IR 05000220/1997007

Discusses Insp Repts 50-220/97-07 & 50-410/97-07 on 970810-1004 & Forwards NOV & Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $55,000.Violation Involved Four Shipments Radioactive Matl in Manner Contrary to NRC Requirements

ML20199A945
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	01/22/1998
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Sylvia B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
Shared Package
ML20199A949	List: IR 05000220/1997007 ML20199B860
References
50-220-97-07, 50-220-97-7, 50-410-97-07, 50-410-97-7, EA-97-530, NUDOCS 9801280128
Download: ML20199A945 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ .

,.

,

'

q

1. .p* #6 'uq 9, UNITED bTATES

<$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN I

[ 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194041415 0,% . . . e ,d'

January 22,1998 i

EA 97 530 Mr. B. Ralph Syhr Executive Vice Pr64ldent and Chief Nucleer Officer >

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nuclear Learning Center 450 Lake Road Oswego, NY 13in8 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMFOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

- $55,000 (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-220/97-07;50-410/97-07)

Dear Mr. Sylvia:

This refers to the NRC inspection conducted between August 10 and October 4,1997, at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, the findings of which were discussed during an exit meeting on October 17,1997. During the inspection, the NRC reviewed the circumstances associated with several apparent violations of transportation and radwaste program requirements which occurred at your facilities. The inspection report was sent to you on November 28,1997.

On December 19,1997, a predecisional enforcement conference was held with you and members of your staff to discuss the violations, ibelt causeu, and your corrective ections.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the Information that you

'

provided during the conference, four violations of NRC requirements are being cited and are described in the encloced Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty. The circumstances surrounding the .lolations are described in detail in the st,bject inspectior; report. The violations involve four shipments of radioactive materialin a manner contrary to NRC requirements. In the first case, the radiation levels (within an occupied portion of the transport vehicle) were in excess of limits upon arrival of the shipment at its destination. In the second case, the wrong material was shipped such that the radiation levels upon receipt -

were four times higher than expected. In the other two cases, material was shipped to locations different than intended or authorized. Numerous iristances of your staff being Inattentive to details, and not adequately independently verifying information, contributed to l i the three failures within a two month period. .1 With respect to the first violation, on July 24,1997, a package containing two metal samples j h from the Unit 1 core shroud, was sent to BWX Technologies, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, and

. . upon receipt of the package at BWX, the dose rate in the normally occupied section of the/) /

vehicle was 2.8 mrem /hr, which is in excess of the regulatory limit of 2 mrem /hr. As you noted at the conference, adequate radiological surveys were not conducted prior to the shipment, in that the technician only surveyed that forward portion of the sleeper cab and did not curvey the rear portion of the ccb which was closest to the source.

!h i i ,i' .

9901290128 990122 PDR ADOCK 03000220 0 PDR ,

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

. _ __ __ a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _

.

Niegera Mohawk Power Corporation 2 With respect to the second violation, on September 3,1997, a cask was shipped from Unit 4 2 to Molten Metti Technology, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, containing a !!ner that was different than the liner that wailntended ic,r shipmcnt, contrary to the sh!pping manifest. The violation was identified when, during unloading of the cask, Melten Metal Technology recognized that the radiation levels in the area of the liner were approximately four times higher than expected.

Subsequent investigation revealed that one of your radwaste operators inadvertently loaded the wrong liner into the shippir g catk prior to transport. Although each liner had a unique identification number, the radwaste operator did not check the nurober on the linor with the number on the shipment schedule. Rather, he used on!y the storage location number which was in error in addition, although a Unit 1 radiation protection (RP) technician conducted a radiation survey of the cask and sent the results to the Unit 2 RP technician prior to the shiprnent, the Un! 2 RP technician signed the associated shipping manifest authorizing the shipment without reviewing the radiation survey Such a review may have disclosed the higher than expected radiation levels.

,

With respect to the third violation, on September 25,1997, a package containing a metel sample removed from a tube sheet in the Unit 1 emergency cooling (EC) condenser, was shipped to a BWX contracts officer in an administrative off!ce n:omplex in Lynchbutg, Virginia, rather than to the intended BWX laboratory. The office complex was not listed on tne material License Certificate for receipt of radiohetiva shipmants. A similar error, which conetitutes the fourth violation, had occurred in May 1995, when a sourco range detector was shipped to the General Electric (GE) f acility in San Jose, California, rather then to the intended GE f acility in Twlasburg, Ohio. The San Jose f acility similarly did not have a lk.anse to receive radioadive material. Although the manifests had been properly prapared in each case, your warehouse personnel nonetheless sent the package to the wrong address. On both occasions, inattention to detail and inadequate verification contributed to these violations.

The NRC recognliss that the actual sofety consequence of these violations was low in each &

case. However, these violations indicate a lack of edequate oversight of the radioactive materials handling and transportation program to t mure appropriate attentiun to detall by staf f

'

in implememing the program. In addition, the f act that three of the violatione ccourred during a two-month period, between July 24,1997 and September 26,1997, indicates a poteme for greater safety significance. Therefore, the violations are of a significant regulatory concert)

and are baing classified in the aggregt.te as a Severity Level lli problem in accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure icr NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, s

,

_ - _ - _ L __-_______ .-____-..-.-___-_----_-.__._.-_-_-_-__.___---__-__._--_s . - - - _ _ . _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ -

.

Niagare Mohawk Power Corporation 3 in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of 655,000 is considered for a Severity Level ill problem. Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years,' the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for / dent /f/catAon and Correct /ve Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. No credit was warranted for identification of the problem because the events were identified in each case by the recipients of the packages, and in each case, you had an opportunity to identify these deficiencies sooner, For example, in th. eccc cf the shipment in which dose rates in the c,ccupied portions of the vehicle were found to have exceeded regulatory limits, an adequate survey prior to shipment may have identified the condition. In the case of the wrong liner of resins being dispatched from the site, review of the survey results by the Unit 2 RP technician would have identified the condition. Credit is warranted for your corrective actions which were considered prompt and comprehensive. Your immediate actions included disciplinary .

actions against responsible personnel, ceasing warehouse personnel responsibilities pertaining to shipment of radioactive . materials by transferring those responsibilities to RP, and modifications of radiation survey protocols with resnect to transport vehicles. Your long term corrective actions included planned focus on improving human performance and leadership of the radio)ctive materials har dling and transportation program.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of appropriate attention to detailin the implemoritation and oversight of the radioactive transportation program, the need for identifying violations, and in recognition of your previous escalated enforcement action, I have been authorized, after consultstion with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $55,000 for the Severity Level 111 problem.

Three other apparent violations set forth in the inspection report, are not being cited, consistent with Section IV of the Policy, because they are of minor significance.

• '

Those apperent violation involve (1) Improperly maintained process control plans involving such issues as references to outdated Titis 49 requirements and training procedures; (2) the f ailure to identify and correct the out of date references in the Process Control Program with respect to the Title 49 requirements; and (3) although your QA department identified during an audit the deficiency in the process control plan with respect to the references to outdated training proceduros, this audit finding was closed prior to the deficiency being corrected.

With respect to the two remaining apparent violations described in the inspection report, the violations involved (1) transporting radioar,tive materialin sh pping containers owned by SEG, Inc., without complying with all quality assuranco requirements as defined by 10 CFR 71, Subpart H; and (2) failure to verify that any vendors you utilized to process waste had a quality assurance program that met NRC requirements per the Unit 1 Process Control Program. .

'

At the conference, you disagreed with both of these apparent violations. With respect to the 1 For example, on November 5.1997, a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Chil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued for violations of the maintenance rule (Reference: EA 97-001). In addition, on April 19.1997. a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the ancunt of $200,000 was issued for several violations (Reference: EAs 96 474; 96-475: 90494;96-541).

_ _ + - -__ _+ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _

_ _ _ . __ _ _. u _ _ ____ _ _ _- _ ______._______[

.

.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 4 first issue, you contended that the QA requ'rements only applied to the shipper who was separately licensed. After further review of this matter and consultation of this matter with the Office of Spent Fuel Projects, the NRC maintains that you are responsible for adhering to the QA requirements, unless certain exemptions contained in 10 CFR 71.10 are met. The ,

Statements of Consideration for this rule provide clarification on the rule's intent: "While information mt., be submitted by any interested person to the Commission in support of an application for package approval, it is the licensee who delivers a packege of radioactive material to a carrier who must assure himself and the Commission that the quality assurance -

program, on which approval of the package design is based, has been followed." (42 FR 39364, published 8/4/77). However, in this case, a stated exemption in 10 CFR 71.10 (b)(2)

was met in that the dose rates from the unshielded packages did not exceed 1 rem /hr at 3 meters. Therefore, the apparent violation is withdrawn. With respect to the second issue, you contended at the enforcement conference that this Unit 1 Process Control Program requirement had only been intended fenendors providing processing services on the promises of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. The NRC is still reviewing this item and resolution will be handled by separate correspondence at a later date.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy cf this letter,its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely, i

Hu rt . Miller -/*

Regional Administrator

- Docket Nos. 50 220 and 50-410 License Nos. DPR 63 and NPF 89 Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty

.

O

_, - _._.?_ l _ _ -_ _ _ .p. - , - _ _ _ _ . - , _

.

- ,- i 'J

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

.

Niagam. Mehawk Power Corporation 5 cc w/ encl:

R. Abbott, Vice President & General Manager - Nuclear C. Terry, Vl:.e President- Safety Assessment and Suppert J. Conway, Vice President - L'aciear Engineering K. Dahlberg, Vice President - Nuclear Operations

, D. Wolniak, Manager, Lict.ising 3 J. Warden, New York Consumer Protection Branch

% G. Wilson, Senior Anorney M. Wetterhahn, Winston and Strawn J. Rettberg, New York C ate Electric and Gas Corporation N Eddy, Electric Diviolon, Department of Public Service, State of New York

)onaldssr., Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, New York Department of Law g J. Vinqu.c l'ATS, Inc.

, F. \'alentino, Wealdent, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

], J. Spath, Program Director, New York Stats Energy Research and Development Authority

..;

. .

m

- _ _ .__ -_.m______ _-__.._ _u a _. .__. __:

. . .

.

. .

..

. . b Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation QlSIRIBUTION:

PUBLIC SECY CA LCallan, EDO AThadani. DEDE i JLieberman, OE HMillcr, RI

}  ? Davis, OGC SCollins, NRR

-

fiZimmerman, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, Ril, Rlli, RIV

} BBeecher, GPA/PA GCaputo, 01 DBangart, OEP HBell, OlG' ' '

TMartin, AEOD OE:FA (2 copies) (Also by E-Mali)

'

NUDOCS DScrenci, PAO-RI NSheehan, PAO-RI

.($ Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)

y Resident inspector - Nine Mile

LTremper, OC CChappell, NMSS l

,

18000R

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .