ML20134N186

Forwards Insp Repts 50-373/96-14 & 50-374/96-14 on 961015-18 & Notice of Violation

ML20134N186
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	11/20/1996
From:	Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Subalusky W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20134N188	List: IR 05000373/1996014 ML20134N186 ML20134N264
References
NUDOCS 9611260212
Download: ML20134N186 (4)

See also: IR 05000373/1996014

Text

. _ . . -

- _. - - . _ .____

O' ,

'g -

l3 .

pu- _ - _ _ -- _ _ .

-.- - ._ -- -- -- - -i

); :c - a;

s

E

j- Novemb'er 20 -1996

i'

8

j. ~ Mr. W. T. Subalusky, Jr.

Site Vice President '

i. LaSalle County Station

i . Commonwealth Edison Company

{. 2601 North 21st Road i

Marseilles, IL' 61341

Y

t SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AUGUST 20,1996, ADMINISTRATIVE OVEREXPOSURE AND '  :

t RESULTS OF THE OCTOBER 16-18,1996, RADIATION PROTECTION (RP) l

i

?

c

INSPECTION

j Dear Mr. Subalusky:  !

!'

[ ' This refers to the inspection completed on October 18,1996, at the LaSalle County

[ . Station. The purpose of the inspection'was to review the circumstances surrounding an i

administrative overexposure which occurred on August 20,1996, and to review

radiological performance during the Unit 2 refueling outage (L2RO7). At the conclusion of j

y

1

the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in -  ;

[ the enclosed report. j^

L

[ Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.; Within these areas, the

inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records,

.. interviews with personnel,-and observation of activities in progress. '

1

$ This inspection identified a number of concerns associated with radiation' protection '  !

performance. While the dose expended during' refueling outage L2RO7 was reasonable  ;

y considering the work scope, the radiological controls specified for certain jobs did not 1

I incorporate previous industry and/or site experience for similar jobs. For example,

f- although the' effects of incore irradiation of intermediate range monitors (IRMs) were

i= disseminated in' NRC Information Notice (IN) 88-63, this information was not adequately

considered in preparation for.the removal of IRMs on two separate occasions. Of greater

.

concern is that your staff identified higher than anticipated dose rates during the first IRM

j . removal, documented the problem in a low priority PIF and performed the second removal

. prior to developing corrective actions for the first event. This resulted in a violation for an

2 inadequate. evaluation of radiological conditions,

i >

in addition, an administrative overexposure of an individual occurred. Of significance is

that the individual received' alarms on his electronic dosimeter but could not hear them due

i to_high ambient noise levels. The inability of workers to hear ED alarms contributed to a i

l previous administrative overexposure at LaSalle and could lead to events with higher

P -safety significance in this case, the radiation protection department was not made aware

- that'the individual was located in the area which was a violation of procedural

requirements.

[ '

9611260212 961120

PDR- ADOCK 05000373

G PDR ,

h ,

t - _

,

--,

.

.

b

~

~ ~

[ W. T. 'Subaldsiy ~-2- November 20, 1996

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC

requirements occurred concerning the failure to follow station procedures. The violations

are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding

them are described in detailin the subject inspection report. The violations are of concern,

because they are a repetitive failure to follow RP requirements and are examples of

inadequate communication to the RP group of ongoing work in radiological areas.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the I

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 l

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 Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter.

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

Room.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed Brent Clayton (for)

Geoffrey E. Grant, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374

Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Reports No.

50-373/96014(DRS);

50-374/96014(DRS)

See Attached Distribution

(SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\LAS96014.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

~

0FFICE Rill l RIII l Rlli RIII flc lG

NAME NShah:jp TKozak MDapas BClayfon/GGrant

DATE 11/ /96 11/ /96 11/ /96 11/ 20/96

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

- - . . -- - - -

-

- . . - . ..

.

.

t

~ W. T. Subalusk'y -2-

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC

requirements occurred concerning the failure to follow station procedures. The violations

'

are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding l

them are described in detailin the subject inspection report. The violations are of concern, i

-

because they are a repetitive failure to follow RP requirements and are examples of

2 inadequate communication to the RP group of ongoing work in radiological areas.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the l

.

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document )

i

'

the specific actions taken arid any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Your

response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the

l 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. l

i

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

, its enclosure; and your response, should you choose to submit one; will be placed in the i

'

NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not

3 include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be

placed in the PDR without reaction.

'

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

4

4 Sincerely,

,

Geoffry E. Grant, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374

Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Reports No.

50-373/96014(DRS);

50-374/96014(DRS)

See Attached Distribution

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\LAS96014.DRS

To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the ban: "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure

• N' = No copy

0FFICE RIII C RIII ,, Al RIII kA/ RIII l

NAME NShah:jp (9 TKozak7/Rf MDapas //fJP&' BClyton/GGrant

DATE 11/ N /96 11/ /p/96 11// 6 /96 11/ /96

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

.

'

.I

a

. W. T. Subalusky -3 November 20, 1996

cc w/encls: D. A. Sager, Vice President,

- Generation Support

H. W. Keiser, Chief Nuclear

Operating Officer

D. J. Ray, Station Manager

J. Burns, Regulatory Assurance l

Supervisor

1. Johnson, Acting Nuclear

Regulatory Services Manager l

Document Control Desk - Licensing

Richard Hubbard

Nathan Schloss, Economist,

Office of the Attorney General

State Liaison Officer

Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission

Distribution:

Docket File w/encls Rlli PRR w/encls W. L. Axelson, Rill w/encls

PUBLIC W w/encls SRis, La Salle, Dresden, RAC1 w/encls (E-mail)

OC/LFDCB w/enci Quad Cities w/encls Enf. Coordinator, Rill w/encls

DRP w/encls LPM, NRR w/encls CAA1 whncls (E-mail)

DRS w/encls A. B. Beach, Rlli w/encls

r

I

Wj \