ML20056E710

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $75,000.Noncompliance Noted:Rwp 930254 Prepared for Decontamination Work Scheduled for 930507 in Radwaste Bldg Fill Aisle,Did Not Provide Sufficient Detail on Task

ML20056E710
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/17/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056E684	List: ML20056E683 ML20056E710
References
EA-93-136, NUDOCS 9308250093
Download: ML20056E710 (4)

Text

ENCLOSURE NOTICE OF VIOLATION -

AND ,

PROPOSED Ih1 POSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-219 ,

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-16 EA 93-136 ,

During an NRC inspection conducted on hiay 17 and 18,1993, violations of NRC requirements -

were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act),42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

A. Plant Technical Specification (TS) 6.11 requires, in part, that procedures for personnel l radiation protection be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.

Licensee radiation safety procedure 9300-ADhi-4110.04, Rev. 8, " Radiation Work Permit (RWP), paragraph 7.2.3, Block 3, Work Description, written to comply with TS 6.11 and 10 CFR Part 20, requires that sufficient detail be provided in the RWPs for Radiological Controls personnel to understand the scope of the task. i Contrary to the above, RWP 930254, prepared for decontamination work scheduled for Afay 7,1993, in the New Radwaste Building fill aisle, did not provide sufficient detail i

, for Radiological Controls personnel to understand the scope of the task. Specifically, the RWP did not indicate that personnel would enter into the batch tank pit on the 23'  !

I elevation of the New Radwaste Building. Consequently, on hiay 7,1993, workers entered the batch tank pit, while neither the Radiation Controls Technician providing job coverage to the workers, nor the Radiological Engineering Department, which establishes as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) controls and support, knew that this entry was to be made under this RWP. i i

B. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make such surveys as (1) may be necessary to comply with the requirements of Part 20 and which (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p:93136R2JGL 9308250093 930817 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G PDR

i

-l l

Enclosure 2 10 CFR 19.12 requires, in pan, that all individuals working in any portion of a restricted  ;

area be kept informed of radiation in such portions of the restricted area, and be l instructed in the precautions and procedures.to minimize exposure to radiation. The {

extent of these instructions shall be commensurate with potential radiological health j protection problems in the restricted area.

Contrary to the above, prior to the May 7,1993 entry by personnel into the batch tank pit on the 23' elevation of the New Radwaste Building, a portion of the licensee's .

restricted area that was posted as a locked high radiation area and which required respirator usage, the licensee did not (1) survey the batch pit to assure compliance with that ponion of 10 CFR 20.101 that limits total occupational dose and (2) inform i individuals working in the area of radiation levels in the area and had not instructed those  !

individuals in the precautions and procedures to minimize exposure to radiation. The j floor of the batch pit had been covered with spilled powder resin from the batch tank and had contact dose rates of about 10 R/hr. l l

C. 10 CFR 20.103(c)(2) requires, in part, that the licensee maintain and implement a l respiratory protection program that includes, as a minimum, air sampling sufficient to l identify the hazard and permit proper equipment selection.

l 6

Licensee radiation safety procedure 9300-4020.03, Revision 8, "Use of Respiratory l Protection Equipment," paragraph 7.9.2 requires that the protection factor (PF) for  !

respiratory protection equipment selected be greater than the multiple by which the peak l concentration of airborne radioactive materials are expected to exceed the values of j Appendix B, Table I, Column 1 of 10 CFR Part 20 as determined by the sampling of the j airborne contamination.  ;

! Contrary to the above, on May 11, 1993, the licensee did not maintain and implement l l a respiratory protection program in that (1) radiation workers were permitted entry into the batch tank pit on the 23' elevation of the New Radwaste Building to remove debris, without prior air sampling being conducted in the pit to identify the hazard and (2) the .;

respiratory protection equipment (negative pressure full face respirators) worn by the i workers provided a PF of 50, which was less than the required PF indicated by the air ,

sampling conducted during the pit entry. {

i D. 10 CFR 20.103(a)(3), requires, in part, that for purposes of determining compliance with l the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103, the licensee shall use suitable measurements of  ;

concentrations of radioactive material in air for detecting and evaluating airbome radioactivity in restricted areas.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l p:93136R2.JGL

l*.

1 Enclosure 3 Contrary to the above, on May 11,1993, two radiation workers entered the batch tank ,

pit on the 23' elevation of the New Radwaste Building, a posted restricted area requiring respiratory protection equipment for entry, and the licensee did not use suitable measurements of concentrations of radioactive material in air for deteedng and evaluating i I

airborne radioactivity. Specifically, only one person had been issued a breathing zone analyzer (BZA), despite the fact that only one person could enter the batch tank pit at a time. This resulted in a situation where the worker without the BZA could be working

, in higher concentrations of airborne radioactivity.

l E. Plant Technical Specification 6.11 requires that procedures for personnel radiation i protection be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained, and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation i exposure.

Licensee radiation safety procedure 9300-ADM-4010.02, Revision 5, "ALARA Review Procedure," Section 7.3, "ALARA Review Criteria", in part, implements the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 by specifying the circumstances in which an ALARA review must be done.

Contrary to the above, as of May 18, 1993, procedure 9300-ADM-4010.02 did not

, adequately specify criteria for performing an ALARA review for highly contaminated systems and components in that such reviews were left to the discretion of Radiological Engineering without guidelines for exercising that discretion. As a consequence, i Radiological Engineering waived the performance of an ALARA review for a planned '

, decontamination task involving highly contaminated material in a locked high radiation l exclusion area - a situation for which an ALARA review would normally have been warranted by sound radiological protection principles. )

These violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Ixvel III problem (Supplement IV).

Civil Penalty - $75,000.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and shoo!d include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p:93136R2.JGL

Enclosure 4 ,

steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. i Consideraton may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the  !

authority of Scetion 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, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer  !

payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, ,

or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforce-ment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violation (s) 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 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.

1 l In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VLB.2 of 10 l

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 parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,

citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee 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 subsequently has been 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. 2282c.

1 The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, l and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, )

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, A'ITN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. l 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I,475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa 10406, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at Oyster Creek.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this day of. August 1993 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p:93136R2.JGL

. .