ML20212H043
| ML20212H043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1987 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212H008 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-86-191, NUDOCS 8701210267 | |
| Download: ML20212H043 (4) | |
Text
,_
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF A CIVIL PENALTY University of Missouri Docket No. 50-186 Research Reactor Facility License No. R-103 Columbia, Missouri EA 86-191 During an NRC inspection conducted from August 26 through October 3, 1986, 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 (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I.
Violations Assessed A Civil Penalty
\\ A.
10 CFR 20.101(a) provides in part that no licensee shall use licensed material in such a manner as to cause an individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of-one calendar quarter from radioactive material and other sources of radiation a total occupational dose in excess of 18.75 rems to the extremities.
Contrary to the the above, in June 1986 during the second calendar quarter of 1986, an individual who handled radioactive thulium-170 pellets in a restricted area received a dose of approximately 115 rem to the hands while transferring the pellets into a container for shipment.
B.
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make 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. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources si of radiation under a specific set of conditions.
Contrary to the above, in July, August, and.0ctober 1985 and June 1986 the licensee failed to adequately perform such surveys (evaluations) as were necessary to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20.101. Specifically, during the above time periods, the licensee failed to adequately evaluate the potential personnel exposures associated with the handling of curie quantities of thulium pellets. The licensee did not perform exposure rate calculations and preoperational dry runs.
Furthermore, the licensee did not satisfactorily evaluate extremity dosimetry placement to ensure that the researcher's extremity exposure was adequately monitored.
8701210267 870115 PDR ADOCK 05000186 G
JAN 151987 Failure to adequately perform these evaluations may have contributed to the extremity overexposure of approximately 115 rem to a researcher's hand in June 1986.
Collectively, these violations have been categorized as a Severity Level II problen (Supplement IV).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $4,000 assessed equally between the violations.
II. Violations Not Assessed Civil Penalties A.
10 CFR 20.401(b) requires that records be maintained showing the results of surveys required by 10 CFR 20.201(b).
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires surveys be made as necessary to comply with the regulations in Part 20 and are reasonable to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
Contrary to the above, as of the inspection on August 26, 1986, survey records were not maintained for the July 1985 thulium pellet handling operation, and incomplete records were maintained for the August and October 1985 and the June 1986 thulium pellet handling operations.
Furthermore, the survey results for the June 1986 operations were recorded from memory in August 1986, and measured dose rates by the licensee documented on Radiation Work Permits were several orders of magnitude lower than the radiation fields that should have been expected.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
B.
10 CFR 20.405(a)(1) provides in part that, within 30 days, each licensee make a written report to the Commission concerning each exposure to radiation in excess of the applicable limits in 10 CFR 20.101 or 10 CFR 20.104(a) or in its license.
10 CFR 20.405(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) require that each report under 20.405(a)(1) must describe the cause of the exposure and corrective steps taken er planned to prevent recurrence.
10 CFR 20.405(b) requires that any report filed with the Commission pursuant to 20.405(a) include, among other information, the social security number and date of birth for each individual exposed.
Contrary to the above, the August 20, 1986 licensee extremity exposure report submitted to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 20.405(a)(1) did not describe the cause of the June overexposure to the hand of a researcher or corrective steps taken or planned to prevent recurrence and did not include the social security number or date of birth for the individual exposed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
C.
10 CFR 71.5(a) requires each licensee who transports licensed material outside the confines of its plant or other place of use, or who delivers licensed material to a carrier for transpnrt, to comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of DOT in 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189.
49 CFR 172.203(d)(iii) requires the description for a shipment of radioactive material to include the activity contained in each package in terms of curies, millicuries, or microcuries.
Contrary to the above, on June 10, 1986 the licensee failed to include the correct activity of thulium pellets contained in a shipment to Lixi, Incorporated in Downers Grove, Illinois. Specifically, the shipping paper listed the cumulative thulium activity as 4.0 curies when the correct activity was later determined to be 9.0 curies, 125%.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement V).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Missouri is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,. Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137, within 30 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which 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, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order 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, 42 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 University of Missouri may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should the University of Missouri fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an orcer imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above.
Should the University of Missouri elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may:
l l
l
'JAN 151987 (1) deny the violations 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 in whole or in part, 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 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986) 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 incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
The University of Missouri's attention 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 have been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%.SbNg"W
- JamesG.Keppfer Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois, this iday of January 1987.
.