ML20155J991

Forwards Insp Repts 50-341/87-48 & 50-341/88-14 on 871018- 880331 & 880117-0428 & Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $200,000.Actions Based on Inoperability of Standby Gas Treatment Subsystem

ML20155J991
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	06/16/1988
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20155J994	List: ML20155J991 ML20155J997
References
EA-88-104, NUDOCS 8806210081
Download: ML20155J991 (4)

See also: IR 05000341/1987048

Text

___ ._____- _ _

..

, ..

.

.

,

'

i

y QcB

} { { LL

I

l

JUN i 61988

Docket No. 50-341

License No. NPF-43

EA 88-104

The Detroit Edison Company

ATTN: B. Ralph Sylvia

Group Vice President

Nuclear Operations-

6400 North Dixie Highway

Newport, Michigan 48166

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL

PENALTIES (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-341/87048(DRP)

AND NO. 50-341/88014(DRP))

This refers to the special inspections conducted on October 18, 1987 to

March 31, 1988, and January 17 to April 28, 1988, at the Enrico Fermi Atomic

Power Plant, Unit 2, authort:ed to operate under NRC Operating License

No NPF-43. These inspections examined the circumstances surrounding a

Primary Containment Radiation Monitoring (PCRM) system containment isolation

valve design control problem and an inoperable Noninterruptible Air System

Control Air Compressor (NIAS CAC). The potential loss of primary containment

integrity, due to PCRM system isolation valves failing to meet 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix A General Design Criterion (GDC) 56, was identified by you and.

reported on October 17, 1987. The failure to enter Technical Specification

action statements due to inoperability of a Standby Gas Treatment subsystem,

a Control Room Emergency Filtration System flowpath damper and a Main Steam

Isolation Valve Leakage Control subsystem which was caused by the ou'. of

service Division II NIAS CAC wat identified by the NRC. The details are

contained in the subject inspection reports which were sent to you by letters

dated May 9, 1988 and May 13, 1988, respectively. On April 28, 1988, an

enforcement conference was held between Dr. C. J. Paperiello and other members

of my staff and you and other members of your staff during which the violations,

the root causes, and your corrective actions were discussed.

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECETPT REQUESTED

8806210081 880616

PDR ADOCK 05000341

Q DCD

--- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s

(

The Detroit Edison Company 2

The design control violation, which is described as Part A of the enclosed

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Nr+1ce),

resulted from a failure to determine that the 1984 modification to the

containment isolation valve design was not an acceptable alternative to

GDC 56. In addition, when the modification was made, you failed to request

a change to Technical Specifications to include the automatic isolation valves

and procedures were not put in place to periodically test these valves in

accordance with the applicable portions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J and

other testing requirements (logic testing, functional testing, and positive

indicator checks). A temporary exemption from GDC 56 was granted by the NRC

o. November 13, 1987, to be effective through the end of the local leak rate

outage in March 1988. To support operation with this exemption, you committed

to upgrade the effectiveness of the isolation scheme to include treating the

subject valves as primary containment isolation valves in a manner consistent

with Technical Specifications, revising the Emergency Operating Procedures and

enhancing operator training. On March 29, 1988, the NRC staff approved an

amendment to the Fermi 2 operating license which accepted your permenant

redesign of the containment isolation configuration as an acceptable

alternative to those specified by GDC 56.

The Technical Specification action statement violations, which are described

in Part B of the enclosed Notice, resulted from the failure to recognize

that the operation of the Division II NIAS CAC was required to support the

operability of a Standby Gas Treatment subsystem, Control Room Emergency

Filtration System damper and Main Steam 1 solation Valve Leakage control

subsystem. This failure led to exceeding, by approximately thirteen days,

two Technical Specification action statements that required the unit to be

shut down. Specifically, the action statements for the Standby Gas Treatment

and Control Room Emergency Filtration Technical Specification required the

unit to be placed in COLD SHUTDOWN within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> following the end of the

allowed seven days of inoperability specified in the action statements. In

this case, however, that seven day period ended at 10:15 p.m. on January 21,

198S, and notwithstanding the fact that the affected systems remained

inoperable, the unit continued to operate in violation of the Technical

Specifications until February 3, 1988. Your engineering staff did not provide

adequate guidance on the system interfaces to other departments and your

operations staff was not sufficiently inquisitive to identify these violations

when the Division II NIAS CAC was taken out of service. These violations are

another example of the Fermi organization failing to fully appreciate its

Technical Specification requirements. The violations described in the Notice

resulted in significant degradations in the plant's ability to respond to

certain types of accidents.

i

6

The Detroit Edison Company 3

JUN 161989

To emphasize the importance of proper system design in accordance with

regulatory requirements and the need to understand the affects of auxiliary

equipment on system operability and your Technical Specifications, I have been

authorized, af ter consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and

the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed

Notice in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) 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 (1988) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in Parts A

and B of the enclosed Notice have separately been categorized at Severity

Level III. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III

violation is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the

Enforcement Policy were considered. The base civil penalty amount for the

violation in Part A has been increased 50% because of the minimal corrective

actions that were taken initially which necessitated NRC intervention and

by an additional 50% because of your poor past performance in the area of

engineering and technical support which included a previous civil penalty

(EA 87-232) for failures in this area. Mitigation of the civil penalty for

identification and reporting was considered but deemed inappropriate because

of your failure to fully recognize the scope of the problem at the time the

initial modification was made. The base civil penalty amount has been

increased by 100 percent for the violation in Part B because of your poor

past performance in handling out of service equipment, which was discuseed

in the Plant Operations section of the most recent Systematic Assessement of

Licensee Performance, as well as for the inadequate engineering and technical

support mentioned abova, which in this case allowed plant operations personnel

to operate the plant in a degraded conditon.

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. After reviewing your response to

this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of

future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement

action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

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

enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

l

l

l

l

l

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

_

'

r

4

The Detroit Edison Company 4 JUN 161988

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject

to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, as required

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L., No.96-511.

Sincerely,

Original cigned by

L. Eert Davia

A. Bert Davis

Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of

Civil Penalties

2. Inspection Reports

No. 50-341/87048(CRP);

No. 50-341/88014(DRP)

cc w/ enclosures:

Patricia Anthony, Licensing

P. A. Marquardt, Corporate

Legal Department

DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII

Project Manager, NRR

Ronald Callen, Michigan

Public Service Commission

Harry H. Voight, Esq.

Michigan Department of

Public Health

Monroe County Office of

Civil Preparedness

SECY

CA

OGPA

J. M. Taylor, DEDRO

J. Lieberman, OE

L. Chandler, OGC

T. Murley, NRR

RAO:RIII

PAO:RIII

SLO:RIII

M. Stahulak, RIII

Enforcement Coordinators

RI, RII, RIV, RV

a WM row

RI h RI 1. RIII (I'II RJ, R II bar%

II

M

Q 9 JKt h r 4' C

pe son /rr Gr En o 4h@andler rman P. ello is Tay}

L)65 86lor

f tys(% flI pb 4)n)Fb Vo (1 W .?O b16

_ _ ___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . .__