ML20147J175
| ML20147J175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1988 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | VIRGINIA, UNIV. OF, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147J149 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-87-155, NUDOCS 8803090197 | |
| Download: ML20147J175 (7) | |
Text
..
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ftt11SSION In the Mstter of Docket No. EC-62 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA License t'n. R-66 Charlottesville, VA EA 87-155 ORDER IMPOSING iVIL FONETARY PENALTY I
The University of Virginia (licensee) is the holder of Operating License No. R-66 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC/Comission) on June 24, 1960, and renewed on September 30, 1982.
The license autheri es the licensee to possess and operate the reactor as a utilization facility in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
II A special inspection of the licensee's activities pertaining to the events associated with a significant potential for overexposure of personnel in the neutron radiography facility was conducted on July 6-8, and 15-17, 1987.
The results of this inspection indicatea that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements.
A written Notice of Violation and Preposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upen the licensee by letter dated October 26, 1987.
The Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violatiens.
The licensee responded to the Notice of Violatior ard Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty by letter dated November 18, 1987.
In its response, the licensee denied Violations I.B.2 and I.B.4, admitted the remaining violations, and requested nitigation of the proposed civil peralty.
O
.o O,
III After consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations has determined as set forth in the Appendix to this Order that violation I.B.2 should be withdrawn, that the remaining violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation, and that a portion of the penalty proposed for the violations designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Irposition of Civil Penalty should be mitigated for the reasons stated in the Appendix to the Order.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay a civil penalty in the anount of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250) within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director Office of Enforcerent, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conr.ission, ATTN:
Document Control Cesk, Washirsten, DC 20555.
The licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order.
A request for a hearing should bc clearly marked as a "Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
t
~?-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornissicn, ATTN: Docurent Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Regien II.
If a hearirg is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing.
If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisiens of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings.
If paynent has net been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorrey General for collection.
In the event the licensee reauests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
s (a) whether the licensee was ir violation of the Commission's requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Fenalty as aa nded in the attached Appendix, and (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION L
~w nt <
, ' Jarpes P. Taylor / 'eputy Executive j Oirector for egieral Operation Dsted at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of March 1988 I
i
/PPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On October 26, 1987, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (h0V) was istucd for violations identified during a routire hRC inspection. The University of Virginia responded to the Notice on Nover.ber 18.
1987.
The licensee denied the occurrence of Violations I.B.2 and I.B.4 and admitted the occurrence of the remaining violations.
The licersee also requested full remission or mitigation of the proposed civil peralty amount.
The NRC's evaluations and conclusions regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
1.
Restatement of Violations I.B.2 and I.B.4 Technical Specification 6.3 requires, in part, that written procedures, reviewed and approved by the Reactor Safety Committee, shall be in effect and followed for:
(11 startup, operation, and shutdown of the reactor; (2) installation and removal cf experiments and ex:erimental facilities; (3) periodic surveillance (including test and cali) ration) of reactor instrumentation and safety systems; and (4) preventive and corrective maintenance operations that could have an effect on reactor safety.
Contrary to the above, 2.
Procedures were net adequate, in that, between 1983 and June 1987, the neutron radiography facility was operated without writter procedures.
4.
Frior to July 2, 1987, written procedures were not in effect for surveillance testing of the neutron detectcr in the neutron radicgraphy block house access control system.
Sumary of Licensee's Response to Violation I.B.2 The licensee admitted to not having written procedures to operate the neutron radiegrar y facility; however, the licensee denied the violatten.
The licensee contends that the lack ef experimental operating procedures for the neutren radiography facility is not a violation of Technical Specification 6.3, in that Technical Specification 6.3 addresses the safe operation of the reactor and does ret cover other aspects of the operation of ancillary experimental facilities such as radiological safety.
l NRC Evaluation of Licensee Respcnse to Violation I.B.?
NRC agrees that Technical Specification 6.3(2) aces not require written operating precedures fer operimental facilities.
Consequently, thit violation has been withdrawn and NRC records will be adjusted accordirely.
l l
Appendix Sumery of Licensee's Respense to Violation I.B.4 The licenseo contends that Technical Specification 6.3 decs not apply to the instrurentation utilized in experimental facilities, but to reacter instrumentatien and safety systems.
TFe licensee states that the boron triflucride (8F,) neutron counter is not intended to be part of the access control system 3nd its function is that cf a redundant monitor along with the fluid level indicator to indicate beamport draining. The licensec is of the opinien that written surveillance procedures for the counter are not needed, since its operability is automatically checked with each use of the neutron radiography facility.
The licensee also stated that it would strongly consider withdrawing the counter from operation to avoid legal entanglements in the future if the Comission requires surveillance in accordance with written procedures.
The licenseo stated that an agreement between the licensee and the inspector had been made not to require calibration of the neutron ccunter.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response to Violatier I.B.4 Technical Specification 6.3 requires radiation centrol procedures to be maintained and made available to all operational personnel.
The licensee response states that the BF, rcutron counter was not part of an access control system. The NRC naTntains that the licensee was in fact utilizing the BF ceunter and the light emitting diode (LEDI sensor for blockhouse 3
access control.
In 1982 mcdifications were made by the licensee to the reacter shielding in such a manner as to increase the rediation hazard associated witF operation of the facility.
The licensee installed the two diverse access control instrumentation systens (one of which is the BF, neutron counttr) thereby restoring the original margin of safety.
These systems are required to be periedically tested (althcugh not necessarily "calibrated") for radiation control purposes. Without approved written precedures to ensure operability of these systems, operation of the reactor in its rcdified configuration is a violation of Technical Specificetion 6.3.
Additionally, the licensee response implies that an agrecrent had been made between the inspectcr and licensee representatives te censider the BF counter as a redundant monitor ret requiring calibratien.
The licensee 3
was told by the inspector that calibratien of the neutron counter to read l
dose rates would not be recuired; however, periodic surveillances described l
in licensee procedures would be required to ensure that the monitor ras furctioning properly.
II.
Sumary of Licensee's Request for Mitigation In its response the licensee agrees with the assignment of a Severity Level III for the violaticr.s. However, the licensee believes that in view of the cpportune discovery of the violaticns, the imdiate reporting of the event to the NpC, the verificatien of no personnel exposures above NRC limits, and the extensive corrective actions, consideration of mitigation of the proposec fine is justified.
.i Appen'ix d NRC Evaluation of Licensce's Request for Mitigation The NRC reccgnizes that the licensee promptly identified and reported the event, but does not consider mitigaticn warranted in view of the fact that the discovery of the event was fortuitous.
However, in consideratien of the additional broad sccpe corrective actions reported in the licensce's November 18, 1987, response and the withdrawal ef Violation I.B.2, a sufficient basis is provided for raitigation cf the civil penalty by 50 percent to $1,250.
III. FRC Conclusion The NRC has concluded that violation I.B.2 should be withdrawn and that the remaining violations occurred as stated.
In addition, in censideration of the licensee's extensive corrective actions, the civil penalty has been mitigeted by 50 percent to $1,250.
e University of Virginia.
Distribution PDR SECY CA JTaylor, DEDRO JNGrace, RII JLieberman, OE EFlack, OE LChandler, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV BHayes. OI SConnelly, OIA FIngram, PA GJohnson, RH VMiller, NMSS DNussbaumer, 0GPA GSjoblom,hMSS CE File EA File DCS Corinonwealth of Virginia w.h 3O M OEM OGCscry RIIase OE:D 8I#
EFlack LChandler JNGrace JLieberman r r 3/a./88 3/J./88 3/a /88 3/,J/88
- 3) /8 i
.