ML17334A669
| ML17334A669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1998 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17334A670 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-98-06, 50-315-98-6, 50-316-98-06, 50-316-98-6, EA-98-113, NUDOCS 9803100095 | |
| Download: ML17334A669 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1998006
Text
CATEGORY 2
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9803100095
DOC.DATE: 98/03/05
NOTARIZED: NO
DOCKET
FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana
M
05000315
50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana
M
05000316
AUTH.NAME
AUTHOR AFFILIATION
GROBE, J. A.
Region
3
(Post
820201)
RECIP.NAME
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
FITZPATRICK,E.
(formerly Indiana
&. Michigan Ele
C
NOTES:
SUBJECT: Forwards insp repts
50-315/98-06
6 50-316/98-06
on 980209-13
& notice of violation.Insp consisted of selective
exams of
procedures
S representative
records, interviews w/personnel
6
A
observation of activities in progress.
T'ISTRIBUTION
CODE:
IEOSF
COPIES
RECEIVED:LTR
I
ENCL
I
SIZE:
I /8
TITLE: Environ
E Radiological
(50 DKT)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons
E
RECIPIENT
ID .CODE/NAME
PD3-3
INTERNAL: AEOD/TTC
NMSS/SFPO
06F18
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS2
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
STANG, J
E CENTER
NRR/DRPM'ERB
OE DIR
RGN3
FILE
01
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
XTERNAL: NOAC
NUDOCS FULLTEXT
1
1
1
1
NRC PDR
1
1
D
IMAGEDFROM
NFtC FLOPPY
M
N
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS
OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL
DESK
(DCD)
ON EXTENSION 415-2083
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
13
ENCL
13
Cl
f'I
J
>/
(
I
I
Ql
March 5,
1998
EA 98-113
Mr. E. E. Fitzpatrick
Executive Vice President
Nuclear Generation Group
American Electric Power Company
500 Circle Drive
Buchanan, MI 49107-1395
SUBJECT:
NRC ROUTINE RADIATIONPROTECTION INSPECTION REPORTS
50-315/98006(DRS); 50-316/98006(DRS) AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
On February 13, 1998, the NRC completed an inspection at your D. C. Cook, Units 1 and 2
reactor facilities. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
The inspection was an examination of activities conducted under your license as they relate to
radiation safety and to compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the
conditions of your license.
Areas reviewed included your portal monitoring program, the
portable instrument program, the events surrounding the radioactive shipment that left your site
without the proper paperwork, as well as several recent events in the area of radiation
protection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of
procedures and representative
records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities
in progress.
Overall, the portal monitoring and portable instrumentation programs were well implemented.
Calibrations and response
checks were performed at the required frequency and material
condition of the instruments was good.
However, a weakness with the response
check of the
RM-14/RM-20 detectors was identified in that the source used had not been decay corrected
resulting in the instruments responding on the very low side of the acceptance
range.
We are concerned, however, with three violations identified during this inspection.
The first
violation was associated
with two workers who entered an extreme high radiation area with their
electronic dosimetry turned off. The second violation concerned the failure to follow procedural
requirements when a worker contaminated with a hot particle received two alarms from the
security gate house monitors and did not call radiation protection.
The third violation concerned
workers who failed to followthe requirements of their radiation work permit. Also of concern is
the apparent lack of thoroughness
used in the documentation of the condition reports written in
response to these events.
Specifically, we noted that the worker contamination event lacked
any documentation of corrective actions since the condition report had not been addressed
at
the time of this inspection, approximately two months beyond the due date.
In addition, the
corrective actions documented
in the condition report addressing
the workers with the
9803i00095
gt80305
ADOCK 050003i5
8
Ifflllllfllfffllfflflllllllflllfffffff
I
l'
E. Fitzpatrick
March 5,
1998
dosimetry turned offdid not address the procedural violation. Further, the condition report
regarding the hot particle concluded that the particle came from outside the radiologically
controlled area and did not address other more likely scenarios.
The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances
surrounding them are described in detail in the enclosed report.
Please note that you are
required to respond to this letter and should followthe 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 addition to the above violations, two apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified
and are being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy),
On January 26, 1998 a radioactive material shipment left your site without the
required shipping paperwork and without the emergency response
instructions.
The
circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, the significance of the issues, and the
need for lasting and effective corrective actions were discussed with members of your. staff at
the inspection exit meeting on February 13, 1998. As a result it may not be necessary
to
conduct a predecisional enforcement conference in order to enable the NRC to make an
enforcement decision.
However, a Notice of Violation is not presently being issued for these
inspection findings. Before the NRC makes it's enforcement decision, we are providing you an
opportunity, within 30 days of the date of this letter, to either (1) respond to the apparent
violations addressed
in this inspection report or (2) request a predecisional enforcement
conference.
Your response should be clearly marked as a "Response to Apparent Violations in Inspection
Report Nos. 50-315/98006; 50-316/98006" and should include for each apparent violation: (1)
the reason for the apparent violation, or, ifcontested, the basis for disputing the apparent
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 should be submitted under oath or affirmation and
may reference or include previous docketed correspondence,
ifthe correspondence
adequately
addresses
the required response.
Ifan adequate
response
is not received within the time
specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC willproceed with
it's enforcement decision or schedule a predecisional enforcement conference.
Ifyou choose not to provide a response
and would prefer participating in a predecisional
enforcement conference, please contact Gary Shear at (630) 829-9876 as soon as possible.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You
will be advised by separate correspondence
of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
E. Fitzpatrick
March 5,
1998
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). To
the extent possible your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or
safeguards
information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
The responses
to the apparent violations described in the enclosed inspection report 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 signed
by H. 0. Christensen,/for
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Reports 50-315/98006(DRS); 50-316/98006(DRS)
cc w/encls:
John Sampson, Site Vice
President
A. A. Blind, Vice President
Nuclear Engineering
Douglas Cooper, Plant Manager
Richard Whale, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Emergency Management
Division, Ml Department
of State Police
DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRSttDCC98006.DRS
To receive a copy of this document, indicate In the box: c
= copy without attachment/endosure
E
= copy with attachmentrendosure
N ~ No
cop
OFFICE
NAME
DATE
Rill
DNissen:j
03/4//98
Rill
Q Rll
GShear g
BB's
03/
/98
03
/98
Rill
8
BClayton f'c
03/
/98
OFFICIALRECORD COPY
Rill
JG robe
03/
/98
Cl
E. Fitzpatrick
March 5,
1998
~DI tr'I~ti n:
Docket File w/encl
PUBLIC IE-01 w/encl
Project Manager, NRR w/encl
Rill Enf. Coordinator w/encl
IEO w/encl (E-mail)
TSS w/encl
DRP w/encl
J. Lieberman, OE w/encl
B. Boger, NRR w/encl
A. B. Beach w/encl
Deputy RA w/encl
Rill PRR w/encl
DRS (2) w/encl
DOCDESK (E-mail)
GREENS
J. Goldberg, OGC w/encl