ML20195J822
| ML20195J822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371 |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1988 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195J786 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-88-094, EA-88-94, NUDOCS 8806290248 | |
| Download: ML20195J822 (6) | |
Text
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
.AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY UNC Naval Products, Inc. Docket No.70-371 Division of UNC Resourcet, Inc. License No. SNM-368 EA 88-94 During an NRC inspection conducted on February 19 - March 18, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A. 10 CFR 20.103(b)(2), states, in part, that the licensee shall maintain intake of radioactive material by any individual, within any period of seven consecutive days, as far below that intake of radioactive material which would result from inhalation of such material for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> at the uniforra concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 1, Column 1 as is reasonably achievable. Whenever the intake of radioactive material by any individual exceeds this 40-hour control measure, the licensee shall make such evaluations and take such actions as are necessary to assure against recurrence. The licensee shall maintain records of such occurrences, evaluations, and actions taken in a clear and readily identifiable form suitable for summary review and evaluation.
Contrary to the above, during the seven consecutive day period from November 19 through 25, 1986,
- 1. an individual received an intake of radioactive material in an amount equivalent to inhalation of the material for 48.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> et the uniform concentrations specified in Appendix B, Table 1, Column 1; and
- 2. the record of this occurrence and its evaluation were inadequate in that it did not identify the root cause (operator training) of this occurrence or the actions taken to prevent recurrence (better
! personnel selection and additional engineering controls).
B. 10 CFR 20.103 (a)(3), states, in part, that for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this section, the licensee shall use
! suitable measurements of concentrations of radioactive materials in air for detecting and evaluating airborna radioactivity in restricted areas.
Contrary to the above,
- 1. During cleanup of the Unit 1 process equipment in November 1986, February 1987, and August 1987, individuals entered restricted areas inside of contaminated equipment to perform tasks which had the l
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG VNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
0004,0.0 8806290248 000613 06/09/88 1
ADDCK 0700
{DR
e Notice of Violation 2 potential for generating airborne activity and, prior to entry and parformance of these tasks, suitable measurements were not made of the concentrations of radioactive materials in air inside the equipment.
- 2. On March 14, 1988, work was performed on a highly centaminated vacuum cleaner in the "old" decon hood, and during this activity, suitable measurements were not taken to evaluate the airborne radioactivity.
Specifically, alt ough general area air samples indicated airborne concentrations of w roximately 90% of MPC, thase samples were not representative of th. mrker's breathing zone since one air sampler was located approxima.ely three feet above the table where the work was performed (at the edge of the hood) while the other air sampler was located on a cart outside the breathing zone.
- 3. On March 14, 1988, cleaning and maintenance operations were performed on Unit 1 process equipment which required partial entry of the worker into the equipment, and, prior to this activity, suitable measurements of concentrations of radioactive material in air were not taken to evaluate the potential airborne activity within the equipment. Specifically, the fixed air sampler was located outside and above the opening to the equipment.
C. 10 CFR 20.201(b), states, in part, that each licensee shall make or cause to be made such surveys as (1) may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in this part, and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
Contrary to the above, adequate surveys were not performed to demonstrate compliance with 20.103 which sets forth limits for the exposure of individuals to concentrations of radioactive materials in air in restricted areas. Specifically:
- 1. for an undetermined period of time prior to February 19, 1988, when glass fiber filters were analyzed to evaluate exposures of individuals to airborne concentrations of alpha emitting radioactive materials, the licensee did not evaluate the counting losses due to filter self-absorption;
- 2. for an undetermined period of time prior to February 19, 1988, individuals exited potentially high contamination areas and were not required to perform personnel monitoring necessary to prevent the undetected exit of contaminated individuals from the Radiologically Controlled Area; and
- 3. on May 22, 1986, an individual received a positive in-vivo lung count which indicated an apparent exposure of 635 MPC-hours. As of February 19, 1988, the licensee had not evaluated this exposure to show compliance with 20.103(a)(1) which limits an individual's exposure to 520 MPC-hours in one calendar quarter.
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG UNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
0005.0.0 06/09/88
F Notice of Violation 3 D. Special Nuclear Materials License No. 368, Part I, Section 4.4.2.2, requires, in part, that air flows be maintained from contamination free areas into potentially contaminated areas and from areas of lower to areas of higher contamination. In addition, adjustments in air balance shall be made based on the inspection results to achieve proper directional flow.
Contrary to the above, on numerous occasions since February, 1986, air flows were not maintained from contamination free areas into potentially contaminated areas and from areas of lower contamination to areas of higher contamination. Specifically:
- 1. since August, 1987, Subsystem No. 1, from the Chem Lab to the Spec Lab (Room B186), the air flow was not from an area of lower contami-nation to an area of higher contamination;
- 2. since October, 1986, Subsystem No 3, from the Spec Lab to the Sectioning Room, the air flow was not from an area of lower contami-nation to an area of higher contamination;
! 3. since February, 1986, Subsystem No. 6, from the Change Room to the Pack Assembly (Room B-122), the air flow was not from an area of lower contamination to an area of higher contamination.
E. Special Nuclear Materials License No. 368, Part I, Section 4.4.2.1, "Local Exhaust", requires, in part, that ventilation exhaust equipment shall be required for routine operations generating airborne concentrations in excess of 25% of MPC, with minimum air movement requirements for a general purpose hood face velocity of 100 linear feet per minute.
Contrary to the above, on March 14, 1988, an operation involving the cleaning of a vacuum cleaner generated airborne radioactive material l
concentrations in amounts in excess of 25% of MPC, and the general
! purpose hood utilized for ventilation had a minimum air movement tace velocity of less than 25 linear feet per minute.
F. Special Nuclear Materials License No. 368, Part I, Section 4.1, "General Health Physics Requirements", requires, in part, that the Radiation Protection Program shall comply with the regulations established in 10 CFR 20. In addition, procedures shall provide the control needed to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the license and 10 CFR 20 requirements.
Contrary to the above, for an undetermined period of time prior to February 19, 1988, adequate procedures did not exist in a number of areas to provide _the control needed to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the license and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
Specifically:
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG UNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
0006.0.0 06/09/88 l
l
7 Notice of Violation 4 l 1. A procedure did not exist to describe the preparation and use of Special Work Permits;
- 2. A procedure did not exist for the implementation of the Bioassay program;
- 3. Task Instruction 2-9, "Assessment of Individual's Exposure to Airborne Radioactivity", did not include provisions for the use of an alpha absorption correction factor;
- 4. A procedure did not exist for the tracking of MPC-hours as referenced in Task Instruction 2-9;
- 5. Task Instruction 5-3, "Hood Velocity Measurement", did not provide adequate guidance to ensure cocpliance with license requirements.
Specifically, the guidance was deficient in that instructions were not provided to clearly instruct workers to measure face velocity rather than duct velocity.
G. Special Nuclear Materials License No. 368, Part I, Section 2.7.4, "Audits", requires, in part, that a comprehensive review of the total protection or control aspects of the Health Physics Program shall be performed once a year. In addition, license requirements, 10 CFR 20, and appropriate NRC Regulatory Guides shall be used in establishing the areas of review and audit reports shall be maintained for two years.
Contrary to the above, for the period 1984 through 1987, a comprehensiva review of the total protection or control aspects of the Health Physics Program was not performed. Although audits were conducted during this time by American Nuclear Insurers, the audits did not include a review of compliance with requirements, adequacy of health physics procedures, and the representativeness of the air sampling program. Further, the ANI audit reports for 1986 and 1987, which were viewed by the licensee as the audits to satisfy this requirement, were not maintained as required.
These violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
Civil Penalty - 12,500 - assessed equally among the violations.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, UNC Naval Products, Inc. is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG UNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
-0009.0.0 06/09/88 w.---..... .. . i . . . . m_. . _ _ . _
. .--...E
Notice of V 41ation 5 (3) the corrective steos that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given.to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violation (s) listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 Part 2, Appendix C (1988), should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may l
incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,
l citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the l licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
l l
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Cp PKG UNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
l 0010.0.0 06/09/88 i
(
L... .
Notice of Violation 6
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, OC' 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator,'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road' King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Or131nal Signed By UILLI!J! T. RUSSELL William T. Russell Regional' Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
.this /3 day of June 1988 k
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG UNITED NUCLEAR REV 1 -
0011.0.0 06/09/88
__ _ . _ ,- . . . _ . . . _ . , . . _ . . _ . . . . _ , . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ - . - _