Text

Forwards Insp Repts 50-254/94-13 & 50-265/94-13 on 940406- 0630 & Notice of Violation
	ML20149F525
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	08/03/1994
From:	Axelson W; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Kraft E; COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20149F528	List: IR 05000254/1994013; ML20149F525; ML20149F535;
References
	NUDOCS 9408110010
	Download: ML20149F525 (4)
	v • d • e

_ _ _ _ _ _

Oc9

-

.

AUG

a1334

Docket No. 50-254

Docket No. 50-.265

Commonwealth Edison Company

ATTN:

E. Kraft, Site Vice President

Quad Cities Station

22712 206th Avenue North

Cordova, IL 61242

Dear Mr. Kraft:

SUBJECT:

INSPECTION OF QUAD CITIES RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM (REPORTS N0.

50-254/94013(DRSS); 50-265/94013(DRSS)) AND MANAGEMENT MEETING

This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. R. A. Paul, N. Shah,

M. A. Kunowski, and S. K. Orth of this office on April 6 through June 15,

1994. The inspection included a review of authorized activities for your Quad

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

This also refers to the

Management Meeting held on June 30, 1994, between Mr. T. O. Martin and others

of the NRC and you and members of your staff to discuss corrective actions for

recent problems in the radiation protection program.

Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within

these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures

and representative records, interviews with personnel, independent

measurements, and observation of activities in progress. The areas discussed

during the Management Meeting are also summarized in the report.

Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appeared

to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed

inspection report. The violation for inadequate survey is being cited to

emphasize the importance of the workers and the radiation protection

department fully communicating and understanding the job scope. A similar

problem was discussed in Inspection Report Nos. 50-254/94002; 50-265/94002

(Section 5) and corrective actions for that problem should have prevented

1

these most recent problems. Although 10 CFR 2.201 requires you to submit to

this office, within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice, a written

statement of explanation, we note that this violation had been corrected and

those actions were reviewed during this inspection and discussed at the

Management Meeting. These actions included an outage work stoppage,

development of a radiation work performance improvement plan, and a phased

return to work. Therefore, no response with respect to this matter is

required.

The violation for not labeling a bucket that contained an irradiated component

with a contact dose rate of about 5170 rem / hour (51.7 Sieverts/ hour) is being

cited because ineffective corrective actions were taken for a related concern

raised by the resident inspectors about two months earlier. We reviewed this

latest incident for escalated enforcement under a criterion for substantial

9408110010 940803

/

gDR

ADOCK0500g4

gC 0b

d

'

.

Commonwealth Edison Company

3

AUG

3 1994

l

\\

!

l

1

,

l

Distribution

i

cc w/ enclosures:

'

J. C. Brons, Vice President,

Nuclear Support

S. Perry, Vice President, BWR Operations

i

G. Campbell, Station Manager

N. Chrissotimos, Regulatory Assurance

Supervisor

D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory

Services Manager

OC/LFDCB

Resident Inspectors LaSalle

Dresden, Quad Cities

Richard Hubbard

Nathan Schloss, Economist

Office of the Attorney General

Licensing Project Manager, NRR

State Liaison Officer

Chairman, Illinois Commerce

l

Commission

l

S. Shelton, Vice President, Electric

Operation, IA-IL Gas & Electric

T. O. Martin, RIII

l

S. Stein, SRS

l

bec w/ enclosures:

l

D. E. Funk, RIII

l

PUBLIC IE06

l

\\

1

l

-

- - - - .

- .

. - _ _

. - . - - -

- - - -

-

.

.-

.

,

Conconwealth Edison Company

2

AUG

3g

l

potential for an overexposure. Although our review determined that the

criterion was not met, we consider the incident a significant lapse in your

control over highly irradiated components stored in your reactor cavity and

spent fuel pool. A response is required for this violation.

Please include

in the response the results of your investigation into this problem.

We also reviewed planning and implementation problems with your torus

i

recoating project. These problems resulted in a dose total for the project of

over 230 person-rem (2.3 person-Sieverts), compared to the pre-project

!

estimate of 83 person-rem (0.83 person-Sievert).

In addition to the written

l

response required for the violation, you are requested to describe the results

-

of your assessment of the torus project and the corrective actions you have

taken or plan to take to preclude occurrence of a similar problem.

The violations, the problems with the torus recoating project, and the recent

significant number of self-identified problems with radiation worker

performance indicate that your radiological controls program needs substantial

!

improvement. As discussed at the Management Meeting, the actions taken late

!

in the outage to stop work, and develop and implement an improvement plan

I

indicated that you understand the magnitude of that need and are committed to

address it. Continued, pertinent efforts are necessary to ensure that lasting

improvements are gained.

-

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

!

this letter, the enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC

!

Public Document Room.

!

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

l

Sincerely,

omcmAt sictRD SY

'.1. L lELSCM

l

W. L. Axelson, Director

!

l

Division of Radiation Safety

l

and Safeguards

!

l

Enclosures:

l

1.

Notice of Violation

2.

Inspection Reports

t

No. 50-254/94013(DRSS);

No. 50-265/94013(DRSS)

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION

(See Attached Sheet)

RIII

r

,

..,/jp

pn Ax pn

Paul

Kunowski

Shah

Hiland

Pederson

Orth

1

,,.

l

- -

-

- - - - - - - - - - - - , - -

.

_ . - - . - .

.- .

..

- . .

.-

_

.

-.

-

.

Commonwealth Edison Company

2

potential for an overexposure. Although our review determined that the

criterion was not met, we consider the incident a significant lapse in your

control over highly irradiated components stored in your reactor cavity and

spent fuel pool. A response is required for this violation.

Please include

in the response the results of your investigation into this problem.

We also reviewed planning and implementation problems with your

_.us

'

recoating project. These problems esulted in a dose total for tne project of