ML20141J969

Forwards Insp Rept 50-155/97-05 on 970303-0428.Based on Results of Inspection,Three Apparent Violations Identified & Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action

ML20141J969
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	05/19/1997
From:	Pederson C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Powers K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
Shared Package
ML20141J973	List: ML20141J969 ML20141J995
References
50-155-97-05, 50-155-97-5, EA-97-197, NUDOCS 9705280273
Download: ML20141J969 (4)

See also: IR 05000155/1997005

Text

~

.

Od

May 19, 1997

EA 97-197

Mr. K. P. Powers

Plant General Manager

Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant

Consumers Energy Company

10269 US 31 North

Charlevoix, MI 49720

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-155/97005(DRS)

Dear Mr. Po' vers:

On April 28,1997, the NRC completed an inspection at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power

Plant facility. The enclosure to this letter presents the results of this inspection.

During this inspection, we reviewed certain aspects of your radiation protection program

as well as the circumstances surrounding two separate but related radiologically significant

events which recently occurred at the Big Rock Point facility. The events revealed a

number of problems in the radiation protection program including a lack of effective

supervisory oversight and involvement in radiological work activities, a failure to .

adequately address the radiological implications of work activities during the work planning

stage, and a generallack of respect for radiological hazards and controls by the workforce.

The specific events we reviewed included the tour of the power block by a qualified shift l

supervisor and a senior radiation protection technician under abnormal radiological .l

conditions which were not appropriately evaluated beforehand and the spread of  !

contamination throughout the turbine building during radioactive waste processing i

activities. Of concem during the tour event was that there was a general understanding of

the workers that radiological conditions in the area would be more severe than normal yet '

,

no contingency plans were considered to compensate for these conditions. Further, when

alerted by electronic dosimeter alarms to higher than anticipated dose rates during the

tour, the workers opted to complete the tour rather than immediately exit the area as

required by existing procedures. An inadequate evaluation of the potential radiological  !

hazards also contributed to the spread of contamination in the turbine building. l

These events, along with the entry of an unqualified worker into a high radiation area

against station procedural requirements, are described in detail in the enclosed report. l

Three related apparent violations, two of which occurred twice, were identified which '

collectively indicated that a significant lack of attention toward licensed responsibilities  ;

existed in the radiation protection area. It is important to prepare carefully for radiological

work activities and to always assess the current and potential radiological conditions in the i

job area, to be familiar with procedural and radiation work permit requirements for the job, i

and to ensure everyone involved is properly qualified for their work activities. 1

"

9705280273 970519

^ " ' '

5" NP llEIElllllMllllllME

,

-

. _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

K. P. Powers -2- May 19, 1997

Based os. We results of this inspection, the three apparent violations identified are being

considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of

Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

The apparent violations were either self-identified during your review of these events or

were self-revealing during the events.

The circumstances surrounding the apparent violations, the significance of the issues, and

the need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your

staff at an interim inspection exit meeting on April 3,1997 and again when the inspection

was completed on April 28,1997. We were provided the results of your detailed review

of the events, including the immediate and planned corrective actions you developed. As

a result, it may not be necessary to conduct a predecisional enforcement conference in

order to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision. However, a Notice of Violation i

is not presently being issued for these inspection findings. Before the NRC makes its

enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either (1) respond to the

apparent violations addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the date of this

letter or (2) request a predecisional enforcement conference. Please contact Mr. Thomas

Kozak at (630) 329-9866 within 7 days of the date of this letter to notify the NRC of your

intended response.

Your response should be clearly marked as a " Response to Apparent Violations in

inspection Report No. 50-155\97005(DRS)" and should include for each apparent

violation: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing

the apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results

achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the

date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response should be submitted under

oath or affirmation and may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the

correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate response is

not received within the time specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the

NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision or schedule a predecisional

enforcement conference.

In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations

described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review.

You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this

matter.

1

_ _ . _ _ _ _ . . .___.-_ _._. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._

i .

!'

.

K. P. Powers -3- May 19, 1997

!

f

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, ,

its enclosure, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be pieced 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.

Sincerely,

/s/ C. D. Pederson

Cynthia D. Pederson, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50-155

License No. DPR-6

Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-155/97005(DRS)

I

cc w/ encl: R. A. Fenech, Senior Vice President,

Nuclear, Fossil, and Hydro Operations

James R. Padgett, Michigan Public #

Service Commission

Michigan Department of Public Health

Department of Attorney General (MI)

Distribution:

Docket File w/enci SRis, BRP, Palis w/enci CAA1 w/enci

,PtiGLiC IC-Oi w/ encl LPM, NRR w/enci J. Lieberman, OE w/enci  !

OC/LFDCB w/ encl A. B. Beach, Ritt w/enci J. Goldberg, OGC w/enci

DRP w/ encl J. L. Caldwell, Rlli w/enct R. Zimmerman, NRR w/ encl )

DRS w/ encl Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/ encl

Rlli PRR w/enci TSS w/encI

SEE ATTACHED CONCURRENCES

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\ BIG 97005.DRS

To receive e copy of thle docurnent, indicate in the box: *C" = Copy w/o att/enci"E' = Copy w/att/enci"N"$No copy

0FFICE RIII l RIII l RIII l RIII l RIII/ W l

NAME West / Paul:jp Kozak Burgess Clayton PedeW dn l

DATE 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ R /97 )

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

!

• i

_ _ _ . ___.__ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . . .

.

.

K. P. Powers -3-

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,

its enclosure, and your response (if you choose to provide one) 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 thet it can be placed in the

PDR without redaction.

Sincerely,

A. Bill Beach

Regional Administrator 1

Docket No. 50-155 i

License No. DPR-6

~

Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-155/97005(DRS)

{

i

cc w/ encl: R. A. Fenech, Senior Vice President,

Nuclear, Fossil, and Hydro Operations l

.

James R. Padgett, Michigan Public

Service Commission

Michigan Department of Public Health

Department of Attorney General (MI)

Distribution: i

Docket File w/enci Rlll PRR w/ encl Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/enci

PUBLIC IE-01 w/ encl SRis, BRP, Palis w/enci TSS w/ encl

OC/LFDCB w/enct LPM, NRR w/ encl CAA1 w/enci l

DRP w/enct A. B. Beach, Rlll w/enci l

DRS w/ encl C. D. Pederson, Rlll w/ enc!

t

l

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\ BIG 97005.DRS

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" =

Ccpy with attachment /3nclosure "N" = No copy

0FFICE RIIW6:: RIII lN RIlhd ls RIII l6 RIII l RIII

NAME West /PaIJ1:jp KozairTl(/ Bur @n Clayton // L Pederson Beach

DATE 05//.? /97 05/13/97 05/ M /97 05//G /97 05/ /97 05/ /97

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

-

.