ML20248G011

Forwards Synopsis of OI Investigation Into Util Implementation of Facility Licensed Requalification Training Program Under Case 3-87-009.Enforcement Action Associated W/Potential Violation Not Warranted

ML20248G011
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	09/29/1989
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8910100020
Download: ML20248G011 (6)

Text

,. .

s 3- 1

[ l L .

a  ;

l 4

Docket No. 50-341 The Detroit Edison Company ATTH: B. Ralph Sylvia Senior Vice President s Nuclear Operations 6400 North Dixie Highway Hewport, MI 48166 Gentlemen:

The NRC Office of Investigation (01) has recently completed its investigation into Detroit Edison's implementation of the Fermi-2 licensed operation requalification training program. The synopsis of that investigation (Case No. 3-87-009) is attached for your review.

Region III has reviewed the 01 investigation and has determined that enforcement action associated with the potential violation identified in Inspection Report No. 50-341/87016(DRS) is not warranted. While the events discussed did occur, 01 determined that at the time the events took place there was no NRC approved requalification program; therefore no violations occurred. Accordingly, the potential violations identified in Inspection Report No. 50-341/87016(DRS) are considered closed.

If you have any questions regarding these issues, please contact Mr. Geoffrey Wright of my staff at 312/790-5695.

Sincerely, OM"!"t E D F7N:13En J, mtn Hubert J. Miller, Director Division of Reactor Safety

Attachment:

As stated See Attached Distribution LIk h$$[y roc RIII y /

RIIf @II r t/cg L b En b ih (iiller$p0'1 '\

fdle /E 't

m .. .

.g

, ^7-p

"- - a , , , ,, ;

' i

.c i ?. *, ; k: o

, 4 g: ,

, .c i i,The'Detrbit Edison.; Company _

20 I333 ~ l

)

'l

~

! Distribution.- .

.]

N k :cc w/attschment: ..

Patricia Anthony, Licensing- i P.'A. Marquardt, Corporate:' .

j

!1 ' Legal Department-' .

1 L DCD/DCB (RIDS).' . .

F  : Licensing Fee Management Branch j Resident Inspector, RIII:

Ronald:Callen, Michigan _.

, Public-Service Commission.

p  : Harry H. Voight,1 Esq.

Michigan Department off Public Health-

,, '. Monroe County' Office of' Civil' Preparedness-

-J.--Lieberman, OE

J. Clifford, OED0 e.

r;

[1 h

r'j~

---1.______ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

is A

SYN 0PSIS On May 20,'.1987, the NRC Region III (NRC:RIII) Regional Administrator requested an investigation to determine if the Detroit Edison Company (DECO) willfully-failed to implement the Licensed Operator Requalification Program (Program) and willfully submitted false reactor operator license renewal applications. These alleged violations occurred at the Fermi Power Plant (Fermi)..

In September'1983 DECO submitted the Program for review and approval to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50. In October 1983 Amendment 51, which included licensed operator training, was made to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The amendment detailed the minimum requirements of the program, the specifics of the program, the records and documentation of the program, and the administration of the program. In December 1983 NRC Licensing informed Deco that the Program needed modification in four areas, which were administrative in nature. The NRC informed Deco that although the Program had not been approved, DECO could implement the Program because the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(1-1) did not yet apply. The NRC requested that Deco modify the Program in an expeditious manner.

On March 14, 1984, DECO submitted a revised Program for review and approval by NRC Licensing. In May 1984 an internal NRC Licensing memorandum, attached to a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), indicated that the Program could not be approved due to the lack of required mitigating core damage training that was apparently overlooked by the NRC in the previous review. The memo dccumented that DECO was informed of this by an informal telephone call. A search of (s . correspondence between DECO and the NRC disclosed no formal documentation of this notification, nor was there any documentation that the Program was I subsequently approved. Also, a search of the SER disclosed that the Program was never listed as an "open item" and subsequently closed prior to NRC licensing of Fermi.

DECO began the Program for a two year period on January 1,1984. On January 8, 1985, DECO revised the Program. On March 20, 1985, Fermi received a low power license to operate, followed by the issuance of the full power license on July 15, 1985.

In February 1987 DECO conducted a routine quality assurance audit of the training records regarding the Program. Several discrepancies were found regarding the requalification period from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1985, and the NRC was notified. The NRC conducted a special safety inspection in April 1987 and as a result of that inspection, the NRC identified two possible willful violations. Deco was cited for failure to implement the Program (four examples) and failure to provide accurate information in license renewal applications.

The first alleged violation consisted of four examples. The first example involved DECO cancelling or deferring a portion of training in May 1985 to allow the reactor operators (R0s) to work in the plant assisting in valve line ups. The portion of training missed was part of Cycle 3-85. The second l r example involved the fact that because Cycle 3-85 was cancelled, 20 R0s could I

(s Case No. 3-87-009 1

1 b i

• l not be verified through training records as having received the Cycle 3-85 j training, and thereby the R0s were not current with the Program. The third example dealt with an internal Deco. audit of the Nuclear Training Department .

records on December 6,1985, which disclosed a number of R0s which were not i documented as having performed reactivity manipulations as required by the Program. Two of the R0s identified in the audit did not perform the manipulations until April 1987, well past the expiration of the 1984-1985 requalification period. The fourth example dealt with DECO allowing two R0s to perform licensed duties before remediating a failed annual written examination.

The second alleged violation was predicated on the fact that since DECO reduced the scope of the Program by cancelling Cycle 3-85 training, the R0s who did not complete or make up the training during 1985 were not current with the Program. Subsequently, when the R0s applied for license renewals in 1985, the license renewals contained false information, i.e., the R0s had co.mpleted or were current with the Program. Two specific instances were cited involving two R0s who failed an annual examination, applied for license renewal, did not state that they had failed the test, and did not remediate until the renewal was approved.

The investigation found that the NRC:RIII staff who cited the alleged violations were apparently under the impression or assumption that DECO had an approved Program. However, since the Program was apparently never approved by the NRC, DECO was committed to the FSAR amendment regarding licensed operator requalification training which, for the most part, is less specific than the Program.

[

Regarding the first example of the first alleged violation, the investigation I found that DECO did not willfully reduce the scope of an approved Program without notifying the NRC. This finding is based on the fact that the NRC never approved the Program. The approval of the Program is a critical element of willfulness in the violation. The FSAR amendment allows for the postponement of training sessions and make up of these sessions at a later date.

Regarding the second example of the first alleged violation, the investigation found that DECO did not willfully violate the Program because DECO was not committed to the Program.

Regarding the third example of the first alleged violation, the investigation could not substantiate that DECO willfully failed to implement the Program.

Since the Program was not approved, DECO cannot be cited for failing to implement it. It appears that since an internal audit disclosed that a large number of R0s did not have documented training records verifying that they had completed iequired reactivity manipulations, DECO may have willfully l l

disregarded the audit and thereby failed to implement the Program. However, since some ci the R0s identified by the audit received the missed training, this is c<idence that DECO acted on the findings of the audit. The investigation found that it is not clear whethee the two R0s cited as not receiving the training had missed the training nr whether they received the training and DECO could not provide documentation to support this c1cim.

I Case No. 3-87-009 2 I:

t l

., b l Regarding the fourth example of the first alleged violation, the investigation h found that DECO did allow two R0s to perform licensed duties before remediating T a failed annual examination. DECO was not committed to the Program, but the

" FSAR amendment specifically stated'an RO could not perform licensed duties before remediating a failed annual examination. However, the investigation

.could not substantiate that Deco willfully violated the FSAR, but rather the ln violation was. caused'by.a lack of communications between the Nuclear Training Department and Operations.

Regarding the second alleged violation, the investigation could not sub-stantiate that DEC0 willfully failed to provide accurate information for the

. R0s' license renewals. It was alleged that since DECO cancelled training of an approved Program and the documentation does not exist to prove the R0s received.the training, that the license applications are false. Due to failure of the NRC to approve the Program, DECO was not committed to provide that training and the license applications are not false. In the two specific examples cited by NRC:RIII, the investigation disclosed that the R0s submitted their license renewals after failing an annual examination. However, Deco ensured the R0s remediated the examinations before the effective dates of license renewals and prior. to the end of the two year requalification period.

This is not a willful violation of 10 CFR 55.33, " License Renewals."

In conclusion, the only violations substantiated by the investigation were that Deco allowed two R0s to perform licensed duties before remediating failed examinations and that DECO could not document that two other R0s had received required training, both of which are violations of the FSAR. No evidence of willfulness on the part of DECO could be substantiated.

i Case No. 3-87-009 3 i

- J

, , . q ,.

c x.g ,.,.f,

. , .;.,g 7 ' '

.. w+ d. is, .

- ,e,

- , .n, THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1.

i l

(

Case No. 3-87-009 4

_--___-_-_ -