ML17304A796
| ML17304A796 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1988 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17304A794 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-88-182, NUDOCS 8812190178 | |
| Download: ML17304A796 (14) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES (Radi ological Controls)
Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3 Docket Nos.
50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, NPF-74 EA 88-182 During inspections conducted during the period of May 20 to October 12, 1988, violations of KRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.
- 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violations and associated civil penalties are set forth below:
VIOLATIONS ASSESSED CIVIL PENALTIES I.
A.'
10 CFR 20.101(b)(l) provides, in part:
"During any calendar quarter the total occupational dose to the whole body shall not exceed 3
rems."
Contrary to the above, on May 22-23, 1988, at Palo Verde Unit 2, an individual received a whole body dose of 2.607 rems which resulted in his receiving an accumulated whole body dose of 3. 209 rem for the second quarter of 1988.
B.
10 CFR 20.201(a) provides, in part:
"As used in. the regulations in this part 'survey'eans an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions."
10 CFR 20.201(b) provides in part:
"Each licensee shall make or cause to be made such surveys as (1) may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in this part, and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of the radiation hazards that may be present."
Contrary to the above, during May 22-23, 1988, at Palo Verde Unit 2, individuals performed maintenance activities involving work in the refueling cavity without making the necessary radiation survey to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20.101(b)(l).
Consequently, a worker received a reported accumulated dose to the whole body of 3.209 rem for the second quarter of 1988.
C.
Technical Specification 6.8.la. provides, in part:
"Written procedures shall be implemented covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978."
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7(e)(9),
requires procedures addressing implementation of an ALARA Program.
Licensee procedures established pursuant to TS 6.8.1a.
included the following requirements:
++ I215'()$ 7$
ps of~
PZ<R ADOCK 05000528 PDP.
1.
Procedure 75AC-9ZZ05, "ALARA Committee,"
Paragraph 5.2. 1, states that "the ALARA Committee should meet at least monthly at the discretion of the ALARA Committee Chairman."
2.
75RP-9ZZ94, "ALARA Pre-Job Review", states, in part:
"6.1.3.4 If the final man-rem estimate is less than 10, the ALARA Supervisor reviews final man-rem estimates and pre-job briefing checklists, as soon as practical.
6.1.3.5 6.1.4.5 If the final man-rem estimate is greater than 10, the ALARA Supervisor will complete the ALARA Evaluation Form (Appendix 0) and will forward both the Pre-job Review Form and the ALARA Evaluation Form to the Chairman of the ALARA Committee for final review and approval.
The ALARA Representative shall also perform a
fina') man"rem estimate.
If the estimate is 10 man-rem or greater, the pre-job review shall be forwarded to the ALARA Committee, by the ALARA Supervisor, for their review and approva)."
3.
75RP-9ZZ97, "ALARA Post-Job Review", states, in part:
"6. 1 The ALARA Supervisor shall determine whether a post-job review is required for jobs with exposures of 1.0 man-rem to
- 10. 0 man-rem.
Jobs with exposures of 10.0 man-'rem or more shall be reviewed and a presentation of the review shall be made to the ALARA Committee."
4.
75PR-9ZZ03, "ALARA Program," Section 5.9, states, in part:
"An annual evaluation of the ALARA Program's effectiveness shall be performed to ensure a continuing commitment to maintaining personnel radiation exposure ALARA.. The ALARA Supervisor shall be responsible for assimilating the information provided by the Radiological Services
- Manager, preparing the evaluation and making recommendations for program im'provement based on this information.
The PVNGS Plant Manager and the Vice President of Nuclear Production shall review and approve, as appropriate, the evaluation and any recommended improvements."
Contrary to the above procedural requirements:
1.
Monthly ALARA Committee Meetings had not been held during the period of March 1987 through July 1988.
2.
Ouring 1987, of 126 jobs requiring pre-job review and approval of the ALARA supervisor, approximately 61 were not reviewed and approved by the ALARA supervisor.
For 1988, of 73 jobs, 50 were not reviewed and approved by the ALARA supervisor.
3.
In 1987, two pre-job estimates of greater than 10 man-rem had not received the final review and approval of the ALARA Committee Chairman.
In addition, in the first seven months of
- 1988, two pre-job estimates of greater than 10 man-rem had not been reviewed and approved by the ALARA Committee Chairman.
4.
In 1987, eleven man-rem job estimates of greater than 10 man-rem were not reviewed and presented to the ALARA Committee.
In addition, in 1988 to the date of the inspection, eight man-rem estimates of greater than 10 man-rem, including the wor k performed by the individual who received an overexposure (see item II.A, above),
were not reviewed and presented to the ALARA Committee.
5.
In 1987, there were nine jobs with exposures in excess of 10 man-rem.
As of August 11, 1988, the post-job reviews had not been presented to the ALARA Committee.
6.
An annual evaluation of the ALARA Program's effectiveness was not performed in 1987.
0.
Technical Specification
- 6. 11. 1 requires procedures for personnel radiation protection to be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and to be approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
Procedure 75 RP-9ZZ44, "Radiation Exposure Permits,"
(REP) states, in part:
"6.4.1 The unit [Radiation Protection]
Manager or designee shall review the REP and determine whether an ALARA Review or Pre-Job briefing is required in accordance with 75 RP-9ZZ94.
6.4.2 If an ALARA Review is required and ALARA is unavailable, the RP Technician will complete an ALARA Pre-Job review to determine any dose reduction methods which could be used for that job."
Contrary 'to the above procedural requirements, at least four Unit 2 REP's (Nos.
2-88-0133A, dated July 1, 1988, 2-88-0134A, dated July 1, 1988, 2-88-01358, dated July 3, 1988, and 2-88-01120, dated August 31, 1988) requiring ALARA reviews were implemented for use and were in effect until October 3, 1988 without any completed ALARA reviews.
Collectively, these violations have been evaluated as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
Cumulative Civil Penalty -- $100,000 (assessed equally among the violations).
II.
A.
Technical Specification, Section 6.12.2, provides, in part:
"In addition to the requirements of Specification
- 6. 12. 1, areas accessible to personnel with radiation levels such that a major portion of the body could receive in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> a dose greater than 1000 mrem shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized
- entry, and the keys shall be maintained under the administrative control of the Shift Supervisor on duty and/or radiation protection supervision.
Doors shall remain locked except during periods of access by personnel under an approved REP which shall specify the dose rate levels in the immediate work area and the maximum allowable stay time for individuals in that area."
Contrary to the above, on June 27, 1988, an unlocked door at Palo Verde Unit 2 provided access to an area on the 100'o 120'evel of the Radwaste Building, High Level Drum Storage and Transfer Cart
- area, where the intensity of radiation was such that a major portion of the body could have received up to 3500 mrem in one hour.
B.
Technical Specification
- 6. 12. 1 states, in part:
"In lieu of the 'control device'r
'alarm signal'equired by paragraph 20.203(c)(2) of 10 CFR Part 20, each high radiation area in which the dose rate is greater than 100 mrem/hr but less than 1000 mrem/hr shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted."
Contrary to the above, on August 9, 1988, at Unit 2:
1.
A high radiation area consisting of the outlet end of the "A" Shutdown Heat exchanger, which had whole body radiation exposure levels of 140 mrem/hr at eighteen
- inches, was not barricaded.
2.
A high radiation area'onsisting of the Unit "B" Shutdown cooling valve, S1B-V910, with radiation levels of 120 mrem/hr at eighteen
- inches, was not conspicuously posted and one side was not barricaded.
3.
A high radiation area consisting of Shutdown Cooling valve, S1A"V172, and piping, EM-UV 65, with radiation levels of 150 mrem/hr at eighteen
- inches, was not conspicuou'sly
- posted, and two sides of the area were not barricaded.
C.
Technical Specification 6.11.1 requires procedures for personnel radiation protection to be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, and to be approved, maintained, and 'adhered to for 'all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
Procedure 75AC-9ZZOl, "Radiation Exposure and Access Control"
- states, in part:
"5. 1. 1 All personnel who enter the Radiological Controlled Area must read and sign-in on the appropriate REP.
By signing in they indicate they have read and understand the requirements and will comply.
Personnel shall read their appropriate REP prior to each entry to determine whether it has been revised."
2.
Radiation Exposure Permit No. 3-88-0008A, "Minor Work in Clean and Contaminated Areas," requires personnel covered by REP No.
3-88-0008A to "contact RP prior to start of work," and prohibits entry into high radiation and locked high radiation areas.
Contrary to the above procedural requirements:
1.
On September 8,
9 and 12, 1988, two contract Maintenance Electricians working under REP-3-88-0008A, without first contacting RP to inform RP that they were going to enter high radiation areas, entered the unlocked entrances to the High Activity Spent Resin Tank Room and the Waste Gas Decay Tank rooms, which were high radiation areas.
2.
On September 8, 1988, without first contacting RP to inform RP that he was going to enter high radiation areas, one contract Maintenance Electrician authorized to work under REP-3-88-0008A entered the Unit 3 High Activity Spent Resin Tank room, No.
R-125, a locked high radiation area.
Collectively, these violations have been evaluated as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $100,000 (assessed equally among the violations).
III. VIOLATION NOT ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY 1$ CFR 20.409(b) provides:
"When a 1icensee is requi'red pursuant to H 20.405 or 20.408 to report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation or radioactive material, the licensee shall also notify the individual.
Such notice shall be transmitted at a time not later than the transmittal to the Commission and shall comply with the provisions of 5 19. 13(a) of this chapter."
Contrary to the above, on June 22, 1988, the licensee submitted a letter to the Commission reporting the exposure. received on May 22-23, 1988 by an individual from NRC licensed material while working at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, but had not, as of that date, notified the individual of his exposure.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Arizona Public Service Company (Licensee),
is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation:
(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 result 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, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not
1
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 sha'Jl be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalties by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of the civil penalties proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or. in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalties will be issued.
Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations 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 penalties should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalties, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), 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 parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,
citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
The attention of the Licensee 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 subsequently has been determined 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.
2282c.
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalties, and answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California
- 94596, and a copy to Mr. T. Polich, Senior Resident Inspector, at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
FOR T E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dated at Phoenix, Arizona on this j day of December 1988.
h artin Regional Administrator
7 DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR SECY CA
- JTaylor, DEDRO JLieberman, OE
- BHayes, OI SConnel ly, OIA
- EJordan, AEOD
- TMurley, NRR
- TFoley, NRR EA File ES File State of Arizona DCS RV Distribution JMartin BFaulkenberry GCook AJohnson MBlume TPolich SRichards LHi1 le MSmith Yuhas JZollicoffer OE OE OGC JLuehman:drb EFlack LChandler 11/
/88 11/
/88 11/
/88 RA: RV JBMartin 11/
/88 D OE JLieberman 11/
/88
'REQUEST COPY ] REQUEST COPY ] REQUEST'OPY ] REQUEST COPY ] REQUEST COPY.]
YES /
NO YES /
NO YES /
NO YES /
NO YES /
NO
,DEDO JMTayl or 11/
/88 REQUEST COPY ]
YES /
NO SEND TO PDR
]
YES /
NO
0