ML20138P547
| ML20138P547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1997 |
| From: | Caldwell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Connell W ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138P550 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-412, EA-97-060, EA-97-061, EA-97-60, EA-97-61, NUDOCS 9703050052 | |
| Download: ML20138P547 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1996012
Text
1
OCO
.
,
February 27, 1997
Mr. Wilfred Connell, Vice President
Clinton Power Station
Illinois Power Company
Mail Code V-275
P. O. Box 678
Clinton,IL 61727
SUBJECT:
NRC RADIATION PROTECTION AND CHEMISTRY INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-461/96012(DRS)
j
Dear Mr. Connell:
l
'
On January 23,1997, the NRC completed a radiation protection (RP) inspection at the
'
Clinton facility. The enclosure to this letter presents the results of this inspection.
This inspection reviewed the circumstances surrounding several recent radiologically
significant events which have occurred at the Clinton facility. It was determined that
deficiencies similar to those identified during our review of the September 5,1996,
recirculation system pump seal failure event exist in your RP program. These deficiencies
i
include procedural adherence and adequacy problems, and a lack of conservative decision-
making. In addition, recent actions taken by your staff indicate that a generallack of
sensitivity towards RP controls and alarms exists throughout all organizations at Clinton.
These actions include, but are not limited to, workers not adhering to procedural
requirements when encountering alarms at the gatehouse personal contamination monitor
(PCM), a worker exiting a posted contamination area in full protective clothing to use a
phone, worker (s) sleeping and smoking within the radiologically controlled area (RCA), two
instances in which an individual (or individuals) secured the supply gas to a PCM, and
subsequent to this inspection, the possible deliberate contamination of a worker. This lack
of sensitivity has become so instilled in the work force that in the presence of an NRC
i
I
inspector, a number of personnel attempted to circumvent PCM alarms at the RCA access
point when exiting the plant at lunchtime,
j
The specific events we reviewed included the entry of three workers into the upper levels
of the drywell while administrative controls prohibiting their entry were in effect, the
significant spread of contamination resulting from workers disconnecting a sluicing hose
from a pump outside of procedural controls and other less significant problems which
involved the inadequate evaluation of the radiological hazards which could be present. As
will be discussed below, each of these events have elements in them which are cause for
/
concern. Of greatest concern though, is that these events occurred over a short period of
time when relatively little work was occurring at the station.
/ Q ,)
9703050052 970227
'
'
1
ADOCK 05000461
-
1
!
O
h.NE
N
.
W. Connell
-2-
February 27, 1997
.
,
!
,
Specific to the drywell entry, a radiation safety work plan had been developed to ensure
administrative controls were in place to prevent personnel entry into the upper drywell
'
levels during fuel movements. Potentially fatal doses to workers can occur in the upper
drywell levels should a mishap occur during fuel handling. Therefore, these administrative
controls are among the nwst important radiological controls at the station and, as such,
must be thoroughly understood and followed by all workers who are involved with work in
this area. In this case, a change to these administrative controls had been made earlier in
j
the day of the event but neither the drywell control point RP technician nor the shift
outage manager were aware of the new requirements. Ahhough verbal controls were in
place preventing fuel movement while the workers were in the upper drywell. It was
possible that fuel movement could have resumed prior to workers exiting the area. For the
reasons noted above, the failure to follow the administrative controls preventing entry into
i
the upper drywell levels is considered a significant problem.
During the waste sludge sluicing event, the failure to (1) consider previous occasions of
hose blockage during pre-job planning, (2) to contact RP supervision prior to removing the
hoses and (3) to revise the procedure to reflect the actual work conditions, resulted in the
'
contamination of three workers. These, and other problems identified with this ever.t,
indicated weaknesses similar to those identified in the aforementioned, recirculation pomp
j
seal event.
'
During the outage, workers were aware of dose increases due to additional work scope,
rework, and poor radiological work practices: however, these problems were not raised to
i
plant supervision. Our inspection determined that this was due, in part, to worker
acceptance that these problems were typical for an outage and that the problems would
be addressed in the post outage critique. This perception led to the development of an
inaccurate view of station radiological performance by your RP group and the inability to
]
identify emerging problem trends prior to the manifestation of more significant problems.
For example, multiple entries into the drywell to remove recently installed bioshield
insulation were documented in the drywell logbook, but were not communicated to plant
management until the problem was raised by the NRC during the inspection. Similar
events associated with bioshield activities resulting in unnecessary dose were identified
during this inspection.
..
!
t
__
__
_,
,
~
- - - - - -
- -
_ -
. -
.
.-.- - -
.-. - - .
- . .
_ - - -
-
~
W. Connell
-3-
February 27, 1997
.
We recognize that the events described above and in the enclosed report were
documented in your Condition Reporting system and that critiques were held shortly after
the events in an attempt to identify the circumstances surrounding them. Also, a number
i
of immediate corrective actions were developed to prevent their recurrence. However,
i
procedural adherence and consarvative decision-making problems persist at the station. In
addition, your staffs' actions described above show a continuing failure to recognize the
importance of adhering to procedural and NRC requirements.
Based on the results from the inspection, several apparent violations of NRC requirements
were identified and are being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance
i
with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"
(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. Accordingly, no Notice of Violation is presently being
issued for these inspection findings. In addition, the number and characterization of
,
'
apparent violations described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of
further NRC review.
An open pre-decisional enforcement conference to discuss these apparent violations has
i
been scheduled for March 20,1997 at 12:30 p.m. (CDT) in the Region lli office in Lisle,
Illinois. The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference does not mean that
the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be
t
taken. The conference will be held to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an
,
<
enforcement decision, including a common understanding of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the violations, their root causes, your opportunities to identify the apparent
violations sooner, your corrective actions, and the significance of the issues.
In addition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our inspection report
and for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on (1) the severity of
the violations: (2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines
the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section VI.B.2 of
the Enforcement Policy; and 3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this
L
case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vit.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this
manner. No response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time.
!
f
l
l
t
!
i
-,
. . -
._ _ _ . _ ~ . _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . - _ . _ . . _ . _
_ .
,_.. _ _ . . . _ _ , _ .
l
.
1
'
l
t
W. Connell
-4
February 27, 1997
.
l
l
l
'
,
!
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter
and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
i
Sincerely,
l
i
Original Signed by James L. Caldwell
,
,
James L. CrAdwell, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
!
!
Docket No. 50-461
>
License No. NPF-62
i
i
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No.
50-461/96012(DR",)
I
cc w/ encl:
P. Yocum, Plant Manager,
Clinton Power Station
R. Phares, Manager, Nuclear Assessment
I
P. J. Telthorst, Director - Licensing
Nathan Schloss, Economist,
'
Office of the Attorney General
'
K. K. Berry, Licensing Services Manager
General Electric Company
Chairman, DeWitt County Board
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
'
Distribution:
Docket File w/ encl
Rlli PRR w/ encl
A. B. Beach, Rlll w/enct
PUBLIC IE-01 w/enct
SRis, Clinton,
W. L. Axelson, Rlli w/enci
OC/LFDCB w/enct
Dresden, LaSalle,
Enf. Coordinator, Riti w/enci
DRP w/enci
Quad Cities w/enci
CAA1 w/enci
DRS w/enct
LPM, NRR w/enci
J. Lieberman, OE w/ encl
J. Goldberg, OGC w/enct
R. Zimmerman, NRR w/enci
DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\\CLl96012.DRS
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without
attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy
OFFICE
Rill
lE Rlli
[6 Rlli
,[
Rill
l t: RilP),
l
NAME
NShah:jpT7% TKozak f7c
GWrighty(47
BClayton 6' JC@ll
DATE
02/z./97
02/Q97
02/f//97
02/1997
07/fl/97
'
Cir:Cik. RECORD COPY
l
l
,