Text

Ack Receipt of in Response to & Notice of Violation Re Insp Repts 50-361/96-19 & 50-362/96-19 Conducted on 961216-20.Revised Notice of Violation Issued to Document Changes to Violations
	ML20149G310
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	07/18/1997
From:	Dyer J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Ray H; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20149G313	List: ML20149G310; ML20149G332;
References
	50-361-96-19, 50-362-96-19, NUDOCS 9707230137
	Download: ML20149G310 (6)
	v • d • e

. .. . . . _ . - . --- - - - - .

e

t =

y .

8 UNITED STATES

9 " 009

/ $g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGloN Iv

% 8 611 RYAN PLAZA drive, SUITE 400

^4 ,0' AR LINGToN, TEXAS 760118064

9*****

July 18, 1997

i

Harold B. Ray, Executive Vice President

Southern California Edison Co.

San Onnfre Nuclear Generating Station

l P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, California 92674-0128

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-361/96-19; 50-362/96-19 RESPONSE TO

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Ray:

Thank you for the March 7,1997, letter in response to our January 10,1997, letter and ;

!

Notice of Violation. The letter indicated: (1) Southern California Edison (Edison) is

contesting the three violations and requesting that they be withdrawn; (2) the dates in the )

cover letter of our inspection report concerning Violation B are in error; and (3) only six of I

the 23 items discussed in Violation B were involved with the survey and release of material

at the radiological controlled area, and the statement in our cover letter gives the erroneous

impression that radioactive material had passed from Edison's control. You also requested l

'

that we correct the public record to affirm that: (4) your personnel are attentive, (5) you

are concerned about worker safety and have adequately protected the health and safety of

your workers, and (6) you have taken appropriate corrective actions to acdress some minor

deficiencies which were beyond any regulatory recuirements.

We have reviewed the additional information you provided during the management meeting

held on February 27,1997, and your March 7,1997, letter. ; ir review concluded that f

violations of NRC requirements occurred, as discussed below. A revised Notice of f

Violation is being issued to document the changes to the violations (Encionure 1). The /f i

l

'

results of our review and the basis for our position regarding the violations are discussed in - i

Enclosure 2. Our conclusions have been reached after consultations with the NRC's OffiI

of Enforcement.

l

'

Originally, Violation A referenced radiation exposure permit (REP) requirements and i

involved the failure of several workers to understand the radiological conditions

documented on applicable REPS. We agree with your assertion that workers are not

required to memorize quantitative contamination / airborne levels, and that implication was

'

never our intent. The citation has been rewritten to make it clear that the workers were

misinformed of the radiological conditions in their work area. After further review, we

concluded that 10 CFR 19.12 requirements provide a clearer description of the regulatory

issue. Accordingly, Violation A has been revised to reference 10 CFR 19.12 which

requires that workers must be informed of the storage or use of radioactive material and

that the extent of these instructions must be commensurate with the potential health

I protection problems present in their work area.

9707230137 970718 g,\{%*hkkh ,

PDR ADOCK 05000361 * , h l

,

G PDR .

. .. - - -. _ - . . _ . - . - . . - . . _ _ . - - . _ . -. --

G

<r

o

I

Southern Calik. nia Edison Co. -6-

E-Mail report to T. Boyce (THB)

'

E-Mail report to NRR Event Tracking System (IPAS)

E-Mail report to Document Control Desk (DOCDESK)

,

bec to DCD (IE06). :r

bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator Resident inspector .

DRP Director DRS-PSB 1

Branch Chief (DRP/F, WCFO) MIS System

Senior Project inspector (DRP/F, WCFO) RIV File

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS) M. Hammond (PAO, WCFO)

Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS: TWFN 9E10) WCFO File

!

J. Lieberman, OE

l T. Reis, OE

l

!

DOCUMENT NAME: R: SO\SO619AK.MPS _

To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy witti enclosures "N" = No copy

RS:PSB E C:PSB lE RC l EO D:DRP

MShannon BMurray BBrown GSanborn TPGwynn*

~05/28/97* 05/28/97* 05/29/97* 05/30/97* $ tj /97

D:DRSg,)ff OE DRA RA 9)

ATHo%)l!Ill JLiebermark JEDyer $ EMerschoff

. p(Y97 L //9/97 7//4/97 W/97

Previousiy concurred OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

(

l

.- . - -

4

.

'

.

Southern California Edison Co. -2-

The inspectors reviewed several REPS and observed various pre-job briefings and

determined that workers were misinformed regarding the actual radiological work

conditions. The REPS documented airborne concentration levels and contamination levels

as significantly greater than existing work conditions. This conflicting information was not

discussed, much less corrected, during the pre-job briefings prior to the start of work.

Additionally, the bio-shield area was posted as an airborne area when such conditions did

not exist. The area had been " pre-posted" in preparation for an upcoming activity. During

interviews, the inspectors identified that some workers were not aware they were working

in a posted airborne area. Our conclusion is that, during the inspection, workers within the

bio-shield were misinformed regarding the actual rafclogics' conditions in their work areas.

Violation B, originally involved the discovery of 23 contaminated items outside the

radiological controlled area, but inside the restricted area. However, sfter the inspection,

l

Edison performed a more thorough review of these 23 items and provided the results of its

review to the NRC during the February 27,1997, meeting and documented its findings in

the March 7,1997, letter. Edison stated that instead of 23 items, only 6 were found to

have originated in the radiological controlled area. Further, Edison contested the violation

stating that the surveys across the radiological controlled area boundary are beyond those

covered by Regulatory Guide 1.33. Tne NRC's position is that your procedures involving

i contamination controls, including surveys at the radiological controlled area boundary, are

within the scope of Regulatory Guide 1.33. However, based on the new information, the

NRC has modified Violation B to focus on the 6 inadequate surveys that were performed at

the radiological controlled area boundary.

Edison also expressed concern that our cover letter gave the erroneous impression that

radioactive material had passed from Edison's control. Upon review, we have determined

that our cover letter statement is accurate, in that, uncontrolled radioactive material was

!

found outside the radiological controlled area. Since these items were within the San

,

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station restricted area, they were within Edison's control, in

l that, they could not expose members of the public, but they were not controlled as

radioactive material inside the restricted area. We acknowledge that radioactive material

inside the restricted area does not necessarily represent a radiological hazard if it is

l

adequately labeled, posted, or otherwise controlled. The material that Edison found did not

j pose a significant radiological hazard; however, our concern is that several relatively low

level contaminated items have been found on a number of occasions over a 17-month

period. We note that six of these items originated from the radiological controlled area (the

actual violation), and that the remainder originated in the restricted area. Regardless of

where the contaminated items originated, this issue indicates a recurring licensee-identified

weakness in the control of licensed material. Although this violation does not indicate a

programmatic breakdown in Edison's contamination control program, it is appropriately

classified as a violation that is more than a minor concern because if left uncorrected, it

could lead to a more serious concern.

l

,

.

'

.

Southern California Edison Co. -3-

The NRC acknowledges that we did not identify any instance in which radioactive material

passed from Edison's control to the unrestricted area. Violations involving the uncontrolled

release of licensed material to the unrestricted area are ger'erally more severe. This should

clarify any potentially erroneous impression that our cover 'etter gave regarding this issue.

The dates in the second paragraph of our January 10,1997, cover letter concerning

Violation B were in error. Enclosure 3 is a corrected copy of page 1 of the cover letter.

Please correct your copy of the inspection report by replacing page 1 of the cover letter,

with the enclosed page. We regret any inconvenience that this error may have caused.

l

'

With regard to Violation C, it, too, has been modified to more explicitly state how the

requirement was violated. A specific reference has been added to state that the label did

not contain sufficient information, such as the radiation levels. Further, we note that your

procedure used for labeling radioactive material does not effectively reflect the l

requirements of 10 CFR 20.1904(a). Specifically, your procedure states that each I

container which creates a "significant" radiological hazard shall have additional information I

added to the label. Your procedure does not define what is meant by a significant l

radiological hazard.10 CFR 20.1904(a) does not limit the labeling requirement to only l

those cases where a "significant radiological hazard" is present.

1

In the March 7,1997, letter, Edison stated that the NRC's concern, as stated in our l

January 10,1997, cover letter, was based on incomplete and/or incorrect information.

This referred to the erroneous time period stated in the cover letter and to the erroneous i

number of items found in the restricted area (Violation B). After reviewing all of the

information, we find that our concem, as stated in our January 10,1997, cover letter, still

exists. Our conclusions regarding your performance and the implementation of your

radiation protection program are documented in the subject inspection report. The

Executive Summary section of the report, which included 3 violations and 14 program

strengths, summarized our conclusions. We note that NRC inspections often result in the

identification of instances in which some licensee personnel are inattentive. However, that

does not mean that NRC has concluded the licensee is unconcerned about worker safety or

that the licensee has inadequately protected the workers. Edison's violations did not

involve a substantial potential for the exposure of plant personnel in excess of regulatory

limits, nor did the violations indicate a potential programmatic breakdown.

With regard to your request that we correct the record to affirm that Edison has taken

appropriate corrective actions to address these issues, we have not drawn any conclusions

about the adequacy of your corrective actions. Your response did not include the reasons

for the violations nor the corrective tactions for the violations. Therefore, you are required

to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the Notice when

preparing your response.

t

l

!

-

.

,

'

l

i

-4-

Southern California Edison Co.

I

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,

its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary,

or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or additional information for us to

consider, we w.li be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

Guw

James E.f Dyer

Deputy Regional Administrator

Docket Nos.: 50-361; 50-362

License Nos. NPF-10; NPF-15

Enclosures:

1. Revised Notice of Violation

2. Results of Review and Bases for Violations

3. Corrected Copy of page 1 to the

January 10,1997, Cover Letter of

NRC Inspection Report

50-361/96-19; 50-362/96-19

cc w/ enclosures:

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335

San Diego, California 92101

Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart

701 S. Parker St. Suite 7000

Orange, California 92868-4720

Sherwin Harris, Resource Project Manager

Public Utilities Department

City of Riverside

3900 Main Street

Riverside, California 92522

. . . _ _ _ - _ . . - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _

,

.

,

a

4

l

Southern California Edison Co. -5-

R. W. Krieger, Vice President

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, California 92674-0128

, Dr. Harvey Collins, Chief

I

Division of Drinking Water and

l

'

Environmental Management '

California Departm,ent of Health Servh:7s

P.O. Box 942732

Sacramento. California 94234-7320

1 Terry Winter, Manager

Power Operations

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

P.O. Box 1831

San Diego, California 92112

. Mr. Steve Hsu ,

l Radiological Health Branch I

State Department of Health Services

P.O. Box 942732

Sacramento, California 94234

!

Mayor -

City of San Clemente

100 Avenida Presidio

!. San Clemente, California 92672

Mr. Truman Burns \Mr. Robert Kinosian

California Public Utilities Commission

! 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102

l- San Francisco, California 94102

!

l

i

l

'

.

!

, , - -_ _ , , .- - - - - -

ML20149G310

Text

Navigation menu

Search