ML20027E257

Amends Certificate of Compliance 6698 to Authorize Preparation of Model NFS-4 Serial Number NAC-1E Package for Delivery to Carrier Transport Per

ML20027E257
Person / Time
Site:	07106698
Issue date:	03/29/1981
From:	Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Clay Johnson NAC INTERNATIONAL INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ASSURANCE
Shared Package
ML20027A625	List: IR 05000206/1975004 IR 05000206/1976006 IR 05000206/1977009 IR 05000206/1977018 IR 05000206/1978008 IR 05000213/1980020 ML20027A624 ML20027A631 ML20027E164 ML20027E168 ML20027E171 ML20027E174 ML20027E177 ML20027E180 ML20027E185 ML20027E187 ML20027E188 ML20027E192 ML20027E196 ML20027E199 ML20027E204 ML20027E207 ML20027E217 ML20027E221 ML20027E226 ML20027E237 ML20027E252 ML20027E255 ML20027E256 ML20027E257 ML20027E258 ML20027E259 ML20027E260 ML20027E261 ML20027E262
References
FOIA-82-394 NUDOCS 8211120404
Download: ML20027E257 (1)

Text

\\

JC

UNI T r D I T /.TE S NUC L E AR 'R EGUL ATOR Y. COMMISSION i

f 1

n + -oeo*so cdesu e

3*..,. 7 _.e

~

MAR 27 ygjgt I L : ' r 's

'{l-NH8 N;;r!9.!e As 9 rance Corpara tion A T U..

wr.

Char!cs Jonnson 74 L.i.e.

v s. !'a ri Ws t Ar.lar.*e. CA 3G329 Gc : : ', ; - ' r..

P u r e,s.a n t to 10 CFR Part 71, Ce rti f i ca te o f Crxnp l i a n c e No. 6698 i s amend ed to auf.harin the prepara tion of Pbdel No. MF5-4, Serial No. NAC-lE' package for delivery to a carrier for transport in accordance with the stater.ents a nd re,- re cn ta t ions tra de in your l e t.tcr da ted Ma rch ~4, 1981.

In the absence o f.upr b re n ta ry..r.i e l d i ng, the dose, ra te ms t not exceed 1 ren: per hour at t h re r.

f.4 from the serrat.c of the pad. age.

All other conditions of Certifi-

i. :..., t.~m.vlionte No. 669P, shall remain the same.

In i, at.t huri za t ion shall expire on May 10, 1981.

FOR Tile U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y!N hw

/

Charles E. ?bcDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Ma te tal Sa fety, MMSS

' - Cr T.'.NL.i-Vjhx

/

af,e v* - \\

u C.f,i /,

,... n.

I-

/,',,

V

' 'ic

.j M..g"e /S,

- rr

. c_ -'ir,g )

4

~-

.,. -l$,.'

8211120404 820928 PDR FOIA RAPKINO2-394 PDR A

x. - -

-- + - - -

- ~W,q

(.D&.1 :,;.:h&h..:?.;,;.u u -

a.

.t..

p Q,)

i

-l.

(

7 y

UNITED STATas jJ

.f b4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COAUdLSSION F

W g

m m.aton.a.c.sx:=

g.3

)

d g

.APA 1 5 1981 Q

tY

\\" us;&q:.

V E'.

'I.

'q"g!].C t

50-205 0 -

'i

10. i5 iJf.: :Q.. :: '.;. "

"o

.: :o-R,,r f

'l'g.

'i

( ~ 4 R.. M ': '* ;.; ' : y.,s.!M.? '.a*;:; :.i:-~$T..:'

ap j

wc fd

t. Secthera'Callforpla Edison Coccary 0 5sx'403 g (lgISBf"JO

%gM

t. ATilh3Brd,90 Papay. Vice Presidant

[ 0 4 Advanced @Engineerinf. T :.}. T

atu vainst c]T b,E d %g g.JK Cem amue ism.

. M i P.'.. '.7 O

d Rj e tesesosd 'Callforalp?S17705 :~fd ".'. E'* '

h lh 4

$ ?tMW,

' $ x Q -X W X

• h S...':

\\

l 4 :.1? *M pi ViiMON?n.;$.5-kQ *!. we w N

a ww a.-

,to your.1sttar of shruary 17, ~1981 which was in response to b

! Tnts.wIs in!

n 4 the Rotic't

> 01stlen 'and NoticePef Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties M

23 The letter and Notice of D

(sst tsiyhi~witfCour'31sttir~of Jansah'ance,1981. associated with steam generator E

4. ViolattenTesostned[iteci'of ascirp usef;ddrt@T.tF4ithideuarteKof.1580 shd activities associated with a. spent

~

i

'i@%WksM@iMV"M.k.Jfsk cajopthWr~5;'19808bMP.,-. '

l 4.fuil shippL dWSM

~

e ;We'.ryviewe yqc Mponse 'and found ht it' contain:d the information requested JeMNod its attachasnt'sM EachFites of. noncompliance was achitted 9

f f:2 oce:

h ra additidh2TisrTntw'1Aforms).f'o. wis providsd'which would modify the itess

!)

1 3 'and.&.b:61JanWesistated'f(thshtice'of Violation.TMoreover, regarding

[$

i kuf'r

, b th(expost:rd of 'stfiYhtenator; Wrksesi'ithe'.inforsation you presented con-v

' j e isted for. fi'(ladrgt;pt.ibof of'66rksrs ware" involved;' (2) tw sit With

" firus'.that~f1)ve me ts'; arid'(3) the"tycat ines' reedily preventable.

[j b rc gct to-W evcht11mslving'thi sprint fdal' ghipping cask, we note that J

it.fstartic:i%is avallsble to'you'r'ancerning the particular radiological the~spehtifuelishippi

~ cask. A.Therefore, despite j

l 0(,;huseds aasteitted with.itho'civ11 pe6alty we ound ni' acc d

k i

l yo,Fr. ~g"t.e7st:tfdithisst(diss1s's7tif t1(ate *de:rcalt'tha' proposed tagiosition'

'E

~

j tha curu1ctive'c:'::unt'.ef Ossilkedrsi and Fifty Thousand Dollars.

1 ia.C 4MM3%G1%??l6'2.s?6L'.:*R:', i.

M'..:Ws teknowleto'yodVstrcng'dfsagreem:nt'with the conclusions conta S

B i

1n~ paragraph 3. pags 5 of Enclosure 2 to your s

l.13tterphich you' sip ~ esistd:'Istter.MSci'. stat 4eent~that "It is apparent that cor 9

} date havai'tht.tssn.'leffe'ctive", a;; plied..to the parfod frca April - Septe2er11teents p'

t 120. J.Wa.recctn12e your'stestantial coc:

These

! P.

8 isprova your.'rediation ' protection program since those incidsnts.

ll corrective ' actions have.been' successful in centro 111ng the sesequent exposure E

of personnel tavolved in.the~staan generator repairs and exemplify the spirit O

l cf ceoperation Southtfn California Edison Company has demonstrated over the d

yacrs,: Mad @enta protective esasures been taken prior to 4rti during the p

i!

Planning for the extended plant shutdown, the overexposures and, hence, civil f,

.C penitty action tty the NAC could have been avoided.

i n

cmuun mm.

,1 RETUM RECEIPTJEQU Hy w 0'

9-4 0 %244$,5 bb M A JMi% 3..... @..2&.,L

}

s.me

..i 9

.v **

s

'-c :s.

g.% W.< @r, g.,b n.~1;3.nh,M,, c'd' i.* M' '+s $qM y!m;.=

~, '

I -

Il*

5 g,p..g

?.:

^~

iu n y t @. " 'e ( * ~

~~h d

2 i

...,.4 y wp. -

!.~ D's.d:{ p O.: M 4 :." ; Q,... ~, s A. <

• Q.

.R.

.SQ*  % ~ '.h.

.?

APR 15 E s 1,.

- ;.T,

.. u.*(.&. y. 7 ~, M.r. e, *y.'.,. 4 p,. 7" Ql

~ *; i, '~:f.

v r

M...,.-.pr; '. '.. $.;-.*.a, y.,,.V.

y..i.t.%vn s -

• 3'.; :b-t.

r

.4,.e y

\\.

)

$ww!cc sou,n.~.

W..&. '*D 2.,.

'> CC %,e Y,..s%.g t

y

- :ss. **. y. >=..-:'..

s

\\

r1a A.--

..e -

. 3 7..S,

.g

.e

&:,.Edisci cali.forn.ia.g'3JM.7:%o%22.:,ly 1

\\

a ern i

Sc=?c4 :

M N - % 44 4 3 !.1). A.-

ga catrq

.m

~.-

T* & W;hhMM:SMW+*W'-MN.. -!.MMMMM. '

hnt24 February U.1931. w* hiv' M

&J?M. J:

M.Mgnfter'ecrtful;423145400 *W[; h. ahd in t t

W Wtif3tQtd M t968 q s h ti ktmo:.Tott (a.e W S *0 ff e m 11ce,ca did cccur as set efn.th gf3nrty tKJbitc 9 $1.. -

g g ytth the Interia Enforc e nt w g @ $ utch p O(cf.,c M [gg[,..

1

' %* i f thi p c 4 enforce =2nt p11 0 is ta

[@[Maisnt 'of O c

,tr g.arove m nt. w. m res. =ae d

iv. tN 1

hM IhNDkyh ti.

it

.la d

M k;.. M-w $ w %. a e@h,f @;

Jd4ca W 42 ~ -

Uf M D

Miteched activities.

3 91 The M

lts fM@m.y%h,3 ettii$uflettar of February U.1981 1s:ent~ation of thm *cti'"' Y'"

b0 rgitstr. Jff % r Hhea %g$ Y $ ? $5 $,

su 'rb.PMg&:

%*c pa

-k.:. w.je-aa.

?

n W-M 2 2.ntafc-w: w g*.g.;g,,;Q W, i

mistied.4 c5c7.3, tu,'ar prectice', part 2 Rensac ce D's

-MTitif107C: M f e-

.i.st., nd a. nclosur.

$$fy/4.11D~a'Ilan1(Johrs1 TehlC hM. %s s wF.' ' ' '

tfia M p

% %yp, vk g

3.rpe.p.@%. m[3cw.q:w'mqqu mqr n.w :,w; +- n.-:.

me

=. m m

w.t a;.v.p&t,a.s,,w#PM...n :.... w+: N,. A.?, @p w. ~cw. &W.J.m: sps.iccarely....s.. A,

... + ::. - 5:, a x.u. n D

~

=

.W.Q w M.

r N;:w. 4.3 s&<. $2'is,.y**;R'5 4 i a

v c.

. - 'gw - p. - W

: 4:m~p

t <-

s:-

e:&m-;

r a s*s...

'y?

r v.%e.a " ;....

J j

'g

• 2 9 e,t,;h.J.Vr.,i.Q:w'y *,,

A.*

~ l.. a;we'ov.a..mysetor stg. J

. 4* M s,y :r%e..

0 t'

.,a s

w%.O.$ A,y.g* ag s'. *,.;. '.. '.

.r*

b-s.n. -

s e r;. -

N kNEkfNk.f Nk$$bhib.n.SNf Inisction a.

..w m--

M.c W-w _ C n,m &,.v 8, n,.#. n,,,...-.7.- m :'[-%.'kn&- y g

>. < ~.~-

r

,.w.NJ. 4 [- Q )r.'.%. @, g. -:

f

&.no

-4 4 54

- d.

Wiy>? ** C^fttrM :.'&:c-w.

..:r-ec w... s..

• u

E.. h Y

,didj g.p In3{gd Ci,v.i..l.,M.cDet$r,Y;PCMIti88

~

-; * * ! *- ~ *

, M,,,[ d.}#'*;g.a"p" X 5. ;**

.x-r Y.:, f -..)*.

p R,*h a ' ! &..+ *-L. r&v.h,rd.. *.' :' --? i, "

e'

. r, A* 4.,.P,..

- -... C.' t,,,

,-g.

4

.u s.'_

a

,

• h}Q $t 'N....

• p y.

.1,.r.?<* *.o ;;' a[ } '*%.-/.,y.-. 7

~ ~

~v.

T.vf.*,;W., ). R,,4,y*.

5

, to:'.

~s s'ktn.~y c

. ?; h.

• r:.' -

J-2,. ~.v. c of.,.}. ~-...Qt.

=

J. 9 '

-t > -

'S*.

y M

,,s. ***.IP-

.g 3 '.,...;$ M sg Q

..ay

.%. ' [. Y.*

q&lVy.. *,p}%. ?

.. : P.

,',..n..

..%,;f.D:J. ~; o.x i,..g.

c N1

...~.,.f,',

.e -: 1 s ~..

'.~ < s s." :r'.4 + - *,. ~. W

+

, ' 4 m%: n,,. 5 1 1.:.j ? - ' ' ;.. i

• 1

..M,^f^:' 5,y

• 'T %'f.*f 4

i s-

,y.

n,,.<;;<.: y... s.. -

i

.,s.y s

,-f3J,:<'.

k' ', *.,

"0 f.

l

.... ~

Q l

..a

., W2$!Wy E... :..

.w

.t.

.,,.. = s

$N.51Y ' lN,Y.. Dh

$5 bI%^Y. : %..Y,2 Y

s..

-. -k 4:.%$ h:- &h'$Y

'~.

5 g

..,.,.c.

c g.,.-

l

.s.

ElITED STATES OF MERICA

~

'2 if..'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIISSION

e

....,.s.

. c. &.,. a; ;,a.'.....

. +.

o g.9.~1N Th! f*dTTER OF -

)

."ia.7:4 :.% 9 m ;. y..y;..

}

% M ScutMra

)

License No. DPR-13 W O sen Casfr,Califerhia Edison Ccapany.

e Ruclear Generating v

)

Dockat Ms. 50-206

.fo.J:%.Statica Unit No,'1 % c

's. :. ;

)

EA 81-10 4-2.d 5,,,6,-. 4,W.m..p< M...fc. 2,.e.L.;%.;. y - lv.-n.

M ns ci '3.~e e, hgt'&,..n' C'tDER IMPOSIN3 CIVIL N0%ETARY PENALTIES ha e 2.. %.w :.v.:i:mm,, >..*. L., t.,.... %

.e.:.,

.:.., -Ms.e....;

• ac

.c,..

s 4...

, p. r j+'k &.N 5-h;:5.W$$%Q $ %[Y =.L '

',L ~ - ; '-

.., :. ': ' }.,

.~.2.CiL-k.r,.q.Q.ib.;.R.?.'i m. :._..

.s-

.g.' -

ur:

g w. ctev:w.: c.c &,.;.y

.L

.\\...

ss::Mn.4 4C.

..%..n:.

]~M.?I.NOhn.w :$ $lT': *:W<

.:N WM$cuth:rn Califc'rnia Edison, Cc.epany,1244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosecead.

.s :. g, m: n, s.,a. m.,.,..: % w..z...,

~%

w s.

..~x.-

E.,m.,F. Cal.i f.e..r4f e.y.~ c a..

~.

9

~(the "Ifeenses ), is the holdar of Fecility Operating

%u,g:g. m.:...z.1770.,7.,g..,:.. m.a.q.w..": :.

. r a,nc. 9..;o..

. v.w.

w #.

ff D+LicensaJoTDP2-13. issued.by. the' Nuclear Regulatory Comissten (the M@$.

y.W44%.BM:.6%p%WWll:+%- ~

which authorizes the operation of the San Onofre Nuclear

.d"f.d.

Cc=leston") led.?i-l C W:n.'.W'? ?. G. '. ? * ~.

%4p P

G%f:

N e:7,tGensrating Statien Unit' Ra.1.(the " facility"), located in San Diego 3...e...S,w.

c. 3._ w.,.,,9j +f.n. s....._

~

.a f.:~,

...y..,. ornia.g.,The. license' As initially issu:d on Ksrch J.9 5 County, Calif

.L 27, 1957.

-y.:s.:..

. w..-

v

.. n....

-. ~.

7.

z.

b::[MThe fccility is a Prusurized Water Reactor (FW2) authorized to operate t2.% ?.L Q& :::?.y;-W.%.4LQ _ :-

L L '.;.Triat' ;a pcwer.'.le el not.in'. excess of 1347 segrestts thermal (rated povar).

t.

l.:.

.y

.a.r:.. q,,,.;.. f...,.

.c a t.

. y,:.

r-y-

f

?

. ~.......,,/...

y,

_v gy 6

_ ;..- ; m..73:

i During an inspEtion of the licensee's activities at this facility conducted en Septeder 22-26 and October 14-17, 1980, items of nonccop11ance were iden-8

(

tified with the requirezents of 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection I

Against Radiation," and the provisions of the 11cansa. A written Notice of t

f Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated January 23, 1981, specifying the items of noncospliance in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.

A hh/~~~ Of&

j&,Q

k.iM n N I.A n W'-2 L w aL Q

& &:K

-a : 6.s m : n,a

i

[

Notice of Proposed Isposition of Civil Penalties was served concurrently upon the ifcensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, e

as amended (42 USC 2232 PL Yr295) and 10 CFR 2.205, incorporating by reference the i

3

..g l

i

' E..stica of Violation '.. Answers frca the l.icensee to the Notices of Violation

'. : ; = ;;. u;. u. _ - s. s.. v 17, 1981. Upon

-..and Prcposed'Isposition of Civil Penalties were dated February

'~

4. _. y 9 & n.:d:n..i: x..: -.considerettom of the' answers received and the statements of fac

.i.

. = ;y; '.y. p-p.:,.

.m..

~.

^ 6 e..and ar,pment in dantal or altigation contained therein, as set forth in Appen-

}

..p,

. ;:p.

W.1 *.

. ?;'..

3

' h M;5: '.6 sd!x'A to this Ordar, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement

]

,.,w ; o @>.. p;...._.

.s.. ;.e,.: m :

c. - -

i v

L{:'d has determined that the' penalties proposed for the items of nonco::pliance

]

2.

50: 3 *; - W.;;"L:" rr S:$'D.W,-A: *, :.;::. ::'.

desig:mted in the Notice of Violation should be imposed.

4

%'Yd'Q,40.6d %S *.: -

- - -3 N,:

-h

- :. -p 7 ;~ ~ -

....g; '.w'. 4..

. -d y.~.;. g n >2 ".r n '.

f.FG.A i

.3 i

g r

ggg 3,

n

.i M,. a. -f. : :,.* ~.

i ^.* -nIn view of the forer,stng and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atemic Energy Act L,-..,} :;..-

~

l ?P 7ef 1S54, as accaded and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

g! @G 7 :~

[

...u E_.y.

>. f q : '. - G...

t s

g_..

d;,eH,',i; Southern California Edison Cepay pry civil penalties in the total

[.

73.3 f

a ount of Cae Hundred Fifty.Thousand Ds11ars within twenty-five (25) days i

i of 'the'date e'f.this Order by chock, draft or ecney order payeble to the

.l Treasurer of the United States and sailed to the Director of the office of Inspection and Enforcement.

1 l

', l, IV j

i The licensee say, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, request a hearing.

A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director.

't

,b i

1 j'

i Offjce _of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S.M.R.C.

Washington D.C., 20555.

i.

, A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive L.egal

b. Director. U.S.N.R.C., Washington. 0.C., 20555.

If a hearing is requested, 2 :

n :, :

l..

the Coenission will issue an order designating the time and place of hearing.

i

t :%.m. '$l r '."

r p ;Upon f. allure of the licensee to request a hearing within twenty-five (25) days

' L :.t. - W.u;'cy.+.?)~ W : 2.

of.the'date~ef this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective

f. ' 6M ~*d4.51.%ii:.:5;%iw.:ytthout further proceedings and, if payment has n

\\.,

l I. "Cf.9QW/.i.+. ; VG.W - c.

T" l

q.he matter say be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

t

...v.. e -

g..,...:..

.e.s 3 ; :.,.

..s

. v.

~

x.;;- 3.. :;. '..J. ;:..._ -

9 s.. -.,

y

. 4 ; :. y a :. :..

L i % ; 1..:. ; -);.". &

L~

. ?

7-

... =,

~

.Q.** !l.. -.

d In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues

.i 3

~_ <...g:,.;

x...r.

e. to be considered et such a hearing shall be:

8:

_ y

,e*,

'~

y f; n.

~

t

[

(a) whether ti.e. licenses was in noncompliance with the Cossissicn's j

requirensnts,as set forth in items A and 8 of the Notice of Violation

- ~;,:.-

p

. ' ; re'farEncEd in Sectio's II aind III above; and e

.c

.?

.j,. ;-.

Y

. v, r

(b) whether, on the basis of these itcas of noncoop11ance, this Order t

f

~

should be sustained.

P l

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY COMMISSION

/

Victor Ste

,J.

Di tor Office of I spec n and Enforcement Deted at Bethesda, Maryland this m day of April 1981.

Attachment:

Appendix A, Evaluation and Conclusion

i i

l l

t APPENDIX A Evaluation and Conclusion 1

j The licensee admitted each itsa of noncompliance assessed a civil penalty in the notice of Violation dated January 23, 1981, in Enclosure 1 of their I

j j-February 17 i

. to the propo. 1931 respcase.Enclosure sed imposition of civil maa(2) of the response presents a procest b?..

lties based on the contention that the V[._ i. torrective actions alres% taken witt respect to probicas discussed in the j

- January 23,1931 EC letter, the findings of the Health Physics Appraisal

'.6,. sinspection resulta of continuing inspections and thstr own evaluations have 3 ;. i>Medequately, demonstrated to their management that major improvec p

Etalth Plysics program were required and that Southern California Edison gij,.pN(SCE) is now fully coenitted to ensur,ing that these improvements hav ff Jfy/(pwill continue.to be. implemented. SCE feels that the added em a M:.their coexttaantito secure 1 cog term corrective action.

The Office of

?

hInspe'ctioit limd

. 9K. m1icenses's respEntorcessat's evaluation and conclusion regarding ohse is presented below.

>E4$gi"c,MA4:g.:SMifef liciEM 911ance'

• 2 '

2> L: e.# a.. s..

4 B 9E Associated with 5tems Generat'or Repairs (Items A1, A2) by m

?.,

gA@1.10. CFky,:.t;e.n v.:f-A." restricted area,). (1) Radi

..a 20.101-(b i

states in part that, "During ary calendar quarter the d

f.b,w..a. total occupationa,l dose to the whole bo@ shall not exceed 3 rses."

x

% vj. xy -n-A.

w7 4,7 ce Contrary %ge W'.;..n~.,.

q to the above during the third calendar quarter of 1980 twenty-

. Wh-F four indiv221s received total occupational doses to the whole bo# in p%:9 9 excess of 3 res.

s,

.~9 yg...g_.?,

J

.y c...

W4.'.'(.} This is a Severity Level III violation (supplement IV) (Civil Penalty

.pp,

QM{ge. E. $75,000)W$6'LN O.,

.~

,m.J;%c 1 f h-d 3 ?

' 'i..

A.2.10 CFR 20.201(b) " Surveys", requires licensees to saka surveys as may be f W., M necessary to cocaly with the reculations in 10 CFR 20.

Surveys are JJ,e defined in 20.201(a) as "an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident A

to the prod::: tion, use release, disposal, or presence of radioactive asterials or other sour,ces of radiation under a specific set of condi-h; E ' ', i. tions. Wn appropriate, such evaluation includes a physical survey of j.-

~

the location of saterials and equipsont, and measurements of levels of l

radiation or concentrations of redioactive material present." 10 CFR 20.202 " Personnel Monitoring", requires that "Each licensee shall supply apptcpriate personnsi menitoring equipment to, and shall require the use s

l,

of such equipment by:

"(1) Each individual who enters a restricted area under such circum-stances that he receives or is likely to receive a dose in any calendar quartar in exces,s of 25 percent of t.%e applicable value specified in paragraph (a) of 20.101."

kbiin,,N M M..NSMNIN NNNSMN N N M@"N5322/M5UM W' 9 s

,...;.i Q[.4% ]

• m # ~.*

Q. s,.

W.,A t hf. 2

.; 4.

c.,......

m. -..-

.2 -

! ',Rg.5@M'.-.- #Wix A. (Continued) r..s..::u&.n.w.. ~: L;... '..

. _,.. = ~,

. 1:

g

+,

ir M

d'M;g:q 'Centrary tithe'above, during the third calendar quart 2

M.

d inside the steam i

. g@@M guststW.et evelsations of the radiation hazar

1. 5

-r surveys.

checn61. heads were not made as pocassary to assure liancailth tha'.whole bo4 dose Italts specified in 10 CFR i3Wh MWK 20.

bE.TCthat' individuals received doses in excess of 3 res and fig. M.;IS CFR 23.4041#(that. appropriate personnel centtorica equipsont was Nact providgi%e measure the ~ dose to:the~ heads and lens of eyes of 4-A

~

p NMMMi@le persitted tswsek.inside the' channel h

!@!i:

vindividua iWSMM> '.

i ti tevel 111.v

~

w z p)q % ivi M ii$

Y h ph

% M.. d @e S W.; $ $. W Y 5 % & ; V M M M S E Th'd M v

45ah.S.- fv41ust en efthe Licensse's Resoonse Uten AY,..

h.

M M G M & W s' W r' J e @ @ W W N n -

g g @1The11$eadsedada1 R civil;paaltist.:.should n; items;of moneczpliance, but argues th N@r.x,4yp.

ot, tie.isposed.'.0To supprt its view, the licensee p

se and Mt**Jts. otaitaantief'resWees' ta'ieprove tu health physics p 1

Ifeensee

@E-igeod:enforcsanht' his~tary for,ithe three years prior to April 1980.

rcumstaricssVshrround1nfi the event to show that the eMsjstf. mmc 1.1cwP4 ci,ect:particularl

[;' f%e.e:.m;h.,,,r.anique t.s Sea.fils pa ous:

' noel'

.~ ~}$e;4%33 t

JW6 wer t

dh i5R.

single

.tvaluate' stem generator dose was not

-. f..~. < e +%;s. n,~. e. -

6 @.re.. m$'??!f M M ".Fe'.,

A.

.w YM,$,Igh.;fi$k.qMc,s.hM+"...

-n e

'5 n

T5

~

h(F h. M N@q q g f The;M

p., - "s gov 6rning stata generator entries had been reviewed by W

p 6@-4@W'N2C re91enalinspectors;in April 1930 without comment tha esthods of'Wh contre 1F C/'-

~

?$cq W0%WFNWW'N!WF5W~ M ~

f.hjfNlWl~1T7.%1 iteerster. work ahd/ evea~with:a.

.@9.fg.jyg#f$f.16ce;th.n,750persor.nalreceivedexposuresasso e,. 3 mykr?,%. n.M..hds=all'frectien" received. doses"in' excess' o WEWM spi.fMff.6'@. h The redisttee pr%e..-w....e.o n

,..m.

q 4. 3

ws.. 3.vPotection program in effect was adequate to preven

~..

. M.. +g y.xc.wr w: mm.

ES..

L 4aWGerkse froa reco1ving an injurious dose. The largest cal.culated

~

%'sM:WIS.t:gdose to any individu~al was 4.9 cc:n.

WgW. h V b W6;%N,.Y%.h 2G :'::-

, isi:c.~M$gl-T..S. ;f9ecs:the problems were identified, the licensee took tenediate corrective 'actica. to prevent additional radiation exposure without WKi,'j :.m.i *.;(Jappropriate personnel tonitoring, to perform a conservative evalv-M-7g'.9.:C

'stion of previously exposed workars dese, and to accelerate major y@:.e,W n:.} ~F -j. ' -,ovements. n ts ra adi tion protection progree.

r i i I

'.f

.a.. m. ~........

2.a

-~.s

.. " licenses agrees that staan generator personnel exposures are a serious v.n....

S&.:l$4T.'The

.W i%

matter, but he leves la Ifght of these circumstances that civil penalties Ll 4 r,J

' should not be,isposed.

?.

Bone of these setters altars the NRC's view that civil penalties should be l-laposed for these vielstions. With respect to the items raised by the licensee, the Inc believes:

o h

o

N Y{.:.

. 0 d E M h k k $ ' $ N. $ $ 0 h N h h 5 lIb IINM& mis %f I

j A;p:ndixA(Centinued),

!l)!

l 1.

Although incidents of inadequate personnel monitoring may be observed 1 l at other facilities, Southern California Edison rema ns responsible l

for ccepliance with the Cesaission's requiresents at its facility

{

and aqy be subject to civil penalties for violations of such require-l g

eents. ' ty industry practice, tha highest entry dose should be to31tored whenever tw variation in exposure, as here, may be large.

Placeennt of parsonnal monitoring devices to measure the highest

- entry dose W.cn the variation in exposure is large has also been

' recorrendsd by the International Cocaission on Radiological Protection Wand the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

e l'. <..'

Qs%:.ht.:g. +:;.;r :=.5,1 2.~ .UnfortunatelyItoring at an earlier time.' NRC inspections did no j:

..g personnel mon NRC licensees are, however, b

J, tesponsible for cos:pliance with the Cosnission's. requirements at all m

- Atimes,"not just from tha time,.an NRC inspection specifically ident-L

.C.

' i.yifies.a' probles to a~1icensee.;MRC frispections are in nature audits ef the licensee's ectivitics'a4 do'not purport to exa:aine every a

W. > j / ^ %g

- t..

aspect of ifcensed activities. '

.?

found.daring an inspection"su;c..Although noncospliance say not be i:W-Vi:. Q'0.j finding.that ths. licerisee.Is fully in compliance with all app h a~ result does not constitute a

. prequirements.70ain/weTara ~ concerned that the inadequacies in personnel

,yf-A.p.:;d(fMB 2

sonitoring&?WMCWM:...; 'i: a.were not idsntified until an NRC 1.: w. M @d fiYyB. ;. u. W 3..L C::-

c

'- g7M ' 'a..-cIcappropriate place:ent?of ysrsonnel zonitoring devices occurred Afrcs April to RA; r.>-N-to tha.11 cense. Ao2ust 1930 wx a an NRC inspector brought the practice e's attention.

i Idhile so:s 750 persons may have bean.

!y w > E,

.9 nvolve'd la.the steam sensrator program, the frection wno reesived L '

D...-r dexposures above regulatory limits is siCnificant from the standpoint

. of adequately assuring that excessive exposures are avoided.

It was L. -

0 V

' ;s,%yonly. fortuitous that the overexposures did not affect ev c f

~h M'-

5.X

_ f. persons t an ths'24 idsntiffed in the third quarter and the 42 identified in ths 'second quarter. The NRC expects licenssas to 5

P..

.. provide the asst eccurate assess:: cat of an individual's radiation cdose and considers the failure to do so a serious satter even when

-regulatory limits.are not exceeded.

/;n a.....y g

4.

Ifhile it is true worksrs did not receive biologically significant doses is andar the licenste's rediatten protection practices during April to August 1900, a nusber of individuals received doses above regulatory l.

limits durin it preventable.g this period.

These doses were unnecessary and clearly Agsin, it was fortuitous that other persons did not recalve excessive exposures.

l:

5.

An NRC inspector brought the problems with surveys and desteetry during staan generator repairs to the licensee's attention on August 20 auItiple personnel dosimeters for all additional entries into theThe lice 1980.

steam tors by initiating a comprehensive survey to evaluate ation env,ironment in the steam generators and using this the

D l

Appendix A (Continued) ;I

'f ent2 red the stesa ganarators wcaring a single chest-worn film bedge.

date to perfors reassessments of the dose to each workar teho had

^

.The licenste aise ces:sitted substantial management attention and i

i resourcas to update the radiation protection program. These actions

.have been a;9arently successful.to data in controlling exposures to

'f-

.T.rthe persosnel.iavolved la the ongoing stsas Generator repair activity.

"J'.' ntnilt thg. licensee's I.anective actions have been coamendable.

p '.y&.3 '.7,?'corrsctive action is always' recuired of licensees when no l

gdis~fidentified.E.:

_er.ffb r:..'

l

' _ V i~ 4 t % i.g W M 7 & f4 & p ; 7 c. b.i G "' M 7

r if.. la thi.lettige'transaltting W Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposedtzp

! -;Mview'.'.undersc6re'this particular egregiousnes's.ef.the violations of require-Wfleints te' tis"

. The licensee does not Wipicificelli,,cinduct'of,.theistess generator. program.these' points.r ;These factors.

disput(liRC's' action.in this satter:' '

~

i I-Qas~;the basi (for j

$iif R d %)# viewisigp1ficant W. @. % %.-.f :ss6cf of jl J gi$ M @

WM:'sWC-:

l$gNM Q e.4 M g p $ %. 5. M M 3 W $ # 2 b % i.I': M.. a V

'VW 1

Ei 5

c.3dd ;;:

• te'surysy and monitoring existed for a long period

,l rs./@ydf QU'ThriW'e8d afght.'have continued for a censiderably longer M % ofatice S

C2' ed'lf as IGC. inspector' had not discovered it;

'l.

%.%p % %.

Q)#The^everexposures,, tere,#f'11y preventable if adequate personnel

-CM$ M W &&Kn~

hNZ ' - ~ -

1M b.x f..In@2 8

read f

l M

N t.

.k+

.~

/.

5'?jk@g @&tonitering had been used;$N.

5.e -

,0 UTd_T ~_ -

W)QM*NMW'WW%Thz licen:ee s ridiction girotection program had been cit F ); l.-(M for~ner.cccpliance oh a' ausber of occasions from April through j-4 W

I 1 0 % 2

'!d Septechsr n

.. V ' !f3....

b OG ? Q).Mt&.C&.1910; 'a' di

.e. D. ::. M:

4 ik.~:llG W :s W Vc.

1 X%

B

%V gin'ai!! tion to the 24 persons receiving overexposures in the l

[ 2%)i%g# dditi r.

.;@ third ' quarter of.?MO, the licenses had calculated that an P:f:t.#

a on11~42. persons received total. occupational doses to the 1 ef';eM h% hole bo% greater'than 3 res in.the second calendar quarter.

I

~ ~ m. a. A.; 5

,4.M

.. s::.. -

3 -n Cc:v:1csl64.W.z.D..<.w%.n.':n.cf-1 n

. i..

g

.m.

e.. _..

5

~

-fJy. : A 4;

'i y,b xi.e.t 2-E E g W 3.i *Tji M'.h d..i-As the licensee' admits, the' licensee failed to perform adcquate surveys of the

/

E : ~.L,radiolo2 cal conditions inside the stanz generators which resultad in persons i

Wrecalving ex' osures'to'.radiatica in excess of regulatory lief ts. The licensee's A

p While

< g.. A argunants1do not' altar the NRC's view that this event was egregicus.

iths.8GC acknowled2 s the licensee's corrective actions, such actlons as a

l7.' result of.ths identificatica of noncocpliance are expected as a matter of

~

~ prudent sanegsaant to ensure the safety of workers and compliance with the

' 9 Consission's requirements.' No adequate basis exists for re: sitting or citigating the civil penalty.

~

r a

= )

.e D

(

I h e-

-.c...

g g.g.gg

& & & i % 2 0:n J W W W. n: s c w,.; 4.;_.;n w

. x-a i 1

}

I 4.

Appendix A (Continued).

j i, 4 1.

' y.

-;:)

$tatacent of Moncomplience i

asscciated with Hand 11po the NFS4. NCA1E Shippine Cask (Items 8.1-4) l

- a:.. e e i.

.t.1.10 CFR 20.201(b)." Surveys", requires licensees to make surveys as may Surveys are

' [ -

y ' be neccstary to cceply w"ith the regulations in 10 CFR 20.

.adefined.in 20.201(a) as en evaluation of the radiation hazards incident

~-

- f"Ato~ the'prodqctionf.use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive

. b.e:-

' T 4- 'i faaterials'oripther' sources of radiation under a specific set of condi-2:-Z g$$tions'3Mtion appre'priate, such evaluation ~ includes a physical survey of W+%Q.*a 'rediation^ ' con,satorials _and equipment ' and seasu mf$tWlocat,1.on:of F

centrations of radioactive materia.l present."

V <. c m/R z.

a.

.y.vt ras..... ~ ; a

+4. :4.n..; a. ;

m v...av.

~

5. c.

-~~

e 4d6 Radiation.Ex;the:abovefon SeptesberLS,1980 two' individuals wor r

l eJ

.. posure'7 emit Ilot 28355 were permitted to handle highly

%@M.FPtedicactive'antarialTassociated'with a spent' nuclear fu M

g t@l5ais@pMof,tha'fadiation hazard to the. workers' hands was not made

~

italtssure cospliance'with the~ hand dose limit specified in g ji-

{10;tFR 20'.

!!ithat the teta do'ss rata was' not sensured and a survey or as eecess Q@an v

!.ddslaatsr$sN;ccIsct trerdosa esasured by the thernolumines 45.deve.loitipa to M 5Et5 M @J W

-7..R'.X <>-Ml M<.: ' _+

otiander; W V c

dlh&p&Md7%;>5qv@arity]avel,111 vi'Ui:

V l

t

@#f,b?-Thisis a olation (Supplement IV) (Civil Penalty 4

Y W.5.~ / -

@Z~8'Q.$15)50)mmM).=K.W8WSQw'm:

GWQb%

E

~

w..

m M mt W-m%

'ure of individuals to concsntratiens of radio-li@::P.Rd.?110_CFA 20.103(a)(3 fib.2 Md #adtive'ast~artal~ in',41 restricted areas", states in part:

"For pur-

' 11ance with the requirements of this sectica the poses offdst'airdining ~l le asasurs:ents of conesatrations of radioactive liconiiet/sha11 Muss'su

.YE%@*ysita' rials. in'. air. for'.dstecting and evaluating airb T.s^.

m. restricted areas'-and :in.'.~ addition, as' apprcpr' ate, shall use measurements

1. $-P.offrsdisiaictWity'.ja' the boM asasurements of radioactivity excreted from

!ddiphthitsWor':Wdiabination,ef.such osasurements as may be necessary for ST'?un e.imaly~detectica'and assessaant of ndividual intakas of radio i

fk.ht -

t > 4.; T, i. 'Y V,.j.i'. N d %. A 4: : h. W. ::' X ** ' J.* I '. *. ~ ; # " "

Dd xpc' sed individuals'.*:-:C4M.

(

l L-n-

.a.

r r.d.

n -9 Contrary to'.6e' abo

[ on' Septecher 5',1980 two individuals were ve K:<:f r r.? permitted to' handle highly radioactive saterials in the restricted area c-#.

c i

, 5G. under~ Radiation' Exposure Pernit flo. 28855, in 'a manner that dispersed the L' 1:1.J satarials resultin0 in facial contzaination; no measurenant of the concea-

[. 7.. tration' of radioective asterials in air in the individuals breathing zone p ", :_1 ware nadif and appropriate seasurements of radioactivity in the bo# and

esasurements of radioactivity excreted from the bo@ as necessary for J..

.

..>J' timely ~ detection and assessment of the individuals intake were not made.

l t

}.

' ' This is a Severity Level Ili violation (Supplement IV)

(Civil Penalty $18,750).

f

)

e

j.

Appendix A (Continued),

8.3. Technical Specification 6.3, " Facility Staff Qualifications" requires that sa:h manber of the facility staff meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of AltSI N18.1-1371, "Selectica and Training of Personnel for Nucisar Power

. Plants *Ians' art shawa es members..for cosparable positions : Chemistry an i

Technic of the facility staff in Figure 6.2.2.2 of i

Techalcal. Specification 6.2.. A?tSI N18.1-1971 requires in Section 4 that,

• Euclear power plant personnel.shall have that combination of education,

.kch provIdat rsasonable assurance that decisions and actions durin i

']

, ; nomal,and abno)rmal

- J.- Jafe Tnd efficient:scondittens will be such that the plant is operated in a

^.

, enner" and that Technicians ~1n responsible positions s

1. 4 scst hava' at:1eest'.tue' years:of working experienca in their specialty.

..,P49RidfET M%$

S: @q/3t 6 Contrary.t@oitite1above$iW& 4%.9# #

en the, sorning of September 5,1980, the Radiation G n}sMNotictionjechnician,who;provided~d1 rect radiation safety monitoring and i

f teentrol

~

ions involving the RFS-4, NAC IE spent fuel shipping cask r.99.lr.'MitiT

rep.No.228855.did not have two _y~ ears of working experience in 4

t':7Tggdrailla e' ~ '.

ionMAnfintarvies conducted by an IGtC Inspector confirmed c

a QJ

-4that'bFwitsinst~famillWYtth the shipping cask, was not aware of the M4p$g;.fpotentiali'fadiation'hazardsadd'did not understand t d

f adh,sd6IQ ~ 1psts.sant' he T uis~ed; if-@.C.'.

i k.

is k r

I bt (SupplementIV) s.

Ic

[.

W.@B'4 ST Micalf$pecificat o[$ection 6.11 requires that written procedures

• M. M..

ec L'Ff MfoiFgIsrsd.ns1.hdiationTprotection shall be prepared consistent with

.?.:hiths requirestats' of StWs. ParEadhered td foe.10,CFR;Part 20 and shall be appreved, maintained

J. :., Cif-95ca'Onofre Nuclear.,all.. operations involving personnel radiation exposure.

$Q(1-c.q3YIII.8/ Revitic(2/ dated January Gensrating Station Radiation protection Procedure Jy 10,1 1979, " Decontamination Procedure Qr Ec

,Nyrf.iPerseenol".;.]de in the personnel decontamination log book. state's.inise F:shall be ma The entry 3?gy gshal.1.JN1 ode":nams'fdate,~ ties 1 work location," cpm of contaminated are

{ d.'.q..345ttafore~ and after. decontamination', and notice if person was given'a whole Q

be Tcan.*. dG

.. ~ : Q. ]. v.&.3. u m <..m v.,R.1..@.'. LF R Ni

' i ' '

• 7:

~

<cA

. n u....,

~.

?-

<, Contr:ry to the'above, on Septesber 5,1930 two individuals working under

~ q. y?Rediation.

. -.i:

3:casions.Exposurs Permit No. 28355 received skin contesination on two while'wo'rking with highly radioactive material and the log book

')

~A reccrd fo' the first occesion did not include the ties, work location.

r

- cpa after decontamination and notice whether the person was given a whole bc@ scan.

In addition, no log book entry was made regarding the second

'j J.. r-occurrence of skin contamination for these individuals on the afternoon

?

. of September S,1930.

This is a Severity Level III (Supplement IV)

(Civil Penalty $4,250).

Appendix A (Continued) 8 Evaluation of the Licensee's Response U tes B )

1he licensee admits the four items of noncompliance associated with the handling of the spent fini cask, but the licensee protests the isposition of civil penalties for this event. The licensee sophasizes its corrective actions with l

vespect to its radiation protection program and points op that the rediatica protection ~p was at least effective enough to prevent any workar from 9

?. re:siving an urious dose. The licenses attributes its failure to adequately evaluate the telegical hazard associated with this particular cask and take l

~~ N C apptcpriate protective measures 1te inadequate procedures, but contrasts the event W.-

F with its previous uneventful history associated with handling spent fuel casks.

% a[, The IRtc agrees'that.the licensee's failure to anticipate the problems in y.k21.%'rJ % # # n:' % ~ n.

5 ? O.s e The

' G384.7 hand 11ag'this;particular~ cask led.to the cited itees of noncespliance.> @.

M?FISjustifyfet.codrs'. the inadequate surveys and protect < ve actions taken by the s

b.$Q11censtelhersi?. Licensees must constantly anticipate that their activities say require'greate'r care and attention than past experience strictly indicates.

M.-e$$N6%E36E2l% W%MST% % =.

l

%yh. Ths IGC agrees that the workars. involved did not receive a biologically sig

+$

p MM.dni.71ayiefof the breakdown in. radiation protection procedures, however,

.y55

1. D;Nprotectioni~ procedures could have~ resulted in excessive radiat Mi tC.7WEENMfM:1. M d. W 9 ?. O f1.

S.h%q.As notaid in'the January 23,1931, letter. to the licensee, the NRC is particularly i @ Sh'Scencerndd that these nonccepliances occurred even though W

1 iicensc3.s escent enforceccat history on radiation protection, the licensee 8

, } 4'.-74shculd,have besn alertad that'isprovacants in its radiation eenitoring progres W.A.vwere necessaryM The licensee 'ecknowledges in its reponse that the Health I'. A.CiPhstes,Appraisel. exit. interview held on Mqy 30, 1980, had idsntified the need

>WQ.s:for 1.pis. Qts'in' radiation ~ safety practices and the licenses had begun to l

'k,1.p.isalialisprovementsiin'the radiatica' protection program.

In addition to this l p,'.3%gerarenass of the need.for taprsec.;4its in radiation safety, a zesti

.. S;;-

ien'the mornina 'af Septerbar 4,1930, econg representatives of the cask owners,

& ths,Che:sistry/ Radiation Protection foressa, and representatives of the licensee's

'g,.

.sanagccant.

Even though the likelihood of fuel fragments being present in the l

.cesk and the~ potential radiological hazards wore discussed at this saeting,

.ai s tha subsequent' surveys ware still inadequate, an unqualified technician was T

-assigned to the job, and radiation protection procedures were not followed.

~ Conclusion

,(

l The licenses adsitted the items of noncocpliance. The MRC indicated in the letter transmitting this enforcement action that an increase in the base

(

penalty Iqy 2SE to $5.0.000 was warranted, because the licensee had been alerted

li to the need for improvements in its radiation monitoring progras and should have taken remedial steps prior to the ocurrence of this event. The licensee has not presented,information which would cause the NRC to remit or altigate the civil penalty.

i

April 15,1981

~

0FFICE OF INSPECTION AfiD ENFORCEl'.ENT

~

Ell-81-l ?

NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION lQ s

f x

Licensee: Southern California Edison Company,

.pO'r g7 n

Rosemead, California zPg (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) y S,C g

B/

Docket No. 50-206 g

V t

• r Subjec t_:

Ihi OF CIVIL PENAL. TIES - $150,000

" " ~ ~

At a Commission meeting on January 19, 1981, the Commission was briefed on IE's intent to issue a Notice of Violation and a Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $150,000 to Southern California Edison The proposed penalties were based on alleged violations relating Company.

to (1) the exposure of steam generator repair workers to radiation in excess of allowable limits under NRC regulations; and (2) the improper handling of a spent fuel shipping cask that resulted in unnecessary radiation exposure to workers. The Notices were issued on January 23, 1981.

The licensee responded to the Notices in a letter dated February 17, 1981. After consideration of the licensee's response the IE Staff concluded that the violations did occur and that no adequate reasons were given by the licensee for mitigation or remission of the proposed penalties.

Accordingly, an Order Imposing Civil Penalties in -

the amount of $150,000 has been issued today. The licensee and the State of California are being infonned by telephone.

Under the terms of the Order, the licensee may within 25 days of the date of r

the Order, pay the civil penalties or request a hearing.

Contact:

G. Barber, IE 27246 D. Thompson, IE 28487 Transmitted H St. b [ 2 -

Di s tribution_:

Chainnan Hendrie Comnissioner Ahearne C. C. Xammerer, CA.

S. J. Chilk, SECY E. J. Hanrahan, PE Comissioner Gilinsky ACRS.

(For Distribution)

Commissioner Bradford P. Bldg. Y'M IE:HQ

Yf Transmitted: MNBB W. J. Dircks, ED0 H. R. Denton, NRR

~

C. Michelson, AE0D R. H. Vollmer, NRR Landow (6 min)

J. J. Touchard, PA T. E. Murley, NRR J. J. Cummings, OIA -

N. M. Haller, HPA D. F. Ross, NRR G. W. Kerr, OSP D. Eisenhut, NRR Mai_1 H. K. Shapar, ELD

5. H. Hanauer. NRR Document Hgt. Br. (POR)

S. Ebbin, NSOC A1 7!3A Willste Bldg.

k/ 3 2 '

Regional Offices 4 tr 9: 37 J. G. Davis, NMSS p iTE 9,3 7 R. Minogue, RES D LiZ / 0 *.1 s~

INFORMAfl0N - NOT FOR PUBLIC OISCLOSURE UNTIL April li,1981

~

PREllHINARY 5

s

,e a. ' *-

.y APR 2113Sk '

Docket tio. 50-206 Southern California Edison Company,_

P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: Dr. L. T. Papay Vice President, Advanced En0ineering Gentlemen:

Subject:

NRC Inspection - San Onofre Unit 1 This refers to the inspection conduted by Mr. G. 'P. Yuhas of this office on March 30 - April 3,1981 of activities authorized by NPC License No. DPR-13, and to the discussion of our findings beld by Mr. G. P. Yuhas with Mr. J. M. Curran and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed

/

inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, inter-views with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

No items of noncompliance with URC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspection.

i 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 inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Docuoent Room.

If this report contains any infonnation that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such infomation be withheld from public disclosure. The applica-tion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that

~ ?lS $ *O 3^ f p/24 A P!.) L

&.h h

omet RV suw-ch.........,....

. E.t!SLAk SKI....Bd0........

...YUHAS/.M:1.

W 4/a./81 4/2J /81 4/AT/81 omh

~

e

'.l.1, 1

hPk ' t agg s_

Southern California Edison Company,

the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document P.com.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in i

the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be t

glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, i

Odginal signed by R E. Book H. E. Book, Chief Radiological Safety Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report No. 50-206/81-11 l

cc w/o enclosure:

J. M. Curran, SCE San Clemente Sent to Reproduction, HQ for Distribution Sent to Accessions Unit, HQ, for:

PDR, LPDR, NSIC, TIC, Central Files Distributed by RV: State of CA (Hahn/ Johnson), Engelken (ltr), RV PDR, Resident Inspector (L. Miller), Bob Pate l

l l

U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY C0teiISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION V Report No.

50-206/81-11 Docket No.

50-206 License No.

DPR-13 Safeguards Group Licensee:

Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

_Rcsemead, California 91770 Facility Name:

San Onofre Unit 1 (SONG-1)

Inspection at:

Camp Pendleton, California Inspection conducted:

March 30 - April 3, 1981 Inspectors: M k

4-l/- SI G. P.

ths, Radiaticn Specialist Date Signed l

Date Signed l'

sh Y3thl Approved by:

F.

. Wensl " ski,vChief, Reactor Radiation Protection da te' S igned Approved By:

.2[

H.

E'. Book, Chief, Radiological Safety Branch bate ' Signed Summary:

Inspection on March 30 - April 3,1981 - Report No. 50-206/81-11 Areas Inspected:

Routine unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of transportation activities as they pertain to the processes of receipt, packaging, transfer, delivery to a carrier, and transport of radioactive materials including periodic maintenance of packaging and followup of previously identified radiation protection activities.

The inspection involved 38 inspector-hours onsite.

Results:

Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.

_d

, fpD/p) 0 %

RV Form 219 (2) f

' 6-estimate of his current quarterly exposure on SCE Form 242 pursuant to 10 CFR'20.102(a) indicating that he had received 1146 mrem in the period April 14-28, 1980.

During the remainder of the quarter the licensee pemitted this individual to accumulate a calculated additional 1781 mrem for a total second quarter exposure of 2927 mrem.

In a letter dated March 25, 1981, Carolina Power and Light Company operator of H. B. Robinson infonned the licensee of the additional 123 mrem. The inspector met with the licensee Dosimetry Supervisor on April 3,1981 and was informed that a 10 CFR 20.405 report will be submitted for this quarterly exposure of 3.05 rem.

In view of the Statements of Consideration published in the Federal Register Notice June 6,1979 (44 FR 32349) no enforcement action will be taken against Southern California Edison Company since they limited the individuals exposure based on the best information available to them at the time of his work assignment.

.c 3.

Transportation Activities a.

Management Controls San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Station Order S-E-205,

" Receipt and Shipment of Radioactive Material", Revision 3, December 19, 1979 defines personnel responsibilities and establishes the procedures for receiving and shipping radioactive materials including nuclear fuel. This procedure states that:

"The Chemital-Radiation Protection Engineer is responsible for the safe transfer, packaging and transport of radioactive material."

In the September 30, 1980 response to the Health Physics Appraisal findings the licensee stated that a radiation protection engineer, radiation protection foreman, and cadre of technicians and helpers have been assigned full time to the radioactive waste management area.

Baned on discussions with these individuals their responsibilities have been delineated in Health Physics Procedure S01-VII-8.0, " Solid Waste Program",

Revision 0, January 30, 1981.

On February 2,1981 the licensee submitted Amendment 96 consisting of Proposed Change No.101 to the Technical Specifications which would establish the position of Radwaste Supervisor reporting to the Health Physics Manager.

The licensee representative stated that with issuance of Amendment 96, S-E-205 and other station orders (S01-E-211) will be revised to more clearly describe the duties and responsibilities of members of the health physics organization.

The licensee has been actively involved in revision and development of the radioactive material packaging and shipping program. The licensee has contracted with Allied Techonology of Barnwell Inc.

and NUS Corporation to support this program development.

The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below to determine if they have been developed consistent with the requirements of Technical Specification 6.8,10 CFR 30,10 CFR 71, 49 CFR 100-199 and the burial site criteria.

t Procedure No.

Ti tle Revision No.

S-E-205 Receipt and Shipment of Radioactive Material 3

S01-VII-8.0 Solid Waste Program 0

S01-VII-8.1.1 Solid Waste Records and Reports 0

S01 -V I I-8. 2.1 Shipment of Spent Fuel 0

501 6 Transferring Resins from the Spent Resin Storage Tank to the Shipping Cask 0

S-VII-1.7 Spent Resin 3hipment 5

S-XII-1.32 Spent Resin Shipping Container Inspection 1

f S-VII-1.20 Solid Radioactive Waste Shipments 5

S01-VII-1.26 Radiation Protection for Spent Fuel Shipments 4

S01-VII-1.41 Receiving Radioactive Materials 2

501-V I I-l. 56 Compacting Low Level Radioactive Waste 0

SPM-38 Procedure for Solid Waste loading of CNS8-120 Shipping Cask 0

Procedure No.

Ti tle Revision No.

SPM-39 Procedure for loading High Radwaste Liner Into CNS8-120 Shipping Cask 0

SPM-40 Procedure for Solid Waste Loading of CNS 14-195-H Shipping Cask 0

SPM-41 Procedure for Transferring Resins from the Southwest Nuclear Resin Liners to the Shipping Cask 0

SPM-42 Procedure for Filling Resin Liner in CNS 195-H Cask 0

Recognizing that the procedures are currently undergoing revision the following inspector observations are noted:

1.

Several procedures have been issued which reference 501-VII-8.1,

" Solid Radioactive Waste Packaging, Labeling and Shipments,"

and S01-VII-8.2, " Shipment of an Receipt of Radioactive Material" which have not been issued.

2.

The procedures do not clearly include ths requirements expressed in 10 CFR 30.41, " Transfer of byproduct material".

3.

Listed references for S-VII-1.20 does not include-the State of Washington burial criteria.

4.

The dose rate limit at 2 meters specified,in S01-VII-1.27 and S-VII-1.7 are inconsistant with the values specified in S-VII-1.20/5 PCN4.

5.

Procedure S01-VII-8.1.1 does not reference all the requirements expressed in 10 CFR 71.62 and S-E-205.

6.

The procedures do not address transport of radioactive material in licensee owned vehicles.

Station Order S-A-126, " Personnel Training", Revision 7 describes a training program to be completed by those individuals involved in the packaging and shipment of radioactive waste.

The procedure also states that annual retraining sessions will be provided.

The inspector verified that the Radiation Protection Engineer had onsite up-to-date copies of Chapters 10 and 49 Parts 100-199 of the Code of Federal Regulations and a current copy of the State of Washington License No. WN-1019-2.

Revision 6 of the licensee's Quality Assurance Plan incorporated the criteria of 10 CFR 71, Appendix E.

Procedure QAPN-18-04 requires the annual development of an audit schedule.

This audit schedule typically includes an audit of some aspect of the packaging and shipment of radioactive material.s area.

No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

b.

Implementation During the first calander' quarter of 1981 the licensee delivered to a carrier for transport 1,348, 55 gallon drums,19 boxes, and 8 liners totaling 12,180 cubic feet. These shipments contained a total of 63.9 curies of mixed fission and activitation products. This material met the low specific activity (LSA) criteria specified in 10 CFR 71.4(g).

The packaging used consisted of new 17H drums, B-25 boxes and Southwest Nuclear Company single use, strong, tight containers as permitted by 49 CFR 173.392.

Six shipments of depleted resin containing 280 curies meeting the LSA criterion were placed in NRC certified packages and shipped during the first calender quarter of 1981.

The inspector verified that the licensee had onsite a copy of the current NRC Certificate of Compliance for Model Nos. CNSI-14-195H, LL50-100 and B2 packages.

In addition to this documentation the inspector verified that the licensee registered as a user of each package as required by 10 CFR 71.12 and had a copy of all documents and drawings referred to in the certificate.

The licensee maintains a loose leaf binder supplied by the package owner for each package noted above.

This binder also contains detailed operating instructions for each package and additional guidance.

4

~.

Condition No. 27f of burial License WN 1019-2 requires that dewatered ion exchange resins have no detectable free-standing liquid.

This is defined as less than 0.5% or one gallon per container, whichever is less.

The licensee uses a liner (Drawing No. GlP226) to contain the resins placed in the certified containers.

The inspector reviewed the results of a test conducted in November and December 1980 to demonstrate compliance with this criteria.

Inspection Planning Data Report No. CIP-239 was reviewed and indicates the test was preformed in accordance with a written procedure and observed by a Quality Control Department inspector. The' test provides reasonable assurance that the free-standing liquid criteria will be met when the resin liner has been dewatered in accordance with S01-5-6.

Due to litigation between the State of Illinos, General Electric g

Company and the licensee, shipment of spent nuclear fuel has been suspended.

Therefore, no effort was made to review the licensee program for transfer of spent nuclear fuel during this inspection.

No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

c.

Preparation of Packages for Shipment The inspector verified by record view that the licensee has written procedures to insure that certified packages are inspected as required prior to each use.

Inspection Planning Data Reports (IPDR) for three shipments were reviewed. These are noted below:

Licensee Identification No.

-Date Package IPDR SW-10 February 5, 1981 LL50-100 RIP-P-27 SW-14 February 21, 1981 B2 RIP-P-41 R-1 January 26, 1981 LL50-100 RIP-R-10 The licensee contracts for the certified containers used and routinely does not perform periodic maintenance except for those items required for closure, such as gaskets.

The Quality Assurance Engineer had on file letters from the containers' owners which indicated the gaskets had been replaced within the specified frequency.

When performing receipt inspection RIP-P-41 on February 19, 1981 the licensee discovered that 1 of 46 holdown bolt retention nuts had broken.

The inspector discussed this repair activity with the responsible individuals and reviewed repair records and drawings.

Prior to the repair, the container owner, U.S. Ecology, was contacted and authorized the work. The repair was conducted in accordance with SCE Welding Record S01-81-034 which referenced the Kenasco Corporation Drawing.

Documentation indicates that the materials and work were performed consistant with Drawing No. 6901-002B specifications.

U.S. Ecology's Chief Radiological Control and Safety Officer visited the licensee on March 18, 1981 to review the licensee's quality assurance program in general and to specifically review this repair activity.

The inspector reviewed records of the following shipments of radioactive material to determine if they had been loaded and closed in accordance with written procedures.

License Identification No.

Date,

. Package SW-10 February 5,1981 LL50-100 SW-14 February 21, 1981 B2 R-1 January 26, 1981 LL50-100 R-2 February 18, 1981 LL50-100 R-3 February 26, 1981 LL50-100 R-4 March 9, 1981-LL50-100 R-6 March 23,1981 LL50-100 In all instances records (PS50-419) indicate the containers were loaded and closed in accordance with the certificates of compliance as required by 10 CFR 71.54.

In addition to the shipments referenced above the following special shipments were reviewed to determine compliance with package marking, labeling and radiation limit requirements expressed in 10 CFR 71.5 i

and 49 CFR 172 and 173.

Licensee Identification No.

Date Package S-1 January 21, 1981 LSA S-2 February 20, 1981 LSA S-3 February 24, 1981 LSA All of the reviewed shipments were classified as LSA by the licensee. The inspector reviewed sample results and performed independent calculations of the specific activity.

In the case of SW-14 the licensee included the mass of absorbent material in a 17H drum surrounding the radioactive fiber filters. Using only the mass of the filters the shipment still met the LSA criteria.

I The requirements of 10 CFR 71.4(g) regarding LSA were reviewed with the licensee.

No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.

d.

Delivery of Completed Packages to Carriers For the shipments referenced above the inspector reviewed the following licensee, broker, and carrier documents to determine compliance with 10 CFR 71.5, 49 CFR 172 and 173 and 10 CFR 30.41.

Radioactive Shipment Check-off Sheet Radioactive Material Shipping Record Radioactive Waste Shipment and Disposal form Straight Bill of Lading Instruction to Carrier for Maintenance of Exclusive Use of Shipment Controlls Washington State Certification On April 2,1981 the inspector observed the licensee delivering a shipment (SW-25) of low level LSA drums and boxes in a closed van to a carrier for transport. Using an NRC Eberline R02 Serial No. 9864 the inspection performed independent measurements of the radiation levels at contact, two meters and inside the tractor cab.

The trailer was locked and properly placarded.

The shipping papers were in order and the licensee's dose rate measurements were consistant with NRC values of 12.mr/hr at contact, 0.8 mr/hr at 2 meters, and 0.2 mr/hr in the tractor. The tractor, Nevada license 56031A, was observed to have a large spider crack in the right half side of the split windshield.

The driver stated that the crack occurred a few days ago and that he was permitted to continue using the tractor for several_ more days.

The inspector confirmed this to be acceptable with a representative of the Department of Transportation.

Review of the shipping records indicates compliance with the requirements expressed in 10 CFR 71.62 and 49 CFR 172.200.

A few anomalies were observed:

The Radiation Shipment Record No. was omitted from the Washington State Certification for shipments SW-10 and R-1.

The radioactive Shipment Check-off Sheet was incomplete for shipments SW-14 and R-1.

The shipper's certification on the Straight Bill of Lading for S-2 was not signed. The licensee representative stated that the Radicactive Material Shipment Record which contained a signed certification was 'provided to the carrier.

The receiver!s license number was incorrect on the Radioactive Material Shipment Record for shipment S-3.

For receivers other then WN-1019-2, the licensee had considerable difficulty demonstrating that they were aware of the receivers authori-zation to accept the material being shipped.

' ~

s 1

These points plus the fact that the shipping papers are not being signed by the Chemical-Radiation Protection Engineer prior to filing as called for in S-E-205 were brought to the licensee's attention.

The licensee representative stated that the procedure and the Radioactive Shipment Check-off Sheet will be revised to include a verification signature that all the shipping forms have been properly completed.

No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

d.

Radwaste Training The inspector reviewed the licensee's " Training Manual for Radioactive Waste Packaging and Shipping", dated January 1980.

This manual constitutes the course outline provided pursuant to Section XIV of Station Order S-A-126, " Personnel Training".

The course is geared to the needs of the cadre of technicians

('

involved in transportation activities.

The inspector verified by record review that each of the six technicians involved in transportation activities had received this training during 1981.

9 No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

e.

Licensee Audits The inspector reviewed Audit Report No. 501-17-81.

This audit of the 1980 radioactive waste disposal records was performed in the period January 15 through March 6,1981.

The audit was performed in accordance with an inspection plan by two individuals experienced in transportation activities.

No corrective action reports were generated as a result of the audit.

The inspector made an independent accounting of the volume and activity of radioactive material shipped during 1980 based on individual shipment records that confirmed the veracity of the licensee's Semi-Annual Effluent Release Reports for 1980.

No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

4.

Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 3,1981.

The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.

ee

=

0

)

Southern California Edison Company P. O BOX 800 2 2 44 W ALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEME AD. C ALIFORNI A 9 8770 J. G. H A Yid E S O

T E L E ***0 NE April 22, 1981 p.%

i

......, u c t......,,o on,,,,..,

-OA 9"

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region V 1990 North California Boulevard Suite 202, Walnut Creek Plaza Walnut Creek, California 94595 Attentioni Mr. R. H. Engelken, Director Docket No. 50-206 San Onofre Unit 1

Dear Sir:

This letter concerns Southern California Edison's current actions related to the NFS-4 Serial Number NAC-1E spent fuel shipping cask.

The attached immediate action letter from your office dated October 2, 1980, contained instruction regarding isolation of the subject cask.

A subsequent letter dated December 9, 1980, also attached, provided authorization to proceed "in accordance with written, reviewed and approved procedures, establish a controlled work area around the cask, evaluate the radiological hazard present, ensure the integrity of cask closure, decontaminate the cask exterior, and move it to a trailer within the restricted area for storage."

Pursuant to the December 9, 1980 letter, we are prepar-ing the cask for shipment from our facility to Atomics International per instructions from Nuclear Assurance Corp-oration.

Radiological Surveys, verification of the integrity of cask closure, exterior cask decontamination, and removal to the trailer within the controled area are proceeding in accordance with written, reviewed and approved procedures.

Cask preparation, trailer shielding, and transport will conform to the conditions of the attached March 4, 1981 letter from the Nuclear Assurance Corporation to the NRC and the March 20, 1981 letter from the NRC to the Nuclear Assurance Corporation.

~V c-n g.Por em

t,

- l t

t Actual transport of the cask will not proceed *oefore NRC

. notification.

Please contact me if you have.any. questions or require additional information.

Very truly yours,

~

M Enclosures 1

cc:

L. Miller Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director, Office of Management Information &

Program Control 6

I i

4

-f i

--r,

.-y._.

-~

.- --- -