IR 05000255/1980014
| ML18046A394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Dewitt R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046A395 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180871 | |
| Download: ML18046A394 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-255 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. R. B. DeWitt REGION 111
'S 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
"
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 Vice President, Nuclear Operations 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated December 23, 1980, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the noncompliances identified in our letter dated November 28, 198 Your proposed corrective actions for the noncompliances will be examined during a future inspectio Your request to withdraw Noncompliance Item No. 1 has been referred to the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Division of Enforcement and Investigation for resolutio The following comments refer to your response to Noncompliance Item No. Item 2b:
Your procedures should contain sufficient clarity to allow unambiguous interpretatio If technicians assigned as temporary supervisors on shifts when health physics management personnel are not onsite are to be allowed to approve entries into areas over 1000 mR/hr in accordance with procedure HP 2.5, adequate documentation should exist to verify that they meet the criteria of HP 2.5 for approval of such entrie Item 2c:
We agree that unidentified hot spots can not reasonably be poste You should therefore ensure that your survey frequency is sufficient to prevent such conditions from going undetected for significant lengths of tim This may re-quire more frequent surveys during operations which are likely to result in significant changes in radiation hazard Once identified, hot spots should be consistently labeled in accordance with your approved radiation protection procedures to ensure that personnel are afforded adequate warning of radiation hazard As noted in our report, unmarked, local radiation levels to 1200 mR/hr were identified during the appraisal in a room which was posted only as a radia-tion are Failure to identify such radiation levels is not considered a good health physics practic Item 2d:
Inconsistencies between procedures HP 2.17 and HP 1.0 should be resolved to clearly and consistently define your methods for warning workers of radiation Q
- Consumers Power Company
- 2 -
JAN 2 6 t981 hazard Your inconsistent use of contaminated area warnings is µot considered to be a good health physics practic You are granted an extension to January 31, 1981, to respond to the Significant Appraisal Findings contained in Appendix A of our November 28, 1980 lette This extension was discussed in a telephone conversation with Mr. R. B. DeWitt on January 8, 198 Your cooperation with us is appreciate cc:
D. P. Hoffman, Nuclear Licensing Administrator R. W. Montross, Manager cc w/ltr dtd 12/23/80 Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b AEOD Resident Inspector, RIII *
PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry
Sincerely,