ML20133G524
| ML20133G524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1985 |
| From: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Dewitt R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G528 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510160015 | |
| Download: ML20133G524 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1985016
Text
-
.
OCT 0 81985
Docket No. 50-255
. Consumers Power Company
ATTN: Mr. R. B. DeWitt
Vice President
Nuclear Operations
212 West Michigan Avenue
Jackson, MI 49201
Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. J. P. Patterson
,
and others of this office on August 19-22, 1985, of activities at the Palisades
Nuclear Power Plant authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-20 and to the
discussion of our findings with Mr. J. F. Firlit and others of your staff at
the conclusion of.the inspection and at the management meeting held at our
office on September 20, 1985.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the i,nspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this
inspection.
However, several exercise weaknesses were identified which will need corrective
action by your staff.
These weaknesses are summarized in the attached
Appendix to this letter. As required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F, any weaknesses that are identified must be corrected.
Acceptable corrective actions to weaknesses Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 were
presented during the management meeting held on September 20, 1985.
However,
weakness No. 5 was not discussed.
Accordingly, you are requested to submit a
written statement within 30 days of the date of this letter describing your
planned actions for correcting weakness No. 5 listed in the appendix.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
l
Room.
'
i
/ 'f
'
gogwa syyl
4
q&
G
L
___
_
_.
._
.
.
..
-_
_ _ _
_
<
-
.
i
Consumers Power Company
2
OCT 0 81985
,
The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance
3
procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
W. D. Shafer, Chief
j
Radiological Protection Branch
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix, Exercise
Weaknesses
'
2.
Inspection Report
.
!
No. 50-255/85016(DRSS)
cc w/ enclosures:
D. J. VandeWalle, Director
i
Nuclear Licensing
l
J. F. Firlit, General Manager
,
DCS/RSB (RIDS)
l
,
l
Licensing Fee Management Branch
j
Resident Inspector, RIII
j
Ronald Callen, Michigan
f
l
Public Service Commission
!
Nuclear Facilities and
!
Environmental Monitoring
l
Section
i
l
D. Matthews, EPB, OIE
l
l
W. Weaver, FEMA Region V
'
!
!
!
!
i
I
!
1
i
RIII
RI
RJI;.
,R 11
RII:,
RII
I
j
l
W
'
nh'
\\
>
Patteron/jp
Jamsen
P
ips
Qt
Sh<
>f
i
10/04/85
lofty ll$~
l
p-
Hool
'
'
7
!
t
i
,
.
Appendix
Exercise Weaknesses
1.
Control Room participants were not given time to evaluate the emergency
conditions and make an emergency classification because a controller
gave a message to the Shift Engineer (about 0847) stating that, for drill
purposes, the toxic gas was significant enough to make the event an
Alert. Open Item No. 255/85016-01. (Section 5.a)
2.
The Technical Support Center (TSC) personnel displayed a lack of
coordinated effort within the support center, as well as with their
counterparts in the Control Room.
Some examples were the fluctuating
assessment of reactor conditions and the lack of addressing the problem
with the five stuck centrol rods.
Those support groups involved were
the Operations Group, and the Engineering and Maintenance Group.
The
Site Emergency Director in the TSC did not adequately utilize the support
groups to best mitigate the emergency and resolve conflicts with the
Control Room. Open Item No. 255/85016-02.
(Section 5.b)
3.
The licensee failed to adequately assess and trend radiological field
data including the magnitude, location, and composition of the plume.
(This was Objective No. 9 of ten exercise objectives). Open Item
No. 255/85016-03. (Section 5.c)
4.
Poor, erratic contamination control techniques were demonstrated
throughout the exercise in the Operational Support Center (OSC).
These
related particularly to participants ignoring the radiation detection
device outside the OSC, as well as poor " frisking" techniques by the few
who did observe the frisking rules.
Open Item No. 255/85016-04.
(Section 5.d)
5.
The present EOF facility does not contain minimum space and
communications to meet NUREG-0696 guidelines.
Space must be provided for
at least fifteen federal personnel (office space for five NRC, working
space for nine NRC and one FEMA) in an emergency.
At least three
outside-line telephones should be made available for NRC use.
Also, the
HPN and ENS telephones should be relocated to the main E0F room, so that
communicators will have ready access to posted plant status and Health
Physics data.
Open Item No. 255/85016-05.
(Section 5.e)
6.
The offsite monitoring team did not initiate steps to decontaminate their
vehicle upon leaving the plume. With the unusually high radiation levels
released within various sections of the ten mile EPZ, this was a crucial
omission.
Open Item No. 255/85016-06.
(Section 5.f)
L