ML20214U720

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violation Noted:On 870417,radiation Protection Technician Entered Upender Trench W/O Lower Extremity Personnel Monitoring Devices

ML20214U720
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	06/04/1987
From:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214U668	List: ML20214U664 ML20214U720
References
EA-87-060, EA-87-60, NUDOCS 8706110311
Download: ML20214U720 (4)

Text

_ _ - _ - _ _ _ - .

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Portland General Electric Company Docket No. 50-344 Trojan Nuclear Plant License No. NPF-1 EA No. 87-60 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 15-24, 1987, several 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 (1987) 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, PL 96-295, and 10 CRF 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

A. Technical Specification 6.11 requires that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained, and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.

Contrary to the above requirement, as of April 17, 1987, the licensee had not developed radiation protection procedures to' ensure that survey methods and control techniques would limit the exposure to workers from highly radioactive particles such that compliance with the general provisions expressed in 10 CFR 20.1(c) and specific dose limits of 10 CFR 20.101 would be met.

B. Technical Specification 6.11 requires that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained, rad adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure The licensee's Radiation Protection Manual specifies the radiation dosimetry requirements for personnel. Radiation Protection Procedure RP 109, Personnel Dosimetry Program, provides the details to ensure implemen-tation of these requirements. Section III.C.1.b. states, in part, that extremity TLDs will be required when the extremity dose is expected to be five times greater than the whole body dose and the dose to the extremities is expected to exceed 1 rem for the quarter.

Contrary to the above requirement, on April 17, 1987, a radiation protection technician entered the upender trench to perform radiation surveys, an area with hot spots on the floor with exposure rates up to 22 R/hr and whole body exposure rates up to 1.0 R/hr, without the use of lower extremity personnel monitoring devices even though he had prior knowledge from previ-ous surveys that the extremity dose could be expected to be 5 times greater than the whole body dose and the dose to the extremities could exceed 1 rem for the quarter.

C. 10 CFR 19.12 requires, in part, that all individuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area, shall be instructed in the health protection problems associated with exposure to radioactive 8706110311 670604 j PDH ADOCK 05000344 G PDR

_ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ -__ __. -- - o

k

.. . A \

LoticeofNiolation N -

2'-

materials and precautions or procedures'to minimize exposure. The extent. ~

,Lof these instructions shall be commensurate with potential radiological health problems in the restricted area.

~

Contrary to .the above, on April,13 an'd 14,1987,t about ten contract refueling crew workers were permitted to enter the refueling cavity ~and; refueling floor areas without being instructed on the potential .radiolog-Lica1' health protection problems associated with exposure to highly radio-active fuel fragments even though the licensee was aware of the increased' radiological health hazard from fuel fragments from an incident that occurred on April 9, 1987. In addition, during April 9-17,'1987, contract and. facility radiation protection technicians providing coverage for.

. refueling cavity.and refueling floor work had not been instructed in pre-cautions or procedures to minimize their exposure.and that of their co-workers. ,

~

D. 10 CFR Part 20.201(b) requires that each-licensee'make such. surveys'as.

(1) are.necessary to comply,with, regulations'in 10 CFR;20 and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be-present., As defined'in 10.CFR 20.201(a), " survey"

~

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 requirements, on' April 9 C 1987, seven workers engaged in reactor vessel stud removal and plugging operations were exposed to highly radioactive loose surface' contamination (a smear

-from the outer layer of protective ' clothing from one, worker appeared to indicate a level,of 4.1' rad /hr beta and 180 mR/hr gamma).and no.

survey or evaluation was made to determine the extent of radiation.

hazard to portions of their bodies resulting from the presence.of.~

radioactive material on their clothing.

2. Contrary to the above requirements, on April 9, 1987, a radiation protection technician, following the dispersal of significant.

quantities of radioactive material in and around the refueling cavity, measured a spot on the floor near the reactor head flange that indicated an exposure rate of 30 rad /hr beta and 1.0'R/hr' gamma; and on April 10, 1987, a different radiation protection' technician measured another spot on the floor near the reactor vessel flange which indicated an exposure rate of greater than-100 rad /hr beta and.30 R/hr gamma and no evaluations were-made in either case to determine the radiation hazard to individuals who had previously worked in this area.

3. Contrary to the above requirements, on April 12, 1987, a radiation protection technician measured radioactive contamination levels on the knees of his outer layer of protective clothing that indicated exposure levels of 1.0 R/hr gamma and no evaluation was made to determine the radiation dose to his leg.

Notice of Violation 4. Contrary to the above requirements, on April 17, 1987, a radiation protection technician entered the refueling cavity and, upon exiting the upender trench, handled and otherwise manipulated his contaminated rubber shoe cover, which had an exposure rate of greater than 50 R/hr gamma at contact, and an evaluation of the radiation hazard to his hand and other portions of his body was not performed.

E. 10 CFR 20.401(b) requires, in part, that each licensee shall maintain records showing the results of surveys required by 10 CFR 20.201(b),

" Surveys." 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make or cause to be made surveys as: (1) may be necessary for.the licensee to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR 20, and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.

1. Contrary to the above requirements, as of April 20, 1987, the licensee failed to maintain a record of a wipe survey from a worker's outer layer of protective clothing on April 9,1987 that appeared to indicate 4.1 rad /hr beta and 180 mR/hr gamma.

2. Contrary to the above requirements, as of April 21, 1987, the licensee failed to maintain a record of a survey from the knees of a radiation protection technician's outer layer of protective clothing on April 11, 1987 that appeared to indicate 1.0 R/hr gamma.

Collectively, these violations have been classified as a Severity Level III problem. (Supplement IV)

Cumulative Civil Penalty - $50,000 - assessed equally among the violations.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Portland General Electric Company (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. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (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 i achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause 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 response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by 'ietter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check,

Notice of Violation draft, or money order 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 violation (s) 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, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), 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.

The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California, and a copy to Robert Barr, Senior Resident Inspector, at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.

FOR THE UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION John B. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California, this day of June 1987

_ _ -