Event Notification Report for May 24, 2002
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Operations Center
Event Reports For
05/23/2002 - 05/24/2002
** EVENT NUMBERS **
38936 38938 38939 38940
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|General Information or Other |Event Number: 38936 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| REP ORG: CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY |NOTIFICATION DATE: 05/23/2002|
|LICENSEE: CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY |NOTIFICATION TIME: 15:41[EDT]|
| CITY: JACKSON REGION: 3 |EVENT DATE: 05/23/2002|
| COUNTY: STATE: MI |EVENT TIME: [EDT]|
|LICENSE#: AGREEMENT: N |LAST UPDATE DATE: 05/23/2002|
| DOCKET: |+----------------------------+
| |PERSON ORGANIZATION |
| |CHRISTINE LIPA R3 |
| |JOHN TAPPERT NRR |
+------------------------------------------------+VERN HODGE NRR |
| NRC NOTIFIED BY: ARUNAS T. UDRYS | |
| HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE | |
+------------------------------------------------+ |
|EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY | |
|10 CFR SECTION: | |
|CCCC 21.21 UNSPECIFIED PARAGRAPH | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EVENT TEXT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10 CFR PART 21 NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE SALE OF CONSUMERS ENERGY
COMPANY |
| MIDLAND UNIT 2 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAD FOR USE AT DAVIS BESSE
|
| (Call the NRC operations officer for Consumers Energy Company contact |
| information.) |
| |
| The following text is a portion of a facsimile received from Consumers |
| Energy Company: |
| |
| "Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) has entered into an agreement with |
| Framatome ANP, Inc. (FRA-ANP) and First Energy Services Company, for itself |
| and as agent for First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, The Illuminating |
| Company, and Toledo Edison Company (collectively 'First Energy'), to sell |
| the Midland Unit 2 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head to FRA-ANP for use at |
| the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Upon consummation of that agreement |
| which applied 10 CFR Part 21 to the transaction, Consumers determined that a |
| conservative reading of 10 CFR Part 21 indicated that there could have been |
| 'failure to comply' within the meaning of 10 CFR Part 21, e.g., because |
| since 1986 when Midland Unit 2 was cancelled, the RPV head has not been |
| maintained in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix |
| B, 'Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel |
| Reprocessing Plants.' Consumers is not in a position to make a definitive |
| finding as to whether a substantial safety hazard was created. [...] This |
| [information is] submitted by Consumers to fulfill the requirement for a |
| written report to provide the information requested by 10 CFR � |
| 21.21(d)(4)." |
| |
| "Also, in an abundance of caution, in accordance with 10 CFR � 21.21(b), |
| Consumers has informed FRA-ANP and First Energy that Consumers does not have |
| the capability to perform an evaluation to determine whether any deviation |
| relating to the Midland Unit 2 RPV head exists." |
| |
| "Consumers understands that FRA-ANP and First Energy, as the purchasers, |
| will conduct any evaluation required pursuant to 10 CFR � 21.21(b) and |
| undertake any needed corrective action." |
| |
| "REPORT MADE PURSUANT TO 10 CFR � 21.21 BY CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY
[on] May |
| 23, 2002" |
| |
| "[...] (ii) Identification of the facility, the activity, or the basic |
| component supplied for such facility or such activity within the United |
| States which fails to comply or contains a defect. [...] Consumers Power |
| Company (now Consumers Energy Company) ('Consumers') was the holder of |
| Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and |
| 2 ('Midland'), Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330. The units were cancelled on |
| July 1, 1986, and the construction permits were revoked on December 18, |
| 1986. Prior to that time, Consumers had procured a number of components for |
| that facility in accordance with a quality assurance program meeting the |
| requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. Among such components was a |
| reactor vessel head for Midland Unit 2. As Consumers did not intend to |
| operate the Midland units, it abandoned a number of components in-place, |
| terminated its quality assurance program for Midland, ceased applying the |
| requirements of Appendix B to components it had procured for Midland, and |
| did not systematically retain records associated with the vessel head, |
| including its procurement, any nonconformances or any corrective actions. |
| Since that time, the vessel head has not been maintained in accordance with |
| a Quality Assurance Program." |
| |
| "In May 2002, Framatome ANP, Inc. on behalf of First Energy Nuclear |
| Operating Company agreed to purchase the Midland vessel head for possible |
| use at the Davis-Besse facility. Inasmuch as the vessel head meets the |
| definition of 'basic component' contained in 10 CFR � 21.3 as it is a |
| component that affects a nuclear power plant's safety function necessary to |
| assure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the |
| procurement document specified that the provisions of Part 21 apply." |
| |
| "(iii) Identification of the firm constructing the facility or supplying |
| the basic component which fails to comply or |
| contains a defect. [...] Consumers is supplying the basic component which |
| fails to comply and which may contain a defect." |
| |
| "(iv) Nature of the defect or failure to comply and the safety hazard which |
| is created or could be created by such |
| defect or failure to comply. [...] Consumers did not maintain the vessel |
| head under a Quality Assurance Program and does not have records regarding |
| the serviceability and suitability of the vessel head at another nuclear |
| facility, e.g., the suitability of design, the quality assurance program |
| under which it was designed, constructed, handled, shipped and stored, |
| procurement document control, whether the components met their procurement |
| documents, whether appropriate inspections were conducted and the results, |
| whether materials were controlled, and the adequacy of any corrective |
| action. Consumers presently does not have the expertise necessary to assess |
| the consequences of this condition and whether the reactor vessel head has |
| any defect and does not know the circumstances of its intended use at the |
| buyer's facility." |
| |
| "(v) The date on which the information of such defect or failure to comply |
| was obtained. [...] This situation arose on May 22, 2002, the date which |
| the procurement document specified the applicability of Part 21." |
| |
| "(vi) In the case of a basic component which contains a defect or fails to |
| comply, the number and location of all such components in use at, supplied |
| for, or being supplied for one or more facilities or activities subject to |
| the regulations in this part. [...] The report only applies to the reactor |
| vessel head being procured for possible use at the Davis-Besse facility." |
| |
| "(vii) The corrective action which has been, is being, or will be taken; |
| the name of the individual or organization responsible for the action; and |
| the length of time that has been or will be taken to complete the action. |
| [...] Consumers has notified the purchaser pursuant to 10 CFR � 21.21(b) |
| that it does not have the capability to perform the evaluation to determine |
| if a defect exists. The purchaser has agreed to evaluate this condition and |
| make a determination on the suitability of the reactor vessel head for its |
| potential intended use and any required corrective or other necessary |
| actions, including its reportability." |
| |
| "(viii) Any advice related to the defect or failure to comply about the |
| facility, activity, or basic component that has been, is being, or will be |
| given to purchasers or licensees. [...] None." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Other Nuclear Material |Event Number: 38938 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| REP ORG: SCHLUMBERGER |NOTIFICATION DATE: 05/23/2002|
|LICENSEE: SCHLUMBERGER |NOTIFICATION TIME: 17:35[EDT]|
| CITY: SUGARLAND REGION: 4 |EVENT DATE: 05/23/2002|
| COUNTY: STATE: TX |EVENT TIME: 13:00[CDT]|
|LICENSE#: AGREEMENT: Y |LAST UPDATE DATE: 05/23/2002|
| DOCKET: |+----------------------------+
| |PERSON ORGANIZATION |
| |LINDA SMITH R4 |
| |THOMAS ESSIG NMSS |
+------------------------------------------------+NADER MAMISH IRO |
| NRC NOTIFIED BY: RAY DICKES | |
| HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE | |
+------------------------------------------------+ |
|EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY | |
|10 CFR SECTION: | |
|BAE1 20.2202(b)(1) PERS OVEREXPOSURE/TEDE | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EVENT TEXT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| DISCOVERY THAT A 1.7-CURIE CESIUM-137 LOGGING SOURCE HAD BEEN
UNSHIELDED ON |
| A RIG FLOOR IN EASTERN MONTANA FOR APPROXIMATELY 48 HOURS RESULTING IN
|
| EXPOSURE TO RIG, CASING, AND CEMENT CREW MEMBERS |
| |
| At approximately 1615 CDT, the Schlumberger Radiation Safety Officer was |
| notified by a field location in Williston, North Dakota (an agreement |
| state), of an incident at a job location in Eastern Montana (not an |
| agreement state) involving a 10-year-old, 1.7-curie (nominal), cesium-137, |
| logging source. It was reported that the source had been outside of its |
| source shield for a period of approximately 48 hours. There is a number of |
| members of the public that have been exposed to this source. |
| |
| It appears that the logging engineer failed to properly make the transfer of |
| the source from the logging tools into the shield, and it is believed that |
| the source was left on the rig floor. After the licensee's crew left, it is |
| suspected that rig crew members and possible casing and cementing crew |
| members may have wandered in and out of the applicable area for various |
| amounts of time. These individuals were not badged, and are being |
| considered by the licensee to be members of the public. When the logging |
| job (well) was finished, the rig was moved about 5 miles to the next lease |
| (which is where the source is presently located). The rig has been sitting |
| at the new lease site unoccupied for 12 to 15 hours. |
| |
| The source, which is approximately 3/4 of an inch long and approximately 3/4 |
| to 1 inch in diameter, was discovered to be missing today at approximately |
| 1300 CDT when licensee representatives were preparing for another job. The |
| source has since been located, and licensee representatives are currently in |
| the process of getting it back into the proper shield and proper storage. |
| The licensee also plans to contact Pan Canadian (the client) to identify rig |
| crew members in order to conduct interviews with all of the individuals on |
| the rig from the time that the Schlumberger crew left until the time the rig |
| was parked at the new lease location (unmanned). |
| |
| (Call the NRC operations officer for licensee contact telephone numbers.) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Power Reactor |Event Number: 38939 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FACILITY: SOUTH TEXAS REGION: 4 |NOTIFICATION DATE: 05/23/2002|
| UNIT: [1] [] [] STATE: TX |NOTIFICATION TIME: 17:45[EDT]|
| RXTYPE: [1] W-4-LP,[2] W-4-LP |EVENT DATE: 05/23/2002|
+------------------------------------------------+EVENT TIME: 16:41[CDT]|
| NRC NOTIFIED BY: CLAY KLIMPLE |LAST UPDATE DATE: 05/23/2002|
| HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE +-----------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------+PERSON ORGANIZATION |
|EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY |LINDA SMITH R4 |
|10 CFR SECTION: | |
|APRE 50.72(b)(2)(xi) OFFSITE NOTIFICATION | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+----------+-------+--------+-----------------+--------+-----------------+
|UNIT |SCRAM CODE|RX CRIT|INIT PWR| INIT RX MODE |CURR PWR| CURR RX MODE
|
+-----+----------+-------+--------+-----------------+--------+-----------------+
|1 N Y 100 Power Operation |100 Power Operation |
| | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EVENT TEXT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| PLANNED OFFSITE NOTIFICATION REGARDING TWO RADIATION MONITOR
DETECTORS SOLD |
| AS SURPLUS MATERIAL BUT CONTAINED RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL |
| |
| The following text is a portion of a facsimile received from the licensee: |
| |
| "On May 22, 2002, STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) was notified by an |
| individual that two radiation monitor detectors he purchased from South |
| Texas Project as surplus material might contain radioactive material. The |
| detectors had never been installed in the plant but were excess material |
| stored in the site warehouse since their purchase in 1993. STPNOC personnel |
| were sent to investigate the issue and confirmed that the detectors did |
| contain check sources in sealed containers attached to the detectors. These |
| sources, when purchased in 1993, were 8 microcuries of cesium-137 and |
| attached to the detectors in separate sealed housings. The sources were |
| surveyed and found to have a dose rate of 0.18 millirem per hour on |
| contact." |
| |
| "The sources were removed from the detectors and transported back to the |
| site." |
| |
| "The resident inspector has been notified of this event and that offsite |
| agency notifications are planned." |
| |
| "STPNOC will be notifying the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control and the |
| Matagorda County Judge of this event." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Power Reactor |Event Number: 38940 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FACILITY: VERMONT YANKEE REGION: 1 |NOTIFICATION DATE: 05/23/2002|
| UNIT: [1] [] [] STATE: VT |NOTIFICATION TIME: 21:36[EDT]|
| RXTYPE: [1] GE-4 |EVENT DATE: 05/23/2002|
+------------------------------------------------+EVENT TIME: 14:02[EDT]|
| NRC NOTIFIED BY: DAVID HALLONQUISTL |LAST UPDATE DATE: 05/23/2002|
| HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE +-----------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------+PERSON ORGANIZATION |
|EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY |FRANK COSTELLO R1 |
|10 CFR SECTION: | |
|AIND 50.72(b)(3)(v)(D) ACCIDENT MITIGATION | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+----------+-------+--------+-----------------+--------+-----------------+
|UNIT |SCRAM CODE|RX CRIT|INIT PWR| INIT RX MODE |CURR PWR| CURR RX MODE
|
+-----+----------+-------+--------+-----------------+--------+-----------------+
|1 N Y 19 Power Operation |27 Power Operation |
| | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EVENT TEXT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| HIGH THRUST BEARING TEMPERATURE DURING HIGH PRESSURE COOLANT
INJECTION |
| (HPCI) OPERABILITY SURVEILLANCE TESTING |
| |
| HPCI was declared inoperable due to high thrust bearing temperature during |
| performance of pump an operability surveillance. There was nothing unusual |
| or misunderstood other than the cause of the high thrust bearing |
| temperature. As a result, the unit entered a 14-day limiting condition for |
| operation. |
| |
| The licensee plans to notify the NRC resident inspector. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021