ML20216H785
| ML20216H785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1987 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216H778 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-87-063, EA-87-63, NUDOCS 8707010574 | |
| Download: ML20216H785 (4) | |
Text
'
a
^
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Southern California Edison Company Docket No. 50-362 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station License No. NPF-15 Unit 3 EA 87-63 During NRC inspections conducted from December 15, 1986, through May 14, 1987, vfolations of NRC requirements were identified.- In accordance with the "Ceneral 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 penalties 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 penalties are set forth below:
I.
10 CFR 20.101(a) limits the total occupational radiation exposure to the hands of an individual in a restricted area to 18.75 rem per calendar quarter.
Contrary to the above, during the fourth calendar quarter of 1986, a maintenance worker received a cumulative exposure to the right hand on the order of 512 rem while performing maintenance activities in a restricted area of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement IV).
II.
A.
10 CFR 20.105(b) requires that no licensee shall possess, use or transfer licensed byproduct material, except as authorized, in such a manner as to create radiation levels in'any unrestricted area
)
which, if an individual were continuously present, could result in his receiving a dose in excess.of two millirem in any one hour.
Contrary to the above, byproduct material was transferred such that radiation levels in an unrestricted area would have exceeded two millirem in any one hour, if an individaul were continuously present.
I Specifically-l (1) On February 2, 1987, a worker at SONGS was surveyed by a whole body contamination monitor, PMB-200, and found to apparently be j
contaminated.
Repeated hand frisking of the suspect area with an E-140 type detector did not identify the source of con-tamination.
The worker was released to the unrestricted area.
The next day, a HP technician performed a full body frisk and located a radioactive particle on the jacket sleeve of the worker.
The particle was found to be a 0.08 microcurie irradiated fuel fragment which was capable of producing a calculated contact dose rate of approximately 400 mrem /hr.
(2) On February 21, 1987, a HP technician discovered a 0.2 micro-curie irradiated fuel fragment in the carpet of his residence.
The fuel fragment was transferred to the technician's residence, an unrestricted area, by the technician following his involvement in health physics activities at SONGS.
The contact dose rate of this particle was calculated to be approximately 1200 mrem /hr.
h[
k O
a 4
4 l
I
]
10 CFR 30.41 rt. quires that no licensee shall transfer byproduct material except as authorized pursuant to this section.
Contrary to the above, on February 19, 1987, a HP technician was found, upon entering SONGS, to have the outside of his shoe con-taminated with an irradiated fuel fragment.
The particle was embedded in the technician's shoe and thus may have been removed j
from SONGS on more than one occasion.
The rem 6 val of the particle from SONGS constitutes an unauthorized transfer of byproduct material.
C.
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee shall make such surveys as may be necessary to comply with the regulations in Part 20 and j
are reasonable to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may 1
be present.
10 CFR 20.201(a) defines " survey" as en evaluation of
)
the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, j
disposal, and presence of radioactive materials.
(1) Contrary to the above, during October 1986, individuals were permitted to engage in maintenance activities involving the j
reactor coolant and crud tank pumps without making a survey as i
necessary to comply with the hand dose limit expressed in 10 CFR 20.101(a), as evidenced by a worker receiving a dose to one hand on the order of 512 rem.
(2) Contrary to the above requirement, on February 2, 1987, repeated personnel monitoring booth alarms indicated radioactive material in or on a worker's body and a survey necessary to prevent the unauthorized release of radioactive material and reasonable to evaluate the extent of radiation hazard to the worker was not j
made prior to allowing him to go home.
j Collectively, Violations II. A, B, and C are a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
Cumulative civil penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations.)
III. 10 CFR 20.403(a)(1) requires that each licensee shall immediately report any event involving by product, source, or special nuclear material possessed by the licensee that may have caused or threatens to cause exposure to the hand of any individual to 375 rem or more of radiation.
Contrary to the above, having been informed by electronic data transmission and followup written report on or before November 17, 1986 of a significant overexposure, the licensee had sufficient information available to recognize, yet did not report until 11:30 a.m., December 12, 1986, an event involving licensed material that may have caused an exposure to the hand of greater than 375 rem.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement IV).
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Southern California Edison 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
Notice of Violation 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 l
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 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 penalties by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, 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 i
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, 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 l
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 I
1
.,. ~
' Commission, Region V,1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California 194596 and'a' copy to Mr. Randall Huey, Senior Resident Inspector, at the San j
Onofre~ Nuclear Generating Station.
i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
ge ybo d~f artin Regional Administra Dated at Walnut Creek, California this.t fday of June 1987 i
e I
l l
i is I
s
- - -.