ML20210K651

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $176,000.Violations Noted:Adequate Measures Not Provided to Ensure That Individual Working as Diver in Unit 2 SFP Not Able to Gain Unauthorized Access to Areas

ML20210K651
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	08/11/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210K648	List: ML20210K642 ML20210K651
References
EA-97-192, NUDOCS 9708200008
Download: ML20210K651 (7)

Text

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

ENCLOSVRE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50 317;50 318 Calvert CIUfs License Nos. DPR 53; DPR 69 ,

EA 97192 During an NRC inspection conducted between March 2,1997 to April 12,1997 and on April 24,1997, and aninspection conducted between April 13,1997 and May 31,1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes toimpose 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:

1. VIOLATIONS RELATED TO INADEQUATE RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF DIVING ACTIVITIES IN THE SPENT FUEL POOL A. 10 CFR 20.1602 requires that in addition to the requirements in 10 CFR 20.1601, the licensee shall institute additional measures to ensure that an individual is not able to gain unauthorized or inadvertent access to areas in which radiation levels could be encountered at 500 rads or more in an hour at one meter from a radiation source or any surface through which the radiation penetrates.

Contrary to the above, on April 3,1997, adequate measures were not provided to ensure that an individual working as a diver in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool was not able to gain unauthorized or inadvertent access to areas in which radiation levels could be encountered at 500 rads or more per hour. Specifically, while working in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, a diver inadvertently accessed and worked in areas in which radiation levels could be encountered at 500 rads or more in an hour. (01012)

B. 10 CFR 19.12 reautres, in part, that allindividuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area be kept informed of the storage, transfer, or use of radioactive materials or of radiation in such portions of the restricted area.

Contrary to the above, on the moming of April 3,1997,'the licensee did not adequately inform a diver, diving in the Unit 2 spent fuel stvage pool, a restricted area, of the storage of radioactive materials or of radiation in the spent fuel pool that the diver might encounter. Specifically, the instructions provided to the worker did not adequately provide the location of radiation surveys made to support the diver's work in the south end of the spent fuel pool, did not adequately limit the scope of work performed by the diver commensurate with those radiation surveys, and did not instruct the diver as to the location of irradiated fuel assemblies. As a result, the diver moved from 9708200000 970811

~

PDR ADOCK 05000317 G ppg

Enclosure 2 .

the dive area at the south end of the Unit 2 spent fuel pool (that had been comprehensively surveyed and had been approved for work), traversed an unsurveyed portion of the spent fuel pool, travelled to the north end of the spent fuel storage pool which had not been approved for entry, and entered high radiation fields caused by radiation emanating from Irradiated spent fuel elements. (01022)

C. 10 CFR 20.1501 requires, in part, that licensees make or cause to be made surveys that may be necessary to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part f 20 and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation levels and the potential radiological hazards that could be present.10 CFH 20.1201 provides limits for occupational exposures, including exposure limits of 50 rems (shallow dose) to the skin or any extremity and B rems to the whole body (total effective dose).

Contrary to the above, on April 3,1997, while the diver was supplied with radiation surveying instruments and multiple personal dosimetry devices capable of real time indication, surveys performed with these devices were inadequate to assure compliance with occupational dose limits in that: (1) the diver was not trained in the use and limitations of the radiation survey instruments; (2) the diver f ailed to carry and use the survey instruments at all times when he was in the unsurveyed portion of the spent fuel pool; (3) no personal radiation dosimetry real time measuring devices we6e sufficiently located to monitor exposure to the diver's lower extremities as he traversed the unsurveyed portion of the spent fuel pool; (4) the diver was directed to re-enter an area having unknown radiation levels without any verification or evaluation of the potential for personnel exposure in excess of regulatory limits; and (5) upon discovery that the diver had been in an unsurveyed area in which there was liigh potential for personnel exposure in excess of regulatory limits, the individual was permitted to re enter radiologically controlled areas prior to evaluating personnel dosimetry devices for exposure assessment. (01032)

These violations have been categ wized in the aggregate as a Severity Levelli problem.

(Supplement IV).

Civil Penalty $176,000 ll. OTHER VIOLATIONS RELATED TO INADEQUATE RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS A. Technical Specification 6.4.1, " Procedures", requires, in part, that the licensee establish, implement, and maintain the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Appendix

- A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 recommands,in Section 7.e.," Radiation Protection Procedures", that procedures be established for access control to radiation areas, i

Enclosure 3

1. Licensee radiation protection procedure RSP 1 104, " Area Posting and Barricading", Revision 10, requires in Section 0.6, " Locked High Radiation Area", that areas exhibiting radiation levels in excess of 1000 millirem at 30 centimeters from the radiation source be provided with a locked barrier or ensure that the area ls provided with continuous direct or electronic surveillance capable of preventing unauthorized entry.

Contrary to the above, on February 10,1997, areas inside the Unit 2 Containment exhibited radiation levels greater than 1000 millirem at 30 centimeters, and at the time, the access door (Unit 2 Emergency Airlock door) was not locked, and the area was not provided with continuous direct or electronic surveillance capable of preventing unauthorized entry. (02014)

This is a Severity LevelIV Violation (Supplement IV)

2. Licensee procedurt RP 1-100," Radiation Protection," states that a high radiation area shall be posted with a sign stating " Caution: High Radiation Area," and that entry into the area includes a requirement for dosimetry. Procedure RP 1 100 also defines a hlgh radiation area ss any area accessible to personnel in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dos 6 in excess of 100 millirem in one hour,

a. Contrary to the above, on May 1,1997, a plant worker entered and worked in the Unit 2 reactor coolant pump bay, which is posted as a high radiation area, with no dosimetry. (03014)

b. Contrary to the above, on May 4,1997, plant workers erected scaffolding into an area of approximately 300 millirem per hour that was not posted as a high radiation area. (04014)

These are each a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instruction, Procedures, Drawings,"

states that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by procedures and shall be accomplished in accordance with the procedures.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion ll, " Quality Assurance Program," states that applicants shallidentify the major organizations subjec't to the requirements of Appendix B through the Quality Assurance Program. Baltimore Gas and Electric Quality Assurance Policy, Revision 47, dated October 18,1990, states the Plant General Manager is responsible for the radiation safety and also for directing investigations of significant events to determine the root cause and for recommending corrective actions. The Policy states the issues Assessment Unit reviews issue reports, and assigns follow up actions, under the direction of the Plant General Manager.

Enclosure 4 ,

Procedure No. OL 2100, Revision 5, " Issue Reporting and Assessment",

provides that an issue report be used to document an actual or suspected condition adverse to quality or a significant condition adverse to quality and provides a method for notifying affected groups and initiating corrective actions.

Further, Section 4.7, spccifies that reviewing supervisors ensure issue reports are received by the issues assessment unit group within three working days of being initiated.

Contrary to the above, in February 1997, issue reports were written for a high radiation area access control concern and a safety concern associated with locking and control of Unit 2 containment emergency airlocks. The reviewing supervisor was aware of the issue reports; however, neither report was provided to the issues Assessment Group for cause and corrective action determination. (05014)

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

Ill. , VIOLATIONS RELATED TO INADEQUATE CONTROL OF REFUELING ACTIVITIES A. 10 CFR Port 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI,

• Corrective Action," states,in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as f ailures, deficiencies, defective equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected, in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetitiom The identification of the condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion ll, " Quality Assurance Program," requires that applicants establish in their Quality Assurance Programs those structures, systems, and components which are to be subject to the requirements of Appendix B. Baltimore Gas and Electric Oustity Assurance Policy, Revision 47, dated October 18,1998, states that systems and components subject to the requirements of the Quality Assurance Policy are specified on a Quality List (Q-List). All refueling equipment is specified on the O List.

Contrary to the above, as of March 30,1997, the licensee's actions to identify and correct certain conditions adverse to quality were inadequate to preclude the numerous and repeated problems with refueling equipnient during defueling of Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 in March 1997, as evidenced by the following examples, each of which is a separate violation:

1. On March 28,1997, a missing capscrew for a limit switch actuating magnet had not been identified during preparations for spent fuel handling activities. Subsequently, the loose magnet became dislodged and caused the fuel transfer carriage carrying a spent fuel assembly to become stuck in the fuel transfer tube. (06014)

r , 1 Enclosure 5 ,

2. On March 28,1997, after the stuck fuel assembly was removed from the fuel transfer carriage, but prior to completing defueling, metallic debris was identified in the carriage and noted in the refueling log; however, an evaluation of the debris was not done, and the problem was not reported to management. (07014)

3. On March 28,1997, during initial fuel moves in the spent fuel pool, a grapple closed light remained lit when the grapple open light was lit; however, fuel movement continued without an ovaluation of the cause or the corrective actions. (080104)

4. On March 31,1997, a relief valvo stuck open on the refueling upender, preventing lowering the upender; the cause of the valve being stuck open was sludge and other debris in the upender hydraulic system.

Although the sludge had been identified in previous inspections, corrective actions to prevent recurring problems were not taken.

(09014)

5. During fuel handling activities on March 27,1997, a control element drive mschanism cable was caught by the moving refue!!ng machine and damaged. Corrective action, including determining the cause of the problem to preclude recurrence, was not takon. (10014)

These are each a Severity LevelIV Violation (Supplement IV).

D. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented proceoures, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and be accomplished in accordance with these procedures. Operation of the spent fuel handling machine is accomplished in accordance with Operating Instruction 01-25A, "Sput Fuel Handling Machine," and Ol 22D, " Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System", which states that spent fuel ventilation must be in service with charcoal filters when spent fuel handling willoccur. Calvert Clifis Updated Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.8, Revision 20, states, in part, that the limitations placed on the spent fuel pool ares ventilation system were to ensure that in the event of a fuel handling accident, all of the radioactive material released would be filtered through the HEPA filters and charcoal absorbers prior to discharge to the atmosphere. OI 25A, Step 6.1.8.2.a requires that the charcoal filters be placed in operation prior to any fuel m,ovement.

Contrary to the above, on April 23,1997, activities were not accomplished in accordance with procedures when Unit 2 refueling commenced without properly aligning the spent fuel pool area ventilation system charcoal filters for operation in accordance with Step 6.1.B.2a of Ol 25A. This condition existed until the following day, April 24,1997, when it was identified during a shift change.

(11014)

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

I .

Enclosure 6 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (Licensen)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 receipt of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each allegej violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for 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 willbe 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 action 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.

Within the same time as provided for the respnnse 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, draf t, 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 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 f actors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy 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 f ailure to pay any civil penalty due that subsequently has been deter' mined 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.

The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Senior Resident inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.

Enclosure - 7 .

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR. If redactions are required, a proprietary version containing brackets placed around the proprietary, privacy, and/or safeguards Information should be submitted in addition, a non proprietary version with the information in the brackets redacted should be submitted to be placed in the PDR.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 11th day of August 1997

._