ML20212C869
| ML20212C869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608120174 | |
| Download: ML20212C869 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000327/1986004
Text
I
'.
,
,
.
AUG01 M6
.
l
Tennessee Valley Authority
-lATTN:
Mr.-S. A. White
Manager of Nuc1 9 r Power
6N 38A Lookout Place
-
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: .NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-327/86-04 AND 50-328/86-04
Thank you for your response of July 3,1986, which supplements your response of
April 30, 1986, to our Notice of Violation issued on March 27, 1986, concerning
at.tivities conducted at your Sequoyah facility. We have evaluated your response
and found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine.the
implementation of your corrective actions during future inspections.
After careful review of the bases for your denial of Violations 1, 2 and 3, we
have concluded, for the reasons presented in the Enclosure to this let.er, that
the violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation. However, your
corrective actions have been determined to be acceptable and no further response
is required.
With regard to Violation 4.a, we agree with your position and have deleted the
violation example from our records.
However, we are concerned that information
provided in your response regarding the special study performed in December 1985,
to determine the response of your TLD to noble gases, was not provided to the
inspector at the time of the inspection even though your staff had the
information. We expect licensees to provide inspectors with complete information
relevant to findings such that an accurate assessment of licensee compliance with
NRC regulations can be made.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure
will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
original signed by
Roger D. Walker for
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
(See page 2)
8608120174 860801
l
ADOCK 05000327
G
pl
.
TE0l
.
Tennessee Valley Authority
2
"
. Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Licensee Response
cc w/ encl:
-
d. L. Abercrombie, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
d.SiteDirector
R. Wallace, Plant Manager
i W. Whitt, Director, Nuclear
Managers Review Group
J. L. Williams. Jr. , Supervisor
Licensing Section
d B. Kirk, Compliance Staff Supervisor
J. E. Wills, Project Engineer
t
bec w/ encl:
R
D_ Walker
t.M R. Denton, NRR
dk L. Thompson, NRR
) (M. Taylor, IE
@ ( B. Hayes, OI
g R. Connelly, OIA
S. P. Weise
MCResidentInspector
Document Control Desk
State of Tennessee
'
RII
RII
RII
C
g
jpf4
JPShhr
MRWeddington:lb M CHosey
DCollins
BDebS
S eise
GJenk ns
07/23/86 07/2.3/86 07/P/86
07/y/86 07/3 0/86 07/3 o/86
07/25 86
/
If0'
ch
RWalker
dl /t /86
07/ /86
h rl'$
.
,
.
ENCLOSURE
Staff Assessment of License Response
1.
Violation 50-327, 328/86-04-01, Failure to comply with the license
conditions of an Agreement State licensee in regard to the accessibility of
cask rigging gear,
a.
Licensee Comment
As stated in our original response, TVA does not concur that a
violation of Condition 64 of South Carolina License No. 97 occurred.
Appropriate lifting devices of sufficient length were attached 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. 97 or NRC regulations.
NRC Response
Condition 59 of South Carolina License No. 97 requires that:
"All
radioactive waste shall be packaged and locded in accordance with
applicable U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Regulations 10 CFR Part 71, the requirements of
this license and the disposal site criteria."
Step 7.4.1 of the
disposal site criteria requires that lifting devices shall be of
sufficient length to allow retrieval and crane hookup without
physically entering the cask. The licensee acknowledged that they did
not comply with this provision of the disposal site criteria.
Since
the disposal site criteria is incorporated by reference into South
Carolina License No. 97, the licensee must comply with those
.
requirements pursuant to 10 CFR 30.41(c) prior to transferring licensed
material to the disposal site.
The inspector verified that the
licensee had a copy of the disposal site criteria in their possession
and were generally familiar with its contents.
b.
Licensee Comment
Even if it was assumed that the restricted cable was a violation of
License No. 97, TVA does not agtee that this would constitute a
violation of 10 CFR 30.41(c). 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.
NRC Response
The South Carolina license authorized receipt of the type, form and
quantity of byproduct material being transferred only if the transferee
complies with all the other applicable license conditions.
Since the
licensee did not comply with license conditions regarding cask rigging
--
y_
.
Enclosure
2
gear, the disposal site was not authorized to receive the material
being transferred. This constituted a violation of 10 CFR 30.41(c).
c.
Licensee Comment
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
potentially substantial, excessive, or pose a risk to personnel.
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 safety of the public, including
employees health and safety ..." Accordingly, if there is no risk to
the employee's health and safety, there should be no violation.
NRC Response
The referenced paragraph of the enforcement policy states that any
noncompliance with packaging, loading or other requirements that could
reasonably result in a substantial potential for personnel exposure is
an example of a Severity Level III violation. As discussed in our
initial assessment of May 21, 1986, the State of South Carolina
directed that the licensee's shipment be returned without unloading to
" avoid excessive radiological exposure during handling and offloading
operations" due to noncompliance with cask rigging requirements. The
violation therefore clearly meets the Severity Level III criteria. The
staff does not agree that the examples of Severity Level IV and V
violations described in Supplement V of the enforcement policy are more
serious than the event described in the Notice of Violation. We also
do not agree that the licensee employees have to be exposed to an
actual risk before there is a violation.
In this case, for example,
the enforcement policy specifies only that there reasonably could be a
substantial potential for personnel exposure (equivalent to risk).
I
d.
Licensee Comment
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.
Similar logic applies to the NRC statement, "Since inaccessibility of
the rigging would have caused personnel exposures during unloading, the
l
violation fits the example of a Severity Level III violation."
The
unloading of every container at the disposal site results in some
exposure to the workers including crane operators, drivers, and rigging
r
.
Enclosure
3
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.
NRC Response
The criteria in the enforcement policy is based on the potential for
personnel exposure resulting from noncompliance with transportation
requirements.
The licensee's first analogy would not be relevant
unless there was a requirement that the shipments be made only at night
or that rush hour traffic was to be avoided.
Radiation exposure to
disposal site personnel as a result of the performance of their duties
is also clearly distinct from exposures, or potentials for such
exposures, resulting from the licensee's failure to comply with
regulatory requirements.
e.
Licensee Comment
To summarize, TVA continues to believe that there was no violation of
License No. 97 or NRC regulations.
TVA estimates that the exposure
which would have resulted from freeing the rigging would have been
approximately 50 mrem, 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.
NRC Response
For the reasons stated previously, the staff continues to believe that
the violation occurred as stated in the Notice and that the assigned
severity level was appropriate.
2.
Violation 50-327, 328/86-04-02, Failure to use bioassay results to evaluate
the regulatory significance of an internal exposure,
a.
Licensee Comment
TVA monitors routine exposures on the basis of airborne concentrations
and " stay times"; however, the specific case in question did not in
fact follow a typical inhalation pathway. Additionally, TVA routinely
operates such that if an individual's internal exposure exceeds
2 MPC-hours in a day or 10 MPC-hours in a week, a bioassay is required.
.-
<
,,
Encloscre
4
Internal dose calculations (exposure assessments) are performed for all
'
individuals _having.significant positive bioassay results. TVA believes
this practice to be totally consistent with 10 CFR 20.103(b)(2) and
other NRC regulations in this area. -
NRC Response
' The licensee's actions were acceptable as far as they went, however,
they . failed to use the bioassay measurement results to assess the
regulatory significance of the exposure as required by
b.
Licensee Comment
10 CFR 20.103 endorses Regulatory Guide 8.9, " Acceptable Concepts,
Models, Equations, and Assumptions for a Bioassay 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 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 tissuas
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. MPCs are based on-
chronic exposure. For acute uptakes like the one in question, bioassay
and dose assessments are the appropriate-approaches.
NRC Response
Evaluations of organ doses and organ burdens resulting from internal
exposure events are appropriate health physics assessments to determine
if the worker will likely suffer any adverse health effects. However,
10 CFR Part 20 requires that assessments be made to demonstrate
compliance with the radioactive material in air intake limits in
The violation was issued because required intake
assessments in terms of the regulatory limits for such intakes were not
performed.
Since no assessment was performed in terms of the
applicable exposure limit, no credit against that limit for the worker
was made to determine his allowable remaining exposure for the quarter.
Failure to perform such assessments would allow workers to receive
internal exposures without respect to limits, which is clearly contrary
to the requirement that exposures from all sources and modes of intake
be limited to an equivalent exposure of 520 MPC-hours in a quarter.
.
r
.'
..
Enclosure
5
3.
Violation 50-327, 328/86-04-03, Failure to maintain written procedures
regarding respiratory protective equipment issuance records.
Licensee Comment
We understand why NRC believes that TVA's program for respirator
issuance is defi~cient; 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. 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
Sequoyah.
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.
NRC Response
10 CFR 20.103(c)(2) requires that the licensee maintain written
procedures regarding issuance records for respiratory protective
equipment.
The licensee had no such procedure. NUREG-0041 is not a
regulatory requirement, although it provides insight into why such
procedures and records are necessary.