ML19341C296
| ML19341C296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341C294 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-80-043, EA-80-43, NUDOCS 8103020672 | |
| Download: ML19341C296 (6) | |
Text
_-
O u"tTeo states or ^"satc^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Operating License No. OPR-73 Metropolitan Edison Company
)
Docket No. 50-320 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station
)
EA-80-43 Unit No. 2
)
100 Interpace Parkway
)
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
The Metropolitan Edison Company (the " licensee") is the holder of Operating License DPR-73 (tne " license") which authorizes operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 2772 megawatts tnermal (rated power).
The license was issued on February 8,1978.
However, c.he licensee's authority to operate the facility was suspended by Order for Modification of License dated July 20, 1979 after the incident which occurred at the facility on March 28, 1979.
The facility consists of a pressurized water moderated and cooled reactor (PWR), located at the licensee's site in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, three miles south of Middletown, Pennsylvania.
II Special inspections were conducted on March 17 through April 11, 1980 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station of events ittolving the transportation of radioactive liquid samples from the licensee's facility on February 6 and Maren 6, 1980, and on June 10, 1980 at Richland, Washington of events involving 8108020 M
-.m-mu the transportation of radioactive waste from the licensee's facility on June 6, 1980.
These inspections revealed that three of the licensee's activities were apparently not enducted in full compliance with NRC regulations.
A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 7,1980 specifying the items of noncompliance, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201. A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was concurrently served upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22S2) and 10 CFR 2.205, incorporating by reference the Notice of Violation, which stated the nature of the items of noncompliance and the provisions of NRC Regulations and license conditions.
A response, dated September 8, 1980, was received from the licensee on September 11, 1980.
In this response, the licensee acknowledged the noncompliances described in Items A and C of the Notice of Violation and enclosed a check in the amount of $5,000 in payment of the civil penalties associated with these items.
The licensee disputed Item 8, however.
t III After consideration of the answer received and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument in denial or mitigation of Item B of the Notice of
. Violation, as set fcrth in Appendix A to this Order, the Director of the i
Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalty proposed for this item of noncompliance should be reduced.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282) and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay a civil penalty in the total amount of Two Thousand Dollars (S2,000) within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States, and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
V The licensee may, within twenty-five (25) days of the date this Order, request a hearing. A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Secretary to the Commission, U.S.N.R.C., Washington, D.C.
20555.
A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S.N.R.C., Washington, D.C. 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission
l
?
4 will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and, if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
VI In the event the licensee requests a hearing as pfJVided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee was in noncompliance with the Commission's regulations as designated in Item B of the Notice of Viola *. ion referenced in Section II above; and, (b) whether, on the basis of such item of noncompliance, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t[
Victor St 110,' r. Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated this 10th day of February,1981 at Bethesda, Maryland
Attachment:
Appendix A, Evaluation and Conclusions J
.o APPENDIX A Evaluation and Conclusions For the item of noncompliance and associated civil penalty identified, in the Notice of Violation dated August 7,1980, as Item B, the original item of noncompliance is re-stated and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement's evaluation and conclusion regard.)g the licensee's response dated September 8, 1980 is presented.
Statement of Noncomoliance (Item B) 10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that NRC licensees comply with the applicable packaging and transportation requirements of the Department of Transportation (00T) in 49 CFR Parts 170-189.
B.
49 CFR 173.393(g) requires liquid radioactive material in Type A quantities be packaged in or within a leak-resistant and corrosion resistant inner containment vessel.
Contrary to the above, on February 6 and March 6, 1980, the inner containment vessels of the packages leaked radioactive material during transport demonstrating that the inner containers were, not leak-resistant.. In the February 6 shipment, the valve handles were not removed and were left unprotected on the sample bomb, the inner containment vessel, resulting in the leakage.
In the March 6 shipment of the ten polyethylene bottles shipped as inner containment vessels, one was crushed and three others leaked.
This is a Severity Level II Violation (C hil Penalty - $4,000).
Evaluation of the Licensee Response and Conclusions The licensee disputes the item of noncompliance and requests reconsideration of the finding because the sample bombs were contained in an adcitional sealed steel container and had previously been used weekly for the period March 1979 through January 1980 without any leakage.
Given tne configuration of this particular package, that is a sample bomb surrounded by moisture-absorbent material within a second carbon steel sealed container that is, in turn, surrounded by moisture-absorbent material and enclosed within a 7A certified 55 gallon drum, the staff agrees that this particular package complies with the requirements of 49 CFR 173.393(g).
Consequently, the penalty for Item B of the Notice of Violation is mitigated by $2,000.00.
With respect to the polyethylene sample bottles, the licensee stated in his September 8, 1980 letter.that "the boitles are not necessarily leakproof, however, they are leak resistant as required by the cited regulation." The fact that 4 of 10 polyethylene bottles leaked or were crushed demonstrated that, for the conditions under which these bottles were shipped, they were not leakproof or leak resistant as required by the regulation.
In addition, in
t Appendix A (Continued) 4 its September 8, 1980 letter, the licensee stated thet a ?" foot drop test was made on March 23, 1980 of a container using polyethylene bottles without any leakage. Review of the test data by our inspector disclosed that there were gross differences between the materials and configuration of packaging for the test and the actual shipped containers.
The sample bottles shipped were wrapped in lead and not secured to prevent crushing of the bottles from the accumulated weight of the lead wrapping. While the licensee argues that certain impact tests demonstrated leak resistance for these bottles, these tests did not simulate actual conditions in transit.
Consequently, those tests were not adequate to demonstrate leak resistance as shown ey the failures experienced during tha shipment in question.
Conclusion The March 6, 1980 shipment of liquics ia polyethylene bottles is an item of noncompliance.
However, the information presented by the licensee, with respect to the sample bomb shipped on February 6, 1980, provides a reasonable basis to reduce the civil penalty to Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000).
1
[
=
.