ML18058B851
| ML18058B851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1993 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18058B852 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-92-214, NUDOCS 9306020299 | |
| Download: ML18058B851 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1991011
Text
~p.1' REGu1 _
UNITED STATES
c,'-'
""'¥>:
'****l~l}
"'
'~
~
o'
~~
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION Ill
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
GLEN ELLYN, IWNOIS 60137-5927
May 7, 1993
' .*
- .... "'
.
Docket No. 50-255
License No. DPR-20
EA 92-214
Consumers Power Company
ATTN: Gerald B. Slade
Plant General Manager
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, Michigan
49043
Dear Mr. Slade:
SUBJECT:.
NOTICE OF:VIOLATION
(INSPECTION REPORT 50-255/91011)
(INVESTIGATION REPORT 3-91-013)
This refers _to the special safety inspection conducted June 25~
27, 1991, and a subsequent NRC investigation to review an
incident involving a "hot particle" that occurred at the '
Palisades plant on November 15-16, 1990.
The report documenting
the inspection was mailed to you by letter dated July 23, 1991.
The NRC Office of Investigations (OI) subsequently investigated
the incident and a copy of the OI report synopsis is attached.
The inspection and investigation established that on November 15,
. 1990, a contract radiation protection technician obtained a
radioactive "hot particle" and, as a prank, deliberately taped
the particle to the back of a contract radiation protection
supervisor.
The technician hoped the particle would cause the
radiation monitor at the exit of the radiological control area to .
alarm and cause ~he supervisor to be embarrassed.
However,
within minutes the supervisor brushed the particle from his back.
The supervisor*did not believe he had received a significant
radiation exposure; therefore, he did not prepare a report of the
incident.
Your subsequent evaluation of the incident disclosed
the particle had an activity of 180,000 disintegrations per
minute.
Giyen the particle size, exposure time, and the
shielding provided by the plastic bag in which the particle was
placed plus the individual's clothing, the evaluation concluded
no measurable radiation exposure occurred.*
A violation of NRC requirements was identified as a result of the
inspection and investigation and concerns the failure to use and
possess byproduct material in accordance with the requirements of
- the Facility Operating License.
In accordance with the *
"Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violation is
categorized at Severity Level IV.
~~
CERTIFIED MAIL
~ 7 -~ 1 f '?
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
9306020299 930507
ADOCK 05000255
O
,.,,
.. ,,
.*
o( .
i~\\1
,:
consumers Power Company
2
May 7, 1993
Normally, a Notice of Violation would not be issued for a
licensee-identified willful violation which, absent the
willfulness, would have been categorized at Severity Level IV, if
.the violation had* been committed by a low level employee and
significant remedial action taken.
After consultation with the
- Commission, the NRC staff is not exercising enforcement
discretion for the improper use of licensed material and is
issuing the enclosed Notice of Violation.
However, in
recognition of the fact that the violation was an isolated act
committed by a single low ievel employee without management
involvement, the violation has been categorized at Severity
Level IV.
Following the violation, Consumers Power Company informed the
contractor that employed the individual to terminate his services
for poor job performance.
Rather than terminating the technician
for cause, the contractor included the technician in a
"reduction-in-force."
Consumers Power Company did not follow-up
with the contractor to ensure that the individual's termination
for poor job performance was properly characterized as the reason
for the technician's discharge.
The characterization of the
discharge as a reduction-in-force masked the true reason for
terminating his employment.
As a result Consumers _Power
Company's actions did not demonstrate the seriousness of the
'violations to either employees and contractors, thereby creating .
a deterrent effect within the licensee's organization.
In fact,
the individual immediately obtained employment at the Consumers
Power Company's Big Rock Point Plant.
You are required to respond to this letter and should foilow the
instructions specified in the enc~osed Notice when preparing your
response.
In your response, you should document.the specific
actions taken and an*y additional actions you plan to prevent
recurrence not only for the violation, but also the actions
necessary to ensure that a person terminated for cause at one of
your NRC licensed facilities is not hired at your other nuclear
facility absent an appropriate management review of the
circumstances.
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 addition to *the violation described in the enclosed Notice .. *of
Violation, the OI investigation report *could not * substari:tiate"'C :"<
that Palisades personnel deliberately attempted to deceive the
NRC through the non-reporting of the event.
Whether the
,. * -
supervisor involved was required,. by the procedure in**e: . .ffect at
the time, to submit either an Event or Deviation rep9rt is a
matter of interpre:tation which will not be pursued further.
- .,; ..
- .---. ~:~:fd.*}
--~-~~~~r{~
'consumers Power* Company .
3
May 7., 1993
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be
placed 1n the NRC Public Document Room.
The respons~ 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, Public Law No.96-511.
Sincerely,
A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
OI Report Synopsis
2.
cc w/enclosures:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President
Nuclear Operations
P~ M. Donnelly, Safety and
Licensing Director
DCD/DCB {RIDS)
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan D_epartment of
Public Health
Palisades, LPM, NRR
SRI, Palisades
SRI, Big Rock Point
~"
- _ .:~* .
-*;,
- "
'.;. consumers Power Company
DISTRIBUTION
SECY
CA
JTaylor, EDO
HThompson, DEDS
JSniezek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
LChandler, OGC
JGoldberg, OGC
TMurley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIV, RV
Resident Inspector
Fingram, GPA/PA
DWilliams, OIG
BHayes, OI
EPawlik, OI:RIII
DFunk, RIII
EJordan, AEOD
OE:ES
OE:Chron
OE:EA (2)
state of Michigari
RAO:RIII
SLO:RIII
PAO:RIII
IMS:RIII
-*-* -- *------*=-=------==~--~--.c:;:,_=-:-
___
c--.:_.::-:=
.* _:-:::
__ =---=**-=* =*~-=--=--= ...
-c:=~=-=-*=--=----=---*=--------. ----~--~--~
4
May 7, 1993
- . .. :.:*-*
. -, ';;.: ... ,.-
,,,* ,,i
. .
I
I
SYNOPSIS
On October 10, 1991, the Office of Investigations (O)) Field Office Director,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region III, .. self initiated an
investigation into the alleged nonlicensed use of radioactive material at the
Palisades Nuclear Plant. Additionally, it was alleged that the licensee's
management had deliberately failed to report the incident to the NRC or take
corrective action.
The 01 investigation substantiated that a contract radiation technician had
prankishly p*laced a "hot particle" on a supervisor's back in an attempt to
have the supervisor activate the contamination monitor alarm when exiting the
radiation containment area. This was a deliberate non-licensed use of
radioactive material.
The investigation also substantiated that the licensee's health physics
management staff withheld NRC notification of the incident on the belief that
the ~ncident was not radiologically significant and did not warrant any
further corrective action. There was, however~ no evidence developed to
substantiate that the non-reporting of the event was a deliberate attempt by
licensee personnel -to.deceive the NRC.
- Case No. 3-91-013
1
..
I I
..
- -'
- - ' --~~i~'.~;;,~ -
,.,
- '
J