Text

Enforcement Conference Repts 50-277/93-27 & 50-278/93-27 on 931210.Areas Discussed:Safety Significance of Three Events Re Entry Into Controlled Areas W/O Satisfying Radiological Safety Requirements During Period of 931027-29
	ML20059C779
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	12/20/1993
From:	Bores R, Eckert L; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20059C760	List: ML20059C757; ML20059C779;
References
	50-277-93-27-EC, 50-278-93-27, NUDOCS 9401060083
	Download: ML20059C779 (24)
	v • d • e

.

-

.

t

i

-)

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

l

,

Enforcement Conference Report No.

50-277/93-27. 50-278/93-27

Docket Nos.

50-277. 50-278

,

1

License Nos.

DPR-44. DPR-56

Licensee:

Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo)

Nuclear Gmup Headquaners

Corresoondence Control Desk

,

P. O. Box 195

Wayne. Pennsylvania 19087-0195

{

Facility Name:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS)

+

Enforcement Conference At:

King of Pmssia. Pennsylvania

'

,

Conference Conducted:

December 10.1993

i

Prepared By:

A

7

C/IC[93

L.Mken,# adiation Specialist

. Date

!

R

Facilities Radiation Protection Section

4

Appmved By:

l

4M#43

Dr. R. Boh, Chief

Date

Facilities Radiation Protection Section

Conference Summary: A closed Enforcement Confemnce was held to discuss the safety

significance of three events pertaining to entry into controlled areas without satisfying all

radiological safety requirements during the period of October 27-29,1993. Although no

overexposure occurred, three apparent violations of regulatory mquirements were identified.

During the conference, the licensee's evaluation of the three apparent violations was

'

,

discussed, along with the immediate and long-term corrective actions, and the licensee's

'

perception of the appmpriateness of the apparent violations relative to criteria outlined in the

i

NRC Enforcement Policy. The conference was attended by licensee management and staff

and by NRC management and staff.

i

9401060083 931222 '.

!

PDR

ADDCK 05000277.

,

G

PDR

'

3

_

>.

?

-

!

,

DETAILS

1.0

Licensee and NRC Personnel in Attendance

,

i

Attachment 1 to this conference repon identifies licensee and NRC personnel in attendance.

t

I

2.0

Purpose of Conference

j

'

The purpose of the conference was to discuss the safety significance of three events

penaining to entry into controlled areas without satisfying all radiological safety

requirements. The events occurred during the period October 27-29,1993. Details of these

'

events are described in NRC Region I Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-227/93-27, and

50-278/93-27. Also discussed during the conference were the licensee's evaluation of three

i

apparent violations identified during the inspection, the licensee's investigation of these

events, the immediate and long-term corrective actions, and the perception of the

!

appropriateness of the violations relative to criteria outlined in the NRC's Enforcement

,

Policy (10 CFR Pan 2, Appendix C). The conference was closed to the public.

l

3.0

NRC Comments

!

NRC management opened the conference by identifying the purpose of the conference,

describing the enforcement process, and presenting a summary of the event and the apparent

l

violations. Attachment 2 to this conference report provides the conference agenda.

4.0

Licensee Comments

!

5

Licensee representatives provided: a description of the events, immediate and long-tenn

corrective actions, a summary of the internal evaluation of the events; and a brief overview

1

on their perspective concerning radiation worker practice discrepancies over the last two

j

refueling outages. Attachment 3 to this conference report is a copy of the licensee's

'

,

presentation.

!

q

5.0

NRC Summary

l

!

NRC management closed the conference by informing the licensee that the infonnation

provided would be used by NRC in determining an appropriate course of action. The .

j

licensee was also infonned that NRC's decision in this regard would be communicated in

writing at a later date.

l

!

.

i

!

-

.

_

~

_

.

-.

-

.a

!

-

t

.

'!

A*ITACIIMENT 1

Licensee Attendees:

t

G. Edwartis

Plant Manager

G. Gellrich

Senior Manager Operations

' D. Goodell

System Manager, Engineering

G. Haney

Plant Equipment Operator

M. Kray

Licensing Manager

R. Moore

Manager, Radiation Protection

T. Niessen

Director, Engineering

G. Rainey

Vice President, PBAPS

-

R. Simpson

Engineer, PBAPS Engineering

D. Smith

Senior Vice President, PECo

j

A. Wasong

Manager, Experience Assessment

NRC Attendees

C. Anderson

Reactor Projects Section Chief 2B, DRP

P. Bonnet

Resident Inspector, PBAPS, DRP

R. Bores

Facilities Radiation Protection Section Chief, DRSS

L. Ecken

Radiation Specialist, DRSS

R. Fernandes

Reactor Engineer, DRP

i

D. Holody, Jr.

Enforcement Officer, ORA

J.Joyner

Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Chief, DRSS

-;

L. Nicholson

Acting Project Director, NRR

!

W. Schmidt

. Senior Resident Inspector, PBAPS, DRP

- '

S. Shankman

Deputy Dimctor, DRSS

K. Smith

Regional Counsel, ORA

'

E. Wenzinger

Reactor Projects Branch Chief, Branch 2, DRP

Other Attendecs:

.r

H. Abendroth

Atlantic City Electric Site Representative

K. Buddenbohn

Delmarva Power

J. Carey, Jr.

Public Service Eectric & Gas

S. Miangi

Nuclear Engineer, Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection

,

.

-

.

-

.

m

6

.

M u

. y....n

n

, n ,

i ,-

q..

.. n

3n

.. n

,

-

,

.

-

.

su

u

1

u

v

vu

.v1

v3

_

,

n-,,-n

rn v nn

n

-

.

-

e v . .i

.

.u

.n

vl

vv

v

-

.

.. n n ..).

n.

.n ]3

.

. .

.

v

J.

av

v.

.

. . . . . . . . '

.

..g47-

.

'

.

,,...-

. ..

JECEV 3El':, ' 993

.

-w

.

Agenda

~

'

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

'

L

Enforcement Conference

December 10,1993

-

.

,

introductory Remarks -

D. M. Smith

'o

Senior Vice President, Nuclear-

'

G. R. Rainey,

'

Vice President, Peach Bottom

o

Discussion of Events -

R. M. Moore, Manager,

,

Radiation Protection

t

A

o

Performance Assessment -

G. D. Edwards,

Plant Manager

l

k

b

Regulatory Considerations -

A. J. Wasong, Manager

o

,

'

Experience Assessment

!

-

Closing Remarks -

D. M. Smith,

o

Senior Vice President, Nuclear

l

.

1

.

~

'

EVENT

1

,

[

Operator entry into a High Radiation

Area without an alarming dosimeter

-

.

October 27,1993

-

Operator

entered

area

for

approximately

2

minutes to open three valves

s

HP Technician observed the operator leaving the

area

,

i

The HP Technician

questioned the: operator

regarding HP coverage

.

Operator

was

familiar with

the

radiological

conditions in the area

,

.

"

Dose rate in area was60-120 mrem /br

Dose

received

by

the

Operator

was

approximately Smrem

Operator perceived radiological consequences as

'

minimal

Operator failed to follow the Radiation Work

Permit instructions

I

HP Technician initiated an investigation

-

.

1

..

>

_

.i

,

k

.

- -

-

- EVENT

1

-

~.

!

-

.

!

-

Causal Factors

1

r

!

.

-

.

_

'

Operator-

rationalized

that

radiological

,

consequences were minimal

,

.

4

i

-

-5

Perceived consequences for improper behavior

not considered significant

'

.

,

4

/

i

.

l

h

.

. . . .

..

Nr

.

i

EVENT 2

-

System Manager entry into a posted

-

High Radiation Area without an

~

alarm.ina dos.imeter

-

.

, . .

~

October 28,1993

-

System Manager was notified of a service water

leak

,

..

.

I

System Manager observed a large leak and

,

immediately reacted by climbing a scaffolding to

stop the leak

The leak created a situation that the System

-

Manager thought required immediate corrective

actions

i

'

System

Manager

was

familiar

with

the

.

-

radiological conditions in the area

l

The

System

Manager was

in the

area for

approximately 2 minutes

Dose

rate

in the scaffold

area

was 40-60

mrem /hr

.

,

i-

'

,

h.

'

.

EVENT 2

,.

_ System Manager entry into a posted

-

High Radiation Area without an

,

_ alarming dosimeter

-

_

.

Dose received by the System Manager was

approximately Smrem

,

System Manager failed to follow the Radiation

Work

Permit instructions

and proper safety

i

_

practices for climbing

~

,

Operations ~ self

identified

the

situation

and

y

initiated an investigation

.

!

)

E

t

--

-.

.

, .

r

,.

.

I

P

~

EVENT 2

,

Causal Factors

-

.

F

r

The System Manager became focused

on stopping the leak

e

i

./

P

'

,

-

.e

=

i

-J

I

-

. .

,

.

t

g

EVENT 3

1

.

Enaineer entry into a posted

'

Respiratory Protection Required Area

,

without authorization

.

-

October 29,1993

-

Engineer was assigned to photograph valves and-

,

inspect insulation in the drywell

..

Engineer

discussed

the

job

with -the

HP

Technicians

Valve insulation was recently removed in one of

the areas needing inspection

HP Technicians instructed the Engineer not to

enter the posted Respiratory Protection Area

until survey results were known

Engineer

attempted

to

contact

the

.HP

Technician while in the area

,

HP Technician was busy at the control point

.

Engineer felt sufficient time had elapsed since

'

the

insulation

was

removed,

to

dilute

any

airborne activity

-

.

_

,

.

,

.

..

.

EVENT 3

-

- H

-

!

.

-

Ena_ineer entry into a posted

e

.

,

.

Respiratory Protection Required Area

.

without authorization

1

-

,

-i

!

-

.

1

Engineer

failed

to

follow

HP

Technician

.

instructions and rad postings by entering the

'

area for approximately 1 minute to obtain a.

picture of valve

!

Roving HP Technician noticed Engineer in the

,,

posted area

,

-

,

HP

Control

Point

Technician

removed

the

Engineer from the area

.

-

Air sample taken prior to the Engineer's entry

showed subsequently that respiratory protection,

was not required

i

,

HP Technician initiated an event investigation

i

r

!

f

-

- .

.

,.

,

, , . . . . , . . . . , ,

, _ , , . , ,

, . ,

'

.

s

I

e

EVENT 3

--:

-

.

-

,.

,

-

Causal Factors

'

'

_

Y

,.

,

$

5

-

.

Engineer rationalized that sufficie~nt time had

elapsed to dilute any airborne contaminants

-

>

Perceived consequences for improper behavior

-

not considered significant

-

,

e

9

w

f

I

,.

-

i

l

I

w

-

_

-,

< , . .

O

i

,

)

i

P

EVENT 1,2,3

-

I

,

immediate Corrective Actions

..

i

-

,,

f4

!

NRC promptly notified

-

Formal investigations initiated

Individuals removed from controlled areas

Individuals

received

appropriate

level

of

disciplinary action

'

The

significance

of

the

events

was

a

!

communicated to site personnel

,

f

>

.

-

r9

)

e

w-

.

PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT

~

-

.

V

F

Rad Protection Program Status

-

Rad Protection Program initiatives

Personnel performance

-

Management actions

'

i

I

.

. .

-

.

,

Rad Protection

'

Program Status

- :

.

,,

i

N

,

\\

-

l

I

'

Exposure reduction

-

_

Personnel Contamination incident reduction

i

-

Respirator use reduction

. . -

+

4

i

.,

-

-.

. . - - _ -

. . . .

. . ,

, . - .

. . .

.s-...

. - . ,__

-

, .

-

>j

!

.*

,

i

.

l

!

{;

,!

l;

L

,

.

D

-

L

i

-

h

w

, -

"

'9

!

-

3

T

l

-

-.

"

-

+

5

!.

-

$

i=

_

a

-

'

-

"

=

'

2

-

"

'9

-

'

-

'

$

M

NY

!

?

n

-

8

'9

-

' .

$

I

m.;

- n

-

,

'

$

'

-

.

1

-

3

M

O

t

-

B

N

-

'

-

S

-

I

-

"

-e

0

$

T

-

d.

E!

-

'9

$

TY

A

-

==

S

-

"

_

!

N

9

=m

'

-

'8

-

"

r

N

[

-

,

SR

-

y .

i

e

I

y

-

n

8

3

R

'8

EO

$'

i .

7

-

e

f .

,

.

N

N .

W

i

5

.

8

.

s

5 .

m

!-

'

.

N

-:

fn

0

OT

!

E'

+m

n-

.

il

w

6

_2

8

,

"

M

n'

,

m

e

t

i

-

P S

.-'

t

-

e

_

a'

a

5

.

R

M

C

p-

,

.-

-

_

I I

b

,

-

'8

'

_

E

,

-

A

R

$

4

OH

!

f

!

$

M

l

8

h

!

'

E

-

N

I!

?

!

Y

A

3

l

'8

T

$

5

M

AE

4

.

-

E

'

2

t'

$

9

i

-

'8

MS

Li

t$

1

5

8

O

-

TO

h

h

l

N

,'

.

y

0

_

-

'8

T

2

r=

-

l

S

a

OD

!

M

W

-

l

.

i

-

n

9

-

_

t

-

7

B

== G

-

,.c

-

_

?

G

HL

M

5

M

.-

8

7

,=

C

E

l

6

r

U

N

3

_

-

9

$

5

7

9

AA

R

7

1

-

'

s

C

$

r=

-

t.

-

E

==

g

PU

l

-

6

D

N

$

s

7

U

'

I

.;

+

9N

-

A

-

f

-

l

-

R

f

-

H

rr

g

5

T

f

N

M

d

- ..

h

!

l

7

D

5

- .

-

b

-

'

E

_

T

.

0

o

0

C

.

0

o

E

N

5,

0,

5,

0,

5,

0,

S

J

O

3

2

1

R

.

P

A

E

S

_

O

D

_

39

9

1

.

._

1

i

l

li

l

lf , ! t!;:

{

'

,

!

,.r

<

ii

.

^D

._

-

.

R

.

_

D

!

$

!

I

_

-

W

$

!

H

!

l

$

Y

S

$

l

d

-

n

l

$

.

i

r

!

hi$

"

!

,=

3

.

!

$

h

N

-

!

B

e U

!

e

,-

+

0!

i

$

-

!

m

5

0

l

-

E

Y

,

l

i

)

.

d

33

-

i

5

!

'9U

5

$

(

.

R

!

0!

3l

-

l

[

i

N

l

i

_

!

i

!

H

$

.

-

N

l

O

i

ll

!

.

!

s

l

$

.

i

E O.

i

s

!

_

0

E

5l

-

N

_

l

0

.

f"

j

0

=,

-

0

.

OT

!s

0

-

3

l

0

.

E

$

l

0

-

E

O

!

I

5

!!

!

TS

I

h

l

Ei

.

!

/

!N

.

N

!N

!

$i

W

i

.

I

!

i

-

_

AI

!

0

!

N

,

-

j

!

h

T

l

!$

E

!

,.

E

i

$

SH

lW

!

.

!

$i!

E

l

.

H

-

5

.

R

!

!.

)

E

N,

22

_ WE

$

'9U

!

(

-

m.

0

.

OR

'-

.

0

$g

-

n

.

0

.

$i

i

,.

-

S

W

-

.

M

4

-

PU

!

!!

$

C

!

S

$

9N

.

R

E

S

!l

!

i

t i ,

!

l

,

I

!

!!

S!

5

!

,.

E

"

!

$

.

A

R

M S

!

j

lH

!N

,

E

N

!

.

-

$

!

,

.

!

5

$

!

h

,

OO

E

f

!

0!

,-

_

E

k

!

$

i

Y

A

'

T

,.

!

d

-

8

l

-

Y

!

-

.

M

$

_

AP

E

.

-

N

5

l

Y

l

i

O

lh

$

0

E

MX

-

_

. -

.

)

n.U

1 3

O

.

TE

6Y

'9U

. 8

.

_

T

.

(

-

'

-

.

i

.

$

d

.

_

OE

i

$

!

-

!

E

!

d

!

0 5

E;

!

B

$'

l

!

HG

.

l

-

W

-

$

!

-

8

!W

_

5

$

-

C

1

!

-

$

.

l

AA

!

Y

!

$

.

S

.

L

!

.

-

H

.

_

S

-

i.

.

E

5

!

N

!

.

l

$

N

!

-

!

P'1

!

-

Sl

!

h

-

U

M

i

!

-

!$

..

_

0

!

-

l

E

0

)

=4.;

.

_

O

R

1 2

0

'9U

.:

(

-

!

E

N

!

$

.

N

5

!$!

-

_

!$

L

A

$si

5

I

.

5

.

-

!

-

.

-

S

.

E

M

!!

$

.

!

U

!

N;

-

!

.

-

$

N

9

-

'

$ s;

.

-

.

0

F

5

4

3

2

1

.

_

ER

.

.)l

l;

!

11)

i

I'

'

I

ll

Illll

illilli

.

-

- - - - - - - - - _ .

_ _

-

_ _

.

- -

_ _ _ -

.

-l

,

)

I

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATIC.N

.

!

PCR HISTORY

!

'

!

2,000

i

j

j1U690)

l

1,500

-

~

l

lLill28L

'

,

i

1,ooo

+

.x . . . . . . .

. . . . ; . = . . a . , . . + ; m

. . . . . mn

_

!@0k

j

.

I55if

i

m

500

-

i!!s

* =

-a*-- * - *

i

..

!l208.!

@#2l!

'

0-

-

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

i

DATA AS OF 12/06/93

l

perhisto

I

!

- .

I

4

~

RESPIRATOR USE 1988

993

Thousands

20

[I8]!

m

.

,

15 -- -e e:~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~

- - - -~e:~m ----- - -

=

23:

!!!:

. .

I-

'

1......

.uun

10 m

-=wmi-

-ar

mi

* i9..5 + +"m =-=la-:wi+

u

-

j: - .::

;.

$

!!sih!Eiy

*

5

!!i

re

&

,

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

.

..

.

. ... . . . . .

. . . . - .

..

. . . . . . .

..

.

. .

_ _ _ _ _

.

-

.

,

.

..

.

'

1993 Rad Protection

<

Program In.t. tives

i

ia

.

P

t

,

Strengthened HP Management Team

Increased supervisory oversight

l

I

Technician NRRPT certification

.l

1

Increased

rad

worker

awareness

and

)

enforcement

J

.

--

~

.

d

'

..

.

l

PERSONNEL

'

PERFORMANCE

Previous improvement initiatives concentrated

on program enhancements

Improvement

occurred

but

programmatic

solutions cannot resolve all issues

t

As programmatic issues decreased personnel

performance issues became more evident

,

Continued improvement requires emphasis on

resolving personnel performance issues

1

4

i

4

, ,

,

MANAGEMENT

'

ACTION

.

b

Step Up Plan developed

>

a

P

f

Clear performance expectations established

?

Increased

performance

monitoring

by

supervision instituted

Emphasis on personal accountability

.

More reinforcement of good performance

.

Greater

consequences

associated with

poor

performance

.

i

i

r

-

,

.*

,

l

'

..

,

!

Regulatory

'

Considerations

5

>

I

h

!

l

i

!

i

,

Mitigating factors for individuals

,

~

Mitigating factors for licensee

!

,

&

f

l

!

-

i

>

i

I

.

_

. .

.

__

-

.

'

MITIGATING

.

FACTORS FOR

INDIVIDUALS

i

L

Non-supervisory, Non-Licensed Personnel

No history of non-compliance with radiological

requirements

Cooperated fully with investigations

Minimal personal benefit

No malicious intent involved

.

Perceived radiological consequences were low

Actual safety significance was minimal

Individuals

accepted

responsibility

for

their

actions and communicated lessons learned to

peers

)

Appropriate disciplinary action taken

-

l

I

..

.

-

,

l

MITIGATING

FACTORS FOR

LICENSEE

!

,

Licensee Identified

Events promptly reported to NRC

Investigation and Corrective Action initiated by

licensee

s

Root Cause Analysis was comprehensive

Appropriate radiological control existed

')

Worker training was adequate

2

Short time between events limited opportunity

l

to prevent recurrence

Low radiological safety significance

Appropriate remedial action taken

Plan to improve personnel performance was

under development when events occurred

,

i

l

'

.

ML20059C779

Text

Navigation menu

Search