ML20237G550

Responds to 870721 Request That NRC Look Into Matters Raised in Two Newspaper Articles Re Incidents at Plant.Nrc Aware of Both Incidents & in One Case Had Taken Enforcement Action. Insp Repts,Notice of Civil Penalty & Related Info Encl

ML20237G550
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	08/25/1987
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Coughlin L HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20237G553	List: ML20237G550 ML20237G586
References
NUDOCS 8709020302
Download: ML20237G550 (3)

Text

- - . - - . _ . ..

c 3,2 Rio

'o UNITED STATES g

.[y ;E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM1SSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p/

The Honorable Lawrence Coughlin United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Coughlin:

I am responding to your letter dated July 21, 1987 in which you requested that the NRC look into matters raised in two newspaper articles concerning incidents at the Philadelphia Electric Company'sJ eech Rottea nuclear facility. The staff was aware of each incident, had investigated them, and, in one case had taken enforcement action.

The subject of one article was the case of Mr. George Field who has filed a ,

lawsuit against the Philadelphia Electric Company for allegedly exposing him to i dangerously high levels of radiation to avoid shutting down the plant. The NRC has previously investigated this incident and found that the gas discharge to the tunnel occurred after the unit had scrammed. A special inspection concluded that the radiation dose received by Mr. Field did not exceed the limits spect-fiedinFederalRegulations(10CFR20). A copy of the inspection report is enclosed.

In addition, Mr. Field also filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, alleging that his em)1oyment at Peach Bottom was terminated because he expressed safety concerns to t1e NRC. Although Mr. Field and his employers reached a settlement on this matter prior to a DOL decision, the NRC nonetheless inves-tigated the basis for the termination and concluded that he was terminated for .

raising safety concerns, a violation of the employee protection provisions of 1 10 CFR 50.7. As a result, a $50,000 civil >enalty was assessed against Philadelphia Electric Company. A copy of t11s civil penalty is enclosed.

The second article discussed the circumstances involving the termination of a ,

welder, Mr. Alan Young, who was employed at Peach Bottom, and his subsequent I attempts to gain employment with contractors doing work for Philadelphia Electric at Peach Bottom. The NRC investigated Mr. Young's allegation that workers were receiving excessive radiation exposure while welding pipes at Peach Bottom. This investigation did not reveal any violation of NRC require-ments, although the NRC did obtain a commitment from the licensee (Philadelphia Electric Company) to improve its radiation protection program in order to reduce radiation exposure. A copy of the inspection report is enclosed.

With regard to Mr. Young's several claims that he was fired because he raised safety concerns, these matters are still within the Department of Labor adminis-l trative review process, and the NRC will determine whether enforcement action, or an NRC investigation, is needed after D0L completes its review.

l l

8709020302 870825 PDR ADOCK 05000266 U PDR l

L - - - ---------------- --__ ---.- ----_--

,' ..,4..f 2

I trust that this information answers your conc rns regarding these two articles. Please let me know if I can be of fu.ther assictance.

Sincerely, Original Signed By:

James M. Taylor ictor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated I_______.____

,.r..' ,

i f

• i 1

DISTRIBUTION T. Murley J. Murray l S. Varga l B. Boger i W. 8utler 1 R. Martin W. Russell J. Allan W. Kane ,

S. Collins  !

R. Gallo J. Linville T. Johnson D. Holody EDO 003058  ;

Secy No.87-923 j Docket No. 50-277/278 Public Document Room Local Public Document Room EDO Reading File State of Maryland Commonwealth of Pennsylvania OCA 1 VStello l

1 1

1 RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRSS RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:EC RI:RC Linville/rhl/mjd Gallo Bellamy Collins Kane Holody Gutierrez i 8/ /87 8/ /87 8/ /87 8/ /87 8/ /87 3/ /87 8/ /87 RI:DRA RI:RA ED0 C Allan Russell St9 8/ /87 8//3 /87 8/h/87 8/v6 /87 l

2

y !* , .. - -' f SES sg a i

Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 Philadelphia Electric Company i ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltrof f Vice President-Electric Production I 2301 Market Street l Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemon:

Subject:

Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31 A special allegation inspection was conducted by Mr. J. J. Kottan of this office on August 6-7, 1985, at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-56. Our findings were discussed with Mr. R. Fleischmann and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Are' examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Int. : tion Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.

However, a concern was identified relative to an incident which involved the exposures to gaseous radioactivity of individuals who entered the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel on March 1, 1985. You are requested to provide us, within thirty days of the date of this letter, your analysis of that incident including the final beta dose to the individuals, the radiation survey meter response to noble gases and the resolution of Discrepancy Report 85-087 regarding the difference between the survey meter and the TLD results.

The response requested by this letter is not subject to Office of Management and Budget restrictions as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, OriBi nal SiSDd D

,(.

Martin, Direc Division of Radiation Saf y k

and Safeguards

Enclosure:

NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ALLEG RPT PB - 0001.0.0 f 00lAIl0 /

(

Philadelphia Electric Company 2  ;

cc w/ enc 1:

• R. S. Fleischmann, Station Superintendent

• John S. Kemper, Vice President, Engineering and Research

• . Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire

• A. J. Pietrofitta, General Manager, Power Production Engineering, Atlantic

. Electric  ;

, Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel (Without Report) '

Raymond L. Hovit, Esquire

' Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations. (Without Report)

Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) l

• NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/ enc 1:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Senior Operations Officer (w/o enc 1)

. Section Chief, DRP R. K. Christopher, Director, Office of Investigations, Philadelphia Field Office l

RI:DRSS 4RSS R / RI: R IIRSS ms :iak G o Bellany T. in 9//6/85 9h/85 9/\b/85 9/d/85 9/ ,/85 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ALLEG RPT PB - 0002.0.0 09/11/85 4

_________-___--_____---_D

<_ l a

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! REGION I 1

Report No. 50-278/85-31 l Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: August 6-7, 1985 Inspectors: .

/f/d _

J. J. Kottan ' Radiation Laboratory Specialist 9 /o

/ # ate a s4&L $

J. E. 8 1 ,' Project Engineer date i

Approved by: 'l dAlA M M'sciak, Chief, BWR Radiological

$ 11 $$

idate Protection Section Inspection Summary:

Inspection on August 6-7, 1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31)

Areas Inspected: Nenroutine, unannounced inspection of allegation RI-85-A-0084 involving a potential overexposure during an unplanned reactor shutdown of Unit 3 on March 1, 1985. The inspection involved 20 inspector hours on-site by two NRC regionally-based inspectors.

Results: No violations were identified. No individual appeared to have received doses in excess of regulatory limits.

t l

\'

l l

1

s. 1 DETAILS

1. Individuals Contacted

• R. Fleischmann, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Statbn

• A. Hilsmeir, Senior Health Physicist j(

4

• Denotes those-present at the exit interview.

The inspector interviewed other pirsonnel not identified in the report for i reasons of confidentiality. l 1

q

2. Background.

On August 2, 1985, Region I received an allegation regarding a potential 1 overexposure during an unplanned Unit 3 shutdown on March 1, 1985. A .j regionally-based NRC inspector was dispatched to the site on August 6 j

'and 7, 1985, in order'to review the allegation.  !

Two licensee and two licensee contractor. personnel entered the Unit 3 }

recombiner offgas tunnel at approximately 1130 hours0.0131 days <br />0.314 hours <br />0.00187 weeks <br />4.29965e-4 months <br /> on March 1, 1985.

At initial entry, the general area radiation exposure survey meter (Eberline Instrument Company Model R0-2A air ionization chamber) readings were approximately 80-100 mR/hr as expected. During the entry, the survey meter went offscale on the 0-5 R/hr scale. When switched to the 0-50 R/hr.

scale, the survey meter registered approximately 5 R/hr. When the beta shield of the instrument was opened, the instrument went offscale on the 0-50 R/hr scale. All four personnel evacuated the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel promptly. At approximately the same time, friskers through-  !

out the turbine building were alarming. Licensee personnel present in the j turbine building were contaminated, and particulate air samples were taken .i throughout the turbine building. The air sample results indicated the presence of noble gas particulate daughters: Rb-88 and Cs-138. Specific areas of the Unit 3 turbine building were cleared of personnel by the licensee and posted as' airborne radiation areas. Because the personnel contamination was short lived, after sufficient decay and monitoring,  ;

personnel could leave the area and the site. n The gas releases and the changes in radiation fields were caused'by a Unit 3 plant transient which occurred at 11:50 a.m. on March 1,1985 due to the failure of the 3B offgas recombiner compressor. The equipment failure, together with air leakage into the main condenser, caused a loss of condenser vacuum. Control room operators responded to the transient by

l. attempting to reduce power and recover condenser vacuum. These efforts were unsuccessful and the unit scrammed on loss of main condenser vacuum at 12:03 p.m. A Licensee Event Report (LER) was submitted regarding this unplanned. reactor shutdown (LER No.85-007).

1

. t. r

. a 2 i i

. l

3. External Exposure The personnel entering the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel were wearing two TLD badges, one which is read daily by the licensee., and one read i monthly by a vendor. On March 1, 1985, the daily TLD read less than 10 mR gamma for all individuals in the recombiner offgas tunnel. With the exception of one of the four persons, the daily TLD surface dose results of March 1, 1985, were also less than 10 mR. The one exception hid an apparent surface dose of 12.5 mR.

The vendor TLDs for three of the four individuals were sent to the vendor on March 6, 1985, and indicated 0 surface dose and 0 gamma dose. The radiation survey meter indicated an exposure of approximately 5 R/hr, and with the beta shield open, the i instrument went offscale (0-50 R/hr).

Based on interviews with personnel who were in the offgas recombiner tunnel, the inspector determined that at least one person was concerned about the discrepancy between the survey meter and the TLD results, and the potential for an overexposure. The inspector reviewed a licensee discrep-ancy report (85-087) which was issued regarding the difference between the survey meter and the TLD results. The instrument calibration was checked on March 5, 1985, and.found to be within calibration and functioning

-properly. The H.P. technician who used the survey meter stated that the meter responded to a radioactive source before entry into the Unit 3 offgas recombiner tunnel.

The licensee's resolution of the discrepancy report concluded that the instrument was in error as a result of moisture and high humidity which caused the instrument to temporarily malfunction. The instrument cali-bration performed on March 5, 1985, was acceptable because the instrument had " dried out" by that time. The inspector could find no evidence to support this conclusion, such as moisture found inside the instrument which would cause the instrument to over-respond.

An NRC Inspection Report, (Report Nos. 50-277/85-19 and 50-278/85-15) which contained the results of performance tests of the licensee's inhouse and vendor TLDs used in their personnel dosimetry program, indicated that both the inhouse and vendor TLD systems underrespond to lower energy (T1-204) beta radiation. Licensee personnel. stated that a large part of the noble gas mixture beta energy spectrum would fall into this lower energy category. The licensee would, therefore, multiply the surface dose by a correction factor to obtain a corrected surface dose. At the time of this inspection, the licensee had yet to determine the correction factor to be used in this calculation.

The NRC inspector performed calculations based on an offgas sample taken on March 4, 1985, at 90% power. (On March 1, 1985, Unit 3 was at approxi-metely 25% power prior to shutdown.) The calculated beta dose and the ,

gamma dose bracket the licensee's TLD values. See Appendix A. The assumptions made by the inspector were based on the following: (1) No radioactive decay of the offgas sample, (2) dilution based on the ratio of the gamma survey meter (approximately 5 R/hr), with the beta shield closed, l

\

I -

., +e 3

to the calculated body dose of approximately 450 R/hr, and (3) dilution based on the ratio of Cs-138 concentrations in air samp.les taken in the turbine building to the Cs-138 concentration in the offgas sample. These ratios are approximately 100 and 100,000 respectively. Although not in equilibrium with Xe-138 (the daughter half life is greater than the parent half life), the Cs-138 air sample data was decay corrected to the counting time of the offgas vial, approximately one hour after sample time in order to approximate the dilution factor. The dilution factors give boundary conditions for the dose calculation.

'4. Conclusion Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that no licensee personnel were exposed in excess of NRC regulatory limits. The TLD gamma dose results appear to be a valid estimate of the gamma dose obtained by the individuals in the recombiner offgas tunnel. The beta doses have yet

~

to be ffnalized by the licensee since the licensee has not yet decided on a final correction factor for the system underresponse. NRC calculations, based on conservative dilution factors and no radioactive decay, bracket the'TLD results. The radiation survey meter appears to have been working correctly in the offgas tunnel, and the licensee's resolution of the dis-crepancy report appears to be incorrect. The licensee, at the time of this inspection, had no information regarding the survey instrument response in noble gas clouds including the potential for leakage into the ,

instrument by the noble gases. The inspector stated that this issue would j be~an inspector follow-up item (50-278/85-31-01) until the beta dose had 1

been~ finalized, the instrument response to noble gases was determined, and *

-the release points of offgas into the offgas tunnel and the turbine build-ing was determined. i The inspector also reviewed the results of air samples taken in the Unit 3 ,

turbine building and noted that these values were below 10 CFR 20 MP,C {

values. A review of the Unit'3 roof vent effluent release point for- l March 1,1985, indicated an elevated release for approximately two hour period, 1230 hrs. to 1430 hrs., but within Technical Specification limits.

In addition, the inspector note'd that interviewed individuals expressed concern regarding the difference between survey instrument beta results and beta results from TLDs used to measure beta dose rates for various maintenance jobs in contaminated areas. The inspector discussed the method of calibration ver, the actual method of use for the survey instruments with the licen>ee. The inspector stated that this area would be an inspector follow-up item until the discrepancy could be resolved.

(50-278/85-31-02)

4

5. Exit interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on August 7, 1985. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection ,

findings. '

9 0

l i

1 1

l l

4 l

l l

l l

t.

/.

]

APPENDIX A I Offgas Sample uCi/mi pCi/m8 '

Kr-85m 2.04E-2 = 2.04E+10 Kr-87 5.37E-2 = 5.37E+10 Kr-88 5.41E-2 = 5.41E+10 Xe-133 1.06E-2 = 1.06E+10 Xe-135 8.80E-2 = 8.80E+10 Xe-135m 1.47E-1 = 1.47E+11 Xe-138 2.51E-1 = 2.51E+11 6 Skin Dose (rem /hr) i Body Dose (rem /hr)

Kr-85m 3.40 2.72 Kr-87 59.57 36.24 Kr-88 14.62 90.66 Xe-133 0.37 0.36 Xe-135 18.66 18.16 Xe-135m 11.91 52.28 Xe-138 118.18 252.66 226.64 453.08 Dose factors taken from Reg. Guide 1.109. Stay time is 1 min.

This assumes a semi-infinite cloud of offgas. This is not the case.

A dilution factor must also be considered.

Dilution factor of ~100 based on gamma survey meter readings. (See Paragraph 3)

Dilution factor of ~10' based on Cs-138 air particulate values. (See Paragraph 3) 226 Rad I hr 1 min 1 Therefore beta skin dose = hr x L0 min x x 100 = 38 mrem to 226 Rad 1 hr 1 min 1

= hr x 60 min x x 100,000 = 0.04 mrem

- l

a. ., . , , .

f.

i .- .,

., Appendtx A- -2 Jf 453 Rem l' hr 1 min 1 Gamma body dose =' hr x 60 min x x 100 = 76 mrem-to

-453 Rem I hr 1 min 1

.= hr x 60 min x-x 100,000 = 0.08 mrem-i

g , - _-- - -.

3- ntnom i l

E

}g 439 PA%K AVENUE ]

lA g usNs er e2uss:A.rENNsvi.VANIA M4H j 4

FEB 0 91987 Docket No. 50-278 )

License No. DPR-56 1 EA 87-05 Philadelphia Electric Company  !

ATTN: Mr. John S. Kemper l Senior Vice President  !

2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:

Subject:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. 1-85-019) .

On May 6, 1986, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) provided to the NRC staff its report of an investigation conducted at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in response to an allegation received by this office. The source alleged that a contractor health physics (HP) technician wu threat-ened with dismissal if he continued to pursue his radiological concerns that he might have received an overexposure while working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985. A copy of the OI Investigation Report synopsis was sent to you on May 20, 1986, and a redacted version of the entire UI report was sent to you on September 22, 1986.

-As a result of the evidence obtained during the OI investigation,, the NRC has determined that your Field HP Supervisor terminated the employment of the con-tractor HP technician for engaging in protected activity. This termination constitutes a violation of the NRC employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7. On May 20, 1986 and November 18, 1986, enforcement conferences were conducted with Messrs. S. L. Daltroff, V. S. Boyer and other members of your staff to discuss this violation, its cause, and your corrective actions.

Although the Field HP Supervisor indicated that he directed that the HP tech-nician's employment be terminated because of excessive absenteeism, the NRC concludes, based on the evidence obtained during the 01 investigation, that this stated reason for termination was a pretext for dismissing the technician for engaging in a protected activity. In particular, the following evidence i is persuasive: (1) the technician apparently had never been counseled regard-10g excessive absenteeism; (2) there was no mention of such absenteeism in the  !

technician's personnel file; (3) although seven employees were designated for layoffs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged; and (4) termination based solely on absenteeism apparently was inconsistent with the then current and past practices at Peach Bottom.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED i

l

--~ ,fy hb k

Philadelphia Electric Company 2

The importance of allowing employees sufficient freedom to bring their perceived safety concerns to the attention of licensees, their contractors, and the NRC must be reinforced. While the NRC encourages licensees to adopt an "open door policy" which encourages rmployees and contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must also be made clear to employees that they have the right to contact the hPC whenever they perceive a safety problem exists and that they will not be harassed, intimidated, or discrimi-nated against for bringing such concerns to their supervision or to the NRC.

This incident also demonstrates the need for prompt and effective resolution of i perceived safety issues raised by your staff, or contractor personnel. In this instance, the technician was concerned, based on a survey measurement, that he might have received an overexposure in March 1985. However, his concerns were not satisfactorily resolved. In fact, although the individual had been told that his survey meter had malfunctioned due to moisture and high humidity, subsequent analysis indicated that was not the case.

The NRC considers this failure to promptly provide satisfactory resolution of an employee's concern, and the resultant termination of the individual's employment, as being indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program. To emphasize this need, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Impo-sition 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 (1986) (Enforcement Policy), the violation has been categorized at Severity Level III. The base civil penalty amount for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered and no adjustment has been deemed appropriate.

1 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 inspection, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with 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.

l 4

Philadelphia Electric Company 3 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, 1

Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:

R. S. Fleischmann, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Troy B. Conner , Jr. , Esquire W. H. Hirst, Director, Joint Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric G. Leitch, Superintendent Nuclear Generation Division Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel (Without Report)

Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations (Without Report)

W. M. Alden, Engineer in Charge, Licensing Section Public Document Room (POR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania i

}

l

l NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND I PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY j l

l Philadelphia Electric Company Docket No. 50-278 l Peach Bottom, Unit 3 License No. DPR-56 l EA 87-05 2 As a result of an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01), the NRC has determined that the employment of a contractor health physics  !

technician was terminated for engaging in a protected activity. This termina- l tion constitutes a violation of NRC requirements. In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR r Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1984, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282 and 10 CFR 2.205.

The particular violation and the associated civil penalty are set forth below. ,

10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a licensee or licensee contractor against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities, includ- '

ing raising safety concerns to his management and providing the Commission with information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compen-sation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment.

Contrary to the above, on October 4, 1985, George A. Field, an employee  ;

of Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., a contractor performing health physics oversight l functions at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, was discriminated against by Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) for engaging in a protected acti-vity as a Health Physics Technician. Specifically, the employment of '

Mr. Field at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station was terminated by ,

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., at the direr. tion of the PECO Field HP Supervisor, because he persisted in raising cor.cerns regarding whether he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and because of a j belief by certain PEC0 supervisors that Mr. Field had informed the i Commission of his concerns.

This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement VII). l l

Civil Penalty - $50,000.

]

\

Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, j l Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC 1

( Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days f of the date of this Notice. This reply should include: (1) admission or )

j denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if j i

1 it i _._ ___________ _ _

2 6

admitted, (3)'the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further viola-tions, 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.

Uithin the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, philadelphia Electric 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 amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer. Should philadelphia Electric 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 Philadelphia Electric 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 perialty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, 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 by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of philadelphia 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 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.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley -

Ns Regional Administrator 1

l Dated a King of prussia, Pennsylvania this q - day of February 1987 l

t f

l L

6 7.E28cN i

['

l' N k $31 PA:lK AVJNUE KIN 3 CF PIUSSI A. PENN5YLVANIA ISMS Jh[ ]) y i

Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278/

Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff Vice President Electric Production 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsyhania 19101 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-277/83-15 and 50-278/83-15 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. J. Collins of this office on'May 31 - June 3, 1983 at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Delta, Pennsylvania of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Collins with Mr. R. S. Fleishtrann of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspec-tion Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records,. interviews with personnel, measurements made by the inspector, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure

./111 be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-ments of 2.790(b)(1). The telephone notificatiort of your intent to request

• withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10-day period which you believe nPCessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.

I i @L2/Mn.un,3L ~hb I

. - _ - _-__.__.___._______-_____________a

. ~ , , y m o

No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter

,. is appreciated.

Sincerely, Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs

Enclosure:

Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Number and 50-278/83-15 50-277/83-15 cc w/ enc 1:

R. S. Fleischmann, Station Superintendent Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire (w/out report)

Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire (w/out report)

Raymond L. Hovis' Esquire (w/out report Michael J. Scibinico, II, Assistant Attorney General (w/out report)

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

)

1 J

I

\ '

bec w/ enc 1:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Senior Operations Officer (w/o encis)

DPRP Section Chief

'. V R RI' # RI:DETP RI. ETP C s/gwe 59 baky Bellamy T. in )

7 "/83 .

(

/ l

U.S. NUCLF.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 50-277/83-15 Report No. 50-278/83-15 .

50-277 Docket No. 50-278 DPR-44 License No. DPR-56 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 & 3 Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: May 31 - Jyne 3, 1983 Inspector: Y /# 73 D. J c111ns, Radia' Sp c list ddte Approved by: ~1 / T3 M. M. Shajebaky,' Chief, F ci ities Radiation date l Protect %n Section, Radiological Protection Branch Inspection Summary:

i Inspection on May 31 - June 3,1983 (Combined Inspection Report Numbers 50-277/83-15 and 50-278/83-15)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection by a region based inspector of the radiation protection program, including a review of radio-logical practices in the recirculation clad weld overlay program, quality assurance in radioactive materials shipping and receipt, preparation and shipment of radioactive materials, and radioactive materials handling pro-cedures. The inspection involved 52 hours6.018519e-4 days <br />0.0144 hours <br />8.597884e-5 weeks <br />1.9786e-5 months <br /> onsite by one region-based inspector.

Results: Of the four areas inspected, no violations were identified.

4 1

4 Details

1. Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed.

Philadelphia Electric Company Personnel

• Mr. R. S. Fleishmann, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS)

Superintendent

• Mr. D. Smith, Assistant Station Superintendent

• Mr. A. E. Hilsmeier, Senior Health Physicist ,

• Mr. C. A. Menger, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Division j

• Mr. C. S. Nelson, Support Health Physicist '

Mr. J. Valinski, Health Physics Supervisor Mr. P. Pauly, Radwaste Supervisor Mr. S. A. Spitko, Quality Assurance Engineer Site

• Mr. J. R. Boyda, Maintenance Planning Mr. F. Crosse, Radwaste Shipping Mr. M. Dedrich, ALARA Technical Assistant Mr. J. T. Wilson, Auditor Engineer, Quality Assurance Division Contractor Personnel Mr. R. Reilly, Project Manager, General Electric Company

• Mr. R. L. Alger, General Electric Company "Mr. M. J. Barbaretta, Dayshift Coordinator, General Electric Company Mr. H. E. Cornaire, Nightshift Coordinator, General Electric Company Mr. K. Grayson, Quality Control Supervisor, General Electric Company Additional NRC Personnel Attending the Exit Meeting Mr. J. H. Williams, Resident Inspector Other licensee or contractor employees were also contacted or interviewed during this inspection.

• Attended the Exit Meeting on June 3, 1983.

2. Purpose  !

The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following elements: l Review of radiological practices in the recirculation clad weld overlay program; '

l l

l 1

._____________-.______.___________.-______--___a

3 s

=+ -

Quality Assurance in radioactive materials shipping; Preparation and shipment of radioactive materials; Radioactive materials handling procedure review.

3. Review of Radiological Practices in Conjunction with the Clad Weld Overlay Program The licensee's radiological program with respect to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) as applied to the clad weld overlay program in Unit 3 was evaluated against criteria contained in:

10 CFR 19.12, " Instructions to Workers;"

10 CFR 20.101, " Radiation Doss Standards for Individuals in Restricted Areas;"

10 CFR 20.202, " Personnel Monitoring;"

Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Enscring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will be As Low As is Reasonably Achievable (AlARA);"

Regulatory Guide 8.27, " Radiation Protection Training for Personnel as Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants;"

P8APS Procedure A-83, "ALARA Program Administrative Procedure;"

Special Procedure SP-602, Pb-Clad 1.0, " Clad Overlay Procedure",

Approved May 2, 1983 ALARA Review Form Appendices B, C, C-1, dated May 16, 1983 The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from interviews with ALARA representatives, contractor management and crafts-l men; and review of appropriate documentation.

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. However, the following item was noted.

Radiation Work Permit (RWP) Number 3-02-0441 was initiated on May 7, 1983 for preparation and repair of-detected cracks in welds on the recircu-lation risers and the residual heat removal shutdown cooling suction line.

The clad overlay welds are located in areas with radiation dose rates of

, up to 1500 millirem per hour (mR/hr). Personnel staging areas range from 80-350 mR/hr. A pre-work ALARA review estimated 280 man-rem exposure would be expended for all aspects of the job. The ALARA review called for pre-work briefings, mockup training, and shielding hot spots and holding areas.

Contrary to the ALARA recommendation, however, no mockup training was conducted. While a pre work briefing was held on May 16, 1983, only management personnel. attended. Despite the size of the anticipated worker

! radiation exposure only limited supplemental training on job-specific ALARA methods were given to the workers. This is not consistent with the ALARA training recommendations of Regulatory Guide 8.27.

9

! 4 l

In response to this finding, licensee management agreed on June 3, 1983 to:

1. Conduct appropriate worker training using a mockup including pre work briefings.

2. Conduct frequent meetings between the workers, contractor management and health physics personnel to ensure that all personnel involved are kept up-to-date in regard to the status of the project.

3. Issue a joint PEco and contractor policy statement reinforcing the management position to keep exposures ALARA and clearly indicate no individual's job performance is related to a minimum exposure.

These items will be reviewed in a future inspection (50-278/83-15-01).

4. Quality Assurance in Radioactive Materials Shipping The licensee's Quality Assurance program for radioactive materials ship-ping was reviewed against criteria contained in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and ,

10 CFR 71.12.

The licensee's performance relt.tive to these criteria was determined from l discussions with the Quality Assurance Supervisor and members of his staff, review of program descriptions, and review of completed audits and audits-in-progress.

The program is mandated by Issue 5, March 1983, PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Quality Assurance Plan, Volume III, and is described in the Health Physics and Chemistry Section. The Quality Assurance Plan was reviewed by the inspector and determined to contain adequate measures to ensure that applicable criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B are included in the audit program. The completed package for Audit A82-32-HPC dated December 13, 1982 was reviewed. The audit scope was adequate, discrepancies were identified, findings had been presented to management, and resolutions had been prepared and accepted. Re-audits to verify completion of the cor-rective actions were completed, scheduled, or were in progress. The QA staff presently reviews each shipment of radioactive material during processing.

Within the scope of this review, no violation was identified.

5. preparation and Shipment of Radioactive Materials The licensee's program in preparing and shipping radioactive waste was reviewed against criteria in:

10 CFR 20.201, " Surveys" 10 CFR 20.203, " Cautions Signs, Labels, Signals and Controls"

. r . n i l:o 5

10 CFR 20.205,, " Procedures for Picking Up, Receiving, and Opening Packages" 10 CFR 20.301," Waste Disposal, General Requirement" i 10:CFR 20.401, " Records of Surveys, Radiation Monitoring, and j Disposal" '

10 CFR 71, " Packaging of Radioactive Materf al for Transport and Transportation of Radioactive Material under Certain Conditions" 49 CFR 170-189 NRC Certificates of Compliance 9079, 9080, 9081, 9086, 9089, 9105 and 9151 state of South Carolina License 097, Barnwell Burial SiteL State of Washington License Number WN-1019-2, Richland Burial Site The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from ,

discussions with the Support Health Physicist and members. of his . staff, i examination of materials being preparad for shipment and review of ship-ping documentation and procedures. .;

1  !

The licensee's records indicate that for 1982, 340 shipments were made.

l These shipments were compcsed of 4,512 curies contained in 5,181' con-tainers (box, barrel, high-integrity liner) of 114,226 cubic feet. From January to June 1,1983, there have been 133 shipments. totaling 9,082 curies contained in 2,076 containers with a volume of 34,097 cubic feet.

The 11eensee has copies of ths a'ppropriate state licenses; is a registered user of all the packages used; and has current copies of all applicable NRC Certificates of Loinpliance.

• Withinthescopeofthisreview, nonviolation'swereidentified.

L6. Exit Interview i

An exit interview was held with lfcensee representatives (denoted in i paragraph 1) on June 3, 1933. The^1ripactor summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Licensee management acknowledged the ' findings

, and eepeated the actions to be taken >a.s indicated in paragraph 3.

p.

.* y r l

,; i e I,

r l 4

l i _ _

< l

- - - - - - ~

\

JAN 251984

.. Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 Philadelphia Electric Company .

ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff Vice President Electric Production 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Inspection No. 50-277/83-36; 50-278/83-34 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. J. Collins of this office on December 12-16, 1983 at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Delta, Pennsylvania of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 and to the discussions of our findings neld by Mr. Collins with Mr. R. Fleischman at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspec-tion Report which is enclosed with this letter. The inspection of your radio-logical safety program at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, measurements made by the inspector, and observations by the inspector.

Our inspector also verified the steps you have taken to correct the violations brought to your attention in the enclosure to our letter dated April 29, 1983.

Additionally, the inspector verified the steps you had taken to correct the radiation protection violations brought to your attention in a letter dated March 29, 1983. We will continue to monitor the progress of improvements in the rtoiation protection program resulting from the Peach Bottom Health Phyrics and Radwaste Action Program. We have no further questions regarding your actions at this time.

tlithin the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed. With respect to the findings certain problems were identified in your calibration program for portable radiation detection instrumentation. The plant staff has initiated actions to provide radiation sources of sufficient strength to reliably deter-mine the operability of portable radiation detection instrumentation used

'within the facility.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure l Will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written  !

application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of i the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require- i ments of 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1). The telephone notification of your intent to l request withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10-day period '

which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail iDj and Records, USNRC Region 1. at (215) 337-5223. / /j 10 COLLINS 1/5/84 - 0001.0.0

( 01/05/84 i ,r m __si m s w.weor >

9

Philade,1phia E)ectric Company 2

JAN 23 1334 No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

• M 7b , gf WWW mas T. Martin, Director ivision of Engineering and Technical Programs

Enclosure:

Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Numbers 50-277/83-36 and 50-278/83-34 cc w/ enc 1:

R. S. Flcischmann, Station Superintendent Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire (w/o rpt)

Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire (w/o rpt)

Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire (w/o rpt)

Michael J. Scibinico, II, Assistant Attorney General (w/o rpt)

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR) fluclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/ encl:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire Michael J. Scibinico, II, Assistant Attorney General Senior Operations Officer (w/o encis)

Section Chief, DPRP RI:DETP RI:DETP I:DETP FI:pETP Shanbaky B 11 Co{ lins /sif F (tin l l'Yr q s' 10 COLLINS 1/5/84 - 0001.2.0 01/05/84

4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 50-277/83-36 Report No. 50-278/83-34 50-277 Docket No. 50-278 i DPR-44 License No. DPR-56 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 & 3 Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Co ucted: December 12-16, 1983 Inspector: n L **g I E. Nki 1.J.Co11gs,RadiationSpecialist \) dat()

c.

Approved by: ,

.' - 3- / . h/ /

j M. M. Shanbaky, Chief', Facilities 'date Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on December 12-16, 1983 (Combined Inspection Teport Nos. 50-277/83-36 and 50-278/83-34 Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced safety inspection of the radiation protection program, including: previously identified items; inplant radiation protection program implementation; portable radiation detection instrumentation; and high radiation area controls. The inspection involved 43 hours4.976852e-4 days <br />0.0119 hours <br />7.109788e-5 weeks <br />1.63615e-5 months <br /> on site by a region-based inspector.

Results: No violations were identified in the four areas inspected.

I n,

ry -

n ,eu i v .z u u w _,r g %

v7

-r- ,

5 m

, 3.12 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-277/82-11-14): Review dosimetry program. The licensee's dosimetry program has been reviewed as part of inspection 83-07, 83-15 and 83-17. Po violations have been identified. This area is subject to continuing review. This item is closed.

3.13 (Closed) Unresolved (50-277/82-19-01): Failure to survey bucket removed from spent fuel pool. This incident has been the subject of enforcement action in conjunction with report 82-11, and has been addressed by the licensee. This item is closed.

3.14 (Closed) Violation (50-278/83-07-01): Failure to post a radiation area rear the Unit 3 Reactor Water Cleanup Skid. The inspector ver-ified the actions indicated by the licensee in a letter dated May 26, 1983 to NRC Region I to have been accomplished and adequate to preclude recurrence.

3.15 (Closed) Unresolved (50-277/83-09-04 and 50-278/83-09-05): Inplant control levels on contaminated equipment and storage. Procedure HP0/CO-100, " Health Physics Guides Used in the Control of Exposure to Radioactive Material", Revision 13, April 25, 1983, establishes levels of fixed or loose contamination for movable equipment within the plant. Limits for release for unrestricted use are established within this procedure. Controls for fixed contamination on equipment within the plant are in HP0/CO-14, " Identification and Control of Tools and Equipment Used in Radiologically Controlled Areas" and in HP0/CO-11, " Establishing and Posting Radiologically Controlled Areas". Items which do not meet the release criteria for fixed contamination but do not exceed the criteria for inplant use are distinctly marked by radioactive material tape or magenta paint.

3.16 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-278/83-15-01): Corrective actions to be taken to instruct welders assigned to the clad weld repair. The inspector verifiea that the licensee pursued good working relationships through meetings with the workers, health physics technicians, and contractor management to ensure the ALARA concerns of the job were addressed. The contractor appropriately addressed the work requirements in announcements to the crafts personnel involved.

3.17 A Notice of Violation (NOV) and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (EA-83-7) was issued to the licensee in a letter from NRC: Region I dated March 29, 1983. The licensee's response dated z

April 27, 1983, stated that actions had been completed to prevent recurrence. Radiation Protection Violations were included in the

, Notice of Violation asSection II, (NOV-II.a through NOV-II.g).

These items are referenced in the indicated reports.

3.17.1 (Closed) NOV-II .a .(50-277/82-11-05): Failure to maintain administrative control of high radiation area keys. The licensee has implemented procedure A-84, " Control of High Radiation Area Keys", Revision 0, August 25, 1982. This procedure places administrative control with the Shift l

~ . .

giy sp#"% ,

0'- J 8' .o ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L: i ,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 l

?Y  :%8

%7 ..... a e N;db.h, -

,; .EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL- -

---..---- = _.------------------

FROM DUE:.08/10/87 EDO CONTROL: 003058

. DOC DT: 07/21/87

' REP. LAWRENCE-COUGHLIN FINAL REPLY:

' :-T O s .

1 CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE.0F: ** GREEN '** SECY NO:~87-923 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I. I D' ESC: ROUTING:

l

. ENCLOSES ARTICLES RE INCIDENTS AT PHILADELPHIA MURLEY

' ELECTRIC'S PEACH BOOTOM NUCLEAR FACILITY MURRAY

' DATE: 07/28/07

> ASSIGNED TO: RI CONTACT: RUSSELL i SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

REF. EDO 3008 4

4

^

__r__._

- ~ - - - - - , - - -~ -

. OFFICE OF THE. SECRETARY ,

CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET  !

PAPER NUMBER: CRC-87-0923 LOGGING DATE: Jul 27 87

-ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: L. Coughlin AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE: Jul 21'~87 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Peach Bottom

SUBJECT:

News articles re incidents at Peach Bottom ACTION: Direct Rcply DISTRIBUTION: OCA to Ack, Docket SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:

DATE DUE: Aug 10 87 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

i 1

l l

N --- 003058 Rec'd Ofi. ELD l Date 7-1 C S:7 j IlmG A ' '"4

- - _ __o