ML20126G160

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $100,000.Noncompliance Noted:Licensee Did Not Make Adequate Surveys to Assure That Individauls Were Exposed to Airborne Concentrations Exceeding in 10CFR20.103

ML20126G160
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	12/28/1992
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126G154	List: IR 05000458/1992033 ML20126G160
References
50-458-92-33, EA-92-207, NUDOCS 9301040093
Download: ML20126G160 (7)

Text

r

- OEC 18 ,H2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Gulf States Utilities Docket No. 50-458 River Bond Station License No. NPF-47 EA 92-207 During NRC inspections conducted on October 7-16 and October 19-23, 1992, 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 licenseo 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 radiation hazards that may be present. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " surveys" 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.

1. Contrary to the above, on September 3, 1992, the licensee did not make adequate surveys to assure that individuals were not exposed to airborne concentrations exceeding the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.103.

Specifically, due to the positioning and/or timing of the licensee's air samples, the results were not representative of the extent of contamination present in the worker's breathing zone during work by mechanics on Valve B33*MOV 23A.

2. Contrary to the above, on September 3 and-4, 1992, the licensee did not make adequate surveys to assure compliance with: (1) those parts of_10 CFR 20.101 that limit radiation exposure to the whole body and to extremities; and (2) that-part of 10 CFR 20.203 which requires that the label on a container of radioactive material provide sufficient information, including radiation levels,-to permit individuals to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures.

Specifically: (1) surveys were not pertermed of packing material from Valve B33*MOV 23A when the material was removed from the valve or before it was transported to the step off' pad trash receptacle; (2) the next day, the bag that contained the packing material was surveyed and labeled with a tag that indicated radiation levels of less than 2 mR/hr on

B82 iB83RO!!!llge G-

r DEC 281992 l 4

i Notice of Violation ccntact; and (3) the bag that contained the packing cerial was subsequently found to have radiation levels of 14,000 mR/hr on contaci .

3. Contrary to the above, on September 30, 1992, the licensee did not make surveys to assure compliance with: (1) those parts of 10 CFR 20.101 that limit exposure to the whole body and the extremities, and.(2) that part of 10 CFR 20.203 which requires specified 17ns and controls for high radiation areas.

.  : ifically, radiation area surveys were not performed

te workers were allowed to work in an oil wasto

> orage room wnich contained bags and drums of radwaste

, =c had been placed in the room on September 8, 1992,

.md the room was not surveyed after the radwaste was asced in the room. nne of the bags was later found to y radiation levels of 14,000 mR/hr on contact; C;artfore, the presence of this bag had the potential to create a high radiation area as defined in 10 CFR 20.202 (b) (3) .

4. Contrary to the above, on September 24, 1992, the licensee: (1) did not make surveys to assure compliance with that part of 10 CFR 20.203 which requires that the label on a container of radioactive matarial provide sufficient information, including radiation 1+"-1s, to permit indivi 31s to take precaution. t avoid or minimize .ssures, and (2) did not make surveys that were reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards present. Specifically, radioactive resin samples were placed in a trash bag which was sealed and removed by radwaste workers, but which was not surveyed or " tagged" (labeled). On October 1, 1992, the trashbsq vas found, unlabeled, in a storage box designated for low specific activity radwaste; and the trashbag was determined to have radiation levels of 800 mR/hr on contact.

5. Contrary to the above, as of October 8, 1992, the licensee did not make adequate surveys to assure compliance with that part of 10 CFR 20.203 which requires that the label on a container of radioactive material provide sufficient information, including radiation levels, to permit individuals to take prec6ctions to avoid or minimize exposures.

Specifically, on that date, while performing a walkdown radiation survey outside the Hot Machine Shop, a licensee radiation protection technician found a bag of radwaste that was not " tagged" (labeled) and that had radiation leVhls of 100 mR/hr on contact, and a second bag of radwaste labeled with a tag that indicated the

. DEC 2 8 ??:

! Notice of Violation radiation levels were less than 2 mR/hr on contact, but which actually had radiation levels of 150 mR/hr on contact.

6. Contrary to the above, the licensee did not make

. surveys that were reasonable under the circumstances to I evaluate the extent of radiation hazards present.

Specifically, discussions with the licensee indicate that slings are highly suspect items for radioactive contamination and normally would not be released cutside the protected area without a survey; however:

a. On August 19, 1992, a-sling was not surveyed 2 before it was released from the radiologically

controlled area to the cold (non-radioactive) tool I room. The sling was subsequently found to be contaminated with radioactive material (100,000 2 disintegrations per minute [dpm) of fixed contamination).

3

b. On September 10, 1992, the sling,-with 100,000 dpm fixed contamination, was released and used outside the protected area.without a survey.

7. Contrary to the above, sometime between June 25 and 1

October 19, 1992, the licensee did not make surveys to assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.301, which describes authorized means of disposing of licensed material

contained in waste. Specifically, a survey was not performed of a piece of scrap steel before it was released from the protected area and disposed of by transfer to a scrap dealer who was not authorized to receive radioactive material. Subsequent surveys indicated radiation levels of 100 microR/hr, fixed i contamination levels of 3,000 to 120,000 dpm, and loose contamination levels of 1,000 to 10,000 dpm/cm , 2 B. Technical Specification 6.11.1 requires that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent

, with 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained, and J adhered to for all operations involving personnel-radiation i exposure.

1. RBS procedure RSP-0213, Revision 6, " Control and Handling of Radioactive Materials," Section 5.3.10 states, in part, that transport of any material that has an 18 inch dose rate greater than or equal to 100 mR/hr that by its movement could cause an individual to be exposed to a high radiation field requires the Radiation Protection Supervisor / Designee's approval, l

c . .

L ,

OEC 28 :992 i .

i

! Notice of Violation -

4 -

l Contrary to the above, on September 4, 8, and 30, 1992,

the licensee transported.a bag of radwaste that had an i 18 inch dose rate of 220 mR/hr which would have caused-

! individuals to be exposed to a high radiation field L without the approval of the Radiation Protection 4

Supervisor or his-designee.

4

2. RBS Procedure =RPP-0005, Revision 9B, " Posting of ,

I Radiologically Controlled Areas," Section 7.3.2.2.a and

7.3.2.2.b state, in part, that to post to restrict- ~

. access to a High Radiation Area the RP technician will j post the area such that the area.is completely-enclosed

by a physical barrier'and place signs bearing thel i radiation symbol and the words " CAUTION" or " DANGER" I and "HIGH' RADIATION AREA" on all sides of the barrier to form a conspicuous boundary.

4 a. -Contrary to the above, from September-30 through October 1, 1992, the licensee did not post to

restrict accessJto.a High Radiation Area, in that

!. a Low Specific Activity box of radwaste that'had i radiation. levels of 600-mR/hr on contact and

130 mR/hr at 18 inches was not posted.

b. Contrary to the above, on September-29 and 30,

, 1992, the licensee did not post to restrict-access

, to-a High Radiation Area, in that a ladder in the truck. bay of the Radwaste building which-allowed access to a High Radiation Area was not posted.-

2 The general area radiation levels at the top of

_ the ladder were-100 mR/hr.

1

3. RBS Procedure RPP-0006,-Revision 6B, " Radiological i Surveys," Section 8;3-states, in-part, that i Radiological' Survey Sheets or "one. liner" shall be used

to document.the performance of routineLand miscellaneous surveys.

< Contrary.to'the above,'on September 4, 1992, a.

Radiation Protection-technician who performed-dose rate surveys on:a bag of radwaste-containing packing material from Valve B33*MOV 23A did~not document the surveys on a Radiological Survey Sheet.-

4

4. RBS Procedure RSP-0209, Revision 4, " Control of l Radiation Protection Equipment," Section 5.4.3.a states, in part, that RP shall sign out the equipment' i by completing the Ready Use User's List'by recording-i- name,~ location of use, time out,'and initials.

, Contrary to the-above,. on September 4,-1992, a Radiation Protection technician 'did ~ not. sign out, on-

_ -, . - , . - . - , . . , _ , , , ._,. 4 m .,__,.,__,E, _, ,,,.,_,,....m.,___., , , . , . . ~ . . . . . . _ . , _ . . . . .

DEC 2 8 ,992 Notice of Violation the Ready Use User's List, the radiation survey instrument that he used that day to perform radiation surveys.

C. 10 CFR 20. 202 (a) (1) requires that each licensee supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment to, and require the use of such equipment by, each individual who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent of the applicable value specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a).

1. Contrary to the above, on September 3, 1992, the licensee did not supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment (extremity dosimetry) to mechanics who were removing packing on Valve B33*MOV 23A in a restricted area. With radiation levels on the packing as high as 14,000 mR/hr on contact, the mechanics were likely to receive a dose in excess of 25 percent of the applicable value specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a).

2. Contrary to the above, on September 4, 1992, the licensee did not supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment to individuals who transported a bag of radwaste on their backs. Specifically, no monitoring equipment was placed on the backs of these individuals and the bag had radiation levels of 14,000 mR/hr on contact.

D.

10 CFR Part 20.301(a) requires that no licensee dispose of

' licensed material except by transfer to an authorized recipient as provided in the regulations in Parts 30, 40, i

60, 61, 70, or 72 of this chapter, Contrary to the above, on October 19, 1992, the licensee disposed of a piece of scrap steel that was radioactively contaminated with the isotopes cobalt-60 and manganese-54 to a scrap dealer who was not authorized to receive licensed material.

These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV),

Cumulative Civil Penalty - $100,000.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Gulf States Utilities (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 glearly marked as a "K ply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alia 'd violation: (1)

4 .

DEC 28 :9s Notice of Violation admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for l

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 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 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. Consideration may be given to extending the 4

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.

I 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 the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or 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 of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors 1

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. 2282c.

1 - -

n .

j . DEC 28 592 l

i Notice of Violation 1-

The response;noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter

- with payment of civil penalty,-and Answer-to_a Notice of l Violation) should be addressed to

Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document.

! Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional

! Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission, Region IV,'

611 Ryan Plaza-Drive, Suite-400, Arlington', Texas 76011, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the' facility that is the

subject of this Notice.

i Dated at Arlington, Texas

! this 28th day of-December 1992 1

i

!~

l f '

i l

i i

i i

4 1

1 i .-

t

- y- , ,., , .,e , , . _ _ . . - - , r,... . . . , , . ,,. J...s,-,.-..~.m,,..,..,,,...m..,x,,Yv,

-