ML20198F979
| ML20198F979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000128 |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198F935 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-128-97-01, 50-128-97-1, NUDOCS 9708130244 | |
| Download: ML20198F979 (8) | |
Text
--
ENCLQSURE -
' NOTICE OF VIOLATION
. Texas A&M University System _ _ Docket No.: 50128 L _ ._ Texas Engineering Experiment Station License No.: R 83 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 17 21,1997, eight violations of _NRC
- tequirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and
, Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violations were listed in a L
Notice of Violation issued May 29,1997. One of those violations is revised as follows:
E. 10 CFR 20.1501(a) requires each licensee to make or cause to be made surveys that (1) May be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in _ i
~10 CFR Part 20; and (2) Are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the
= extent of radiation levels: concentrations and quantities of radioactive materials; and the potential radiological hazards that could bv present.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1003, survey means an evaluation of the radiological-conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release,-
disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. When-appropriate, such an evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of radioactive material and measurements or calculations of levels of radiation, or -
concentrations or quantities of radioactive material present. -
Also pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1003, high radiation area means an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 rem in -1 hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates.-
Contrary to the above, until March 27,1997, adequate radiation surveys were not performed in the waste storage building to ensure _the licensee complied-with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1201, occupational dose limits for adults,
- 10 CFR 20.1601, control-of _ access to high radiation areas, and 10 CFR 20.1902(b),
posting requirements of high radiation areas; and to evaluate the extent of radiation-levels and the potential radiological hazards that were present.
- This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV)(50-128/9701-05).
9708130244 PDR 970011 7 G ADOCM-05000128 PDR J
a 4
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance will be achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in the licensee's letter dated June 16,1997. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position, in that case,'or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV,611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
Dated at Arlington, Texas this day of 1997 i
i
ENCLOSUREl-The licensee contested two violations identified during the NRC inspection conducted March 17 21,- 1997. The following is the NRC's analysis of the licensee's positions with respect to the contested violations.
Restatement of Violation E:
- 10 CFR 20.1501(a) requires each licensee to mako or cause to be made surveys that may be _necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation levels and the potential radiological hazards that could be present.
Contrary to the above, radiation surveys were not performed in the waste storage building until March 27,1997.
-This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV)(50128/970105).
Licensee's Resoonse:
The NSC staff does not consider this to be a valid violation and contests the violation, it had been the Health Physics interpretation of 10 CFR 20.1501(a) that periodic surveys of radioactive material storage areas should evaluate the radiation levels at the boundary of the storage area. Documented surveys on the exterior of the waste storage building are performed monthly _ and the building is marked on all exterior doors with radioactive material and radiation area warning signs. The radiation work permit (RWP) that was in effect during the movement-of the bags of contaminated trash required the general area to remain below 5 millirems /hr, The health physics staff would monitor the area while working using a survey meter. The 130 millirems /hr contact reading that the inspector found on a bag was primarily beta radiation and less than 100 millirems /hr at 30 cm. The general area was stillless than 100 millirems /hr and the area posting was correct.
10 CFR 20.1003 defines a survey as,
", , , an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to -
the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. When appropriate, such an evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of radioactive materials , , , ." >
The HP staff felt that it would not be good ALARA practice to perform frequent surveys of the interior of the waste storage building . The building is normally unoccupied and is locked with keys in the control of the HP staff. Upon entry for a significant period (i.e. sorting of material for disposal) a survey meter is used to verify that the area dose rates are stillless than 100 millirems /hr, but these readings are not generally documented,
2 NRC Comments:
The licensee's response indicates a different position than expressed during the inspection and exit meeting. The licensee argues that measuring the radiation levels at the site boundary constituted compliance, that other means of controlling radiation levels negated the need for surveys, that surveys were made, that the existence of a high radiation area was not feasible, and that surveys were not made frequently because to do so would not be in agreement with the ALARA concept.
The licensee's first argument is that its interpretation of 10 CFR 20.1501(a) is met by
- performing radiation surveys on the exterior of the radioactive waste building. This is only one aspect of the requirement to perform radiation surveys. There is more. Such surveys, if done with the proper instrumentation, are necessary to ensure compliance with 10 CFR
(~ 20.1301 and to prevent excessive radiation doses to members cf the public that may be in the unrestricted area outside the building. However, by themselves, such surveys would not be adequate to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501 because the surveys do not provide information necessary to:
- 1. Inform occupationally exposed individuals, working within the building, of radiological hazards as required by 10 CFR 19.12, which, in turn, helps to ensure compliance with occupational dose limits, as required by 10 CFR 20.1201 and
- 2. Ensure that radiation levels within the radioactive storage building were below the threshold requiririg special controls, as specified in 10 CFR 20.1601, or special
-posting, as required in 10 CFR 20.1902(b).
The use of a radiation work permit does not ensure that radiation levels remain within specified limits. The identification of radiation levels in excess of 5 millirem per hour at 30 centimeters by the inspector is proof of this, it is only when radiation surveys are performed and compensatory measures are taken, that radiation levels are controlled.
The licensee argues that surveys were routinely performed but offers nothing to support this position. The f act that the inspector, instead of the licensee, identified a bag producing radiation levels significantly higher than the general background radiation levels indicated that adequate surveys were not performed. As discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-128/97-01, the health physics coordinator stated, during a telephone conversation on March 27,1997, that the bags were taken from the main storage area whan storage shelves were ouilt, it was intended that the bags be moved into a higher-level radioactive waste storage area. Had licensee personnel made adequate radiation surveys, it would have been obvious that the bags of waste were not stored as intended.
l
e 3-The licensee noted that the bag of materialin question contained material that emitted beta radiation. The NRC considered this fact fortuitous and concluded that it was not necessarily typical of all bags of waste produced by the licensee and, in no way, ensured that other waste could not produce radiation levels sufficient to require high radiation area controls and posting.
The NRC agrees that it would not be good ALARA practice to perform frequent surveys inside the radioactive waste storage building simply as a matter of routine.
10 CFR 20.1501(a) does not require surveys at a specified frequency. If personnel were not working in the area, there would be no benefit in measuring radiation dose rates.
Radiation surveys should be commensurate with the need for information. However, people worked within the building, therefore, some surveys were necessary to obtain the information to brief the individuals, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12.
Conclusion:
The licensee offered no evidence that adequate radiation surveys were performed to identify radiological hazards. The f act that radioactive material was found in an area in which it was not intended to be stored indicated that adequate radiation surveys were not performed. The fact that the failure to survey did not lead to other violations of 10 CFR Part 30 was merely fortuitous. The NRC concluded that the violation did occur.
However, the violation was revised to more clearly state the NRC's concern regarding surveys and compliance with 10 CFR 20.1501. Violation E has been revised and reissued in Enclosure 1.
Restatement of Violation F:
10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) requires that each licensee conduct operations so that the total-effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (100 millirems) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributed from background radiation.
10 CFR 20.1302(b) states that a licensee shall show compliance with the annual dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301 by (1) demonstrating by measurement or calculation that the total effective dose equivalent to the individual lilrely to receive the highest dose from the licensed operation does not exceed the annual dose limit; or (2) demonstrating that (i) the annual concentrations or radioactive material released in gaseous and liquid effluents at the boundary of the unrestricted area do not exceed the values specified in Table 2 of Appendix B to Part 20; and (ii)if an individual were continuously present in an unrestricted area, the dose from external sources would not exceed 0.002 rem in an hour and 0.05 rem in a year.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not demonstrate compliance with annual dose limits for individual members of the public, Thermoluminescent dosimeter results confirmed that two locations in unrestricted areas received 198 millirems and 117 millirems in 1996 and one location received 123 millirems in 1995.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV)(50-128/970106).
Licensee's Rgsppate:
The NSC staff contends'that no violation exists and contests the violation.
The NSC has exceeded values of 100 millirems / year at the perimeter, but the dose rates never exceeded 2 millitems/hr. Radioactive effluents are well below regulatory limits.
Taking into account the occupancy of the area it is not conceivable that a member of the general public ever received an annual exposure of 100 millirems. The NSC facility perimeter is nearly one half mile from any location of extended occupancy (Easterwood Airport and Brayton Fireman Training Field) and 300 yards from a buildin0 that is occupied less than 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> a week (Texas A&M University Range Science Field Lab).
The NSC feels that when perimeter occupancy is taken into account, the annual exposures would be reduced by at least a factor of four, but a factor of two would be sufficient to be in compliance. Cember (Introduction to Health Physics 1969) suggests a factor of one-sixteenth for occasional occupancy and one fourth for partial occupancy. - The NSC HP staff considered the correction of dose rates by explicitly dividing by four to be a trivial calculation and was implied by stating that perimeter occupancy was minimal. This has been the practice of the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control when reporting in its Environment Monitoring Annual Report and in previous NSC Annual Reports.
The NSC does not use occupancy as a me* sd - creasing the annual dose rates, but has always attempted to maintain all radiation a - el ARA. Identification of perimeter locations that may have high levels is ofte cw until the environmental dosimeters are collected and a dose report is sent to the F.'.' m 3e BRC. This generally results in a one to two month delay in responding to a e erly dose rate. Corrective actions usually do not occur until half way into the ne< . ar. The NSC has attempted to monitor dons rates directly with micro-roentgen meters but the accuracy of the portable survey meters at such low levels is poor and do not extrapolate to the actual dosimeter readings.
The storage of radioactive material near the facility perimeter resulted in exceeding 100 millirema per year for 1995 and 1996, in both years when the quarterly reports were received, corrective action was immediate and involved moving the material away from the perimeter. In 1994, the perimeter was extended near the waste storage shed because the multi-curie calibration sources stored in the f acility caused high perimeter readings. Again, these actions were not necessary based on occupancy but were based on good ALARA practice.
1
. . . . __o
=
.4-.
w ]
i NRC Comments:
.The licensee's response indicates a different position than expressed during the' inspection- !
L and exit meeting. The violation was initially identified by the licensee. One example of the violation was originally-noted in an audit by the Reactor Safety Board. After additional.
review by the NRC inspector, the violation was determined to be repetitive. Therefore, it did not meet the guidance for the use of discretion, as described in Section Vll.B.1 of the
- NRC Enforcement Policy, and the finding.was cited as a violation.
The violation did not state that an individual had actually received a dose in excess of 100 milliremsiin violation of 10 CFR 20.1301(a). The violation did not state that the dose in _l any one hour exceeded 2 millirems. The violation stated that the licensee had not
~
demonstrated compliance with-10 CFR 20.1301, which is a violation of 10 CFR 20.1302. .
The licensee made no' argument that it had demonstrated compliance with 10 CFR 20.1302. The licensee argued that its compliance with regulatory requirements was intuitively obvious and that demonstration of compliance was trivial. The licensee did L not provide la basis to support the argument that the occupancy factors quoted were -
appropriate for use at the licensee's facility. Alllicensee actions to demonstrate .
compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301 were after the fact. .
D
Conclusion:
i -The NRC concluded that the violation occurred as described. {
i i
I 18 d
i L_ __ __ - - _ _ . . , . - _ . . . .
_