ML18066A192
| ML18066A192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1998 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Thomas J. Palmisano CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18066A193 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-98-09, 50-255-98-9, NUDOCS 9806220281 | |
| Download: ML18066A192 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1998009
Text
( ..
-
'
June 15, 1998
Mr. Thomas J. Palmisanp
Site Vice President and General Manager
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, Ml 49043-9530
SUBJECT:
NRC RAD!ATION PROTECTION INSPECTION REPORT 50-255/98009(DRS)
Dear Mr: Palmisano:
On June 1, 1998, the NRC completed an inspection of your Palisades Nuclear Generating
Plant. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection. The inspection examined
activities conducted under your license related to radiation safety and to compliance with the
Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
Specifically, this inspection reviewed controls of radiological conditions, development of
Radiation Work Permits (RWP), and the planning to ensure t.hat radiation exposure during the *
outage (REFOUT98) was As-Low-As-ls-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA). To this end, the
inspection consisted of a selective examination of representative procedures and records,
walkdowns throughout the plant, observations of radworker practices and work activities in
progress, and interviews with plant and contract personnel.
Three violations of NRC requirements were identified during this inspection. Although your staff
identified most of the violations, we are concerned that these violations were either recurrent or
involved multiple examples; therefore, the violations are being cited in the enclosed Notice of
Violation. The violation for failing to post high radiation areas was identified during previous
inspections, and a contributing factor to this violation was a misunderstanding of posting
requirements by a contract radiation protection technician. The two failures to exercise positive
control over Radiation Controlled Doors also involved contract staff and were primarily due to
poor human performance. And finally, the failures to comply with your Radiation Controlled
Area access procedure involved contract staff who did not follow basic radiation protection
practices regarding work control and dose control.
In addition to these violations, we also identified several examples of poor communication and
coordination between work groups and between shift crews which resulted in higher than
expected dose rates and radiation exposures, although no exposures in excess of regulatory
requirements occurred.
- ---------~--~- - .
Taken togetner, tnese findings indicate a lack of firm control over radiation worker practices,
particularly for contract personnel. The findings also revealed that inadequate coordination,.
communications, and work planning continue to challenge the radiation protection performance
at your facility. The recurrence of high radiation area posting violations also indicates that past
corrective actions may not have adequately addressed the root cause of this problem. We
believe that these findings should not be addressed as isolated instances of poor performance,
9806220281 980615
ADOCK 05000255
G
...
T. Palmisano
2
but rather that these recurrent and multiple example findings indicate that a broad examination
of the radiation protection program implementation is warranted.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the
specifjc actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Your response
may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. 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 accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules and Practice," a copy of this letter and its
enclosures 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.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Docket No. 50-255
License No. DPR-20
Sincerely,
Original Signed by John A. Grobe
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-255/98009(DRS)
. cc w/encls:
Robert A. Fenech, Senior Vice
President, Nuclear, Fossil
and Hydro Operations
Nathan L. Haskell, Director
Licensing
Richard Whale, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Department of Attorney General_(l\\,i1J)_ __ ....
- ~* --Emergency Managemenf--
Division, Ml Department
of State Police
DOCUMENT NAME: G:/DRS/PAL98009.DRS (SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE)
To receive a copv of this document. indicate In the box: *c* =Copy without attachmenVendosure "E" =Copy with attachmenVendosure "N" =No COPY
OFFICE
Riii
I
Riii
I
Riii
I
Riii
A
NAME
RGlinski:jp
GS hear
BBurgess
JGro9e(Jkf
DATE
61
/98
61
/98
61
/98
61 1:.)98 I
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
I
T. Palmisano
2
but rather that these recurrent and multiple example findings indicate that a broad examination *
of the radiation protection program implementation is warranted.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the
specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Your response
may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. 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 accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules and PraCtice," a copy of this letter and its
enclosures 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.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Docket No. 50-255
License No. DPR-20
Sincerely,
Original Signed by John A. Grobe
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-255/98008(DRS)
cc w/encls:
Robert A. Fenech, Senior Vice
President, Nuclear, Fossil
and Hydro Operations
Nathan L. Haskell, Director
- Licensing
Richard Whale, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Department of Attorney Gener~I {Ml). __
- --Emergency Management
Division, Ml Department
of State Police
DOCUMENT NAME: G:/DRS/PAL98008.DRS
- To receive a cop of this document, indicate in the box: "C" =Co
without attachmenVendosure "E" =Co
OfFICE
Rill
Riii
NAME
RGlinski:jp ~lS
GShear (} t.S
DATE
6/~J98
6/~/98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
T. Palmisano
Distribution:
CAC (E-Mail)
Project Mgr., NRR w/encls
C. Paperiello, Riii w/encls
J. Caldwell, Riii w/encls
B. Clayton, Riii w/encls
SRI Palisades w/encls
DRP w/encls
TSS w/encls
DRS w/encls
RI 11 PRR w/encls
PUBLIC ~encls
Docket File w/encls
GREENS.
IEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
,* ' 0 I' I ' 4 J
~ . ._vu
3