Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Enforcement Documents > Significant Enforcement
Actions > Reactor
Licensees
> EA-98-155
EA-98-155 - University of Michigan Research
Reactor
EA 98-155
Dr. Ronald Fleming, Director Phoenix Memorial
Laboratory Ford Nuclear Reactor University of Michigan 2301 Bonisteel
Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2100
SUBJECT: |
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (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 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 surrounding them are
described in detail in the subject inspection report. The first violation
involved 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 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 procedure 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 III
Violation.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil
penalty in the amount of $2,750 is considered for a Severity Level III
violation. Because your facility has not been the subject of escalated
enforcement actions within the last two years, licensee Identification
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 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 following NRC identification of the
violation, submitted proposed technical specification 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 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
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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the
NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your
response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
|
Jack W. Roe, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program
Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
|
|
|
Docket No. 50-002 License No. R-28
Enclosures: Notice of
Violations
|
NOTICE OF VIOLATION |
|
University of Michigan |
|
Docket No. 50-002 License No. R-28 EA
98-155
|
During an NRC inspection conducted on February 23-27, 1998, violations of NRC
requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of
Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations
are listed below.
1. |
10 CFR 50.59 requires, in part, that licensees may make
changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report,
without prior Commission approval provided the change does not involve a
change in the technical specifications.
Ford Nuclear Reactor
Technical Specification 2.1.1 "Safety Limits in the Forced Convection
Mode," states, in part, that the objective of safety limits are to assure
the integrity of the fuel clad. Paragraph 2 of Section 2. 1 - 1, states
that the true value of reactor coolant inlet temperature at 2 Megawatts
shall not exceed 1160F.
Ford Nuclear Reactor Technical
Specification 2.2.1, "Limiting Safety System Settings," states, in part,
that the objective of limiting safety system settings is to assure that
automatic protective action is initiated to prevent a safety limit from
being exceeded.
The Ford Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis Report
Section 4.1 states, in part, that the flow rate in the primary coolant
system is between 900 and 1000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Contrary
to the above, the licensee, in April 1996, made a change to the facility
by replacing a primary coolant pump and removing the pump's discharge
check valve internals, which increased the primary cooling system flow to
approximately 1100 gpm. Increasing the primary coolant flow resulted in
the reactor limiting safety system setting for core outlet temperature no
longer being able to assure that the safety limit of inlet temperature
remained below 116'F at 2 Megawatts. A safety evaluation, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.59, was prepared for the pump replacement; however, the
evaluation was inadequate because it did not consider the effect of
increased flow on the inlet temperature safety limits, and did not
identify that a charge to the facility's technical specification was
required. Although the inlet temperatures never exceeded the safety limit,
the reactor continued to be operated in that condition except for periodic
maintenance and refueling shutdowns from completion of the modification in
April 1996, until corrective action occurred on October 8, 1996.
(01013)
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement
1)
|
2. |
Technical Specification 6.6.2.b.2 requires that the licensee prepare a
written report to NRC and forward it within 30 days when they discover any
substantial variance from performance specifications contained in the
Technical Specifications and the Safety Analysis Report.
Contrary
to the above, the licensee failed to notify the NRC within 30 days when
they discovered on October 8, 1996, that the reactor outlet temperature
limiting safety system setting would not prevent the reactor inlet
temperature from being exceeded as required during 2 Megawatt operation.
(02014)
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement
1)
|
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Michigan is
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with
a copy to the Region-based inspector within 30 days of the date of the letter
transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly
marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each
violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for
disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the
results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your
response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the
correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply
is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand
for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be
taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the
response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also
provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Under
the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be
submitted under oath or affirmation.
Because your response will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not
include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it
can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide
a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be
protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If
you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the
portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail
the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of
information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide
the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding
confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of
protection described in 10 CFR 3.2 1.
Dated this 13th day of
May 1998
|