ML20027D218
| ML20027D218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1982 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0940, NUREG-0940-V01-N03, NUREG-940, NUREG-940-V1-N3, NUDOCS 8211030200 | |
| Download: ML20027D218 (65) | |
Text
_-
1 NUREG-0940 Vol.1, No. 3
{
)
Enforcement Actions:
> Significant Actions Resolved Quarterly Progress Report July - September 1982
-l l
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
Office of Inspection and Enforcement i
IE Enforcement Staff i
p ***Guq hE 7
t
'r i;
DR J
0940 R PDH
mm-c - - -
!l
- i
-i.
- b i
NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications
{f Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
1 _
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nucl*ar Regulatory Commission, w
Washington, DC 20555 1L
- 3. The National Technics! Informailon Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-hient Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection
- i and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensec Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are ava,ilable for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales
}
Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and f
NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of
~
FeJeral Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series
~
reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the A'tomic
}
Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items,'
such as books, journal ano periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and L
state legisittion, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference 1-proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
- =
Single copix of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-i nical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC j
20555.
r Copies, of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process
(
are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be
!i purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the 3
American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
f i
e GPO Printed copy price: $5.00 I
l
=
l 1
I
NUREG-0940 Vol.1, No. 3 Enforcement Actions:
(
Significant Actions Resolved Quarterly Progress Report July - September 1982 Manuscript Completed: September 1982 Date Published: October 1982
)
(
IE Enforcement Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 p.
c.,,
hf]
)
ABSTRACT This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during one quarterly period (July - September 1982) and includes copies of letters, notices, and orders sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the licensee with respect to the enforcement action.
It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely dissemi-nated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC, in the interest of promoting public health and safety as well as common defense and security. This publication is issued on a quarterly basis to include significant enforcement actions resolved during the preceding quarter.
i i
iii
CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.........................................................iii INTR 000CTION.................................................... 1 S U MMAR I ES....................................................... 3 I.
REACTOR LICENSEES............................................I-1 i
Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina (Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1), EA 82-75...........................................I-1 Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Zion huclear Power Station, Unit 1), EA 82-78.............. I-7 i
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia (Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), EA 82-79..............I-13 Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon (Troj an Nuclear Power Plant), EA 82-67..................... I-15 Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), EA 82-43...........................................I-27 II. MATERIALS LICENSEES.........................................II-1 Blanchard Valley Hospital, Findlay, Ohio, EA 82-89..........II-1 Nuclear Energy Services, Inc., Houston, Texas, EA 82-77....................................................II-5 Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin, Tennessee, EA 82-88....................................................II-18 v
I
__________0
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS RESOLVED JULY - SEPTEMBER 1982 INTRODUCTION This issue of NUREG-0940 is being published to inform NRC licensees about significant enforcement actions and their resolution for the third quarter of 1982. Primarily emphasized are those actions involving civil penalties and orders that have been issued by the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Regional Administrator.
An objective of the NRC Enforcement Program is to encourage improvement of licensee performance and, by example, the performance of the licensed industry.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed 4
by NRC, so all can learn from the crrors of others, thus improving performance in the nuclear industry and promoting the public health and safety as well as common defense and security.
A brief summary of each significant enforcement action that has been resolved in the third quarter of 1982 can be found in the section of this report entitled, " Summaries." Each summary provides the enforcement action number (EA) to identify the case for reference purposes. The supplement number refers to the activity area in which the violations are classified according to guid-ance furnished in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions," published in the Federal Register (47 FR 9987, March 9,1982) and corrected on April 14, 1982 (47 FR 16005).
Five levels of severity for each violation show their relative impor--
tance within each of the following activity areas:
Supplement I
- Reactor Operations Supplement II
- Facility Construction Supplement III - Safeguards Supplement IV
- Health Physics Supplement V
- Transportation Supplement VI
- Fuel Cycle and Materials Operations Supplement VII - Miscellaneous Matters Part I of this report is comprised of copies of completed actions involving reactor licensees, arranged alphabetically.
Part II similarly contains actions involving materials licensees.
Actions still pending on September 30, 1982 will be included in future issues of this publication when they have been resolved.
1
SUMMARIES I.
Reactor Licensees Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina (Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1) EA 82-75, Supplement 1 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $120,000 was issued on July 16, 1982, based on alleged viola-tions relating to unsatisfactory performance of operators at the Brunswick Unit 1 facility involving failure over several days to recognize a failed safety-related water level instrument and to fully implement a required action statement once the failure was recognized. The penalty was paid on August 16, 1982.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), EA 82-78, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on July 9, 1982, based on the licensee's failure to make an adequate evaluation of radiation hazards before entry into an area, which resulted in an employee receiving a whole-body radia-tion dose of approximately 5 ren.s. This is a recurring problem and has been the subject of an IE Circular. The penalty was paid on August 9, i
1982.
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia (Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), EA 82-79, Supplement III A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $20,000 was issued on July 13, 1982, based on an alleged violation relating to an inadequate search prior to entry into the protected area and to inadequate posting of guards. The penalty was paid on August 16, 1982.
Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon (Trojan Nuclear Power Plant), EA 82-67, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $60,000 was issued on June 2, 1982, based on an alleged viola-tion relating to the failure to complete corrective action on an identi-fied deficiency which would, under certain conditions, render one emergency diesel inoperable. This deficiency was identified in May 1977 at which time standing orders were issued declaring the emergency diesel inoperative when these conditions existed.
In July 1981 a revised standing order was issued eliminating the reference to the original deficiency. The deficiency had not been corrected. As a result, one emergency diesel was inoperable when required for approximately 36 days with no action initiated by the licensee to perform specified surveillance or to connence a shutdown of the facility. Based on the licensee's response, the penalty was mitigated by $10,000 and an order imposing a penalty of $50,000 was issued on August 12, 1982.
The penalty was paid on September 8, 1982.
3
1 Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California l
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), EA 82-43, Supplement III A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $60,000 was issued on June 17, 1982, based on alleged violations l
relating to positive access control to vital areas associated with the implementation of the physical security plan. After review of the licensee's response, it was concluded that no adequate reasons had been stated as to why the penalties should be reduced or mitigated and an order 1
imposing penalties in the amount of $60,000 was issued on August 11, 1982.
The penalty was paid on September 3,1982.
II. Materials Licensees Blanchard Valley Hospital, Findlay, Ohio EA 82-89, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $1,000 was issued on July 26, 1982, based on alleged violations relating to an exposure of an individual while manually closing the shutter of a malfunctioning cobalt-60 teletherapy unit and the licensee's failure to report the occurrence to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The penalty was paid on August 16, 1982.
I Nuclear Energy Services, Inc., Houston, Texas EA 82-27, Supplements IV and VII A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $9,000 was issued on March 15, 1982, based on alleged violations involving: (1) an individual without the required training, and prior to a demonstration of competence in the use of radiography equipment, per-forming radiography, (2) an inadequate radiation survey which resulted in a radiographer receiving a radiation dose of about I rem, and.(3) a radiographer failing to maintain direct surveillance during a radiographic operation which resulted in a member of the general public entering a high-radiation area. After review of the licensee's response it was concluded that no adequate reasons had been stated as to why the penalties should be reduced or mitigated and an order imposing penalties in the amount of
$9,000 was issued on June 14, 1982. The penalty was paid on July 29, 1982.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin, Tennessee EA 82-88, Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on August 9, 1982, based on an alleged violation relating to an inadvertent shipment of low-enriched licensed material in drums thought to be empty. This failure was due partly to inadequate implementation of material contro'. and accounting procedures.
The penalty was paid on August 24, 1982.
4
i l
i il i
i I
i I
l L
1 i
I l
I r
f l
I.
REACTOR LICENSEES l
l b
I i
i
- IISe;-
49 UNITED STATES I
8
'r, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
I REGION li e
101 MARIETTA ST N.W SUITE 3100 f
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 i
}
gut 161982 i
Docket No. 50-325 License No. DPR-71 EA 82-75 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. J. A. Jones, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:
A special inspection was conducted by NRC Region II during the period January 6-7, 1982 at the Brunswick site to evaluate the regulatory significance of the reported failures of your Unit 1 staff to recognize, over a several day period, a failure of a safety related water level instrument and to fully implement an action statement required by a Technical Specification once the failure was recognized.
The inspection findings indicate that regulatory requirements were violated. The inspection findings were discussed with site representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on January 7,1982.
NRC concerns relating to the violation were discussed with the Plant General Manager and the Vice President, Nuclear Operations by telephone on January 12 and 19, 1982, respectively, and between Carolina Power and Light Company representatives and the Regional Administrator and other Region II staff members at an Enforcement Conference held by Region II at the Brunswick site on February 24, 1982.
The event started when an Auxiliary Operator (AO) recorded a reactor low level water instrument as reading off scale, i.e.,
greater than 210 inches.
This reading was recorded on two successive days and initialed by three Shift Foremen, licensed Senior Reactor Operators (SRO), on successive shif+s each day. Neither the A0s nor the foremen recognized that the instrument w.., inoperable nor that Technical Specifications required it to be operable. An A0 on the third day did recognize the instrument as being inoperable and initiated a " trouble ticket."
The staff still failed to recognize the Technical Specifications requirements. On the sixth day the staff recognized that compensatory action was required as a result of the failed instrument and -implemented an action statement on one Technical Specification.
However, the staff failed to recognize an action required by another Technical Specification action statement.
The NRC has two concerns about this event. Our first concern is that a safety system was degraded over a period of six days. Our second and principal concern CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-1
l l
Ell 161982 l
Carolina Power and Light Company 2
l l
l is that the operational staff, the keystone of the reactor safety program, handled this particular matter in a manner that we consider to be unsatisfactory.
l The NRC expects nuclear power plant operators to have a high level of knowledge, I
within their sphere of responsibility, pertaining to:
(1) the identity of instruments relating to the safe operation of nuclest powar plants; (2) the l
criteria for determining acceptable operation of safety related instruments; and l
(3) the actions required in the event of safety related instrument malfunctions.
j On the occasion under consideration these expectations were not met.
I I
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, 1
I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars. We propose to impose this civil penalty to emphasize the need for better control of licensed activities, including:
(1) comprehension of conditions and plant status which require implementation of Technical Specifi-cations action statements and (2) the need for taking prompt and complete required action.
The violations h.ve been categorized as. Severity Level III in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy. (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) published in the Federal Register, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982). As provided in the Policy, the violations which existed over a period of six days, have been considered to comprise three events: (1) the action that occurred between December 26 and 28, 1981; (2) the failure to recognize the ins ~ rument described on the trouble ticket as one t
required by Technical Specifications between December 28 and 31,1981; and (3) the failure to fully meet the requirements of Technical Specifications related to the instrument on December 31. The first event has been assessed a civil penalty of $45,000 which reflects the duration of the violation including the opportunity to identify and correct the violation.
The penalty for the second event is
$55,000 which reflects both the duration of the violation and the fact that on October 19, 1981 you were notified of a similar violation; to which you responded that SR0s would.be counseled concerning the necessity of promptly screening trouble tickets to identify items requiring immediate action.
A penalty of $20,000 has been assessed for the third event because of the incomplete corrective action.
You are required to respond to the Notice.
In preparing your response you should follow the instructions specified in the Notice.
In addition, your response should include your specific corrective actions and implementation dates relating to: (1) clarification of your control of the operable status of safety related instrumentation; (2) steps taken to ensure surveillance procedures contain appropriate information and instructions; (3) actions planned or taken to ensure that such procedures are followed by the operations staff; and (4) actions planned or taken to ensure that the operations staff has a working knowledge of the actions required by the Technical Specifications.
We intend to monitor closely your response to this enforcement action. Should your future performance indicate that measures taken or to be taken fail to raise the quality of operations at the Brunswick facility, further enforcement action will be considered.
Such actions would include meeting with myself and the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
I-2
1 Carolina Power and Light Company 3
i in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by I
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
i Sincerely, wO Ohv ames P. O'Reilly gional Administrat C\\
Enclosure:
Proposed Imposit: 3n of Civil Penalties I-3
4 i
, ~
q
'*M i
1.
p.
9 APPENDIX NOTICE OF VIOLATION t.D AND s
PROPOSED IMPOSITIOF0F CIVILRALTIES
.N Carolina Power and Light Company N
Docket No.~50-325[
Brunswick Unit 1 License No. DPR-71 EA 82-75 1
A special inspection conducted at the Brunswick site on January 6-7, 1982 disclosed that from December 26-31, 1981 Brunswick 1 operated in excess of Limiting Conditions for Operations without satisfying the appropriate action statement. One of four differential pressure transmitters which measure reactor vessel low water level was inoperable due to a slow leak in its reference leg.
The instrumentation connected to the inoperable transmitter, showed an off-scale high reading.
The reading was recorded for two days by an-~ Auxiliary Operator (AO) on a form reserved for Technical Specifications items. Entries on the form were reviewed and approved by each Shift Foreman.
On the third day an A0 recognized that the off-scale reading was indicative of a malfunction and he tagged the instrument for checking by maintenance personnel. For the following three days the record showed the instrument as being out of service but its required operability under Technical Specifications was not rycognized.
On December 31 a supervisor, in discussion with maintenance personnel, recognized that operability of the instrument was required by Technical Specifications.
However, instead of tripping the instrument itself, and theyeby causing a half-scram and a containment half-isolation, he tripped the reactor protection channel only and thus did not satisfy the requirement to trip.the primary
~
~
containment isolation system.
To emphasize the need to better control licensed activities, including _ { 1) comprehension of conditions and plant status which require implementation of technical specifications action statements and (2) the need for taking prompt and complete required action, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty of $120,000 for this matter.
In accordance with the NRC Enforce-e ment Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), and pursuant s
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 violations and their associated penalties are set forth below:
Technical Specification 3.3.1 requires the licensee to ensure that reactor f
protection system instrumentation channels shown in Table 3.3.1-1 are operable when the reactor is in Operating Conditions 1 or 2.
The Table identifies the reactor vessel water level low instrumentation as a required condition of operability.
The action statement requires the licensee to place an inoperable channel in the trip condition.
i I
I-4
7 - --
f
~
3
{
Notice of Violationi '
2
~
1+
Technical; Specification 3.3.2 requires the licensee to ensure that the isolation" actuation instrumentation channels shown in Table 3.3.2-1 are operable when the reactor is.in Operating Condition 1, 2 or 3.
The Table identifies the reactor vessel water level low instrumentation as a required
~
- y trip function;and specifies two operable channels per trip system as a required condition of operability.
The action statement requires the licensee to place an inoperable channel in the trip condition.
A.
Contrary to the above, from December 26 to 28. 1981, when the reactor was in Operating Condition 1 and the reactor' vessel water level low 3
instrumentation did not have two operable channels per trip system, the licensee did not place the inoperable channel of the reactor protection system or the primary containment isolation system in the trip condition. During this time pthe inoperability of one of four differential.. pressure transmitters which measure reactor vessel water level low was indicated by an off-scale reading which was recorded each day in a log reserved for ~Technica1 Qpecifications required instru-mentation, and the entries;were initialed by. three Shift Foremen who were Senior Reactor Operator,s,' on successive shifts each day.
(/
This is a Se'v'erity Level III violation (Supplement I)
~
(Civil Penalty - $45,000)
B.
Contrary to the above, frem December 28, 1981 until December 31, 1981, the state ofj noncompliance with Technical Specifications continued although attention was: focused on the malfunctioning transmitter when a
" trouble t1cket" was prepared on December 28, 1981 by an Auxiliary Operator and reviewed by the Shift Foreman.
The Shift Foreman indicated ~on-the ticket that the transmitter was not required by Technical Specifications and also initialed an entry indicating its inoperability in the log reserved for Technical Specification required s
instrumentation.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I)
(Civil Penalty - $55,000)
C.
On December 31, 1981, corrective action was taken to meet the require-ments of Technical Specification 3.3.1, but noncompliance with Technical Specification 3.3.2 continued until the transmitter was returned to service later in the day.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I)
(Civil Penalty - $20,000)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Carolina Power and Light Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555 and a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region II within thirty days of the date of th,is Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the I-5
I i
corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to I
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, Carolina Power and Light Company may pay the civil penalty of One Hundred
(
and Twenty Thousand Dollars or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in l
whole or in part by a written answer. Should Carolina Power and Light Company fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an order 1
imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Carolina Power and Light Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty such answer may: (1) deny the violation presented in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; I
(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. 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 incoporate by specific 1
reference (e.g., giving page and papagraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section IV (B) of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Carolina Power and Light Company's attention 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 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. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m.O J_0_L ames P. O'Reilly gional Administrat C
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia y-this / fday of July 1982 l
I-6 l
l
[gase UNITED ITATES s
/
NUCi. EAR REGULATORY COMMfSSION g
s REOl0Nlit g
798 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOls 30137 g
.Tuly 9, 1982 DockmL No. 50-295 T.fcense No. DPN-39 EA 82-78 i
Commonwcalth Edison Company ATIN:
Mr. James J. O'Connor President Post Oflice Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. D. E. Miller and L. R. Greger of our Region III staf f on March 30-31, April 7-8, and 29, 1982, of activities at the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, in Zion, Illinois, authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-39.
The results of this specisi inspection. wore discussed on April 27, 1982 during an enforcement conference at the NRC Region III Office between Mr. C. Reed and others of your staff and Mr. J. Keppler and others of the NRC staff. The special inspection was con-ducted to raview the circumstances surrounding the overexposure received by a worker during an entry beneath the Unit-1 reactor vessel (reactor cavity) on March 25, 1982.
The results of the inspection indicate serious weaknesses in your radiation protection program concerning systematic evaluation and planning of radiation work.
Specific vaaknesces exhibited in this incident include:
(1) lack of coordin.ition between plant health physicists and rad /ches foreman in planning the entries, (2) inadequate radiation surveys associated with the entriot, (3) use of inexperienced rad / chem technicians to monitor the entries, (4) lack of understanding by radiation protection personnel of the reactor cavity radio-logical hazards including the radiation sources, (5) inadequate training in reactor cavity radiclogical hazards even though a similar overexposure had occurred in 1976, (6) tailure of shift operations personnel in leadership positions to exhibit good radiation protection practicas, and (7) unavailabil-ity of survey instruments calibrated to greater than 50 R/hr.
We consider thn brnakdnwn in management controls which allowed this overexposure to occur to represent serious programmatic weaknesses in your radiation protec-tion program. Wa are particularly concerned that this overexposure occurred g; TIFIED MAIL R
ETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-7
i Commonwealth Edison Company. July 9, 1982 l
even though:you implamented actions to preclude such-an mecurrence as a result l
of a similar overexposure at Zion, Unit 1 in 1976 auut in response to IE Circular 76-03, which warned of the potential radiation hazards associated with PWR reactor cavities.
Our concerns were-discussed with your repreventatives during Lhe enforenment conterance at.the Region III office.- Although the corrective actions proposed during the enforcement conference and in your Reportable I
Occurrence Report dated April 23, 1982 generally represent positive steps to resolve our concerns, additional actions are required.
After consultaLion with the Director of the Office of Inspection and-Enforcement, I have been authorized to inspa the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed i
Imposition of Civil. Penalties. in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollarm.
In assessing these civil penalties we gave consideration not only to the circum-stances described above which Icd to the violations at issue but also to the prior notice (IE Circular 76-03) and civil penalties for similar events-at this facility and alanwhere. These considerations resulted in proposed civil penal-ties of $100,000 because we believe a serious breakdown in management controls and your. radiation protection program occurred which resulted in an unnecessary exposure.
In-your response to this letter, please follow the instructions in the Notice.
Your response should specifically addrnss the weakneuses noted above, corrective actions you have taken or plan to take to improve the management effectiveness of your radiation protection program, and your plans to provide a high level of assuranca that unnecessary exposures resulting from entry into the reactor cavity will not occur again at the Zion facility. You should consider engineer-ing controls, such as a camera monitoring system or a leak detection system, to eliminate the need to enter the reactor cavity when incore thimbles or detectors are withdrawn.
You should also consider automatic systems and procedural controls for preventing reactor cavity entries when high radiation levolu exist and procedural controin to minimize the time the incore thimbles or detectors are in unshielded positons. Your response should include an analysis and rationale for your conclusions regarding these considerations.
Your written reply to this letter and the results of future inspections will be considered in determining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, I
Title 10. Code of Federn1 Regulations, a copy of this letter and tha enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
I-8
- g... ;< w ;.: < e n
.4 c ~. e n.,
.n"a-
+ w.
" : ^ >- e z r
l Commonwealth Edison Company
-3 July 9. 1982 The response directed by t.his lattar and the onclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Neduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
i Sincerely, c
Wchfra As s y
ng yJamesG.Kappler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties cc:
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ATIN:
Dr. Philip F. Gustafson Diractor 1035 Outer Park Drive Springftald, II. 62706 Tyrone C. Fahner Attorney General of Illinois 500 S. Scr.ond St.
Springfield, IL 62701 Michnal V. Hasten, Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission 527 E. Capitol Ave.
Springficid, IL 62706 I-9 I
I NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVI_L PENALTIES Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-295 Zion Nuclear Power Station Licanse No. DPR-39 Unit 1 EA 82-78 As a result of an inspection conducted March 30-31 and April 7-8, and 29, 1982 at the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, in Zion,' Illinois, it appears that significant problems in the impinmentation of -the licensee's health physics program resulted in an overexposure incident. The licensen failed to make adequate evaluations of radiation hasards before entries into an area beneath the Unit 1. reactor vessel, a high radiation area, and failed to ensure that an individual would not be exposed to a radiation dose in excess of regulatory limits.
In accordanca with the NRC Enforecment Policy (10 CTR Part 2, Appendix C) 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), end pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and to CFr. 2.205, the particular violations and the associated civil penalties are wet forth halow:
A.
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make or cause to be made such evaluationc of radiation hazards as (1) may be necessary for the licennae to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evalusta the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
Contrary to the above, the. licensee failed to make such radiation eval-untions as were uccessary and reasonable under the circumstances to ensure compliance with 10 CTR 20.101 for entries of individuals into an area beneath the Unit I reactor vessel on March 24 and 25, 1982.
This is a Savarity Level III violation (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty - $70,000).
B.
10 CFR 20.101(a) limits the whole body radistion does of any individ-ual in a restricted area to one and one quarter rama per calendar l
quarter, except as provided by 10 CFR 20.101(b).
Paragraph (b) permits a whole body dose of three rems per calendar quarter provided certain specified conditions are met.
1-10
Contrary to the above, during the first calendar quartar of 1982, an individual received a.whol'e. body dose of approximately five rems.
Most of this dose was received while making an entry into the area beneath the Unit I rnactor vessel on March 25, 1982.
This is a Savarity Level III violation (Supplament IV).
(Civil Panalty - $30,000).
Pursuant to the provisions of,10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company is hereby enquirad to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and l
Enforcement, USNRC, Washington,.DC 20555, and a copy to the Rcgional Adminintrator, USNRC Region III', within 30 dayw of the date of this Notice a writLen statement or axplanation, including for cach alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violacion; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective stcps which have baan taken and the results. achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
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 tima as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201. Commonwealth Edison Company may pay the civil penalties in the cumulativa amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Commonwealth Edison Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Offica of Inspection and Enforcement will issue an order impcsing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above.
Should Commonwealth Edison Company elect to file an enawer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 pro-testing the civil penaltiew, wuch answer may (1) deny thn viointions listed in this Notice in whoIn 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 in whole or in part. such answer may request vnmission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors convained in Section IV (B) of 10 CPR Part 2. Appendix C should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordanen 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 incor-porate by spnci fic ref erence (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to i
I-11
Notica of Violation 3
l l
cvoid repetition. Commonwealth Edison Company's attention is directed to the other provisions.of 10.CFR.2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing
)
o civil penalty.
l 1
l Upon failure to pay any civil pene1 Lies due, which have been subsequently i
determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, l
this matter may be raferred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil l
cetion pursuant to Section 234c of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUT.ATORY ColetISSION D _e+h
[ Regions 1 Administrator ames O. Kopple Dated at Glan F.llyn, Illinois this i day of July 1982 I
I I-12
+g "O UNITED STATES l
a 8
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
i REGION 11 Y
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 Q Trg* /
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 JUL 131982 Georgia Power Company ATTN:
Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice President P.O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Proposed Civil Penalty Action: EA 82-79 (Report Nos. 50-321/82-15 and 50-366/82-15)
A special inspection was conducted by the NRC Region II staff on May 4 and 5, 1982 at the Hatch Nuclear Plant to evaluate the regulatory significance of an unauthorized introduction of a handgun and box of ammunition into the protected area on April 26, 1982.
The inspection revealed an apparent violation of NRC regulatory requirements which is presented in the Notice of Violation and Pro-posed Imposition of Civil Penalty enclosed as an Appendix to this letter.
The NRC inspector described this violation in a meeting with the Assistant Plant Manager at the conclusion of the inspection. This violation anc related NRC concerns were further discussed during an Enforcement Conference held in the Region II Office in Atlanta on May 17, 1982.
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I have been authorized to iesue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars. We pro-pose to impose this civil penalty to empnasize the need for Georgia Power Company to ensure that security procedures adequately define duties of, and assign respon-sibilities to security guards and to ensure their adequate attention to existing procedures.
The violation has been categorized at the Severity Level described in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2 Appencix C), 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982). The base penalty of Forty Thousand Dollars was decreased by fifty percent as provided by the Policy because of prompt identification and reporting of the violation.
You are required to respond to the Appendix. You should follow the instructions specificd in the Appendix in preparing your response and, in doing so, you should place all Safeguards Information as defined in 10 CFR 73.21 only in enclosures, so as to allow your letter to be placed in the Public Document Room. In your reply you should give particular attention to those actions designed to increase the effectiveness of the management of your security p:ogram, par;icularly with regard to delineation of responsibilities of security guards, in order to ensure continuing compliance with NRC requirements in this area.
Your reply to the Appendix and the results of future inspections will be considered in oetermining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-13
dbk 131982 G:orgia Powsr Company 2
l The enclosed Appendix contains Safeguards Information as defined by 10 CFR.73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenced. Therefore, the enclosure will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by the Appendix are not subject to the clearance procedures I
of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
4 Sincerel',
y w.Oh1 ames P. O'Reilly R gional Administrat C
Enclosure:
Appendix, Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Safeguards Information) cc w/ encl:
J. T. Beckham, Vice President and General Manager H. C. Nix, Plant Manager 1
C. E. Belflower, Site QA Supervisor cc w/o encl:
J. Edwards, Commissioner Dept. of Human Resources State Office Bldg.
47 Trinty Avenue Atlanta, GA 30334 Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen.
132 State Judicial Bldg.
Atlanta, GA 30334 I-14
p Krog UNITED STATES
['.
JnE REGION V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
5k,g *****p'f 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 260 WALNUT CREER. CAUFORNIA 94596 June 2, 1982 Docket No. 50-344 EA 82-67 Portland General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Bart D. Withers Vice President, Nuclear 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Gentlemen:
This refers to the special inspection conducted by Mr. M. H. Malmros of this office on March 16 through April 30, 1982, of circumstances associated with the inoperability of emergency diesel generators at the Trojan Nuclaar Power Plant in November and December 1981 and January 1982.
The results of the inspection were discussed by Mr. Malmros.with Mr. C. P. Yundt and other members of your staff on April 12, 1982.
Our related concerns were also discussed with Mr. B. D. Withers and other members of your staff during an enforcement conference in our office on May 7, 1982.
We are concerned that your Quality Assurance Program permitted a design deficiency identified during the performance of a surveillance test in May 1977 to remain uncorrected for almost five years.
As you are aware, this deficiency led to sustained inoper-ability of the Train "B" emergency diesel generator in late 1981 and early 1982, and in combination with other factors, resulted in the simultaneous inoperability of. both emergency diesel generators for more than nine hours on December 8,1981.
We recognize that plant personnel detected and reported this problem in January 1982 and initiated appropriate corrective action.
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed i
Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars.
This action is being taken in order to emphasize the importance of effective correc-tive actions in response to identified deficiencies in plant safety systems.
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and, in preparing your re-sponse, you should follow the instructions specified therein.
Your written reply to this letter will be the basis for determining whether additional enforcement actions are warranted.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-15
l 1
Portland General Electric Company June 2, 1982 The responses directed by this letter and accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
I In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
l Sincerely,
^"%
R. H. Engelken Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Appendix - Notice of Violation i
and Proposed Imposition of l
Civil Penalty cc w/ enclosure:
I C. P. Yundt, PGE J. W. Durham, Esq., Senior Vice President
& Corporate Counsel
\\
i I-16
l APPENDIX NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Portland General Electric Company Docket No. 50-344 121 S. W. Salmon Street License No. NPF-1 Portland, Oregon 97204 EA 82-67 1
On January 18, 1982, Trojan plant personnel conducting an engineering investi-gation determined that the Train B emergency diesel generator was inoperable for an extended period of time when preferred instrument bus Y24 was being powered from nonpreferred instrument bus YO2.
This determination was reported promptly to the NRC and discussed in a follow-up 14-day Licensee Event Report (LER 82-01).
As a result of the special inspection of the circumstances associated with the reported event, it was determined that a violation of regulatory requirements had occurred. This violation demonstrates a weakness in your Quality Assurance program to follow up on design changes. A design deficiency was initially discovered in May 1977.
At that time, a facility design change was proposed to correct the deficient condition, and operations personnel were apprised of the condition by a facility Standing Order.
However, the design change was never completed, and appropriate precautions regarding the deficient condition were not incorporated into pertinent operating procedures.
In addition, the Standing Order was revised in July 1981, inappropriately omitting the provision which stated that the Train B emergency diesel generator was to be declared inoperable whenever Preferred Instrument Bus Y24 was being supplied from its alternate power source YO2.
In order to emphasize the responsibility of licensees to properly control licensed activities and take appropriate corrective actions on identified deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars.
The basic penalty for a violation of the severity level of this event is $40,000, as determined from Tables 1A and IB of the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) 47 FR 9987 (March 9,1982).
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the peaalty is increased 25 percent because the licensee became aware of the potential inoperability problem in 1977 and did not take effective corrective actions.
The penalty I
is increased an additional 25% because the LCO was violated for an extended period of time.
Pursuant to the NRC Enforcement Policy and 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 associated civil penalty is set forth below:
I-17
l JUN 2 1982 l
Appendix 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 states in Section 2.C(.7) that, "all activities to which a quality assurance program is applicable shall...
j be conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Program for Operation."
)
Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, states in part, that, " Measures 1
shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
l The Portland General Electric Nuclear Projects Quality Assurance Program for Operation, in Section 16.3.1, states that, " Procedures are established to assure that conditions adverse to quality and the cause of these condi-tions are determined and corrected in a timely manner."
Trojan Nuclear Plant Quality Assurance Procedure QAP-5-1, Revision 1 (issued September 18,1975), stated in Section III.B.2 that, " Procedures or instruc-tions shall be written to cover as many of the following points as necessary to ensure that the activity will be satisfactorily accomplished without compromising the quality of the item:...d.
It shall contain any pre-cautions or limitations that a person should observe to accomplish the activity."
Technical Specification 3.8.1.1, in Action Step a, states, "With either an I
offsite circuit or diesel generator set of the above required A.C. electrical power sources inoperable, demonstrate the OPERABILITY of the remaining A.C.
sources by perfoming Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.1.a and 4.8.1.1.2.a.5 within one hour and at least once per eight hours thereafter; restore at least two offsite circuits and two diesel generator sets to OPERABLE status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be in COLD SHUTDOWN within the next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />."
Contrary to the above, effective corrective actions were not taken following the discovery in May 1977 that the Train "B" emergency diesel generator output breaker was incperable when Preferred Instrument Bus Y24 was being' fed from Nonpreferred Instrument Bus YO2.
A design change to correct the deficiency was initiated but was not completed.
A facility Standing Order was issued to address the deficiency on an interim basis, but all reference to Preferred Instrument Bus Y24 was removed in a 1981 revision.
In addition, no change l
was made to pertinent facility procedures, nor was other corrective action taken to' ensure that the identified deficiency did not result in emergency diesel generator inoperability. The consequence of this failure was that the Train "B". emergency diesel generator was inoperable during the periods November 8 through 12, 1981 (87 hours0.00101 days <br />0.0242 hours <br />1.438492e-4 weeks <br />3.31035e-5 months <br />) and December 1, 1981 through January 4, 1982 (34 days).
During these periods, no action was initiated to perform I-18
i Appendix JUN 2 1982 the specified surveillance and no steps were taken to commence a shutdown of the facility to cold shutdown conditions.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement I)
(Civil Penalty - $60,000)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Portland General Electric Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555, within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further viola-tions; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the autnority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Portland General Electric. Compan Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000)y may pay the civil penalty in the amount of or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer.
Shoul'd Portland General Electric Company 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 gbove.
Should Portland General Electric Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in or (4)(2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice; part';
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 miti proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section IV(gation of theB) of 10 CFR Par 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.,
giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
Portland General Electric Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
1-19
(
~ ~ ']
2 1981 I? !'
Appendix i l
Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due, which have been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General; and the penalties, unless i
compromised, remitted, or mitigated, my be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
Robert H. Engelken Regional Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California this 2 day of June 1982 I
I-20
8 UNITED STATES 8
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...s /
AUG 121982 Docket No. 50-344-License No. NPF-1 EA 82-67 Portland General Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. Bart D. Withers Vice President, Nuclear 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Gentlemen:
This refers to the letter dated July 2,1982 from the Portland General Electric Company in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you with t,ur letter dated June 2,1982. Our letter concerned a violation investigated during our inspection conducted at the Trojan Nuclear Plant during the period of March 16 through April 30, 1982.
After careful consideration of your responses, we have concluded for the reasons given in the enclosed Order that the violation occurred as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.
Further-1 more, the criteria for categorizing severity levels, as defined in the Enforce-ment Policy (10 CFR ? art 2, Appendix C), 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982) were properly applied. We have also given careful consideration to your request for mitigation of the proposed penalties. We have concluded, as set forth in the Appendix to the enclosed Order, that a basis for mitigation exists. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on Portland General Electric Company, 1
imposing civil penalties in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure, and your letters, will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, Origiunt Signed By B,R DeYoung Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties 2.
Appendix - Evaluations and Conclusions CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-21
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company Docket No. 50-344 Trojan Nuclear Plant License No. NPF-1 EA 82-67 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
1 Portland General Electric Company,121 S. W. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204 (the " licensee") is the holder of License No. NPF-1 (the " license")
l l
issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (the "Connission") which authorizes the licensee to operate the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon, in accordance with conditions specified therein. The license was issued on
)
l November 21, 1975.
II 1
l l
A special inspection of the licensee's activities under the license was conduc-ted on March 16 through April 30, 1982 at the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon. As a result of this inspection, it appears that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with the conditions of its license and the requirements of NRC regulations. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was served upon the licensee by letter dated June 2, 1982. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and license conditions which the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalty proposed for each violation. An answer dated July 2, 1982 to the Notice of I-22
l
- V The licensee may within thirty days of the date of this Order request a hearing.
A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, D.C. 20555. A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, USNRC, Washington, D.C.
20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designat-ing the time and place of hearing.
If the licensee fails to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings; if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
i (a) whether the licensee violated NRC regulations and license conditions
}
as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties; and (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be sustained.
I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Sirticii By it. Q, DeXour4 Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this i L day of August 1982 I-23
l APPENDIX NRC EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Background
Based on the licensee's response of July 2, 1982 to the NRC Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties dated June 2,1982 the NRC staff has i
concluded that the violation did occur, but that some mitigation is warranted.
The severity level remains as cited because a limiting condition for operation was exceeded where the appropriate action statement was not satisfied, this resulted in a degraded condition, and sufficient information existed which should have alerted the licensee that he was in an Action Statement condition. This is consistent with the policy stated in Supplement I.C.1 of Appendix C to g
l The licensee was cited for not conducting required surveillance when an emergency diesel generator was inoperable. This violation was a result of not completing the proposed corrective action following the discovery in May 1977 that the train "B" emergency diesel generator output breaker was inoperable when preferred
\\
instrument bus Y24 was being fed from nonpreferred instrument bus Y02. A design change to correct the identified problem was initiated by the licensee in 1977 but not completed until after the events leading to the present Notice of Viola-tion had occurred.
In addition, in 1977, the licensee issued a standing order which provided an interim administrative solution to the problem. However, plant operating procedures were never revised to reflect the limitations imposed by the standing order.
The design change was assigned a low priority and in late 1980, before it was implemented, the previously issued standing order was revised. This reyision, however, was based on a faulty analysis so that the revised standing order no longer provided the guidance needed to determine the i
operability of the train "B" diesel generator.
Because of this deficiency, the l
licensee was not aware until January 16, 1982, that the "B" diesel generator had been inoperable for 87 hours0.00101 days <br />0.0242 hours <br />1.438492e-4 weeks <br />3.31035e-5 months <br /> in November 1981 and for 34 days from December 1,1981 through January 4,1982. Accordingly, no steps were taken during those periods to perform the specified surveillance or commence a shut-down of the facility to cold shutdown conditions.
It is noted, however, that the discovery of these periods of inoperability was the result of the licensee's investigation of related electrical problems and they then promptly and fully disclosed the information to the NRC.
It should also be noted that upon discov-ery that the standing order was improperly revised, the licensee took prompt and extensive corrective action.
Subsequent to the licensee's discovery of this problem on January 16, 1982, a new standing order was issued which corrected the existing inadequacy. Opera-ting Instruction 01-1-7, "120V AC Preferred Instrument Bus Operations" was revised to add the appropriate precautions, and a new request for design change was initiated to incorporate the originally proposed design change plus other appropriate changes. All of these changes were completed during the present refueling outage.
In addition, the licensee states that training information bulletins (one of which was the basis for the incorrect revision of the standing I-24
Appendix (Continued) order in 1981) are now required to undergo a more thorough level of review and-approval prior to distribution and use. Also, all outstanding requests for design changes have been reviewed and assigned an updated priority as appro-priate, or eliminated if no longer required.
Licensee Contentions The licensee admits the violations of the technical specifications described in the Notice of Violation. The licensee disagrees, however, with the statement that "... effective corrective actions were not taken following the discovery in May 1977..."
The licensee maintains that effective action was taken follow-ing the discovery in May 1977, and that this action took the form of a request for design change (RDC 77-093) and the issuance of a standing order. The licensee further maintains that the original standing order, an administrative control, by itself was adequate corrective action.
However, the licensee also states that RDC 77-093 was issued merely to allow elimination of the adminis-trative control, and not to correct a design deficiency.
The licensee acknowledges that the cause of this event was an analytical error that led to an incorrect training information bulletin that was ultimately reflected in July 1981 in an incorrect revision of the standing order which was relied upon as an administrative control.
The licensee maintains that this was the actual cause of the event. The licensee also maintains that the problems with the diesel generators were not a design deficiency and that minimal or no safety considerations were involved.
Response to Licensee Contentions Without addressing the relative merits of administrative controls versus design changes, the licensee's initial corrective actions following discovery of the condition in May 1977 would have been effective but for the 1981 revision to the standing order. The use of an incorrect analysis in 1980 to revise the original standing order was one reason the initial corrective action became ineffective. Another reason, however, was the failure to follow through in a l
timely manner in implementing RDC 77-093.
The corrective actions were defi-cient because fornial plant operating procedures were not revised at the time of the discovery of the problem in 1977 nor at the time of the revision of the standing order in 1981. Such actions would have provided the formal review which is designed to assure thorough consideration of plant and procedure changes. This is not to imply that standing orders are not a permissible o
method for corrective action.
However, such orders must be associated with sufficient safeguards to preclude their revision without appropriate reviews as required by Technical Specification 6.8.
Whether the problem under discussion was due to a design deficiency depends upon the system design criteria and the attendant administrative controls.
It is clear that, beginning in July 1981, the administrative controls were inade-quate.
It is also clear that the licensee has chosen to revise the design.
Whether or not the problem was the result of a design deficiency does not have a significant bearing on the overall issue.
I-25
Appendix (Continued) The licensee's contention that the condition had little or no safety signif-icance is based on the further contentions that: (1) the plant is unlikely to need the diesel generators while preferred instrument buses Y22 or Y24 are supplied by their alternate power sources, (2) the diesel generator circuit breaker could have been maintained shut by manual action, and (3) the diesel generators were not needed during this period.
Regarding contention No.1, although the staff agrees that it is unlikely that an event will occur which will require use of the emergency diesel generators, the consequences of such an event without the immediate availability of the generators have been evaluated and this evaluation was the basis for the oper' ability requirements for the emergency diesel generators as contained in the technical specifications.
Regarding contention No. 2, although the licensee maintains it was possible to close the diesel generator breaker manually, we note that the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report assumes automatic loading of all essential loads onto the diesel within less than one minute for the limiting accidents. Therefore, the staff does not agree that the problem has minor safety significance.
Regarding contention No.3, the staff considers the statement that a need for the diesel generators did not occur, is merely a statement of fact, not a contention.
Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the licensee has not presented any information that substantially changes the facts concerning the violation nor its severity level.
Consideration of Mitigation The licensee has proposed several bases for reduction of the amount of the proposed civil penalties. We have carefully considered each of these and, based on our review, have concluded that a 25 percent reduction ($10,000) from the base penalty ($40,000) is warranted. The reduction is deemed warranted for the licensee's prompt and extensive corrective action upon the discovery that the standing order had been improperly revised and had resulted in the equipment being inoperable.
4 f
I-26
pnneuq 4
jo UMTED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E E
REGION V Q
1450 MARIA LANE,SulTE 210
%**..*,e,4, WALNUT CRE E K. CALIFORNIA 94596 June 17, 1982 Docket No. 50-206 EA 82-43 Southern California Edison Company ATTN: Dr. L. T. Papay, Vice President Advanced Engineering P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Gentlemen:
As a result of a routine unannounced NRC physical protection inspection conducted January 10-12, and February 8-12, 1982 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, apparent violations associated with the implementation of your physical security plan were identified. We are particularly concerned about the aoparent weakness in the management oversight and supervision in your security program. These problems were discussed during a site visit by the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, the Director of the Division of Safeguards, NMSS, and myself on May 18, 1982. The issues and possible courses for correcting the problems were also discussed at a meeting between your staff and Region V on March 10, 1982.
The violations described in the Appendix to this letter, when taken in total, indicate inadequate management control of the physical security program at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I have been authorized N
to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil 1
Penalty in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars.
This action is taken in order to emphasize the need for greater management attention to physical protection.
You are required to respond to the Appendix and you should follow the instruc-tions specified in the Appendix in preparing your response.
In your reply you should give particular attention to those actions designed to increase the l-effectiveness of the management of your security program in order to ensure continuing compliance with NRC requirements in this area. As part of your response to the enclosed Notice of Violation, you are required to submit a written plan, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), which details the steps you will take to remedy problems associated with responses to security alarms and reduce the potential for future violations in that area. The plan should describe what actions you have taken to assure that the underlying causes are well understood and corrected.
Specifically, this plan should assure positive access control in order to improve the physical security at your plant, and shall include:
(1) a descriptign of actions to be taken, including the details conccrning any necessary changes tc equipment, procedures, and personnel, (2) a schedule, with important milestones, for completion of all steps, (3) docu-mentation requirements, and (4) description of the steps to follow up the actions I-27
Southern California Edison Company June 17, 1982 described in (1) above to monitor the effectiveness of those actions.
During our May 18, 1982 meeting you indicated that you planned to procure and install a new central processing unit and may install additional key card controls.
The above plan should include specific details concerning these actions and schedules for their completion.
After reviewing the plan, we will consider whether to formalize it or require modification of it by way of an order.
In addition to our concerns related to access controls, we also discussed during our meeting broader issues related to overall physical security at the facility.
In that regard, we understand that you intend to undertake a complete review of your physical security plan for submittal to NMSS.
You should include in your response to this letter your schedule for this review and your expected submittal date to NMSS.
The text of the enclosed Appendix contains Safeguards Information as defined by 10 CFR 73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Therefore, the Appendix will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, Robert H. Engelken Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Appendix - Notice
/
of Violation and Proposed i
Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/o encl:
George Deukmejian, a
Attorney General John E. Bryson, Pres.
Public Utilities Comm.
California Dept of Health Services 1
cc w/ enc:
R. Dietch, SCE H. B. Ray, SCE (San Clemente)
)
I-28
g an UNITED STATES E
~
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j; j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\'*.CN/
..+
AUG 11 1982 Docket No. 50-206 License No. DPR-13 EA 82-43 Southern California Edison Company ATTN:
Dr. L. T. Papay, Vice President Advanced Engineering P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter of July 16, 1982 in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you with our letter of June 17, 1982.
Our letter concerned violations found during the physical security inspection conduc.ted by Region V at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, during January 10-12 and February 8-12, 1982.
After careful consideration of your response, and for the -reasons given in the Appendix to the enclosed Order, we have concluded that the violations did occur as set out in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.
We have also given careful consideration to your request for remission of the proposed penalties and have concluded that no adequate reasons have been stated as to why the penalties should be reduced or mitigated.
Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on the Southern California Edison Company, imposing I
civil penalties in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars.
\\
i In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Tit!e 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely, l.
Richard C. D ng, ector Office of Ins) ction and Enforcement
Enclosures:
(
1.
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties 2.
Appendix - Evaluation and Conclusion CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I-29
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10N in the Matter of
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND SAN.DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-206 San Onofre Nuclear Generating License No. DPR-13 Station Unit No. 1 EA 82-43 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
The Southern California Edison Company and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (the " licensee") hold Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 (the
" license"), issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the " Commission").
The license authorizes the licensee to operate the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1 (the " facility") at power levels not in excess of 1347 mega-eatts (thermal) rated power.
The facility, which is located at the licensee's site in San Diego County, California, is a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) used for the commercial generation of electricity.
II i
A routine physical security inspection of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted by Region V on January 10-12, 1982 and February 8-12, 1982.
As a result of this inspection, it appears that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC's regulatory requirements.
A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was served upon the licensee by letter dated June 17, 1982.
This Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations which the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalty proposed for
)
each violation.
A reply dated July 16, 1982 to the Notice of Violation and l
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received from the licensee.
1-30
_- III Upon consideration of the answer received and the statements of fact, explana-tion, and argument for remission contained therein, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalties proposed for the violations designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties should be imposed.
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, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay civil penalties in the total amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars within 30 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 i
The licensee may, within 30 days of the date of this Order, request a hearing.
I A request for hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, I-31
-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within 30 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.
l
{
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC regulatory requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties; and
(
(b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be i
sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
Richard C.
Y ung, rector Office of In ection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 11 day of August 1982
(
l l
t I-32
APPENDIX EVALUATION AND GONCLUSION The licensee admits to all of the violations as set forth in the Notice of Violation dated June 17, 1982.
In the licensee's response dated July 16, 1982, reasons given for the cited violations included inadequate procedures, failure of personnel to follow established procedures, inadequate training and/or experience of personnel, inadequate manning of security posts, inade-quate safeguards detection equipment, and inadequate administrative controls to assure timely corrective maintenance of equipment.
In addition, the licensee included in the response of July 16, 1982, a request for remission of the proposed civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.205(b) on the following bases:
1.
A fundamental, underlying cause of problems exemplified by the identified violations, characterized in the June 17, 1982 letter as
" inadequate management control," had been previously identified by SCE and corrective action initiated; 2.
The identified violations, classified as Severity Level III on the basis of failure to provide positive access control, represent system and procedural breakdowns which provided a limited opportunity for unauthorized access to a limited portion of a single Vital Area; however, no access inimical to safe plant operation occurred; and, 3.
SCE's corrective action in response to the identified violations has been unusually prompt and extensive.
k
~
The NRC expects licensees to carry out licensed activities with the necessary meticulous attention to detail to maintain a high standard of compliance with regulatory requirements.
SCE's contention that action initiated in late 1981
(
to correct inadequate supervision and management of its safeguards program provides adequate grounds for remission of the proposed civil penalties is with-out merit.
The inspection was conducted in January and February 1982 at which time the cited violations observed by the inspectors indicated that corrective action by SCE had been, to that time, ineffective to provide the necessary incentive for the licensee security personnel to comply with NRC requirements.
Degradation of management controls to the point evidenced by the cited violations is unacceptable.
The licensee's second contention that no access inimical to safe plant opera-tions occurred as a result of the violations classified as a Severity Level III is insufficient to justify remission of the proposed civil penalties.
Had an unauthorized entry actually occurred, the violation would have been assigned a higher severity classification with a correspondingly larger penalty.
1-33 L
Appendix (Continued) The licensee appears to have based its third contention (that corrective action in response to the violations has been prompt and extensive) on the fact that the identified violations did not represent failure to control access which permitted unauthorized access inimical to safe plant operation or public health and safety.
Corrective action is always necessary to meet NRC requirements.
The staff believes that the licensee's corrective action has been appropriate and of the type normally considered necessary and prudent to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, but such action is not considered extensive or unusual.
The staff believes that the proposed sanctions will provide the licensee, and others similarly situated, the additional incentive to maintain a high stand-ard of compliance with NRC requirements.
Based on the foregoing the staff finds no justifiable grounds or reasons not previously considered to remit or mitigate the penalties proposed in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties dated June 17, 1982.
i l
I-34
II. MATERIALS LICENSEES b
f Mtoq'o,1 UNITED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
.E REGION ill
'I 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD o
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 July 26, 1982 License No. 34-06295-03 EA 82-89 Blanchard Valley Hospital ATTN:
Mr. William Ruse President Wallace Street Findlay, OH 45830 Gentlemen:
This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. E. Burgin of our staff on April 19, 1982 of activities authorized by NRC Byproduct Material License No. 34-06295-03.
The results of the inspection were discussed on May 28, 1982 during an enforcement conference at Blanchard Valley Hospital between you and others of your staff and Messrs. A. B. Davis and D. G. Wiedeman of the NRC staff.
The findings of the inspection showed that licensee management failed to ensure that an individual working in a restricted area would not receive a radiation dose in excess of regulatory limits.
In addition, after an overexposure of an individual, the occurrence was not reported to the NRC on a timely basis.
l In order to emphasize the responsibility of licensees to properly control their licensed programs, we propose to impose civil penalties for the violations set forth in the Notice of Violation. These items have been categorized as Severity Level II violations in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy published in the Federal Register 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982).
In assessing these civil penalties, we gave consideration not only to the circumstances of the violations described above but also to the financial matters discussed in your June 7, 1982 letter.
In that letter you indicated that the penalty contemplated under the NRC Enforce-ment Policy would significantly exceed the hospital's yearly income derived from
~
the use of the licensed material.
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the cumulative amount of One Thousand Dollars.
In preparing your required response, you should follow the instructions specified in the Notice which is enclosed with this letter.
You should give particular attention to those actions that will be taken by management to ensure compliance with NRC requirements.
Your reply and the results of future inspections will be censidered in determining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED II-1
Blanchard Valley Hospital July 26, 1982.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the hTC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the ']f fice or Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, 8-C
[r/ James G. Keppler U
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties II-2
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Blanchard Valley Mospital License No. 34-06295-03 Wallace Street EA S2-89 Findlay, OH 45830 As a result of a report from the licensee on April 6,1982, and a special inspection conducted on April 19, 1982, it appears that an individual received a whole body dose of 9.71 rems while manually closing the shutter of a cobalt-60 teletherapy unit after the shutter failed to close automatically. Although the licensee was required to report the occurrence to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, it was not reported until 9-1/2 months later.
In order to emphasize the responsibility of licensees to properly control their licensed programs, NRC proposes to impose civil penalties in the cumulative amount of One Thousand Dollars.
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), and pursuant to Sec-tion 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 violations and the associated civil penalties are set forth below:
A.
10 CFR 20.101(a) limits the whole body radiation dose to any individual in a restricted area to 1-1/4 rems per calendar quarter, except as provided by 10 CFR 20.101(b).
Paragraph (b) permits a whole body dose of 3 rems per calendar quarter provided certain specified conditions are met.
Contrary to the above, during the second quarter of 1981, an individual in a restricted area received a whole body dose of 9.71 rems. The principal exposure occurred when an individual attempted to manually close the shutter of a cobalt-60 teletherapy unit after the shutter failed to close auto-matica11y.
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty - $500)
B.
10 CFR 20.403(b) requires each licensee to notify, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, by telephone and telegraph, mailgram, or facsimile, the Director of the appro-priate NRC Regional Office of any incident involving licensed material possessed by him and which may have caused or threatens to cause:
(1) exposure of the whole body of any individual to 5 rems or more of radiation; or (2) a loss of I day or more of the operation of any facilities affected.
Contrary to the above, on June 22, 1981 a malfunctioning teletherapy unit resulted fn an individual receiving a whole body dose of 9.71 rems.
In addition, the malfunction resulted in a loss cf 3 days of operation of the unit. However, the licensee did not report the incident to NRC until April 6, 1982, approximately 9-1/2 months after the incident occurred.
11-3 l
Notice of Violation This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty - $500)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Blanchard Valley Hospital is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555, and a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region III, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each sileged 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 results achieved; (4) the corrective steps thac will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending the response l
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, Blanchard Valley Hospital may pay the civil penalties in the amount of One Thou-sand Dollars or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Blanchard Valley Hospital fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above.
Should Blanchard Valley Hospital elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer 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 in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors contained in Section IV(B) of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should h 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 CIR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repeti-tion.
Blanchard Valley Hospital's attention is d!.rected to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for impor.ing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently 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 Cection 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a G k h
~-
- James G. Keppler Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois thisJ& day of July 1982 II-4
L
- y tag o
UNITED STATES 8
~,1.
NUCLE'AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,1 wasmwarow, o. c. 2ases
\\...../
AIAR 16 1982 License No. 42-16559-01
(
EA 82-27 Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
Conam Inspection Division ATTN:
Mr. Boyd Creech President 6106 Rookin Street Houston, TX 77074 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Region I personnel inter-mittently during the period October 15 to November 3,1981, at your Folcroft, Pennsylvania office, concerning allegations that Conam Inspection Division allowed an employee to conduct radiography without training in required subjects and without a demonstration of his understanding of these subjects.
This allegation was substantiated in sworn statements and by field records.
This letter also refers to the Region I inspection conducted intermittently during the period July 23 to October 15, 1981, of your radiation protection program at the Folcroft, Pennsylvania site where two other serious violations were noted.
One violation identified the failure to perform a radiation survey after a radiographic operation which resulted in a radiographer receiving a radiation dose of about one rem.
The other serious violation was your radiographer's failure to maintain direct surveillance of radiographic operations, which resulted in a member of the public entering a high radiation area. Two other violations of a lower severity level were also identified and are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed in the Appendix to this letter.
Discussions of these findings were held during an enforcement conference at the Region IV office on January 26, 1982, by Mr. Karl V. Seyfrit and other members of the Region IV staff with you and other members of the Conam Inspection Division staff.
Other areas of concern were identified in our investigation and inspection. An allegation concerning the firing of a Conam worker who reported events to the NRC has been referred to the Department of Labor.
Other concerns regarding questions and allegations with respect to Conam's involvement in back dating training records and the encouragement of workers to enter zero for exposures are still under consideration by NRC.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED II-5
MAR 16 982 1
Nuclear Energy Services The violations in the App'ndix to this letter, when taken in total, indicate a breakdown in management control at your Folcroft, Pennsylvania site.
In order to emphasize the need for management involvement in the control of radiographic operations and the avoidance of radiation exposures, we propose to impose a civil penalty in the cumulative amount of Nine Thousand Dollars for items in the Notice of Violation which have been categorized at the severity levels described in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy published in the Federal Register, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980).
For purposes of assessing a civil penalty, Items A, B, and C of Part I in the attached Notice of Violation have been segregated into three separate problem areas.
These are training, surveys, and control of access.
A civil penalty is being proposed for each separate problem area.
Items A, B, and C of Part I are classified as Severity Level III violations and are normally assessed $4,000 for each violation. After careful consideration of these specific violations, we have determined $5,000 should be assessed for Item A and $2,000 each for Items B and C.
Item I.A is increased 25 percent because we believe, based upon the results of our investigation, that the manager at your Folcroft, Pennsylvania Office knew in advance that untrained individuals were to perform radiography and did not prevent it.
We gave consideration to taking additional enforcement action as a result of the circumstances regarding Item I.A.
However, in view of your action to replace the general manager at your Folcroft, Pennsylvania Office, we do not intend to do so provided the corrective action submitted with your response to this Notice of Violation is acceptable.
Items I.B and I.C were reduced based upon the circum-stances surrounding the violations including that the violations were licensee identified and no significant exposures resulted.
You are required to respond to the Appendix, and in preparing your response you should follow the instructions specified in the Appendix.
In your response also include measures you will take to assure that an appropriate level of management oversight 's being exercised to assure thac: (1) unqualified personnel are not permitted to perform radiography, and (2) all Conam personnel are properly trained and adhere to all NRC regulatory requirements.
In addition, include what actions upper level management plans to take to assure these measures are implemented.
As you are aware, Section 210a of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 prohibits
(
any NRC licensee from discharging or othemise discriminating against any employee because the employee informed or assisted the NRC in the conduct of investiga-tions or inspections. Therefore, your response should also include measures to assure that your employees at all levels are free to contact the NRC without any fear of discrimination or reprisal.
Your response to this letter and Appendix and your corrective actiom will be 1
considered in determining whether additional enforcement acticns ari h rranted.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Mangement and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
II-6
MAR 16 1982 Nucledr Energy Services In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,.
Ti' 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
i Sincerely, f
Richard C.
- oung, rector Office of I ection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Aopendix - Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties II-7
APPENDIX NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIOR~6F CIVIL PENALTIES Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
License: 42-16559-01 Conam Inspection Division EA 82-27 Houston, Texas As a result of an investigation and inspection conducted at your Folcroft, I
Pennsylvania facility on July 23 - October 15, 1981, and October 15 - November 3, 1981, respectively, several violations of NRC requirements were identified in.
cluding three serious violations in the areas of training, surveys, and control of access.
{
To emphasize the need for management involvement in the control of radiographic opsrations and the avoidance of radiation exposures, the Nucleat Regulatory Commission proposes to impose civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Nine Thousand Dollars for these violations.
In accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), and 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, l
the particular violations and their associated civil penalties are set forth in Section I below:
I.
CIVIL PENALTY VIOLATIONS A.
10 CFR 34.31(a) requires that radiographers be trained in specified subjects and demonstrate an understanding of these subjects as well as competence in the use of radiography equipment.
Contrary to the above, the licensee permitted an individual without the required training, and prior to a demonstration of co'mpetence in the use of radiography equipment, to perform radiography at a field site in Mahwah, New Jersey, on July 25, 1980.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty $5,000)
~&
l
)
II-8
Appendix B.
10 CFR 34.22(a) requires, in part, tha't during radiographic operations the sealed source assembly be secured in the shielded position each time the source is returned to that position.
10 CFR 34.43(b) requiris that a physical radiation survey be made after each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position.
Contrary to the above, on June 9, 1981, the sealed source assembly had not been secured in the shielded position nor had a physical radiation survey been made to determine that the source had returned to its shielded position after a radiographic exposure. This contributed to a radiographer receiving a radiation dose of about one rem.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty $2,000)
C.
10 CFR 34.41 requires, in part, that during each radiographic operation, the radiographer or radiographer's assistant maintain direct surveillance of the operation to protect against unauthorized entry into a high radiation area.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to maintain direct surveillance over a radiographic operation on October 14, 1980, at a field site in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and allowed.a member of the general public to enter a high radiation area.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty $2,000)
II. VIOLATIONS NOT ASSESSED CIVIL PENALTIES
\\
A.
10 CFR 34.23 requires that locked radiographic exposure devices and storage containers be physically secured to prevent tampering or j
removal by unauthorized personnel.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to secure a locked radio-graphy camera, containing a 22 curie source, that was sitting on the i
bed of a vehicle at the licensee's Folcroft, Pennsylvania facility on July 23,:1981.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).
B.
10 CFR 34.33(b) requires that pocket dosimeters be read and exposures recorded daily.
Contrary to the above, radiographers failed to record poc.ket dosimeter readings four times during the period of February 25, 1981 through June 14, 1981.
In addition, on July 25, 1980, an employee incorrectly recorded his dosimeter reading as zero when the reading was 130 millirem.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement VII).
II-9
Appendix Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Nuclear Energy Services is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further viola-tions; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
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 a5cve under 10 CFR 2.201, Nuclear Energy Services may pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Nine Thousand Dollars or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Nuclear Energy Services fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above.
Should Nuclear Energy Services elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in the Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
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., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
Nuclear Energy Service's attention 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 penalties due, which have been subsequently detennined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, 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 Richard C.
- oung, irector Office of pectio and Enforcement l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of March 1982
)
II-10
/
- o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g i
wasuemorow.o.c.aoses
- **
- O y $f y License: 42-16559-01 EA 82-27 Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
Conam Inspection Division ATTN: Mr. Boyd Creech President 6106 Rookin Street Houston, TX 77074 Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter of April 14, 1982, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you with our letter of March 16, 1982. Our letter concerned violations found during the investigation conducted by Region I personnel intermittently in the period October 15 to November 3,1981, and in the Region I inspection conducted intermittently during the period July 23 to October 15, 1981 at the Folcroft, Pennsylvania site of activities authorized by NRC License 42-16559-01.
After careful consideration of your responses, we have concluded for the reasons given in the enclosed Order that the violations, for which civil t
penalties have been proposed, occurred as set out in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties. Based on our analysis of your response to Violations IA,18, and IC, the penalty remains as originally imposed in the cumulative amount of Nine Thousand Dollars.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed Order will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, Richard C. 05 ung, rector Office of In ection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties and Appendix II-11 I
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
License: 42-16559-01 Conam Inspection Division EA 82-27 6106 Rookin Street Houston, TX 77074
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
Nuclear Energy Services, Inc., Conam Inspection Division, 6106 Rookin Street, Houston, Texas (the " licensee") is the holder of License 42-16559-01 (the
" license") issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the "Comission").
License 42-16559-01 authorizes the use of sealed sources of byproduct material.
II An investigation of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted intermittently during the period October 15 to November 3,1981.
In addition, at the licensee's facility located in Folcroft, Pennsylvania an inspection was conducted intermittently during the period July 23 to October 15, 1981. As a result of the investigation and inspection, it appears that the licentee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with the requirements of NRC regulations. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was served upon the licensee by letter dated March 16, 1982. This Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission regulations which the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalties proposed for each violation. An answer dated April 14, 1982 to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received from the licensee.
1 I1-12
. III Upon consideration of the answers received and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation or cancellation contained therein, as set forth in the enclosure to this Order, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalties proposed for the violations designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penaltie: should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, P.L.96-295) and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay civil penalties in the total amount of Nine Thousand Dollars within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States, and mailed I
to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
IV The licensee may,1within 30 days of the date of this Order, request a hearing A request for hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing. Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective II-13 km
____ without further proceeding and, if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
V In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, that issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC regulations as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, as amended; and, (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Richard C.
o ctor Office of I pection and Enforcement f
Oated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14 day of June 1982 l
O I
i II-14
APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS For each violation and associated civil penalty identified in the Notice of Violation (dated March 16,1982) the original violation is restated and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement evaluation and conclusion regarding the
'icensee's resronse (dated April 14,1982) to each item is presented.
Item 1A Statement of Violation 10 CFR 34.31(a) requires that radiographers be trained in specified subjects a'nd demonstrate an understanding of these subjects as well as competence in the use of radiography equipment.
Contrary to the above, the licensee permitted an individual without the required training, and prior to a demonstration of competence in the use of radiography equipment, to perform radiography at a field site in Mahwah, New Jersey, on July 29, 1980.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty - $5,000)
Evaluation and Conclusion I
The licensee admits that an individual without the required training, and prior to a demonstration of competence in the use of radiography equipment, was permitted to perform radiography at a field site in Mahwah, New Jersey, on July 25, 1980. The licensee requested mitigation of proposed civil penalty on the following grounds:
1.
Conam's own investigation did not establish prior knowledge by the Folcroft manager about the violation.
2.
Conam's president and the individual to whom he reports cannot recall, in the 15 years they have been with the Company, a single incident where the management of Conam has been accused of coaching an employee to cover up an incident, withholding information from the Commission, discouraging employees from contacting the Commission, backdating records, or otherwise being anything but honest with the Commission.
Violations by a licensee's employee of NRC regulations are chargeable to the licensee himself regardless of management involvement.
In the case in question, moreover, the results of the investigation and inspection ir.dicate that the violation occurred with the knowledge of the Folcroft manager. Consequently, 11-15
Appendix the licensee's response to Item 1A provides insufficient basis for mitigation of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, the Civil Penalty remains at -Five Thousand Dollars.
Item IB Statement of Violation 10 CFR 34.22(a) requires, in part, that during radiographic operations the sealed source assembly be secured in the shielded position each time the' source is returned to that position.
10 CFR 34.43(b) requires that a physical radiation survey be made after each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position.
Contrary to the above, on June 9,1981, the sealed source assembly had not been secured in the shielded position nor had a physical radiation survey been made to determine that the source had been returned to its shielded position after a radiographic exposure. This contributed to a radiographer's receiving a radiation dose of about one rem.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement IV)
(Civil Penalty - $2,000)
Evaluation and Conclusion The licensee admits that on June 9, 1981 the sealed source assembly had not been secured in the shielded position nor had a physical radiation survey been made to determine that the source had been returned to its shielded position after a radiographic exposure. This contributed to a radiographer's receiving a radiation dose of about one rem. The licensee requested remission of the Civil Penalty on the following grounds:
l l
Fines should not be assessed because historically the Consnission has not assessed a penalty with respect to licensee identified and documented incidents not resulting in overexposures.
The licensee's statement is not in accord with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9,1982) or the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66756 (Octcber 7, 1980). Under both policies in Supplement IV, paragraph C.4, a Severity Level III violation is indicated where there is a substantial potential for an exposure exceeding regulatory limits. The incident in question had such a potential.
Under both policies a civil penalty is usually imposed for Severity Level III violations.
l II-16
Appendix It is also true that under both policies up to a 50 percent reduction of the base level penalty may be considered for violations which the licensee has identified and promptly reported.
In this case, a 50 percent reduction has already been considered and granted, since the base amount of the penalty under both policies js $4,000.
Consequently, the licensee's response above provides insufficient basis for mitigation of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, the Civil Penalty remains at Two Thousana Dollars.
Item IC Statement of Violation 10 CFR 34.41 requires, in part, that during each radiographic operation, the radiographer or radiographer's assistant maintains direct surveillance of the operation to protect against unauthorized entry into a high radiation area.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to maintain direct surveillance over a radiographic operation on October 4, 1980, at a field site in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and allowed a member of the general public to enter a high radiation area.
j This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII)
(Civil Penalty $2,000)
Evaluation and Conclusion The licensee admits that its radiographer did not maintain direct surveillance over a radiographic operation on October 14, 1980, at a field site in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and allowed a member of the public to enter a high radiation area.
The licensee requested remission of proposed civil penalty on the same grounds as stated in Item 18. Consequently, the licensee's response provides the same insufficient basis for remission of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, the Civil Penalty remains at Two Thousand Dollars.
II-17
UNITED STATES
[pgIo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN l' I REGION 11 3,.I C ) nj 101 MAR!ETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100 ArtAnTA. oscactA 3o30s
, 5p, j
,gw.....f AUG 0 91992 Docket No.70-143 License No. SNM-124 EA 82-88 Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. W. C. Manser, Jr.
General Manager Erwin, TN 37650 Gentlemen:
A special inspection was conducted by inspectors from Region II, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 7 and 8,1982, at your Erwin, Tennessee facility.
The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the safety significance of your inadvertent shipment of low enriched licensed material on March 19, 1982 which 3
you reported to the NRC on June 2, 1982.
The findings from this special inspection indicated that violations of NRC f
reguictory requirements had occurred. These findings were discussed in detail with plant management on June 8, 1982.
In addition, an Enforcement Conference was held in the Region II office on June 17, 1982, in which NRC's overall safety concerns relating to this event were discussed.
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars. We propose to impose this civil penalty to emphasize the need for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. to ensure that procedures for rigorous accountability and safe shipment of licensed materials are established and followed. The violation at issue resulted in the offsite shipment of radioactive materials without meeting NRC radioactive material transportation requirements. Although this event was licensee-identified, no reduction of the base penalty has been made because of the duration of the violation. The licensed material was located off site and out of the licensee's control without his knowledge for 76 days.
In preparing your response, you should follow the instructions specified in the Notice which is enclosed with this letter. Your response should include preventive measures that are derived from a fundamental reappraisal of yout material control systems.
In addition, your response should also address actions to preclude further shipping violations. Your reply and the results of future inspections will be considered in determining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
J CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED II-18
f Nuclear Fuel Ssrvices Inc.
2
'. s 1982 In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enciasure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, wh.Oh00e ames P. O'Reilly gional Administrat C
Enclosure:
'N Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/o encl:
Frank Cochran, Chairman Public Service Commission Cordell Hull Bldg., Rm Cl-100 Nashville, TN 37219 William M. Leech, Jr.
Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Pkwy Nashville, TN 37219 II-19 m
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
Docket No.70-143 Erwin, Tennessee License No. SNM-124 EA 82-88 As a result of a special inspection conducted by NRC Region II inspectors on June 7 and 8, 1982 at the Erwin, Tennessee facility, it appears that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The inspection findings were discussed with the facility Operations Manager at the conclusion of the inspection.
NRC concerns regarding the violations were the subject of an Enforcement Conference held at the Region II office on June 17, 1982 with officials of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
On November 13, 1981, a shipment of eight drums filled with gadolinium scrap filter media containing an aggregate quantity of 688 grams of uranium-235 was received by the licensee from the General Electric Company plant in Wilmington, North Carolina.
On May 28, 1982, when the licensee was prepared to recover the uranium from the scrap, he was unable to locate the eight drums at the Erwin facility.
On June 2, the licensee determined that the missing drums were at the General Electric Company's Wilmington plant.
His investigation of the incident
(
indicated that the licensee's identifying paper seals had been removed without authorization or had deteriorated in out-of-doors storage.
Without the seals, l
the drums were misidentified as " empties" and shipped back to the General l
Electric Company's Wilmington plant on March 19, 1982 without regard to the relevant transportation requirements.
To emphasize the need for the licensee to ensure that procedures for rigorous accountability and safe shipment of licensed materials are established and followed, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars for this matter as determined from Tables 1A and 1B of the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982).
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy and Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL-295, and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
10 CFR 70.58(h) requires the licensee to establish and fcilow a system of storage and internal controls to provide current knowledge of the identity, quantity, and location of special nuclear material contained within its plant in discrete items s
and to provide for unique identification of each item.
License Condition 9 of SNM License No. 124 requires the licensee to use SNM in accordance with the statements, representations and conditions contained in subsection 260 of the license application.
Subsection 260 requires the licensee j
to follow its written procedures affecting nuclear and radiation safety.
One of II-20
I Nucioar Fuel Services, Inc.
2 Docket No.70-143 Erwin, Tennessee License No. SNM-124 EA 82-88 these procedures, Radioactive Material Packaging Manual, Section 11.G, requires the licensee, when shipping radioactive material, to describe the material and specify its quantity in shipping papers that accompany the shipment.
10 CFR 71.5(a) requires a licensee, who transports any licensed material outside the confines of his plant or other place of use or delivers any licensed material for transport, to comply with the applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation regulations presented in 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189 insofar as such regulations relate to the packaging of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, marking and labeling of the packages, loading and storage of packages, placarding of the transportation vehicle, monitoring requirements and accidents reporting.
49 CFR 173.393(m)(9) requires the licensee, prior to shipping a package of radioactive material, to determine by examination or appropriate test that its external radiation levels are within allowable limits.
10 CFR 70.58(g)(1) requires the licensee to establish and follow procedures to assure identification and measures of quantities of special nuclear materials shipped off-site.
10 CFR 70.54(a) requires the licensee to prepare and distribute a Nuclear Material Transaction Report for each transfer of one gram or more of contained uranium-235.
Contrary to the above, on March 19, 1982 the licensee's system for providing current knowledge of the location of the -special nu. clear material was ineffective in that eight drums containing 688 grams of uranium-235 were inadvertently shipped off site. Consequently:
a.
Shipping papers required by a procedure, written in accordance with subsection 260 of the license application, were not completed.
b.
Labeling required by 10 CFR 71.5(a), as specified in 49 CFR Parts 170-189, was not performed.
c.
Tests for surface contamination required by 49 CFR 173.393(m)(9) were not conducted, d.
The material was not identified for shipment and measured as required by procedures as per 10 CFR 70.58(g)(4).
No Nuclear Material Transaction Report was filled out as required by 10 CFR e.
70.54(a).
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement V).
(Civil Penalty - 52,500).
II-21
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
3 Docket No.70-143 Erwin, Tennessee License No. SNM-124 EA 82-88 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC Washington, DC 20555 and a copy to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for the violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted: (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved: (4) the correc-tive steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
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.
Uithin the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. may pay the civil penalty of $2,500 or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement will issue an order imposing the civil penalty proposed above.
Should Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. elect to file I
an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may: (1) deny the violation presented 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 IV(B) cf 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., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.'s attention 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 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. 2282.
I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
% (. O ' @ d b l
ames P. O'Reilly I
gional Administrat
,b I
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia
\\
this day of August 1982 N
II-22 J
NRC FoRu 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N (7 771 flUREG-0940 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Vol. 1, flo. 3
- 4. TITLE AND SURTlTLE (Add Volume No.,if apprcproate)
- 2. (Leave tImkl Enforcement Actions: Significant Actions Resolved Quarterly Progress Report
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
July - September 1982
- 7. AUTHOR (S)
- 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED l YEAR MONTH IE Enforcement Staff October 1982
- 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION N'AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include Zip Codel DATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH l YEAR Office of Inspection and Enforcement October 1982 U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission 6 It' ave Saa*>
Washington, D.C.
20555
- 8. (Leave Nank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORG ANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include Esp Codel Same as 9, above
- 11. CONTRACT NO.
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RED (/nclus ve r...as)
Technical July - September 1982
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
- 14. (Leave olan&J
- 16. ABSTR ACT (200 words or less)
This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during or.e quarterly period (July - September 1982) and includes copies of letters, notices, and orders sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the licensee with respect to the enforcement action.
It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC, in the interest of promoting public health and safety as well as common defense and security.
This publication is issued on a quarterly basis to include significant enforcement actions resolved during the preceding quarter.
- 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALYSIS 17a DESCRIPTORS 17tt IDENTIFIE RS'OPEN ENDE D TERMS
- 18. AVAILABILITY ST ATEMENT 19 SECURITY CLASS (Thes report /
21 NO. OF PAGES Unciassified UflL If4IT ED S
S 22 eRiCE g n gu,RgT *i'd'e g rn,s p,yer s
NRC FORM 335 (7 77)
J
UNITED STATES 2
,,g,, gg33, NUCLEAR CE ULATORY COMMISSION PositGs t. FE ss Pao
-C WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566
.fs","o e.
etnuit n. in o
OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. s300
.<o,
.e l
m-i z
mO
- D OmE m
Z-
-4>
i O'
/
/ /
J'
-4 ',
l l
c z
,y) 1 ;
( I'
.;I 1
Y
-g sr 1
z ~.,
-s
-Rl I l
'O t
Z-
=4 i
-0.
t- _
-4
^
O 2
en I
2 m
h_"
s r
i 4m 0
~.
(
g
-w r z h
3 h
'9 r
b
.. g O
3
-O i
y O
),-
tm m
7 3
3 ys g
e i
m; N
9x (
4)
,