ML071360392: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 05/16/2007
| issue date = 05/16/2007
| title = NRC Inspection Report 05000285-07-009 and Investigation Report 4-2006-036 and Notice Violation
| title = NRC Inspection Report 05000285-07-009 and Investigation Report 4-2006-036 and Notice Violation
| author name = Chamberlain D D
| author name = Chamberlain D
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-IV/DRS
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-IV/DRS
| addressee name = Ridenoure R T
| addressee name = Ridenoure R
| addressee affiliation = Omaha Public Power District
| addressee affiliation = Omaha Public Power District
| docket = 05000285
| docket = 05000285
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 7
| page count = 7
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000285/2007009]]
See also: [[see also::IR 05000285/2007009]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:May 16, 2007EA-07-056R. T. RidenoureVice President
{{#Wiki_filter:May 16, 2007
EA-07-056
R. T. Ridenoure
Vice President
Omaha Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
P.O. Box 550
P.O. Box 550
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550SUBJECT: FORT CALHOUN STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000285/2007009AND INVESTIGATION REPORT 4-2006-036 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATIONDear Mr. Ridenoure:
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550
This refers to the subject investigation and in-office inspection concluded on February 8,2007. The investigation, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of
SUBJECT:       FORT CALHOUN STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000285/2007009
                AND INVESTIGATION REPORT 4-2006-036 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Ridenoure:
This refers to the subject investigation and in-office inspection concluded on February 8,
2007. The investigation, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of
Investigation, and this in-office inspection examined the events documented in your Condition
Investigation, and this in-office inspection examined the events documented in your Condition
Report CR-200601359 regarding the failure of a security officer to follow radiation work
Report CR-200601359 regarding the failure of a security officer to follow radiation work
permit (RWP) requirements at your Fort Calhoun Station. The findings were discussed with
permit (RWP) requirements at your Fort Calhoun Station. The findings were discussed with
members of your staff during a telephonic exit meeting on May 16, 2007. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRCrequirements occurred. The violation was evaluated in accordance with the NRC Enforcement
members of your staff during a telephonic exit meeting on May 16, 2007.
Policy included on the NRC's Web site at www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC
.The violation involved the failure to follow radiation protection procedure and RWPrequirements. Specifically, one security officer, on at least three occasions between
requirements occurred. The violation was evaluated in accordance with the NRC Enforcement
Policy included on the NRCs Web site at www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.
The violation involved the failure to follow radiation protection procedure and RWP
requirements. Specifically, one security officer, on at least three occasions between
November 26, 2005, and March 27, 2006, failed to log in on the required RWP and did not
November 26, 2005, and March 27, 2006, failed to log in on the required RWP and did not
activate his electronic alarming dosimeter (EAD) as required prior to entering the Alpha 1
activate his electronic alarming dosimeter (EAD) as required prior to entering the Alpha 1
security post. The Alpha 1 security post is inside a posted radiation controlled area (RCA), and
security post. The Alpha 1 security post is inside a posted radiation controlled area (RCA), and
as such, security officers are required by station procedure and RWP to log in on the
as such, security officers are required by station procedure and RWP to log in on the
appropriate RWP, activate their EAD, and confirm that it is on and reading zero. On April 04, 2006, the licensee informed the NRC of this matter. Based on the NRC'ssubsequent investigation and inspection, the NRC concluded that the security officer's failure to
appropriate RWP, activate their EAD, and confirm that it is on and reading zero.
follow RWP requirements was deliberate. In addition, on two of the three occasions, the
On April 04, 2006, the licensee informed the NRC of this matter. Based on the NRCs
subsequent investigation and inspection, the NRC concluded that the security officers failure to
follow RWP requirements was deliberate. In addition, on two of the three occasions, the
security officer enlisted the aid of two other security officers to return his unactivated EAD to
security officer enlisted the aid of two other security officers to return his unactivated EAD to
access control at the end of the shift so that he could leave the site more quickly. The
access control at the end of the shift so that he could leave the site more quickly. The
licensee's investigation confirmed that the three security officers involved had received training
licensee's investigation confirmed that the three security officers involved had received training
regarding the RWP requirements and understood radiation worker and security procedures,  
regarding the RWP requirements and understood radiation worker and security procedures,
Omaha Public Power District, -2-EA-07-056practices, and requirements. Furthermore, the Alpha 1 security post was located in a postedremote RCA in accordance with Procedure RP-204, "Radiation Area Controls.The area was
 
Omaha Public Power District,                       -2-
EA-07-056
practices, and requirements. Furthermore, the Alpha 1 security post was located in a posted
remote RCA in accordance with Procedure RP-204, Radiation Area Controls. The area was
barricaded with a magenta and yellow rope and was posted as an RCA with a sign stating
barricaded with a magenta and yellow rope and was posted as an RCA with a sign stating
"CAUTION, RWP REQUIRED FOR ENTRY, TLD and DOSIMETRY REQUIRED FOR ENTRY."
CAUTION, RWP REQUIRED FOR ENTRY, TLD and DOSIMETRY REQUIRED FOR ENTRY.
The posting was hung across the entry to the area where the Alpha 1 security post was located
The posting was hung across the entry to the area where the Alpha 1 security post was located
and would be difficult to miss by anyone passing through the door.The deliberate misconduct of a security officer, as well as the failure of two other securityofficers to report this misconduct under the behavior observation program, is of significant
and would be difficult to miss by anyone passing through the door.
concern to the NRC. This is particularly significant because security officers are charged with
The deliberate misconduct of a security officer, as well as the failure of two other security
the safety and security of licensed activities at your facility. In this light, the NRC considered
officers to report this misconduct under the behavior observation program, is of significant
whether this violation should be treated as a Severity Level III violation. However, the NRC alsorecognizes the very low underlying safety significance of the violation in that, although the
concern to the NRC. This is particularly significant because security officers are charged with
the safety and security of licensed activities at your facility. In this light, the NRC considered
whether this violation should be treated as a Severity Level III violation. However, the NRC also
recognizes the very low underlying safety significance of the violation in that, although the
Alpha 1 security post was designated by your staff as an RCA, requiring an EAD to enter the
Alpha 1 security post was designated by your staff as an RCA, requiring an EAD to enter the
area, the actual radiation levels at the post on most occasions, including the dates of the
area, the actual radiation levels at the post on most occasions, including the dates of the
incidents in question, are so low that they do not indicate the regulatory need for RCA posting
incidents in question, are so low that they do not indicate the regulatory need for RCA posting
and EAD monitoring. In addition, the NRC acknowledges the significant disciplinary actions
and EAD monitoring. In addition, the NRC acknowledges the significant disciplinary actions
taken by your staff in terminating the security officer who violated the RWP and in the
taken by your staff in terminating the security officer who violated the RWP and in the
counseling and administrative leave given to the two security officers who failed to report him.  
counseling and administrative leave given to the two security officers who failed to report him.
Therefore, in light of the very low underlying radiological safety significance of the violation and
Therefore, in light of the very low underlying radiological safety significance of the violation and
your significant disciplinary actions, and in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy, the
your significant disciplinary actions, and in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy, the
NRC is treating this violation as a Severity Level IV violation.Notwithstanding the low significance of this violation, several aspects of this violation concernthe NRC. Specifically, we note that a similar series of events involving security officers failing to
NRC is treating this violation as a Severity Level IV violation.
obtain EAD's prior to assuming the Alpha 1 security post occurred in 2002 (EA-03-071). This
Notwithstanding the low significance of this violation, several aspects of this violation concern
the NRC. Specifically, we note that a similar series of events involving security officers failing to
obtain EADs prior to assuming the Alpha 1 security post occurred in 2002 (EA-03-071). This
current violation raises questions as to the effectiveness of your corrective actions in response
current violation raises questions as to the effectiveness of your corrective actions in response
to the 2002 event, and we are most interested in evaluating your corrective actions to ensure
to the 2002 event, and we are most interested in evaluating your corrective actions to ensure
this violation is not repeated in the future. In addition, the NRC is equally concerned that your
this violation is not repeated in the future. In addition, the NRC is equally concerned that your
behavior observation program, as part of the Insider Mitigation Program, was ineffective given
behavior observation program, as part of the Insider Mitigation Program, was ineffective given
the failure of the two security officers to bring deliberate procedure violations and
the failure of the two security officers to bring deliberate procedure violations and
uncharacteristic personnel behavior forward for management attention. Your response to this
uncharacteristic personnel behavior forward for management attention. Your response to this
violation should thoroughly address both concerns.The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstancessurrounding it have been described in this letter, which serves as NRC Inspection
violation should thoroughly address both concerns.
Report 05000285/2007009. The violation is being cited in the Notice because it involved
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances
surrounding it have been described in this letter, which serves as NRC Inspection
Report 05000285/2007009. The violation is being cited in the Notice because it involved
deliberate wrongdoing and because of the history of similar acts regarding the Alpha 1 security
deliberate wrongdoing and because of the history of similar acts regarding the Alpha 1 security
post and the ineffective corrective actions taken for the previous violation.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
post and the ineffective corrective actions taken for the previous violation.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
regulatory requirements.  
regulatory requirements.
Omaha Public Power District, -3-EA-07-056In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response, will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
 
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from
Omaha Public Power District,                   -3-
the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, yourresponse should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so
EA-07-056
that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. Sincerely,/RA/Dwight Chamberlain, DirectorDivision of Reactor SafetyDocket:   50-285License: DPR-40Enclosure: Notice of Violation  
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
cc w/enclosure:Joe l. McManis, Manager - Licensing
enclosure, and your response, will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from
the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so
that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
                                            Sincerely,
                                                    /RA/
                                            Dwight Chamberlain, Director
                                            Division of Reactor Safety
Docket: 50-285
License: DPR-40
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
cc w/enclosure:
Joe l. McManis, Manager - Licensing
Omaha Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
P.O. Box 550
P.O. Box 550
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550David J. BannisterManager - Fort Calhoun Station
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550
David J. Bannister
Manager - Fort Calhoun Station
Omaha Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Fort Calhoun Station FC-1-1 Plant
Fort Calhoun Station FC-1-1 Plant
P.O. Box 550
P.O. Box 550
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550James R. CurtissWinston & Strawn
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550
James R. Curtiss
Winston & Strawn
1700 K Street NW
1700 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-3817ChairmanWashington County Board of Supervisors
Washington, DC 20006-3817
Chairman
Washington County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 466
P.O. Box 466
Blair, NE 68008  
Blair, NE 68008
Omaha Public Power District, -4-EA-07-056Julia Schmitt, ManagerRadiation Control Program
 
Omaha Public Power District,           -4-
EA-07-056
Julia Schmitt, Manager
Radiation Control Program
Nebraska Health & Human Services
Nebraska Health & Human Services
Dept. of Regulation & Licensing
Dept. of Regulation & Licensing
Line 93: Line 141:
301 Centennial Mall, South
301 Centennial Mall, South
P.O. Box 95007
P.O. Box 95007
Lincoln, NE 68509-5007Daniel K. McGheeBureau of Radiological Health
Lincoln, NE 68509-5007
Daniel K. McGhee
Bureau of Radiological Health
Iowa Department of Public Health
Iowa Department of Public Health
Lucas State Office Building, 5th Floor
Lucas State Office Building, 5th Floor
321 East 12th Street
321 East 12th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319  
Des Moines, IA 50319
Omaha Public Power District, -5-EA-07-056Electronic distribution by RIV:Regional Administrator (BSM1)DRP Director (ATH)DRS Director (DDC)DRS Deputy Director (RJC1)Senior Resident Inspector (JDH1)Resident Inspector (LMW1)Branch Chief, DRP/E (JAC)Senior Project Engineer, DRP/E (JCK3)Team Leader, DRP/TSS (FLB2)RITS Coordinator (MSH3)Harry Freeman (HAF)Mark Haire (MSH2)Michael Vasquez (GMV)Karla Fuller (KSF)Michael Burrell, OE (MRB3)David Solorio, OE (DLS2)DRS STA (DAP)D. Cullison, OEDO RIV Coordinator (DGC)ROPreports
 
FCS Site Secretary (BMM)SUNSI Review Completed: MSH ADAMS:  
Omaha Public Power District,                   -5-
X Yes G No           Initials: MSH X Publicly Available    
EA-07-056
G Non-Publicly Available    
Electronic distribution by RIV:
G Sensitive
Regional Administrator (BSM1)
X Non-SensitiveC:\FileNet\ML071360392.wpdRIV:ORA:ACESDRS:PSBC:PSBD:DRSTL:RC/ACESMHaire*Dstearns*Mshannon*Dchamberlain*KFuller*/RA//RA MShannon for//RA//RARCaniano for//RA/4/10/074/11/074/11/074/11/074/16/07DRAOED:DRSPGwynnDSolorioDChamberlain/RA//RA//RA/4/20/075/10/075/16/07OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone           E=E-mail        F=Fax  
DRP Director (ATH)
-1-EnclosureNOTICE OF VIOLATIONOmaha Public Power DistrictDocket No. 50-285Fort Calhoun Station License No. DPR-40EA-07-056During an NRC inspection and investigation, which were concluded on February 8, 2007, aviolation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,
DRS Director (DDC)
the violation is listed below: Technical Specification 5.8.1.a states, in part, that written procedures shall beestablished, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures
DRS Deputy Director (RJC1)
recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978, Appendix A.Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.e.(1), recommends procedures foraccess control to radiation areas including a radiation work permit system.Section 2.3.10 of Procedure RPP, "Radiation Protection Plan," Revision 22, states, inpart, that each station individual is responsible for obeying the requirements of Standing
Senior Resident Inspector (JDH1)
Order SO-G-101, "Radiation Work Practices.Section 5.4.1 of SO-G-101, Revision 30,
Resident Inspector (LMW1)
states, in part, that radiation work permits are required for entry into any posted
Branch Chief, DRP/E (JAC)
radiation controlled area. In addition, Section 5.5.2 of SO-G-101 states, in part, that
Senior Project Engineer, DRP/E (JCK3)
persons wishing to enter the radiation controlled area shall proceed to the electronic
Team Leader, DRP/TSS (FLB2)
alarming dosimeter (EAD) reader and log in following the instructions on the
RITS Coordinator (MSH3)
keypad (5.5.2.E) and confirm that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading
Harry Freeman (HAF)
zero (5.5.2.J).Contrary to the above, on at least three occasions between November 26, 2005, andMarch 27, 2006, a security officer deliberately failed to proceed to the radiation
Mark Haire (MSH2)
controlled area reader and log in following the instructions on the keypad, and confirm
Michael Vasquez (GMV)
that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading zero prior to assuming his post
Karla Fuller (KSF)
on the roof of the radioactive waste building which was posted as a radiation area inside
Michael Burrell, OE (MRB3)
the radiation controlled area. In addition, the individual enlisted the aid of two othersecurity officers to return his radiation controlled area to access control in order to
David Solorio, OE (DLS2)
expedite his departure at the end of the shift.This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Omaha Public Power District is hereby required tosubmit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
DRS STA (DAP)
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the Regional
D. Cullison, OEDO RIV Coordinator (DGC)
ROPreports
FCS Site Secretary (BMM)
SUNSI Review Completed: MSH         ADAMS: X Yes       G No       Initials: MSH
X Publicly Available     G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive X Non-Sensitive
C:\FileNet\ML071360392.wpd
RIV:ORA:ACES DRS:PSB                    C:PSB          D:DRS                TL:RC/ACES
MHaire*             Dstearns*           Mshannon*     Dchamberlain*         KFuller*
/RA/               /RA MShannon for/   /RA/           /RARCaniano for/     /RA/
4/10/07            4/11/07              4/11/07        4/11/07              4/16/07
DRA                                      OE            D:DRS
PGwynn                                  DSolorio      DChamberlain
/RA/                                     /RA/           /RA/
4/20/07                                  5/10/07        5/16/07
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY                                 T=Telephone       E=E-mail        F=Fax
 
                                      NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Omaha Public Power District                                            Docket No. 50-285
Fort Calhoun Station                                                   License No. DPR-40
                                                                      EA-07-056
During an NRC inspection and investigation, which were concluded on February 8, 2007, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,
the violation is listed below:
        Technical Specification 5.8.1.a states, in part, that written procedures shall be
        established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures
        recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978, Appendix A.
        Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.e.(1), recommends procedures for
        access control to radiation areas including a radiation work permit system.
        Section 2.3.10 of Procedure RPP, Radiation Protection Plan, Revision 22, states, in
        part, that each station individual is responsible for obeying the requirements of Standing
        Order SO-G-101, Radiation Work Practices. Section 5.4.1 of SO-G-101, Revision 30,
        states, in part, that radiation work permits are required for entry into any posted
        radiation controlled area. In addition, Section 5.5.2 of SO-G-101 states, in part, that
        persons wishing to enter the radiation controlled area shall proceed to the electronic
        alarming dosimeter (EAD) reader and log in following the instructions on the
        keypad (5.5.2.E) and confirm that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading
        zero (5.5.2.J).
        Contrary to the above, on at least three occasions between November 26, 2005, and
        March 27, 2006, a security officer deliberately failed to proceed to the radiation
        controlled area reader and log in following the instructions on the keypad, and confirm
        that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading zero prior to assuming his post
        on the roof of the radioactive waste building which was posted as a radiation area inside
        the radiation controlled area. In addition, the individual enlisted the aid of two other
        security officers to return his radiation controlled area to access control in order to
        expedite his departure at the end of the shift.
        This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Omaha Public Power District is hereby required to
submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the Regional
Administrator, Region IV, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the
Administrator, Region IV, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the
subject of this Notice of Violation (Notice), within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting
subject of this Notice of Violation (Notice), 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,
this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation,
EA-07-056," and should include: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for
EA-07-056," and should include: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for
disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the
disputing the violation or severity level, (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
results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and
(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include  
(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include
-2-Enclosurepreviously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the requiredresponse. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order
                                                  -1-                                     Enclosure
 
previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required
response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order
or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.  
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.If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, withthe basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRCPublic Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should notinclude any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
available to the public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the
NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should not
include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made
available to the public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your
necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your
response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your
response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your
response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you mustspecifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in
response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must
specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in
detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will
detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will
create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by  
create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by
10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial
10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial
information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please
information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please
provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you are required to post this Notice within 2 working days.
provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you are required to post this Notice within 2 working days.
Dated this 16th day of May 2007
Dated this 16th day of May 2007
                                                  -2-                                    Enclosure
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 06:07, 23 November 2019

NRC Inspection Report 05000285-07-009 and Investigation Report 4-2006-036 and Notice Violation
ML071360392
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 05/16/2007
From: Chamberlain D
Division of Reactor Safety IV
To: Ridenoure R
Omaha Public Power District
References
4-2006-036, EA-07-056 IR-07-009
Download: ML071360392 (7)


See also: IR 05000285/2007009

Text

May 16, 2007

EA-07-056

R. T. Ridenoure

Vice President

Omaha Public Power District

Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

P.O. Box 550

Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550

SUBJECT: FORT CALHOUN STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000285/2007009

AND INVESTIGATION REPORT 4-2006-036 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Ridenoure:

This refers to the subject investigation and in-office inspection concluded on February 8,

2007. The investigation, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of

Investigation, and this in-office inspection examined the events documented in your Condition

Report CR-200601359 regarding the failure of a security officer to follow radiation work

permit (RWP) requirements at your Fort Calhoun Station. The findings were discussed with

members of your staff during a telephonic exit meeting on May 16, 2007.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC

requirements occurred. The violation was evaluated in accordance with the NRC Enforcement

Policy included on the NRCs Web site at www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.

The violation involved the failure to follow radiation protection procedure and RWP

requirements. Specifically, one security officer, on at least three occasions between

November 26, 2005, and March 27, 2006, failed to log in on the required RWP and did not

activate his electronic alarming dosimeter (EAD) as required prior to entering the Alpha 1

security post. The Alpha 1 security post is inside a posted radiation controlled area (RCA), and

as such, security officers are required by station procedure and RWP to log in on the

appropriate RWP, activate their EAD, and confirm that it is on and reading zero.

On April 04, 2006, the licensee informed the NRC of this matter. Based on the NRCs

subsequent investigation and inspection, the NRC concluded that the security officers failure to

follow RWP requirements was deliberate. In addition, on two of the three occasions, the

security officer enlisted the aid of two other security officers to return his unactivated EAD to

access control at the end of the shift so that he could leave the site more quickly. The

licensee's investigation confirmed that the three security officers involved had received training

regarding the RWP requirements and understood radiation worker and security procedures,

Omaha Public Power District, -2-

EA-07-056

practices, and requirements. Furthermore, the Alpha 1 security post was located in a posted

remote RCA in accordance with Procedure RP-204, Radiation Area Controls. The area was

barricaded with a magenta and yellow rope and was posted as an RCA with a sign stating

CAUTION, RWP REQUIRED FOR ENTRY, TLD and DOSIMETRY REQUIRED FOR ENTRY.

The posting was hung across the entry to the area where the Alpha 1 security post was located

and would be difficult to miss by anyone passing through the door.

The deliberate misconduct of a security officer, as well as the failure of two other security

officers to report this misconduct under the behavior observation program, is of significant

concern to the NRC. This is particularly significant because security officers are charged with

the safety and security of licensed activities at your facility. In this light, the NRC considered

whether this violation should be treated as a Severity Level III violation. However, the NRC also

recognizes the very low underlying safety significance of the violation in that, although the

Alpha 1 security post was designated by your staff as an RCA, requiring an EAD to enter the

area, the actual radiation levels at the post on most occasions, including the dates of the

incidents in question, are so low that they do not indicate the regulatory need for RCA posting

and EAD monitoring. In addition, the NRC acknowledges the significant disciplinary actions

taken by your staff in terminating the security officer who violated the RWP and in the

counseling and administrative leave given to the two security officers who failed to report him.

Therefore, in light of the very low underlying radiological safety significance of the violation and

your significant disciplinary actions, and in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy, the

NRC is treating this violation as a Severity Level IV violation.

Notwithstanding the low significance of this violation, several aspects of this violation concern

the NRC. Specifically, we note that a similar series of events involving security officers failing to

obtain EADs prior to assuming the Alpha 1 security post occurred in 2002 (EA-03-071). This

current violation raises questions as to the effectiveness of your corrective actions in response

to the 2002 event, and we are most interested in evaluating your corrective actions to ensure

this violation is not repeated in the future. In addition, the NRC is equally concerned that your

behavior observation program, as part of the Insider Mitigation Program, was ineffective given

the failure of the two security officers to bring deliberate procedure violations and

uncharacteristic personnel behavior forward for management attention. Your response to this

violation should thoroughly address both concerns.

The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances

surrounding it have been described in this letter, which serves as NRC Inspection

Report 05000285/2007009. The violation is being cited in the Notice because it involved

deliberate wrongdoing and because of the history of similar acts regarding the Alpha 1 security

post and the ineffective corrective actions taken for the previous violation.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to

determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements.

Omaha Public Power District, -3-

EA-07-056

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its

enclosure, and your response, will be made available electronically for public inspection in the

NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from

the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your

response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so

that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Dwight Chamberlain, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket: 50-285

License: DPR-40

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

cc w/enclosure:

Joe l. McManis, Manager - Licensing

Omaha Public Power District

Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

P.O. Box 550

Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550

David J. Bannister

Manager - Fort Calhoun Station

Omaha Public Power District

Fort Calhoun Station FC-1-1 Plant

P.O. Box 550

Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550

James R. Curtiss

Winston & Strawn

1700 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-3817

Chairman

Washington County Board of Supervisors

P.O. Box 466

Blair, NE 68008

Omaha Public Power District, -4-

EA-07-056

Julia Schmitt, Manager

Radiation Control Program

Nebraska Health & Human Services

Dept. of Regulation & Licensing

Division of Public Health Assurance

301 Centennial Mall, South

P.O. Box 95007

Lincoln, NE 68509-5007

Daniel K. McGhee

Bureau of Radiological Health

Iowa Department of Public Health

Lucas State Office Building, 5th Floor

321 East 12th Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

Omaha Public Power District, -5-

EA-07-056

Electronic distribution by RIV:

Regional Administrator (BSM1)

DRP Director (ATH)

DRS Director (DDC)

DRS Deputy Director (RJC1)

Senior Resident Inspector (JDH1)

Resident Inspector (LMW1)

Branch Chief, DRP/E (JAC)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/E (JCK3)

Team Leader, DRP/TSS (FLB2)

RITS Coordinator (MSH3)

Harry Freeman (HAF)

Mark Haire (MSH2)

Michael Vasquez (GMV)

Karla Fuller (KSF)

Michael Burrell, OE (MRB3)

David Solorio, OE (DLS2)

DRS STA (DAP)

D. Cullison, OEDO RIV Coordinator (DGC)

ROPreports

FCS Site Secretary (BMM)

SUNSI Review Completed: MSH ADAMS: X Yes G No Initials: MSH

X Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive X Non-Sensitive

C:\FileNet\ML071360392.wpd

RIV:ORA:ACES DRS:PSB C:PSB D:DRS TL:RC/ACES

MHaire* Dstearns* Mshannon* Dchamberlain* KFuller*

/RA/ /RA MShannon for/ /RA/ /RARCaniano for/ /RA/

4/10/07 4/11/07 4/11/07 4/11/07 4/16/07

DRA OE D:DRS

PGwynn DSolorio DChamberlain

/RA/ /RA/ /RA/

4/20/07 5/10/07 5/16/07

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Omaha Public Power District Docket No. 50-285

Fort Calhoun Station License No. DPR-40

EA-07-056

During an NRC inspection and investigation, which were concluded on February 8, 2007, a

violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,

the violation is listed below:

Technical Specification 5.8.1.a states, in part, that written procedures shall be

established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures

recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978, Appendix A.

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.e.(1), recommends procedures for

access control to radiation areas including a radiation work permit system.

Section 2.3.10 of Procedure RPP, Radiation Protection Plan, Revision 22, states, in

part, that each station individual is responsible for obeying the requirements of Standing

Order SO-G-101, Radiation Work Practices. Section 5.4.1 of SO-G-101, Revision 30,

states, in part, that radiation work permits are required for entry into any posted

radiation controlled area. In addition, Section 5.5.2 of SO-G-101 states, in part, that

persons wishing to enter the radiation controlled area shall proceed to the electronic

alarming dosimeter (EAD) reader and log in following the instructions on the

keypad (5.5.2.E) and confirm that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading

zero (5.5.2.J).

Contrary to the above, on at least three occasions between November 26, 2005, and

March 27, 2006, a security officer deliberately failed to proceed to the radiation

controlled area reader and log in following the instructions on the keypad, and confirm

that the electronic alarming dosimeter is on and reading zero prior to assuming his post

on the roof of the radioactive waste building which was posted as a radiation area inside

the radiation controlled area. In addition, the individual enlisted the aid of two other

security officers to return his radiation controlled area to access control in order to

expedite his departure at the end of the shift.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Omaha Public Power District is hereby required to

submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the Regional

Administrator, Region IV, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the

subject of this Notice of Violation (Notice), 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,

EA-07-056," and should include: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for

disputing the violation or severity level, (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. Your response may reference or include

-1- Enclosure

previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required

response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order

or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,

suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with

the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC

Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the

NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should not

include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made

available to the public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is

necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your

response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your

response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must

specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in

detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will

create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by

10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial

information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please

provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you are required to post this Notice within 2 working days.

Dated this 16th day of May 2007

-2- Enclosure