ML20151H095
| ML20151H095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/08/1981 |
| From: | Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Andrea Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H060 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-353 EA-81-075, EA-81-75, EGM-81-27, NUDOCS 8111040631 | |
| Download: ML20151H095 (2) | |
Text
~~
~'
~
s.S '8 tw t
i I
'd o,]
UNITS 0 sTATss J
,. f a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
W ASHINGTON. O. C. 20554 3* s < ~,. s(/
y 5,
j I
y l
SEP 34 G81 i
J MEMORANDUM FOR:
A. D. Johnson, Director i
Enforcement and Investigation Region V i
l FROM:
Dudley Thompson, Director l
Enforcement and Investigations, IE t
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ACTION TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER f
i 2
}
This is in reference to your August 28, 1981 memorandum seeking guidance j
on the appropriate categorization of a violation involving an inoperative l
interlock system designed to limit rotation of a teletherapy gantry and l
l swivelling of the teletherapy head (copies furnished earlier to Regional t
EnforcementCoordinators).
The inoperative interlock system would pemit f
the teletherapy beam to be directed into an unrestricted area, I
i After considering severity levels !! and !!! in Supplement VII "Materials
[
Operations" you concluded that the violation :hould ha categorized at a l
severity level IV because a margin of safety had been reduced.
It might i
j also be instructive to review Supplement IV "Health Physics" (C.4) since f
j potential radiation exposure is involved.
Your inspection results indicate that (1) the beam is not normally directed into the unrestricted area (2) if it was so directed, the radiation dose i
rate would be 14 mr/hr on the surface of an outside wall and about 6 mr/hr i
at 18 inches frem the wall, and (3) the beam is only on for short duratiens 4
such that it is highly unlikely that a person in an unrestricted area would receive a radiation exposure in excess of 2 mR in any one hour or 100 mR in any seven consecutive day period.
Based on these facts, it appears that the violation does not involve a substantial potential for a person receiving a dose exceeding Part 20 limits and the use of the interlock system under these circumstances is i
not necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event. Therefore,
the categorization of the violation at a severity level IV is appropriate.
3 t#
6'rp' s
i Du y
on, e
Enforce ent and Investigations Office of Inspection and Enforcerrent Enc 1:
Enforcement Action -
l Tripler Amy Medical Center p-$i 3Q l
See next page for cc's b/a M K 9/,
g
2-SEP 0 s 1981 A. D. Johnson cc:
V. Stello, w/ encl.
R. DeYoung, H. Thornburg,"
N. Moseley, T. Harpster, "
J. Liebeman,"
R. Wessman, G. Barber, T. Brockett, "
J. Metzger, R. Carlson, RI, w/o encl.
C. Alderson, RII.
J. Streeter, RIII, J. Gagliardo, RIV,
)
9 L
l I
i
_r..,
.__r.-.__
,.__,.,-_-s-
.. _,., _.... _ -.,...