IR 05000255/1993031
| ML18059A625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1994 |
| From: | Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18059A626 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401120012 | |
| Download: ML18059A625 (7) | |
Text
t Docket*No. 50~255 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Gerald General Manager JAN O 5 1SS4 Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530
Dear Mr.. Slade:
SUBJECT:
ROUTINE RADIATION INSPECTION.AT PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. T. Kozak and C. Cox of this office on December 13-17, 1993, of activities at the Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant, authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-20 and to the discussion of our findings with members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Ar~as examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within
- these areas, the inspection consisted of a.selective examination of procedures and representati~e records, observations, and interviews with personnel. *
During this inspection, it was noted that h*ousekeepi ng conditions had improved.
since the previous inspection.
Efforts to improve accessibility to safety related equipment were also noted as illustrated by the shielding of a hot spot in the West Safeguards Room allowing the area to be down~raded to a radiation area and imp roved over a 11 work conditions.
However, although these improvements were noted, continued effort is needed to improve radiologically controlled area housekeeping.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.'.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
9401120012 940105 PDR ADOCK 05000255 G
,.... r*,....
- -.l "i n r; * ; ~~
'
r I ; *J' \\' v
.....,..,._ -
~
,.
Consumers Power Company 2 JAN 0 5 1994 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Si nee rely,*
William G. Snell, Chief Radiological Programs Section 2
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-255/9303l(DRSS)
REGION I II Report No. 50-255/9303l(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant*
Inspection At:
Palisades Site, Covert, Michigan Inspection Conducte~:
D_.:,ce~er ~
7, 1993
.. 4d~d~
Irispector~~~Lak P~:~~ist f Radiation Spe~Ji~ /
Approved By:,.,..-<.<illiam G. Snell, Chief r Radiological Programs Section 2 Inspection Summary 1P-h1 Date I Inspection on December 13-17, 1993 (Report No. 50-255/9303l(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the radiation protection program, including: organization, management controls and training, failed fuel analysis, secondary chemistry, maintaining occupational exposures As-Low-Aa-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA), and plant tours (IP 83750, 84750).
Results:
No violattons or deviations were identified. The licensee,s radiation protection program appears to be generally effective in controlling radiological work and in protecting the public health and safety. General area housekeeping improved since the la~t inspection. Areas needing improvement included the resin transfer area, and in catch containments in the fuel pool cooling area and the safeguards rooms.
Failed fuel analy~is techniques improved from the previous operating cycle.
Dose expended for the year was* average for a pressurized wate~ reactor.
9401120013 940105
. PDR ADOCK 05000255 G
1.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company
- D. Anderson, Nuclear Performance Assessment
- K. Barr, Nuclear Performance Assessment Department
- J. Beer, Radiation Protection Manager
- A. Clark, ALARA Program Coordinator
- P. Donnelly, -safety and Licensing Director
- * M. Grogan, Radioactive Materials Shipping Supervisor
- K. Haas, Radiological Services Department Manager
- J. Hadl, Nuclear Performance Assessment Department
- J. Kuemin, Licensing Administrator
- D. Malone, Radiological Services Supe~intendent
- J. McElrath, Chemical Engineering Section Head
- M. Mennucci, Health Physics (HP) Technical Supervisor
- T. Neal, HP Support Superintendent
- K. Schneider, Radiation Work Permit (RWP) & Planning Supervisor
- G. Slade, Plant General Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- M. Parker, Senior Resident Inspector D.
Passehl~ Resident Inspe~tor The inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on Decemb~r 17, 1993.
2.
General
. This inspection was conducted to review aspects of the licensee's radiation protection program.
Included in this inspection was a follow-up of outstanding items in the areas of radiation protection and radioactive waste management.
The inspection included tours of radiologically controlled areas, the a_uxiliary building and radioactive waste facilities, observations of licensee activities, a review of representative records and discussions with licensee personnel~
3.
Organizational. Management Controls and Training {IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's organizatiOn and management controls for the radiation protection program including:
organizational structure, staffing, delineation of authority and.management techniques used to implement the program.
A reorganization of the Radiological Services Oepartment was planned to be implemented in early 1994.
The main goal of the reorganization is to
consolidate -and strengthen ALARA support.
Pl ans were to relocate the ALARA coordinator under the Radiological Services Superintendent who is.
also responsible for oversight of the radiation protection technicians and radiation work permit generation.
The licensee feels that this reorganization will provide better service to the plant since the three.
primary groups within radiation protection that are involved with production activities will be under the same supervisor.
The Nuclear Performance Assessment Department recently added a team leader position foi each of the seven functional areas that are assessed.
The inspectors interviewed the radiation protection team leader and found her to be appropriately qualified fo~ the position.
.
.
The Chemistry Department Superintendent was recently replaced.
The inspectors interviewed the new Superintendent and found her to be appropriately qualified.
The effect of the various organizational changes will be assessed during future inspections.
No violations or deviations w~re identified.
4.
Failed Fuel Analysis (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the status of the failed fuel response plan described in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-255/93020(DRP).
Most of the action items were completed prior to the startup.
The program to monitor fuel cycle 11 primary chemistry for failed fuel'
indications was reviewed.
The licensee has improved their ability to detect fail~d fuel through analysis of several new parameters, most noteworthy of which is a fissions per second plot. This plot is performed on a daily basis and compares the yield of several iodines produced as fission products to their decay constant. A small slope change over time would be indicative of a small fuel leak while an order of magnitude change would indicate a larger fuel failure.
To check the validity of the fissions per second plot, the licensee plotted fuel cycle 10 data.and an order of magnitude change in the slope of the plot was noted during the fuel cycle. This wbuld have given the licensee a much better indication that a fuel element had fail~d during the past cycle.
- Another change in data analysis was that the licensee was conducting monthly meetings with chemistry, radiation protection, operations, and systems engineering to review plant chemistry dat.a and fuel performance.
Suchan.inter-disciplinary review was lacking during fuel cycle 10 and should help improve communications between departments'.
The inspectors reviewed primary chemistry parameters at the time of the inspection.
The dose equivalent iodine was app~oximately 0.022 microcuries/gram (814 Bq/g'm) which'.was well below tbe Technical Specification limit that requires-the specific activity of the primary coolant not exceed one microcurie/gram.
.*
5.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Secondary Chemistry <IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed a deviation report gene.rated by the 1 i censee
- which identified several problems regarding the secondary system chemistry sampling panel (C-42).
Several nuisance alarms regarding trouble with the panel were heard over the plant paging system during the inspection. A discussion with chemistry personnel indicated that a root cause analysis of the problems associated with the C-42 panel was completed and an action plan was developed to reduce the backlog of work orders and fix the associated problems with the panel. Action plan
.
items included holding meetings with maintenance, operations, and system engineering to set priorities of the work orders and bringing in a
system expert to review the planned fixes to determine if they would be effective. Progress in this area will be reviewed during a future inspection.
- No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Maintaining Occupational Exposure As Low As Reasonably Achievable lALARAl The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining occupational exposures ALARA, including:
the source term reduction program; ALARA group staffing and qualification; changes in ALARA policy and procedures, and their implementation; ALARA considerations for planned maintenance and refueling outages; and worker awareness and involvement in the ALARA program.
As mentioned in Section 3, the licensee was planning to relocate the ALARA coordinator to the Radiological Services Department Superintendent's area.
The inspectors discussed with licensee personnel the challenges that the plant has in the ALARA program.
Overall dose expended during the y_ear was approximately 275 person-rem (2.75 person-Sieverts) which is about average for a pressurized water reactor.
Improvement is still needed in this area.
The extent to which the
. Maintenance, Engineering, and Operations Departments are involved in the ALARA program will be determined during fu~ure inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Tours (IP 83750)
The inspectors toured the licensee's facility to determine the effect radiological conditions had on day to day job performance in the auxiliary building.
In general, all safety related equipment was readily accessible. During the inspection, a hot spot in the West.
Safeguards Room was shielded which allowed removal of the high radiation area posting at the door and allowed for easier access to the area.
Recent efforts to improve cleanliness have, for the most part, been effective. There were several pumps with seal leaks that could
potentially lead to a spread of contamination.
Examples include the spent resin transfer pump and the Safety Injection Refueling Water recircul.ation pump.. The spent fuel pool cooling and the safeguard~
areas had several catch containments to contain water from a number of small leaks that had developed~ In many cases,_ the leaks had self-sealed.
However, the pumps and catches usually had boric acid crystals in and/or around them which could h~ve easily been cleaned up.
Developments in this area will be followed during subsequent
. inspections.
- No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on December 17, 1993, to discuss the scope and findings of the ins~ecti6n.
During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of the inspection r~port with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any suc_h documents or processes as pr.oprietary.
The inspectors specifically discussed the following items at the meeting:.
- *
The need to improve housekeeping in the resin transfer area arid inside catch containments in the fuel pool cooling area and the safeguards rooms.
- The need to continue efforts to further reduce radiation dose.
expended at the facility.
5