ML20234E973
| ML20234E973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0940, NUREG-0940-V06-N03, NUREG-940, NUREG-940-V6-N3, NUDOCS 8801110274 | |
| Download: ML20234E973 (219) | |
Text
-
NUREG-0940 Vol. 6, No. 3 Enforcemerr: Actions:
Signi"ican1: Actions Resolved Quarterly Progress Report July - September 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Enforcement o
f "c q, d g+ -
If!l f
~.....-
0 r4Uk7h87I23!
0740 R PDR
- .Gt-
. y mgV, og's m 4 - o' i,
- .. - , <:- . 3 , ,, . p 33 sy
.j, f ~.
, , 1, . , h.. 'I r, . g. . h - t
. Ii - ' f
. ; g y, q; -.,-.
_p' +
'i -\; q. ,
. f. sg. ,
1 Q 4, .,y4" J a, yf '..s/. e . ,p ,
A G -t- _. p . ,
.: ,.t: .
1 A ,,
r , ,
/*
, 'y 1 :' [>' y .} ' j
% 'f ', i- ' y/ ,
!y r ,.
- m. q
-Ql'((
' [.l f/ -,.Q- , f 4 up $ i< ~. 'y ...
i l .,)
'l.'
's'i.;r.ir,h[.,p,,.,d.
d
+f v.. ; y;- i:!. v: ,
.t 5'~' / f,;' ,
.'W- ,.f,% ;!
, . . ,e
}.. ,
Q c't
- j'
- f. f /g; a s '
"U r
]W 2-3 ; w. ~ (:
y.
,t
. ( *mf..
. !: t ; p' -
Available from ' .s L p.
s m g713.g e p +,. , 'q'3 .1 i- -
, }l-
,-+ , ,
,jf.'_
,p.
, 8, '
D 9 q; 4 .L1p i
O .. . , ,- ,, .
r/ 1 Superintenderit of Dooptsnts'c- ., f. {
' " kyV O.S. GovernrnentPfinting Offica
' Post Office Box 37082 . .y ,
j
- Wesh%gton, D.C..EhjS.7082 -
- N. ,. ', .z s
\ ,
6- 6 3
s
,[ ,
' A yst/r SUbicriptipp ensipts of.4 issues for. ,
' - i-'
- i )i d,is th, Mcation.
t . ,.
.r
, <$agle co,pies of this publication are available from National Technical .e.<.
4 r3 l
f$ttnation Service, Springfield; VA 22161 'f% s s
- 9. . ,z ;3 l i- **
r x i k . g . iy i :!
1 d3
\ '4..
4.k .
7 i I.
}-
' y .
y
- =
.) .,.#
O
,l.5 s_ , j
- l ' , . , ,
) >.~ ' '
( p
{ l. j.
g t-i r 4
4.. 3-l- .
,, Vol. 6, No. 3 l
l
. .-is' Enforcement Actions:
Significant Actions Resolved '
t :
l}-
Quartedy Progress Report ,
July - September 1987 '
~ ~~ _ .-- : - e Menusciipi Compteredi 090 ember 1987 Date Published: Decembet 1987 I
Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,.s""%,
l a
i 1
i i
i 1
_ _ _ - - - . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ l
ABSTRACT This compilation sumarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during one quarterly period (July - September 1987) and includes copies of letters, Notices, and Orders sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to licensees with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC, so that actions can be taken to improve safety by avoiding future violations similar to those described in this publication.
l 1
i l
l l
l NUREG-0940 $$$
CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT............................................................... iii INTR 000CTION...............................................e........... 1 SUMMARIES.............................................................. 3 I. REACTOR LICENSEES A. Civil Penalties and Orders Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Byron Nuclear Station, Unit 1) .
EA 86-163....................................................I.A-1 Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina (0conee Nuclear Station, Unit 3)
E A 8 7- 101. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . A- 17 ,
4 Florida Power and Light Company, Juno Beach, Florida (Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4)
EA87-97....................................................I.A-23 1
GPU Nuclear Corporation, Forked River, New Jersey l (0yster Creek Nuclear Generatin Station)
EA 67-92.......................g.............................I.A-31 Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, Nebraska (Fort Calhoun Station)
EA 86-176...................................................I.A-41 Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 EA87-88..........................,..............)..........I.A-6S . .
Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California (San Onofre Nuclear Generatin Station, Unit 3)
EA 87-63.............. ......g...............................I.A-71 Texas Utilities Generatino Company, Dallas, Texas (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station)
EA83-64....................................................I.A-78 Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dallas, Texas (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station)
EA 86-63....................................................I.A-90 Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, itassachusetts (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
E A 8 7 - 10 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . A - 9 3 l
1 1
-1 CONTENTS (continued)
Pace REACTOR LICENSEES (CONTINUED) l B. Severity Level III Violations, No Civil Penalty Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
EA 87-129....................................................I.B-1 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Augusta, Maine (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)
EA 87-103....................................................I.8-4 Virginia Electric and Power Station, Richmond, Virginia (Surry Nuclear Station)
EA 87-78.....................................................I.B-9 ;
i Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Point Beach Nuclear Plant)
E A 8 7 - 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . B - 13 II. MATERIALS LICENSEES A. Civil Penalties and Orders l
ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia EA 87-126...................................................II.A-1 J Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan, San Juan, Puerto Rico EA87-58....................................................II.A-6 l 1
' l E. L. Conwell and Company; Oridgeport, Pennsylvania i E A 8 7 - 141. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I . A- 21 Hitwell Surveys, Inc., Parkersburg, West Virginia EA 87-75...................................................II.A-26 Kedarnath B. Joshi, M.D., Livonia, Michigm EA86-139..................................................II.A-32 LTV Steel Company, ~ incorporated, Cleveland, Ohio E A 8 7 - 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I . A - 4 6
]
l METC0A Inc., fdba, Cleveland, Ohio EA 85-122..................................................II.A-58 Newport News Shipbuf1 ding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Virginia EA 87-38...................................................II.A-66 1
NUREG-0540 vi l
1 l
CONTENTS (continued) l Page i I l j MATERIALS LICENSEES (CONTINUED)
{
I St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio l E A 8 7 - 1 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I . A - 7 4 i 1
i B. Severity Level III Violation, No Civil Penalty Valley View Regional Hospital, Ada, Oklahoma l EA 87-73....................................................II.B-1 f
i i
i j
NUREG-0940 vii 1
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS RESOLVED July - September 1987 INTRODUCTION This issue of NUREG-0940 is being published to inform NRC licensees about significant enforcement actions and their resolution for the third quarter of 1987. On April 12, 1987, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement was abolished as a result of the NRC staff reorganization. Enforcement actions are issued by the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations (DEDRO) and the Regional Administrator. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may act for the DEDR0 in the absence of the DEDR0 or as directed. Primarily emphasized are those actions involving civil penalties and Orders that have been issued by the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (now DEDR0 or Director, Office of Enforcement) and the Regional Administrators.
An objective of the NRC Enforcement Program is to encourage licensees to I improve their performance and, by example, the performance of the licensed industry. Therefore, it is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by NRC, so all can learn from the errors of others, thus improving performance in the nuclear industry and promoting the public health and safety as well as the common defense and security.
A brief sumary of each significant enforcement action that has been resolved in the third quarter of 1987 can be found in the section of this report entitled "Sumaries." Each sumary provides the enforcement action (EA) number to identify the case for reference purposes. The supplement number refers to the activity area in which the violations are classified according to guidance furnished in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987). Violations are categorized in terms of five levels of severity to show their relative importance within each of the following activity areas:
Supplement I - Reactor Operations Supplement II - Facility Construction Supplement III - Safeguards Supplement IV - Health Phy:ics Supplement V - Transportation Supplement VI - Fuel Cycle and Materials Operations Supplement VII - Miscellaneous Matters Supplement VIII - Emergency Preparedness Part I.A of this report consists of copies of completed civil penalty or Order actions involving reactor licensees, arranged alphabetically. Part I.B includes copies of Notices of Violations that have been issued to. reactor licensees for Severity Level III violations but for which no civil penalty was assessed.
Part II.A contains civil penalty or Order actions involving materials licensees.
l 1
Part Il.B includes a copy of a Notice of Violation that was issued to a materials licensee for a Severity Level III violation, but for which no civil penalty was assessed.
Actions still pending on September 30, 1987 will be included in future issues of this publication when they have been resolved.
I I
l I
l l
i l
l NUREG-0940 2 1
J
l SUMMARIES I. REACTOR LICENSEES A. Civil Penalties and Orders Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Byron Nuclear Station, Unit 1) EA 86-163, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $25,000 was issued on November 18, 1986 based on violations involving the installation of a pressurizer code safety valve without its valve disc. The defective safety valve was installed because of improper segregation, identification, and test documentation. The licensee responded on December 30, 1986.
After consideration of the licensee's response, an Order Imposing a Civil Monetary Penalty in the amount of $25,000 was issued on June 11, 1987. The licensee paid the civil penalty on July 14, 1987.
Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina (0conee Nuclear Station, Unit 3) EA 87-101. Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Impositien of Civil Penalty in the amount of $25,000 was issued on July 17, 1987 based on the failures to properly implement a startu high-pressure injection (HPI)trains p procedure whichreactor and all three resulted in two building cooling (RBC) units being inoperable. The civil penalty was mitigated on the basis of the licensee's prior good performance in the general area of concern, and prompt and extensive corrective actions. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on August 14, 1987.
Florida Power and Light Company, Juno Beach, Florida (Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4) EA 87-97, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in
- the amount of $100,000 was issued on July 21, 1987 based on violations involving the failure (1) to take prompt corrective action for a reactor coolant leak which resulted in boric acid corrosion of reactor vessel head components and (2) to neet the required prerequisites prior to performing core alteration activities in that the containment ventilation isolation system was not operable, the evolution was not directly supervised by a licensed senior reactor operator, and it took place without direct communication with the control room. The violation was escalated 100 percent for prior notice of similar events, prior poor performance, and lack of prompt corrective action. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on August 20, 1987.
i 1
NUREG-0940 3 l
1
l l
GPU Nuclear Corporation, Forked River, New Jersey.
(0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) EA 87-92, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $205,000 was issued on August 24, 1987 based on three violations associated with the suppression chamber-torus vacuum breakers, reactor building-torus vacuum breakers, and procedures for making temporary variations to the facility. Two violations were assessed the base civil penalties for Severity Level II and III violations and the third violation (Severity Level III) was escalated E0 percent because the violation existed since 1977 during deinerting evolutions. The licensee responded !
and paid the civil penalty on September 22, 1987.
Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, Nebraska (Fort Calhoun Station) EA 86-176, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on January 26, 1987 based on a violation involving a failure to perform a proper safety evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 for modification performed on the auxiliary feedwater system. The licensee responded in a letter dated April 10, 1987. After consideration of the licensee's response, an Order Imposing a Civil Penalty was issued on September 10, 1987. The licensee paid the civil penalty on September 29, 1987.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Peach Bottom Atcmic Power Station, Units 2 and 3) EA 87-88, Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil' Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on July 29, 1987 based on numerous examples of the failure to meet the fire protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. The violation involved failures to provide a means for maintaining one redundant train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions free of fire damage in the event of a fire in certain areas of the plant. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on August 28, 1987.
Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3) EA 87-63, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on June 25, 1987 based on (1) several examples of failure to control byproduct material; and (2) the failure to report an overexposure in a timely manner. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on July 15, 1987.
l i
NUREG-0940 4 l
} Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dallas, Texas l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) EA 83-64, Supplement II l
A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $40,000 was issued on August 29, 1983. The violation was based on the results of an investigation and hearing by the Department of Labor and the resulting Decision and Final Order of the Secretary of Labor dated June 10, 1983 which concluded .
that a Brown and Root quality control inspector had been transferred :
and discharged for filing non-conformance reports identifying '
quality problems. The licensee responded to the NOV on September 28, 1983 denying the violation and requesting the NRC to stay further enforcement action pending an appeal of the D0L decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On December 10, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the Secretary of Labor's decision, holding as a matter of law that no discrimination had occurred because the QC inspector was not engaged in protected activity within the meaning of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. On August 25, 1987, the NRC withdrew the violation.
Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dallas, Texas (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) EA 86-63, Supplement II A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $120,000 was issued on May 2, 1986 based on three violations of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion I involving intimidation that interfered with the organizational freedom <
of quality control / quality assurance personnel at Comanche Peak to identify safety concerns. The licensee respondea on June 2, 1986 and paid $40,000 for one of the violations. The licensee asked for mitigation of the other two violations. After considering ]
j the licensee's response, the staff has determined that the violations )
occurred as stated, but will not impose the penalty for Violations )
B and C. I Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) EA 87-107, Supplement III
]
A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $25,000 was issued on July 24, 1987 based on violations involving failure to (1) take appropriate compensatory i measures, (2) notify the appropriate personnel when the security system was degraded, and (3) complete security records. The !
licensee was also cited for allowing a visitor to enter a vital area without an escort and the failure to notify the NRC of this major loss of physical security effectiveness, The civil penalty was reduced by 50 percent because of the licensee's enforcement history. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on August 7, 1987. l NUREG-0940 5
B ., Severity Level III Violations, No Civil Penalty i Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois (Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) EA 87-129, (
Supplement III '
A Notice of Violation was issued on September 1,1987 based on a '
violation involving a vital area door which was unlocked, unalarmed, and unguarded for several minutes when an officer posted as a compensatory measure for the vital area door was erroneously dispatched to another slarm. A civil penalty was not proposed because of the license?'s prompt identification and reporting of the event, prompt and extensive corrective actions, and good prior enforcement histcry.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Augusta, Maine '
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station) EA 87-103, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation was issued.on July 14, 1987 based on the discovery !
by the licensee's staff of a small cylindrical, highly radioactive object in the containment building with radiation levels 01. ;ontact i
exceeding 1000 rem / hour. A civil penalty was not proposed because 1
(1) the event was promptly reported, although such reporting was not l required, and (2) the licensee's immediate corrective actions were l unustilly prompt and extensive.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Richmond, Virginia
- (Surry Nuclear Station) EA 87-78 Supplement I l
A Notice of Violation was issued on July 15, 1987 based on the failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, with respect l to the independence of cabling associated with alternative safe l
shutdown equipment. A review by the licensee's staff revealed that ,
cabling for diesel generators 1 and 3, which are required as power I sources for the Unit 1 alternative safe shutdown requirement, were not independent of the specified design basis fire area. A civil 1 penalty was not proposed because of the licensee's unusually prompt l and extensive corrective action to address the problem and prevent !
recurrence, the licensee's prior good performance in the area of l fire protection, and prompt reporting of the problem to the NRC.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Point Beach Nuclear Plant) EA 87-95, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation was issued on July 14, 1987 based on two personnel exposure events. The first involved two contractor technicians j transferring a plastic bag containing highly radioactive particles !
that was neither labeled nor identified to permit the individuals j to take precautions to avoid exposure. The second event involved l three health physics personnel working in a restricted area with a 70.7-millicurie cesium-137 source from which there was a substantial potential for an exposure in excess of 10 CFR Part 20 limits. The NUREG-0940 6
- _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - -- -J
individuals did not know the configuration of the source and had neither been instructed in the health protection problems nor in procedures to minimize personnel exposure. A civil penalty was not proposed because the licensee identified and promptly reported the events to the NRC, conducted a comprehensive investigation, and took unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions.
II. MATERIALS LICENSEES A. Civil Penalties and Orders ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia EA 87-126, Supplements IV, V, and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $400 was issued on August 19, 1987 based on failure to control licensed material. A Troxler gauge, left unattended and unsecured in an unrestricted area overnight, was stolen from the job site. In addition, the source rod of the stolen gauge was not locked in the " safe" position. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on September 15, 1987.
Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan, San Juan, Puerto Rico EA 87-58, Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $750 was issued on June 24, 1987 based on the use of licensed material by unauthorized users. Over the past several years, five unauthorized physicians joined the two authorized physicians and used the strontium-90 eye applicator in the treatment of superficial eye disease without supervision and without applying for an amendment to the license. The licensee responded on June 29, ;
1987, requesting mitigation of the proposed civil penalty. After I consideration of the licensee's reply, an Order Imposing a Civil ;
Monetary Penalty for $750 was issued on August 31, 1987. The licensee paid the civil penelty on September 4, 1987.
E. L. Conwell and Company, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania EA 87-141, Supplements IV and V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,000 was issued on August 18, 1987 based on two examples involving the failure to secure or maintain constant surveillance of licensed material in unrestricted areas. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on September 23, 1987.
Hitwell Surveys, Inc., Parkersburg, West Virginia EA 87-75, Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $750 was issued on July 10, 1987 based on violations NUREG-0940 7 l
involving failure to (1) permit only authorized individuals to use byproduct material, (2) maintain required radiation levels on the exterior of transport vehicles, (3) have operable survey equipment available for use, (4) have sealed sources tested for leakage at required frequency, (5) perform surveys properly, (6) perform source inventories every six months, (7) have radiation safety manuals available, and (8) maintain records on the location of the sources. The licensee paid the civil penalty on July 23, 1987.
Kedarnath B. Joshi, M.D., Livonia, Michigan EA 86-139 An Order To Show Cause Why License Should Not Be Revoked was issued on December 23, 1986 based on Dr. Joshi's continued use of licensed material at a site not authorized by his license. The licensee responded on January 15, 1987 and by additional responses dated May 1, and June 8, 1987. After consideration of the responses, a Further Action on Show Cause Order and Confirmatory Order Modifying License was issued on July 10, 1987. It was determined that the licensee had shown adequate cause why its license should not be revoked.
l LTV Steel Company, Incorporated, Cleveland, Ohio EA 87-31, Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil. Penalty in ;
the amount of $2,000 was issued on April 9, 1987 based on violations 1 involving the failure to maintain licensed material under constant-surveillance and control and multiple failures to inventory. licensed .
material every six months as required. Five radioactive sources !
were lost as a result of these violations. The licensee responded on May 1, 1987 and after consideration of the licensee's response, an Order Imposing a Civil Penalty was issued on August 10, 1987. The l licensee paid the civil penalty on August 25, 1987.
METC0A Inc., fdba, Cleveland, Ohio EA 85-122 l An Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) was issued on' I January 22, 1986 because the licensse abandoned the facility.
without notifying the NRC. The Order required the licensee and/
or its legal successor to (1) submit a decontamination plan within 30 days of the order, (2) complete the decontamination effort within 90 days after the NRC approves the plan, (3) submit a decontamination report, and (4) control entry to restricted areas'until the areas are suitable for restricted use. The Trustee in Bankruptcy requested a hearing on January 28, 1986. On November 18, 1986, the bankruptcy
. judge ruled that the trustee, although not an NRC licensee, was responsible for maintaining the bankrupt's property in compliance with NRC regulations. The trustee did not appeal the decision. A removal action, effective July 12, 1987, was initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
NUREG-0940 8 u
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Virginia EA 87-38, Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,000 was issued on April 14, 1987 based on an over-exposure during normal operations and during the retrieval of a 10.2 curie iridium-192 radiography source. A radiographer received an estimated exposure of 180 rems to the left thumb.
The civil penalty was mitigated by 75 percent because of the licensee's prior good regulatory performance and unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions. The licensee responded on May 12, 1987. After considering the licensee's response, 1 a letter of mitigation was issued on July 7, 1987 based on the I
licensee's following actions (1) a thorough evaluation of the situation, (2) prompt reporting, (3) retraining based on the incident, and (4) extensive upgraded radiological protective measures that included issuing separate survey meters and personal audible alarms to each radiographer and assistant.
St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio ;
EA 87-113, Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,250 was issued on July 17, 1987 based on the failure of a technician to thoroughly review the patient's dose computation sheet. As a result, an excessive dose was administered to the patient. The base civil penalty was reduced by 50 percent because of the licensee's prior good performance. The licensee responded and paid the civil penalty on August 10, 1987.
B. . Severity Level III Violations, No Civil Penalty Valley View Regional Hospital, Ada, Oklahoma EA 87-73, Supplement VI A Notice of Violation was issued on July 30, 1987 based on a violation involving the failure to report a therapeutic misadministration.
A civil penalty was not proposed because of the licensee's good prior enforcement history end its unusually extensive corrective actions taken or planned in response to this : event.
1 1
NVREG-0940 9 l
1
a I
i i
I.A. REACTOR LICENSEES, CIVIL PENALTIES AND ORDERS 1
4 l
gan atog UNITED STATis
- 0., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ ,r( , S REClON lil 5
8 .#
j j 739 moossvgLT noAo 4 ,
otsN ELLVN ILUNOIS 60M7 NOV 1 p 199C Docket No. 50-454 License No. NPF-37 EA 86-163 ')
~
Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen: 3
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-454/86029(DRP))
This refers to the NRC inspection conducted during the period July 21 through August 8, 1986, at the Byron Nuclear Station, Unit 1 of activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-37 and the circumstances associated with the installation of
'an inoperable Pressurizer Code Safety Valve. The incident, which resulted in violations of NRC regulatory requirements, was identified by raembers of your plant staff and reported to the NRC. The details are provided in Inspection Report No. 50-454/86029 sent to you by letter dated August 18, 1986. The results of this inspection were discussed on August 25, 1986 during an enforcement conference held in the NRC Region III office between you and others !
of your staff and Mr. A. B. Davis and others of the NRC staff.
1 Violations A, B, and C in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) occurred in July 1986 when an inoperable Pressurizer Code Safety Valve was installed, placed into service, and failed to function as required. The violations resulted from inadequate administrative controls and perscnnel errors in that after a Code Safety Valve was taken'out of service for repair, the valve disc was removed and only partial maintenance I
was performed. Subsequently, because of improper segregation, identification, )
and test documentation, the valva with the missing valve disc was inadvertently j placed back into service without ever being tested. It is fortuitous that the '
partial maintenance performed on this valve did not prohibit its actuation on July 17, 1986. In fact, it was only after the valve actuated at a lower pressure than intended that plant personnel became aware of problems with the valve. The root cause of these violations was personnel errors by a mechanical maintenance technician, a mechanical maintenance supervisor and a QC inspector.
As a result a valve was returned to service without positive identification being made to verify the serial number of the valve and without ensuring that the valve had passed all required tests to deraonstrate operability.
Violation D in the Notice is associated with the licensee's review of test data which revealed that after the July 17, 1986 incident, the replacement Pressurizer Code Safety Valves were tested and accepted based on a lift setting of 2485 psig CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 1.A-1 l
l
Commonwealth Edison Company 2 NOV 1F E i 3 percent rather than i 1 percent as required by the Technical Specifications.
One of the replacement valves was actually set outside the il percent Technical Specification limit.
These violations are considered significant and demonstrate weaknesses in the maintenance program. However, the NRC staff acknowledges that once licensee management became aware of the Pressurizer Code Safety Valve problem, it took prompt and extensive corrective action at both the station and corporate levels.
The immediate corrective actions included, among other things, meeting with appropriate departments and stressing that test documentation must match equipment being tested; revising test procedures to clearly identify equipment; l installing segregation cages for defective components; and requiring QA to l independently verify proper disposition of nonconforming conditions. The long term corrective actions include a broad look at all maintenance activities by licensee management as well as requesting INP0 participation in this effort. A task force has been assigned to perform a maintenance review and to develop a maintenance review program.
To emphasize the need for a disciplined control of maintenance activities through proper administrative controls, identification of materials and components, and adequate segregation of components in a nonconforming status,
- I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In !
accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC i Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986) (Enforcement Policy),
the violations have been classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation or problem is $50,000. However, in this case, the base civil penalty is being reduced by 50 percent because of your unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions as described above. Further mitigation of the civil penalty based on prompt identification and reporting was not considered appropriate because only after the valve actuated did licensee personnel become aware of the problem You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will. determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
NUREG-0940 1.A-2
Commonwealth Edison Company 3 NOV i e m" - -
l The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, ShaJ w '~d M ou1 ~
[9amesG.Keppler Regional Administrator i
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ enclosure:
D. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager
, Gunner Sorensen, Site Project Superintendent R. E. Querio, Plant Manager DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.
Diane Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE Steve Lewis, 0GC L. Olshan, NRR LPM H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division NUREG-0940 I.A-3
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-454 Byron Nuclear Station, Unit 1 License No. NPF-37 l EA 86-163 l
During an NRC inspection conducted during the period July 21 - August 8, 1986, in response to an incident identified and reported to the NRC, 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 (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic E argy Act of 1954, as amended, ("Act"),
42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and i associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A. Technical Specification 3.4.2.2 requires that all Pressurizer Code Safety l Valves be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3 with a lift setting of 2485 psig l 1 1 percent, and that with one Pressurizer Code Safety Valve inoperable, either restore the inoperable valve to Operable status within 15 minutes or be in at least Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in at least Hot Shutdown within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Technical. Specification 3.0.4 requires that entry into an Operational Mode shall not be made unless the conditions for the Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on the provisions contained in the Action requirements.
Contrary to the abcve, on July 17, 1986, Unit 1 entered Mode 3 with Pressurizer Code Safety Valve, Serial No. N56964-00-0031 inoperable in that the valve disc was not installed and the lift setting was not 2485 psig i 1 percent. In addition, on July 17-18, 1986 while in Mode 3, )
actions were not taken to restore Valve No. N56964-00-0031 to an i operable status within 15 minutes or be in at least hot shutdown within I the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. j
, B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XV, Nonconforming Materials, Parts, l or Components, as implemented by the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement 15.0, requires that measures shall be established to control materials, parts, or components, which do not conform to ,
requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation.
These measures shall include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, documentation, segregation, disposition, and notification to affected i
organizations.
Contrary to the above, in October 1985, the licensee's program did not I assure the control of nonconforming materials in that after partial maintenance on Pressurizer Code Safety Valve, Serial No. N56964-00-0031, was performed, the valve was not properly identified, documented, or segregated and on July 6, 1986 the valve was inadvertently installed.
NUREG-0940 I.A-4 .
l
Notice of Violation 2 NOV 181996 C. Technical Specification 4.0.5,a requires that inservice inspection of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g), except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission.
The applicable ASME B&PV Code is the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda, which in Section XI, Subsection IW/-3200 requires that when a valve or its control system has been replaced or repaired or has undergone maintenance that could affect its performance, and prior to the time it is returned to service, it shall be tested to demonstrate that the performance parameters which could be affected by the replacement, repair or maintenance are within acceptable limits.
I Contrary to the above, on July 6,1986 Pressurizer Coae Safety Valve Serial No. N56964-00-0031, an ASME B&PV Code Class 1 valve, was installed and placed into service after it had undergone maintenance that could affect its performance without any testing being performed to demonstrate that it would perform acceptably.
D. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, as implemented by the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement 5.0, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above, the licensee's program failed to assure that
' appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria were specified in instructions or procedures. Nuclear Work Request B31703, used on July 19, 1986 to test the lift setting of Pressurizer Code Safety Valves 1RY8010A and 1RY8010C, referenced Maintenance Procedure BMP 3100-9, Revision 1, which specified a tolerance of i 3 percent instead of i 1 percent as required by technical specifications. As a result Pressurizer Code Safety Valve IRY8010C was set with a tolerance greater than i 1 percent.
Collectively, these violations have been categorized as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
l I
I Cumulative Civil Penalty - $25,000 assessed equally among the violations.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company is i
hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137, within 30 days of the date of this Notice a written explanation or statement, including for each alleged NUREG-0940 1.A-5
Notice of Violation 3 NOV jP W 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 which 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 the Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order 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 of affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of' Inspection and Enforcement. Should Commonwealth Edison Company fail to answer within the time specified the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. .Should Commonwealth Edison Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer 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 cumulative 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 five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C 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 by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph number) to avoid repetition. Commonwealth Edison Company's attention 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~has been subsequently 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. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sha & ~d. N C l p.James G. Keppler Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this /f4 day of November 1986 NUREG-0940 I.A-6
_-_ _ -_-_-_____-_-____-____-______________-_-__-__-____-____-_-______-_-__a
i l
- 'o,, UNITED STATES 8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i *
- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656
- . . . . . *
- JUN 11190 Docket No. 50-454 License No. NPF-37 EA 86-163 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President j Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 l j
Gentlemen: l
SUBJECT:
ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL PONETARY PENALTY' l '
This refers to your letter dated December 30, 1986, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) sent to you by our letter dated November 18, 1986. Our letter and Notice describe four violations categorized collectively as a Severity Level III problem which were identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC. ,
t To emphasize the need for a disciplined control of maintenance activities through proper administrative controls, identification of materials and components, and adequate segregation of components in a nonconforming status, a civil penalty of Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($25,000) was proposed. This '
proposed civil penalty had been mitigated by 50 percent based on your unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions.
In your response, you admitted that the violations occurred as stated in the f Notice. However, you requested complete mitigation of the civil penalty.
After consideration of your response, we have concluded, for the reasons given '
in the appendix attached to the enclosed Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, that you did not provide a sufficient basis for further mitigation of the l proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on l Commonwealth Edison Company imposing a civil monetary penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand dollars, ($25,000). We will review the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection. 3 j
l In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, L
J s M. Tay1 , Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations l'
Enclosures:
As stated NUREG-0940 I.A-7
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No. 50-454 i License No. NPF-37 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY EA 86-163 (BYRON, UNIT 1)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY
\ I Coninonwealth Edison Company (licensee) is the holder of Operating License No. NPF-37 (license) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (Comission/
l NRC)onOctober 31, 1984. The license authorizes the licensee to operate the l \
l Byron Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, in accordance with the conditions {
specified therein.
I II An NRC safety inspection of the licensee's activities was conducted from July 21 through August 8, 1986. The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC require-ments. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the licensee by letter dated November 18, 1986. The Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's require-ments that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations. The licensee responded to the Notice by letter dated December 30, 1986.
NUREG-0940 I.A-8
_. 2 III After consideration of the Itcensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed.
IV 1
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) within 30 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 Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555.
V The licensec may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order.
A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an Enforce-ment Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, NUREG-0940 I.A-9
{
D.C. 20555, with copies to (1) the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, l
Office of the General Counsel, at the same address, (2) the Regional Admini-strator, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, 60137, and (3) the NRC Resident Inspector, Byron Nuclear Station.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
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 was in violation of the Comission's requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties referenced in Section II above, and (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, //
M
~
n mes M. Tay1 , Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 11 day of June .1987.
NUREG-0940 I.A-10
APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On November 18, 1986, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection.
Commonwealth Edison Company responded to the Notice on December 30, 1986.
While the licensee acknowledged the occurrence of the violations as stated in the Notice, the licensee requested full mitigation of the Provided below are (1) a restatment of the violations, (2) proposed a summarycivil penalty.
of the licensee's ar penalty, (3) guments the NRC'sinevaluation support ofoffurther the licensee's mitigation of the proposed arguments, civilNRC's and (4) the conclusion.
Restatement of Violation A. Technical Specification 3.4.2.2 requires that all Pressurizer Code Safety Valves be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3 with a lift setting of 2485 psig il percent, and that with one Pressurizer Code Safety Valve inoperable, either restore the inoperable valve to an operable status within 15 minutes or be in at least Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in at least Hot Shutdown within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Technical Specification 3.0.4 requires that entry into an Operational Mode shall not be made unless the conditions for the Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on the provisions contained in the Action requirements.
Contrary to the above, on July 17,1986, Unit 1 entered Mode 3 with Pressurizer Code Safety Valve, Serial No. N56964-00-0031 inoperable in that the valve disc was not installed and the lift setting was not 2485 psig 1 percent. In addition, on July 17-18, 1986, while in Mode 3, actions were not taken to restore Valve No. N56964-00-0031 to an operable status within 15 minutes or be in at least Hot Shutdown within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XV, Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components, as implemented by the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement 15.0, requires that measures shall be esta-blished to control materials, parts, or components, which do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation.
These measures shall include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, documentation, segregation, disposition, and notification to affected organizations.
Contrary to the above, in October 1985, the licensee's program did not assure the control of nonconforming materials in that after partial maintenance on Pressurizer Code Safety Valve, Serial No. N56964-00-0031, was performed, the valve was not properly identified, documented, or segregated and on July 6,1986, the valve was inadvertently installed.
i NUREG-0940 I.A-11 l
Appendix C. Technical Specification 4.0.5.a requires that inservice inspection of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 compnnents and ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves shall be performed in a'ccordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g), except where specific written relief has been granted by the Comission.
The applicable ASME B&PV Code is the 1980 Edition Winter 1981 Addenda, which in Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWV-3200 requires that when a valve or its control system has been replaced or repaired or has undergone maintenance that could affect its performance, and prior to the time it is returned to service, it shall be tested to demonstrate that the perfor-mance parameters which could be affected by the replacement, repair, or maintenance are within acceptable limits.
Contrary to the above, on July 6,1986, Pressurizer Code Safety Valve Serial No. N56964-00-0031, an ASME B&PV Code Class 1 valve, was installed and placed into service after it had undergone maintenance that could affect its performance without any testing being performed to demonstrate that it would perform acceptably.
D. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, as implemented by the Connonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement 5.0, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accom-plished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantita-tive or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above, the licensee's program failed to assure that appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria were specified in instructions or procedures. Nuclear Work Request B31703, used on July 19, 1986, to test the lift setting of Pressurizer Code Safety Valves 1RY8010A and 1RY8010C, referenced Maintenance Procedure BMP 3100-9, Revision 1, which specified a tolerance of 3 percent instead of il percent as required by technical specifications. As a result, Pressurizer Code Safety Valve IRY8010C was set with a tolerance greater than 1 percent.
Collectively, these violations have been categorized as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $25,000 assessed equally among the violations.
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee acknowledges the occurrence of the violations but requests that the proposed civil penalty be completely mitigated. The licensee contends that enforcement discretion should be applied to the situation relating to NUREG-0940 I.A-12
r Appendix these violations because the safety significance of the misinstallation was J minimal, that Violations A, B, and C should not be considered as separate l violations, that Violation D was unrelated t6 the other violations and should I
not have been aggregated with them, and that a civil penalty would be simply a punitive fine. Furthermore, the licensee feels mitigation of the proposed <
civil penalty is warranted for the factors of (1) prompt identification and reporting, (2) corrective actions, (3) past performance, and (4) no prior notice or multiple occurrences.
The following is a summary of the discussion presented by the licensee to support the c M ve request: l A. Minimal Safety Significance '
The licensee asserts that the safety significance of the event wss minimal because the possibility of overpressurization of the Reactor Coolant System was not present in that the pressurizer safety valve actually lifted at F 0 psig, well below its normal setpoint, and both pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) were operable during this event.
B. Separate Violations Aggregated The licensee contends that, since Violatiens A and C were the unavoidable consequences of Violation B, the NRC should not have considered these as separate violations. According to the licensee, Violations A, B, and C resulted from a mixup of two valves, of which one was internally incomplete.
The licensee asserts that the installation of an untested, inoperable valve did not result from a separate failure to follow procedures for i testing the valve or determining its operability. Instead, the required I tests and inspections had been performed for tbt valve that the licensee I personnel believed that they were installing. The licensee thus asserts that the event does not warrant treatment as independent violations.
1 Further, the licensee contends that Violation D is related to the other !
violations only in the broadest sense that it was maintenance related. l The licensee asserts that specification of an incorrect tolerance is '
unrelated to the repair-related events in Violations A through C, and thus, does not justify aggregation with the other violations.
C. Punitive Aspects of Proposed Enforcement Actio,n The licensee claims that its long-tenn corrective actions reflected its comitment to disciplined control of maintenance. The licensee asserts that, in view of its commitments, a civil penalty would add nothing to the licensee's appreciation of the problem but would be simply a punitive i fine.
l l
NUREG-0940 I.A-13
Appendix i i
D. Prompt Identification and Reporting i l
According to the licensee, the NRC failed to mitigate the proposed civil penalty for prompt identification and reporting because'it considered the length of time the valve had been installed prior to discovery, and, as the licensee became aware of the poblem only after the valve actuated as opposed to when it was installed, mitigation was not warranted.. However,.
the licensee states that the NRC's Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,IIV.B.1, provides that, in weighing prompt identification and reporting, consideration will also be given to the opportunity available to discover the violation, the ease of discovery, and the promptness and completeness of any required report. The licensee argues that, once the mixup of the two valves occurred, there was no opportunity to discover the mixup until the incomplete valve actuated. Moreover, the licensee argues that the focus of Violation A was the inoperability of the valve when Mode 3 was entered, so that the violation actually occurred when Mode j 3 was entered, not when the valve was actually installed, and was disco-
.vered almost immediately after this occurred. Similarly, according to the licensee, Violation D was discovered one day after it occurred. As Violations A and C were unavoidable consequences of Violation B, the ,
length of time for which these violations went undiscovered should'not-weigh heavily-against mitigation. Finally, the licensee argues'that it provided the NRC with complete reports for all of the violations.
E. Past Performance The licensee claims that Byron's performance in the maintenance area has !
been good since operation began approximately 1.5 years prior to this event. ]
l F. Prior Notice and Multiple Occurrences 1 The licensee claims that no earlier notices have been received and there have not been multiple occurrences in this general area.
NRC Evaluation i The NRC staff has carefully considered the factors addressed by the licensee i in the request for mitigation of the civil penalty. The staff considered each of the factors encompassing the general principles of the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions", 10 CFR Part 2,. Appendix C, along with the technical significance of the violations and the surrounding circumstances, in determining the severity level and appropriate enforcement action.
In addressing the specific items of the licensee's response, the following i evaluation is provided:
A. The react <.r coolant system design basis includes utilization of the :
pressurizer safety valves for protection from overpressurization transients with no credit taken for the PORVs, a non-safety grade relief i
NUREG-0940 1.A-14 1
4
Appendix system. The design bases-transient in the FSAR describes that no credit is taken for operation of tN: MRVs. While the proper operation of the PORVs could reduce the seve"ity of an overpressure condition, full credit is allowed only for spring-imoed safety valves designed and installed in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
This violation is significant because of the failures to properly segregate a deficient component and document post-maintenance testing which caused a defective component to be improperly installed in the plant. This deficiency went unnoticed until the safety valve actuated fortuitously below its specified setpoint. This was cause for significant regulatory concern. Also, it was fortuitous that the valve deficiency in this case lowered the setpoint. The program failure could have as well led to a safety valve being installed which would have had a high lift setpoint j or insufficient capacity.
I B. The NRC staff classified tFese four violations collectively as a Severity Level III problem because ttsy demonstrated a fundamental problem in the licensee's management control over the maintenance, control, and testing of components. In its request for further mitigation, the licensee focused narrowly on the operability of individual components and did not address the significance of the failure of management to control maintenance and testing. The NRC recognizes that Violations A, B, and C are violations related to a single event and that Violation D was another separate event.
The categorization of the violations as a Severity Level III problem was
( to focus attention on the need for improvement in the maintenance, control and testing area, as is permitted by the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
Due to t'en lack of planning by licensee management, no facilities existed to store rebuilt or repaired contaminated parts prior to their reinstalla-tion in the plant. As a result, the licensee did not follow its normal repair procedure, which specified removing the QA hold tag and closing out the Nuclear Work Request (NWR) after repair and testing the component and then attaching a red stores tag. The red stores tag would have indicated that the component is ready for use. Since no contaminated storage facility existed, the red stores tag was not attached to the safety valve after repair and testing, and the QA hold tag was kept attached so that the NWR would remain open. Consequently, the repaired valve and the defective valve remained in the hot shop next to each other, increasing the potential for a mixup and misuse. Thus, the failure of the licensee to plan for the generation of contaminated spare parts and the deliberate decision to bypass the normal repair procedure constitutes a significant lack of management oversight over the maintenance and quality control programs. '
As with the other violations, Violation D indicates another maintenance and testing problem h which a NWR inadequately specified a pressurizer safety valve setpoint tolerance. This resulted in the safety valve being set outside of Technical Specification limits, i
C. Because of the licensee's corrective actions, a 50 percent reduction of the base civil penalty was deemed to be warranted and was reflected in the amount of the proposed civil penalty. With respect to the licensee's NUREG-0940 I.A-15
Appendix argument that a civil penalty in these circumstances is punitivt, the NRC views the purpose served by the civil penalty being imposed in this matter as emphasizing the need for lasting remedial action on the part of a specific licensee and deterring future violations on the part of licensees generally.
D. The premcture actuation of a Pressurizer Code Safety Yalve was a self-disclosing event and was not one which has been identified by the licensee.
While the NRC staff egrees that ance the violations were identified they were promptly reported, the violations had not been identified prior to the time the valve actuated, an event which was required to be reported to the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff does not consider mitigation of the proposed civil penalty for prompt identification and reporting appropriate.
E. Byron's performance in the maintenance area has been categorized as SALP Category 2 during the last two appraisal periods. Significant improvements in the maintenance and quality control programs were not initiated until management focused greater attention in these areas in response to this event. Therefore, the NRC staff does not consider it appropriate to mitigate the proposed civil penalty for prior good performance in the area of maintenance.
F. The lack of either prior notice or multiple occurrences does not provide a basis for mitigation of a proposed civil penalty. Insteau, these factors are used for escalation if prior notice or multiple occurrences exist.
NRC's Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. A sufficient basis for further mitigation of the proposed $25,000 civil penalty has not been provided by the licensee. Accordingly, a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) should be imposed.
NUREG-0940 I.A-?f s
UNITEo STATES f ps asog'o j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
P REOtoN ll j ,'f 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
- t ATLANTA.OtoROI A 30323
\...**/ JUL 171987 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 License Nos. OPR-38, DPR-47, OPR-55 EA 87-101 Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-269/87-16, 50-270/87-16 AND 50-287/87-16)
This refers to the NRC inspection conde-ted on April 16-28, 1987, at the Oconee Nuclear Station, which included a review of the circumstances surrounding inoperability of the high pressure injection (HPI) system and reactor building cooling (RBC) units, The results of the inspection were forwarded to you in a letter dated May 1, 1987. The events, which resulted in a violation of NRC regulatory requirements, were identified by your plant staf f and reported to the NRC. NRC concerns relative o the inspection findings associated with the events were discussed by M. Ernst, Deputy Regional Administrator, NRC, Region II, with M. McIntosh, M. Tuckman, and other members of your staff, at an Enforcement Conference held on May 13, 1987, at the Region II Office.
The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation involved significant failures to properly implement a start-up procedure which caused the two HPI trains and the three RBC units to be inoperable when technical specifications required them to be operable. Violation A involved the failure to assure two operable flow paths existed from the borated water storage tank (BWST) to the reactor coolant system (RCS). With the reactor starting up and the RCS above 350*F, both suction valves from the BWST to the HPI pumps were' closed with the power supply breakers to the valves open contrary to procedural requirements.
The isolation of the HPI pump suctions from the BWST caused the HPI system to be inoperable because it would not have fulfilled its intended function of providing borated water to the RCS to mitigate the consequences, automatically,-of a small break loss of coolant accident or steam line break accident. Also, operator action might not have been sufficiently quick enough to restore the system to assure that the accident consequences would be within the design basis analysis.
Violation B involved the failure to assure that three independent RBC trains were operable. With the RCS heated above 250'F, the Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) valves providing cooling water to the RBC units were left closed contrary to procedural requirements.
The principal factors contributing to these events were a lack of communication and insufficient attention to procedural details which led to the breakdown of CERTIFIED MAIL l
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 1.A-17
Duke Power Company M 1[bN several administrative controls that should have precluded continuing startup with improperly positioned breakers and valves. We are particularly concerned that control room personnel had several opportunities after the initial failure to adequately review the Red Tag Log to identify that the HPI valves were mis-positioned. 'Specifically, (1) an opportunity existed for two shifts to discover that the HP-24 and HP-25 power supply breakers were open had control panel indi-cation lights been conscientiously reviewed by control room personnel; (2) two shift turnovers failed to identify the problem; (3) a console light checklist identified a discrepancy in the status lights, but this did not alert the unit supervisor; and (4) a review of the computer alarm printouts should have shown an improper alarm condition.
To emphasize to all levels of control room personnel and those that support plant operations the need for diligent attention to detail and for maintaining systems operable, I have.been authorized, af ter consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars (525,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized as a Severity Level III problem. The bare value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation or problen is 550,000. The NRC Enforcement Policy allows for reduction of a civil penalty under certain circumstances. In consideration of the escalation and mitigation factors, the NRC recognizes that (1) you have had previous good performance in the areas of reactor startup, shutdown, and technical specification compliance as reflected in the SALP Category 1 rating in the operations area, and (2) your corrective actions were considered unusually prompt and extensive. However, because of the duration of one of the violations including the several opportunities available to control room personnel to identify and correct the situation regarding the HPI suction valves and the fact that multiple violations are involved, full mitigation of the civil penalty was not ceemed appropriate.
The NRC considers the violations and the circumstances associated with the violations to be of significant regulatory concern because of the failure to assure that in separate events two systems important to safe operation of the plant were not operable prior to resuming plant operation, the possible damage to the HPI pumps had an initiation signal been received, and the number of licensed operators and supervisors involved.
You are required to respond to this letter and should fcllow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
NUREG-0940 1.A-18
d l
Duke Power. Company- jy(17 j987 The responses directed by this letter and its. enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and: Budget.as required by.the.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. No.96-511. 3 Sincerely, b (
- J. Nel son Grace .
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:
M.-S. Tuckman, Station Manager i
I s
NUREG 0940 1.A !
1 I
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIOR~0F CIVIL PENALTY Duke Power Company Docket No. 50-287 Oconee Nuclear Station License No. OPR-55 Unit 3 EA 87-101 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 16-28, 1987, a violation of NRC requirements was 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Technical Specification 6.4.1 requires that the station be operated and maintained in accordance with approved ;
procedures. ONS Procedure OP/3/A/1102/01, " Controlling Procedure for i Unit Startup," Enclosure 4.4, " Pre-Heatup Checklist," requires that, prior '
to heatup, (1) two High Pressure Injection (HPI) pumps and their associated trains be operable and that the " Red Tag Log" be reviewed to clear any items which affect unit heatup; and (2) three Reactor Building Cooling (RBC) Units be operable and that the " Removal and Restoration Book" be reviewed to clear any items which affect unit heatup.
l A. Contrary to the above,. from 10:30 a.m. on April 10, 1987 until 7:20 a.m. on April 11, 1987 (approximately 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />), the ONS Unit 3 !
RCS was heated above 350 F with the electrical power supply breakers to HPI suction valves 3HP-24 and 3HP-25 open and the valves closed.
This caused the HPI system to be unable to perform its intended safety function in that it would not have been able to take suction from the borated water storage tank automatically upon an engineered safeguards protective system actuation signal. The condition of the electrical power supply breaker had been entered in the " Red Tag Log" but the " Red Tag Log" had not been adequately reviewed by control room personnel prior to plant heatup.
B. Contrary to the above, from 5:55 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. on April 10, 1987, the ONS Unit 3 RCS was heated above 250 F with the low pressure service water inlet valves to all three RBC units closed, rather than open, thereby rendering all three RBC units unable to perform their intended safety function. This condition had been entered in the "Remo;al and Restoration Book." but the review of that book by control room personnel was not adequate in that the closed position of the low pressure service water inlet valves to the RBC units was not identified to appropriate personnel prior to plant heatup.
These violations have been evaluated in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - 525,000 (assessec equally between the violations)
NUREG-0940 I.A-20
Notice of Violation Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power 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 i 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 achieved. If an I
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 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 may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Of fice 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 I
should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
- (1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate l 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.8 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 l 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 i 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 pena'ty, unless compromised, l remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
]
l The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a 1 Notice- of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, NUREG-0940 1.A-21
Notice of Violation U.S. Nuclear Regolatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with.a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Oconee, which is the subject of this Notice.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-, a J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia thisl1 day of July 1987 l
l I
l l
l
.i 1
a .
NUREG-0940 I.A-22 l
l i
l l ga aEc UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$40N REOlON81
[ ,
g .y 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W. j
- ATLANTA.GEORCIA 30323
\,*****/ -
JUL 211987 t
Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251 License Nos. QPR-31, DPR-41 EA 87-97 Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. C. O. Woody Group Vice President Nuclear Energy Department P. O. Box 14000 l Juno Beach, FL 33408 '
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-250/87-14 AND 50-251/87-14; AND NRC AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM REPORT N0 50-251/87-16) l This refers to the NRC inspection conducted March 9 through April 27, 1987, and the NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) review of the Unit 4 Instrumentation Port Column leakage conducted March 19 through May 5, 1987, at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, Homestead, Florida. Details of these inspections were ively, provided to yousignificant and indicated by letters NRC-identified dated May 21, 1987 and failures to May 15, w comply 1987,ith NRCrespect-requirements. The violations associated with the above inspections were discussed at an enforcement conference held on June 5,1987, at the Region II Office, Atlanta, Georgia.
Violation I. A described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Impsition of Civil Penalty addresses the failure to adequately evaluate and correct a reactor coolant leak from a Unit 4 instrument port column fitting that was identified during a licensee inspection conducted on August 30, 1986.
FP&L management chose to authorize operation for a six-month period, based on an engineering safety evaluation which was hastily reviewed and subsequently determined to not have appropriately assessed the proba'le u corrosive effects of boric acid residue on ferritic steel reactor components. This resulted in the substantial corrosion of some reactor vessei head closure components.
Further, on October 24, 1986, FP&L had an opportunity to repair the Conoseal fitting when the reactor was shut down for another reason. Your preliminary inspection showed that the reactor coolant leak remained and boric acid was accumulating on and around the vessel head area. However, the boric acid was cleaned up by maintenance persont;el prior to an inspection by Engineering. This Engineering inspection failed to consider the potential for widespread effects of leakage in the head area beyond the readily accessible, visible areas. FP&L management continued to rely on the initial faulty safety evaluation and <
determination that the situation was acceptable for continued operations.
Management decisions were made with lack of adequate information concerning f the scope of the potential problem. The plant was allowed to start up in
( .TIFIED MAIL
[.lURNRtLt1PIREQUESTED
)
NUREG-0940 I.A-23 1
Florida Power and Light Company JUL 211987 August 1986, and.to restart in October 1986, even though information regarding the effects of boric acid leaks was documented in several previous NRC and INP0 Notices.
While the actual corrosion damage found in April 1987 did not cause components to be operated beyond design conditions or limits, continued operation in this leakage environment could have posed an unwarranted degradation of an important barrier to the potential release of fission products to the environment. There-fore, this violation is considered significant because it illustrates the fail-ure of licensee management and the operating staff to fully comprehend and deal l with the adverse effects of plant operations in this mode.
l Violation I.B in the enclosed Notice involves the failure to ensure that the required prerequisites and approvals were met prior to commencing core alteration activities. In this regard, activities commenced by maintenance personnel to remove the upper core support structure without (1) notifying the control room and establishing direct communications, (2) having the containment ventilation isc: tion system operable, and (3) being directly supervised by a licensed Senior Reactor Operator. Had the control room-not responded properly to a !
the removal of the upper core support structure radiation would alarm have been in containment,is completed. It unlikely that fuel movement and damage w have occurred which released airborne activity. Nevertheless, we are concerned ;
that these failures are indicative of a lack of appreciation for controls of l licensed activity and communications by the Maintenance staff to assure other organizations are aware of maintenance activities. While the action by Operations personnel was commendable, those of the Maintenance staff were unacceptable.
To emphasize again the need for FP&L to improve the control of operations and themanagementdecisionmakingprocess,includingcommunicationsbetweenmajor plant staffs at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant", I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the violation described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Polic and Procedure for NRC Enforce- !
ment Actions",10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987)y(Enforcement' Policy), the i violations described in the enclosed Notice have each been categorized in the i
, aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The base value of a civil penalty l for a Severity Level III problem is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered. The base civil penalty amount has been increased by 100 percent because of the lack of prompt correct-ive action to the leakage situation which was compounded by the fGilure of FP&L management to utilize available information of prior occurrences relating to the effects of boron leakage at other facilities. lhere was also a lack of an effective management and safety committee review of the safety evaluation.
Furthermore, escalation was warranted in consideration ~ of the poor prior performance in the area of reactor operations and maintenance at Turkey Point 1 as evidenced by the Category 3 ratings in the last two Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Reports, and the number and scope of violations in these areas over the past two years. '
The remaining violations in the enclosed Notice of Violation have been deter-mined to be of a lesser safety significance and are categorized as Severity Level IV violations. These involved (a) the use of inadequate procedures for l
I the installation of reactor vessel head Conoseal shims.which existed from 1972 through 1985, and the improper fabrication of Conoseal shims during the 1984 NUREG-0940 1.A-24 l l
i 4
)
Florida Power and Light Company JUL 21 1987 Unit 4 refueling outage and (b) the inadequate procedure for calculation of reactor coolant s notconservative.ystemIeakageduetouseofacorrectionfactorwhichwas with respect to temperature rise.
During the Enforcement Conference, discussions also included activities relating to the failure to control wiring of diesel generator sequencers. On March 27, 1987, with Units 3 and 4 in Mode 6, licensee personnel were performing periodic testing to verify the operability and correct calibration of several of the "B" Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) protection relays.
During this testing, a wiring error was discovered and pron.ptly corrected with corrective action documented in a NonConformance Report. With this particular problem identified, licensee personnel pursued other areas where similar wiring errors could have occurred. To your credit, you also inspected other work performed under this work order which revealed two other wiring errors which would have affected the n eration of the 3B containment spray pump and the automatic start of Unit 43 and 4C intake cooling water pumps. We have reviewed this matter and determined that it represents a Severity Level IV violation.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, since the violation was '
licensee-identified, was promptly corrected, and could not reasonably be expec-ted to have been prevented by the licensee's corrective accion for a previous violation, a Notice of Violation is not being issued for this item.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. In preparing your response, you should give particular attention to explain those actions to be taken to improve the communication between your maintenance, engineering, and operations staffs.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether .
further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regu-latory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No.96-511.
Sincerely, m W J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator .
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed -
Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl: (See page 4)
NUREG-0940 1.A-25
Florida Power and Light Company jyl 211987 cc w/ encl:
C. M. Wethy, Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant- ,
C. J. Baker Plarit Manager '
TurkeyPoIntNuclearPlant L. W. Bladow, flant QA Superintendent J. Arias, Jr. , Regulatory and Compliance -
Superasor 4
l
-l
-q 1
l 1
I 1
'j
'l i
d 1
l l
NUREG-0940- I.A-26 i
l NOTICE OF VIOLATION-AND PROPOSED IMPOSITI F 0F CIVIL PENALTY
." rida Power and Light Company Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 License Nos. OPR-31 and DPR-41 EA 87-97 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 9 to April 27,1987 end an NRC Augmented Inspection Team review on March 19 to May 5, 1987, violations of HRC !
requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of l Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C ]
(1987), the Nuclear Regulatory Comission~ 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalties are set forth below:
I. Violations Assessed A Civil Penalty A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, that i conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected.
Technical Specification 4.0.3 requires that in-service inspectica of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g). l IWA-5250(b) of the Code requires that the detection of boric acid ,
residues on ferritic steel components shall reguire the location of the i leakage source and the areas of general corrosion, if any.
l i
Operating Procedure 1004.1, Reactor Coolant System - System Leak Test Following RCS Opening, states that during the visual examination, particular attention shall be given to the insulated areas of components constructed of ferritic steels to detect evidence of boric acid residues resulting from reactor coolant leakage.
Contrary to the above, on August 30, 1986, the licensee identified the leakage of reactor coolant from an Instrument Port Column Conoseal connection on the reactor vessel head of Unit 4, a condition adverse to quality, and did not properly evaluate the effect of the leakage and take appropriate corrective action. Consequently, substantial corrosion of vessel head pressure boundary components occurred.
Specifically, the followirg events contributed to the situation:
- 1. On August 30, 1986 a safety evaluation was prepared by the licenseewhichfailedtoadequatelyaddressthepossibledamage to surrounding ferritic steel components from boric acid residue.
- 2. On October 24, 1986 an examination of the fitting leakage was inadequateinthatIargequantitiesofboricacidresiduewere found on the reactor vessel head reflective insulation, yet attention was not given to the examination of ferritic steel i components under the insulation.
NUREG-0940 I.A-27
Notice of Violation B. Technical Specification 3.10.1 requires, in part that while per- l formingcorealterationseachpenetrationprovidIngdirectaccess from the containment atmosphere to the outside atmosphere shall be I either closed by an isolation valve, blind flange, or manual valve, ,
or capable of being closed by an operable automatic containment 'l ventilati.on isolation valve. l Technical Specification 3.10.2 requires the containment ventilation isolation system to be operable during core alterations.
Technical 5) edification 3.10.6 requires direct communications to be maintained )etween the control room and personnel at the refueling station during core alterations. l 1
Technical Specification 6.2.2.e requires that all core alterations be j directly supervised by either a licensed Senior Reactor Operater or Senior Reactor Operator Limited to Fuel Handling who has no other l i
concurrent responsibilities. l i
Contrary to the above requirements, on April 9,1987, without l apparent knowledge or consent of the Plant Supervisor - Nuclear and 1 the control room, core alterations, consisting of lifting of the Unit'4 reactor core u)per internals, were conducted without the required prerequisites aeing met. The containment purge valves were open provicing direct flow path from the containment to the outside atmosphere. Also, the containment ventilation system automatic isolation function was ino3erable in that the purge valves closure circuitrywasjumperedsuc1thatthevalveswouldremainopen. The evolution was initiated without direct communication being established l between the control room and personnel at the refueling station and j without being directly supervised by persons of the requisite <
qualifications. I This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $100,000 (assessed equally between the violations).
II. Violations Not Assessed A Civil Penalty A. Technical Specification 6.8.1 states, in part, that written procedures j shall be established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed 1 the requirements and recommendations of Section 5.1 and 5.3 of ANSI !
N18.7-1972. !
l ANS1 N18.7 specifies that maintenance and modification which may I effect functioning of safety-related components shall be performed l in a manner to ensure quality at least equivalent to that specified l in the original design bases and requirements. It also states that maintenance and modifications shall be performed in accordance with written procedures, documented instructions or drawings appropriate to the circumstances.
NUREG-0940 I.A-28 l
a I
Notice of Violation Contrary to the above, maintenance was performed on the Unit 4 Conoseal fitting, a safety-related component, in a manner that did i not ensure quality at least equivalent to the original design and in accordance with written procedures appropriate to the circumstances.
Specifically:
- 1. From 1972 through March 1985, Maintenance Procedure 1407.15 for-the installation of reactor vessel head Conoseals did not contain sufficient information in that the shims necessary for the installation of the Unit 4 conoseal clamps were not mentioned.
- 2. After November 1985, Maintenance Procedure 4-GMM-043.2 requirements were changed to allow relaxation of clamping forces prior to torquing of clamp bolts which did not ensure quality equivalent to that specified in original design bases.
- 3. During the 1984 Unit 4 refueling outage, new shims were fabricated for the NE conoseal and at least one other conoseal by Maintenance personnel without written instructions, using carbon steel instead of stainless steel.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B. Technical Specification 6.8.1 states, in part, that written procedures l
shall be established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements of A~ppendix A of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Appendix A to USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.33 states that procedures be provided for the performance of required surveillance such as the daily evaluation of reactor coolant system leakage required by' Technical Specification Table 4.1-2, item 11.
- Contrary to the above, Surveillance Procedure 4-0SP-041.1, Reactor Coolant System Leakage Rate Calculation, was not adequately l established in that it contained temperature and level correction factors which were neither correct nor conservative for all applications of the procedure or changes in the temperature or level.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Florida Power and Light Company l (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 this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admis-sion 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, I
\
(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 NUREG-0940 1.A-29 E_-- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - . - - - - -
Notice of Violation -
4-why such other ac' tion 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 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 c4 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 CFF. 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 cf 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 Notice responses of Violation,toletter the w2 Director,th payment of civil penalty, and Answer to aO 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 II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Turkey Point.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c %<
/ J. Nelson Grace v' Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, This A/ day of July 1987 HUREG-0940 I.A-30 .
l l
8gDO CIGg .
o o UNITED STATES
^g
!" s, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- REGION 1 $
o,
.[
631 PARK AVENUE
% . . . . . ,o'g KINO oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194o6 '
August 24, 1987 Docket No. 50-219 License No'. OPR-16 'i EA 87-92 '
GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P. 8. Fiedler.
Vice President and Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 i
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-219/87-16).
This refers to the special NRC team inspection conducted on April 24 - May 6, 1987 at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to review' the circumstances associated with an event which occurred at the facility on April 24, 1987. The l event, which was identified by a member of your staff and reported to the NRC, involved the tying open of two suppression chamber - drywell vacuum breakers for i
approximately 3h hours, while the reactor was being shut down.but was still at
~
power, to facilitate deinerting of containment. This condition was a significant
, degradation of plant safety since it would have led to a loss of significant i
pressure suppression capability and a probable failure of containment in the event of a loss of coolant accident. During the inspection, violations of NRC
{
requirements were identified. The inspection report was sent to.you on June 1, 1987. On June 10, 1987, an Enforcement Conference was conducted with you and members of your staff to discuss the violations, their causes, and your corrective actions.
The first two violations, which are described in Section'I of the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice),. involve the April 24, 1987 event in which the Group Shift Supervisor (GSS) initiated a temporary variation request to allow two suppression chamber-drywell vacuum i breakers to be blocked open to assist in deinerting containment while the !
reactor was being shut down. Since the reactor was still at power (23%) and the reactor temperature exceeded 212*F, this condition was contrary to the configuration required by technical specifications. in that these breakers were to be capable of closing by gravity. Although the GSS and the Shift. Technical Advisor (STA) completed forms to indicate that they had performed a safety s review of the variation prior to its implementation, neither~ individual apparently recognized at the time that blocking open of those vacuum. breakers would result in a condition contrary 'to the technical specifications concerning containment integrity, and they approved this temporary varia* tion and allowed.
the breakers to be opened without any technical justification for this . variation. -
CERTIFIED MAIL '
l RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 1.A-31
GPU Nuclear Corporation 2 J
This failure to perform an adequate safety review constitutes a violation of l
NRC requirements (Violation I.A) and demonstrates (1) an apparent lack of j recognition by both the GSS and STA of the technical specification requirements associated with these vacuum breakers, and (2) an apparent lack of independence between these two individuals during their performance of the safety review prior to implementing the temporary variation. Furthermore, the tying open of the suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers resulted in the plant being in an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromised the pressure suppression 3 capability of the suppression chamber, a condition which required reporting to I the NRC Operations Center within one hour of its occurrence in accordance with f 10 CFR 50.72. However, the NRC Operations Center was not notified until three days af ter the event (Violation I.8). The NRC acknowledges that the NRC resident inspector was informed within four hours of the event.
The failure to properly implement the procedures for performing safety reviews and making temporary variations to the normal configuration of plant equipment was not isolated to this event but was indicative of programmatic weaknesses.
In a sampling of temporary variations reviewed during this inspection, numerous cases were noted of inattention to detail and inadequate reviews, thereby (1) demonstrating that management review and oversight of the program for making temporary variations was inadequate, and (2) resulting in numerous examples of violations of procedural requirements governing safety reviews of temporary variations (Violation II).
In addition to the tying open of the suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers, and the procedural violations concerning temporary variations, the NRC is also concerned about another practice which has been ongoing at Oyster j Creek since 1977 involving the tying open of other vacuum breakers (reactor building-suppression chamber) during reactor shutdowns (while containment integrity was still required) so that the suppression chamber could be l deinerted. Although these vacuum breakers were continuously manned and administratively controlled while they were blocked open, and the redundant pneumatically operated valve in each line remained operable, the NRC is con-cerned that this practice was incorporated into procedures in 1977 without an adequate safety review of the effects of,this practice on the technical speci-fications (Violation III). Manual actions are not a substitute for the auto-matic capability of systems or components provided for by design, Schedular l pressures to complete the deinerting process may have contributed to this violation and Violation I.
l To emphasize the importance of (1) thorough understanding and proper con-sideration of the technical specifications and the plant safety design bases by operations staff and Shift Technical Advisors, (2) thorough and technically adequate safety reviews of temporary variations and other nonroutine activities at the facility, notwithstanding any schedular pressures, and (3) development of, and adherence to, adequate plant procedures to ensure the plant is operated ;
safely and in accordance with the technical specifications, I have been i authorized, af ter consultation with the Director, Office of Enfor' cement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the cumulative amount of Two Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ($205,000) for the yiolations described in the enclosed Notice.
NUREG-0940 I.A-32
GPU Nuclear Corporation 3 In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy),
Violation I.A of the enclosed Notice has been categorized at Severity Level II because the failure to do an adequate review under 10 CFR 50.59 led to a significant degradation of the pressure suppression capability of the suppression chamber which would have resulted in the containment system not being able to perform its intended safety function in the event of a loss of oolant accident. The failure to provide a timely report to the NRC Operations Center (Violation I.8) is considered a Severity Level IV violation because the NRC resident inspector was notified within four hcurs and the notification to the NRC Operations Center, while untimely, was made three days af ter the event.
The violations set forth in Sections II and III of the Notice have been l classified each at Severity Level III. With regard to the violation set forth l in Section II, although procedural violations are rormally classified at l Severity Level IV, the severity level is more appropriately classified at Severity Level III in this case because the numercas examples demonstrate a management breakdown in the oversight of the temporary modification program.
The base civil penalty amounts for Severity Level II and III violations or problems are 580,000 and $50,000, respectively. The escalation and mitigation factors were considered and no adjustment to the civil penalty amount has been deemed appropriate for the violations set forth in Sections I and II of the Notice. The base civil penalty for the violation set forth in Section III l has been increased by 50 percent to reflect the added significance resulting from the f act that the violation existed since 1977 during numerous deinerting evolutions. The NRC acknowledges that your corrective actions could be considered extensive. However, mitigation based on these actions is inappro- ,
priate since these corrective actions were not considered unusually prompt, and the enforcement history of Oyster Creek regarding vacuum breakers has not been good, as evidenced by previous civil penalties issued in 1981 and 1982 for violations of technical specification requirements concerning the' vacuum breakers.
Furthermore, on July 16, 1987, another event involving vacuum breakers occurred at Oyster Creek wherein a stepladder located in the vicinity of a reactor building-suppression chamber breaker partially interfered with its operation. This event, although less significant than the events described herein, is similar to the event that occurred in April 1981, and demonstrates that plant personnel have not attained a sufficiently widespread understanding of the importance of, and required care for, vacuum breakers.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. ,In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional l actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
! Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
NUREG-0940 I.A-33
GPU Nuclear Corporation 4 In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely,
&.T/Y .
William T. Russell Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:
M. Laggart, BWR Licensing Manager Licensing Manager, Oyster Creek Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPOR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector .
State of New Jersey GPU Nuclear Corporation NUREG-0940 1.A-34
-]
)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-219 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-16 EA 87-92 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 24 - May 6, 1987, 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 i
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. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH INOPERABLE- SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - DRYWELL VACUUM BREAKERS A. 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) allows a licensee to make changes in the facility or procedures as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
The Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 6.2.1, describes that for a design basis loss of coolant accident, the reactor coolant discharged into the drywell is vented through vent tubes to the suppression chamber (torus) where it is effectively condensed for pressure reduction purposes by _the suppression pool.
Technical Specification limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.5 A.3 requires that primary containment integrity be maintained at all times when the reactor is critical or when the reactor water temperature is above 212 F and fuel is in the reactor vessel, except for certain limited conditions. Technical Specification LCO 3.5.A.5 requires that, whenever primary containment is required, all suppres-sion chamber - drywell vacuum breakers be operable except in certain conditions. Technical Specification LCO 3.5.A.5.2 specifies that one of the conditions required for operability of the vacuum breakers is that the valve disk close by gravity when released after being opened by remote or manual means.
Contrary to the above, between 3:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. on April 24, 1987, a change was made at the Oyster Creek facility as described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report which resulted in a condition that was contrary to the technical specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question, and the change was made without prior Commission approval. Specifically, during that time, two suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers (Nos. V-26-9 and V-26-10) were tied open at the direction of the Group Shift Supervisor while the reactor was at 23% power with all. vacuum breakers required to be operable.
NUREG-0940 I.A-35
2 This condition was contrary to the description in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and Technical Specification LC0 3.5. A.5 and also involved an unreviewed safety question in that opening of these breakers resulted in bypassing of the suppression pool and the degradation of the pressure suppression capability provided by the suppression chamber required in the event of a loss of coolant accident. This degradation could lead to a possible rupture of the containment structure and thus created the possibility for increased consequences of an accident analyzed in the safety analysis report.
2 This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - 580,000. I 1
B. 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) requires that the licensee notify the NRC Operations Center within one hour of the occurrence of any event or condition during operation that results in the plant being in an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromises plant safety,'a condition outside the design basis of the plant, or a condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures.
Contrary to the above, af ter identification on April 24, 1987 of the event in which the suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers were tied open while the reactor temperature was above 212 F, notifi-cation of the NRC Operations Center was not made until April 27, 1987, significantly exceeding the one hour reporting requirement. This event was required to be reported within one hour since it resulted in the plant being in an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromised primary :ontainment integrity in the event of a loss of coolant accident, was outside the design basis of the plant, and was a condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
II. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH TEMPORARY VARIATION PROCf DURES Technical Specification 6.8 requires that written procedures be established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, which specifies the need for procedures for control of equipment and modifications of the facility. l A. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.3.3, ' requires that the Group Shift Supervisor perform a safety evaluation before authvizing installation of a temporary variation. Station. Procedure 130, Ccoduct of Independent Safety Reviews and Responsible Technical (
Reviews by Plant Review Group, used to perform,the safety evaluation, i specifies in Section 5.1.1 that the signature of the Responsible j 1
1 1
NUREG-0940 I.A-36 i
3 Technical Reviewer (RTR) signifies concurrence that (1) an unreviewed safety question does not exist, (2) a technical specification change is not required, (3) technical and safety considerations have been properly addressed, (4) any associated safety determinations or safety evaluations are accurate and complete, and (5) the RTR was appropriately independent of the originator. Section 5.1.2 specifies that the signature of the Independent Safety Reviewer signifies concurrence that safety considerations have been adequately evaluated and are properly addressed in any associated safety determination or safety evaluation and that the reviewer is appropriately independent of the originator and RTR.
Contrary to the above, temporary variations were made between September 1986 and April 1987, for which the safety evaluations required were not performed as required by Station Proceduc 108. Specifically, (1) for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos. 87-7, 87-12 and 87-33, the safety evaluations documented on Form 130-3 indicated that written safety evaluations were not required when they were in fact required in that unreviewed safety questions did exist and/or a change to technical specifications were required; (2) for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-508, 86-510, 87-7, 87-8, 87-12, snd 87-13, the Form 130-3s had the same signature as preparer and RTR indicating that the RTR was not independent of the originator; and (3) for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-455, 86-456,86-472, 86-480,86-482, 87-15, and 8717, the written safety evaluations did not have the appropriate reviews performed as demonstrated by the presence of only one or two signatures rather than the three required signatures.
B. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.3.1, requires that, prior to installation of a temporary variation, the Group Shift Supervisor (GSS) review the function and effects of the temporary variation and the method of installation with the appropriate maintenance supervisor and Shift Technical Advisor (STA). Steps 17 and 18 of the Instructions for Preparing Temporary Variation Check-Off Sheets of Station Procedure 108 require that the maintenance supervisor and Shift Technical Advisor sign the check-off sheet to indicate that the requirements of Section 6.3.1 have been met to review the functions and ef fects of the variation.
Contrary to the above, on several occasions between August 1986 and April 1987, for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-508, 86-510, 87-7, 87-8, 87-12, 87-13, 87-14, 87-17, and 87-33, the GSS did not ;
have a review of temporary variations performed by the appropriate l maintenance supervisor. Instances were noted where the GSS signed for the maintenance supervisor. In addition, the STA signed and thereby approved the check-off sheet for Mechanical Temporary Variation 87-33 even though it resulted in a violation of technical specification requirements.
NUREG--0940 I.A-37
_ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . 1
4 L
.C. Station Procedure 108, Equipm2nt Control, Section 6.4.2, requires the originator lof a temporary variation. obtain from the Plant Engineering Department, either before installation or as soon as practical after installation, various determinations relating to checks and testing to be performed on temporary variations.
Contrary to the above, between August'1986 and April 1987, for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-404, 86-448,86-473, 86-482,86-484, 86-508, 87-6, 87-10, 87-12, 87-23, 87-24, and 87-33, the Plant Engineering Department had not completed the requirements specified in Section 6.4.2 in that requirements for post-instal-lation, periodic, and post-restoration checks, 'and testing after temporary variations were not provided, or commented upon, by the Plant Engineering Department.
D. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.19, requires that the Operations Department forward a copy of the applicable temporary variation check-off sheet to the safety review manager who shall initiate any follow-up action he deems' necessary.
Contrary to the above, between September 1986 and April 1987, for Mechanical Temporary Variations referenced in Violations II.A, II.B.
and II.C. the safety review manager did not adequately review these check-off sheets, identify procedural deficiencies, and initiate needed follow-up action. The applicable check-off sheets were improperly completed with regard to procedure requirements, including the requirement for responsible technical reviews.
E. Station Procedure 107, Procedure Control, Section 5.1.3 requires that, should any procedure prove to be inadequate, it shall be revised temporarily if necessary, so that the -station is operated in compliance with approved procedures at all times.
Contrary to the above, Station Procedure 108, Equipment-Control, had not been revised to reflect that, for temporary variations since September 1986, the safety determinations and reviews were documented using Station Procedure 130 and Form 130-3 rather than the previous specific requirement for a safety evaluation.
These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement 1).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations).
III. VIOLATION ASSOCIATED WITH INOPERABLE REACTOR BUILDING - SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VACUUM BREAKERS 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) allows a licensee to make changes in the facility or procedures as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
NUREG-0940 1.A-38
i 5
The Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 6.2.1.1 describes the reactor building-suppression chamber (torus) vacuum relief system as permitting gas flow only inward from the atmosphere to the containment. )
I Technical Specification limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.5. A 3 requires that primary containment integrity be maintained at all times when the reactor is critical or when the reactor water temperature is above 212 F and fuel is in the reactor vessel, except for certain conditions. Technical Specification LC0 3.5.A.4 requires the two reactor building - suppression chamber vacuum breakers in each line be operable at all times when primary containment integrity is required. Further, if a vacuum breaker is inoperable, it shall be locked closed.
I Contrary to the above, during numerous deinerting evolutions conducted since April 1977 while the reactor temperature was greater than 212 F and primary containment integrity was required, a change was made to the facility as described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report. Specifically, during deinerting of the suppression chamber, a Reactor Building-Suppression Chamber vacuum breaker was manually tied open to permit air flow into the suppression chamber. This created the potential for containment air to flow to the atmosphere, contrary to the description in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, and resulted in a condition that was contrary to the l technical specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question, and I the change was made without prior Commission approval. This condition was contrary to Technical Specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question since it resulted in a loss of redundant isolation capability to assure that radioactivity 'would not be released from primary containment through this pathway in the event of a loss of coolant accident, and thus created the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than evaluated previously in the safety analysis report.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - 575,000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement ur explanation to the Director, Of fice 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) t,he 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 af firmation.
NUREG-0940 I.A
6 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay she civil penalty by letter to the Director, Of fice 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 l 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 l fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty l 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 i 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 i 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 1 is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for i imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined l 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 I, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, at the Oyster Creek facility which is the subject of this Notice.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.1/ at William T. Russell Regional Administrator i ing of Prussia, Pennsylvania Dated thisg9/at} day of August 1987 NUREG-0940 1.A-40 l
I
" "% UNITED STATES es .-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .' @ $ REGION IV
- 611 RYAN PLA2A DRIVE. SulTE 1000
'+4 , ], [#
, ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 JAN 2 61961 Docket No. 50-285 License No. DRP-40 EA 86-176 Omaha Public Power District ATTH: R. L. Andrews, Division Manager -
i Nuclear Production 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND; PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-285/85-22 AND NO. 50-285/85-29)
This refers to the Safety Systems Outage Modifications Inspections (SSOMI) conducted of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-40 during the periods September 16-20, 30, and October 1-8, 1985 (50-285/85-22), and November 6-8, 18-22, and December 9-17, 1985 (50-285/85-29) at the Fort Calhoun Station. The special inspections identified violations of NRC requirements in the design, installation, and testing of certain modifications at the Fort Calhoun Station. Accordingly, an enforcement conference was conducted in the Region IV office on July 10, 1986 to discuss the apparent violations and other concerns identified during the SSOMI.
Violation I of the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) involves a significant violation associated with the modification of the steam admit valve to the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump steam supply system without conducting and documenting a review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 1 50.59. The proposed modification consisted of a change to the comon steam admit valve (YCV-1045) from the " fail close" to the " fail open" design mode with the addition of safety-related air accumulator systems for the two individual " fail open" steam supply valves (YCV-1045 A and B). Air accumulators were to provide the capability for remote manual operation of the steam supply valves upon loss of non-safety-related instrument air. Plant personnel, however, only partially completed the modification in March 1980 by changing the steam admit valve to the " fail open" design mode without adding the air accumulators to the steam supply valves. This partially compit .ed modification introduced an unreviewed safety question in that during a steam i generator tube rupture incident with concurrent loss of non-safety-related l instrument air, the inability to close the steam supply valves would result I in an additional fission product release path not previously analyzed in the l Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The facility was operated in this l unanalyzed condition from March 1980 until the two individual steam supply I valves were equipped with safety-related air accumulator operating systems during the 1985 refueling outage.
It is significant that during the period between 1980 and 1985, several organi-zations withir, Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) were apparently aware of the partial modification. Further, when a safety evaluation was performed CERTIFIED Mall - RETURN RECEIPT RE00ESTED
Omaha Public Power District M 3C LI?
on January 15, 1985, it was inappropriately concluded that an unreviewed safety question did not exist when, in fact, one did exist. This violation reve61s weaknesses in your program for the review of plant changes and in the administrative controls established to assure that design reviews are properly performed, including safety evaluations performed in accordane.e with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.59.
To emphasize the need for improved management attention in the area of 10 C.F.R. $ 50.59 reviews, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Fif ty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for Violation I described in the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C (1986) (Enforcement Policy),
Violation I in the enclosed Notice has been categorized as a Severity Level III violation. The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is i $50,000, and although the escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement l Policy were considered, no adjustment was deemed appropriate in this case.
Violations in Section II of the enclosed Notice involve additional deficiencies identified in the areas of design control, equipment testing, maintenance pro-cedure adequacy and accuracy, control of special processes, control of material storage, corrective action, and document control. Although these deficiencies were considered as less serious than those described in Violation I and have been categorized as Severity Level IV violations, the numerous deficiencies in the areas of design control and procedural adequacy and adherence demon- j strate the need for increased management attention in these areas.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your l response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. You may reference previous correspon-dence or discussions which described your actions taken to correct the violations.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will detennine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
i NUREG-0940 1.A-42 I
Omaha Public Power District E"' Y ! T*7 The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, b (- V hff ._,
obert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:
W. G. Gates, Manager Fort Calhoun Station P. O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae ,
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW l Washington, DC 20036 Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director l
l NUREG-0940 1.A-43
l
/
NOTICEOFVIOL{ TION AND l .
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF / CIVIL PENALTY l
'l Omaha Public Power District Docket No. 50-285 Fort Calhoun Station License No. DPR-40 EA 86-176 During an NRC Safety System Outage Modification Inspection (SSOMI) conducted on September 16-20, 30, and October 1-8, 1985 (documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-285/85-22), and on November 6-8, 18-22, and December 9-17,1985(documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-285/85-29), a number of violations of NRC requirements were identified. The violations involved the design change and design change implementation programs related to the 1985 refueling outage. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement l Actions," 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the Nucle g Regulatory Commission l proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Sectior. 2 A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5 2282, (ACT)), and 10 C.F.R. % 2.205, i The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below: (
- l. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 C.F.R. % 50.59(a) allows the holder of a license to make changes in the facility as described in the safety n alysis report (SAR) without prior Comission approval unless it involves a change in the technical specifi-cations or involves an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety question is created if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of eouipment important to safety previously i evaluated in the SAR may be increased, if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be created, or if the margin of safety as defined in the basis ,
for any technical specification is reduced. il li 10 C.F.R. 6 50.59(b) requires, in part, that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute i changes in the facility as described in the SAR. These records shall i include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Section 14.14 of the Fort Calhoun Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) states that during a steam generator tube rupture incident, gaseous fission products would be released to atmosphere from the secondary system at the condenser vacuum pump discharge. Those fission products not discharged in this way would be retained by the main steam, feedwater and condensate systems.
Contrary to the above:
- 1. From March 1980 to January 1985, the licensee failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 E0.59 in that a change was made to the facility as described in the USAR without conducting and documenting .
a review to determine that the change did not involve an unreviewed l
'l 1
NUREG-0940 1.A-44
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Omana Public Power District Docket No. 50-285 :
Fort Calhoun Station License No. DPR-40 EA 86-176 During an NRC Safety System Outage Modification Inspection (SS0MI) conducted on September 16-20, 30, and October 1-8, 1985 (documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-285/85-22), and on November 6-8, 18-22, and December 9-17,1985(documented in NRC hspection Report No. 50-285/85-29), a number of violations of NRC requirements were identified. The violations involved the design change and design change implementation progv.ms related to the 1985 refueling outage. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5 2282, (ACT)), and 10 C.F.R. 9 2.205.
The particular 5iolations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 C.F.R. 5 50.59(a) allows the holder of a license to make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report (SAR) without prior Commission approval unless it involves a change in the technical specifi-cations or involves an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety qu'stion e is created if the probability of occurrence or the consequences )
of an accident or malfunction of eauipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be created, or if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
i 10 C.F.R. 6 50.59(b) requires, in part, that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the SAR. These records shall l include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the i determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety l question. j l
Section 14.14 of the Fort Calhoun Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) states that during a steam generator tube rupture incident, gaseous fission products would be released to atmosphere from the secondary system at the condenser vacuum pump discharge. Those fission products not discharged in this way would be retained by the main steam, feedwater and condensate systems.
Contrary to the above: 1
- 1. From March 1980 to Jcnuary 1985, the licensee failed to meet the !
requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.59 in that a change was made to the l facility as described in the USAR without conducting and documenting i i
a review to detennine that the change did not involve an unreviewed l
i NUREG-0940 1.A-44 i
l Notice of Violation )
l 1
safety question. The change to the facility involved the modifi-cation of the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine common steam admit i valve (YCV-1045) from the " fail close" to the " fail open" design !
mode, completed in March 1980, without the addition of a safety- i related air accumulator system for the individual ' fail open" steam i supply valves (YCV-1045 A and B). The inability to close the " fail !
open" steam supply valves upon the loss of non-safety-related instru-ment air would result in an additional fission product release path, not analyzed in the USAR, for a steam generator tube rupture incident.
Consequently, the change involved an unreviewed safety question because the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR may have been increased.
- 2. On January 15, 1985 the licensee improperly analyzed the change to its facility as described above and concluded that an unreviewed !
safety question did not exist when, in fact, an unreviewed safety question did exist.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty '
A. 10 C.F.R. D 50.59(a)(1) states, in part, that the licensee may make j changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, I
without prior Commission approval, unless a propose change involves
( an unreviewed safety question. "
10 C.F.R. 6 50.59(b) requires, in part, that records of changes in the facility shall be maintained and the records shall include written safety evaluations which provide the bases for the determination that the changes do not involve unreviewed safety questions.
Contrary to the above, documented safety evaluations to determine ;
whether changes constituted unreviewed. safety questions were not '
available for:
- 1. Five(5)modificationstononsafety-relatedsystemsdescribed in the USAR. (InspectionReport(IR) 50-285/85-22, Deficiency (D)6.1-1)
- 2. The installation of lead shielding which had existed on safety-related piping for at least the past 21 years.
(IR50-285/85-29,D2.2-1)
- 3. A design change involving a penetration through a fire barrier which had been completed for several years. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.2-2)
NUREG-0940 I.A-45
Notice of Violation 4. Safety-related electrical jumpers which had been installed for as long as 18 months. (IR50-285/85-29,02.2-3)
- 5. Three emergency modifications performed in 1983 and 1984 !
(MR 483-129 and MR 483-152 associated with the emergency diesel generators, and MR 484-84 associated with safety injection valves). (IR 50-285/85-22, Unresolved Item'(U) 6.1-2)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement !).
C. Technical Specification, Section 2.19(8), requires, in part, that a I continuous fire watch be posted and backup fire suppression equipment be )
provided when the Halon fire suppression system is disabled in the 1 switchgear room. l l
Contrary to the above, no continuous fire' watch or backup-fire I suppression equipment were provided in the switchgear room during j December 6-10, 1985, when the Halon fire suppression system was i disabled. (IR50-285/85-29,D2.4-2)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
C. Technical Specification 5.8.2 requires that procedures, which meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 5.1 and 5.3 of-ANSI NI8.7-1972 and thereto, shall beAppendix A of reviewed by theUSNRC Regulatory Plant Review GuidePRC)and Committee 1.33,(and changes approved by the Manager, Fort Calhoun Station, prior to implementation.
Contrary to the above, procedsre change 13494 to Operating Instruction 01-FW-3 for the steam generato,' level control was not reviewed by the PRC until November 8, 1986, after both the approval of the change by the Plant Manager on November 2, 1984 and implementation of the change on Novenber 1,1984 (IR50-285/85-29,D2.3-3) -
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
l D. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to control design activities.
4 The OPPD Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), Section A,4, Design Control, implements this requirement and commits the licensee to the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.64/ ANSI N45.2.11 - 1974
{
ANSI N45.2.11, Section 3.0, "Dcsign Impact Requirements;" Section 4.0, ;
" Design Process;" Section 5.0, " Interface Control;" Section 6.0, !
" Design Verification;" and Section 8.0, " Design Change Control" !
require, in part, that design activities are to be controlled and planned in a manner that is correct and traceable and design changes are to be subject to design control measures connensurate with those l applied to the original design.
l NUREG-0940 I.A-46
i Notice of Violation Contrary to the above-1 I
- 1. The calculation associated with modification MR-FC-81-21.8, )
regarding containment isolation valves (HCV-438B and ilCV-4380) in the component cooling water system supply and return lines, contained incorrect and inappropriate assumptions without l identification of their sources or justification for their .
l use. (IR 50-285/85-22, 02.2-1)
{
- 2. The plant design specifications used for plant piping and equipment were not controlled and subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design. (IR 50-285/85-22, D3.1-1)
- 3. The design inputs for modification MR-FC-84-162 were not controlled nor the final design related and traceable back to the source of design. (IR 50-PB5/85-22, 03.2-3) 4 The operating and accident temperatures developed as design 1 input for piping analyses pursuant to IE Bulletin 79-14 were not subject to design control measures namensurate with those appliedtotheoriginaldesign, including IR50-285/85-22,D3.1-2) necessary control of design interfaces. (provisionsfor J
- 5. The support spacing criteria differed from the seismic design criteria detailed in the USAR for piping penetrating the l containment. (IR50-285/85-22,U3.1-3)
- 6. An adequate design analysis was not performed to support the I sizing of air accumulators for valves YCV-1045A/B. (IR 50-285/85-22, 02.1-1)
- 7. The support for the modification of junction box JB-432A, which supplies power for auxiliary feedv:ater turbine steam admission valve (YCV-1045B), was not subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design in that the junction box was restrained by a pair of unistrut supports, which were in turn, supported by conduits. No seismic analysis l for the configuration was performed. (IR50-285/85-22,D3.2-4) l l
- 8. The design verifier did not ensure that the seismic l requirements were correctly selected and incorporated for modification MR-FC-83-158. (IRS 0-285/85-22,02.1-2)
- 9. The design engineer in the OPPD Generating Station Engineering organization did not refer to the original design analysis when preparing modification MR-FC-81-21B. This resulted in a safety evaluation based on an incorrect assumption and methodology'for the com D2.2-6)ponent cooling water system heat loading. (IR50-285/85-22, This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
NUREG-0940 1,A-47
Notice of Violation - 5'-
E. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, Procurement Document Control, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements which are necessar.y to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in documents for procurement'of equipment and services.
The OPPD QAP, Section A.5, " Procurement Document Control," implements this requirement, and specifies the establishment of procedures to ensure that quality data be included in procurement documents.
Contrary to the above:
- 1. The procurement document for services associated with valves HCV-438B and HCV-438D (Modification MR-FC-81-21B completed in 1983) did not address seismic analysis requirements. (IR50-285/85-22,D2.2-2)
- 2. The procurement documents for the steam generator nozzle dams ;
(Modification MR-FC-84-92) did not address seismic requirements.
(IR50-285/85-22,D3.2-6)
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I). )
l F. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, I and Drawings, requires, in part, that activities that affect quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, and drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appro-priate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria.
OPPD QAP, Section A.6, " Instructions, Procedures,.and Drawings,"
implements this' requirement, and specifies, in part,-that quality-related activities for plant operations,' fabrication, processing, assembly, inspection, and. test be accomplished in accordance with the instructions, procedures, or drawings and that such documentation adequately reflects all applicable quality requirements and contain the appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria (such as dimensions, tolerances, and samples) for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above:
- 1. Instructions, procedures, or drawings were not adequate or appropriate for controlling the following safety-related ,
activities. l
- a. The installation / testing procedures for modifications MR-FC-83-158 and MR-FC-81-21B were incomplete in that they did not contain acceptance criteria for acceptable air leakage and would not have confirmed that the modifications produced the expected results. (IR50-285/ 1 85-22, D2.1-7 and IR 50-285/85-22, D2.2-3)
NUREG-0940 I.A-48 j l
i
Notice of Violation b. The test procedure included in MR-84-119 (replacement of instrument inverters) did not contain adequate l requirements for verifying acceptance during load testing j of battery charger #3. (IR50-285/85-29,D2.8-1)
- c. The test procedures included in MR 84-74A (fuse protection for limit switches) did not include adequate requirements for the testing of the fuse protection for the limit switches. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.8-2)
- d. The installation procedure for MR 83-158 (addition of air accumulators) did not contain adequate instructions ,
regarding tubing configuration and accumulator tank locations. (IR 285/85-29, D2.5-2)
- e. The installation instruction for MR 84-94A (fuse protection for limit switches) did not contain adequate detail to ensure that a 10% random inspection of splices was performed as required. This procedural problem was I also noted in MR 85-009 and MR 84-179. (IR50-285/85-29,02.4-1)
- f. The installation procedure for MR 84-61 (union installation of SIT relief valves) did not provide a {
I caution statement or a hold point for verification of the 1
' protection of the valve 0-rings during welding.
(IR 50-285/85-29, D2.4-1)
- g. The installation procedure for MR-84-105 (replacement of 4160/480 volt transformers) did not provide adequate inspection requirements and hold points for visual i inspections of the base welds by QC. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.4-1) l
- h. The installation procedure for MR 85-42 (replace valve MS-100) did not provide sufficient detailed instructions to assure adequate cor. duct of the safety-related i maintenance activities. (IR50-285/85-29,D2.4-1) )
- 1. The installation procedure for MR 83-158 (addition of air accumulators) regarding safety-related seismic instrument tubing did not provide installation criteria for the tubing or seismic supports and did not reference the applicable Stone and Webster guideline for the installation of seismic tubing and supports. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.4-1)
- j. The installation procedure for MR 85-62 (replacement of
( CCW flow element) did not provide instructions or provide l
reference to another instruction for the proper makeup of a l
flanged joint which was found to be out of parallel by approximately .030" and was leaking. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.4-1 and IR 50-285/85-29, D2.5-5)
NUREG-0940 I.A-49
Notice of Violation k. The installation instructions for MC 84-140 (delta T power process loops) were inadequate in that safety-related cables EC10483 and ED10484 were tie-wrapped to nonsafety-related cables in two electrical panels (Al-216 and A-217), contrary to USAR, Section 8.5.1.1.
(IR50-285/85-29,D2.5-6)
- 1. The flow diagram for the Main Steam System (11405-M-252) was not correct or current with the as-installed arrangement in the plant. (IR50-285/85-22,D2.1-8)
- m. The system descriptions for the Auxiliary Feedwater System .
(III-4), Compressed Air System (111-10), and Component '
Cooling _ Water System (I-7) were incorrect and not updated following completion of modifications as required by the Station Systems Acceptance format. (IR50-285/85-22,02.1-9)
- 2. Instructions, procedures, or drawings were not followed ;
regarding the following safety-related activities: !
- a. The seismic restraint for valve YCV-10458 was not completed in accordance with the specifications for MR-FC-81-127. (IR50-285/85-22,D3.2-7)
- b. The installation procedure for MR 81-80 (seismic supports on masonry wall) was not folicwed in that work was allowed to proceed without the verification of material adequacy ,
required by a QC hold point and the shift supervisor was 1 i
not notified through prior toroom the battery proceeding wall. (with drilling holes IR50-285/85-29,D2.4-2)
- c. Station Procedures 50 G21, " Station Modification Control,"
and SO G26A, " Quality Control Program," were not followed '
in that inspectors, who were not Level III certified, reviewed and approved procedures for adequacy of QC hold points. Also the engineers writing the procedures were not Level III certified. (IR50-285/85-29,D2.4-2)
- d. The controlling procedure Standing Order 0-20, " Equipment Tagging," was not followed in that the documented shift supervisor review was not provided for work in progress for tagging out breakers BKR CB-5 and CK4-33 during the performance of MR 84-119 (replacement of instrument inverters). (IR50-285/85-29,D2.4-2)
- e. The maximum unsupported span requirement of 4 feet 6 inches specified in Section 4.2.2 of the Stone and i Webster instancesguideline for seismic in modification tubing addition MR 83-158 (was violated of air in four accumulators). (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.5-2)
NUREG-0940 1.A-50
I Notice of Violation - 8.-
- f. The installation procedure for MR 84-61 (union j
. installation on SIT. relief valves) was not followed in I that the unions were~ installed incorrectly. (IR50-285/85-29,. !
D2.4-2)
- g. The-installation requirements for MR 84-61 (union installation on SIT relief. valves) was not followed in that the installed relief valves on SI tank 6B were incorrectly identified. -(IR 50-285/85-29, D2.5-4)
- h. The Station Procedure 50 G-30, "Setpoint/ Procedure Changes," requirements were not followed in that training i associated with procedure change 13494 was not provided 1 prior to implementing the change. The procedure change was dated on November 2, 1984, and the training sheets were not issued to operators until November 5, 1984 (IR50-285/85-29,02.3-4)
I
- i. The design verification review for MR-FC-85-158 (addition {
of air accumulators) was not provided for the installation 1 of these items as required by GSE-Design Procedure B-2.
(IR 50-285/85-22, D2.1-6)
)
- j. The verification or checking of the adequacy of the design 1 inputs, such as load tables used and the reliance on earlier nonverified calculations, for MR-FC-84-119 (battery charger and inverter replacement) were not provided as required by 0 PPD Procedure GSE-B-11. (IR50-285/85-22,D5.1-1) .
- k. Changes to drawings 11405-M-1, " Containment Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling," and 11405-2, " Auxiliary Building Heating and Ventilation," were not adequately controlled in accordance with OPPD Procedure GSE-A-9.in that changes were made to the drawings contained in modification package MR-FC-82-178 based only on engineering sketches. (IR 50-285/85-22, D4.5-1)
- 1. Computer calculations associated with cable derating factors resulting from installing a fire wrapping system for modification MR-FC-85 25 were not verified in 1 accordance with OPPD Procedure GSE-B-11. (IR 50-285/85-22, j D5.2-1)
J
- m. Weld inspections were not accomplished by QC as required 4 by Section 5.22 of GSEE-0517 for the transformer base welds to embedments for modification MR 84-105 (replacement of 4160/480 volttransformers). (IR50-285/85-29,.D2.5-7)
ThisisaSeverityLevelIV. violation (Supplements).
i NUREG-0940 I.A-51 t --
1
Notice of Violation G. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, " Document Control,"
requires, in part, that measures be established to control the issuance of documents, including changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality. ,
The OPPD QAP, Section A 7, " Document Control," implements this requirement and requires, in part, that document control requirements are to be established to assure tilat documents, including changes and documents related to contractors and subcontractors activities, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnei and are distributed to the location where the prescribed activity is performed.
Contrary to the above:
- 1. The control of construction drawings in the following construction packages was inadequate in that-(IR 50-285/85-29, 02.3-1) !
- a. MR 85-009 (replace penetration subassemblies) and MR 84-119 (replace inverters) contained construction drawings not on the drawing list.
- b. MR 84-119 (replace inverters) contained drawings with incorrect revision numbers, a wrong number in the drawing list, and two drawings (same revision and date) with different information. i
- c. MR 83-158 (addition of accumulators) had no Piping and l Installation Diagrams (Pa!Ds) in the construction package. l l
- 2. Drawing file number 39881 for MR 84-105 (replacement of i 4160/480 volt transformers) contained pen and ink markups and l changes to indicate clarification to the weld symbolism and no field change number was entered and approved. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.3-5)
- 3. Installation procedures for MR 84-96 (replace HFA rela MR84-51(replaceDresser-Hancockvalves);MR83-158(ys), addition of air accumulators), and MR 84-61 (union installation on SIT relief valves) contained pen and ink changes and additions l without approved field changes or procedure changes being provided in accordance with 50 G-30 (IR50-285/85-29,02.3-2) ;
4 Loop calibration procedures for CP-X/905 and CP-X/902 {
associated with MR 85-009 (replacement of penetration j subassemblies) contained seven procedure revisions without j approved field changes being provided in accordance with j SO G-30. (IR 50-285/85-29, 02.3-6)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
NUREG-0940 I.A-52 t 1
R i
Notice of Violation H. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, Control of Special Processes, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure special processes are controlled.
OPPD QAP, Section A.10, " Control of Special Processes," implements this requirement and requires, in part, thet written procedures and controls be prepared to assure that special processes, including ;
welding and nondestructive testing, are accomplished by qualified i personnel using qualified procedures in accordance with the appli .
cable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special ,
requirements.
Contrary to the above, the control of welding and nondestructive examination was inadequate in that:
- 1. The weld on SIT 6B relief valve unions (MR 84-061) contained an unacceptable crater pit in the lower pipe weld and had been '
previously accepted by OC. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.6-1)
- 2. The safety-related nonisolable socket weld on MS-100 (MR 85-042) bsd been inspected and accepted by QC but was found to be unacceptable and had to be repaired. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.5-1 and IR 50-285/85-29, 02.6-1)
- 3. Dye penetrant inspections for MR 85-062 (replacement of CCW flow element) were found to have been accomplished and accepted at surface temperatures below the minimum allowed by procedures. The inspections were redone and two of four welds examined were found to be unacceptable because of linear indications. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.6-1) 4 A procedure for standard flat plate 90 fillet welds was used to accomplish skewed fillet welds, plug welds, pipe boss attachment welds, and seal welds for modification packages MR 84-162 (containment HVAC supports) and MR 85-62 (replacement of CCW flow element) installed during the 1985 outage. ,
(IR50-285/85-29,D2.6-2) !
- 5. Welds completed during the outage on seismic conduit supports and installation of the conduit and supports for MR 84-140 l (delta T power process loops) did not conform to the installation procedure design details. (IR50-285/85-29,02.5-6)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
- 1. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII, Handling, Storage and Shipping, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning and preservation of material and equipment.
NUREG-0940 1.A-53
Notice of Violation OPPD QAP, Section A.14, " Handling, Storage, and Shipping," implements this and requires, in part, that instructions or guidance for plant handling, preservation, storage, and control (including identification and segregation) of products are prepared and approved prior to arrival of the products at the plant.
Contrary to the.above, the program for the control of material in storage was inadequate in that:
- 1. Level B safety-related material was stored in a Level C storage area for up to 19 months. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.9-2)
- 2. Examples were found of safety-related material for which identification tags did not agree with material markings or other material documentation. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.9-2)
- 3. Quality control surveillance of temporary safety-related storage areas were not accomplished on the required monthly basis. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.9-3) l
- 4. Damaged safety-related cable was stored in Temporary CQE Storage Area 4 (IR50-285/85-29,D2.9-1) 1
- 5. Nonsafety related material was stored in safety-related i temporary CQE Storage Area 17. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.9-1) I
- 6. Safety-related material was found in Temporary Storege Area 14 without the required quality assurance acceptance tags. l (IR50-285/85-29,D2.9-1)
]
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
J. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected.
The OPPD QAP, Section A.17, " Corrective Action," implements this and requires, in cart, that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified, reported, and corrected.
Contrary to the above adequate corrective actions were not taken for two areas:
- 1. The installation of lead shielding continued without adequate controls af ter inspections by INP0 in 1982 and 1984 had identified difficulties in the program, and after an IE Information Notice had been issued in 1983 addressing installation of lead shielding. (IR 50-285/85-29, D2.10-1)
- 2. No program existed for the resolution of discrepancies identified by the System Acceptance Committee for those plant modifications which were accepted for system operaticn by the committee with outstanding discrepancies. (IR50-285/85-29,D2.10-2)
ThisisaSeverityLevelIVviolation(Supplements)
NUREG-0940 I.A-54
Notice of Violation Pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.201, Omaha Public Power District is '
hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the l Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611 Ryan ]
Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the date of i this Notice a written statement or explanation, including 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 which 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, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order 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. 9 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.201, Omaha Public Power District may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draf t, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should Omaha Public Power District fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, wili issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Omaha Public Power District elect to file an ;
I answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such '
answer 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 five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.201 but may incorporate parts of the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and )
paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. Omaha Public Power District's attention j is directed to the other provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.205, regarding the procedure l for imposing a civil penalty.
NUREG-0940 I.A-55
Notice of. Violation Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has been subsequently determined in1accordance.with the applicable provisions of 10 C.F.R. 9 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. 5 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,?? .
/
{Ehto 4%! 'bff?cm Robert D. Martin' Regional Administrator.
Dated at Arlington,' Texas, this,Q4 8W ay of January 1987..
l l
i I
(
NUREG-0940 I A-56 i
UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h WASHINGTON. D. C. 20566
- ,. l
\*...+ SEP 1. 0 1987 Docket No. S'0-285 License No. DPR-40 ,
EA 86-176 -l l
Omaha Public Power District I ATTN: R. L. Andrews, Division Manager l Nuclear Production l 1623 Narney Street l Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY This refers to p ur letter dated April 10, 1987, in response to the Notice of ,
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you by our letter i i
dated January 26, 1987. Our letter and Notice described violations identified during the NRC Safety System Outage Modification Inspections (SSOMI) conducted during the periods of September 16-20, 30, October 1-8, November 6-8, 18-22, anc December 9-17, 1985, of activities at the Fort Calhoun Station.
To eghasize the need for improved management attention in the area of h CFR 50.59 reviews, a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) was proposed, j In your response to Violation 1, for which a civil penalty was assessed, you j admit the violation occurred as stated in the Notice; however, you requested l reduction in the severity level and remission of the civil penalty. After consideration of your response, we have concluded for the reasons given in the Appendix attached to the enclosed Order I gosing Civil Monetary Penalty that Violation I did occur as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, and that you did not provide in your response a sufficient basis for reducing the severity level of the violation or remitting the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order i on Omaha Public Power District imposing a civil monetary penalty in the amount I of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). Lle will review the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent in',pection.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
, Al rw M4/
Ja .s M. Taylor /, Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations
Enclosures:
See next page CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 1.A-57
' Omaha Public Power District
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska Radiation Control Program Directer l
l 4
NUREG-0940 I.A-58 L____________________..____________._-_____--_________---
UNITED STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-285 Omaha Public Power District ) License No. ' DPR-40 (Fort Calhoun Station) ) EA 86-176 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
0maha Public Power District (licensee) is the holder of operating License No.
DPR-40 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC/Connission) on August 19, 1973. The license authorizes the licensee to operate the Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with the conditions specified thercin.
II A special inspection of the licensee's activities was conducted during ;
September 16-20, 30, October 1-8, November 6-8, 18-22, and December 9-17, 1985.
The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated January 26, 1987. The Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for Violation I. The licensee responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil i Penalty by letter dated April 10, 1987.
NUREG-0940 I.A-59
-2 III i
After, consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and request for reduction of severity level and remission of the civil penalty contained therein, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, that Violation I occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for Violation I 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 (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
l 1
l The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000) within 30 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 Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission, ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555.
The licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order. A .
i request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
l l NUREG-0940 1.A-60 l
i Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region IV, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Fort Calhoun Station.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
i (a) whether the licensee was in violation of the Comission's requirements as I set forth in Violation I of the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty referenced in Section II above, and l
I (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0t
, l M
~
a s M. Tay1 , Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations !
i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, l this iv' day of September 1987.
NUREG-0940 I.A-61 l
APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On January 26, 1987 a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil 4 Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified during a'n NRC inspection.
Omaha Public Power District responded to the Notice on April 10, 1987. The licensee admitted that Violation I occurred as stated in the Notice; however, the licensee requested reduction of the severity level and remission of the civil penalty. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
Restatement of Violation ! ,
10 CFR 50.59(a) allows the holder of a license to make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report (S/A) without prior Comission '
approval unless it involves a change in the technical specifications or involves an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety. question is created if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be created, or if the nargin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
10 CFR 50.59(b) requires, in part, that the licensee mainta.in records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute changes in l the facility as described in the SAR. These records shall include a written safety evaluation dich provides the basis for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question. ^
Section 14.14 of the Fort Calhoun Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) states that during a steam generator tube rupture incident, gaseous fission products would be released to atmosphere from the secondary system at the condenser vacuum pump discharge. Those fission products not discharged in this way would be retained by the main steam, feedwater and cc fensate systems.
Contrary to the above:
- 1. From March 1980 to January 1985, the licensee failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 in that a change was made to the facility as described in the USAR without conducting and documenting a review to determine that the change did not involve an unreviewed safety question. l The change to the facility involved the modification of the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine common steam admit valve (YCV-1045) from the " fail close" to the " fail open" design mode, completed in March 1980, without ;
the addition of a safety-related air accumulator system for the individual i
" fail open" steam supply valves (YCV-1045 A and B). The inability to close the " fail open" steam supply valves upon the loss of j non-safety-related instrument air would result in an additional fission i product release path, not analyzed in the USAR, for a steam generator tube i rupture incident. Consequently, the change involved an unreviewed safety "
question because the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR may have been increased. '
l NUREG-0940 1.A-62 e
L---___ ___ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - --- - o
Appendix 2. On January 15, 1985, the licensee improperly analyzed the change to its facility as described above and concluded that an unreviewed safety question did not exist when, in fact, an unreviewed safety question did exist.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee admits that Violation I occurred but requests remission of the civil penalty based on reevaluation of the violation's severity level. The licensee reviewed the modification to YCV-1045 and admits that previous evaluations of the modification were not sufficiently comprehensive. However, it was concluded that the modification constituted a system enhancement and that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
In evaluating whether the consequences of an accident, previously evaluated in the USAR may have been increased, the licensee identified three specific events as potentially impacted by the new " fail open" mode of YCV-1045. Of the analyses of the three events, only the analysis for the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event demonstrated an increased impact, revealing a small increase in the radiological consequences. Because the SGTR analysis of Section 14.14.5 of the USAR remained the bounding analysis; the licensee argues that neither the probability of occurrence or consequences of an equipment malfunction or accident previously identified were increased. To further l support this conclusion the licensee discusses the probable existence of the release path directly to the atmosphere upon loss of instrument air when YCV-104!
- was a " fail close" valve. The licensee argues that even as a " fail close" valve, YCV-1045 would have opened on residual system air pressure, so that the release path would have previously existed and was not created by the trodification.
The licensee's response also addresses the other criteria for an unreviewed safety question delineated in 10 CFR 50.59 and concludes neither was applicable.
In the licensee's review of whether the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is reduced, the discussion focuses on containment integrity. The licensee concludes that, because YCV-1045 is required to be open during certain accident conditions, containment integrity is unaffected by the valve's " fail open" design.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The NRC staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's response and has concluded that an unreviewed safety question did exist. The staff agrees with the I
licensee that with the modification of YCV-1045 to a " fail open" valve, system reliability was improved. However, the improvement of reliability without the addition of safety-related accumulators for valves YCV-1045 A/B introduced an unanalyzed release path through YCV-1045. A sufficiently comprehensive safety analysis / safety evaluation performed in 1979, 1983, or 1985 should have identified that the modification resulted in the introduction of a steam release path to the environment which was not previously considered in USAR Section NUREG-0940 1.A-63
Appendix 14.14.2 and which, as demonstrated by the licensee, increased the radiological consequences of the SGTR event. Contrary to the licensee's argument, the consequences of a configuration change to a system described in the safety analysis report do not have to exceed those of the bounding analysis to constitute an unreviewed safety question. The consequences of a change in a system configuration need only result in an increase in the consequences of an accident when compared to those for that accident as previously analyzed.
If the specific accident conditions were not previously analyzed then an
! unreviewed safety question exists until the analysis is performed.
With regard to the licensee's argument that the release path existed prior to the modification because sufficient instrument air pressure would have l remained in the system to open YCV-1045, the NRC staff concludes that this is ,
only a supposition. The licensee has not provided any factual basis in the form of an analysis to support this hypothesis.
Since Violation I only addressed the existence of an unreviewed safety question because the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR may have been increased (10 CFR 50.59(2)(1)), the staff did nos review in detail the licensee's response addressing the other criteria for an unreviewed safety question. However, the staff does not agree with the licensee's contention regarding containment isolation in that, the licensee did not adequately address the containment isolation function of valve YCV-1045, since the valve, along with valves HCV-1041 and 1042, provides isolation capability for a system closed to the containment atmosphere. The modified " fail open" mode of valve YCV-1045 no longer provided the isolation function as designed. As such, during a loss-of-coolant accident, concurrent with steam generator leakage, a continuing release of radioactive steam to the environment via YCV-1045 would occur until the valve was isolated manually-locally.
Consequently, because between March 1980 and January 1985 an unreviewed safety question did exist when valve YCV-1045 was modified, the violation is appro-priately categorized as a Severity Level III violation and therefore, the licensee's request for remission of the civil penalty based on the reduction in severity level of the violation is not deemed to be appropriate.
NRC Conclusion After careful consideration of the licensee's response, the NRC staff concludes that the violation is significant in that an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 existed and the violation is appropriately classified as a Severity Level III violation. Further, the licensee has not provided a sufficient basis for remission of the civil penalty. Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) should be imposed.
NUREG-0940 I.A-64 i
i
l t>Q MULq'o
, UNITED STATES
!'- Ego NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ ,E REGION I :
S e 631 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
-% * * . . g, JUL 2 91987 Docket Nos. 50-277; 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44; DPR-56 i EA 87-88 j Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. J. W. Gallagher i Vice President Nuclear Operations 2301_ Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC Combined Inspection Reports Nos. 50-277/87-11; 50-278/87-11)
This refers to the NRC inspection conducted on April 9, 1987 at your, corporate offices in Philadelphia concerning activities authorized by NRC License Nos.
OPR-44 and DPR-56 at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power St; tion. .The inspection report was sent to you by letter dated May 6,1987. The inspection was conducted to review and determine the status of numerous examples of a violation of fire protection requirements identified by your staff during a confirmatory review and analysis of the fire protection program at Peach Bottom. On June 3, 1987, an enforcement conference was conducted with Mr. S. Kowalski and other members of Philadelphia Electric Company:to discuss the violations, their causes and your corrective actions.
The violation described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) involves numerous examples of the failure to satisfy the fire protection requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. The examples indicate a failure to provide a means for maintaining one redundant train of_ systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions free of fire damage located.in the same fire area outside of primary containment. The violations are of significant concern to the NRC because of (1) the number of deficiencies that existed in the fire protection program at Peach Bottom, and (2) the apparent lack of management attention until af ter the NRC inspection on March 17-21, 1986 (Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/86-08; 50-278/86-08) which concluded that compliance could not be fully ascertained due to the incompleteness of the fire hazards analysis. Thereafter, when the licensee proceeded to improve its fire hazards analysis, the violation was identified.
NUREG-0940 I.A-65
Philadelphia Electric Company 2 To emphasize the importance of fire protection programs at nuclear power plants and the need for maintaining safe shutdown equipment free of damage in the event of a fire, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, s Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional ,
Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the violation described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized in the aggregate at Severity Level III.
The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy have been reviewed.
Based on multiple examples of the violation and the duration of the problem, escalation was considered. However, since the violaticn was licensee identified and prompt and extensive corrective actions have been taken subsequent to this identification, the factors have been balanced and no adjustment in the base civil penalty is deemed appropriate.
Your are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required l
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
I l Sincerely, 1
l iam T. Russell Regional Administrator l
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 1
NUREG"0940 I.A-66
Philadelphia Electric Company 3 cc w/ encl:
Dickinson Smith, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station John S. Kemper, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Production Thomas S. Shaw, Jr., Vice President, Production Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire l W. H. Hirst, Director, Joint Generation Projects Department, '
Atlantic Electric G. Leitch, Nuclear Generation Manager Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel (Without Report)
Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations '
W. M. Alden, Engineer in Charge, Licensing Section Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania l
1 I
i i
I NUREG-0940 I.A-67 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Philadelphia Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-277; 50-278 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station License Nos. DPR-44; DPR-56 Units 2 and 3 EA 87-88 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 9, 1987, NRC inspectors reviewed the circumstances associated with examples of a violation of NRC requirements identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC. 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G 1 requires, in rart, that fire l protection features shall be provided for structures, systems and components important to safe shutdown. These features shall be capable of
)
limiting fire damage so that one train of. systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions from either the control room or emergency control stations is free of fire damage. ;
Section III.G.2 states, in part, that where cables or equipment of i
redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions are located within the same fire area outside of primary containment, a means of maintaining one of the trains free of fire damage '
shall be provided.
Contrary to the above, the licensee identified to the NRC, in letters dated May 22, September 17, and October 31, 1986, numerous instances where cables and equipment of redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve hot shutdown were located within the same fire area outside of primary containment, and a means of maintaining one of the trains free of fire damage was not provided.
Specific examples of these failures included the following:
l 1. Control power cables for the redundant Emergency Service Water Pumps A and B were located in the same fire area, Fire Area 43 for Units 2 and 3. The operation of one of these pumps is needed for safe shutdown in that they supply service water to the diesel generators, {
the emergency AC power source. )
- 2. Control power cables for the four redundant Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps (Nos. 2AP35, 2BP35, 2CP35 and 2DP25) were in Fire Area j No. 35 of Unit 2. The operation of one of these pumps is needed in j the Suppression Pool Cooling Mode to remove decay heat and achieve i safe shutdown.
l N!) REG-0940 I.A-68 i
l
2
- 3. Reactor Water Level Indicators (Nos. LI3-2-3-85A, LI3-2-3-85-B, LI3-2-3-86, LR3-2-3-110A, LR3-2-3-110B), Reactor Pressure Indicators (Nos. PI3-6-90A, PI3-6-90B), and Reactor Pressure Recorders (Nos.
PR3-2-3-404A, PR3-2-3-4048, and PR3-6-96) were located in fire area No. 13N of Unit 3. These indicators and recorders are needed for the monitoring and control of reactor water level and pressure to achieve safe shutdown.
- 4. Various power, control, and indication components of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system, control cables for the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system, and components for the RHR System or the Core Spray (CS) system were located in Fire Area No. 65 of Unit
- 2. The RCIC system, HPCI system, RHR system in the Low Pressure Coolant Injection Mode, and the Core Spray System in conjunction with the manual operation of safety relief valves, are needed to provide coolant makeup to the reactor to achieve safe shutdown.
- 5. The instrument air supply copper tubing to the Safety Relief Valves (SRVs) and the redundant nitrogen supply copper tubing to the SRVs l were located in Fire Area No.13S of Unit 3. The tubing is used to i provide pneumatic power for manual operation of the SRVs, which in turn provides for depressurization of the reactor when needed to achieve safe shutdown.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
l Civil Penalty - 550,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia 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. T* reply should be clearly marked as a
" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and : nuuld include (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) 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 a f fi rma tion.
1 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR l 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, O'i ce of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, er - i money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the I civil penalty as 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 NUREG-0940 I.A-69 l
3 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 listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenu-ating 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 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee l 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, Of fice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, at the facility which is the subject of this Notice.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%M . Q W liiam T. Russell l egional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania l
this 77 ay of July 1987 NUREG-0940 I.A-70
- gaaso g
- UNITED STATES 8
$, .h) s )j.( ((o, W"/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V j
% V[pg 0, ' 1450 MARIA LANE,SulTE 210 WALNUT CREEN. CAUFoRNI A 94596 ,
WN 2 51987 ;
Docket No. 50-362 1 i
License No. NPF-15 EA 87-63 Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering, Safety and Licensing Department Gentlemen:
1
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES (NRC INSPECTION REPORT N05. 50-362/86-37 AND 87-13 AND LER NO. 86-15, THROUGH REVISION 2)
This refers to the inspections conducted from December 15, 1986 through May 14, 1987, of activities at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, San Clemente, California. The apparent violations of NRC requirements in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties set forth examples involving radiation safety matters that were precipitated by self-revealing events and have been discussed with your representatives during meetings held at the Region V office on April 10 and May 11, 1987.
The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties involved significant deficiencies in your radiation safety program which included: (1) the failure to adequately control radioactive materials, (2) the failure to perform surveys, (3) an occupational overexposure, and (4) the untimely reporting of the events related to a personnel overexposure.
On December 12, 1986, you reported that a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) worn on the right hand of a maintenance worker engaged in activities during the Unit 3 outage in October 1986 indicated a potential hand exposure of 511.99 rem. Your management system failed to identify and report this exposure in a timely manner. These failures apparently resulted because of a breakdown in the management oversight and control of your personnel dosimetry program. Specifically, computer software used as part of the dosimetry program was not adequately reviewed prior to its use in order to assure that it j operated properly. In addition, the error was not identified in a timely 1 manner even af ter you received a printed copy of the results.
We recognize that you have dedicated significant effort to a review of the I 511.99 rem TLD result and have concluded that you believe the individual probably did not receive the dose indicated by the TLD. Rather, it appears to j
CERTIFIED MAIL l 1
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I j
NUREG-0940 I.A-71
_ - - _ _ _ ___ i
Southern California Edison Company JUN 2 f,1987 be your position that the personnel dosimetry device was defective in some way. Due to the failure to identify the exposure incident in a timely manner, the opportunity was lost to make physical observation of the worker's hand which may have more precisely confirmed the extent of exposure. Nonetheless, the results of our review indicate that the TLD response was most probably from radiation exposure. The individual involved was working on plant systems where highly radioactive particulate fission products were likely to be present. Also, the radiation protection controls being implemented were inadequate to ensure that the worker could not have received a dose to a s' mall part of his right hand on the order of 512 rem. Specifically, the radiological procedures being implemented for the activities that the worker performed did not address the hazard from particulate fission products.
Further, the radiation protection technician providing job coverage had not I been trained in the necessary survey techniques, and the results of surveys that were performed were not documented. All of these facts contribute to the NRC's conclusion that the overexposure occurred.
Our efforts to determine the root,cause of this exposure indicate that, l following your decision to operat'e Unit 3 during Cycle I with a significant number of fuel pin defects, no special confinement controls were implemented for fuel assembly reconstitution during October and November 1985. Although certain members of your facility management were aware of the hazard, your radiation protection staff was not involved in planning the controls to be implemented during fuel reconstitution. Following the dispersal of highly radioactive particles in the fuel handling building in October and November 1985, the radiation protection group focused their efforts on mitigating the consequences of the dispersal, but little was done to confirm or clean up affected systems (i.e., reactor coolant, and associated spent fuel pool systems) notwithstanding written requests made by your radiation protection group in November 1985 and April 1986. This lack of integrated management involvement also greatly contributed to the exposure incident.
l l While your actions to improve radiation protection measures following the identified exposure incident appeared comprehensive during December 1986 and January 1987, three instances in February 1987 indicate that the measures were not totally effective in limiting unnecessary exposure to workers and precluding the release of small particles of licensed radioactive material to unrestricted areas. These examples demonstrated a continued need to improve your training of personnel and to provide sufficient management oversight to ensure that your radiation safety program directions are being carried out.
To emphasize the need for continued improvement in the radiological controls area, in particular the implementation of your dosimetry program, and to j emphasize the need to assure the timely reporting of exposure incidents, I ;
have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of i Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, ,
Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized as three separate Severity Level III j violations or problems. l NUREG-0940 1.A-72 l
Southern California Edison Company M 2 519s The violation involving the 512 rem exposure could have been classified individually at a Severity Level I. However, because of the limited health' implications of this, most likely, very localized exposure, a Severity Level I characterization is deemed to be inappropriate. The violation is being categorized at a Severity Level III because the overexposure is of significar.t regulatory concern. A civil penalty is not being proposed for the exposure violation to focus your attention on the broader area of control of highly radioactive particulate material. The violations associated with the control of radioactive material have been aggrega.ed into a separate Severity Level III problem for which a civil penalty is proposed. Similarly, to focus your attention on the management breakdown associated with your dosimetry program, which resulted in a failure to make a required report to the NRC, this reporting violation was set out as a separate Severity Level III violation for which a civil penalty is proposed.
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation or '
problem is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered. Your past performance (SALP Category 1 in 1 radiological controls) and the comprehensive corrective actions being-implemented were considered to be sufficient to offset the prior notice of similar problems at your facility involving highly radioactive particles, your initial ineffective corrective action and the multiple examples of failure to. j control particulate licensed material in February 1987. Accordingly, we have concluded that neither mitigation nor escalation is warranted.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional i actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Af ter reviewir.:) your response to this i Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
)
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. '
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and dudget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, l
[!0 -
Regional Administrate
Enclosure:
l Notice of Violation and ;
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty ec w/ enclosure:
D. J. Fogarty, SCE H. B. Ray, SCE (San Clemente)
H. E. Morgan, SCE (San Clemente)
State of CA NUREG-0940 I.A-73
NOTICE OF VIOLATION 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, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 1 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:
- 1. 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 l
maintenance worker received a cumulative exposure to the right hand on 1 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 I a manner as to create radiation levels in any unrestricted area I
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 precent.
Specifically:
(1) On February 2, 1987, a worker at SONGS was surveyed by a whole body contamination monitor, PMB-200, and found to apparently be contaminated. Repeated hand frisking of the suspect area with I an E-140 type detector did not identify the source of con- j 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 i calculated contact dose rate of approximately 400 mrem /hr. J (2) On February 21, 1987, a HP technician discovered a 0.2 micro-curie irradiated fuel f ragment in the carpet of his residence.
The fuel fragment was transferred to the techniciar.'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.
NUREG-0940 I.A-74
Notice of Violation B. 10 CFR 30.41 requires 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 from SONGS on more than one occasion. The removal of the particle i from SONGS constitutes an unauthorized transfer of byproduct material. '
C. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee shall make such surveys es may be necessary to comply with the regulations in Part 20 and are reasonable to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. 10 CFR 20.201(a) defines " survey" as an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, and presence of radioactive materiais. l (1) Contrary to the above, during October 1986, individuals were permitted to engage in maintenance activities involving the reactor coolant and crud tank pumps without making a survey as 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 l unauthorized release of radioactive material and reasonable to evaluate the extent of radiation hazard to the worker was not made prior to allowing him to go home. !
Collectively, Violations II. A, B, and C are a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV). '
i Cumulative civil penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations.)
III. 10 CFR 20.403(a)(1) requires that each licensee shall immediately report 1 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 cr more of radiation. I
)
Contrary to the above, having been informed by electronic data transmission and followup written report on or before November 17, 1986 1 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.
I This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement IV). i l
l Civil Penalty - $50,000. l 1
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 l the Director, Of fice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
- within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly NUREG-0940 I.A-75 l l
i
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 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 af firmation.
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 1 check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in l 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, Of fice 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, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed I in Section V.8 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (J987), should be addressed. Any I 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 r'. ply by specific reference (e.g. , j citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the l 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.
l 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 l Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NUREG-0940 1.A-76
Notice of Violation Commission, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California 94596 and a copy to Mr. Randall Huey, Senior Resident Inspector, at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Regional Administra Dated at Walnut Creek, California this .2(day of June 1987 f
I l
NUREG-0940 I.A-77 I
UNITED STATES y' , , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
f REGloN IV 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE SUITE 1000 k, ,
+# ARLINoToN, TEXAS 76011 Dockets: 50-445 EA 83-64 i
Texas Utilities Generating Company 1 ATTN: R. J. Gary, Executive Vice .
President & General Manager l 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the results of an investigation and hearing conducted by the Department of Labor into a complaint by Mr. Charles A. Atchison. In his- ;
complaint, Mr. Atchison alleged that he was transferred and discharged as a result of writing nonconformance reports while serving as a Quality Control Inspector for Brown & Root, Inc., the prime contractor for construction.of the 1 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. In a. Decision'and Final Order dated June 10, 1983, the Secretary of Labor affirmed that a violation of the employee i protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, '
had occurred in that Mr. Atchison was transferred and fired for engaging in
~
protected activities, the writing of nonconformance reports. '
These adverse actions taken by Brown & Root with respect to a Quality Control Inspector also constitute a significant violation of Criterion I of Appendix 8 l to 10 CFR Part 50. This criterion requires that construction permit holders establish and execute a quality assurance program such that persons and organi--
zations performing quality assurance functions have sufficient,. authority and organizational freedom: (1) to identify quality problems;-(2) to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and (3) to verify implementation of solutions. l Although the work of establishing and executing this program may be. delegated l to others, the construction permit holder retains the responsibility for the l program.
To emphasize the need to assure that your quality assurance program is being properly executed, I have.been authorized after consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the attached Notice of ]
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.in the amount of Forty Thousand j Dollars ($40,000) for the violation set forth therein. This violation has been classified at Severity Level III in accordance with'the NRC Enforcement Policy CERTIFIED MAIL ;
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ;
NUREG-0940 I.A-78
- _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ ___O
Texas Utilities Generating Company (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), published in the Federal Register, 47 FR 9987 (March 9,1982). It is considered to be a significant violation because there was a deficiency ir, the implementation of your quality assurance program for construction and the NRC has determined that QA personnel should in no way be deterred or discouraged from vigorously implementing the QA program.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions in the Notice when preparing your response. Your reply should detail the actions you have taken or plan to take to ensure that there is no chilling ]
effect from the underlying violation of Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorgan-ization Act by your contractor and that all quality assurance program personnel retain the necessary organizational freedom to identify and follow problems to correction. Your reply to this letter and the results of future inspections will be considered in detennining whether further enforcement action is a pprop ria te.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Occument Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget othersise requireo by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
I Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them wi,th you.
, Sincerely,
Original S.aned bw Me 7. COLLINS" John T. Collins Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ enclosures:
Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: M. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 NUREG-0940 I.A-79
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Texas Utilities Generating Company Dockets: 50-445/83-03 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 50-446/83-01 Permits: CPPR-126 CPPR-127 EA 83-64 Based on the results of an investigation and hearing conducted by the Depart-ment of Labor (DOL Case 82-ERA-9) and the resulting Decision and Final Order of the Secretary of Labor dated June 10, 1983, in the case of complainant Charles A. j Atchison, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, j Appendix C), 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the NRC has determined that a significant violation of its regulations has occurred. In order to emphasize the need for an applicant to assure that the quality assurance program is being properly executed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil !
penalty in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for the violation set forth in this Notice. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2282 and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular violations and the associated civil penalty are set forth below:
VIOLATION ASSESSED CIVIL PENALTY 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I, states that construction permit holders are responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program, that they may delegate this work to others such as contractors, but they retain the responsibility for the program. Criterion I further states that persons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems; initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; ano to verify implementation of solutions.
Brown & Root, Inc. (Brown & Root) is the prime contractor for construction of the Comanche Peak facility and has thus been delegated quality assurance functions by the licensee. Brown & Root QA Manual describes Quality Control Inspectors ,
as members of the Quality Assurance Division and states that the Quality Assurance '
Division has been assigned sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
Contrary to the above, the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems in that a Brown & Root Quality Control Inspector was transferred and ,
discharged on April 12, 1982 for filing nonconformance reports identifying I quality problems. l This is a Severity level III violation (Supplement II)
(Civil Penalty - $40,000)
NUREG-0940 1.A-80 I
l
Notice of Violation 2 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Texas Utilities Generating Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Of fice of Inspection !
and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, D.C. , 20555, within 30 days of the date 1 of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for the alleged l violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons l
for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken !
and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid {
further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. (
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 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 Texas Utilities Generating Company may pay the civil penalty in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer. Should the Texas Utilities-Generating Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should the Texas Utilities Generating Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may: (1) deny the violation 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 mitigation of the penalty. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section IV.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C 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 by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The Texas Utilities Generating Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalt/. Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently 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, U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u.) $$<.U John T. Collins Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas this 29 day of August 1983 NUREG-0940 1.A-81
/ 'o UNITED STATES
[_ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\ *****/ August 25,'1987 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 EA 83-64 EA 83-132, and EA 86-63 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTH: Mr. William G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
On August 29,1983 (EA 83-64), December 22, 1983 (EA 83-132), and May 2, 1986 (EA 86-63), the NRC proposed civil penalties against Texas Utilities Generating Company et al. (later changed to Texas Utilities Electric Company ("the Licensee"))
for violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I regarding five Quality Control inspector intimidation incidents alleged to have occurred at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) from April 1982 through March 1984. In letters dated April 9, 1986, April 17, 1986, and June 2, 1986, the Licensee acknowledged tWo of the violations (EA 83-132 and Violation A of EA 86-63) and paid civil penalties totalling $80,000 for these two violations. The purpose of this letter is to take final action on the three remaining alleged violations (EA 83-64 and Violations 8 and C of EA 86-63).
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed Appendix to this letter, I have determined, after consultation with the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, that the violation set forth in EA 83-64 should be withdrarn and that Violations B ana C of 86-63 occurred as stated.
The Licensee has paid $80,000 in civil penalties for two of the five violations for which it has been cited, and has initiated corrective actions to address intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak. These corrective actions have included substantial management and organizational changes and a number of programs to ensure that all employees can report safety concerns without fear of reprisals. The programs have been in effect for some time and appear to have been effective. For example, in an incident described in Board Notification 86-22, dated November 13, 1986 concerning alleged harassment and intimidation of "walkdown engineers" for the Unit 1 cable tray hangers, the Licensee took prompt and effective action.
The purposes of the NRC enforcement program - ensuring compliance with regulations, obtaining prompt correction of violations, deterring future violations, and encouraging improvement of licensee performance - have been substantially achieved through the Licensee's acknowledgement that intimidation and harassment have occurred at Comanche Peak, the Licensee's payment of $80,000
- NUREG-0940 I.A-82
i l
Texas Utilities Generating Company August 25, 1987 in civil penalties for other intimidation and harassment incidents, and implementation of corrective actions. The staff does not believe that further deliberation on the specific circumstances of violation 8 and C of EA 86-63 would serve the purposes of the Commission's Enforcement Policy and, therefore, will not impose civil penalties for these violations. The NRC will continue to review the effectiveness of your corrective actions in subsequent inspections and if other intimidation and harassmeat incidents occur, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, b8 James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects cc: See next page
(
1 l
NUREG-0940 I.A-83 l
1 W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 CC:
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Ropes & Gray Comanche Peak Project Division 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boston, Massachusetts 02110 P. O. Box 1029 Granbury, Texas 76048 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive. Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde '
Dallas, Texas 75201 Government Accountability Project Midwest Office Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr. 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54915-8605 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
11 Pen Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401.New York Avenue, NW Renee Hicks, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman Dallas, Texas 75224 Public Utility Comittee Senior Citizens Alliance Of Ms. Nancy H. Williams Tarra.nt County, Inc.
CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort' Worth, Texas 76133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NUREG-0940 I.A-84
W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Electric' Station Texas Utilities Electric Company- Units 1 and 2 cc:
Joseph F. Fulbright Fulbright & Jaworski 1301 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 Mr. John W. Beck Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o Bethesda-Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland'20814
-William A. Burchette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington 0.C. 20007
)
James M. McGaugby GDS Associates, Inc.
l Suite 450 2525 Cumberland Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339
- Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge .
Oak Ridge National Laboratory ;
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 l Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 l
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp ~
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge .,
881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,
1 NUREG-0940 I.A-85 i
APPENDIX EA 83-64 On August 29, 1983, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV), EA 83-64, was issued for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I. The violation was based on the results of an investigation and hearing by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the resulting Decision and Final Order of the Secretary of Labor dated June 10, 1983 which concluded that a Brown and Root Quality Control (QC) inspector had been transferred and discharged on April 12, 1982 for filing non-conformance reports identifying quality problems.
The NOV alleged that the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
The Licensee responded to the NOV on September 28, 1983, denying the violation and requesting the NRC to stay further enforcement action pending an appeal of the D0L decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On December 10, 1984, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Secretary of Labor's decision holding as a matter of law that no discrimination had occurred because the QC inspector was not engaged in protected activity within the meaning of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. The court did not address the facts of the case. On April 9, 1986, the Licensee renewed its denial of the violation.
In its denials, the Licensee argued that the QC inspector was terminated for lawful and justified management reasons regarding the QC inspector's integrity and not for identifying non-conformances at Comanche Peak. .The Licensee pointed out that the NRC action was based on facts developed in a DOL action regarding alleged discrimination against the discharged QC inspector. The Licensee argued that because the Secretary of Labor's decision in that case was vacated by the Court of Appeals, the NRC should not base its enforcement action on those facts.
The NRC did not conduct its own investigation of the facts associated with the dlleged discrimination. This is an old matter. It concerns events that occurred in April of 1982. It would take a considerable amount of effort for the NRC to establish through its own investigation the facts supporting the alleged violation especially considering that over five years have passed since the violation allegedly occurred. Even if the violation was established by the investigation, it is likely t9at the NRC would be required to go through the resource-intensive effort of proving that the violation occurred in a hearing before the $40,000 penalty could be collected.
During the time this matter was under consideration by D0L and the Court of Appeals, other examples of violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 1 I were identified at Comanche Peak, acknowledged by the Licensee, and corrective actions were initiated. Significant management changes have also occurred since i 1982. The purposes of the NRC enforcement program - ensuring compliance with regulations, obtaining prompt correction of violations, deterring future violations, and encouraging improvement of licensee performance - have been substantially achieved through the Licensee's acknowledgement that intimidation and harassment have occurred at Comanche Peak, the Licensee's payment-of $80,000 !
in civil penalties for other intimidation and harassment incidents, and 4
NUREG-0940 I.A-86 i
Appendix implementation of corrective actions. Therefore, .the staff has concluded this matter should not be pursued further, and that the violation should be withdrawn.
1 EA 86-63 i On May 2,1986, an NOV was issued for three violations identified during an NRC staff review of Office of Investigation (01) reports and an NRC " Report of the i Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees j at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2." The Licensee responded to the NOV on June 2,1986 by paying the proposed civil penalty, $40,000, for one of the violations (Violation A) and requesting the staff to revisit the question of whether the other two alleged violations occurred (Violations B and C).
The Licensee also requested the staff to revisit the question of whether mitigation of the proposed civil penalties for the remaining violations is appropriate.
Regaroing Violation B of EA 86-63, the NOV alleged that the Licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) Program did not provide QA personnel sufficient organizational freedom to identify problems in that in early 1983, a TUEC QC Supervisor made a statement before the QA audit groups that physical or potential harm could come to an auditcr as a result of his audit activities. The NOV asserted that this statement wa > reasonably likely to improperly influence audit findings.
In its response to Violation B, the Licensee argued that it was not provided a copy of OI Report 4-84-050 which provided the basis for this violation.
Although the Licensee acknowledged receiving a synopsis of the 01 report, it
, argued that the synopsis did not disclose a number of material facts, such as l who alleged the QC supervisor had threatened and attempted to intimidate QA l auditors. The Licensee acknowledged, however, that it conducted its own l investigation of the incident which included the actions of the QC supervisor and the perception of his actions by the QA auditors and the Licensee did not deny that the intimidating statement was, in fact, made by the QC supervisor.
The Licensee's denial of the violation was based upon the fact that none of the QA auditors the licensee investigated stated he or she would have been prevented from doing his or her job because of the acticn of the QC supervisor. The Licensee viewed the issue as whether the statement made by the QC supervisor improperly influenced audit findings. Because the Licensee discovered no improperly influenced audit findings, it concluded that the QC supervisor's remarks did not interfere with the organizational freedom of the QA auditors and no violation occurred. Thus, the Licensee had sufficient information to admit or deny the violation and did so.
The Licensee's argument that a violation did not occur because none of the QA auditors were prevented from carrying out his or her job, incorrectly construes the requirement for a finding of a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 1. The Liconsee would seem to require demonstration of an actual failure by a QA auditor to carry out his or her duties as a result of the threatening remarks of the QC supervisor. However, actual impact is not a prerequisite to a violation. A violation with actual impact on QC inspectors or auditors would be viewed as a more serious violation but a licensee may be l '
NUREG-0940 1.A-87 l
t gpendix cited for a violation if sufficient facts are established to show that the actions were reasonably likely to interfere with the inspectors' freedom to report safety concerns. In this case, the statement by the QC supervisor was reasonably likely to improperly influence audit findings. That the statement may not have actually influenced the QA auditors is to their credit as pro-fessionals but does not alter the fact that in making the statement, the QC supervisor failed to adhere to the standard of conduct required by the regula-tions. Because of this, the NRC finds that the violation occurred as stated.
Regeeding Violation C of EA 86-63, the May 2,1986 NOV alleged that, in early 1981, the Brown & Root QA program dio not provide QC Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems in that a Brown & Root QC Inspector was instmcted by her supervisor to sign off a number of liner plate travelers which the inspector believed were inadequately docun.ented.
In its response to Violation C, the Licensee argued that it had not seen a ccpy of the testimany taken by OI regarding this alleged violation and, therefore, could not assess whether the finding by 0! was supported by the weight of the evidence. The Licensee pointed out that the 01 conclusion appeared to rest on the statement of an unidentified inspector who claimed he or she heard a QC supervisor give improper instructions and that the state.nent was contradicted by statements of at least two other witnesses who gave testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. In view of these discrepancies, the Licensee urged the staff to reconsider whether the alleged violation occurred.
The staff has reviewed the testimony given before the Licensing Board and given to 01 regarding the alleged violation. The steff acknowledges that there is conflicting testimony. However, the principal conflicting testimony, already in the licensee's possession, is that of the two QC supervisors who, it is alleged, gave the improper instruction to the QC inspector. On the other hand, the testimony of peripheral witnesses, the statements of the QC inspector, and the corroborating testimony of another QC inspector, some of which the licensee has, support the conclusion that the improper instruction was given by one of the QC supervisors. Based on its review of the testimony and of the conclusions of the NRC Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and O! regarding the matter, the staff has concluded that the independence and organizational freedom of a QC inspector was interfered with by at least one of the QC inspector's supervisors and that the violation occurred as stated. Although the staff believes the licensee has sufficient information to admit or deny the violation, since the staff does not intend to pursue the civil penalty, this issue is moot.
The Licensee has acknowledged that intimidation and harassment was a problem at Comanche Peak, has paid $80,000 in civil penalties for two of the five violations for which it has been cited, and has initiated corrective actions to address the problem. These corrective actions have included management changes and a number of programs to ensure that all employees can report safety concerns without fear of reprisals. The programs have been in effect for some time and appear to have been effective. For example, in an incident described in Board notification 86-??, dated November 13, 1986, concerning alleged harassment and intimidation of "walkdown engineers" for the Unit I cable tray hangers, the Licensee took prompt and effective action to resolve the situation.
NUREG-0940 1.A-88
Appendix The staff does not believe that further deliberation on the specific circurnstances of these pending cases would serve the purposes of the Comission's enforcement policy and, therefore, will not impose civil penalties for these violations.
The NRC will continue to review the effectiveness of the Licensee's corrective actions in subsequent inspections and if other intimidation and harassment incidents occur, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.
l l
l l-l NUREG-0940 I.A-89
f *% ,g UNITED STATES E ,' , .c c j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- J' , C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9
~
O F
MAY 0 01986 Dov et Nos. 50-445 50-446 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-126 CPPR-127 EA 86-63 Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN: Mr. William G. Counsil Executive Vice Presid?nt 400 North Olive Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Gentlemen:
The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted numerous investigations into -
allegations regarding discrimination and intimidation and harassment of Quality Control (QC) personnel at Cs sche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). In addition, several actions weic initiated by present and former CPSES workers with the Department of Labor (DOL) for alleged discrimination for raising safety concerns. The NRC initiated two enforcement actions for intimidation incidents at CPSES. Two civil penalties were proposed for violations involving QC personnel (EA 83-64 and EA 83-132). You responded to the proposed civil penalties on September 28, 1983 and January 23, 1984 respectively and supplemented your response on April 9, 1986. In your April 9,1986 response you indicated you would not continue to contest the civil penalty proposed for EA 83-132 and subsequently paid the civil penalty on April 17, 1986. Your responses to EA 83-64 are still under consideration by the NRC staff.
As a result of the numerous allegations of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination, and the relevance of this issue to the contentions in the ongoing operating license hearing, the NRC undertook a comprehensive review and evaluation of the allegations of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination at CPSES. A report prepared by an NRC Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel (Panel) aided by a Study Team of consultants was transmitted to you on November 4, 1985. (" Report of the Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2,"
October 1985 (hereinafter " Panel report")). The NRC staff has reviewed the Panel report, the completed 00L discrimination cases regarding CPSES, the 01 reports, and your responses regarding intimidation at CPSES including your February 7, 1986 response.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 1.A-90
Texas Utilities Electric Company This letter and its enclosed Notice of Violation contain the results of the NRC staff's review. The Notice of Violation describes three incidents identified as violations by the NRC staff during its review of the NRC Panel report and 01 investigation reports. This letter also describes several other incidents of possible intimidation and harassment identified in the NRC Panel report which have not been cited as violations for various reasons. An Enforcement Conference to discuss the violations was held in the Region IV office on April 3, 1986.
The first violation described in the Notice involves the intimidation of a QC inspector at CPSES in early 1983. A former Brown & Root, Inc. QC inspector at CPSES alleged that she was instructed by her supervisors to sign off a number of liner plate travelers which the inspector believed were inadequately documented. The Panel reviewed this incident and concluded that it was one of intimidation. A subsequent 01 investigation (0I Report 4-84-039) concluded that the independence and organizational freedom of the QC inspector was interfered with by at least one of the QC inspector's supervisors. This is a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I.
The second violation involves the so-called "T-shirt" incident. On March 8, 1984, eight electrical QC inspectors from the Unit 1 Safeguards Building wore T-shirts to work with the lettering: " Comanche Peak Nit Picker. I am in the business of picking nits." The QC inspectors were sequestered for several hours ir a room, escorted whenever they left the room, and eventually sent home with pay. While they were sequestered, a Quality Assurance (QA) specialist supervisor and two security guards searched their work areas upon the direction of the QA/QC Manager. They confiscated papers including personal effects. The personal effects were eventually returned and the other documents were turned over to the NRC resident inspectors as a result of instructions by Region IV management.
I The NRC Panel reviewed this incident and concluded that it was one of intimidation.
The CPSES management response, highly visible to other QC inspectors, was an unwarranted over-reaction by CPSES management that was reasonably likely to dissuade QC inspectors from reporting safety concerns.
l The third violation involves a confrontation that occurred in early 1983 at the CPSES site QA audit office between the site QC supervisor and members of two QA audit groups. The site QC supervisor mistakenly believed that one of the QA auditors with whom he had a continuing personality conflict had directed craft personnel to remove a weld on a support in contravention of an existing agreement
! between QA and QC management. Another QA auditor, the one actually involved in identifying the suspect weld, explained to the QC supervisor that craft personnel
- had initiated the issuance of an item removal notice for the weld of their own l volition. Subsequent to the auditor's explanation, the site QC supervisor made a statem'ent that physical or political harm could come to an auditor as a result of his audit activities. A CPSES investigative report concluded that although the QC supervisor's behavior was improper, none of the QA auditors had been intimidated.
NUREG-0940 1.A-91 6
Texas Utilities Electric Company In November 1984, one of the QA auditors who had been present during the 1983 confrontation in the audit office made an allegation to the NRC that the site QC supervisor threatened and attempted to intimidate the QA auditors. A copy of the utility's investigative report on the incident was reviewed by 01.
The utility staff investigators were also interviewed, and they reported that the notes from their interviews with the witnesses had been destroyed following the issuance of the report in consideration of the confidentiality they had granted the employees. An 01 investigation was initiated. The 01 investigation i (01 Report 4-84-050) concluded that the QC supervisor's statement to the QA l auditors was improper, was intended to influence audit findings, and was in contravention of the intended independence of the QA audit program. This is a violation of Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
We recognize that many management and organizational changes have taken place at CPSES. However, we conclude that a civil penalty is appropriate for these violations to emphasize the need for lasting and effective corrective actions to ensure that quality control inspectors and auditors have sufficient organizational freedom to report safety concerns. The Study Team of consultants which reviewed allegations of intimidation at CPSES concluded, and the NRC Panel concurred, that while these instames of intimidation occurred, there was no pervasive climate of intimidation at C/SES. Despite this finding, the violations are significant incidents in the area of organizational freedom ,
under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 1. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, ,
Appendix C (1985), each of the violations involving intimidation of QC personnel has been classified as a Severity Level III violation. The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation at the time the violations occurred was
$40,000. Therefore, a civil penalty of $120,000 is being proposed.
The mitigation and escalation factors were considered. Most of the incidents j cited involved management practices which subsequent changes in personnel at i CPSES may have corrected. Also, your February 7, 1986 response to the NRC Panel report describes management initiatives which should correct those past practices that may have contributed to the incidents of intimidation. However, the prior poor performance on the part of Texas Utilities Electric Company in .
the area of employee harassment and intimidation was also considered and no adjustment of the base civil penalty was deemed appropriate.
Additional incidents of possible intimidation and harassment were identified in the nRC Panel report but are not included in the enclosed Notice of Violation.
One incident not cited in the Notice concerns the publicity given employees who provided testimony before the Licensing Board Panel. CPSES management focused unfavorable attention on employees who testified through an article in the CPSES site newsletter, the " Circuit Breaker." Highlighting the fact that an employee has testified against the company could deter other employees from coming forward in a public way to identify safety concerns. This incident is l not cited, however, because the facts associated with this incident do not ;
appear to be sufficient for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B or 10 CFR '
50.7.
I i
NUREG-0940 I.A-92
Texas Utilities Electric Company Another incident not cited in the Notice concerns the discharge of Mr. W.
Dunham, a QC inspector at CPSES. Mr. Dunham had spoken out against intimidation of inspectors in the presence of other inspectors. Because of this, his subsequent discharge, albeit for reasons which the Department of Labor determined to be justified, left the impression among inspectors that Mr.
Dunham had been terminated for speaking out. Based on the Department of Labor finding, we have determined that no citation for a violation of 50.7 or Appendix B is appropriate. However, your failure to try to correct the I perception among the inspectors could have had the effect of discouraging them from reporting safety concerns.
Other incidents of possible intimidation and harassment not cited in the Notice of Violation concern a number of discussions directed toward a particular coatings inspector in response to the inspector's having raised several concerns. Singling out an inspector in repeated meetings where the inspector is required to explain his actions regarding deficiencies he has reported could be intimidating even though no adverse action is taken against the inspector.
We direct your attention to all of these incidents including those that have not been cited in the enclosed Notice. Regarding those incidents not cited in the Notice, you should recognize that although they did not amount to actual violations for various reasons, the underlying problems leading to the incident,s deserve your attention.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions I specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. Your response to these enforcement actions will be examined during future inspections to
, determine whether further enforcement action should be taken.
In accordance with Section 2.790 lf the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required ,
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
l Sincerely, , l 72
/ )
w.M J- w Ja es M. Taylor, rector fice of Inspe ion and Enforcement l
Enclosures:
l
- 1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties l
l 1
NUREG-0940 1.A-93 !
l l
l
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Texas Utilities Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-445 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 50-446 Permit Nos. CPPR-126 CPPR-127 EA 86-63 .
The NRC's Office of Investigations (01) conducted several investigations into allegations of employment discrimination and intimidation at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. An NRC Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel subsequently reviewed the 01 reports and other pertinent materials and documented its review in an NRC
" Report of the Review dnd Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2," October 1985. As a result of the review, apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The violations and the associated civil penalties are set forth below:
10 CFR Part 50, fppendix B, Criterion I, states that construction permit holders are responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program, that they may delegate this work to others such as.
contractors, but they retain the responsibility for the program. Criterion I further states that persons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient organizati,onal freedom to identify quality problems; initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.
The Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) Quality Assurance Manual describes Quality Control Inspectors and Quality Assurance Audit Groups as members of the Quality Assurance Division and states that the Quality Assurance Division has been assigned sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
A. Contrary to the above, the Texas Utilities Electric Company Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify problems in that the TUEC QA/QC Manager, on March 8,1984, initiated an unwarranted and over-reactive response to eight electrical QC inspectors wearing T-shirts with an inspection-related slogan printed on the shirts. The reaction, highly ,
visible to other QC inspectors, was reasonably likely to dissuade QC inspectors from reporting safety concerns.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement II).
Civil Penalty - $40,000 NUREG-0940 1.A-94 l
1 l
l
)
Notice of Violation B. Contrary to the above, the Texas Utilities Electric Company Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Assurance personnel sufficient organizational freedom to identify problems in that in early 1983, a TUEC Quality Control Supervisor made a statement before the Quality Assurance audit groups that physical or political harm could come to an auditor as a result of his audit activities. This statement was reasonably likely to improperly influence audit findings.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement II). !
Civil Penalty - $40,000 i C. Brown & Root, Inc. is the prime contractor for construction of the Comanche Peak S_ team Electric Station facility and has thus been delegated quality assurance functions by the licensee. The Brown & Root Quality Assurance Manual describes Quality Control Inspectors as members of the Quality Assurance Division and states that the Quality Assurance Division has been assigned sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
Contrary to the above, in early 1983, the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems in that a Brown & Root Quality Control Inspector was instructed by her supervisor to sign off a l number of liner plate travelers which the inspector believed were inadequately documented.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement II).
Civil Penalty - $40,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Texas Utilities Electric Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the ,
date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for j l 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 i be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance l
will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending the response time
{
j for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2232, this response shell be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Texas Utilities Electric Company may pay the civil penalties in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) or may protest l imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Texas Utilities Electric Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above. Should Texas Utilities Electric Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 l
NUREG-0940 1.A-95
Notice of Violation protesting the civil penalties, such answer 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 penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors contained in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C 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 Texas Utilities Electric Company 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 has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFP 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULAT COMMISSION n...
- f. k J es M. Taylor,4 Director ffice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated a+ Bethesda, Maryland, thisA ay of May 1986.
l NUREG-0940 1.A-96
l O* Ca os,
- o, UNITED ST ATES
(( s e g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L 8 8 REGION 1
,d*c $31 PARK AVENUE 4,,
KINO OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 JUL W l'387 Docket No. 50-29 License No. OPR-3 EA 87-107 Yankee Atomic Electric Company ATTN: Mr. James Tribble President 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Gentlemen:
Subject:
N0llCEOFVIOLATIONAbDPROPOSEDIMPOSITIONOFCIVILPENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-29/87-pB)
This refers to the NRC special safeguards inspection conducted between February 18 and May 22, 1987 of activities authorized by NRC License No.
DPR-3. The inspection report was sent to you on June 12, 1987. During the inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified. On June 23, 1987, an enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of your staf f to discuss the violations, their causes, ar.d your corrective actions.
(
The violations, which are described in detail in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, included: (1) failure to take appropriate compensatory measures, notify appropriate plant personnel, ,
j and complete certain logs, when a security system was degraded; (2) permitting j a visitor to enter a vital area without authorization and escort, thereby creating a major loss of physical security effectiveness, and not implementing appropriate corrective measures when this condition was first identified; and (3) f ailure to notify the NRC of this major loss of physical security effec-tiveness, as required by 10 CFR 73.71.
The violations are of concern to the NRC because they demonstrate a continued lack of aggressiveness by management to ensure that your staf f and that of your security contractor fully understand NRC security program objectives. Specifi-cally, communications between your staff and the contractor staff have been oeficient, and personnel have not received adequate training, demonstrated sufficient understanding of, nor discharged their responsibilities concerning, the security program. As a result of these violations, there is a need for increased and improved oversight of the security program, by both plant and corporate management, to ensure that all individuals authorized access to the plant understand and adhere to the security program requirements.
To emphasize this need, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notict: of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars l CERTIFIED Mall l EETURN RICETFT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 I.A-97
JUL 2 4 N Yankee Atomic Electric Company 2
($25,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity level III problem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III l violation or problem is $50,000. The NRC Enforcement Policy allows for reduc-tion of a civil penalty under certain circumstances. In this case the base civil penalty is reduced by 50 percent because of your enforcement history in the area of concern. Full mitigation is not warranted because your last Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) indicated that you needed improvement in several of the same areas as those now being cited as viola-tions, including compensatory measures implementation, security event reporting, and record keeping practices.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
Sections of the enclosed Notice contain details of your security program that have been determined to be exempt from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 (Safeguards Information). Therefore, the sections so identified will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and will receive limited distribution. In your response to this letter and the enclosed Notice, place all Safeguards Information in a separate enclosure so that your letter inay be placed in the Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, Original Signed By WILLIAM T. RUSSELL William T. Russell Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Contains Safeguards Information (SGI))
cc w/ encl (w/o SGI):
Mr. L. H. Heider, Vice President of Operations (w/SGI)
N. N. St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent (w/SGI)
G. J. Papanic, Jr. , Senior Project Engineer - Licensing i Public Document Room (PDR) '
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector (w/SGI)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2) 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG YR REV 1 - 0002.1.0 NUREG-0940 07/23/87 1.A-98
- 4 l
i II.A. MATERIALS LICENSEES, CIVIL PENALTIES AND ORDERS
\
l l
A Riog UNITED ST ATES
/ o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 3' Rf GlON 81 j I# 101 MARIETTA STREET,N A ATLANT A. GEORGIA 3032')
%..../ AUG 191987 ) !
Docket No. 030-20169 License No. 45-16546-02 !
EA 87-126 {
ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc. '
ATTN: Mr. Robert Hechman District Manager 5649 K General Washington Drive Alexandria, VA 22312 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY :
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT N,0. 45-16546-02/87-01) l 1
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by i L. Franklin at your Alexandria, Virginia, facility on June 18, 1987. The inspec-tion included a review of licensed activities as they relate to radiation safety and a review of the circumstances surrounding the loss of a Troxler gauge which was identified by members of your staff and reported to the NRC. As a result of l this inspection, significant failures to comply with NRC regulatory requirements were identified, and NRC concerns relative to the inspection findings were dis-cussed by J. Potter, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Section, NRC, Region II, with you and a member of your staff in an Enforcement Conference held by telephone '
on July 1, 1987.
The violation described in Section I of the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty involved a failure to control licensed material. As a result of a Troxler gauge being left unattended and unsecured in l an unrestricted area overnight, the Troxler gauge was stolen from the job site between 6:30 p.m. on June 12, 1987, and 9:00 a.m. on June 13, 1987. In addition, ;
because the gauge operator apparently locked the gauge case, rod padlock, and i vehicle keys inside the transportation vehicle, the source rod of the stolen l Troxler gauge was not locked in the " safe" position.
This event is considered to be very significant because a qualified gauge operator, who had been trained and was fully aware of the requirements for and importance of controlling licensed material, created a hazard to the health and safety of the general public by abandoning an unsecured gauge containing an unlocked source.
The dose rate to an individual moving the source rod from its gauge housing would be approximately 25 rems per hour at one centimeter from the tip of the extended source rod. Shielded, the maximum dose rate would be about 15 millirems per hour.
The gauge contains 8 mil 11 curies of cesium-137 and 40 mil 11 curies of americium-241.
l To emphasize the need to control licensed material, I have been authorized, after I consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Four Hundred Dollars (5400) for the violation described in Section I of the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violation described in NUREG-0940 II.A-1
ATEC Associates of Virginia AUG 191987 Section I of the enclosed Notice has been categorized as a Severity Level II violation. Although this violation would normally be classified at Severity Level III, the violation has been classified at Severity Level II in accordance with Section III of the Enforcement Policy since the circumstances surrounding the Troxler gauge being stolen involved careless disregard of NRC requirements.
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level II violation is $800. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered and because of your unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions the base civil penalty has been reduced by 50 percent. Your corrective actions included searches of all vehicles, buildings, local dumpsters, and surrounding wooded areas both visually and with a Micro-R-Meter; retraining all authorized users on securing equipment; notifying the local police department and Troxler Electronics; taking a gauge to the local fire and rescue station for demonstration of operation and visual identification; posting a $500 reward for the return of the device; termi-nating the employee that was responsible for the gauge; hiring a consultant to keep equipment calibrations up-to-date; and storing shipping papers properly during transport.
The violations described in Section II of the enclosed Notice involved a failure to properly carry shipping papers during transport and a failure to maintain a Victoreen-492 survey instrument in calibration. These violations were identified by the NRC inspector and have been categorized as Severity Level IV violations.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, includ-ing your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory require-ments.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed .
in the NRC Public Document Room. l l
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the I clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96 511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
~ >- [-
J. Ne son Grace ,
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty NUREG-0940 II.A-2 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ a
s NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIDT 0F CIVIL PENALTY ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc. Docket No. 030-20169 Alexandria, VA License No. 45-16546-02 EA 87-126 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on June 18, l 1987, 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular ;
violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed materials in an unrestricted area ard not in storage shall be tended under constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
License Condition 17 requires that the licensee possess and use licensed material in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in the application dated November 10, 1983, and letters (including any enclosures) dated December 7, 1983, December 15, 1983, April 15,1984, September 24, 1985, and July 3, 1986. 4
{
l l The enclosure to the letter dated December 7, 1983, states that, while l onsite, the Troxler gauge shall not be left unattended unless fully t
l secured within the transportation vehicle, (
j Contrary to the above, between 6:30 p.m. on June 12,1987, and 9:00 a. n.
on June 13, 1987, a Troxler gauge, Model 34118, was left unattended and unsecured in an unrestricted area and was subsequently stolen from the job site.
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty - $400)
II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty A.
10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that each licensee who transports licensed material outside of the confines of its plant or other place of use comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations, appropriate )
to the mode of transport, of the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189. )
1 49 CFR 177.817(e)(2)(i) requires that the shipping papers be:
(a) stored within the driver's immediate reach when restrained by the seat belt, and b either be readily visible to a person entering the driver's compar(me)nt t or in a holder mounted on the inside of the on the driver's side of the vehicle.
NUREG-0940 II.A-3
Notice of Violation Contrary to the above, since December 21, 1983, shipping papers were stored inside the shipping cases of the gauges during transport and were not within the drivers reach nor readily visible.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement V).
B. License Condition 17 requires, in part, that the licensee possess and use licensed material in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in the application dated November 10, 1983.
Item 10 of the application dated November 10, 1983, lists a '
Victoreen-492 survey meter as the ifcensee!s radiation _ detection instrument. Item 11 of this application requires that the instru-ments listed in item 10 be calibrated semi-annually.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not calibrate a Victoreen-492 survey instrument between June 1985 and December 1986, an interval exceeding six months.
1 This is a' Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc.,
(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 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 which will be taken to avoid further viniatior.s, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an ac' equate 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. 1 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, ATEC Associates of Virginia, Inc., may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed 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 i we, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one penalty b 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 ATEC Associates 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 6rror 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.
NUREG-0940 II.A-4
Notice of Violation 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 av'oid 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 determincd 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. 2282.
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 Viciation) 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 II.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. e son Grace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this /'JAday of August 1987 NUREG-0940 II.A-5
e o UNITEo STATES
[m Ric ,]o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
&' REGloN tl j* #'
101 MARIETT A STRE ET, N.W.
, pj ATLANTA.CEoRGI A 30323
\..# JUN 2 4 $87 De ).e t No. 030-08280 License No. 52-14939-01 EA 87-58 Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan ATTN: Enrique Piovanetti, M.D.
P. O. Box 10431 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00922 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 52-14939-01/87-01) ;
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by L. Franklin at the Centro Oftalmologico Metrop,olitano on April 14,.1987. The inspection included a review of licensed activities as they relate.to radiation safety. As a result of this inspection, significant failures to comply with NRC regulatory requirements were identified, and accordingly, NRC concerns relative to the inspection findings were discussed by W. Cline,' Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch, NRC, Region II, with M, Lopez, M.D.,
Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan, in an Enforcement Conference held on April 28, 1987.
The violation in Section I of the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty involved the use of licensed material by unauthorized users. Over the past several years, five unauthorized physicians joined the two authorized physicians at Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan and have been using the Strontium-90 eye applicator in the' treatment of superficial eye disease without supervision and without applying for an amendment to the license to be named as authorized users, i
To emphasize the need to improve management of the radiation safety program, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director.- Office of Enforcement, and Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in ;
the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars (5750) for the violation in Section I i of the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987)
(Enforcement Policy), the violation in Section I of the enclosed Notice has j been categorized as a Severity Level III violation. The base value of a civil j penalty for a Severity Level III violation is 5500. The base civil penalty has ]
been increased by 50 percent because on numerous occasions since 1982 the I strontium-90 eye applicator was used without proper supervision by several ophthalmologists who were not named in the license as authorized users and who had not completed the required training as authorized users.
CERTIFIED MAIL RTURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 II.A-6 l
l l
Centro Oftalmologico Metropalitano JUN 2 41987 The two violations in Section II of the enclosed Notice have not been assessed civil penalties. The first violation in Section II involved a failure to properly store licensed material. Apparently, the facili,ty had been remodeled, and a secured storage area for the strontium-90 eye applicator was not available in the new floor plan. The applicator had been stored on an open shelf in a patient examining room since the remodeling. The second violation in Section II involved a failure to post required documentation. These violations in Section II have been categorized as Severity Level IV and V violations, respectively.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC' enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, s J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Impositior of Civil Penalty
- 2. NRC Inspection Report NUREG-0940 II.A-7
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITI F 0F CIVIL PENALTY Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan Docket No. 030-08280 San Juan, Puerto Rico License No. 52-14939-01 EA 87-58 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on April 14, 1987, 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty l License Condition 12 requires that licensed material be used by o'r under the supervision of the two named physicians.
Contrary to the above, five additional users have used licensed material approximately two or three times a month since 1982 without supervision.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI). .
(Civil Penalty - $750) i II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty A. License Condition 15 requires that-licensed material be stored in a wall cabinet and kept locked at all times.
Contrary to the above, on April 14, 1987, licensed material was stored in an unlocked treatment room on open shelving.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
i B. 10 CFR 19.11 requires a licensee to post current copies'of certain documents near or in a licensed activity location. These documents include 10 CFR Part 19,10 CFR Part 20, the license complete with amendments, referenced documents, and operating procedures. If 4 posting ts not practicable, the licensee may post a notice that describes the documents and where they may be examined. The licensee i is also required to post Form NRC-3, " Notice to Employees," to permit I individuals engaged in licensed activities to observe them on the way I to or from any particular licensed activity to which the document !
applies. j NUREG-0940 II.A-8 J
i Notice of Violation l Contrary to the above, on April 14, 1987, the licensee had not posted the documents, or the notice of where the documents might be examined, nor had the licensee posted Form NRC-3.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement VI).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II,101 Marietta Street, N.W. , Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, 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 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 which 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, the Director, Office of Enforcement, may issue an order 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, Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Of fice 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 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 Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty '
will be issued. Should Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan 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 adof tion 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 five factors addressed in 1
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. Centro Oftalmologico Metro-politano's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty. ,
i NUREG-0940 II.A-9 l l
1
Notice of Violation Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently 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. 2282. .
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Arswer 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 II, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .,
1 J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 1 g day of June 1987 l
l l
s NUREG-0940 II.A-10 l
e mRfo UNITED STATES
/ ug'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y" " 'n REGloN 11 g
,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
t ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323
\,*..,*/
e Report No.: 52-14939-01/87-01 Licensee: Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan P. O. Box 10431 San Juan, PR 00922 Docket No.: 030-08280 License No.: 52-14939-01 Inspection Conductea: April 14, 1987 Inspectors: t L. Frankli b /D f/ 6' 7 Date Signed If J 00 S. W /dron Date S~igned Approved by:
J. Pot # f,'Se~ction Chief
[ 4 0!U Dat.e Signed Nuclear Materials Safety Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope: The inspection involved an interview with Dr. Enrique Piovanetti, an examination of licensed activities as they relate to radiation safety, and selective examinations of procedures and representative records.
Results: Of the areas inspected, three violations were identified: use of licensed materi.al by unauthorized personnel, improper storage of licensed material and failure to post required documents.
i l
l I
NUREG-0940 II.A-11
REPORT DETAILS Report No. 52-14939-01/87-01
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- Enrique Piovanetti, M.D.
Mar,uel Lopez, M.D.
- Attended exit interview.
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 14, 1987, with the person indicated in paragraph 1.
- 3. Licensing and Inspection History The license was originally issued on January 7,1972, and was renewed in its entirety on February 23, 1977, and again September 16, 1982. One posting violation was identified: the failure to post copies of 10 CFR 19, 10 CFR 20, and the current lir.anse. This violation was cited on NRC Form 591 signed by the inspector and E. Piovanetti, M.D. on April 27, 1982, and a copy was lef t with the licensee. It was noted again on the inspection of April 14, 1987, that the licensee did not have 10 CFR 19, 20, NRC Form 3, nor the license posted. Failure to have these documents posted or a notice posted stating where these documents may be observed is a violation of 10 CFR 19.11.
- 4. Organization The licensee's organization consists of seven independent physicians, each with apparently equal partner status. The seven physicians are M. A. Lopez, M.D., J. E. Piovanetti, M.D., R. M. Portela, M.D., L. J. Omd, M.D. , L. R. de Corral, M.D. , I. A. Liboy, M.D. , and I. J. Figueroa, M.D.
The only physicians named on the license as authorized users are M. A. Lopez, M.D., and J. E. Piovanetti, M.D.
- 5. Therapeutic Use of Radionuclides The licensee possesses a New England Nuclear Model NB-1 Strontium-90 eye applicator. The beta applicator is used in the treatment of external pterygiums, a superficial eye disease. The physicians treat two to three patients per month with the beta applicator.
NUREG-0940 II.A-12 l
1 I
i i
2 j I
- 6. Radiation Safety In discussion with a licensee representative, it was determined that five physicians not authorized as users were independently using the eye applicator and had been doing so since September 1982. This is a violation of License Condition 12, which requires that. licensed material be used by or under the supervision of the named, authorized users.
Frequency of use of the applicator is two to three times per month divided roughly equally between the users.
The area in which the Strontium-90 eye applicator is stored was inspected and surveyed. It was found, that the eye applicator was being stored on an open shelf in a patient examining room. This is a violation of License Condition 15, which requires licensed material to be stored in a cabinet and kept locked when not in use. A radiation survey was performed using a Xetex 305A Digital Exposure Ratemeter, Serial Number 03681. A radiation level of 1.3 mrem /hr at 18 inches from the storage containers was measured, however, the office is only open about 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week. The licensee has the Strontium-90 source leak tested at six month intervals by Assay Services, Inc. , of Friendswood, Texas. The inspectors reviewed the ;
records of the leak tests and identified no problems in this area.
- 7. Enforcement Conference Licensee Representative M. A. Lopez, M.D.
NRC Representatives J. P. Potter, Chief, NHS Section, DRSS W. E. Cline, Chief, NMSS Branch, DRSS On April 28, 1987, an Enforcement Conference was held with Dr. Lopez via '
telephone by the NRC representatives named above. The representatives discussed the results of the inspection, proposed corrective actions and the NRC Enforcement Policy. The licensee representative committed to I insure that the physicians not named on the license as authorized users will be supervised by those who are named on the license. Mr. W. Cline concluded the meeting by emphasizing the need for corrective action and measures to prevent recurrence.
1 4
NUREG-0940 II.A-13 '
suas
'o UNITED STATES g
[
g g
a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../ .
AUG 31 1987 Docket No. 030-08280 License No. 52-14939-01 EA 87-58 Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan ATTN: Enrique Piovanetti, M.D.
P. O. Box 10431 San Juan, PR 00922 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY This refers to your letter dated June 29, 1987 in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you by our letter dated June 24, 1987. Our letter and Notice described three violations identi-fied during a routine NRC safety inspection conducted at your office in San Juan, Puerto Rico on April 14, 1987. To emphasize the need to improve the management of your radiation safety program, a civil penalty of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750) was proposed.
In your response you admit the facts stated in the Notice of Violation, but request mitigation of the proposed civil penalty, stating that the five unauthorized users of licensed material were fully qualified to use licensed '
material. You also state that these users applied beta radiation applicators within the confines of your office, and thus were under your supervision.
From the information you submitted in your June 29, 1987 letter,.the NRC does j not agree that these individuals meet the qualification criteria stated in {
10 CFR 35.941. Furthermore, your current NRC license does not authorize you q to make a determination of the qualification of users. Under your license, i qualification of users is an NRC determination which is made following your l submittal of a license amendment.
)
After careful consideration of your response, we have concluded for the reasons given in the Appendix attached to the enclosed Order Imposing Civil Penalty 1 that the violations did occur as set forth in the Notice and that the proposed .
civil penalty is warranted. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on l Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan imposing a civil monetary penalty in the !
amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars, ($750). We will review the effective- i ness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection. l CERTIFIED MAIL l RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 II.A-14
Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed.in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely,:
-- - s/'
J s M. Tay1 , Deputy Executive rector for Regional Operations
Enclosures:
Order Imposing Civil Penalty w/ attachment I
l l
l i
i i
k NUREG-0940 II.A-15
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No. 030-08280 Centro Oftamologico Metropolitan Licensee No. 52-14939-01 San Juan, PR 00922 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan (licensee) is the holder of materials License No. 52-14939-01 (license) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
(NRC/Comission) on August 16, 1982. The license authorizes the ifcensee to !
employ the use of a strontium - 90 eye applicator for the superficial treatment of eye disease in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
II 1
A routine inspection of the licensee's activities was conducted on April 14, 1987. The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated June 24, 1987. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations. The licensee responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty by letter dated June 29, 1987.
i
)
NUREG-0940 II.A-16
2 III After consideration of the licensee's response and the statement of fact, explanations, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Exe-cutive Director for Regional Operations has determined, as set forth in the appendix to this Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations 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 (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750) within 30 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 Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555.
The licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. j i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II.
NUREG-0940 II.A-17
3 If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
l 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 was in violation of the Comission's require-ments as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty referenced in Section II above, and (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
%. M i
a es M. Tay1 , Deputy Executive D ector for egional Operations ,
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland !
i this St
- day of August 1987
)
l NUREG-0940 II.A-18
APPENDfX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On June 24, 1987 a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) was issued for violations identified during a routine NRC inspection.
Centro Oftalmologico Metropolitan (licensee) responded to the Notice on June 29, 1987. The licensee admitted that the violations did occur and requested that the civil penalty be fully mitigated. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
Restatement of Violation I. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty License Condition 12 requires that licensed material be used by or under the supervision of the two named physicians.
Contrary to the above, five additional users have used licensed material on numerous occasions since 1982 without supervision.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI).
(Civil Penalty - $750)
II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty A. License Condition 15 requires in part that licensed material be stored in a wall cabinet and kept locked at all times.
Contrary to the above, on April 14, 1987, licensed material was stored in an unlocked treatment room on open shelving.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
10 CFR 19.11 requires a licensee to post current copies of certain B.
documents near or in a licensed activity location. These documents include 10 CFR 19, 10 CFR 20, the license complete with amendments, referenced documents, and operating procedures. If posting is not practicable, the licensee may post a notice that describes the documents and where they may be examined. The licensee is also required to post Form NRC-3, " Notice to Employees," to permit individ-uals who frequent any portion of a " restricted area" to observe the form.
Contrary to the above, on April 14, 1987, the licensee had not posted the documents, or the notice of where the documents might be examined, nor had the licensee posted Form NRC-3.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement VI).
NUREG-0940 II.A-19
)
_ -_ -___-_----- _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J
Appandix 2 Sunrnary of Licensee's Response The licensee, while admitting that the violations occurred as stated, requested mitigation of the civil penalty due to the fact that the authorized users had trained and supervised the unauthorized users and felt that by reason of proximity, education, and experience they were qualified to independently use licensed material. The licensee also contended that the unauthorized users were under the supervision of authorized user.
l WRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The NRC has considered your request for mitigation of the civil penalty btsed on the fact that the authorized users had trained and supervised the unauthorized users, but mitigation was considered inappropriate because (1) your license does not authorize you to make a determination of the qualification of users, and (2) the unauthorized users did not meet the qualification Criteria stated in 10 CFR 35.941 based on your letter of June 29, 1987. Under your current license, qualification of users is an NRC determination which is made following submittal of a license amendment. Furthermore, based upon the explanation set forth in your letter of June 29, 1987 and the results of the April 14, 1987 inspection, NRC does not believe that these unauthorized users were sufficiently supervised to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 35.25.
NRC Conclusion The NRC concludes that the violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation and that no mitigation of the civil penalty is warranted. Therefere, the proposed Civil Penalty in the amount of $750 should be imposed.
l l
NUREG-0940 II.A-20
i a
p fig
[o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ 7,
- 7. <j REGION I 0,,, 631 PARK AVENUE
% ,d,# KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 August 18, 1987 Docket Nos. 030-13105 030-17570 License Nos. 37-17637-01 37-17637-02 EA 87-141 E. L. Conwell & Company ATTN: Mr. Valter E. Capper General Manager Continental Business Center Front and Ford. Streets Bridgeport, Pennsylvania 19405 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
~
(NRC Inspection Report No. 87-01)
This letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted on June 4 and 5,1987 of.
activities authorized by NRC License Nos. 37-17637-01 and 37-17637-02 at your-facilities in Bridgeport and Ormrod, Pennsylvania, and at a temporary job site in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. The inspection report was sent to you on July 14, 1987. During the inspection, three violations of NRC requirements were identified, one of which was similar to a violation identified during a previous NRC inspection in 1985. On July 22, 1987, an enforcement conference was conducted with you and a member of your staff to discuss the violations, their causes and your corrective actions.
The violations, which are described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, consisted of. two examples of failure to secure, or maintain constant surveillance of, licensed material in unrestricted areas; failure to post a " radiation area" with.the appropriate warning' sign; and failure to carry shipping papers to accompany a shipment of. radioactive material. The violat*on involving unsecured. material is of significant concern to the NRC because (1) it occurred at both"a temporary job site and at-one of-your storage locations, and (2) it was similar to a violation identified by the NRC in October, 1985 at your Bridgeport facility; That violation, in part,-
resulteti in the imposition of a $500 civil penalty on December 10, 1985. These most recent examples of unattended and unsecured licensed material were caused by failure of personnel to follow procedures and indicate that adequate- l corrective actions have not been taken to assure adherence to the requirements for securing and surveillitig licensed material.
CERTIFIED MAIL FURNRECEIPTREQUESTED i
l NUREG-0940 I1.A-21
,1
__-________-___a
E. L. Conwell & Company 2 To e$phasize the importance of proper security of material and effective corrective actions to prevent recurrence of identified violations, I have been authorized, a fter consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for the violation described in Section I of the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987)
(Enforcement Policy), the violation described in Section I of the enclosed Notice has been categorized at Severity Level III. The base civil penalty amount for a Severity Level III violation is $500. The NRC has increased the ,
base civil penalty amount by 100% because of the repetitive nature of this I violation, and the fact that it involved more than one example. The NRC '
recognizes that you have taken corrective actions which included (1) disci-plining the responsible individual by suspending his authorization to use the gauge for 30 days; and (2) notifying all gauge users, in writing, of this violation and of their responsibility to maintain proper surveillance of these gauges at all times. While these actions should prevent recurrence, they are considered necessary to ensure that NRC requirements are satisfied and are not so extensive in nature as to warrant any mitigation of the proposed civil penalty.
The other two violations, which are set forth in Section II of the enclosed Notice, have been classified at Severity Level IV.
You are required to r y ond to the enclosed Notice and should follow the instructions specific _ in the Notice in preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken to correct the violations and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed Notice will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, heh1,fWa~
p Wijiliam T. Russell R1!gional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ enc 1:
Public Document Room (PDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania NUREG-0940 II.A-22
I NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY E. L. Conwell & Company Docket No. 30-17570 Bridgeport, Pennsylvania 19405 License No. 37-17637-02 EA 87-141 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 4 and 5, 1987, 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I. VIOLATION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY 10 CFR 20.207(a) requires that licensed materials stored in an unrestric-ted area be secured against unauthorized removal from the place of storage. 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed materials in an unrestricted area and not in storage be under constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee. As defined in 10 CFR 20.3(a)(17), an unrestricted area is any area access to which is not controlled by the licensee for purposes of protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials.
Contrary to the above, on June 4, 1987,
- 1. thirty-two density gauges containing licensed material located in a building at the licensee's facility in Ormrod, Pennsylvania, an unrestricted area, were neither secured against unauthorized removal in that a rear door to the building was unlocked, nor under constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
- 2. a Troxler density gauge, containing approximately 10 millicuries of cesium-137 and 50 millicuries of americium-241, located under an elevated storage box at a field site in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, an unrestricted area, was not secured from unauthorized removal nor was it under constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement IV)
Civil Penalty - $1000 1
NUREG-0940 II.A-23
2 II. VIOLATIONS NOT ASSESSED CIVIL PENALTIES A. 10 CFR 20.203(b) requires that each radiation area be conspicuously posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words: " Caution Radiation Area." As defined in 10 CFR 20.202
'(b)(2), a radiation area includes any area accessible to personnel where radiation levels originating from. licensed' material could result in a dose in excess of 5 mrem in one hour.
Contrary to the above, on' June 4,1987, an area existed in the licensee's facility in Crmrod, Pennsylvania which was a radiation area in that the radiation levels in the area were between 5 and 8 millirem per hour, and.the area, which was accessible to personnel, was not posted with a " Caution Radiation Area" sign.
This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplement IV)
B. 10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that each licensee who transports licensed -
material outside the confines of its facility, or who delivers licensed material to a carrier for transport, shall comply with the' applicable requirements of the. regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of Transportation in.49 CFR Parts 170-189.
49 CFR 172.200(a) requires that each person who offers licensed material for transportation shall describe the licensed material on the shipping paper in the manner required by this subpart.
l Contrary to the above, on June 4, 1987, a shipping paper did not l accompany density gauges containing licensed material which were l
transported from the licensee's facility in Ormrod, Pennsylvania to a temporary job site at Pocano Hospital in East Straudsburg, Pennsylvania.
This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplements IV and V) l l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, E. L. Conwell & Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the i Director, Of fice 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: l (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 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, i
this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
l 0 HUREG-0940 II.A-24 1
'j
3 l
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR l 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office 1 of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draf t, 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 impnsition of the l 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 violat1ons 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 explanat hn in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by sp cific 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 t
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, i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, 1 DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Stv(% M , 4+t -
illiam T. Russell egional Administrator Dated at ing of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this]S ay of August 1987 i
NUREG-0940 II.A-25 ;
a_______. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a UNITED ST ATES
/ ssetog}o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3' REGION li I
f* 101 MARIETTA ST REET,N W, g ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323 g.w....f JUL 101987 Docket No. 030-20069 License No. 47-21232-01 EA 87-75 Hitwell Surveys. Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Edward N. Hitt President P. O. Box 43 Parkersburg, WV 26101 l
Gentlemen:
1
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT N0. 47-21232-01/87-01)
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) inspection conducted by Ms. C. Connell at the Hitwell Surveys, Inc., on April 30, 1987. As a result of l this inspection, significant failures to comply with NRC regulatory I requirements were identified, and accordingly, NRC concerns relative to the inspection findings were discussed by Mr. W. E. Cline, Chief. Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch, NRC, Region II, wi*h Mr. M. E. Thompson, Radiation Safety Officer Hitwell Surveys, Inc., in an Enforcement Conference held on May 22, 1987.
The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty involved failures to (1) permit only authorized individuals to use byproduct material (2) maintain required radiation levels on the exterior of transport vehicles (3) have operable survey equipment ;
available for use, (4) have sealed sources tested for leakage at required i frequency,(5) six months, (7)perfonn surveys Safety have Radiation properly, (6) per1'orm Manuals source available, and inventories (8) maintainevery )
records on the location of the sources. These violations demonstrate.the need for improvement in the administration and control of your Radiation Safety Program to ensure the safe performance of licensed activities and adherence to NRC requirements.
l To emphasize the Weed for adequate management cor trol over the Radiation Safety l Program, I have been authorized, af ter consultation with the Director Office '
of Enforcement, and Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations to issue .,
the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in j the amount of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750) for the violations i described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level Ill problem or violation is
$500. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were CERTIFIED Mall RTURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 II.A-26 !
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . ._. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _a
Hitwell Surveys, Inc. JUL 101987 considered. The base civil penalty amount has been increased 50 percent because the company failed to take effective corrective action for multiple violations which occurred over an extended period of time.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine-whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. Unless significant improvements are made in the performance of licensed activities at Hitwell Surveys. Inc., the NRC will consider whether modification, suspension or revocation of your license is appropriate.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, I Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosures are.not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, QA 7
./4 e
/ J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
- 2. NRC Inspection Report l
l 1
NUREG-0940 II.A-27
NOTICE OF V10LATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITI F 0F CIVIL PENALTY Hitwell Surveys, Inc. Docket No. 030-20069 Parkersburg, WV License No. 47-21232-01 EA 87-75 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on April 30, 1987, 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A. License Condition 12 requires the licensee to ensure that its licensed material is used by, or under the supervision and in the physical presence of, the individuals named in License Condition 12.
Contrary to the above, the licensee permitted one individual not named in License Condition 12 to perform well-logging using byproduct materials without supervision for about 31 years (from October 1984 to April 1985) and another individual to do the same for about 2 years (from April 1985 to April 1987).
B. License Condition 18 requires the lice 7see to possess and use its licensed material in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in application dated December 7, 1982, and letters dated February 18, 1983, November 15, 1983, and May 10, 1984.
- 1. Item Number 8.e of letter dated February 18, 1983, requires truck surveys to be taken at 18 inches from the front, rear, and both sides of the vehicle and requires the licensee to ensure radiation levels do not exceed 2mR/hr.
Contrary to the above, truck surveys performed in 1986 through April 1987 were performed at 3 feet from the front, rear, and sides of the trucks, according to the licensee. Also the radiation level on the left rear side of the truck containing two Cesium 137 sources was 4mR/hr at 18 inches from the surface of the vehicle (as measured !
by the inspector on the day of the inspection) which is in excess of l 2mR/hr. '
- 2. Item Number 8.h.(2) of letter dated February 18, 1983, requires truck surveys to be done before, during, and after each job.
Contrary to the above, truck survey records indicated surveys were performed monthly in 1986 through April 1987 in lieu of before, during, and after each job. According to the licensee, the Cesium 137 sources are used once per week and the Americium-241/Bery11ium sources are used once per month.
NUREG-0940 II.A-28
1 Notice of Violation 3. Item Number 8.h.(1) of letter dated February 18, 1983, requires the licensee to maintain records of the exact location of sources when in use and when not in use. The procedure states that sources will be logged in and out.
Contrary to the above, the licensee had not maintained any such records since January 1984.
- 4. Item Number 8.f(3) of letter dated February 18, 1983, requires the licensee to survey equipment and tools for contamination before, during, and after using radioactive tracers.
Item Number 4.b. of letter dated February 18, 1983, requires the licensee to monitor the well area while using Iodine 131 tracers.
Contrary to the above, on July 8,1985, two Iodine 131 tracer studies I were performed at two different well sites, but the licensee's rer.ords did not demonstrate that the required surveys were performed fo these particular well sites, and the licensee could not recall performing these surveys.
i
- 5. Section 10 of the application dated December 7, 1982, specifies that tv o (2) Victoreen Model 493 survey meters would be available for use.
Contrary to the above, on April 30, 1987 (the day of the inspection),
the licensee possessed 4 survey meters but none were operating properly. One Victoreen 592B was labeled as unrepairable. One Bicron Surveyor Model A324A had dead batteries. One G. E. Smith Model GS-500A had weak batteries. One Victoreen Model 493 could not be zerced.
- 6. The Note at the end of the letter dated February 18, 1983, requires the licensee to have two Radiation Safety Manuals and two D.0.T.
Handbooks in their possession at all times.
Contrary to the above, on April 30, 1987 (the date of the inspection), the licensee was not in possession of two Radiation Safety Manuals.
C. License CondTtion 13.A.(1) requires the licensee to test each sealed source containing byproduct material for leakage or contamination at intervals not to exceed six months.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not test a Cs-137 sealed source and two Americium-241/Beryllitm sources between April 10, 1986 and February 16, 1987, an interval of more than six months. The licensee also did not test one of the Americium-241/ Beryllium sources between January 28, 1985 and October 16, 1986 and the other Americium-241/ Beryllium between February 15, 1984 and October 4, 1984 intervals that exceeded six months.
l NUREG-0940 II.A-29 )
o
Notice of Violation D. License Condition 16 requires the licensee to conduct a physical inventory every six (6) months to account for all sealed sources received and possessed.
Contrary to the above, based on review of the licensee's records and discussions with licensee personnel, it was determined that inventories were not performed between January 5, 1984 (the date of the last inspection) and April 30, 1987 (the date of this inspection).
Collectively, the above violations have been assessed as a Severity Level III problem (Supplements IV and VI).
(Cumulative Civil Penalty - $750 - assessed equally among the violations.)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Hitwell Surveys, Inc., is hereby i required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office '
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, 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 violation:
(1) admission or denial of the 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 which 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, then 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, Hitwell Surveys. Inc., may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, with a check, draf t, 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 Hitwell Surveys, Inc., fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should Hitwell Surveys, Inc., elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205*" rotesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer 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 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 Hitwell Surveys, Inc., is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
NUREG-0940 II.A-30
i Notice of Violation Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently 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. 2282.
3 l
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, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II,101 Marietta Street, N.W. , Atlanta, GA 30323.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this /c day of July 1987 NUREG-0940 II.A-31
p#*%g unitsoorATus
- i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s 1 .worow. o. c. noems DEC U Docket Nos. 030-13313 and 030-29339 License Nos. 21-17781-01 and 21-24745-01 EA 86-139 Kedarnath B. Joshi,10.
Suite 102 20331 Farmington Road Livonia, MI 48152
Dear Dr. Joshi:
l
SUBJECT:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This refers to a special safety inspection conducted from June 12 through July 1,1986 at Hichland Waterford Medical Services (HWMS) in. Pontiac, Michioan, i
The inspection was initiated after.the NRC received allegations on June 12, 1986 that you were usino licensed materials at HWMS, a location not authorized by your license. The findings of this inspection were discussed with you and Mrs. Karen Halat, Actino Administrator HWMS durino an enforcement conference in the NRC Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois on July 25, 1986.
After reviewing the information obtained durino the inspection and the j enforcement conference, the NRC staff has concluded that there was a .
I serious breakdown in your control over licensed activities when you violated )
l NRC reculatory requirements and used licensed materials at HWMS during May 21 l
through June 11, 1986. Although your technologist and two consultants (acting I independently of each other) infonned you that authorized use of licensed l material .at HWMS would require an amendment to your license and although the l radiopharmaceutical supplier, IsoDiagnostic Services, refused to deliver licensed material to HWMS. you willfully and egregiously circumvented the-conditions of your license. You deceived IsoDiagnostic Services by requestino that it deliver licensed material to the vacant buildina where you formerly conducted radioisotope procedures. 'The NRC staff concluded that you did not intend to use the material at that location since you had no equipment available.
Instead, you transported the licensed material to the HWMS facility, which was not an authorized place of use, on June 9,10, and 11,1986 ~and administered l this licensed material to patients on each of those days.
Accordingly, I am issuina the enclosed Order to Show Cause why your License No. 21-17781-01 should not be revoked and why HWMS License No. 21-24745-01 should not be modified to prohibit you from servino in any capacity involvino the performance or supervision of any licensed activities. A separate matter involving the submission of a falsified closecut survey report for the nuclear medical facility at HWMS is under review and you will be notified of any NRC staff actions by other correspondence.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT RE0 VESTED NUREG-0940 II.A-32
Dr. Joshi 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 J
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed j Order will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The response directed by the enclosed Order is not subject to the clearance :
procedures of the Office of Management and Budcet as required by the Papenvork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. .;
Sincerely,
/
WlE s
apes N. Taylo Director
, f fice of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order to Show Cause l
l i
'I4 i-NUREG-0940 II.A-33
UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of KEDARNATH B. JOSHI, M.D. ) Docket No. 030-13313 20331 Fannington Road ) License No. 21-17781-01 Livonia, Michigan )
HIGHLAND WATERFORD MEDICAL SERVICES Docket No. 030-29339 4000 Highland Road License No. 21-24745-01)
Pontiac, Michigan EA 86-139 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE I
I I
i Dr. Kedarnath Jc,hi is the holder of NRC License No. 21-17781-01, which authorizes the use of Groups I, II and III (except generators) of byproduct matarial for diagnostic studies at his private practice clinics in Michiaan at 20331 Fannington Road, Livonia; 530 W. Huron, Pontiac; and 22250 Providence Drive, Southfield. The license was oriainally issued on December 15, 1977, was amended in its entirety on March 1,1983, and is due to expire on March 31, 1988. Highland Waterford Medical Services (HWMS) is the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 21-24745-01, which authorizes the use of Groups I and Il for diaanostic studies. The license was oriainally issued on June 30, 1986 and is due to expire on July 31, 1991.
II On June 12, 1986, prior to issuance of the MWMS license the NRC Reaion III staff received allegatio'ns that Dr. Joshi was enaaaina in activities at HWMS that were in violation of NRC reaulatory requirements. A special inspection was initiated insnediately and conducted from June 12 throuah July 1,1986. Durina the inspect /
NUREG-0940 II.A-34 1
I the NRC determined that Dr. Joshi performed nuclear medicine procedures at Hiohland Waterford Medical Services in Pontiac, Michigan, from May 21 through June 11, 1986 although his license did not authorize use at that location.
The HWMS facility had been an authorized place of use for another nuclear medicine group which had ceased operations at that location on May 15, 1986.
Prior to beginning operations at the HWMS facility and on several occasions during the period of unauthorized use, Dr. Joshi was informed by his technologist and two consultants (acting independently of each other) that authorized use at HWMS would require a license amendment.
Dr. Joshi began use of licensed material at the HWMS facility on May 21, 1986.
On June 5,1986, after learning of Dr. Joshi's use of radiopharmaceuticals at HWMS, one of the consultants contacted Dr. Joshi and the radiopharmaceutical supplier, Iso 0iaonostic Services-(IDS), and informed them of the unauthorized'J place of use. The supplier ininediately suspended all deliveries to HWMS.
Dr. Joshi and representatives of the HWMS facility contacted the NRC on June 6,1986 to ascertain amendment requirements to add HWMS as an authorized place of use to Dr. Joshi's license. Arrangements were made to expedite delivery of the amendment package to the NRC Recion III office on that day.
On June 11, 1986 HWMS was notified by telephone that Dr. Joshi's license amendment had been approved and signed. This amendment authorized HWMS as a place of use for Dr. Joshi until such time as HWMS received its own NRC license.
NUREG-0940 II.A-35
Rather than await the required authorization to use radiophannaceuticals at the HWMS facility, Dr. Joshi had an employee contact personnel at IDS and request that they deliver licensed material to the Pontiac Imaaing Center on 530 West Huron Street in Pontiac, Michican, a location authorized on Dr. Joshi's license, but which he had vacated to commence his practice at the HWMS facility. Since Dr. Joshi's license allowed use at the Pontiac Imaging Center, on June 9, 10, and 11, 1986, IDS delivered doses to the Pontiac Imaging Center using thetkey to the building they had acquired for prior deliveries. While IDS representatives knew that the Pontiac Imaging Center was in the process of being closed, they were assured that appropriate equipment (dose calibrator and survey meter) would be available and that patients would be injected at that center and then scanned at HWMS. In fact, the facility was vacant; however, because deliveries were made at 4:00 a.m.
to a receiving area innediately inside the rear door of the facility, IDS was unaware of that fact. Dr. Joshi and a technologist on June 9th and a technologist on June 10th and lith drove over to the Pontiac Imaging Center, picked up the doses delivered by 105, brought them back to HWMS, and administered them to patients.
On June 19, 1986, Dr. Joshi was notified by telephone that his June 11, 1986 l amendment (which was never mailed) had been rescinded. Also on June 19, 1986, a Confirmatory Action Letter was issued by the NRC reiterating that authorization for use of licensed material at HWMS by Dr. Joshi had been rescinded. On June 3C, 1986, a separate license was issued to the RWHS facility which authorizes Dr. Joshi to use licensed material at HWMS, but specifies another individual as Radiation Safety Officer. Upon further review of this entire matter, I have serious reservations about whether such licensino of Dr. Joshi should continue.
NUREG-0940 II.A-36
III The NRC has concluded that Dr. Joshi continued to use licensed material at a site not authorized by his license after he was reminded on three separate occasions that such use violated NRC requirements. Dr. Joshi also deliberately deceived IDS when he requested delivery of radiopharmaceuticals to the Pontiac Imaging Center vacant building and willfully violated NRC regulatory requirements when he transported the licensed material to HWMS and administered it to patients. This willful violation of NRC requirements raises questions whether Dr. Joshi in the future will comply with Commission requirements and the conditions of his license and that of the HWMS facility.
IV Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81,161b, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and Parts 30 and 35, it is hereby ordered that:
- 1. Dr. Joshi shall show cause, in a manner hereinafter provided, why License No. 21-17781-01 should not be revoked and License No. 21-24745-01 should 1
not be modified to prohibit Dr. Joshi from serving in any capacity involving the performance or supervision of any licensed activities.
l i
NUREG-0940 II.A-37
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . - l
- 2. HWMS shall show cause why License No. 21-24745-01 should not be modified to-prohibit Dr. Joshi from serving in any capacity involving the performance or supervision of any licensed activities.
V The licensees may show cause, within 25 days of the date of issuance of this Order, as required by Section IV above, by filing written answers under oath or affirmation setting forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensees rely to demonstrate that revocation of the one license and prohibition.of Dr. Joshi from performance and supervision of licensed activities'is not warranted. The licensees may. answer, as provided in 10 CFR 2.202(d), by -
consenting to the entry of orders in substantially the form proposed in this Order, in which case the licenses will be revoked or modified as stated in Section IV. If the licensees fail to file an answer.within the specified time, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue without further notice an Order as described above.
s VI The licensees or any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing within 25 days after issuance of this Order. Any answer to this Order or any request for hearing shall be submitted to the Director, NUREG-0940 II.A-38
Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies shall also be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, Office of General Counsel at the same address. If a person other than the licensees requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which the person's interest is adversely affected by this Order. If a hearing is requested by a licensee or any person who has an interest adversely affected by this Order, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any such hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at the hearing shall be whether License No. 21-17781-01 should be revoked and License No.
21-14745-01 modified to prohibit performance or supervision of licensed activities by Dr. Joshi. l
{
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM11SSION j
~~_ 3 a "s M. Taylor Director
- fice of Insp ction and Enforcement 1
i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, l this ' O day of December, 1986. .1 l
1 NUREG-0940 II.A-39
(
l
[ g umisosuus NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
s ms-ron. o. c. ma
%,=..
- JUL 10 ggg7 Docket Nos. 030-13313 and 030-29339 License Nos. 21-17781-01 and 21-24745-01 EA 86-139 Kedarnath B. Joshi, M.D.
Suite 102 20331 Famington Road Livonia, Michigan 48152
Dear Dr. Joshi:
SUBJECT:
FURTHER ACTIONS ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND CONFIRMATORY ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE We have reviewed your response of January 15, 1987 to the Order to Show Cause Why License Should Not Be Revoked dated December 23, 1986 and your additional responses dated May 1,1987 and June 8,1987.
After careful consideration of your position I have detemined that, subject to the enclosed Confirinatory Order Modifying License, adequate cause has been shown why your license should not be revoked as proposed in the December 23, 1986 Order to Show Cause. This decision is based upon the determination that you have made improvements in your program to comply with license requirements, and that the specific plans and commitments as described in your responses and Section III of the enclosed Order, if implemented as described, are adequate to provide assurance that you will conduct future activities in compliance with Comission requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed Order will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, mes M. Taylo Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations
Enclosure:
Confirmatory Order Modifying License cc: Highland Waterford Medical Services CERTIFIED PAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUREG-0940 II.A-40
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATDRY Co MISSION In the Matter of 1 h
KEDARNATH 8. JOSHI, M.D.
20331 Famington Road ) Docket No. 030-13313 J License No. 21-17781-01 Livonia, Michigan ll l
HIGHLAND WATERFORD MEDICAL SERVICES h Docket No. 030-29339 4000 Highland Road Pontiac, Michigan
) License No. 21-24745-01
) EA 86-139 CONFIRMATORY ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE I
Dr. Kedarnath Joshi is the holder of NRC License No. 21-17781-01, which authorizes the use of Groups I, II, and III (except generators) of byproduct material for diagnostic studies at his private practice clinics in Michigan at 20331 Famington Road, Livonia; 530 W. Huron, Pontiac; and 22250 Providence Drive, South 1'ield. The license was originally issued on December 15, 1977, was amended in its entirety on March 1,1983, and is due tc expire on March 31, 1988. Highland Waterford Medical Services (HWMS) is the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 21-24745-01, which authorizes the use of Groups I and II for diagnostic studies. The license was originally issued on June 30, 1986 i and is due to expire on July 31, 1991.
l II On June 12, 1986, prior to issuance of the HWMS license, the NRC Region Ill staff received allegations that Dr. Joshi was engaging in activities at HWMS that were in violation of NRC regulatory requirements. A special inspection was initiated and conducted from June 21 through July 1,1986. Durina the inspection the NRC determined that Dr. Joshi performed nuclear medicine procedures at Highland Waterford Medical Services in Pontiac, Michigan, from May 21 through June 11 t
NUREG-0940 II.A-41
1986 although his license did not authorize use at that location. The HWMS facility had been an authorized address of use for another nuclear medicine group which had ceased operations at that location on May 15, 1986. Prior to beginning operations at the HWMS facility and on several occasions during the period of unauthorized use, Dr. Joshi was informed by his technologist and two i
consultants (acting independently of each other) that authorized use at HWMS 1
would require a license amendment.
l Based on the results of the special inspection, an Order to Show Cause Why License Should Not Be Revoked (Order) was issued on December 23, 1986. The Order was issued primarily because the NRC staff believed Dr. Joshi continued l to use licensed material at a site not authorized by his license after he was reminded on three separate occasions that such use violated NRC requirements.
In an answer dated January 15, 1987 and in an affidavit dated May 4, 1987, l Dr. Joshi responded to the Order. In these responses, Dr. Joshi offered information to support his view of the facts and to mitigate the significance ;
i of the facts as stated by the NRC in the Order. In addition, Dr. Joshi proposed hiring a consultant to perform audits for each facility licensed under License No. 21-17781-01 on a monthly basis for four months, then bi-monthly for four months, and quarterly thereafter. Dr. Joshi further volunteered to adopt all reconenendations of the consultant in order to assure complete compliance with NRC regulations. In a recent telephone conversation with counsel for the t
NRC staff, counsel for Dr. Joshi has confirmed Dr. Jothi's continued willingness to hire a consultant in accordance with his earlier proposal and with Section 111 of this Order.
i NUREG-0940 II.A-42
On the basis of an evaluation of Dr. Joshi's responses, I have detemined that (1) Dr. Joshi has shown adequate cause why License No. 21-17781-01 should not berevokedand(2)LicenseNo. 21-24745-01 should not be modified to prohibit Dr. Joshi from serving in any capacity involving the performance or supervision of licensed activities. I have further determined that License No. 21-1778-01 should be modified to require implementation of the proposed improvements as
[ set forth in Section III below. This decision is based upon a determination that Dr. Joshi will be taking an increased personal interest in assuring that I
his activities are conducted in compliance with NRC requirements and that the
{
l specific plans described in Dr. Joshi's responses, including the perfomance of audits by an independent consultant, should be adequate to provide assurance that Dr. Joshi will conduct future activities in compliance with NRC requirements.
l l
l III In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Sections 81,161b,1611, and 161o of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and Parts 30 and 35, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
A. The Order to Show Cause Why License Should Not Be Revoked, dated December 23, 1986, is hereby rescinded.
l B. Dr. Joshi shall have compliance audits conducted on a monthly basis for four months, then bimonthly for four months, and quarterly thereaf ter for each facility licensed under License No. 21-17781-01. These audits shall be performed by an independent consultant approved by the Regional Admin-1strator NRC Region III.
NUREG-0940 II.A-43
l C. The initial audit shall be completed no later than August 1,1987. Within .
thirty days after each audit, a written report of the audit findings shall be sent to the NRC Region III Regional Administrator at the same time it is sent to the licensee.
D. Within sixty days of receipt of each of the audit reports, Dr. Joshi shall submit a report to the Region III Regional Administrator describing the corrective actions to be taken to implement the audit recommendations or provide justification for alternative corrective action. This report shall also include a schedule for completion of the corrective action for each audit recommendation.
E. The NRC Region III Administrator may relax or terminate any of the preceding conditions for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, /
s, r
[J forsRegional H. Taylo , Deputy Executive Director Operations
[
Dated a Bethesda, Maryland, thisb ay of July 1987 i
NUREG-0940- II.A-44
JUL 101987 Kedarnath B. Joshi DISTRIBUTION:
PDR SECY CA JTaylor, DEDRO ABDavis, RIII JLieberinan, OE EFlack, OE SSohinki, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV !
FIngram, 0GPA BHayes, 01 SConnelly, OIA EJordan, AE00 VMiller, NMSS OE Files DCS State of Michigan DNussbaumer, GPSP l
1 NUREG-0940 II.A-45
p2 tico UNITED STATES g
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S REClONlli E f 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD ateu rttvu. itunOis som
'"** April 8, 1987 Docket No. 030-29510 License No. 34-00811-04 EA 87-31 Incorporated
- LTV Steel ATTN: Mr. W. Company,iley G. W i
Vice President LTV Steel Building P.O. Box 6778 Cleveland, OH 44101 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED -IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
[(NRC INSPECTION REPORT N0. 03029510/87001(DRSS)]
This refers to the NRC safety inspection conducted during January 20-22, 1987 at the LTV Steel Company facilities in Cleveland and Independence, Ohio. The ;
report of the inspection was forwarded to you on February 6,1987. During the i inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified. The results of the I
inspection were discussed on February 13, 1987 during a telephone enforcement conference between you and members of your staff and Mr. J. A. Hind and others of the NRC staff.
The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed l Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) involve your' failure to (1)' maintain I
licensed material under your constant surveillance and immediate control :
and (2) conduct a physical inventory every six months to account for all I sealed sources. It a radioactive sources,two ppears that could of which these present violations resulted inradiation a significant the losshazard of five to members of the general public.
Although LTV Steel Company was formed as a result of a merger of Republic Steel Corporation and Jones and Laughlin Steel Company on December 19, 1984, the sources existed since the early 1970's under a license held solely by-Republic Steel Corporation. The sources were officially transferred to the responsibility the license. y of LTV The Steel Company sources were takenon out September 5, 1985 of service in an amendment for storage at different to i
times and were listed as being in storage for a number of years prior to the ;
discovery that they were missing on November 6, 1986. It-a3 pears that the '
sources were removed from storage and subsequently lost. Tie requirement to -t physically inventory the sources every six months afforded many opportunities for management to discover that the sources were missing. Further, in addition to management's failure to. properly conduct this portion of its radiation safety program, the NRC finds these violations of may have been lost into the public domain. particular concern because the sources-I NUREG-0940 II.A-46 l
l
LTV Steel Company, Inc. 2 April 8, 1987 To emphasize the importance of conducting a thorough radiation safety program which includes inventories and maintaining control of radioactive sources in your possession, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars-($2,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem.
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $500.
were considered.
The base The escalation and mitigation civil penalty factors intothe has_been increased Enforcement
$2,000 because: Policy
- (1) there were multiple occurrences of the failure to inventory the radioactive sources and (2) the duration of the violations prevented the licensee from establishing the whereabouts of the sources for at least 18 months.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions After reviewing your response to this Notice, you plan to including prevent your recurrence.
proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
Inaccordancewii.hSection2.790oftheNRC's"RulesofPractice,"Part2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject
- to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required l by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, n e 3l : u a w .. i bY t
A. t ~ L A. Bert Davis Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation j and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty See Attached Distribution i
NUREG-0940 II.A-47
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY LTV Steel Company, Incorporated Docket No. 030-29510 Cleveland, Ohio License No. 34-00811-04 EA 87-31 During an NRC inspection conducted during January 20-22, 1987 violations 3
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 (1986), 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, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civi1~ penalty are set forth below:
A. 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed materials in an unrestricted area and not in storage be tended under the' constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
Contrary to the above, on November 6, 1986,'it was determined that five i radioactive sources, which had been in storage in an unrestricted area, were removed and not maintained under constant surveillance or the
- immediate control of the licensee and thus were lost. The sources included, a 13.7 millicurie americium-241 source, two sources containing 4.7 millicuries of cobalt-60, and two sources containing 0.3 microcuries and 12.7 microcuries of thallium-204.
B. License Condition No. 19 of the license dated August 20, 1984 - states that the licensee shall conduct a physical inventory every six (6), months to account for all sealed sources received and possessed under the licensee.
Contrary to the above, from December 19,1984(formationofLTVSteel) until November 6, 1986, it was determined that the licensee failed to conduct a physical inventory every six months to account- for all sealed-sources in storage.
Collectively, these violations have been classified as a Severity Level III problem (Supplements IV and VI).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $2,000 - assessed equally between the violations.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, LTV Steel Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, within 30 days of the' date of this Notice. This reply 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 achieved.
NUREG-0940 II.A-48
Notice of Violation 2 April 8, 1987-if en adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Dire tor, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order 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, LTV Steel Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should LTV Steel Company fail to answer within the time-specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil ;
penalty in the amount proposed above. Should LTV: Steel Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil aenalty, such answer may: (1) deny the violations listed in thi.s Notice in w1 ole 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 penalties in whole or-in part, 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 (1986), 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 LTV Steel Company is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing 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 penalties, unless i cumoromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant l to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
FOR THE NUCLEAR 2EGULATORY COMMISSION k0 w A. Bert Davis Acting Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois 1987 thisg% day of April NUREG-0940 II.A-49
/ 'q,, UNITED STATES 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, a WASHpdG TON, D. C. 20565 t
.....*/ AUG 101987 Docket No. 030-29510 License No.34-00811-03 l (Superseded by No. 34-00811-04) l EA 87-31 LTV Steel Company, Incorporated ATTN: Mr. W. G. Wiley Vice President LTV Steel Building P. O. Box 6778 Cleveland, OH 44101 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY This refers to your letter dated May 1,1987, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you by our letter dated April 8,1987 Our letter and Notice described violations identified during an NRC inspection conducted during the period January 20-22, 1987.
To emphasize the importance of conducting a thorough radiation safety program which includes inventories and maintaining control of radioactive sources in your possession, a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) was proposed.
In your response you protest the Notice on two grounds: (1) the license number is in error, and (2) the two cobalt sources were stored in a restricted area which is in conflict with the Notice.
After consideration of your response we have concluded that Violation A did occur under the provisions of License No. 34-00811-03 as you asserted in your May 1, 1987, response. We have also concluded that, for the reasons given in the appendix attached to the enclosed Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, an adequate basis to mitigate or rescind the proposed civil penalty was not provided. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on LTV Steel Company, Inc. imposing a civil monetary penalty in the amount of two thousand dollars,($2,000.00). We will review the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection.
In accordance with Section 2,790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
/,
J s !Taho Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations
Enclosures:
As stated NUREG-0940 l II.A-50 I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION In the Matter of Docket No. 030-29510 LTV Steel Company, Incorporated License No. 34-00811-03 P. O. Box 6778 (Superseded by No. 34-00811-04)
Cleveland, OH 44101 EA 87-31 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
LTV Steel Company, Inc. is the holder of License No. 34-00811-04 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 17, 1986. This license superseded License No. 34-00811-03 which terminated on November 17, 1986, and was the '
license in effect at the time the violations occurred. The old license authorized the licensee to possess and use licensed material in the form of sealed sources in certain density and level gauges in accordance with the ;
conditions specified therein.
II i
1 A special inspection of the licensee's activities was conducted on January 20-22, 1987. The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated April 8, 1987. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations. The licensee
]
responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty by letter dated May 1, 1987.
NUREG-0940 II.A-51
III After consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations has deterinined, as set forth in. the appendix to this Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations 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 (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of two thousand dollars
($2,000.00) within 30 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 Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555.
The licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order.
A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a "Re' quest for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III.
NUREG-0940 II.A-52
If a hearing is requested, the Counission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to ;
be considered at such hearing shall be: l (a) whether the licensee was in violation of the Comission's requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil 4
Penalty referenced in Section II above, and (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a s M. Taylo Deputy Executive Director i for Regional Operations
{
i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland (
this 10 day ofAugust1987.
NUREG-0940 II.A-53
APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On April 8,1987, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (N0V) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection.
LTV Steel Company, Inc. responded to the Notice on May 1,1987. The licensee protests the Notice on two points. While the licensee does not deny that the sources are lost, it believes the two cobalt sources were stored in restricted areas, which is in conflict with the Notice. The licensee also believes the violations should be cited against the license under which the sources were possessed, not the current license which superseded it. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
I. Restatement of Violations A. 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed materials in an unrestricted area and not in storage be tended under the constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
Contrary to the above, on November 6, 1986, it was determined that five radioactive sources, which had been in storage in an unrestricted area, were removed and not maintained under constant surveillance or the immediate control of the licensee and thus were lost. The sources included a 13.7 millicurie americium-241 source, two sources containing 4.7 millicuries of cobalt-60, and two sources containing 0.3 microcurie:
and 12.7 microcuries of thallium-204 B. License Condition No. 19 of the license dated August 20, 1984, states that the licensee shall conduct a physical inventory every six months to account for all sealed sources received and possessed uader the license.
Contrary to the above, from December 19,1984 (formation of LTV Steel) until November 6, 1986, it was determined that the licensee failed to conduct a physical inventory every six months to account for all sealed sources in storage.
Collectively, these violations have been classified as a Severity Level III problem (Supplements IV and VI).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $2,000 - assessed equally between the violations.
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee believes the License Number cited in the Notice is incorrect and should be changed from No. 34-00811-04 to 34-00811-03. License No.
34-00811-03, which terminated on November 17, 1986, prior to the NRC inspection, was the license under which the sources were reported missing. l If the NRC changes the license number cited in the Notice, the licensee 1 agrees, in substance, with Violation A since the licensee also believes there was a question concerning unrestricted access to three of the five NUREG-0940 II.A-54
Appendix sources. However, the licensee believes that the two cobalt-60 sources were properly secured in a restricted manner and would not constitute a violation. Although the licensee believes that three of the five sealed sources could have been better protected had access to the safe in which they were stored been more restricted, it does not believe that the loss of the two cobalt-60 sources can be attributed to poor access control.
In response to Violation B, the licensee agrees that physical inventories were not performed of stored, sealed sources at the Research Center at the prescribed six month intervals as required. The licensee states that the violation occurred because practices at the Research Center were not as described in the license and that an amendment change should have been requested to accurately describe the practice instituted by the licensee.
II. The licensee has also addressed the five factors regarding adjustment of the base civil penalty, as follows:
Prompt Identification and Reporting NRC Region III was immediately notified by LTV Steel by telephone on the same day the sources were first discovered to be missing, November 6,1986 The licensee also described the lost sources event in a December 5, 1986, report which was sent to the NRC.
Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence The licensee describes a new radiation protection program which was developed in response to a NRC request to update the license to reflect .
l current practices at LTV Steel Company. These activities were in progress prior to the discovery of the missing sources. The major corrective '
actions taken since the discovery of the lost sources are: (1) sources no longer vital to the steelmaking process will be properly transferred and disposed; (2) sources maintained in secured storage areas will be under strict access control; and (3) sources and scarce devices will be inventoried every six months. ;
Past Performance In addressing this factor, the licensee describes the measures taken by LTV Steel to substantially upgrade the radiation protection program.
This included transfer and disposal of excess radioactive sources and a forty hour radiation safety officer training seminar.
Prior Notice of Similar Events The licensee states that NRC inspections did not identify concerns in the area of physical inventories by the licensee prior to the January 20-22, ;
1987, inspection. The storage areas also were not identified as {
unrestricted areas by NRC inspectors. If such concerns had been identified, 4 the licensee states that such concerns would have been promptly corrected.
i l
NUREG-0940 II.A-55
Appendix Multiple Occurrences The licensee states that it was unaware of the existence of a violation for storing sources in an unrestricted area and was not aware of a condition resulting in a continuing violation for failure to conduct a physical inventory of sealed sources in storage.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Arguments For Mitigation The NRC staff agrees with the licensee's observation that the violations occurred under the conditions of License No. 34-00811-03. The conditions of License No. 34-00811-03 were superseded by License No. 34-00811-04.
The licensee maintains that the loss of the two cobalt-60 sources does not constitute a violation as stated in the Notice since the sources were in a restricted area. The NRC conclusion was based on the licensee interviews contained in its December 5, 1986, report to the NRC. The interview of Mr. J. F. Perko, formerly Chief Project Engineer of the Nucleonics Division of Republic Steel, stated that the cobalt-60 were placed in storage in 1970. He stated that the safe in which the cobalt items were placed had a chain and lock around it. However, he stated that anyone at the Research Center may have had a key to it. The NRC staff does not believe that an area to which such access is possible constitutes a restricted area. This position is consistent with the NRC's position regarding material stored in the safe in the Main Research Center where at least ten people had access to the combination. The licensee agreed that access to the Main Research Center safe was not restricted as required.
The licensee agreed that Violation B occurred as stated in the Notice.
The violation involved the licensee's failure to physically inventory radioactive sources in storage every six months.
In requesting mitigation or remission of the proposed civil penalty, the licensee has addressed the factors listed in Section V.B.10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1986). The NRC staff evaluation of the licensee's statements are provided below:
Prompt Identification and Reporting The licensee contracted for transfer and disposal activities from June 1986 until September 26, 1986. On November 6, 1986, the licensee was informed by the contractor, Texas Nuclear Corporation, that five sources were unaccountable. Once this information was presented to the licensee, the NRC was informed. The NRC staff believes this event to be self-dis-closing. Mitigation under this factor is usually given to licensees who have a strong program with good audit capabilities. Although the licensee's audit program (physical inventory) had opportunity to identify the violation, the licensee's failure to physically inventory sources prevented the licansee from identifying the missing sources earlier.
NUREG-0940 II.A-56 i
Appendix Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrenca The NRC staff acknowledges the licensee's corrective actions and believes that adherence to these practices should prevent recurrence. However, the NRC staff does not believe the corrective actions were unusually prompt or so extensive as to warrant mitigation. NRC expects that sources in storage will be under strict access controls and that physical inventories will be performed as required (six month frequency).
Past Performance The results of the inspection show that access to safes where radioactive sources were stored was not adequately controlled and physical inventories to identify discrepancies were not conducted. These violations appear to have existed for a considerable period of time. The licensee's performance over this period of time does not warrant mitigation of the penalty.
Prior Notice of Similar Events The NRC agrees that the licensee did not have prior notice of any similar events. Had the licensee known of previous events 'or been informed that violations may have existed and not taken corrective action, escalation for this facto- would have been appropriate. Absent this, no adjustment to the base civil penalty occurred due to prior notice. '
Multiple Occurrences The licensee agrees that it was unaware of the continuing violations in this area. Had the licensee been aware of these problems and failed to correct the violations, escalation for prior notice of similar events would have been appropriate. Because of weaknesses in the licensee's program, violations were not identified for a period of at least eighteen months and the violations continued until the licensee was informed by its contractor that the sources co~uld not be located. ,
NRC Conclusion Neither an adequate basis for a reduction of the severity level nor for I mitigation of the civil penalty was provided by the licensee. Consequently, I the proposed Civil Penalty in the amount of 2,000.00 should be imposed. )
s l
l NUREG-0940 II.A-57
- . - _ _ _ _ . - ~ - _ -
s
/ p *8cg##o
~,,' UNITED STATE!
! n
'] -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 40MMISSION
~
g .. t WASHINGTON D c.21555 s
%, " * * *
- e]
JAN 2 21986 License No. STB-1254 Docket No. 40-08406 EA 85-122 METCOA Inc., fdba.
The'Pesses Company ATTh: Sol Eisen Esquire .
Trustee 'in Bankruptcy 1050 Statler. 0ffice Tower 1127 Euclid Avenue '
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 '
q Gentlemen: 1
SUBJECT:
ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE (EFFECTIV! .IMMEDIATELY)
Enclosed is an Order, effective immediately, modifying License No. STB-1254.
The Corranission is also considering whether further enforcement actions are appropriate.
The enclosed Order is issued because of the presence of licensed snaterial at the Pesses facility in Pulaski, Pennsylvania, which is no. longer being.
controlled by the licensee and/or its legal successor in interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules'of Practice," Part 2 Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a ccpy of this letter and the enclosed Order will be placed in the NRC's Public' Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and liccompanying Order are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of flanagement and Budget, as required by:
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, FL 96 511.
Sincerely, I
p / e dine,s, M. T or, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement- i
Enclosure:
- 1. Order Modifying License 1 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ft9 REG-0940 II.A-58
JAN 2 21986 cc: i State of Ohio Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dr. Marvin Pesses 8 Pepper Creek Drive Pepper Pike, OH 44124 l l
Javitch and Eisen Company, LPA ATTN: Sol Eisen, Esquire !
1050 Statler Office Tower 1127 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Dettlebach and Sicherman Company, LPA ATTN: Marvin Sicherman, Esquire 1300 Ohio Savings Plaza ,
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3169
)
Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency ATTN: 0. H. McCleary Chairman l 1st Federal Plaza New Castle, Pennsylvania 16101 i
Dollar Savings l ATTN: Robert W. Wilson President i Washington Centre !
32 North Mill Street P.O. Box 1469 New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103 i
William J. Kopp, Esq. j U.S. Attorney's Office i 1404 East 9th Street )
Clevelano, Ohio 44114 James D. Rozakis Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources i 1012 Water Street Meadville, PA 16335 1
l l
l l
NUREG-0940 II.A-59
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10N In the Matter of METC0A,;INC., fdba ) Docket No. 040-08406 The Pesses Company ) License No. STB-1254
- 1127 Euclid Avenue ). EA 85-122 Cleveland, OH 44115 ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE (EFFECTIVEIMMr'IATELY)
I METC0A, Inc., fdba as' the Pesses Company (the licensee) is the holder.of source' I material License No.' STB-1254, which authorizes the licensee.to possess a maximum of 2,000 kilograms of thorium and to metallurgically treat and/or reprocess scrap t b rium alloy containing not more than 2%. thorium by weight for distribution to authorized recipients. The license was issued on September 23, 1975.with an-expiration date of September 30, 1980. The license has remained in effect based on a timely renewal request by the licensee in 1980. The license permits use of material at the licensee's facility at Route 551 and Metallurgical Way, Pulaski, Pennsylvania.
II On September 21, 1984, an NRC inspector was sent to the licensee's facilities in Pulaski, Pennsylvania to conduct a routine NRC inspection of licensed activities.
Upon arrival at the facility, the NRC inspector observed that the property appeared to have been' abandoned. The inspector performed radiation surveys of the perimeter of the fenced area of the property, did not observe any radiation. levels above' i instrument background, and left the site.
i NUREG-0940 II.A-60
)
Subsequently,'-the inspector telephonically contacted Dr. Marvin Pesses, the individual listed on the license application as President of the Company, who stated that he was no longer associated with the Pesses Company, that the -j company was in bankruptcy proceedings, and that licensed material had not been used within the previous year.
The.NRC has been informed that Pesses Company had, at some time prior to 1983, merged with METC0A Inc., retained the name METC0A Inc., conducted licensed activities under that name, and that METCOA Inc. had entered bankruptcy proceedings in mid-1983. The NRC was never notified of these' events,by the licensee.
I During a December 1984 NRC inspection, the inspector performed surveys at selected areas both within and outside of the site boundaries. The inspector identified (1) several contaminated areas within the fenced area of the site boundary with radiation levels between 0.04 and 0.6 mrem / hour, (2) one contaminated area outside the fenced area but within the site boundary with a radiation level of 2 mrem / hour, and (3) two contaminated areas within one'of the buildings on the nraperty with radiation levels of 0.04 mrem / hour and a 0.1 mrem / hour. No
- ntaminated areas were identified outside the site boundary. The inspector also determined that a large volume of contaminated material, equivalent to approximately 300 drums, was located within the fenced area of the site boundary and that the gates to fences and doors to the buildings were locked.
On October 9,1985, another inspection of the facility was performed and the.
inspector found the facility to be in essentially the same condition that existed during the December 1984 inspection.
NUREG-0940 II.A-61
Ill 10 CFR 40.42 requires each licensee to notify the Commission immediately in writing and request termination of the license when the licensee decides to terminate all activities involving materials authorized under the license. A licensee is required by 10 CFR 40.42 to maintain access- control over licensed material until radioactive contamination attributable to licensed activities is removed and the NRC terminates the license in writing. The NRC has determined that (1) the licensee and/or its legal successor in interest abandoned the licensed facility during or before 1983, (2) licensed material authorized by the license is no longer in the possession of the licensee and/or-
-its legal successor in interest, (3) radiation levels resulting from contamination at several locations on the site are in excess of regulatory limits for release for unrestricted use, and (4) the licensee never notified the NRC or requested termination of its license in accordance with 10 CFR 40.42. As a result,.there is no reasonable assurance that sufficient measures.are in place (1) to prevent I
the unauthorized transfer of licensed material to unauthorized individuals, (2) prevent the unauthorized access of individuals to contaminated areas, or (3) to decontaminate and decommission the facility. In light of the above and in light of the apparent willfulness of the violations, I have determined that the public health and safety requires that this Order be issued and made immediately
]
effective.
]
l NUREG-0940 II.A-62 l l
i l
1 IV
~
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 62, 63, 161b, 1611, and 161o of'the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10'CFR Parts 2 and 30, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, that the licensee-and/or its legal successor in interest shall:
A. Submit a decontamination plan for the Pulaski facility to the NRC Region I office within 30 days from the date of this Order for review and approval. This plan shall contain:
(1) a complete characterize' tion of the facility, with a description of the location and levels of all sources of radiation and contamination; l
(2) a timetable for decontamination activities and transfer l'
of contaminated waste and other licensed material to an authorized recipient; and (3) the estimated costs and the source of funding.
B. Complete the decontamination effort within 90 days after the Regional Administrator's approval of the decontamination plan.
NUREG-0940 II.A-63
C. Submit to the Region I office within 30 days of completion of the decontamination effort a survey report of the facility verifying that (1) contamination and radiation levels existing are within the levels.
specified in Option 1 of the Branch Technical Position " Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Waste from Past Operations," published in the Federal Register on October 23, 1981, 46 FR 52061, and " Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted )
j Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," and (2) all materials have been transferred to an authorized recipient.
D. Control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for unrestricted use ana until the NRC has confirmed in writing that successful decontamination has been completed.
E. The Regioaal Administrator, Region I may for good cause relax or rescind any of the abuve conditions.
V The licensee and/or its legal successor in interest or any other person whose <
1 interest is adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 25 days of its issuance. Any request for hearing shall be '
addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555. A copy of the request shall NUREG-0940 II.A-64
also be sent to the Executive Legal Director at the same address. A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.
If a hearing is requested by the licensee and/or its legal successor in interest, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, m /
K,Z=
J mes M. Taylor, Director ffice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bpthesda, Maryland this,Litstfay of January 1986.
1 l
l I
l NUREG-0940 II.A-65
pm Cec UNITED STATES je p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O' REGION il h* . 101 MARIETT A ST RE ET, N W, t ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30323
\, v / APR 141987 -
Docket No: 030-6585 ,
License.No: 45-09428-0? '
EA 87-38 Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company 'i ATTN: Mr. J. F. Cox !
Vice President l Newport News, VA 23607 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND' PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF civil PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 45-09428-02/87-01)
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by Mr. R. Brown at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company on January 12-14, 1987 The inspection included a review of the circumstances surrounding an apparent overexposure which was identified by members of your staff and reported to the NRC. The report documenting this inspection was sent to you with a letter dated March 4, 1987. NRC concerns relative to the I inspection findings were discussed by Mr. J. P. Stohr, . Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, NRC, Region 11, with you and members of your staff in an Enforcement Conference held on February 10, 1987 The overexposure occurred because of poor control of exposure during the retrieval of a 10.2 curie iridium-192 radiography source. The inspection determined that a radiation survey was not performed after a radiographic exposure to ensure that the radiographic source had returned to the fully retracted and shielded position.
As a result, a radiographer received an estimated exposure of 180 rems to the left thuirb.
I To emphasize the need to provide proper control over licensed activities, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition
, of Civil Penalty in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for the viola-tions described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action,"'10 CFR Part ?, Appendix'C (1986) (Enforcement Policy), the violations described in the en(. ed Notice have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level 11 pruolem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level 11 problem is $8,000. The NRC Enforcement Policy allows for reduction of a civil penalty under certain circum-stances. In this case, the base civil' penalty is reduced by 75 percent because CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED l
NUREG-0940 II.A-66
_. _ _ . - _ - _a
Newport News Shipbuilding APR 141987 and Dry Dock Company of your unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions, and your prior good regulatory performance. Because of the seriousness of this event which was clearly avoidable by appropriate surveys, further reduction of the civil penalty is not considered appropriate. We are concerned that this failure to make appropriate surveys may not be an isolated incident.
You are required to respond to the letter and should follow the instructions in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, ycu should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room, e The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
i Sincerely, W
J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty I
NUREG-0940 II.A-67
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIDTi"'0F CIVIL PENALTY Newport News Shipbuilding Docket No: 030-06585 and Dry Dock Company License No: 45-09428-02 Newport News, VA EA 87-38 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on January ~12-14, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accor-dance.with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impos'e 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:
A. 10 CFR 20.101(a) requires a licensee to possess, use, and transfer its licensed material in such a manner as to preclude any individual in a restricted area from receiving in any period of one calendar quarter a total l occupational dose in excess of 18.75 rems to the extremities.
Contrary to the above, on Janua ., 9,1987, the licensee possessed and used its licensed material in a manner that resulted in an exposure of approximately 180 rems to the left thumb of a radiographer.
B. 10 CFR 34.43(b) requires a licensee to make a survey with a radiation survey instrument after each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position. The entire circumference ;
of the exposure device shall be surveyed. If the device has a source guide-tube, the survey shall include the guide tube.
Contrary to the above, following a radiographic exposure on January 9,1987, a survey was not performed to determine that the sealed source in an Automation Industries 520 Camera, Serial No. 0093, had been returned to its shielded position.
Collectively, these violations have been categorized as a Severity Level II problem (SupplementsIV). '
(Cumulative Civil Penalty - $2,000 assessed equally between the violations)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company is hereby required to submit'to the Director, Office of Inspection i and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, with i a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, )
101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900. Atlanta, Georgia 30323, within 30 days J
, of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation including for each i violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the NUREG-0940 II.A-68
Notice of Violation results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which 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, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order 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, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) or may. protest imposi-Hon of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer 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 five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed. Any written l
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 l
parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. . Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock ,
Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding ;
the procedure for imposing a civil penalty. ;
Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently 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, l
or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
^
[J.NelsonGrace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this M day of April 1987 NUREG-0940 II.A-69
8[
s a
UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmworow, o. c. noses o.....
JUL 071987 Docket No. 030-06585 License No. 45-09428-02 EA 87-38 Newport News Shipbuilding ATTN: Mr. J. F. Cox, Jr.
4101 Washington Avenue Newport News, VA 23607 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MITIGATION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRCINSPECTIONREPORTNO. 45-09428-02/87-01)
This refers to your letter of May 12, 1987, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you with our letter of April 14, 1987. Our letter and Notice described violations identified g during the inspections conducted at your facilities in Newport News, Virginia. I by Region 11 personnel on January 12-14, 1987. The violations were discussed during an Enforcement Conference conducted on February 10, 1987.
The information provided during the Enforcement Conference and in your response to the Notice of Y1olation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty has been carefully reviewed. As discussed in the April 14, 1987, NRC letter that proposed the civil penalty, the violations were significant and detranstrated the need for improved management control over your radiation safety program.
Your response demonstrates prompt action and involvement by management. This is evidenced b reporting;(3)y:retraining (1) a thorough evaluation based on of the the incident; andsituation; (2) prompt (4) extensive upgraded -
radiological protective measures, such as issuing separate survey meters and personal audible alarms to each radiographer aad assistant. Our letter of April 14, 1987, addressed your prompt and extensive corrective actions and (
your prior good regulatory performance which were the basis for a 75 percent )
reduction of the base civil penalty. In your response, you provided further information regarding additional corrective actions which included a coenitment 1 to furnish each of about 40 radiographer and assistants a personal survey l meter and a personal alarming dosimeter. This represents an unusual cospitment !
which exceeds the normal industry practice in this area. After further consi-deration of the circumstances, including your involvement and attention. {
detailed corrective actions, and excellent prior performance in the area of concern, we have concluded for the reasons given in the enclosure to this letter that complete mitigation of the $2,000 civil penalty proposed in the !
NRC Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated April 14, 1987, is warranted.
four request to reduce the categorization to Severity Level III was considered.
After detailed review of your assessment of this situation, including the information provided by your May 12, 1987 letter, we have concluded that, as a result of the safety significance of the approximately 180 rem dose to the hand, which the preponderance of evidence indicates occurred as reported, no reduction of Severity Level is warranted.
NUREG-0940 II.A-70 l
JUL 071987 Newport News Shipbuilding Your review of al.1 incident reports during the past f'ive years indicated that no similar incident of excessive exposure had occurred that was attributable to a failure to make the required survey at the completion of each radiographic exposure and the radiographer who received the 180 rems exposure had not had any similar incidents. Nevertheless, you must continue to maintain vigilance and not accept the premise that when a radiographer receives an overexposure, it is the first time that the radiographer failed to make the required survey.
Therefore, we wish to emphasize that full mitigation of the civil penalty does not diminish the NRC's concern for the lack of adequate radiation protection control demonstrated by the failura to survey that resulted in the approximately 180 rems exposure to the left thumb of the radiographer.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room.
No response to this letter is required.
Sincerely,
( /
~
a s M. Tay D puty Execu ive Director or Regional Operations
Enclosure:
Evaluations and Conclusions 1
NUREG-0940 II.A-71 l l
i l
\
l
_ENCLOSlfRE EVALUATIONS AND CONCLifSIONS On April 14, 1987, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) was issued for violations identified during a routine NRC inspection. Newport News Shipbuilding responded to the Notice on May 12, 1987.
The licensee admitted that the violations occurred as stated in the Notice, but requested that the Severity Level of the violations be reduced from II to III and requested full mitigation of the Civil Penalty. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
I. Restatement of Violation A. 10 CFR 20.101(a) requires a licensee to possess, use, and transfer its licensed material in such a manner as to preciude any individual in a restricted area from receiving in any period of one calendar quarter a total occupational dose in excess of 18.75 rems to the extremities.
Contrary to the above, on January 9,1987, the ifcensee possessed and used its licensed material in a manner that resulted in an exposure of approximately 180 rems to the left thumb of a radiographer.
I B. 10 CFR 34.43(b) requires a licensee to make a survey with a radiation survey instrument after each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position. The entire circumference of the exposure device shall be surveyed. If the device has a source guide tube, the survey shall include the guide tube.
Contrary to the above, following a radiographic exposure on January 9 j 1987, a survey was not perfonned to determine that the sealed source !
in an Automation Industries 520 Camera, Serial No. 0093, had been returned to its shielded position.
3 Collectively, these violations have been categorized as a Severity Level Il problem (Supplements IV).
1 Cumulative Civil Penalty - $2,000 assessed equally between the violations. ,
Sumary of Licensee's Response Regarding Severity Level 4
The licensee asserts that the violations should be categorized as a Severity Level III. Specifically, the licensee refers to example C.4 of Supplement IV of the Enforcement Policy, which provides in part that a Severity Level III may be assessed for violations involving substantial potential for an exposure or release in excess of 10 CFR 20 whether or not such exposure or release occurs (e.g., entry into high radiation areas such as...in the vicinity of exposed radiographic sources, without having performed an adequate survey.)
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The NRC does not agree with the licensee's assertion that the violations >
are exemplified by example C.4 of Supplement IV of the Enforcement Policy.
l NUREG-0940 II.A-72 !
I
Appendix That example provides that a Severity Level III may be assessed when there l has been only a substantial potential for an exposure in excess of 10 CFR
- 20. In this case, based on the fact that the individual's whole body TLD badge showed an exposure of 1.017 rems and the licensee's evaluation determined that there had been a 179 rem dose to the hand of the individual, the NRC concludes that an actual exposure in excess of the limits in 10 {
CFR 20 occurred. In light of the safety implications of exposure to such !
levels, reduction of the severity level of the violations from II to III )
is not warranted. j II. Summary of Licensee's Response Regarding Mitigation of the Proposed Civil Penalty The licensee notes that the NRC expressed its concern in its April 14, )
1987, letter that the failure to make appropriate surveys may not be an {
isolated incident. The licensee asserts that this was an isolated '
incident arising out of the radiographer's failure to follow company procedures. In support of this assertion, the licensee states that the radiographer was well trained and experienced and had been performing radiographic operations safely and without incident for 15 years, that it has in place internal controls to monitor radiation safety which go i beyond NRC requirements, and that it surveyed all incident reports during i the past five years and found no similar incident where a radiographer l was exposed to radiation because of a failure to make the required survey i at the completion of each radiographic exposure. The licensee further asserts that it has demonstrated diligence in managing its radiography operations, and responded promptly and severely in dealing with this even+ and that its past performance is exemplary within the industry.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The NRC agrees that the licensee has taken unusually prompt and effective corrective action in this matter. The licensee has committed to furnish each of about 40 radiographer and assistants a personal survey meter and a personal alarming dosimeter, which will mandate extensive expenditures by the licensee. This represents an unusual commitment which exceeds i the normal industry practice in this area. In addition, the staff has i concluded that the information supplied by the licensee supports the contention that this was an isolated event. For these reasons, the NRC has determined that full mitigation of the proposed civil penalty is warranted.
III. Conclusion The NRC has determined that the violations have been correctly categorized at a Severity Level II. However, in light of the licensee's unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions and prior good performance, a sufficient basis is provided for full mitigation of the civil monetary penalty.
NUREG-0940 II.A-73 i
p* *8 cv UNITED STATES f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ ,
[ g REGloN til 3 7eo moostvELT noao
- gkc,. f ,8 cLEN E LLYNIILUNott 6007 July 17, 1987 Docket No. 030-18979 License No. 34-19616-01 EA 87-113 St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. David Appel Associate Vice President 11211 Shaker Blvd Cleveland, OH 44104 1 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AN'D PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTV NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 030-18979/87001(DRSS)
This refers to a special inspection conducted on June 3 and 4, 1987, at f St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc., in response to a teletherapy misadministration that your staff identified on June 17, 1986 and reported to the NRC on May 27, 1987. The misad-ministration apparently c::urred as a result of a technologist's failure to carefully review the patient's dose computation sheet, thereby )
allowing an excessive dose to be administered. The inspection report was !
sent to you on June 18, 1987. During the inspection, one violation of NRC requirements was identified. The results of the inspection were discussed on June 30, 1987, during an enforcement conference in the NRC Region III office among you and others of your staff and Mr. C. J. Paperiello and members of the NRC Region III staff.
After considering the violation described in the enclosed Notice as well as additional information obtained during the June 30, 1987 enforcement conference, we have concluded that a significant management oversight resulted in failure to report the therapy misadministration to the NRC on a timely basis. In fact, the misadministration was reported to the NRC almost a year after it occurred.
The NRC relies on licensee management to implement effective programs which ensure that licensed activities are conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. In this instence, there was no effective program to ensure that a medical therapy misadministration was reported on a timely basis. Also, it appears there was a significant breakdown in communication among the Medical Therapy Staff, the Radiation Safety Officer and the Senior Administrative Staff.
We acknowledge that when the Radiation Oncology Staff became aware of the misadministration, approximately one month after the final patient treatment, I it did take appropriate actions to notify the patient and the patient's referring physician; however, the NRC was not notified, as required.
The NRC requires that a therapy misadministration be reported. This information is used by the NRC to identify its cause, to ensure timely corrective action, to ensure timely and proper followup medical care of the patient, and to prevent recurrence. The NRC also uses this information to identify generic problems t
NUREG-0940 II.A-74
St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc. 2 July 17, 1987 that may be attendant with misadministration problems. When such situations (e.g., equipment malfunctions) are identified, the NRC notifies licensees so 3 l
that prompt action may be taken by them to avoid the same problem.
To emphasize the importance of prompt identification and reporting of medical therapy misadministration, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred and {
Fifty Dollars ($1,250) for the violation described in the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987) (Enforcement Policy),
the violation described in the enclosed Notice has been categorized at Severity Level III. The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $2,500.
The NRC Enforcement Policy allows for reduction of a civil penalty under certain circumstances. In this case the base civil penalty has been reduced 50 percent for your prior good performance. Full mitigation is not warranted because of the duration of the violation.
l You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, i including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether I
further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC l regulatory requirements.
{
l In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, j W
A. Bert Davis l Regional Administrator i 1
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation v l
and Proposed Imposition of i Civil Penalty I
i NUREG-0940 II.A-75
. . I
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc. Docket No. 030-18979 11201 Shaker Blvd. License No. 34-19616-01 Cleveland, OH 44104 EA 87-113 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 3 and 4,1987, a violation of NRC requirements was 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 imoose a civil penalty pursuant 1 to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2282 and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty is set forth below:
10 CFR 35.33(a) (formerly 10 CFR 35.42(a)) requires, in part, that when a misadministration involves any therapy procedure, the licensee notify by telephone the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of Part 20.
This notification must be made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the licensee discovers the misadministration.
Contrary to the above, a series of cobalt-60 teletherapy treatments, which !
ended on May 13, 1986, resulted in a therapy misadministration, and, although the misadministration was discovered by the licensee on June 17, 1986, the licensee did not notify the NRC until May 27,'1987.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI). '
Civil Penalty - $1,250 ,
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc., is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 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:
(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 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, i 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 sh6wn. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
i NUREG-0940 II.A-76
Notice of Violation 2 July 17, 1987 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalty 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 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 i 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 listed in this Notice in whcle or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; 3 (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 answers 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 fo-th 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 St. Luke's Radiologists, Inc., 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 st.bsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney Genera;, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil actions pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c. l 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 i
l 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 III.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GB4 a A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this gih day of July 1987 l
l NUREG-0940 II.A-77
I.B. REACTOR LICENSEES, SEVERITY LEVEL III VIOLATIONS, NO CIVIL PENALTY '
~
o UNITED STATES
/p00Ec o g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ $ REGloN lll En ~
'g f OLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 Docket No. 50-254 Docket No. 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-29; No. DPR-30 EA 87-129 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. J. J. O'Connor President Post Office Box 767 Chicaco, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-254/87018(DRSS)
AND NO. 50-265/87018(DRSS))
This refers to the special physical security inspection conducted during the period June 23-26, 1987 at the Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Cordova, Illinois. The inspection was in response to a licensee identified event regarding an unlocked, unalarmed vital area door for which the compensatory measure had been removed. An enforcement conference to discuss this matter was held on July 16, 1987 between Mr. D. Galle and other members of your staff and Mr. C. Paperiello and other members of the NRC Region III staff.
The violation involved a vital area door which was unlocked, unalarmed, and unguarded for several minutes when an officer posted as a compensatory measure for the vital area door was erroneously dispatched to another alarm. This failure to control access resulted in two of the three elements of access control being inadequate such that an individual could have gained unauthorized undetected access during the time the violation occurred. The root causes of the event appear to be signif'cantly inadequate communications between members of the security force and the lack of supervision of post rotations involving compensatory measures.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violation described in the enclosed Notice has been classified at a Severity Level III. j A civil penalty is cWdered for a Severity Level III violation. However, i af ter consultation # t.b *he Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director ? Dagional Operations, I have decided that a civil penalty will not be proposed in this case because of your prompt identification and reporting of the event, prompt and extensive corrective actions, and good, prior enforcement history.
l l
NUREG-0943 I.B-1
Commonwealth Edison Company 2 SEP 01 1987 In particular, mitigation of the civil penalty is appropriate #ue to your good performance in the area of security over the past several years.
Your performance has been rated Category 1 during Systematic Assessments of Licensee Performance (SALP) and you have not had any violations in this area over the last two and one-half years.
In addition, your corrective actions were prompt and extensive and consisted of:
(1) formalization of communications requiring feedback , (2) briefings of all shift personnel on the event and its causes, (3) increased awarenesses by the l
guard force concerning compensatory security posts, and (4) changes in the implementation and supervision of compensatory security posts.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice. In your response, you should document
- the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. You should place all Safeguards Information as defined in 10 CFR 73.21 only in enclosures, so that your letter may be placed in the Public Document Room. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
The material enclosed contains Safeguards Information as defined by 10 CFR 73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Therefore, with the exception of the. cover letter, this material will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, y . Bert Davis U Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Reports No. 50-254/87018(DRSS)
No. 50-265/87018(DRSS)
(UNCLASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION)
See Attached
.,n Distribution NUREG-0940 I.B-2
Commonwealth Edison Company 3 SEP o 1 1987 Distribution cc w/ enclosures:
C. Reed, Senior Vice President D. Butterfield, Nuclear
. Licensing Manager .
R. L. Bax, Plant Manager cc w/o enclosures:
DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Richard Hubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division l
1 NUREG-0940 I.B-3 J
I
[gog%g ^ UNITED STATES
!" 3 "' 7 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ y REGION l
% j 631 PARK AVENUE
% . . . . . ,e KING OF PRUSslA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 JUL 141987 Docket No. 50-309 License No. DPR-36 EA 87-103 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company ATTN: Mr. J. B. Randazza Executive Vice President 83 Edison Drive l Augusta, Maine 04336 Gentlemen:
3
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-309/87-08)
This refers to the NRC inspection conducted on April 27-30 and May 8-13, 1987 at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Wiscasset, Maine. The inspection report was sent to you on June 2,1987. While the April inspection consisted of a routine review of your radiological controls program, the May inspection was conducted in response to (1) the discovery by your staff of a small cylindrical and highly radioactive object in the containment building with radiation levels on contact exceeding 1000 rem / hour, and (2) allegations that radiation and chemical hazards existed at the facility that endangered the health and safety of the plant workers. The discovery of the loose radio-active not required.
object was promptly reported to the NRC, although such reporting was During this inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified. On June 11, 1987, an enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of your staff to discuss the violations, their causes, and your corrective actions.
Although there was no evidence obtained to indicate that any individual received a radiation exposure in excess of regulatory limits, the NRC is nonetheless concerned that the object was not detected even though it was probably in the area since September 1985. The failure to detect this object may be indicative of poor radiological controls and inattention to radiological safety in high radiation areas. Further, the violations represent significant deficiencies in the radiological control program at Maine Yankee. Specifically, the violations demonstrate that (1) radiological oversight by health physics (HP) personnel of work activities vas deficient, and (2) individuals performing activities were not adequately instructed in radiological conditions. These deficiencies may have been caused by a lack of adequate planning of activities and the lack of adequate staffing during the refueling outage. These concerns regarding the adequacy of your HP training program and staffing levels were previously discussed with you during the last Systematic Assessment of Licensee Pe rformance .
NUREG-0940 1.B-4
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company In addition, some of the violations were identified as a result of allegations made to the NRC, thereby indicating that your program for identifying problems, including concerns raised by your staff, and taking appropriate action, has not been effective. Furthermore, during my visit to your facility on June 10, 1987, poor housekeeping throughout the plant and poor radiological control practices were observed.
Therefore, in view of these programmatic deficiencies, the violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987). Although a civil penalty is considered for a Level III violation or problem, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, I have decided that a civil penalty will not be proposed in this case because (1) the event involving the discovery of the object inside containment was promptly reported to the NRC, when identified, although such reporting was not required, and (2) your immediate corrective actions in response to the event were unusually prompt and extensive.
You are required to respnd to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, hi$ ,
William T. Russell Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation NUREG-0940 I.8-5
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company cc w/ enc 1:
C. E. Monty, President C. D. Frizzle, Assistant Vice President / Manager of Operations J. H. Garrity, Plant Manager P. L. Anderson, Project Manager G. D. Whittier, Licensing Section Head J. A. Ritsher, Attorney (Ropes and Gray)
Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Maine l
J NUREG-0940 I.B-6
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-309 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station License No. DPR-36 EA 87-103 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 27-30 and May 8-13, 1987, 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 violations are set forth below:
A. Technical Specification 5.11 requires that procedures for' personnel-radiation protection be prepared and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure. Radiation Protection Procedure 9.1.10, Radiation Work Permits, requires, in part, in Section 7.4, that the method of high radiation area control utilized and the surveillance frequency of checking work in such high radiation area be indicated on the radiation work permit.
Contrary to the above, Radiation Work Permits Nos. 87-4-231, 87-4-232, and 87-4-281, used for entries into high' radiation areas on April 30, 1987, did not indicate the method of high radiation a.rea control.or the surveillance frequency of checking the work performed in those areas.
B. Technical Specification 5.12.1 requires, in part, that each high l radiation area in which the intensity of radiation is at such levels that a major portion of the body could receive in any one hour a dose-in excess of 100 mrem be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high' radiation area.
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:00 p.m. on April 27, 1987, a .
high radiation area existed on the -2' elevation of the containment near the Reactor Head Stand, and the barricade and postings -for this high radiation area were inside the 100 mR/hr boundary and thus were not serving as a warning to anyone approaching the area. As a result, an individual in the area could have received a dose to the major portion of the body of 120 mrem in an hour.
C. 10 CFR 20.203(c)(iii) requires that each entrance or access point to a high radiation area be maintained locked with positive access control over each individual entry.
Contrary to the above, on May 10, 1987, access to the Waste Storage Area adjacent to the Radiation Control Area (RCA) Storage Building was not maintained under positive access control. . Specifically, scaf folding and a ladder were located adjacent to a wall of this area which would allow an individual to retch the top of the wall and gain access to the inside-where radiation dose rates were as high as 2000 mrem /hr.
NUREG-0940 I.B-7
Notice of Violation )
}. D.
f 10 CFR 19.12 requires, in part, that all individuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area be kept informed of the storage of radioactive material and precautions to minimize exposure.
Contrary to the above, at approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 8, 1987, certain workers were standing in a restricted area next to a 55 gallon drum which had contact dose rates of 1200 mrem /hr, and these workers were not informed that radioactive material was stored in the 55 gallon drum, nor were they provided precautions to minimize their exposure to the radiation emanating from the material in this drum.
These violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. (Supplement IV)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Maine Yankee.is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps that have been taten and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. 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.
cause shown.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
&.T h al$
William T. Russell Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this /9 day of July 1987 i
l NUREG-0940 I.B-8
UNITED STATES l pa s'sf l
+E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsslON
[ 'o,$ REGION il g j 101 MARIETTA STRE ET.N.W.
- 2 ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323
% ""* / JtlL 151987 e Docket Hos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 EA 87-78 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. L. Stewart, Vice President, Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT N05. 50-280/87-07 AND 50-281/87-07)
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC) inspection conducted on May 4 - 8, 1987 at the Surry Nuclear Station. During this inspection, a failure to comply with NRC regulatory requirements, which was identified by the licensee, was reviewed. The report documenting this inspection was sent to you with a letter dated June 17, 1987. The NRC concerns relative to this finding were discussed between Mr. M. Ernst Deputy Regional Administrator, and other members of the Region 11 staff and you and other members of your staff in an Enforcement Conference held on May 19, 1987. The report documenting this con-ference was sent to you by a letter dated June 9, 1987.
The violation described in the enclosed Notice of Violation involved a failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, with respect to the independence of cabling associated with alternative safe shutdown equipment. A review by your staff revealed that cabling for Diesel Generators numbers 1 and 3, which are required as power sources for the Unit 1 alternative safe shutdown ;
requirement, were not independent of the specified design basis fire area. !
This cabling, as well as cabling for the Unit 2 safe shutdown equipment, was j routed through the Unit 2 Cable Vault and Tunnel which is a design basis fire !
area. A fire in this area could result in the loss of reactor coolant makeup j capability for for both units if offsite power is not available. This improper i cable routing was the result of an inadequate review for Design Change Package !83-39A. !
l In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC l Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1987), the violation described )
in the enclosed Notice has been classified at a Severity Level 111. A civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III violation. However, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, I have decided that a civil penalty will not be proposed in this case because of your unusually prompt and extensive correc-tive action to address the problem and prevent recurrence, your prior good performance in the area of fire protection, and your prompt reporting of the problem to the NRC. The good prior performance is illustrated by the category I reting in fire protection during the last Systematic Assessment of Licensee Per-formance which covered the period of March 1, 1985, through August 31, 1986.
NUREG-0940 I.B-9
1 Virginia Electric and Power Company M 15198/
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions l specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response you should document the n specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. It is noted that, in your updated Licensee Event i
Report No. LER 87-010-01 dated June 11,1987, you have already addressed some l of these items. Therefore, in your response you may reference that submittal
{
where appropriate. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your l proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compli -
ance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rule of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure ,
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. {
l The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, c .
J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation i cc w/ encl:
! R. F. Saunders, Station Manager l
N. E. Clark, Manager - Naclear
! Programs and Licensing l
l NUREG-0940 1.B-10
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Surry, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 EA 87-78 4
During an NRC inspection conducted on May 4 - 8, 1987, a violation of NRC requirements was reviewed after identification by Virginia Electric and Power Company Licensee Event Report No. 87-010-00 dated April 10, 1987. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 50.48(b) requires, in part, that all nuclear power plants licensed to operate prior to January 1,1979, shall satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, including specifically,Section III.G, Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.
Section III.G.2 specifies that, where cables or equipment of redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown condi-tions are located within the same fire area outside of primary containment, a means of ensuring that one of the redundant train.s remains free of fire damage shall be provided.
Section III.G.3 requires an alternative or dedicated shutdown capability independent of cables, systems or components in the specified fire area under consideration where the protection of systems does not satisfy the requirements of Paragraph G.2.
Contrary to the above, as of March 13, 1987, the power and control cabling for Diesel Generators No I and No. 3, the power sources for the Unit 1 alternative shutdown equipment used to satisfy Section III.G.3 , were not independent of the specified design basis fire area. The cabling, as well as the cabling for the Unit 2 safe shutdown equipment, was routed through the Unit 2 Cable Vault and Tunnel (Fire Area 2), the design basis fire area.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I). l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Virginia Electric and Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTH: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy of the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to .
the NRC Resident Inspector, Surry Nuclear Station, w' thin 30 days of the date i of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have ;
been taken and the results achieved (3) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will i be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time !
NUREG-0940 I.B-11
Notice of Violation 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 action as may be proper should not be taken.' Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULA0RY COMMISSION
~
' J. Nelson Grace-j/ Regional. Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia thislg day of July 1987 l
l NUREG-0940 I.B-12
UNITEo STATES
/pe nse ($
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
- REoloN lli f Too moosEVELT poAo L :
f GLEN ELLYN. ILLlNoIS 40137
i
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50 266/87011 '
AND NO. 50-301/87010)
This refers to the inspection conducted during the period of April 28 throughL i4ay 19, 1987, at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The inspection was conducted, in part, in response to two personnel exposure events that you identified and reported to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector. On June 18, 1987, we held an enforcement conference with you and members of your staff during which the violations, the root causes, and your corrective actions were discussed.
The first event, which occurred on April 21, 1987, involved two contractor health physics technicians who were assigned to move plastic bags of radwaste from one temporary location to another in the radwaste. building. One of the bags, which contained a highly contaminated filter from a portable Junderwater cleaning system, was apparently slit or tor, either before or during the transfer operation. As a result, radioactive particles fell on the floor in the shielded storage room and two particles were found in the breast pocket of each technician's coveralls. The maximum calculated skin doses for the two technicians were 4.5 rem and 0.75_ rem. Although neither of these doses-exceeded regulatory limits, there was a substantial potential that such limits could have been exceeded.
Thelsecond event occurred on May 10, 1987, when three individual ( a Health Physics supervisor and two Radiation Control Operator Trainee', (RCOT), conducted a test of-the plant Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) to demoasteate that the containment purge valves would trip closed, as required. .The individuals were unfamiliar with the configuration of the storage container that held a-70.7 millicurie cesium-137 source that was.being used in the test. As .'s result, one of the trainees removed a small plug from the storage container which, unknown to him, contained the cesium-137 source. He then held the plug and source in each hand for about 33 seconds and received a calculated dose of approximately 15 rem to each hand. Although this dose did not exceed regulatory limits, there was a substantial potential that such limits could have been exceeded.
NUREG-0940 I.B - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ ____ _ _____
Wisconsin Electric Pcwer 2 July 14, 1987 Company These two violations, which occurred within a three-week period, have similar root causes: a lack of awareness of radiological hazards and a failure to adequately instruct' employees in precautions or procedures to minimize person-nel exposures. In the first event, the technicians were not aware of the significant hazards associated with the highly contaminated filter in the plastic bag, did not realize that the filter was not adequately packaged, and j had no written instruction or labeling on the bag that would have alerted them !
to the problem. In the second event, untrained individuals attempted to l
perform a test procedure without adequate training, without understanding the i equipment involved, and without attempting to obtain appropriate information d before proceeding with the test.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been classified collectively as a Severity Level III problem. A civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III problem. However, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, I have decided that a civil penalty will not be proposed in this case because you identified and promptly reported these events to the NRC, conducted a comprehensive investigation, and took unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions. The corrective actions included the following: (1) a new Superintendent of Health Physics position was created and filled on June 1, 1987; (2) an additional staff position was created in health physics and will be filled by July 27, 1987; (3) the present six RCOTs will be increased to 13 af ter seven individuals complete training by December 31, 1987; (4) initiatives have been taken to upgrade the status of health physics personnel; (5) new calibration source procedures have been drafted; (6) the calibration source container has been labeled and the cesium-137 source has been secured in the container to prevent inadvertent removal, and (7) new procedures have been implemented to control personnel contamination.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. You should also describe any additional actions you have taken or plan to take to ensure that individuals will be provided with adequate training and instru.tions before being permitted to engage in activities that entail significant radiological hazards. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
NUREG-0940 1.B-14 i
1
I Wisconsin Electric P:wer 3 July 14, 1987 l Company q
l The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely, h?
A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc w/ enclosure:
J. J. Zach, Plant Manager DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Virgil Kanable, Chief Beiler Section Mary Lou Munts, Chairperson Wisconsin Public Service Commission Collette Blum-Heister (SLO),
WI Div. of Emergency Government Lawrence J. McDonnell, Chief Radiation Protection Section WI Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Health l l
l 1
I l
NUREG-0940 I.B-15
NOTICE OF VIOLAT10N Wisconsin Electric Power Company Docket No. 50-266 Point Beach Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-24 Unit 1 EA 87-95 During an NRC inspe'ction conducted during the period of April 28 through May 19, 1987, 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 violations are listed below:
A. 10 CFR 20.203(f)(1) and (2) require in part that, except as provided in subsection (f)(3), each container of licensed material bear a durable, clearly visible label identifying the radioactive contents and providing sufficient information to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity " hereof, to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures.
10 CFR 20.203(f)(3)(vi) provides that labeling is not required for containers which are accessible only to individuals autfiorized to handle them, or to work in the vicinity thereof, provided that the contents are identified to scch individuals by a readily available written record.
Contrary to the above, on April 21, 1987, two authorized contractor technicians handled a container (plastic bag) of licensed material containing highly radioactive particles and the container was neither labeled nor identified to the individuals by a readily available written record to pennit these individuals to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures.
B. 10 CFR 19.12 requires, in part, that all individuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area be kept informed of the use of radioactive materials in such portions of the restricted area and be instructed in the health protection problems associated with exposure to such radioactive materials, in precautions or procedures to minimize exposure, and in the purposes and functions of protective devices employed.
Contrary to the above, on May 10, 1987, three health physics personnel working in a restricted area with a 70.7 millicurie cesium-137 source from which there was a substantial potential for an exposure in excess of 10 CFR Part 20 limits did not know the configuration of the source in the source container and had neither been instructed in the health pro-tection problems associated with use of the source container nor in precautions or procedures to minimize personnel exposure.
Collectively, these violations have been evaluated as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
NUREG-0940 I.B-16
Notice of Violation 2 July 14, 1987 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Wisconsin Electric Power Company is ,'
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the NRC Resident i Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a j Notice of Violation" and should include: (1) the reason for the violation if j admitted; (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. 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.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
QG b O A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator Dated Glen Ellyn, Illinois this / day of July 1987.
I l
NUREG-0940 I.B-17
II.B. MATERIAL LICENSEES, SEVERITY LEVEL III VIOLATIONS, NO CIVIL PENALTY 1
\
i i
f**"'%
- UNITED STATES f , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ f REGION IV
$11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000
, , ARLINGTON. TEXAS 79011
.AL 301987 Docket No. 30-29055 License No. 35-14042-02 EA No. 87-73 Valley View Regional Hospital ATTH: Philip H. Fisher, President j
)
430 North Monte Vista Ada, Oklahoma 74820 -l Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 30-29055/87-01)
This refers to the inspection conducted on January 21, 1987, at the Valley View Regional Hospital, Ada, Oklahom. A violation discovered by the NRC inspector concerns the failure to report a therapeutic misadministration. This matter l
was discussed with you at the enforcement conference held in the Region IV l
office on May 21, 1987. Further, additional information requested by the NRC was submitted by you in a letter dated January 30, 1987 The violation involved the failure to report a therapeutic misadministration to NRC. The misadministration was inadvertently caused by the irradiation of a patient by a route of administration other than that intended by the prescribing physician. This violation, in conjunction with the previous violation rent to you with NRC Inspection Report 30-29055/87-01 on February 20, 1987, is of cacern to the NRC because they represent a need for further staff training f and familiarization with equipment operation and procedures for reporting violations.
I In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC !
Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violation described {
in the enclosed Notice has been classified at a Severity Level.III. A civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III violation. ~Nowever, after l consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, I have decided that a civil penalty will not be proposed in this case because of your good prior enforcement history and the unusually extensive corrective actions taken or planned in response to this event.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional 1 l
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 1 i
NUREG-0940 II.B-1
1 Valley View Regional Hospital actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After' reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerel 4
l >
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc:
Oklahoma Radiation Control Program Director 1
l l
NUREG-0940 II.B-2 l
NOTICE OF VIOLATION -
Valley View Regional Hospital Docket No. 30-29055 430 liorth Monte Vista License No. 35-14042-02 Ada, Oklahoma 74820 EA No. 87-73 Durirg an NRC inspection conducted on January 21, 1987, a violation of NRC requirerrents was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 35.2 defines a misadministration to be the administration of radiation by a route of administration other than that intended by the prescribing physician. Further, 10 CFR 35.42(a) requires, in part, that when a misadministration involves any therapy procedure, the Licensee shall notify by telephor,e the appropriate NRC Regional Office within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> af ter the licensee discovers the misadministration.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did r.ot notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovering a misadministration on December 29, 1986. On that date, a patient was administered a 25 rad dose during a portion of a single treatment session by means of source rotation, a route of adrninistration not intended by the prescribing physician.
This is a Severity Level 111 violation (Supplement VI).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Valley View Regional Hospital is l hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 w'th a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, and if applicable, a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 days of the date of i the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply, should be clearly marked as a '
" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(2) the corrective steps that (1)thereasonfortheviolationifadmitted}thecorrectivestepsthatwillbe have been taken and the results achieved (3 taken to avoid further violations, and (4) 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. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
.f
$/
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas, thisf%ayofJuly1987.
NUREG-0940 II.B-3
9 Ys Ei i
i a
l E
eN i auOar ~uMaa ,u e rioc.
gPOu us ucatunuuv0av CO v.t N..
E" 5 BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0940 usikiravCreN Oh r- i v. .,,
Vol. 6, No. 3 2 TITLE AND Sus TITLE 3 LgAvggtANK Enforcement Acti : Significant Actions Resolved I Quarterly Progress port *
(July - September 1 ) '""#"'""
MONTM ,
ifAM
.. Aut Oais, December 3 1987 ;
Office of Enforcement f .pe aiPOa f issuno j MONr . ..A. j l
Decem 1987 i L PEMFORMING OmGANIZAflON NAME ANO MAILING 4885 trac 4tarle Coat 8 PROJiCT KmOHnumiTNvMatR Office of Enforcement # I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conm ion * , oa* * ' * """ a Washington, DC 20555 10,5PONSORING OmGAN12ATION NAt84 AND MAILING ADORi$$ tt le ceses itsTvPtOPMEPORT Same as 7 above 1 Technical D PE RIOD COV ER ED Ifaews we setssi
=
i2su,4aMcNri ,NOru
(
- 13. As$TR ACT (200 wores er Asset :
This compilation summarizes signific nforcement actions that have been resolved I
during one quarterly period (July - 'ept ber 1987) and includes copies of letters, Notices, and Orders sent by the N ear R ulatory Commission to licensees with respect to these enforcement act' ns. It anticipated that the information in this publication will be widel isseminate to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NR so that acti s can be taken to improve safety by avoiding future violations s' ilar to those cribed in this publication.
s
,A OOCuM N1 AN A6 vi,. . . o *0s,oucaiPTOas
,. p ,A,i g Tv Technical Spe ications, Radiographer, Quality Assurance, Radiation Sa y Program, Safety Evaluations Unlimited 18 SEcualTY CLA$$17iCNilON e IDENriFif RS/ INDED TERMS (rans reporu Unclassified 17 Nuwet A OF PAGES 18 PRaCE
- U. S. COVE R h8E 4 f PR i kf ikc Orr ICE s 1981- 217 29 2 : M 314
@s MMQMGM w ,m y pn%~%m gM%WWp m k y m p%my m@uk s w +gnsw~mpw m we manu4 mep w w g)Ww w mna w$NQ@nnnnan Q myAswNc mW dypw CLEAHAEGyLATORCCOMSfSSiOfM; x ~
- n
,n my g ;w dh/NMW sewam@w@&p@mq$+M.e$w^$ ..m
- J;p%W$v MWQM pmpgaw W ~ W hnN 'S/f# -n M am y~ yy o.mmo n s -
m.,
%g$wa h w m der @gpusg
- s. 4agw mymTorc4,capssse. ,
buge g _ elG $" ky Agy N *N$jMM$fMp$g$igupmyN 7
- N iM gm n MM; MMMM k w ~ ."~ gyggg g g g g ggig g ww QQw mww Wp d in%s%wwM
$@m)Q yr. sw
, K . i n,n n ,
n'"
4 W h4 ?M W Md m eb M$dWKN t ,w 4_MhD;n(A..
n,
- ,,c 1
W. saw i .
M;%mR $ w @m s w M m% s e%s A A
^_ N ;.f l d
~ _a#4
%llh
d *
$@ ' Y. Yt]
s~
$mm%u o m M' ; W)[ml7%[,aem Mo .
S, '. M. #
mw.,a Md%w eM@$$
%;M p
1 g7%w H g. %, , o.4Ac w 4 - y,ohm o M gj y.4$u msgywq w g e hMp n
ygg
~Mgp n %,*n 3 Mg en hapj~My:d.w. 4 N wmt> ea, n w w &.-
sm My m:&n "
.yii;>p%y;w s pquppgwy%wggmggpd bag -ju g w%0%q,W MQ4 L ,
Y:% %l 1, < ,jg'My&y@%X*$$$g&@yg&@W h f6 iTQk munny%$%whwynp W mn . A h qg %f n > Ep;f'W
, w+.. w g 3 %sg.yf ym W
p p yWg& ;+ '. .ggc A,.
4 1 p( , . w&;
g M egjp Wx hw y gg ng> g%m gqqg(I(9g@qQ y r.@4niQpyfarJ mf gu ,n
,w ' q w
m Jm:. .
42,p
- v w/ . , n< > . r; s y' , . 1, .n m ' ,+sl(; q . . - . '(F C e s q Q raq q 3 wmn L ).l4 4 %g,V , Q vV ;u? f.yn . tW W p p g~a: t ,t>Q-Q 9 9_ r. a% s
- p. i d i
,t s W
- s d s, i q~ : ' t
,i ^' / '- yi
, . r y 't ; 11 4 e@ y Q',M
" e/, z :, A;v v a g;e d N MV G %r. ) i s s,j MU-pu y5 ag4 gi Qy [p yV ;Q.p.gy j A yj wg g' p y ; .
- gt ;
ot ,J', . q[ .g$ ;4- y g gygj g, ${T jg.q
!;(m4 eAj; 7'f.cg.4 s g7
? f
}+QQGj hQG pp g}qg:,%pq {' q%9,p:
1 i
, g , Jg s7.,p: , u ,.p
, m + <
. .y 4 qp .
a}p . yQff j oj -, ;& } ;;l; c.y.f!W % ' d i> N
[mm" ni , m{;y.}223 g-m~-w 4m w u;n!g m4el4,ulm&p fy cbn.a
. +
w w J
.g r(p &m{') . 't :l I
- w&w*h &
l V.
c,
. , + ,-
..=w t s
~
w,,
.. .. .3 ',e
, _. p
- w. .
6}'j g'. b f
Q 7c.pgpm f)r y
$m ' '
..L ,gg e,g . ncp[* ,+ j,$_ &R, .
yi j? ~T'&p;;
, nu '.n<W y$&e k%jyU(d'}3}m.qh,Q_QQ[&.9,&Q(&l%
n _ a.
i -
- .ry a77gyy. g. ng,oqg;-gngg,wc3.;,.7,3 a.
- $gggAj gggggg, 4
.n, y- .
i n,
3<
.s >
on . ,
uw , ~ n.
-u.f m~ M4m 3 esa r4 p gyQn. sml.u .y-i 1,q 41ygf.
mn
.g .:.w
,i m;
, 3u- w Lg um s t h h &hf W,7 b y ,
'Tl l[l ,
lf .
. ,r - , h,fc., '
- ,; ' < 1 4 ?.Y ' jj.
g) lpfh glqoa ; q {&g pwg,Q&, - g$ Q.n.pf q(q[& hd y-(yM
&g glyf,{ pe,n;pf<
qgg wa ,
n ns: e
- 1Q W' >* ]A.
- \r - nW tw h gy.%m: +
. r, l
e : (- >' . . tq,i s'*r' 3
.A J )1 W,
.u, . , s,.: w , , qa,s
,m g r. g%;jh, 4
r' $ '.Ie pj 4 %;, ~* cu ifc,')h.t g n w', ,ym is.'. - ~wa
- s W~! t' )A 4g 19 w
,~q.-:<,
e 5 . ,n ,.
- - v t p" ,e _
, . g, '
a m .~, ., q m c.. y
,t y;
,,p 7; ..e. s g j .~. , 9 s, J' "* ,_. pi > <y 3, , ' 3--lt r.0 (: ..jM,}pm y Wpved . ., .19 h r(%,
.u . .
, 9>,,
d 4, g,q; &qe n.yg,) , .,(,'i'ga:irm,g .hp
,i 3
, g-
. > t i . , , -
s p s ;. 4", ' 'd;r y; ,
1 3 r;ay-q xI f ss -v k qm, o- ; g3
- fcqq eg
, 1 .
4 r
4-
. *. /
.I l '. y
~ -
,.e
,5
.n > c:
1 .,4, ,
4
.v a,? . t' j -g. j fMy'M;/ ; i;,,p/.". 4 g i s'; ' g>i on>q p,' 1 .
u i
ey i
W" qy c, .jpJW.ig/ (,
,e f'a , (, ,,
, as c4r 9*<! g ,
4 3,3;> $ ; M e4e,
, fh' 3 i'
7 -
n^ - '
ii +
3
- ,f ;.k 7 U ckI io -
f* U oAi ,.
s .$
L;',-
f~ ,)
' ' jfb4E&i djg (,M l L y(k ;7 ',il r eA ,M y :L < O.b b ; W lg % Ln'j;a y 3p; & W[$'Q mWa W* j.s 3 M'g$ y y , ,w,M y ' : >h -
- j; nnW;
- e. g , .
i i ev n f. ,S4. .p,> W,' p.pM,i s 3 @i.
,1. j 1, j . 9f'g.m, , N, . 3.f i ' t 7 F
M a
+ p
+~ '
E >
, ,g{4 V. , gr . .
w.t,, ept } cl p, ;e y, f., 7j d
,f, r t 3,
,v j ,q ,, f.
g y;,. . ,;,1 4 7 ,
in ,
,, m ;.& 4c p,5a w ',
1 s
- 5 i Y, . a ca.;f-, f f ; y ,4w 4,g p i).s. i
, T i,^r' ,
~
9 u, - ,h, w ,0ia.
m , 3
, t r .
I - :wf<
G a
4 5.'
- ,e , 4 ,) # $ ,
yst 5j J! , I ff ,'
~0
- h ${,9.'%%'
'tT '
$? E}J , &e ,
- f-+L N
?'
e fy1 y
3h' r' ;b; .
e .
};-
iV( .5%; :
s , ,
p,~<,L .a-gy. ; ;pq$ y y: x.,
,4 , , .
> g+.
- 3 3-(,' 4I ,r f ' 'h'g l # g n qt , 4 ss ; p. ' , p~g
.a s 1 , A- -
\
s .
s
,.,t y.
,A '
e i [ ?
.-. y l
", '. . y.< 4
.g 2 1 5 i iu ;iM , ,
4 i.3i.
% ,)"
r.
l, *4 +%i)'< , ,;ll f ,:.
' t i. .;m 4
1l ' ' . -[ g ,:
Ql. *
, , l &. ,)3: [.' , v >
4 eq'l
[w' ,j i , o .
.(( _N . !. } ,d j,' ,f , 4
.f,%* .'
i
' N[ ' 7; g h. .1 %' 1 u -
s u n'Esum ?.jls ,y s
'n9; > m yw ;: ep{ r a se ,t v: pp", s . yrn ,
m * +
3.,,,y .
p
, a ,:~.. j m..' q:: .
'., . fI , 5 { ,7 g , y a
7 a
9v +yg7( g- n[ f gf."i*' .
W- <,
, n],p E ~ ,, . . '
3' lQ v, 5 e .
6 , y
- n. .
& s
- >$'5 y$9.WwQg % 'a i
@f j ' Nj? .' \ $ / :
e ; i..,,. n. - * << >
w.wry <
- o. q ts.-
, 4
, t
,n.. -
s,~. ..,p.-
e 4't. j 8 > 7a p: m ; . , <w
,,d. , ' Api
-y. . ' ena
-l1 f k.y;"_q i.6y(.M i r -
- r. ..r.,
o_ .) p; . *< ', i i
4-
+ Av p.i 4.; b . pg.;g
.. j. 4s +
y l;; !p f,.
,4 a s
1-
' ' , .' \ t ;
+'^p' f f
[ , ,
a3 e r
LL - '-
w: : m mo o.
s,m
$pp
.m~
,s y; c.
.y q"# =
3 4>'j t' -k /]! 4- ! A i ' F .i y >s- '
f..p** .m 4 N f ' '
ms _ lh}
? ' . \ y ,
i
_jf'._ p-vJ*.
- m iw ,1 ;
.._ - 4
. ci .My y ryf". , a:: 1l g: 3 8
t ; u.' %. ,
,- Len s " ,,, y c.
In & .x ; , '.'c
, : n, aw a.
ii -s
~?
a a $I,gf g_/b.*,.I"' '.[I,
,.., ,,,n.e c.g, d 3
.']/, 4 ~h. . N q -
.gt ,. ,,. , ' / . . < > ,u 'eh g r
e vn
'a 1.k. . {, ;3 .
it
,h '
', i t m Y[ . , j / k ,
w is g -
1'e r p- ,q W ' o .e gs -y,, t' .s " i. ;,' ,; , ' # ,1,,g .w /'
v.n f
',7 I I f$ J % ,
_.t- 3,., ,..g > i- L, [< l,
, cg y -.n'_ 7, 3 g 3~,p ; f 3; q u~ ,
. c , ' *^:
e + ,
i
), #r '.E E
[ ', p m, ,%1 q:.o
._ '. f.t ' k 7_
, pt y lq[ i ,; ), , y , y , /4 e t m 193A 1 -
, 1 p
~7 J,
, .app, , - w j ($:i ,h. ' O.J g 3 d .M m- ', (
,,'4 h[j m m wag 4 4
( ( i } it ;3 g,j
.g, e <[p r[ a w :w s ,;
), u, ,. .
p* - , .: o.%wm.
r.o g~Ne
, m , g ,e nb p'g4' p.a-
.nu #, -r>
mn , , o
,a ...
s ;g, -
t i
3 w!<n; .nc t ,.m n .
mm m z -. A < ,