ML020520679
| ML020520679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/2002 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC Region 4 |
| To: | Terry C TXU Electric |
| References | |
| EA-01-304 IR-01-007 | |
| Download: ML020520679 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000445/2001007
Text
February 21, 2002
Mr. C. L. Terry
TXU Electric
Senior Vice President & Principal Nuclear Officer
ATTN: Regulatory Affairs Department
P.O. Box 1002
Glen Rose, Texas 76043
SUBJECT: COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - FINAL
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING AND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION FOR NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-445/01-07; 50-446/01-07
Dear Mr. Terry:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the final results of our significance
determination of the preliminary White finding identified in the subject inspection report. The
inspection finding was assessed using the public radiation safety significance determination
process (SDP) and was preliminarily characterized as White, an issue with low to moderate
importance to safety which may require additional NRC inspection. This White finding involved
11 examples in which radiological surveys to detect radioactivity required by Technical
Specification procedures were not adequate. Specifically, each of these 11 examples involved
items containing low levels of contamination, which were released from radiologically controlled
areas (RCAs) at your Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
At your request, a regulatory conference was held on January 23, 2002, to discuss further your
views on this issue. During the meeting, your staff described TXUs assessment of the
significance of the findings. Specifically, your presentation included the following points:
(1) You agreed that a violation of Comanche Peaks Technical Specification
requirements had occurred in that items with detectable activity were released
from the RCAs.
(2) You stated that the exposure associated with each item was a very small fraction
of the public dose limit, and, as such, there was no credible impact on safety.
Therefore, you asserted that the violation should be considered minor, and, in
accordance with NRC Inspection Manual 0610*, not documented (and not
processed through the SDP).
TXU Electric -2-
(3) You stated that none of the material was released from the site boundary
(outside of which is an unrestricted area as defined in your Offsite Dose
Calculation Manual) and, thus, it was unlikely that a member of the public would
have received a radiation exposure from these items.
(4) You stated that if the protected area boundary, because of the radiation portal
monitors at the security egress points, was conservatively used as defining the
unrestricted area for the purposes of the SDP, then only three of the events
should be counted in arriving at the significance determination. Therefore, even
if these examples were considered to be more than minor, three examples is
less than the greater than five threshold specified in the SDP for a white finding.
After careful consideration of each of your comments, we concluded that the 11 examples did
have a credible potential to impact safety. While the individual examples did not pose a
significant radiological hazard, they revealed a potentially unmonitored pathway for radioactive
material to be released from the facility. Specifically, once these contaminated items were
released from the RCA, there were no proceduralized survey controls in place to prevent a
release of these items to an unrestricted area, which could potentially expose members of the
public to radiation. In addition, unconditionally releasing these items from the RCAs to other
areas of the plant had the potential to impact safety by posing a potential for unintended and
unnecessary radiation exposure to site workers. Therefore, we determined that all 11 examples
were more than minor and subject to treatment under the SDP as events.
The Radioactive Material Control Program portion of the Public Radiation Safety Significance
Determination Process "... assesses the licensees ability to prevent the inadvertent release of
licensed radioactive material to an unrestricted area that can cause a radiation dose to
members of the public." In assessing your ability to prevent the inadvertent release of licensed
radioactive material to an unrestricted area, we noted the following:
(1) Your Offsite Dose Calculation Manual states that an unrestricted area means
any area beyond the site boundary. As discussed during the regulatory
conference, with the exception of the gamma sensitive radiation portal monitors
located at the security egress points and the radiation survey point at
Warehouse C, no other fixed radiation survey points exist outside the RCA
boundaries to ensure that radioactive material is not inadvertently released to an
unrestricted area. Therefore, a potential to release material inadvertently from
the protected area exists when material is not passed through the security
egress radiation portal monitors (e.g., items removed from the protected area in
a vehicle or items too big to be carried through the radiation portal monitor).
(2) Because there are no controls in place to ensure that items bypassing the
radiation portal monitors at the security egress points are surveyed prior to
removal from the protected area, we have concluded that any RCA boundary (for
the purposes of the Public Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process)
is the restricted area boundary. This conclusion is consistent with your program
and procedural requirements that were in place at the time of the inspection as
they define a threshold of no-detectable activity to be released from the RCAs.
Therefore, as discussed above, with respect to your contention that only the
TXU Electric -3-
3 examples, which were released to the owner controlled area be counted, we
concluded that all 11 examples released from a RCA be counted.
As discussed above, we recognize that the 11 events involved items that did not pose a
significant radiological hazard. However, as discussed above, the NRCs Public Radiation
Safety Significance Determination Process considers the extent to which you have formal and
systematic controls in place to prevent radioactive material from entering the public domain.
Thus, public confidence in your program to control radioactive material is an implicit feature of
this process. This aspect was recognized by both the industry and the NRC during the
development of the Public Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process. Accordingly, it
was the intent of this SDP to capture as "events" examples such as the ones which are the
subject of this case even though the potential for public exposure from these items represented
a very small fraction of the public dose limit.
Therefore, after carefully considering the information developed during the inspection, and the
information you provided at the conference, the NRC has concluded that the inspection finding
is appropriately characterized as White, an issue with low to moderate importance to safety
which may require additional NRC inspection.
You have 10 business days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff's determination of
significance for the identified White finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only
if they meet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.
The NRC has also determined that allowing items with detectable activity out of the RCA
constituted a violation of Technical Specification 5.4.1.a., as cited in the attached Notice of
Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the
subject inspection report. The enclosed Notice describes only nine examples of the violation of
Technical Specification 5.4.1.a because two of the 11 examples were already documented as
non-cited violations in previous NRC inspection reports. In accordance with the NRC
Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, the Notice of Violation is considered escalated enforcement
action because it is associated with a White finding.
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.
Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory response
column, we will use the NRC Action Matrix in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0305 to
determine the most appropriate NRC response for this event. We will notify you, by separate
correspondence, of that determination.
TXU Electric -4-
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter
and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs
document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Ellis W. Merschoff
Regional Administrator
Docket Nos: 50-445, 50-446
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
cc w/Enclosure:
Roger D. Walker
Regulatory Affairs Manager
TXU Generation Company LP
P.O. Box 1002
Glen Rose, Texas 76043
George L. Edgar, Esq.
1800 M. Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
G. R. Bynog, Program Manager/
Chief Inspector
Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation
Boiler Division
P.O. Box 12157, Capitol Station
County Judge
P.O. Box 851
Glen Rose, Texas 76043
Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
TXU Electric -5-
John L. Howard, Director
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
TXU Electric -6-
Reactor Distribution w/RIDS codes
DISTRIBUTION:
RIDSSECYMAILCENTER
RIDSOCAMAILCENTER
RIDSEDOMAILCENTER
RIDSOEMAILCENTER
RIDSOGCMAILCENTER
RIDSNRROD
RIDSNRRADIP
RIDSOPAMAIL
RIDSOIMAILCENTER
RIDSOIGMAILCENTER
RIDSOCFOMAILCENTER
RIDSRGN1MAILCENTER
RIDSRGN2MAILCENTER
RIDSRGN3MAILCENTER
OEWEB
via e-mail:
Sanborn - GFS Wise - RXW
Merschoff - EWM Gwynn - TPG
Smith - KDS1 Maier - WAM
Henderson - BWH Brockman - KEB
Collins - EEC A Howell - ATH
Gody - ATG Shannon - MPS1
Powers - DAP Good - GMG
Graves - DNG Schwind - SCS
Michael Johnson, NRR Kathy Gibson, NRR
Steve Klementowicz, NRR Tim Frye, NRR
Holbrook - NBH OEMAIL
Scott Morris - OEDO Carole Austin - LCA
DOCUMENT NAME:CP2001-07-NOVw-cover-ltr-mps.wpd
SPH:PSB C:DRS/OPS D:ACES C:DRS/PSB C:DRP/A RC
SHANNON* GODY* SANBORN* GOOD* GRAVES* K. SMITH*
/RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/
02/04/02 02/04/02 02/08/02 02/08/02 02/01/02 02/11/02
A. HOWELL* CONGEL M. JOHNSON GWYNN MERSCHOFF
/RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/
02/12/02 02/14/02 02/14/02 2/21/02
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
TXU Electric Docket No. 50-445/446
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station License No. NPF-87/89
During an NRC inspection conducted between October 29 - November 8, 2001, a violation of
NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and
Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
Technical Specification 5.4.1.a states, in part, that written procedures shall be
established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures
recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978, Appendix A.
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.e.(4), recommends procedures for
contamination control.
Section 4.2.1 of Procedure RPI-213, "Survey and Release of Material and Personnel,"
Revision 8, states, in part, that the criteria for unconditional release from a
Radiologically Controlled Area is no detectable activity.
Contrary to the above, between January 24, 2000, and April 11, 2001, the licensee
identified and documented nine instances in which items containing detectable activity
were unconditionally released from a radiologically controlled area. Each of these
instances was documented on a SMART form (SMF) and is referenced in NRC
Inspection Report 50-445/01-07; 50-446/01-07, Section 40A2c.
This violation is associated with a White significance determination process finding.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TXU Electric is hereby required to submit a written
statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document
Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, and
a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice of Violation
(Notice), within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be
clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include: (1) the reason for the
violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (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 may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence
adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the
time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the
license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be
proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to
extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component
of NRCs document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any
personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available
to the public without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If personal
privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please
provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be
protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request
withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that
you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g.,
explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for
withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described
in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you are required to post this Notice within two working days.
Dated this 21st day of February 2002