and (3) significant degradation would have been

detected during other calibration and surveillance testing activities. \

'

9907210250 990715

PDR ADOCK 05000341

G PDR

-

-

. ___a

.

D. Gipson -2-

Based on the information developed during the inspection, and our consideration of the

information provided in the May 6,1998, meeting, the NRC has determined that a violation of

NRC requirements occurred. A detailed description of the circumstances resulting in the

violation is described in the two referenced inspection reports. After our review of the

information you provided during the May 6,1998 meeting, Region 111 determined that the three

apparent violations for failure to conduct adequate response time testing were the direct result

of an inadequate 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation.

Normally, a violation for an inadequate 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation that results in a significant

failure to follow TS would be classified at Severity Level 111. However, in this case, the NRC has

determined that this violation does not constitute a significant regulatory concem and therefore

should be classified at Severity Level IV. The basis for this determination was: (1) your staff

was performing instrument response time testing for the affected systems in accordance with

methodology (NEDO-32291, *BWR Owners Group Licensing Topical Report") that was

approved in NRC Safety Evaluation Report, dated December 28,1994; (2) the safety

significance was low, since you were conducting calibration and surveillance tests that would

have detected degradation of the systems; (3) your methodology for testing was approved by

the NRC in a subsequent technical specification amendment; (4) the inadequate 10 CFR 50.59

evaluation was an isolated case and not reflective of a programmatic breakdown; and (5) there

was no adverse impact on plant safety or operability of the affected systems as demonstrated

by the testing methodology you had implemented.

The NRC acknowledges that you identified the inadequate 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation in

March 1997, and reported the issue to the NRC as required. Additional'y, the NRC finds your

corrective actions, as documented in your LER and as communicated at the May 6,1998

meeting, acceptable. Accordingly, the NRC is dispositioning this non-repetitive, licensee-

identified and corrected violation as a Non-Cited Violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the

Enforcement Policy. Accordingly, no response is required to this correspondence.

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

enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

Original /s/ J. A. Grobe

John A. Grobe, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No.: 50-341

License No.: NPF-43

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

See Attached Distribution

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\FER06198.NOV ,

to r.c.w. . em .: e.i. e.eu,n.nunsw. in n m c . cm ww .nemm.,u.e# r . em um .namm. ave. ir . m em

OFFICE Rlli lC Rill d MRill nd Rlll 6

NAME Westberg:sd VO Jacogork % $urg@D Clayton /M

DATE 07/Lf/98 0 h7/698 07

..

mammmmmmmmmmme sus my h man mam//5798

mmmmmmmmme um

OFFICE OE 6 Rlli Rlli Rill

NAME Lieberman Vi* f* Grobe $N

DATE 07/1G98 o(.*CC 07/ @ 98 07/ /98 07/ /98

"' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.

D. Gipson -3-

cc w/ encl: N. Peterson, Director

Nuclear Licensing

P. A. Marquardt, Corporate

Legal Department

Richard Whale, Michigan Public

Service Commission

Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality

Monroe County, Emergency

Management Division

Emergency Management

Division, MI Department

of State Police

Distribution:

J. Goldberg, OGC w/enci

J. Lieberman, OE w/enci

B. Boger, NRR w/enct

CAC (E-Mail)

Project Mgr., NRR w/enci

C. Paperiello, Rlli w/enci

J. Caldwell, Rlli w/ enc! .

B. Clayton, Rill w/ encl

SRI Fermi w/enci

DRP w/enct

TSS w/enci

DRS (2) w/enci

R!li PRR w/enci

PUBLIC IE-01 w/enci

Docket File w/enci ,

GREENS

LEO (E-Mail)

DOCDESK (E-Mail)

l

',) O b b