ML20056E683
| ML20056E683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1993 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E684 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-136, NUDOCS 9308250055 | |
| Download: ML20056E683 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1993007
Text
.-.
.
.
,
AUG 171993
1
h
Docket No. 50-219
License No. DPR-16
i
EA 93-136
Mr. John J. Barton
Vice President and Director
!
GPU Nuclear Corporation
!
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
.
Post Office Box 388
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
l
Dear Mr. Barton:
!
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL
PENALTY - $75,000
l
(NRC Inspection Report No. 50-219/93-07)
!
l
This letter refers to the NRC safety inspection conducted on May 17 and 18,1993, at the Oyster
l
Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey. The inspection was conducted
to review the events associated with entry and work in the fill aisle batch tank pit of the Oyster
l
l
Creek New Radwaste Building on May 7 and 11,1993. The specific events were identified by
l
'
your staff and reported to the NRC resident staff, even though such reporting was not required.
!
The inspection report, which was transmitted to you on May 31,1993, identified five apparent
'
violations of NRC requirements, two of which were originally identified by your staff. On
l
June 24,1993, an open enforcement conference was conducted in the Region I office with you
and other members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and your
corrective actions. An enforcement conference summary report was sent to you by separate
correspondence on July 9,1993.
>
On May 7,1993, two contractor workers and a Radiological Controls Technician (RCT)
providing coverage for the job entered the New Radwaste Building fill aisle, a locked high
radiation area, to preview a task of decontaminating the fill aisle. The RCT was not aware that
the task involved entry into the highly contaminated batch tank pit, as the radiation work permit
(RWP) did not clearly define the scope of the task, and there were communication problems
between the RCT and the Group Radiological Controls Supervisor (GRCS) and between the RCT
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136R2.JGL
f
i
9308250055 930817
ADOCK 05000219
(g
{
G
v
.
I
.
- _ . _
l
.
j
.
AUG 171993
.
GPU Nuclear Corporation
2
1
,
and the workers. Although the GRCS was involved in the pre-job discussion with the workers
and was aware of the planned entry into the pit, this discussion was not attended by the RCT
l
and the results of the discussion were not communicated adequately to her. As a result, no
,
survey of this area was done and no instructions regarding radiological hazards in this area were
provided to the workers before the entry to the batch tank pit. When one of the workers entered
the pit, his alarming dosimeter indicated a much higher dose rate than expected, and he
immediately left the area, thereby averting a large unplanned exposure.
1
l
Subsequently, on May 11,1993, another entry was made into the pit to perform decontamination
'
work. The fact that no air sampling was performed prior to this entry is a concern to the NRC.
Not only did your staff fail to take air samples prior to the entry on May 11, 1993, but also
failed to take samples on the previous day when making the decision about the proper respirator
j
selection for the upcoming entry. Also, based on your determination that a group entry was
l
involved, only one of the two workers entering the pit was provided with a breathing zone
analyzer (BZA). However, the workers entered and worked in the pit individually and may have
worked in air contaminated at different concentrations. In any case, the BZA results obtained
after completion of the task. indicated that the negative pressure full face respirators provided to
the workers did not have an adequate protection factor. Therefore, the air sampling for the
j
decontamination entry made on May 11, 1993, was inadequate.
i
j
The specific violations are described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed
l
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice), and consist of (1) failure to initiate a radiation work permit
'
(RWP) that clearly defined the scope of the work; (2) failure to survey the work area and
provide adequate instructions to workers; (3) failure to perform air sampling required to select
-
proper respiratory protection equipment; (4) failure to conduct appropriate air sampling during
i
the work; and (5) failure to maintain an adequate as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)
review procedure. The five violations of NRC requirements represent a significant continuing
problem in your radiological safety program and a lack of adequate attention to NRC
requirements.
At the enforcement conference you denied the last three violations. With respect to Items C and
D of the enclosed Notice, you stated that respirators were selected based on expected air
activity, and that the two workers were performing similar tasks in the same area on May 11
for similar periods of time, albeit, at different times, resulting in good correlation between the
whole body count (WBC) and air sample for both workers. Notwiths'anding your contentions,
the NRC maintains that these two violations occurred because (1) prior to the May 11 entry,
your staff failed to verify by air sampling that their assumptions about the radiological conditions
were correct, and (2) since the workers were performing decontamination work that could
change the radiological working conditions and were not entering together, both workers should
have been provided with BZA samplers.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136R2JGL
-_
.
AUG 171993
GPU Nuclear Corporation
3
With respect to Item E of the enclosed Notice, you denied the apparent violation presented in
the inspection report that dealt with your failure to perform a review to assure that radiation
exposures for the work were maintained ALARA. Your denial of the violation was based on
an interpretation by the radiological engineer that the work would not cause further spread of
contamination and that the airborne concentration was not expected to exceed a factor of 50
times the limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 1. As a result of this interpretation
'
of the criteria provided in your procedure, the engineer chose not to perform an ALARA review.
After reviewing this information, we have determined that a violation for failure to follow your
procedural requirement to perform an ALARA review did not occur in that the engineer chose
not to perform an ALARA review in literal compliance with the criteria in your procedure.
'
Nevertheless, an ALARA review was clearly warranted in this situation and the fact that the
criteria in your procedure did not require an ALARA review in this situation demonstrates that
the procedure was inadequate. In particular, the procedure permits the engineer to decide
whether or not an ALARA review is warranted for a highly contaminated system or component
r
without providing additional standards against which the engineer is to make a determination on
the need for an ALARA review. If such a review had been performed it is likely that the
violations associated with the May 11,1993 entry being cited would not have occurred. We are
!
concerned that neither your short-term nor long-term corrective actions presented at the
,
'
enforcement conference proposed a solution for this problem. In your response to this letter,
please provide your corrective actions in this area.
t
The NRC is particularly concerned by certain similarities between the May 7,1993 event and
an event that occurred at Oyster Creek in 1991 (Reference: EA No.91-056) for which escalated
enforcement (Severity level III violation) was taken. The May 7 event involved poor job
planning as related to communicating all relevant information to the involved parties. During
!
the 1991 event, a licensed operator entered a locked high radiation (LHR) area without
a
eppropriate monitoring instrumentation, and before a survey was done and before instructions
'
.
were given to the operator regarding the radiological hazards. During that event, the RWP did
'
not include the entry to the LHR area in the scope of the work, and due to poor communication
during the job planning stage, neither the possibility of this entry, nor a prohibition against it,
,
was clearly articulated. It appears that the corrective actions taken after the 1991 event, to
'
-
emphasize clear communication between the parties involved and to ensure adequacy of
monitoring instruments when group entries are made into radiation areas, were not effective in
preventing the recent violations.
<
,
l
The NRC recognizes that the radiation doses received by workers in these two incidents were,
'
in each case, well within the regulatory limits. Nevenheless, given the continuing weakness
with the communications and coordination associated with work in areas of significant
radiological hazards as evidenced by these events, the violations have been categorized in the
aggregate as a Severity Ixvel III problem in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy
and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2,
Appendix C.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136R2JGL
!
-
c,,
,
-
-,-
,
1
i
-
i
!
r
AUG 171993
GPU Nuclear Corporation
4
,
The NRC also recognizes that subsequent to the identification of the violations, several
immediate corrective actions were taken. These corrective actions included, but were not limited
to, reviews of the events and issuance of various guidance to appropriate plant personnel. The
guidance included requiring complete information on the job scope before an RWP could be
issued; interpretation of ALARA review criteria; requirements for pre-job briefm' gs and
discussions; and additional BZA sampling and additional conservansm in selection of respirators.
!
l
Notwithstanding these corrective actions, to emphasize the importance of adherence to the proper
l
radiological control requirements and procedures as well as the communications necessary to
implement those requirements and procedures, I have been authorized, after consultation with
the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $75,000 for the Severity Level
III problem. The base civil penalty amount for a Severity Level III violation or problem is
.
!
S50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors set forth in the Enforcement Policy were
i
considered as discussed below.
l
l
The base civil penalty was escalated 25% because your long-term corrective actions to prevent
recurrence were not considered adequate or timely. In the NRC's view, the two events clearly
'
indicated weaknesses in your radiological controls program regarding job planning and
[
communication, especially for decontamination work in highly contaminated areas. However,
l
as of the enforcement conference, you had not yet determined whether changes were warranted
i
in the areas ofjob planning and ALARA reviews for future similar tasks. The base civil penalty
l
was further escalated by 25% on the basis of prior performance.
As discussed earlier,
'
inadequacies in communications and coordination associated with the work on May 7 and
11,1993, were evident in the Notice issued in June 1991. Full escalation based on this factor
,
was not applied because of your generally improving performance in radiological controls. The
other adjustment factors in the enforcement policy were considered, and no further adjustment
to the base civil penalty is considered appropriate. Therefore, on balance, the base civil penalty
is escalated 50%.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the
l
specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. During the
enforcement conference, you also indicated that a human-performance-based evaluation to
determine the root causes is currently in progress. You should include, in your response, the
results of this evaluation. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed
corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further
NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
j
p:93136R2JGL
.
i
i
.
AUG 171993
'
GPU Nuclear Corporation
5
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and
its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance
procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction
<
Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
]
Sincerely,
j
04iCW1 SM'GD Dy
Y D !i.! F. yh g
h hhomas T. Manin
/
Regional Administrator
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition
of Civil Penalty
1
l
'
i
I
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136R2JGL
i
-
.
<
i
'
i.
.
AUG 171993
GPU Nuclear Corporation
6
cc w/ encl:
M. Laggart, Manager, Corporate Licensing
,
P. Czaya, Acting Licensing Manager, Oyster Creek
Public Document Room (PDR)
)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
K. Abraham, PAO-RI (2)
NRC Resident Inspector
State of New Jersey
<
t
!
1
)
'
'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136P.2.JGL
, .
i
GPU Nuclear Corporation
AUG : 71993
i
DISTRIBUTION:
SECY
,
l
CA
JTaylor, EDO
JSniezek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
l
TMartin, RI
Stewis, OGC
TMurley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, OI
JSurmeier, SP
DWilliams, OIG
j
EJordan, AEOD
JLuchman, OE
EA File
'
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
VMcCree, OEDO
JStolz, NRR/PD l-4
I
l
ADromerick, NRR/PD l-4
l
l
l
l
l
l
RA:RI
DD:OE
DEDR
JLuchman
TMartin
JGray
JSniezek
l
08/ /93
08/ /93
08/ /93
08/ /93
i
i
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
p:93136R2.JGL
i
1
. _ .
.
.
GPU Nuclear Corporation
DISTRIBUTION:
Ay(;;'/}gg]
j
SECY
CA
'
JTaylor, EDO
JSnietek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
TMartin, RI
SLewis, OGC
TMarley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, OI
JSurmeier, SP
DWilliams, OIG
.
'
EJordan, AEOD
JLuehman, OE
EA File
l
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
l
V. McCree, OEDO
J. Stolz, NRR/PD 1-4
,
A. Dromerick, NRR/PD 1-4
!
l
RFph
RA:RI
DD:OE
E
JLuehman
TMartin
JGray
J\\ brek
08/
/93
08/
/93
08/
/93
08/l//93
Doc Name:
G \\ORCASE8\\93136R
JCL
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
i
,
-
. . . - - . . .
..
- , . . - . . . . ,
_
.
.
,
!
l
'
GPU Nuclear Corporation
-6-
AUG 171993
l
DISTRIBUTION:
l
'
SECY
CA
JTaylor, EDO
JSnietek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
TMartin, RI
l
SLewis, OGC
'
TMurley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
'
,
!
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, OI
JSurmeier, SP
DWilliams, OIG
I
EJordan, AEOD
JLuehman, OE
Day File
EA File
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
V. McCree, OEDO
J. Stolz, NRR/PD 1-4
A.
Dromerick, NRR/PD 1-4
i
l
8'N'
OE W_
RA:RI
5
TA 40E
DEDR
"
JLuehman
TMartif$ ,N
r
4
,./
ra y
JSniezek
08/ / /93
08/d/93
_ _ _
08]h /93
08/
/93
Doc Name:
Gr\\0BCASE8\\93136 REY.JGL
..
. .
. . -. .
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
l
GPU Nuclear Corporation
6
AUG 171993
DISTRIBUTION:
SECY
CA
.;
JTaylor, EDO
JSniezek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
,
TMartin, RI
l
Stewis, OGC
TMurley, NRR
j
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
i
RI, RII, RIII, RIV. RV
Fingram, GPA/PA
BHayes, OI
i
JSurmeier, SP
l
DWilliams, OIG
'
EJocdan, AEOD
OF.Chron
UE:EA
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
V. McCree, OEDO
'
J. Stolz, NRR/PD l-4
A. Dromerick, NRR/PD I-4
,
n
,
R(k
- OE
$
S
RI:DRSS
RI:
S
h ane ee/mjc
DHolody
%
k
Jo'ner
W
f
7/8 /93
7/M3
7/ 93
77) /93
7$/93
S
JL eberman
JSn ezelk
'
'
7/sh93
7//h93
7/ /93
7/ /93
7 /93
7 i93
-
.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
a: PROP-OC.
1
.!
I
i
i
__ _
_
. . _ . _ . _ _
_..
_
.__.,_, _ _..
..._._
,..... _._ - .. - ..--- _
..-.,._.l