ML20132A819
| ML20132A819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1985 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507230267 | |
| Download: ML20132A819 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1984033
Text
- a
.
.
APR 171985
.
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. 8. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REPORT NOS. 50-269/84-33, 50-270/84-30 AND 50-287/84-34
.
Thank you for your response of February 22, 1985, to our Notice of Violation
issued on January 23, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee
facility.
We have given careful consideration to the basis for your denial of violations 1
and
2'.
We recognize that they did not represent significant health and safety
concerns. Accordingly, the violations were placed at Severity Levels IV and V.
However, for the reasons presented in the Enclosure to this letter, we have
concluded that the actions were contrary to the regulations as stated in the
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201(a), please
submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter a written
statement describing steps which have been taken to correct violations 1 and 2
and the results achieved, corrective actions which will be taken to avoid further
violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your supple-
mental response to violation 1 should include your corrective actions related to
the radioactive material which was disposed of, without authorization, in the ash
at the Lee Steam Station.
,
The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedure
of the Office of Management and Budget issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
PL 96-511.
Sincerely,
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Licensee Response
cc w/ enc 1.
M. S. Tuckmen, Station Manager
bcc w/ enc 1: (See page 2)
8507230267 850417
ADOCK 05000269
G
TB ol
\\
l (
!
. _ _ _ _
_
-
.
_
__ ,
._.
~_
'
.
Duke Power Company
2-
bec w/ encl:
L
NRC Resident Inspector
D. S. Price, RII
Document Control Desk
State of South Carolina
RII
RII.
RII
RII
F
'
'
RII g ,9
t/MC
A
Y
ifhttc 7
'
g DMontgomery
RHAlb
ht:jw
en
ns
DMCollins
JMPuckett
i
,
4/5 /85
4/3/;5
4/ 3 /85
4/ 3 /85
4 4 /85
4
85
RII
RII
RII
RI
RII
'
VBr[ownlee.id
&fe
'
-
'C rgerI
HDa e
RWal ker
J0
nski
4//o/85
4/p /85
4/l0/85
4/p/85
4//v/85
(fk Wrs on 3 Q.0 + hb l67
R
ki
JPSi.ahr
av LJCun ingham
4/f /85
4/lG/85
l
4/3 /85
,
.
,
ENCLOSURE
STAFF ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE RESPONSE
1.
Violation 1 concerned the violation of 10 CFR 20.301 for the unauthorized
disposal of 18,635 gallons of slightly contaminated waste oil during the
period September 1981 to June 1984.
Licensee Comment:
011 from the secondary system which would not normally be considered
contaminated, was surveyed and, if less than exempt quantities (10 CFR 30.18) were measured, the oil was shipped to Lee Steam Station, a fossil
fuel steam plant for disposal by burning.
The oil was not burned at Lee
without additional regulatory approval. Duke Power Company submitted to the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) a
" Spent Oil Management Program for Duke's South Carolina Facilities" which
describes the burning of oil containing exempt quantities of radioactivity
at Lee. This Program was approved originally in 1980 by the State of South
Carolina in a letter dated October 20, 1980, and has been reviewed annually
since then. South Carolina DHEC is the agency responsible for implementing
10 CFR 20 in South Carolina under the agreement states program (10 CFR 150).
Duke Power Company did not violate 10 CFR 20.301, 10 CFR 20.302, and
10 CFR 20.303 by burning oil at Lee.
NRC Response:
.
10 CFR 20.301 prohibits disposal of licensed material as waste except as
.- -
-
specified~ in that paragraph.
The NRC -has consistently -regulated the
-
-
disposal of radioactive material in accordance with 10 CFR 20.301 without
-
regard to the disposed quantity.
The requirements for the disposal of
radioactive material were restated in a letter dated March 20, 1984, from
A. F. Gibson of NRC Region II to Duke Power Company.
The intended use of
10 CFR 30.18 was
to
accommodate
the
occasional
transfers between
-
laboratories of small quantities of byproduct material in samples,
.
standards, etc.
While we recognize that burning the oil from the secondary system did not
present a radiological health problem (the concentrations were less than
those that would have been authorized for burning at the Oconee Station),
the transfer of the oil containing low-level radioactivity for disposal was
neither permitted by 10 CFR 20.301 nor 10 CFR 30.18.
In order for Oconee to transfer contaminated waste oil to the Lee Steam
Station for disposal purposes, Lee Steam Station would have to ap.- Jy for and
receive a specific license from the State of South Carolina. The -Spent Oil
Management Program for Duke's South Carolina Facilities" states, "The spent
oil that is shipped to Lee will be monitored, as required by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, to ensure that this oil contains only quantities of
radioactivity
that are exempt from NRC regulation
(i.e.,
Exempt
Quantities)."
As explained above, there are no exempt quantities of
radioactivity for disposal purposes.
Therefore, the State of. South
_ _ .
_
. _ _
.
.
Enclosure
2
Carolina's approval of the Spent Oil Management Program did not constitute
regulatory approval for disposal of radioactively contaminated oil.
2.
Violation 2 concerned the failure to post an airborne radioactivity area for
noble cases exceeding maximum perrissible concentration (MPC) levels as
required by 10 CFR 20.103.
Licensee Comment:
It is Duke Power's interpretation that the regulatory philosophy for
airborne noble gases and radionuclides with half-lives less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />
allows exposure to these radioisotopes to be treated as external doses.
10 CFR 20.103, footnote 2, states:
" .. . For radioactive materials designated "Sub" in the " Isotope" column
of the table, the concentration value specified is based upon exposure
to the material as an external radiation source.
Individual exposures
to these materials may be accounted for as part of the limitation on
individual dose in 20.101.
These nuclides shall be subject to the
precautionary procedures required by 20.103(b)(1)."
NRC Response:
,
The intent of 10 CFR 20.103, footnote 2, is that dose to personnel due to
exposure to ai.rborne noble gases may be accounted for as an external
exposure which would be included in external-dose totals subject to the
10 CFR 20.101 dose _-limitations.
This note does not exempt the posting-of -
-
_~
-
~
~
J
-
noble gas-airborne radioactivity areas as an~" airborne-radioactivity area."
Licensee Comment:
Noble gases are listed in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B as "Sub" materials.
Further, shortlived isotopes (T
, 2 hrs. , notably Rb-88) are not listed
<
specifically to Appendix B; a generic MPC value is listed as a " submersion"
S
dose MPC.
International
Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP)
Publication 30 supports this approach as technically sound. ICRP 30, part
1, paragraph 8.2.3 states:
"Therefore, when applying the system of dose limitation described in
Chapter 2,
it is clear that, for exposure by submersion in radio-
isotopes of the noble gases, external irradiation will be of such
overriding importance that it alone need be considered. Thus, in this
report dose equivalents from absorbed gas and gas contained in the lung
have.been disregarded."
Further, paragraph 8.2.3.1 states:
"If the daughter radionuclide is not an inert radioactive gas, it can
be shown that in practice dose equivalents from daughters produced from
their parent absorbed in body tissues will usually be small compared
with the external dose from parent and daughter outside the body.
In
.
.
Enclosure
3
i
this report dose equivalents from the daughters produced from their
parent in body tissues have been disregarded."
NRC Response:
The above excerpts from ICRP Publication 30 are similar to the reasons that
10 CFR 20 allows the submersion dose from designated radionuclides in
10 CFR 20, Appendix B, to be accounted for as external dose.
However, the
requirements enforced by the NRC are contained in Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations; the license; and licensee commitments. Other documents, such
as ICRP publications, do not determine the regulatory requirements.
' Licensee Comment:
The doses associated with these materials are subject to the controls in
10 CFR 20, paragraph 20.101. Additionally, these nuclides are subject to
i
the precautionary (ALARA) procedures of paragraph 20.103(b)(1):
"(b)(1) The licensee shall, as a precautionary procedure, use process
or other engineering controls, to the extent practicable, to limit
concentrations of radioactive materials in air to levels below those
which delimit an airborne radioactivity area as defined
in
20.203(d)(1)(ii)."
4
The definition referred to here (20.203(d)(1)(ii)) is:
.
"(ii) any room; enclosure, .or operating area , in which airborne
-
~
radioactive-mater.tal comp ~osed wholly or partly of licensed material J
exists in concentrations which, averaged over the number of hours in
any week during which individuals are in the area, exceed 25 percent of
the amounts specified in Appendix B Table I, Column 1 of this part."
The external dose associated with these isotopes should be measured and
~
controlled like all other external ~ hazards, and the concentration of these
isotopes should be reduced to an as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
i
value ( $25% MPC). For submersion MPC values, this 0.25 MPC corresponds to
-roughly 300 mrem per quarter below which no personnel monitoring
requirements exist.
NRC Response:
10 CFR 20.103(b)(1) is applied to all airborne radioactive materials
including those which are treated as external hazards as stated in
10 CFR 20.103(a)(1), note 2.
Exposure to noble gases can be controlled as
external dose or by using the MPC-hrs control concept. 10 CFR 20.202(a)(1)
requires that personnel who enter a restricted area under such circumstances
that they are likely to receive in excess o~f 25 percent of the applicable
limit in 10 CFR 20.101(a) must be provided personnel monitoring equipment.
If personnel enter the restricted area and personal monitoring devices are
not issued by reason of 10 CFR 20.202(a)(1), the licensee must be able to
substantiate the evaluation. The determination not to issue an individual
-
-.
.
- .-
.
-_
--
_ _ . -
._.
_.
- -_-
-.
..-
Enclosure
4
personal monitoring device does not affect the requirements to post
airborne radioactivity areas or radiation areas.
Posting requirements for
radiological areas are contained in 10 CFR 20.203.
The methods allowed by
10 CFR 20.103, note 2, for accounting for exposure to noble gases do not
affect or exempt the
licensee
from the posting requirements
in
Licensee Comment:
Normal respiratory protective measures are not effective in reducing doses
from this material.
Posting an area where this material is present as an
Airborne Radioactive Material Area would imply that the area be controlled
as such by MPC-hour limitations, respiratory protective equipment use and
bioassay confirmatory measurements.
These controls are not effective in
light of the far greater hazard posed by external exposure to these
nuclides.
Without the need for effective internal dose control, a
significant increase in protection offered to the worker is not realized by
merely posting these areas as airborne areas.
NRC Response:
The Region II staff agrees that normal respiratory protective measures are
not applicable to the hazard posed by noble gases.
Posting " airborne
radioactivity areas" due to noble gases is of use in that the posting
. notifies workers that an off normal
condition
is present.
While
'
10 CFR 20.103, note 2,
allows the hazard posed by . noble gases to be
controlled =by MPC-hrs or by inclusion in external dose totals, an exception- -
-
_
~
T
to the airborne radioactivity area posting is not contained _in 10 CFR--20.
The NRC acknowledged that the failure to post airborne noble gas areas was
of minor safety significance and appropriately established the severity
level of the violation as a Severity Level V.
.
+
,,--- ,
,
.--s_
-
_
, -