ML17054C077
| ML17054C077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1987 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC |
| References | |
| EA-87-045, EA-87-45, NUDOCS 8705060232 | |
| Download: ML17054C077 (62) | |
Text
April 28, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT:
As indicated by Region I, the violations taken collectively indicate an underlying weakness in the Management Control of these activities.
To preclude continued poor performance in these
- areas, escalated enforcement is appropriate in this case.
NRR concurs in the enforcement action proposed by Region I.
Minor editorial changes are attached as Enclosure.
James Lieberman, Director DISTRIBUTION Office of Enforcement L~
NRCPDR--P; Starcher FROM:
Frank Miraglia, Associate Director PDI-1 Rdg.
for Projects CVogan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BBenedict RCapra ENFORCEMENT ACTION 87-45, NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 1 BBoger FMiraglia The NRR staff has reviewed the enclosed proposed Enforcement Action 87-45 which includes a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
The proposed enforcement action is based on the results of three inspections of Unit 1 during August and September 1986.
These inspections revealed violations in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, quality assurance, and radiation protection.
Region I has classified the inspection results, in the aggregate, as a single Severity Level III violation with no mitigation of the base civil penalty.
Mitigation was rejected by Region I because the violations were discovered by the NRC as the result of allegation, the licensee's corrective actions were neither prompt nor extensive, and a declining SALP performance in the areas that were identified as violations in the inspection reports.
Origanal signed by Zrauh J. Mf.ra815.a
Enclosure:
As stated Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
R. Benedict, x29735
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PDI-1 BBenedict*
4/27/87 PDI-1 CVogan*
4/23/87 4
/87 8705060 CK 050 022 OaSa 870~as PDR ADO pDR 8
PDI-1 RCapra*
4/27/87 RPI oger 4/Z7/87 Sva 87
)
i If M
M 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT:
As indicated by Region I, the violations taken collectively indicate an underlying weakness in the Management Control of these activities.
To preclude continued poor performance in these areas, escalated enforcement is appropriate in this case.
NRR concurs in the enforcement action proposed by Region I.
Minor editorial changes are attached as Enclosure.
James Lieberman, Director D ISTR IBUTION Office of Enforcement NRCPDR FROM:
Frank Miraglia, Associate Director PDI-1 Rdg.
for Projects CVogan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BBenedict RCapra ENFORCEMENT ACTION 87-45, NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 1 BBoger FMirag 1 ia The NRR staff has reviewed the enclosed proposed Enforcement Action 87-45 which includes a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
The proposed enforcement action is based on the results of three inspections of Unit I during August and September 1986.
These inspections revealed violations in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, quality assurance, and radiation protection.
Region I has classified the inspection results, in the aggregate, as a single Severity Level III violation with no mitigation of the base civil penalty.
Mitigation was rejected by Region I because the violations were discovered by the NRC as the result of allegation, the licensee's corrective actions were neither prompt nor extensive, and a declining SALP performance in the areas that were identified as violations in the inspection reports.
Enclosure:
As stated Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
R. Benedict, x29735 PDI-1 CVogan*
4/23/87
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PDI-1~
BBenedict 4/27/87 Q~
PDI-I RCapr a 4/&/87 AD:DRPI+&8 AD:DRP BBoger FMiraglia 4/
/87 4/
/87
Ih c
t W
J
'(
N II a
II
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT:
James Lieberman, Director DISTRIBUTION Office of Enforcement NRCPDR FROM:
Frank Miraglia, Associate Director PDI-I Rdg.
for Projects CVogan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BBenedict RCapra ENFORCEMENT ACTION 87-45, NINE MILE POINT, UNIT I BBoger FMiraglia The NRR staff has reviewed the enclosed proposed Enforcement Action 87-45 which includes a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
The proposed enforcement action is based on the results of three inspections of Unit I during August and September 1986.
These inspections revealed violations in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, quality assurance, and radiation protection.
Region I has classified the inspection results, in the aggregate, as a single Severity Level III violation with no mitigation of the base civil penalty.
Mitigation was rejected by Region I because the violations were discovered by the NRC as the result of allegation, the licensee's corrective actions were neither prompt nor extensive, and a declining SALP performance in the areas that were identified as violations in the inspection reports.
As indicated by Region I, the violations taken collectively indicate an underlying weakness in the Management Control of these activities.
To preclude continued poor performance in these areas escalated enforcement is appropriate in this case.
NRR concurs in the enforcement action proposes by Region I.
Enclosure:
As stated Frank Miraglia,- Associate Director for Projects Office of, Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
B. Benedict, x29735 PDI-1 CVogan 4/Q/87 PDI-I BBenedict 4/
/87 PDI-I RCapra 4/
/87 AD:DRPI/II AD:DRP BBoger FMiraglia 4/
/87 4/
/87
t I
R k
It}
)M
'l C'
Ijth-Jt
'M It It,,
I
~
'I I
I lt I't
't}
M
)I)
I)
I '}
I M
tk 1
M M
M I'
I RM'I
)
$ }h II I~
I I
hl R I'l
)
h MI,
(
'l I
R I
t It
)I
Docket No. 50-220 License No.
DPR-63 EA 87-Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. C. V. Mangan Senior Vice President 301 Plainfield Road Syracus'e, New York 13212 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC Inspection Nos. 50-220/86-13; 50-220/86-16; 50-220/86-17)
This refers to three NRC inspections conducted between August 4 and September 19, 1986 at Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, Scriba, New York.
The inspection reports were sent to you on September 30, 1986, December 18,
- 1986, arid January 20, 1987, respectively.
Two of the inspections, including a
special team inspection conducted on August '25-29. were conducted in response to several allegations made to this office concerning the areas of maintenance, surveillance, operations, quality assurance and radiation protection at Unit l.
Duriiig the inspection, some of the allegations we;e substantiated and several violations of NRC requirements were identified, including violations unrelated to the allegations.
On February 19,
- 1987, an enforcement conference was con-ducted with you and members of youi'staff to discuss the violations, their causes and your corrective actions.
The violations are described in the enclosed Notice.
Collectively, the violations indicate underlying weaknesses 'in management
,control of activities at Uiiit 1.
In particular, (1) problems identified by your staff are not always brought to the attention of management for resolu-tion; (2) problems are not adequately analyzed to determine their underlying causes; (3) corrective actions taken for identified problems lack thoroughness and a~pth; and (4) the equal ity Assurance Department has not been effective in assisting the leone organizations in identifying and correcting problems.
These weaknesses further demonstrate an apparent complacent attitude among'certain members of your staff which may have contributed to declining performance and Par Q,'an increase in the number of operational problems at Unit 1, as indicated in
~mt't the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Board Report sent to you on iJe<4;P February 27, 1987.
44w '2 s
The violations also indicate that your system for resolving employee concerns was inadequate in that the alleger had.discussed his concerns with supervision prior to contacting the NRC, but timely and effective actiori was not taken to analyze and resolve these concerns.
To emphasize the need for (1) timely and effective resolution of problems raised by emp1'oyees, and (2) complete and t:horough actions to correct their underlying weaknesses, I have been
authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Yiolation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the violations described in the enclosea Notice.
The violations have been classified in the aggregate at Severity Level III in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986)
Although the escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered, 'mitigation of the civil penalty was deemed inappropriate because
~(1) the violations were in part identified by the NRC in response to an alle-gation; and, (2) the corrective actions were neither prompt nor unusually ccomprehensive.
Another issue, 'concerning the inservice test program, was also discussed at the enforcement conference, is currently being reviewed by the'taff and will be handled by separate correspondence.
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and, in preparing your
- response, yuu should follow the instructions specified sn the Notice.
In your
- response, you should document the specific actions taken or planned to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response xo the Notice, including your pro-posed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of management and Budget, otherwise requ'>red by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Hurley Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc:
See Next Page
cc w/encl:
T. E. Lempges, Vice President, Nuclear Generation J.
A. Perry, Vice President, guality Assurance T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation W. Hansen, Manager of guality Assurance T.
Roman, Station Superintendent J. Aldrich, Supervisor, Operations W. Drews, Technical Superintendent Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esquire John W. Keib, Esquire Director, Power Division Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safevy Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of New York bcc w/encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
DPR Section Chief Robert J. Bores, DRSS SECY CA J. Taylor, IE A. Beach, IE T. Murley, RI H. Denton, NRR D. Holody, RI J.
Lieberman, OGC J. Sniezek, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors RII-III Enforcement Officers RIV-RV F. Ingram, PA J.
- Crooks, AEOD B. Hayes, OI S. Connelly, OIA D. Nussbaumer, OSP IE/ES File IE/EA File EDO Rdg File DCS Office of State Programs
~
~
NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Hi.le Point, Unit 1 Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 EA 87-During three NRC inspections conducted between August 4 and September 19,
- 1986, two of which were conducted in response to allegations received by the NRC, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penal'ursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C.
- 2282, PL 96-295, and
The particular violation and its associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I.
VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE'MAINTENANCE, SURVEILLANCE TESTING, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures and administrative policies bc established, implemented and maintained
<<that meet or exceed the requirements and recommendations of Sections
- 5.1 and 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1972.
1Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N18.7-1972.</br></br>1" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
ANSI Standard N18.7, Section 5.1.6 specifies that a maintenance program be developed to maintain safety-related equipment at the quality required to perform its intended function.
The main-te>>ance program shall include:
proper preplanning and perfonn-Pance of maintenance in accordance with written instructions or procedures that incorporate appropriate vendor manual informa-tion; documented permission by responsible operating personnel to release equipment for work; and post-mainte>>ance
- review, testing and return to service to verify functional acceptabi-lity.
Contrary to the above, on August 21, 1986, maintenance was performed on safety related equipment, namely, the Control Rod Drive (CRD) hydraulic control unit scram inlet and outlet valves, without establishment and implementation of appropriate written procedures for conducting this maintenance.
Specifi-cally, the packing for the valves was tightened without proper approval of shift supervision, without proper preplanning and written instructions, and without any post-maintenance testing.
~
~
2.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure Nl-ISP-25.7, entitled "Feedwater Isolation Check Yalves Leak Rates Tests," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires that the local leak rate tests on feedwater check valves be performed by cycling and closing the isolation valve, draining the area
'etween the inboard isolation valve and outboard check valve, and connecting the test apparatus and pressurizing the cavity to 35.5 psig.
Contrary to the above, in April 1986,'a local leak rate test was
.performed on feedwater check valves by pressurizing the cavity
,using 100 psig air to seat the valves, although not spe'c1fied in
,the procedure, and without evaluating its effect on the validity
.of the test.
3.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure Nl-IMP-LPRM-1, entitled "LPRM Cable Connector Maintenance Procedure," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires that only Amphenol Type SMA connectors be used during any maintenance involving the replacement of LPRM connectors.
Contrary to the above, during maintenance conducted in July 1986,,two LPRM Amphenol SMA connectors were replaced with
~'Amphenol Type BNC connectors.
4.
Administrative Procedure AP-8.4, entitled "Procedure for Control and Calibration of Equipment Used in Tests and Inspections",
Section 6.3.1, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972,
- requires, in part, that each responsible super-visor shall maintain, for each measuring and test device on his inventory, a calibration record consisting of either a calibra-tion furnished by the off site calibration agency or an inplant calibration data sheet.
5.
Contrary to the above, on April 16,
- 1985, a Transmation Minitemp Calibrator (Serial Number 18947), listed on the inventory of the Instrument and Con ol (IEC) Department Supervisor, was cali-brated off sit an as of September 18, 1986, the onsi te ISC Department Supervisor, the responsible supervisor, did not maintain a current calibrazion report for the Transmation iMinitemp Calibrator.
Administrative Procedure AP-8.4, entitled, "Procedure for Control and Calibration of Equipment Used in Tests and Inspec-tions", Section 6.3.2, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires, in part, that each piece of measuring and test equipment~under the jurisdiction of the Meter and Test (MATE) Department and subject to use at intervals between periodic calibrations, shall be accompanied by a protected log sheet which shall be used to log all devices calibrated or
.vested by NTE equipment during the period between NTE calibrations.
Contrary to the above, a.
On November 4, 1985, a Gould recorder (Serial Number 1155) under the jurisdiction of the MSTE Department was used on
,at least thirteen instances to perform timing tests on scram valves, and this usage was not recorded on a
'protected log sheet; and b.'s of September 18, 1986,~recorder modules (RMS, DC,
,frequency, etc.)i'were individually calibrated and inter-
>changeably used among several recorder units, and this jusage was riot recorded on a protected log sheet.
6.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedures Nl-ST-Q3, entitled "HPCI Pump Operability Test." and Nl-ST-1C5, entitled "HPCI Surveil-lance with Inoperable Component Test," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, specifies the acceptance criteria to be used during the performance of surveillance testing of the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) pumps to demonstrate operability of these pumps in accordance with Technical Specification 4. 1.8.b and c.
Contrary to the above, on July 14, 1986, during a surveillance
- test to demonstrate HPCI pump operability, the HPCI flow accep-tance criteria were revised and used without being incorporated
- .into the applicable test procedures, and the procedures were
,not used during the performance of surveillance testing.
7.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure N1-ST-C3, entitled "Automatic Startup of HPCI System," Section 8.0, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires, as part of restart activities following an outage, that the Feedwater (HPCI) System and Condensate System "return to service" alignments be recorded on the procedure Data Sheet.
Contrary to she above, on June 18, 1986.
as part of restart activities following an outage,:Procedure Nl-ST-C3 was signed off as complete without the Feedwater (KPCI) System and Con-
.densate System "return to service" alignments being recorded on the procedure Data Sheet.
8.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure N1-ST-Q6, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, entitled "Containment Spray and Raw Water Pumps Operability Test", established to verify operability in accordance with Technical Specification 4.3.7(c),
sets forth, in Section 8.3.b.(4) an acceptable range for observed Raw Water Pump No. 121'motor current.
Contrary to the above, on August 14,
- 1986, as part of restart activities following an outage, Procedure Nl-ST-Q6 was completed and signed off as satisfactory and the observed Raw Water Pump
.No..121 motor current was outside the acceptable range.
9.
Administrative Procedure 5.0, entitled "Procedure for Repair,"
written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, provides instructions and requirements for the restoration of safety related
- systems, struct'urus and components following maintenance.
The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),Section IX 3. 1, provides requirements for main-tainiiig physical separation of electrical equipment.
Contrary to the above, on September 15, 1986, restoration of safety related systems was inadequate in that (a) three steel panel fsolatfoii barriers<which separate nonsafety related and safety related equfpmerrt and wiring within Remote Shutdown Panel
.No. lower~ not refnstalled upon completion of in-progress or iimproperly completed rrrafntenance activities; and (b) five con-itrol switch covers, four relay covers and a spare instrument were not reinstalled after maintenance as specified in FSAR Section IX 3.1.
10.
Administrative Procedure 8.5, entitled, "Housekeeping and Cleanliness Contract," written to satisfy the requireii~nts of ANSI 18.7-1972, provides housekeeping and cleanl fness requir~ments for maintaining acceptable fire protection, equipment protection, and housekeep fng conditions, and also
- requires, in part,+hat trash and rubbish should not be present in+or on top ofgenergfzed swftchgear, fristrument racks or control cabinets.
Contrary to the above, as of September 18, 1986, loose nuts, bolts, relay covers, switch covers, various loose hardware and
'trash were present in the Recirculation Pump Motor Generator Field Breaker Cubscles arid the Remote Shutdown Panels.
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III,.Oesfgn Control, requires> fn part, that measures be establisheo io assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis for those structures,
- systems, and components for which this appendix applies are correctly translated into drawiiigs.
These measures shall include the establishment of procedures for review, approval,
- release, distribution, and revision of documents involving design interfaces.
Administrative Procedure APN-9, entitled "Procedure For Station Permanent dnd Temporary Modifications and Replacement,"
Sectioris 5.3. I arid 5.3.4, require that drawings reflecting plant modifications be prepared arid delivered to the Station Superintendent iri a timely manner.
Contrary to the above, 1.
In 1984, a Plant Modification (No. 84-36) was made to the wiring for Anticipated Transierit Mithout Scram (ATMS) Panel No. 1S48,.
Q~t> -end as of September 12, 1986, the associated wiring diagram (No.C-34122-C/1),;did not accurately reflect the Modification.
c m
2.
On September 17, 1986, the latest available wiring diagram (No. C-3481C, Sheet 5, Revision 0, and Sheet 6, Revision
- 1) for the, Remote Shutdown Panels did not reflect the as-installed
.wiring configuration in that ten wiring configurations were Iifferen indicated on the diagram.
rOm thoSe II.
VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED.MITH THE'RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM A.
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires, in part, that each licensee make or cause to be made such surveys as may be necessary to comply with 10 CFR
- 20. 101 and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
10 CFR 20.201(a) defines a survey as, among other items, an evaluation of the radia-tion hazards incident to the presence of sources of radiation.
Contrary to the above, Although an Instrument and Control (IKC) technician's pocket
,dosimeter went off-scale while performing maintenance on local
'power range monitors under the reactor vessel on April 28,
- 1986, the individual reentered the area and performed additional work under the vessel, without performing an ev luation to ~eter-mine the cause of the off-"scale reading and without ensuring that the limits.set forth in 10 CFR 20.
01 were not exceeded; and 2.
On April 29, 1986, the 15C technician also performed maintenance on local power range monitors (LPRH) under the reactor vessel and prior to this work, an adequate survey was not performed in
,thai the radiation levels emanating from control rod drive (CRD)
,flanges in that area were not determined.
As a result, the technician unknowingly worked with his head resTing against, a
CRD flange where radia ion levels on contact were as high as 1200 millirem/hou ; an B.
10 CFR 19. 12 requires that individuals working in a restricted area be kept informed of the storage, transfer, or use of radioactive materials or of radiation, and in precautions to minimize exposure.
Contrary to the above, on April 29,
- 1986, an 15C technician working under the reactor vessel was not provided precautions to minimize exposure in that the worker was not instructed to avoid an area above the CRD flanges which had not been surveyed.
C.
Technical Specification 6. 11 requires, in part, that procedures for personnel radiation protection be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and be adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation 'exposure.
I.
Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-5, entitlea "Radiation and Radio-active Contamination Control," Revision 4, Section 19, requires that a Radiological Occurrence Report be issued for uncontrolled personnel radiation exposure which has significant radiological consequences.
Contrary to the above, on April 28 and 29, 1986, an I8C tech-nician received an uncontrolled raaiation exposure while working under the reactor vessel, as eviaenced by off-scale dosimetry
- readings, and Radiological Occurrence Report&ere not issued in
~ither case.
2.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-2, entitled "Radiation Wor k Permit Procedure,"
Revision 4, Section 7.7 requires that the Leadman ensure that the instructions of a Radiation Work Permit (RWP) are strictly followed.
Contrary to the above, on April 29, 1986, an ISC technician, also designated as the Leadman, entered the area under the ireactor vessel and the individual did not wear extremity
.:dosimetry prescribed by RWP No. 2043.
3.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-1, entitled "Access and Radiological Control" Revision 5, Section 5.6.4 requires that personnel zero their own dosimeters when accumulated radiation exposure is such that anticipated exposure could result in an off-scale reading.
Contrary to the above, on April 28, 1986,,an ISC technician, whose dosimeter indicated an accumulated radiation exposure of
,300 millirem, did not zero his dosimeter prior to entering an area under the reactor vessel where anticipated exposure could
-~resu'It in an off-scale reading, as evidenced by the fact that
,the dosimeter went off-scale during the work.
4.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RTP-7, entitled "Issuing and Collecting Dosimetry Devices (TLDs, Film Badges, Neutron
- Badges, and Finger Rings)", Revision 6, Section 4, requires that whole body dosimetry be turned in to Dosimetry Personnel whenever extremity dosimetry is returned.
Contrary to the above, on April 28,
- 1986, an ISC technician returned his extremity dosimetry.to Dosimetry Personnel but did
<not turn sn his whole body film badge at the same, time.
5.
Nine Nile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RRI-12, entitled "Sending Special Records to Landauer," Revision 0, Section 4
requires that dosimetry devices be submitted to the vendor for processing in the event of a potentially high exposure.
Contrary to the above, on April 28,
- 1986, an I&C technician's pocket dosimeter went off-scale while the technician was working under the reactor vessel, thereby indicating a potentially high
- exposure, and his film badge was not submitted to the vendor for processing.
D.
Technical Specification 6.12. 1 requires, in part, that each individual or group of individuals permitted to enter areas with radiation levels greater than 100 mrem/hour be provided with or accompanied by one or more of the following:
a.
A radiation monitoring device which continuously indicates the radiation dose rate in the ar ea.
b.
A radiation monitoring device which radiation dose rate in the area and integrated dose is received.
Entry monitoring aevice may be made after have been established and personnel knowledgeable of them.
continuously integrates the alarms when a preset into such areas with this the. dose rates in the area have been made c.
An individual qualified in radiation protection, with a radiation dose rate monitoring device, who is responsible for providing positive control over the activities within the area, shall perform periodic radiation surveillance at the frequency specified by the Radiation Protection Supervisor or designated in the Radiation Work Permit.
Contrary to the above, on April 29,
- 1986, an I&C technician entered an area under the reactor vessel and performed work on LPRNs with the upper part of this body above the Control Rod Drive (CRD) flanges where the radiation level was as high as 1200 mr em/hr on contact, and the technician was not provided h
a continuously indicatit~g or continuously integrating devic nor was he accompanied by an
-individual qualified in radiation protection to perform periodic surveillance at the frequency specified on the RWP.
The violations set forth in Sections I and II have been classified in the aggregate at Severity Level III.
(Supplements I and IV)
Civil Penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations).
0
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of
- Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a
written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted,
- 3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved,
- 4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is riot received within the time specified in this Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Eriforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the i>cense should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the some time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and 'Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Should Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above.
Should Niagara Mohawk Poier Corporation elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such aiiswer may:
(I) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in
- part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed.
Any wr'nswer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separate rom the statement or explanation in reply pursuant zo 10 CFR 2.201, but y incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers to avoid repetition.
The attention of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a
civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently deter-mined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General~ed the penalty, unless compromised,
~
remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Hurley Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this day of April 1987
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION NEW EA FILE COPIES FOR:
REVIEWER BEACH TAYLOR LICENSE LIEBERMAN {OGC)
JORDAN PARTLOM GRIHES
- SNI EZEK RCUNNINGHAM(NESS )
HOLAHAN(NRR)
RBURNETT(ASS)
Thank You, A.'Beach, Deputy Director Enforcement Staff IF YOU HAVE COt%ENTS, PLEASE CONTACT REVIEMER OR A.
BEACH WITHIN FIVE (5)
,DAYS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
\\
Document Name:
CP PKG NINE MILE Requestor's ID:
BETTY Author's Name:
Holody Document Comments:
HEMORANDUH FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James H. Taylor, Director, IE Thomas E. Hurley, Regional Administrator, RI PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY - NINE NILE POINT, UNIT 1 Enclosed for your review and concurrence is a proposed enforcement action (letter and "Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty" ) for violations in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, quality assurance and radiation protection identified during'three inspections at Nine Hile Point, Unit 1 during August and Seprember, 1986.
Two of the inspections, including a
special team inspection, were conducted in response to allegations made to this office concerning these programs.
During the inspections, some of the allega-tions were substantiated and several violations of NRC requirements were iaentified, including violations unrelated to the allegations.
The violations, when considered collectively, indicate underlying weaknesses in management control of the facility, as described in detail in the enclosed proposal.
Accordingly, the violations have been categorized in the aggregate at Security Level III and a
$50,000 civil penalty is proposed.
Although the licensee's recent enforcement history prior to the inspection was good, as evidenced by Category 1 rating in all SALP functional areas except maintenance for the SALP period May 1, 1984 through October 31, 1985, mitigation of the civil penalty was deemed inappropriate because (1) the violations were not identified by the licensee, but were identified in part in response to the al-legations, (2) the licensee's corrective actions were neither prompt nor unusually extensive, and (3) the more recent SALP Board Report indicates de-clining performance in areas that are the subject of these violatiuns.
Please note that this memo and Enclosure 1 are being sent on this date to you, the Director of Enforcement, IE, and OGC via the 5520.
Enclosures 2,
3 and 4, the inspection reports, were previously sent to the Director of Enforcement on February 4, 1987 for use by Pat Hi lano of the IE Enforcement Staff who attended the enforcement conference.
Thomas E. Hurley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
Letter and "Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty" 2.
Inspection Report 50-220/86-13 3.
Inspection Report 50-220/86-16 4.
Inspection Report 50-220/86-17
cc w/encls:
Enforcement Directors, RII-RIII Enforcement Officers, RIV-RV B. Beach, IE J.
Lieberman, OGC K. Abraham, PAO
Docket No. 50-220 License No.
DPR-63 EA 87-Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. C.
V. Mangan Senior Vice President 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC Inspection Nos. 50-220/86-13; 50-220/86-16; 50-220/86-17)
This refers to three NRC inspections conducted between August 4 and September 19, 1986 at Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, Scriba, New York.
The inspection reports were sent to you on September 30, 1986, December 18,
- 1986, arid January 20, 1987, respectively.
Two of the inspections, including a
special team inspection conducted on August 25-29, were conducted iii response to several allegations made to this office concerning the areas of maintenance, surveillance, operations, quality assurance and radiation protection at Unit 1.
During the inspection, some of the allegations were substantiated and several violations of NRC requirements were identified, including violations unrelated to the allegations.
On February 19,
- 1987, an enforcement conference was con-ducted with you and members of you staff to discuss xhe violations, their causes and your corrective actions.
The violations are described in the enclosed Notice.
Collectively, the violations indicate under lying weaknesses in management control of activities at Uiiit 1.
In particular, (1) problems identified by your staff are not always brought to the attention of management for resolu-tion; (2).problems are not adequately analyzed to determine their underlying causes; (3) corrective actions taken for identified problems lack thoroughness and a~pth; and (4) the guality Assurance Department has not been effective in assisting the leone organizations in identifying and correcting problems.
These weakresses further demonstrate an apparent complacent atti tude among certain members of your staff which may have contributi=d to declining performance and an increase in the number of operational problems at Unit 1, as indicated in the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Board Report sent to you on February 27, 1987.
The violations also indicate that your system for resolving employee concerns was inadequate in that the alleger had discussed his concerns with supervision prior to contacting the NRC, but timely and effective actioii was not taken to analyze and resolve these concerns.
To emphasize the need for (1) timely and effective resolution of problems raised by employees, and (2) complete and chorough actions to correct their underlying weaknesses, I have been
authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the violations described in the enclosea Notice.
The violations have been classified in the aggregate at Severity Level III in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986)
Although the escalation and mitigatson factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered, mitigation of the civil penalty was deemed inappropriate because (1) the violations were in part identified by the NRC in response to an alle-gation; and, (2) the corrective actions were neither prompt nor unusually comprehensive.
Another issue, concerning the inservice test program, was also discussed at the enforcement conference, is currently being reviewed by the staff and will be handled by separate correspondence.
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and, in preparing your
- response, yuu should follow the instructions specified 1n the Notice.
In your
- response, you should document the specif>c actions taken or planned to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response to the Notice, including your pro-posed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, a copy of this letter and its enclosure wi'll be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of management and Budget, otherwise required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Hurley Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc:
See Next Page
0
cc w/encl:
T. E. Lempges, Vice President, Nuclear Generation J.
A. Perry, Vice President, guality Assurance T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation W. Hansen, Manager of quality Assurance T.
Roman, Station Superintendent J. Aldrich, Supervisor, Operations W. Drews, Technicdl Superintendent Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esquire John W. Keib, Esquire Director, Power Division Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety" Information Center (NSIC)
HRC Resident Inspector State of Hew York bcc w/encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
DPR Section Chief Robert J. Bores, DRSS SECY CA J. Taylor, IE A. Beach, IE T. Murley, RI H. Denton, NRR D. Holody, RI J. Lieberman, OGC J.
- Sniezek, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors RII-III Enforcement Officers RIV-RV F. Ingram, PA J. Crooks, AEOD B. Hayes, OI S. Connelly, OIA D. Nussbaumer, OSP IE/ES File IE/EA File EDO Rdg File DCS Office of State Programs
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 EA 87-During three NRC inspections conducted between August 4 and September 19,
- 1986, two of which were conducted in response to allegations received by the NRC, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C.
- 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violation and its associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I.
VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAINTENANCE, SURVEILLANCE TESTING, AND EQUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS A.
Technical Specification 6.8. 1 requires thai written procedures and administrative policies b~ established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements and recommendations of Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1972.
1Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N18.7-1972.</br></br>1" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
ANSI Standard N18.7, Section 5.1.6 specifies that a maintenance program be developed to maintain safety-related equipment at the quality required to perform its intended function.
The main-tenance program shall include:
proper preplanning and perfor-mance of maintenance in accordance with written instructions or procedures that incorporate appropriate vendor manual informa-tion; documented permission by responsible operating personnel to release equipment for wor k; and post-maintenanc~
- review, testing and return to service to verify functional acceptabi-1 ity.
Contrary to the above, on August 21, 1986, maintenance was performed on safety related equipment,
- namely, the Control Rod Drive (CRD) hydraulic control unit scram inlet and outlet valves, without establishment and implementation of appropriate written procedures for conducting this maintenance.
Specifi-cally, the packing for the valves was tightened without proper approval of shift supervision, without pr oper preplanning and written instructions, and without any post-maintenance testing.
2.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure Nl-ISP-25.7, entitled "Feedwater Isolation Check Yalves Leak Rates Tests," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires that the local leak rate tests on feedwater check valves be performed by cycling and closing the isolation valve, draining the area between the inboard isolation valve and outboard check valve, and connecting the test apparatus and pressurizing the cavity to 35.5 psig.
Contrary to the above, in April 1986, a local leak rate test was performed on feedwater check valves by pressurizing the cavity using 100 psig air to seat the valves, although not spe'c'ified in the procedure, and without evaluating its effect on the validity of the test.
3.
Nine Mile Nuclear Statiori Procedure Nl-IMP-LPRM-l, entitled "LPRM Cable Connector Maintenance Procedure," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires that only Amphenol Type SMA connectors be used during any maintenance involving the replacement of LPRM connectors.
Contrary to the above, during maintenance conducted in July 1986, two LPRM Amphenol SMA connectors were replaced with Amphenol Type BNC connectors.
4.
Administrative Procedure AP-8.4, entitled "Procedure for Control and Calibration of Equipment Used in Tests and Inspections",
Section 6.3. 1, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires, in part, that each responsible super-visor shall maintain, for each measuring and test device on his inventory, a calibration record consisting of either a calibra-tion furnished by the off site calibration agency or an inplant calibration data sheet.
Contrary to the above, on April 16,
- 1985, a Transmation Minitemp Calibrator (Serial Number 18947), listed on the inventory of the Instrument and Control (I&C) Department Supervisor, was cali-brated off site, arid as of September 18, 1986, the onsite ISC Department Super visor, the responsible supervisor, did not maintain a current calibration report for the Transmation Minitemp Calibrator.
5.
Administrative Procedure AP-8.4, entitled, "Procedure for Control and Calibration of Equipment Used in Tests and Inspec-tions", Section 6.3.2, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972,
- requires, in part, that each piece of measuring and test equipment under the jurisdiction of the Meter and Test (NTE) Department and subject to use at intervals between periodic calibrations, shall be accompanied by a protected log sheet which shall be used to log all devices calibrated or tested by MSTE equipment during the period between M&TE calibrations.
Contrary to the above, On November 4, 1985, a Gould recorder (Serial Number 1155) under the jurisdiction of the M&TE Department was used on at least thirteen instances to perform timing tests on scram valves, and this usage was not recorded on a
protected log she~t; and b.
as of September 18, 1986, recorder modules (RMS, DC, frequency, etc.)
were individually calibrated and inter-changeably used among several recorder units, and this usage was riot recorded on a protected log sheet.
6.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedures Nl-ST-g3, entitled "HPCI Pump Operability Test," and N1-ST-1C5, entitled "HPCI Surveil-lance with Inoperable Component Test," written to sati'sfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, specifies the acceptance criteria to be used during th~ performance of surveillance testing of the High Pressure Coolant Injectioii (HPCI) pumps to demonstrate operability of these pumps in accordance with Technical Specification 4. 1.8.b arid c.
Contrary to the above, on July 14, 1986, during a surveillance test to demonstrate HPCI pump operability, the HPCI flow accep-tance criteria were revised and used without being incorporated into the applicable test procedures, and the procedures were not used during the performance of surveillance testing.
7.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure Nl-ST-C3, entitled "Automatic Startup of HPCI System,"
Section 8.0, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, requires, as part of restart activities following an outage, that the Feedwater (HPCI) System and Condensate System "return to service" alignments be recorded on the procedure Data Sheet.
Contrary to the above, on June 18,
- 1986, as part of restart activities following an outage, Procedure Nl-ST-C3 was signed off as complete without the Feedwater (HPCI) System and Con-densate System "return to service" alignments being recorded on the procedure Data Sheet.
8.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure N1-ST-(6, written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, entitled "Containment Spray and Raw Water Pumps Operability Test", established to verify operability in accordance with Technical Specification 4.3.7(c),
sets forth, in Section 8.3.b.(4) an acceptable range for observed Raw Water Pump No.
121 motor current.
Contrary to the above, on August 14,
- 1986, as par t of restart activities following an outage, Procedure Nl-ST-g6 was completed arid signed off as satisfactory and the observed Raw Water Pump No.
121 motor current was outside the acceptable range.
9.
Administrative Procedure 5.0, entitled "Procedure for Repair,"
written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, provides instructions and requirements for the restoration of safety related systems, structures and components following maintenance.
The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),Section IX 3. 1, provides requirements for main-taining physical separation of electrical equipment.
Contrary to the above, on September 15, 1986, restoration of safety related systems was inadequate in that (a) three steel panel isolation barriers which separate nonsafety related arid safety related equipmeiit and wiring within Remote Shutdown Panel No.
11 wer~ not reinstalled upon completion of in-progress or improperly completed Aiaintenance activities; and (b) five con-trol switch covers, four relay covers and a spare instrument were not reinstalled after maintenance as specified in FSAR Section IN 3. 1.
10.
Administrative Procedure 8.5, entitled, "Housekeeping and Cleanliness Contract," written to satisfy the requirements of ANSI 18.7-1972, provides housekeeping and cleanliness requirements for maintaining acceptable fire protection, equipment protection, and housekeeping conditions, and also
- requires, in part, that trash and rubbish should not be present in, or on top of, energized switchgear, iiistrument racks or control cabinets.
Contrary to the above, as of September 18,
- 1986, loose nuts, bolts, relay covers, switch covers, various loose hardware and trash were present in the Recirculation Pump Miotor Generator Field Breaker Cubscles arid the Remote Shutdown Panels.
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion III, Design Control, requires in part, that measures be established io assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis for those structures,
- systems, and components for which this appendix applies are correctly translated into drawiiigs.
These measures shall include the establishment of procedures for review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of documents involving design interfaces.
Administrative Procedure APN-9, entitled "Procedure For Station Permanent and Temporary Modifications and Replacement,"
Sectioris 5.3. 1 arid 5.3.4, require that drawings reflecting plant modifications be prepared aiid delivered to the Station Superintendent in a timely manner.
Contrary to the above, l.
In 1984, a Plant Modification (No. 84-36) was made to the wiriiig for Anticipated Transierit Without Scram (ATWS) Panel No.
- 1S48, and as of September 12, 1986, the associated wiring diagram (No.C-34122-C/I) did not accurately reflect the Modification.
'I
2.
On September 17, 1986, the latest available wiring diagram (No. C-3481C, Sheet 5, Revision 0, and Sheet 6, Revision
- 1) for the Remote Shutdown Panels did not reflect the as-installed wiring configuration in that ten wiring configurations were different than indicated on the diagram.
II.
VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED MITH THE RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM A.
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires, in part, that each licensee make or cause to be made such surveys as may be necessary to comply with 10 CFR
- 20. 101 and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
10 CFR 20.201(a) defines a survey as, among other items, an evaluation of the radia-tion hazards incident to the presence of sources of radiation.
Contrary to the above, l.
Although an Instrument and Control (ISC) technician's pocket dosimeter went off-scale while performing maintenance on local power range monitors under the reactor vessel on April 28,
- 1986, the individual reentered the area and performed additional work under the vessel, without performing an evaluation to a deter-mine the cause of the off-scale reading, and without ensuring that the limits set forth in 10 CFR 20. 101 were not exceeded; and 2.
On April 29, 1986, the I&C technician also performed maintenance on local power range monitors (LPRN) under the reactor vessel, and prior to this work, an adequate survey was not performed in that the radiation levels emanating from control rod drive (CRD) flanges in that area were not determined.
As a result, the technician unknowingly worked with his head resving against a
CRD flange where radiation levels on contact were as high as 1200 millirem/hour; and B.
10 CFR 19. 12 requires that individuals working in a restricted area be kept informed of the storage,
- transfer, or use of radioactive materials or of radiation, and in precautions to minimize exposure.
Contrary to the above, on April 29, 1986, an 15C technician working under the reactor vessel was not provided precautions to minimize exposure in thar. the worker was not instructed to avoid an area above the CRD flanges which had not been surveyed.
C.
Technical Specification 6.11 requires, in part, that procedures for personnel radiation protection be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, and be adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
I
1.
Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-5, entitlea "Radiation and Radio-active Contamination Control," Revision 4, Section 19, requires that a Radiological Occurrence Report be issued for uncontrolled personnel radiation exposure which has significant radiological consequences.
Contrary to the above, on April 28 and 29,
- 1986, an ISC tech-nician received an uncontrolled raaiation exposure while working under the reactor vessel, as evidenced by off scale dosimetry
- readings, and Radiological Occurrence Reports were not issued in either cdsc.
2.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-2, entitled "Radiation Work Permit Procedure,"
Revision 4, Section 7.7 requires that the Leadman ensure that the instructions of a Radiation Work Permit (RWP) are strictly followed.
Contrary to the above, on April 29, 1986, an ISC technician, also designated as the Leadman, entered the area under the reactor vessel and the individual did not wear extremity dosimetry prescribed by RWP No. 2043.
3.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RP-1, entitled "Access and Radiological Control" Revision..5, Section 5.6.4 requires that personnel zero their own dosim'et'ers when accumulated radiation exposure is such that anticipated exposur~
could result in an off-scale reading.
Contrary to the above, on April 28,
- 1986, an ISC technician, whose dosimeter indicated an accumulated radiation exposure of 300 millirem, did not zero his dosimeter prior to entering an area under the reactor vessel where anticipated exposure could result in an off-scale reading, as evidenced by the fact that the dosimeter went off-scale during the work.
4.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RTP-7, entitled "Issuing and Collecting Dosimetry Devices (TLDs, Film Badges, Neutron
- Badges, and Finger Rings)", Revision 6, Section 4, requires that whole body dosimetry be turned in to Dosimetry Personnel whenever extremity dosimetry is returned.
Contrary to the above, on April 28, 1986, an ISC technician returned his extremity dosimetry to Dosimetry Personnel but did not turn sn his whole body film badge at the same time.
5.
Nine Mile Nuclear Station Procedure S-RRI-12, entitled "Sending Special Records to Landauer,"
Revision 0, Section 4
requires that dosimetry devices be submitted to the vendor for processing in the event of a potentially high exposure.
Contrary to the above, on April 28,
- 1986, an ISC technician's pocket dosimeter went off-scale while the technician was woi king under the reactor vessel, thereby indicating a potentially high
- exposure, and his film badge was not submitted to the vendor for processing.
D.
Technical Specification 6.12.1 requires, in part, that each individual or group of individuals permitted to enter areas with radiation levels greater than 100 mrem/hour be provided with or accompanied by one or more of the following:
a.
A radiation monitoring device which continuously indicates the radiation dose rate in the area.
b.
A radiation monitoring device which continuously integrates the radiation dose rate in the area and alarms when a preset integrated dose is received.
Entry into such areas with this monitoring device may be made after the, dose rates in the area have been established and personnel have been made knowledgeable of them.
c.
An individual qualified in radiation protection, with a radiation dose rate monitoring device, who is responsible for providing positive control over the activities within the area, shall perform periodic radiation surveillance at the frequency specified by the Radiation Protection Supervisor or designated in the Radiation Work Permit.
Contrary to the above, on April 29,
- 1986, an ISC technician entered an area under the reactor vessel and performed work on LPRMs with the upper part of this body above the Control Rod Drive (CRD) flanges where the radiation level was as high as 1200 mrem/hr on contact, and the technician was not provided with a continuously indicati~ig or continuously integrating device nor was he accompanied by an individual qualified in radiation protection to perform periodic surveillance at the frequency specified on the RWP.
The violations set forth in Sections I and II have been classified in the aggregate at Severity Level III.
(Supplements I and IV)
Civil Penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations).
~,'
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue; King of
- Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a
written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted,
'(3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
- achieved,
- 4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when-full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Should Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above.
Should Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may:
(1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in
- part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repeti'tion.
The attention of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a
civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently deter-mined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2282.
'OR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Nurlt:y Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania shis day of April 1987
1 I'