ML20034D817
| ML20034D817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/11/1978 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111670754 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-510 NUDOCS 9302240215 | |
| Download: ML20034D817 (1) | |
Text
-0 UNITED STATES
[c,.
[t (JUcLEAR REGULATORY CO!2f.ilsSIOM E ',il '
E WASHIP.GTOM, D. C. 2035 G.. %26.J E
g w <f.....f a4 t
DEC 3 M373 MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Acting Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
James H. Sniezek, Director, Division of Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety Inspection
SUBJECT:
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION CIVIL PENALTY CASE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF 10 CFR 20.201 This refers to your memorandum dated December 1,1978 (copy enclostd).
On November 3,1978, we requested that Standards Development revise Part 20.201(b) utilizing the words provided by ELD.
The revised word-ing to 20.201 is as follows:
"Each licensee shall make or cause to be made surveys necessary to assure compliance with the regulations in this Part."
You will note that the change is a very subtle change but., according to ELD, it will provide us the authority to make citations in cases even when the other sections of Part 20 are not violated.
Based on discussions with the Office of Standards Development, the revision will be treated as an adainistrative change to the regulations which may be issued by the Executive Director for Operations.
It is presently envisoned that the revision will be published within the next several months.
I will keep you informed if any complications develop.
t h' mes )Mo tad C
. Sniezek, irector vision of Fuel facilities and Materials Safety Inspection
Enclosure:
As Stated Sd. Bryan cc:
L. B. Higginbotham L. J. Cunningh3m CONTACT:
L. J. Cunningham 28188 9302240215 921223 1
~
l' WILLIAM 92-510 PDR.
d,3 - -
P U B LIC S E RVICE CO RPOR ATIO N
'-? g.g
%,ilS C O N S I N 9
a 4 f.O. Eox 1200, Green Boy, Wisconsir 'A30S i
J January 2,19 70 Mr. Jchn G. Davis Acting D, irector Of fice of Inspection and Enforcenent U. S. Nuclear Replatory Corrission Washington, D. C.
20555 Daar Sir:
(Response to Aranded Notice of Violation, This lett er and the two at tachments and Answer to Acended Notice of Proposed Impesition of Civil Fenalties, Appendix 3) respond to ycur letter of Dece Ser 7; 1978, and its Appendix A, attachments.
a t t a chm en t s, ve c en t inu e t o t ake e y.c ep t ion t o y our As you will note f rc a the centinues to refer to the action of our Shift in erro r, As the at t a ch-pesirica which, St.p erviser as a ncn-conpliance eith our procedure RC-E?-35.
ents indicate, we cannot see that that incident was other than that the survey the a rea completely and cur Shi f t Sup e:vis or E-? technician did not asst: ed that when he requested the survey, he was receiving adequate inferra-Certainly when he was told he vould be entering a 75 rem field he that tien. that he was entering a high radiation area and planned to meet knew cendition.
this cenditien is then characterited by you as-a It bothers us greatly that feel re have acted very responsibly in significant nanagerent weakness.
We
'te have team at the Kevaunce Plant.'
put ting together a s t rong rannercat of instrumentatien.
supplied the Eesith Fhysics rej arttent with the very hest the urging of your own inspectors Other nuclear plants haye contacted us at programs your inspectors told then vere very good at Kevauce.
to incuire about occurred, we had originated the Design Change Even before this incident radiction monitors in sir. areas with potential No. 746 project which vill put Tnese 1:eters vill have remote i
for significant radiation level changes.
The Reactor Cavity Area is, one f rom outside the moaitored areas.
read-out of those areas for which instrtr.ents are on o'rde r.
In the Operating Sudget for January 1 through Decenler 31, 1978, ve included-r.oney for additions to our Health Thysics Group to allev E-P Group coverage Tnese additienal people had been hired on a shif t basis around the clock.
~
and trained in an extensive training program.
CERTITIED PAIL
?ITUPS FICE1?T FIOdESTED g&:w.'
Appendix !!
~~
)
' W P-3\\, l
Mr. Jchn G. Davis 7
J anuary 2,19 79 l
Page 2
- r I
t Ue, therefore, do not agree that ranagement lacks cencern for the saf ety of f
i e ployees; As it is evident that your organitation uses evaluation of events to cc ;.;ratively rate plants, we do feel that these investigations should be j
as complete and accurate as possible.
It is teportant that your investiga-f tien as.vell as our own be correctly documented and that fines are assessed l
enly as appropriate.
t 5in ce r ely,
4 t
V
- "M rT w-v4 F
Tau'. 3. Zie er
? resident f
i snf i
i N
7
?
~
. i
\\
l e
l l
3 i
?
L l
t
.~
.. ~..
-.. ~.
i R.ESPOSSE TO AMENDED NOT3CE OF VT01.AT10N (;JPD: DIX _ A)
A5 -
to 10 CFR f 2.201 the following respense to the Amended Notice i
1 Pursuant of Violation dated Decerber 7,1978, is provided.
. he respense to the July 19,'1978 Notice of Violation submitted to T
the');RC on August 10, 1978, addresses the events of May 2, _1978, and is incorporated herein by reference.
The procedure RC-HP-35 Revision 3 dated April 15, 1976, entitled i
" Radiation k'ork Permit" identifies its intended-function 'in the control of activities in the staten.ent of Purpose of the procedure which states:
"The purpose of a Radiation k'ork Ferndt '(RL'P) is to protect plant cersonnel by controlling recess to areas such as high' radiation areas, airborne activity areas, centanination_ areas, etc., by informihg the vorker of the radiation 'and c ont arination cenditions and the clothing or other requi erents necessary to safely perform protective his job."
.o The RWP form identifies individuals intending to perform an activity, work q
the results of radiation surveys along_vich levels of to be perforred, and airborne activity and radioactive contarination, protective equipnent other special instructions deemed necessary by Eealth Physics personnel.
thereby does provide a method to control individuals and The RL'? document work activities and provides a means to inform the worker of the specific radiolegical conditions associated with the intended activity and the
~
and/or other requirement 'necessary to provide _for protective equipe.ent t
safety.
The procedure RC-EP-35 also includes an optien to the Rk'P docuzent such that in an eqergency or activity of short duration, there rapid-action is necessary or desired, that action voeld not be precluded due to a
?
b
+
v v
n
to have ccepleted the administrative paperveth of ' the Rt/P.
requirement optien of the procedure Tequires a centinuous esecrt by experienced o
That The issue in regard to this matter is what -
l Health Physics personnel.
i of the procedure RC-EP-35 censtitutes a continuous escort in the context Since the purpose of the procedure is clearly to centrol access and inform e
t the verkers of the hazards and protective requirements, it is obvious that The manner of theesport is simply to. accomplish the same objectives.
acccmplishing those objectives could be in essence a hand-in-hand a pre-monitoring of the area by the H? staf f member to identify
,j accor;animent,
.y
_ qualified in the associated hazards, or if the individual requiring er
- ae f ollowing the use of monitoring equipment the individual could entet the point a review of limits and precautions eith a member of the HP. staf f at I
is accomplished 'is dependent upon cf ent:7 The manner by which the escort i
specific conditions associated with the desired activity to be performed i
the of 10 CFR 20.1 to raintain persennel exposure as.
in light of the requirement l
10s as reasenably achievable including consideration for dese to Health
~
I Thysics persennel.
In regard to the May 2,1978, event a pre-monitoring of i
the escort.
the area to be entered was performed by the EP technician act ng as the H? technician who yas serving as the As s t a t ed in th e Au gust 10 le t t er, t
i The provisions performed a survey of the area although inaccurately.
e escort
[
There is no doubt that an error was of the procedure vere complied with. _
the variation in
=ad, in the performance of the associated survey in that detected..That error, however, is not, due radiation field strength was not i
i failure.
to a procedural inadequacy which can be asserted to be a management
+
- but is a f ailure in the rechanics of pe rf orming the survey and evaluating I
While eff ort-vas nade to the radiation hazards of the area of entry.
also accompany and monitor entry through use of an extendible prebe, the corbined effo'rt remained inadequate as the monitored _arca was exceeded.
e f
e, m
3..
g
?
.I
' BeC3tse.- th.e Above - deE0115tI3t Cs con fo mance IQ ' the requircrents of our reference. procedure in;the allegation.the alleged violation'is denied.
I
?
s
'f i
n e
t 9
g 4
i i
f e
1 b
t
?
.. f y
h i
k 1
'I i-;
12/29/78
- i 9
e E
s 9
?
t f
n i
'l
}
~ f k
-i
=
4
ANSVER TO AENDED NOT!CE OF PRO?CSED IMPOSITION OF CIVII. nhAt.: 4:.s.
i (APPENDIX 4) t i
Pursuant to 10 CFR I 2.205 in answer to the Amended Notice of Preposed I= position of Civil Penalties the following is provided in regard to each i
(
item:.
i Item 1.
It is alleged,that uisconsin Public Service Corporation (heredith "VPSC") f ailed,to comply with Technical Specification 6.11 inn that the provisions of Procedure RC-HP-35 Revision 3 dated April 15, 1976, which ;
allowed for continuous escort of short tere jobs or energenices were not to 10 CFR H 2.201, identified as ccmplied with.
The response pursuant Appendix A, here attached, identifies errets in and denies the allegation stated in the Arended Nctice of Violation.
Thus, no civil penalty is as warranted.
I Item 2.
The Answer to Notice of Violation and Proposed Irposition of Civil Penalties stated that in fact a non-compliance did occar, however, under NRC criteria for irposing civil penalties no civil _ penalty should. be imposed f or Ite: 2 o f the A= ended Notice of Violation.
[
e On Dece:S e r 31, 1974, the U. S. Atonic Energy Con =ission, predecessor
~
to the NRC, issued to all licensees the " Criteria for Determining Enforcenent I
criteria addressed civil canetary penalties and the specific Action." That criteria upon which such penalties could be imposed.
4 ne cra te ria upon _ which i
civy1 penalties may be imposed include:
- l A.
Repeated non-compliance.
i B.
Failure to impler.ent corrective action previously co=nitted to.
C.
Deliberate f ailure to corply with regulations.
a.
D.
Chronic non-compliance.
)
Cases where an order was issued to assure health and safety of the E.
public and personnel.
e t
I i
y un-g w
n 4 -
r
---m w,
6
.1
- . ~..
j T.
' Actual seriousness of an event.uas contributed to by' the nen-J e
compliance.
C.
Violation category enforcer.ent action e' vents.
j h.
Case where the nature and number of events indicates a lack of
- i canagement concern for safety.
j I.
Knowing unauthorized use of caterials.
J.
Failure to report significant-natters to the Commission.
l The above criteria clearly indicate that enf o'rcement action in the form of
{
3 civil penalty is intended to be imposed for deliberate or chronic failures th the requirements of the ?.egulations e-exhibit of a licenst
.o comply e i adequate cencern f or safety.
I?hile it is recognized that civil penalties i
the ncn-
}
ray be irposed for cases not specifically listed in the criteria,
~
. 1 f
c:mpliance cust be of a similar nature and comparable to the conditiens' c f a delibera:e
- he criteria.
The non-compliance associated with item 2 was net or chronic failure, but as indicated in the August 20., 1978, respense an isola:ed oversight by the personnel involved.
4 32/29/78' S
'T e