ML20132A819

Ack Receipt of Denying Violations 1 & 2 Noted in Insp Repts 50-269/84-33,50-270/84-30 & 50-287/84-34. Corrective Actions Re Radioactive Matl Disposed of in Ash in Lee Steam Station Required

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

. .

1. 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

Notice of Violation. 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

PDR ADOCK 05000269

G PDR

TB ol \

l (

!

. _ _ _ _ _ - . _ __ , ._. ~_

• '

.

Duke Power Company 2-

bec w/ encl:

L NRC Resident Inspector

NRR Project Manager, NRR

D. S. Price, RII

Document Control Desk

State of South Carolina

RII RII. RII RII

' '

RII g 7,9

ifhttc t/MC A

F

'

Y

RHAlb ht:jw en ns DMCollins g DMontgomery JMPuckett ,

i

4/5 /85 4/3/;5 4/ 3 /85 4/ 3 /85 4 4 /85 4 85

'

RII RII RII RI RII

-

rgerI &fe .id

VBr[ownlee

'

'C HDa e RWal ker J0 nski

4//o/85 4/p /85 4/l0/85 4/p/85 4//v/85

R ki JPSi.ahr av LJCun ingham

(fk Wrs on 3 Q.0 + hb l67

4/f /85 4/lG/85 l 4/3 /85

l

,

. ,

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 -

-

~

-

_~

noble gas-airborne radioactivity areas as an~" airborne-radioactivity area."

~

J -

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

4

20.203(d)(1)(ii)."

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

i

isotopes should be reduced to an as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)

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

1

- -.

. - .- . -_

-- _ _ . - ._. _.

- -_- -.

..-

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

10 CFR 20.203(d).

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 While

'

is present.

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_ - _ , -

,,--- , ,