ML20058A898
| ML20058A898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A893 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-235, NUDOCS 9312010297 | |
| Download: ML20058A898 (3) | |
Text
--
J NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-374 LaSalle County Station License No. NPF-18 Unit 2 EA 93-235 During an NRC inspection conducted from September 8 through 14, 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.
10 CfR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make such surveys as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of Part 20 and which are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of rcdiation 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.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not make surveys to determine that individuals would not be exposed to airborne concentrations exceeding the limits specified in_10 CFR 20.103.
Specifically, on September 7,1993, while performing work in the' Unit 2 reactor cavity, breathing zone air surveys were not performed to evaluate the extent of the radiation hazards present during reactor vessel head stud removal.
Furthermore, during evaluation of the job the licensee failed to recognize that radiological conditions would likely change in the cavity due to the exhaust of three pneumatic tools. (01013)
B.
10 CFR 20.103(b)(1) states that the licensee shall, as a precautionary _
procedure, use process or other engineering controls, to the extent practicable, to limit concentrations of radioactive materials in air to levels below those which delimit an airborne radioactivity area as defined in s 20.203(d)(1)(ii).
Contrary to the above, on September 7, 1993, while performing work in the Unit 2 reactor cavity, the licensee did not use engineering controls such as high efficiency particulate _ air filter ventilation or pneumatic tool air exhaust diffusers to limit concentrations of radioactive materials in air to' levels below those which delimit an airborne radioactivity area. (01023)
C.
Technical Specification 6.2.8 states, in part, that radiation control procedures shall be adhered to.
Procedure LRP-1310-4, Revision 12, dated August 17, 1992, " Selection, 9312010297 931117 PDR ADOCK 05000374 G.
Issuance, and Control of Radiological Respiratory Protective Equipment,"
Section F.1.a, requires Radiation Protection personnel to evaluate the respiratory protection requirements based on air sampling data and/or contamination surveys per Attachment B.
Attachment B states, in part, that smearable levels of greater than 100,000 dpm/100cm2 for beta-gamma emitters will require the use of a full face mask pending air sample results which may relax the requirement.
Contrary to the above, on September 7, 1993, while performing work in the Unit 2 reactor cavity which had contamination levels greater than t
100,000 dpm/100cm for beta-gamma emitters in the primary work area,.
2 workers did not use full face masks and air samples were not taken.
(01033) lhis is a Severity Level 111 problem (Supplement IV).
Civil penalty 5112,500.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this flotice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (fictice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitled, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the correct-ive steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective 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 actions as may be proper should not be taken.. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the
~
authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
l Within the same time as provided for the response required under 10 CFR 2.201,-
I 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 o'r in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, 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 violations listed in this Notice'in whole or in part,-(2) demonstrate extenuating-circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition.to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation w
flotice of Violation 3
of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate 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. 2282(c).
The responses noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a flotice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATIN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the LaSalle County Station.
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this
_ day of November 1993
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _