ML20207B567
| ML20207B567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Gridley R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607180113 | |
| Download: ML20207B567 (9) | |
Text
.t One TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 SN 157B Lookout, Place uvv-I p
,3
- I e
JUL 3 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NV, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Dear Dr. Grace:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 - NRC-OIE REGION II INSPECTION REPORT 50-327/86-04 AND 50-328/86 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO VIOLATIONS By letter dated March 27, 1986 from J. A. Olshinski to S. A. White, NRC transmitted IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-327/86-04 and 50-328/86-04 which cited TVA with one Severity Level III violation and three Severity Level IV violations. TVA's response to the subject report was provided by S. A. White's letter to you dated April 30, 1986.
In this response, TVA denied the occurrence as stated in violations 50-327, -328/86-04-01, -02, and
-03.
In addition 3 part A of 50-327, -328/86-04-04 was specified as a licensee-identified item which should not have been included in the Notice of Violation. By your letter dated May 21, 1986 to S. A. White, NRC acknowledged receipt of TVA's response and provided additional information concerning the NRC's case for the Notice of Violation.
It appears from your letter that our response dated April 30, 1986 did not provide sufficient information for NRC to clearly understand the bases of TVA's position. As a consequence, we have reexamined the above correspondence and we have identified the need to provide the enclosed supplemental information. This information, especially with respect to violation 50-327, -328/86-04-01, was discussed with your staff on Jane 17, 1986.
We wish to emphasize that we clearly understand the NRC concern related to the
" inappropriateness" of the lifting devices specified in the Notice of Violation.
Based on the assessment by the State of South Carolina, it is apparent why NRC might consider this incident a violation.
However, as indicated in the enclosure, a realistic assessment now clearly shows that this isolated occurrence would not have resulted in a potential risk sufficient to warrant issuance of any violation.
We continue to believe that no violations occurred, but if a violation is still deemed appropriate, it should be no more than a Severity Level IV.
i 8607180113 860703 PDR ADOCK 05000327 G
pga l
8 FEM An Equal Opportunity Employer i
.- Mr. J. Nelson Grace JUL 3 E86 Similarly for the other alledged violations, we recognize NRC's concerns and agree that potential areas of enhancement for some of TVA's programs have been identified. We believe that the specific information provided in the enclosure should result in a revision to the Notice of Violation.
Please note a short extension of the established due date was coordinated with your Staff on June 23, 1986.
If you have any questions, please call M. R. Harding at 615/870-6422.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained heroin are complete and true.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VA LEY AUTHORITY
}
R. Gr'dley, D ector Nuclear Safety and Licensing Enclosure cc (Enclosure):
Mr. James Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. S. P. Weise, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II - Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30323
f j
ENCLOSURE TVA SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS IN NRC-OIE INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-327/86-04 AND 50-328/86-04 Violation 50-327/86-04-01 and 50-328/86-04-01 TVA's Supplemental Response:
As stated in our original response TVA does not concur that a violation of condition 64 of South Carolina License No. 097 occurred. Appropriate lifting devices of sufficient length were attac'hed to the disposal container. The only action needed before retrieval and hookup would have been knocking out the bracing to allow use of the rigging gear. This action was prohibited only by step 7.4.1, of the CNSI procedure, not by License No. 097 or NRC regulations.
To preclude any such action from being required in the future, we revised the shipping procedure for radioactive waste to add greater control of the inspection portion of a shipment.
In l
addition, we have completed fabrication of a permanent bracing fixture which should preclude the possibility of the rigging being wedged in the space between the liner and shipping cask inner wall.
Even if it was assumed that the restricted cable was a violation of License No. 097, TVA does not agree that this would constitute a violation of 10 CFR 30.41(c).
10 CFR 30.41(c) requires that ".
. prior to receipt of the byproduct material, the licensee transferring the material shall verify l
that the transferee's license authorizes the receipt of the type, form, and quantity of byproduct material to be transferred." TVA notified CNSI, as indicated by the Prior Notification and Manifest Form, that TVA was sending l
j a resin shipment Type B LSA, stable containing 644 curies, and verified that the disposal facility was authorized to receive this type, form, and quantity. Therefore, the conditions of 10 CFR 30.41(c) were met since the appropriateness of rigging gear does not fall under the criteria of type, form, or quantity of byproduct material.
It appears that NRC perceives that the example in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, Supplement V, paragraph C.3.c, does not require that the exposure be 3
potentially substantial, excessive, or pose a risk to personnel. TVA does not believe that this is a viable conclusion since the lack of a risk to personnel would render the subject example of a Level III violation less restrictive than examples of Level IV and Level V violations.
In addition, it does not meet the criteria established by NRC in their General Statement of Policy of 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, which stated, "The purpose of the NRC enforcement program is to promote and protect the radiological health and 1
safety of the public, including employees health and safety.
Accordingly, if there is no risk to the employees's health and safety, there should be no violation.
To further illustrate using the NRC line of reasoning, a shipper could be given a Severity Level III violation if he normally ships radioactive waste at night (in light traffic) but instead ships in the same truck during rush hour. Radiation exposures to the driver and nearby cars would be greater, but not excessive, in the slower and heavier traffic.
3 i
I i
,m.._,
Similar logic applies to the NRC statement, "Since inaccessibility of the rigging would have caused personnel exposures during unloading, the violation fits the example of a Severity Level III violation." The unloading of every container at the die;osal site results in some exposure to the workers including crane operators, drivers, and rigging hookers.
There is no way to prevent all radiation exposure, and workers would have received some exposure even if the cables were readily accessible.
TVA believes the example violation in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, Supplement V, paragraph C.3.c must be based on some level of risk before a violation is warranted. The expected exposure from freeing the rigging would have been well below any realistic risk level.
To summarize, TVA continues to believe that there was no violation of License No. 097 or NRC regulations.
TVA estimates that the exposure which would have resulted from freeing the rigging would have been approximately 50 meem, which is not excessive or substantial and is below any realistic risk level. Based on our understanding of the above and the NRC policy statements, we believe that NRC should not issue a Notice of Violation to a licensee solely because of a citation of violation by an Agreement State unless there was also a violation of NRC regulations.
Since there was no violation of NRC regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 30.41(c)), TVA respectfully requests that NRC reconsider its position relative to the subject Notice of Violation and as a minimum reduce it to no more than a Severity Level IV.
t
i l
I Violation 50-327/86-04-02 and 50-328/86-04-02 i
TVA's Supplemental Response:
TVA agrees that an assessment must be performed when an individual experiences an intake of radioactive material. However, it is important to recognize that the 520 MPC-hours value is a derived limit based on the fundamental quantity of dose limits (e.g., much like velocity is a derived quantity of distance and time).
The relationship between MPCs and specific 1
l organ dose limits is explicitly described in ICRP-2 which, as discussed in IE Information Notice No. 82-18, is the basis of the regulations in 10 CFR 20.
The relationship between the NRC MPC-hour limit and specific organ dose limits in the current 10 CFR 20 is described in Table 1 of the supplementary information published with the proposed revision of 10 CFR 20 in the Federal Register on December 20, 1985. As outlined in that document, an intake of 520 MPC-hour per quarter is calculated to result in
}
a 50-year committed dose of:
l Whole body 1.25 rems per quarter 5 rems per year Bone, thyroid, and skin 7.5 rems per quarter 1
30 rems per year Other organs 3.75 rems per quarter 15 rems per year TVA performed a detailed and thorough evaluation of the bioassay results using ICRP-2 and issued a report that included a dose calculation from the quantity (microcuries) of radioactive material that entered the individual's body. The radioactivity quantity was used for the internal 1
exposure assessment. Without sUch use, dose could not have been j
determined. The critical organ was determined to be the lower large intestine (LLI). The LLI dose was calculated to be 71 mrom. This dose is i
]
insignificant relative to the regulatory limit of 3.75 rems per quarter (520 MPC-hours per quarter) for the LLI.
i TVA monitors routine exposures on the basis of airborne concentrations and
" stay times"; however, the specific case in question did not in fact follow j
a typical inhalation pathway. Additionally, TVA routinely operates such i
that if an individual's internal exposure exceeds 2 MPC-hours in a day or j
10 MPC-hours in a week, a bioassay is required.
Internal dose calculations j
(exposure assessments) are performed for all individuals having significant t
positive bioassay results. TVA believes this practice to be totally i
consistent with 10 CFR 20.103(b)92) and other NRC regulations in this area.
{
10 CFR 20.103 endorses Regulatory Cuide 8.9, " Acceptable Concepts, Models, Equations, and Assumptions for a Bioascay Program." Regulatory Guide 8.9 states that an acceptable bioassay program includes, " interpretations of measurement results in terms of the location of radioactive material in the body, the quantity present, the rate of elimination, and the resulting dose i
or dose commitment."
. Regulatory Guide 8.9 also endorses ICRP-2, -10, and -10A, Further, ICRP-2 states that, " Tests should be performed to estimate the total body burden for workers who had worked with unsealed radioactive isotopes that may give rise to levels of ingestion or inhalation..
. the radiation doses delivered to the appropriate organs or tissues should be calculated and noted on the personal record.
Thus, the philosophy of the guidance documents supporting the technical basis of 10 CFR 20 is to assess dose for the purpose of determining the significance of uptakes of radioactive materials.
KPCs are based on chronic exposure.
For acute uptakes like the one in question, bloassay and dose assessments are the appropriate approaches.
TVA has modified computer codes to include the calculation of "NPC-hour equivalents" for similar acute exposures in the future, which could be added to MPC-hours recorded for the individual for chronic exposure in airborne areas.
These values could then be used to assess regulatory compliance in the more direct fashion implied by the arguments put forward by NRC in support of its Notice of Violation. TVA continues to believe that such " direct" comparison is not required by 10 CFR 20.103, but will agree to perform such calculations in the future, l
i
1
^
-S-Violation 50-327/86-04-03 and 50-328/86-04-03 TVA's Supplemental Response:
The SQN Health Physics Staff submitted their respiratory protection program to Region II before receipt of an operating license.
This submittal was accomplished by letter from J. E. Gilleland, Assistant Manager of Power, to J. P. O'Reilly, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, dated February 1979.
The present respiratory protection program has been enhanced since the 1979 program. There are dedicated technicians for issuance, maintenance, and inspections.
The program has a computer data base for verification of worker qualification and training.
The Radiation Work Permit (RWP) system in use at the present time requires each worker's signature and has expanded information pertaining to type of respirator to use and lists the specific protection factor. To provide additional information, an issuance log sheet was added to support the RWP record as stated in the cover letter.
We understand why NRC believes that TVA's program for respirator issuance is deficient; however, the NRC position appears to include elements which are not required by 10 CFR 20.103.
These elements are more closely related to NRC guidance provided by NUREG-0041. TVA agrees that NUREG-0041 offers improvements which can be made and is evaluating this infonmation for potential enhancement of the SQN program. This has already resulted in a change to the procedures regarding issuance records for respiratory protective equipment. To enhance the respiratory protection program, Health Physics Section Instruction Letter (HFSIL)-3 was revised to add attachment 12 as a respirator issuance log.
Instructions were also added to require the use of the respirator issuance log, as well as the system for routing and storage location of the log. However, TVA has not committed to compliance with NUREG-0041 as part of the respiratory protection program accepted by NRC as a licensing basis for SQN. Since the existing program meets 10 CFR 20.103(c)(2) requirements, TVA believes that the violation did not occur as stated and requests your reconsideration.
i i
' 1 Violation 50-327/86-04-04 and 50-328/86-04-04 (Part A) i TVA's Supplemental Response:
TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant issued a Corrective Action Report a
NCO-CAR-85-004-RWB on July 3, 1985.
This item identified the fact that i
TVA's thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) badge and dose algorithm (response matrix and calculational equations) were not determining doses at 7 i
mg/cm2 (lens of the eye) as required by the NRC regulations. The solution to NCO-CAR-85-004-RWB was to modify the response matrix and some output format to include the lens of the eye depth calculations. This change only involved the reference depth for calculating dose. It did not involve a change of basic calculation technique and specifically did not involve a change from using data from one element to another in the i
Panasonic Type 802 TLD.
No modifications to the badge, TLD, or system 4
calibration were required.
TVA does not calculate or determine the dose (skin, lens of the eye, or deep) from use of just one element, but rather all elements are input to the dose algorithm to calculate the specific dose at the required tissue depths.
As most other Panasonic system users, TVA calibrates the system daily with j
a CS-137 standard source and compensates for calculating the true dose by
[
use of an algorithm. TVA's algorithm was originally researched and developed with an entire range of sources (beta, gamma, and neutron) with various radiation energies that bounded the noble gas energy and type.
7 To ensure that the response matrix modifications were correctely executed, a comparison was performed with the University of Michigan in December 1985. TVA badges were exposed to all the radiation categories in ANSI N13.11 and additional sources identified by TVA.
TVA correctly calculated 2
2 the doses at 7 mg/cm, 300 mg/cm, and 1000 mg/cm2 within the
]
criteria established by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. These results indicate that the TVA badge and dose algorithm j
correctly identify doses at the NRC required depths for a very wide range j
of X-ray and gamma energies (20 kev - 1250 kev). These tests were performed in response to the CAR before the NRC inspection.
The primary photon energies of the predominant noble gas Xe-133 (30 kev and
'i 80 kev) are equivalent in energy to the exposures produced in the University of Michigan comparison and in ANSI N13.11.
Therefore, the i
modified algorithm has been sufficiently tested to indicate that the photon j
doses from the noble gas Xe-133 can be sufficiently calculated with the TVA badge.
1 i
4 4
5 J
TVA staff reprocessed all the raw TLD badge data generated at SQN before the insertion of the lens of the eye dose calculation.
For selected worst-case measurements, the largest differences between dose calculated at a depth of 1000 mg/cm2 and at a depth of 300 mg/cm2 did not exceed two percent. That is, the lens of the eye dose was only greater than deep dose by two percent.
TVA concluded that no data'should be changed due to the insignificant errors introduced.
In each recalculated case, skin' dose obtained from air samples and " stay times" was the controlling limit.
In conclusion, TVA proved as a result of the evaluation of the CAR that the badgeandmodifieddosealgorithmcorrectlycalculateddosesat7mg/cm, 2
2 300 mg/cm, and 1000 mg/cm depths as required by NRC regulations.
]
Because the noble gas photons are comparable in energy, thus response to the photons in the intercomparison, TVA correctly identifies doses due to i
noble gas.
TVA proved that the doses calculated before modification of the dose algorithm were not in error by a significant amount; thus, doses have
{
been determined correctly and no further evaluations are necessary.
The additional clarification provided above supports TVA's belief that the cited example is a licensee-identified item and should have been_excmpted ~
from the statement of violation as specified in our original response.
s r
1 l
.s f
I
-_..%.-