ML20216B958

Discusses Insp Rept 50-002/98-202 on 980223-27 & Forwards Notice of Violation.Open Predecisional Enforcement Conference Conducted in Rockville,Maryland to Discuss Two Violations,Root Causes & Corrective Actions

ML20216B958
Person / Time
Site:	University of Michigan
Issue date:	05/13/1998
From:	Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Fleming R MICHIGAN, UNIV. OF, ANN ARBOR, MI
Shared Package
ML20216B964	List: ML20216B958 ML20216B967
References
50-002-98-202, 50-2-98-202, EA-98-155, NUDOCS 9805190033
Download: ML20216B958 (3)

See also: IR 05000002/1998202

Text

.

• *

p s UNITED STATES

j

.

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001

,g* May 13, 1998

EA 98-155 1

l

Dr. Ronald Fleming, Director

Phoenix Memorial Laboratory

Ford Nuclear Reactor

University of Michigan

2301 Bonisteel Boulevard

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2100

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOL.ATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-002/98202)

Dear Dr. Fleming:

This refers to the routine, announced inspection conducted February 23-27,1998, to

determine whether activities authorized by your license were being conducted safely and in

accordance with NRC requirements. The results of the inspection were discussed with you

and your staff and were detailed in the inspection report issued on March 24,1998. An

open predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Rockville, Maryland office

on April 22,1998, with you and other University of Michigan personnel to discuss two i

apparent violations, their root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. A

copy of the University of Michigan's presentation materials and a list of conference

attendees are enclosed. ,

,

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that was

provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that two violations of

requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice)

and the circumstances surroe Wing them are described in detailin the subject inspection

report. The first violation invrsived the failure to adequately perform a required

10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of modification Request No.120 which installed a new primary

cooling pump and motor and removed the pump discharge check valve internals in April i

1996 Consequently, the modification resulted in a significant increase in reactor cooling

flow which altered the associated reactor temperature differential and ultimately precluded

the required limiting safety system setting, if it had been called upon, from automatically

preventing the reactor inlet temperature from exceeding the safety limit.

The actual safety consequence of the first violation was low because of the relatively

conservative assumptions used to establish the safety limit, the stable nature of the reactor

inlet (bulk pool) temperature, and the operating #:ocedure limits. Although the violation did

not result in any safety consequence and was not programmatic in nature, it is of

significant regulatory concern because the NRC must be able to rely on its licensees' ability

to conduct adequate safety evaluations prior to making modifications to the reactor that

effect the technical specifications. In addition, given a different set of circumstances, the

failure to perform an adequate 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation could have resulted in a

safety consequence. Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement *

Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level lli Violation.

{g

9805190033 900513 Y DU F A"'

PDR

G,

ADOCK 05000002

PDR

' M N AL Ed k

J

'

l

Dr. Rondd Fleming -2- May 13, 1998

In accorda.?ce with the Enforcem::nt Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is ,

considered for a Severity Level ill violation. Because your facility has not been the subject I

of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years, licensee /denti// cation was not a

consideration factor. The NRC considered, however, whether credit was warranted for

Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process described in

Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. NRC determined that credit was warranted for

,

Corrective Action because your staff, upon identification of the first violation, took prompt

j steps to implement temporary measures to ensure the reactor inlet safety limit was  ;

protected by reducing the limiting safety system setpoint; prepared, property reviewed, and 1

installed a permanent additional protection to supplement the required features; and

following NRC identification of the violation, submitted proposed technical specification

l Amendment 44 to make the limiting safety system setting based on the reactor core inlet

temperature consistent with the safety limit. Based on the above, the NRC determined that

credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I l

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement, not to propose a I

civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil

penalty.

The second violation involves failure to notify the NRC in writing within 30 days as required

by Technical Specification 6.6.2.b.2 following the discovery of the condition described

previously on October 8,1996. This violation has been characterized in accordance with

the Enforcement Policy as a Severity Level IV violation.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the ,

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to '

determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements. 1

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

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

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Jack W. Roe, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.50-002

License No. R-28

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violations

2. University of Michigan Presentation Materials

3. List of Attendees

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY w/o enclosure 2 E-MAIL w/o enclosure 2

Docket File 50-002 PUBLIC PDND r/f AAdams CBassett TDragoun

TMichaels SWeiss JStrasma, OPA(2)-Rill PDoyle WEresian MMendonca

EHylton JRoe TBurdick SHolmes Pisaac

WDean, OEDO DISP (05-A-4)

\ph

PDND:RI PDNph,, Pp PDND:PM OE h,(A D:D D -

)D

TBurdick TMichaels EW

~

on MMendonca MSatoriu SWeiss J )

5/4/98 5/1//98 8 5/q/98 5/{/98 5/g/98 5

3/98

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G\SECY\MICHAELSWlOLATIO

,

3

'.

.

Dr. Ronald Fleming -2-

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is

l considered.for a Severity Levellli violation. Because your facility has not been the subject

l of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years, licensee /denti// cation was not a

consideration factor. The NRC considered, however, whether credit was warranted for

Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process described in

Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. NRC determined that credit was warranted for l

Corrective Action because your staff, upon identification of the first violation, took prompt

steps to implement temporary measures to ensure the reactor inlet safety limit was

protected by reducing the limiting safety system setpoint; prepared, properly reviewed, and

installed a permanent additional protection to supplement the required features; and l

( - following NRC identification of the violation, submitted proposed technical specification l

i Amendment 44 to make the limiting safety system setting based on the reactor core inlet l

l temperature consistent with the safety limit. Based on the above, the NRC determined that

credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action. i

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement, not to propose a

civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil

l

penalty.

The second violation involves failure to notify the NRC in writing within 30 days as required

by Technical Specification 6.6.2.b.2 following the discovery of the condition described l'

previously on October 8,1996. This violation has been characterized in accordance with

the Enforcement Policy as a Severity Level IV violation.

You are required to respond to this letter and should fol!ow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to

determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements.

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

enclosuras, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

l

0 . Yw ..

J ck W. Roe, Acting Director

ivision of Reactor Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.50-002

License No. R-28

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violations

2. University of Michigan Presentation Materials

3. Ust of Attendees

.

g

L. *

J