ML20140F150

Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 for Violation Noted in 850809 Insp Re Unplanned Radiation Exposure Received by Health Physics Technician While Performing Radiological Surveys

ML20140F150
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	02/03/1986
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
Shared Package
ML20140F146	List: ML20140F142 ML20140F150
References
EA-85-105, NUDOCS 8602040280
Download: ML20140F150 (8)

Text

-

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. Docket No. 50-271 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) License No. DPR-28

) EA 85-105 ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Brattleboro, Vermont 05380, (licensee) is the holder of License No. DPR-28 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission /NRC) which authorizes the licensee to operate the Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont, in accordance with the conditions specified therein.

II On August 9, 1985 an NRC inspection was conducted to review the circumstances associated with an event involving an unplanned radiation exposure received by a health physics technician while he was performing a radiological survey in the Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) room. The inspection identified that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of a Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated October 22, 1985. The Notice states the nature of the violation, the provision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's requirements that the licensee had violated, and 8602040200 060203 ADOCK 0500 1 gDR

l 1

j the amount of civil penalty proposed for the violation. Answers dated November 25 and 26, 1985 t'o the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

were received from the licensee. ,

2 III i

After consideration of the answers received and the statements of fact, explana-tion, and argument for remission or mitigation of the proposed civil penalty contained therein and as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has determined that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed.

IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars

($50,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear f Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

-- y y -

enesi.,gie wg-* r - oa 9 gwy.-- e- -w----im -

pyw-w wsys-iw,- p =-e -*Ne-- --s*+ -e-*----- PMw - "' ""*- "-"""*"' ""*C'*

4 1

4 i .

1

V The licensee may, within thirty days of the date of this Order, request a hearing.

A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and, if payment has not been made by 1

that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

i In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) whether the licensee violated NRC requirements as set forth in the l Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty; and i

j - .

i j

j

\

j ,

l

} (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be '

j

j. sustained.

, FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 4

( m - /

~

i J es M. Ta r, Director

, fice of I spection and Enforcement l

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland -

! thisday of February 1986 i

i J

t 4

4 e

i i

6 1

I 1

i 4

I

APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION Although the licensee essentially admits the violation, its November 25 and 26, 1985 responses to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated October 22, 1985 request mitigation of the civil penalty and provide the reasons why the licensee believes mitigation of the penalty is appropriate. Provided below are (1) a restatement of the violation, (2) the licensee's assertions in support of mitigation, and (3) the NRC response to each of the licensee's assertions.

Restatement of Violation:

10 CFR 19.12 requires that all individuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area shall be kept informed of the storage, transfer, or use of radioactive materials or of radiation and shall be instructed in the health protection problems associated with exposure to such radiation and in precautions or procedures to minimize exposure.

Contrary to the above, on August 8,1985, a Chemistry-HP Technician (technician) was given approval by HP supervision to enter a restricted area (the TIP room area where radiation levels of 1000 R/hr or higher existed) to perform surveys where there was a known potential for unusually high exposure rates, and the technician was not instructed by HP supervision in precautions to take and pro-cedures to follow to minimize exposure. The technician was not instructed as to the location to make an initial exposure rate measurement and a level at which to terminate the survey or provided appropriate alternative instructions.

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement IV).

Civil Penalty - $50,000.

Licensee Assertion The licensee acknowledges the statement made in the NRC October 22, 1985 letter that an exposure in excess of regulatory limits could have occurred because of the inexperience of the HP technician. However, the licensee contends that the potential for a serious overexposure was minimized because before the entry the HP technician had (1) discussed with the Plant Health Physicist the radir,-

logical concerns associated with the TIP room; (2) reviewed the administrative /

procedural controls in place for TIP room entries; (3) reviewed the procedure for performing the survey, including the related dose map; (4) been instructed in the specific goal of the survey; (5) requested and received backup assistance from two auxiliary operators; and (6) discussed the entry with his supervisor and the supervisor's assistant.

~

- _ _ _ . _ -_ .= . . -

1 Appendix NRC Evaluation The NRC acknowledges that the licensee took certain actions, as described in its responses, before the TIP room entry. However, several of the I

licensee's actions were not adequate to minimize the potential for an over-exposure. The technician's discussions with supervision (items 1 and 6 above) were very brief and apparently ro specific precautionary instructions

were given regarding minimizing exposure. The dose maps (item 3) that were reviewed were potentially misleading to an inexperienced technican as they indicated that exposure rates should be very low. With respect to item 4, it is not clear whether the purpose of the survey was to establish dose rates

, for a radiation work permit for that shift or to establish initial dose rates in the room for re-entry during subsequent shifts. Even at the enforce-l ment conference, licensee management expressed uncertainty over the purpose of the entry and survey.

Further, the other actions cited by the licensee are normally expected before the performance of such a task. That is, the NRC would expect an individual to j

understand the task to be performed, review related procedures and controls,

, and also have discussions with appropriate supervisory personnel to provide adequate protection during performance of these tasks. In this specific case, these actions were not sufficient to provide adequate protection to the

! health physics technician during the performance of the TIP room survey because the individual did not know or understand the location at which to make an initial exposure rate measurement or the level at which to terminate the survey.

4 Further, the technician did not have any experience working in radiation fields of tne magnitude encountered in the TIP room. This lack of adequate instruc-

tion and experience level was evident in that, although the technician's survey meter went offscale during the survey indicating radiation dose rates in excess of 1000 R/hr, he did not exit the room until one of the auxiliary operators told him to "back out of the room." For all of the above reasons, the NRC maintains that the potential for a serious exposure was not minimized.

i Therefore, the licensee's assertion does not provide a basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.

Licensee's Assertion The NRC's October 22, 1985 letter transmitting the Notice stated that on at least two occasions NRC inspectors had informed the licensee staff of the need for formal, written, and approved procedures for personnel entry into the TIP room, yet such a procedure was not prepared. The licensee, however, states that to the best of its knowledge, neither conversation resulted in any con-cerns being expressed regarding the adequacy of administrative controls governing TIP room access.

NRC Evaluation

. The licensee states in its November 26, 1985 response that licensee personnel

do not recall any discussion during the two conversations with NRC representatives regarding the adequacy of its administrative controls governing TIP room i access. However, the licensee does admit in its response that during one

conversation the Region I inspector cautioned that if certain experienced

- _ ,_-- . _ _ , _ .._ _ . _ _ - . ~ - . . _ _ , . _ . - , - _ _ - _ - - - - - - I-------.-----------.

r 4

I 1

Appendix l staff members left, certain procedural and administrative controls would -

likely need to be enhanced if the new staff members were less experienced l personnel. During this conversation, the inspector placed emphasis on the TIP

room and other high-radiation areas.

1

' The HP technician in this case was admittedly inexperienced, and the exper-ienced Radiation Protection Manager was no longer employed by the licensee at the time of the NRC conversation. Nonetheless, the procedures for entry to 2

high-radiation areas in general and the TIP room in particular were not suf-

ficiently enhanced to ensure that the technician, as the responsible individual

! performing this survey, was knowledgeable of the location at which to make an initial exposure rate measurement and of the level at which to terminate the

-j survey.

5 In addition, the licensee also was informed of the NRC concern about procedural

! controls in high-radiation areas via several information notices and a circular

] (Information Notice 84-19 dated March 21, 1984, Information Notice 82-51 dated 1 December 26, 1982, and Circular Notice 76-03 dated September 13,1976).

l These notices emphasized the importance of ensuring that radiation protection i procedures and radiation protection training and retraining programs specifically j

address the matter of control and access to such areas and initiate appropriate i retraining of all plant personnel. They also recommended that entry be allowed only after appropriate management review and approval. Further, they recommended periodic audit of these actions to ensure their continued effectiveness. Many of the actions noted in the Notices are similar to those in the Confirmatory i Action Letter issued by the NRC to Vermont Yankee on September 9, 1985. In i addition, there have been a number of escalated enforcement actions for similar 3

violations at other plants of which the licensee should have been aware. A purpose of publishing escalated enforcement actions in NUREG-0940 and Orders Imposing Civil Penalties in the Federal Register is to give licensees notice of other enforcement actions which may bear on their own operations. (See Vol. 4, No. 1, p. I.A-94 l and Vol . 3, No. 2, p. I. A-1 of NUREG-0940. )

]: Accordingly, the NRC maintains that the licensee had prior notice of potential

problems associated with TIP rooms. Therefore, a basis would have existed for an increase in the civil penalty amount had it not been for the licensee's i reporting of this event and prompt short-term corrective actions.

i Licensee's Assertion i

, The licensee claims that at the time of the Enforcement Conference on i September 5,1985, significant efforts had been taken to assess the specific j causes of the incident and develop long-term proposed corrective actions. In i

particular, on the day (August 9) following the event, the Plant Manager

directed the Chemistry and HP technician to generate a Plant Information Report (PIR) so that the event could be analyzed and recommended long-term corrective action could be provided. The final PIR, which was issued approximately 6 l weeks later on September 17, 1985, proposed six long-term corrective actions.

On September 21, 1985 the Plant Manager dispositioned the long-term recommen-

! dations. The licensee contends that the development and finalization of this long-term corrective action program occurred in a prudent and timely manner.

l i

Appendix NRC Evaluation The NRC maintains that the long-term actions taken by the licensee were not particularly prompt in that some of the actions could and should have been in place at the time of the enforcement conference, namely, an upgrade of the procedures for entry into locked high-radiation areas in general, and the TIP room in particular. These items were not provided by the licensee at the Enforcement Conference and appeared tc have been considered only after the Enforcement Conference on September 5,1985 and the Region I Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) issued on September 9, 1985. In addition, four of the six items in the licensee's PIR simply proposed evaluation of certain aspects of the program rather than describing specific actions taken or necessary to correct deficiencies and improve the program. It was not until September 21, 1985 after the Enforcement Conference and issuance of the Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) that the licensee committed to take these actions.

For these reasons, the NRC maintains that the licensee's long-term actions were

, not unusually prompt and do not provide an adequate basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.

NRC Conclusion I

After consideration of the answers received and the licensee's statements of

fact, explanation, and arguments for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty, the staff concludes that any adjustment to the civil penalty amount is inappropriate. Therefore, the proposed $50,000 civil penalty should be imposed.

i

- , - - , _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . , , ..__,,______._,____,__;__-._________._,____