ML20214K506

Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $4,000 Based on Violations Noted During 860826-1003 Insp Re Overexposure Reported to NRC by Licensee

ML20214K506
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	05/21/1987
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	MISSOURI, UNIV. OF, COLUMBIA, MO
Shared Package
ML20214K495	List: ML20214K494 ML20214K506
References
EA-86-191, NUDOCS 8705280466
Download: ML20214K506 (7)

Text

_ . _ .m . - .. ._ - _ _ _ . . -_

UNITED STATES-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMiISSION

. In the Matter of .

! University of Missouri Docket No. 50-186

, Research Park License No. R-103 Columbia, MO 65201 EA 86-191 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

I i

University of Misscuri (the licensee) is the holder of Research Reactor License No. R-103 (the license) issued by the Atomic Energy Comission on October 11, 1966. The responsibilities of the Atomic Energy Comission were i

assumed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC/Comission) in 1974. The

license authorizes the licensee to operate a research reactor in Columbia,

) Missouri in accordance with the conditions specified therein.

s 1

II .

t

An inspection of the licensee's activities was conducted from August 26 through October 3, 1986 in response to an overexposure reported to the NRC by the  ;

licensee in a letter dated August 20, 1986. The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance j with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition I

of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated January 15, 1987. ~

i The Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's  ;

i requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the proposed 1

! civil penalty for the violations. The licensee responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty by letters dated February 13, i

1987. 07052e0466 870522 E

, PDR ADOCK 05000186, 4

G PDR e

_ _ . . _ . , . _ . ~ -_- _ . _ - _ ._- .- _ . _ _ , - - - _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ , _ _ _ - - _ . . - _ . __

s

• l

. s.

III After consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations has detennined, as set forth in the i Appendix to this Order, that the violations occurred as stated and.that the

! penalty proposed for the violations designated in the Notice of Violation and j , Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed. '

IV t

]

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY l

! ORDERED THAT:

! The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ,

f ($4,000) within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or

! money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to

! the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555.

I 4

The licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order.

A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

j Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

{ 20555, with a copy to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement at the same I

l

i address, and to the NRC Regional Administrator, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road,.

Glen Ellyn, Illinois, 60137.

I 1

If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the 4

time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall

! . be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

a d

In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:

)

i

(a) whether the licensee was in violation of the Commission's requirements as

! set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil l Penalty referenced in Section II above, and .

i (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be i sustained.

i i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0PMISSION i

! /

i -

I a es M. Tay1 puty Executive Director for Regional Operations Dated [atBethesda, this day of May 1987 Maryland 4

i

. - - . - _ . - , . . . - ~ . . . .- ~ _ . . - - . - - _ - ~ ~ . - - , - . - _ - - - - - - . - - . _ - - - . - - - . - , , , ,

...- ~ ~ _ -..-_ , , , - - . . -..-.---,--,m. .

r ..

4 l APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1

i

, On January 15, 1987, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty (NOV) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection.

! The University of Missouri responded to the Notice on February 13, 1987. In ,

j its response, the licensee admitted that the violations occurred as set forth  :

, in the NOV, but requested mitigation of the civil penalty and provided reasons i to support its request. Provided below are a restatement of the violations assessed a civil penalty, a sunmary of the licensee's response, the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's response, and the NRC's conclusion.

! Restatement of Violation I.A i

! . 10 CFR 20.101(a) provides in part that no licensee shall use licensed material '

t in such a manner as to cause an individual in a restricted area to receive in i 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.

1 I Contrary to the above, in June 1986 during the second calendar quarter of l 1986, an individual who handled radicactive thulium-170 pellets in a restricted i area received a dose of approximately 115 rem to the hands while transferring j the pellets into a container for shipment.

1 Summary of Licensee's Response j The licensee argues that the proposed civil penalty should be mitigated for.

i this violation based upon the factors set forth in Section V.B. of the NRC's j

Enforcement Policy,10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C. Specifically, the licensee argues that the penalty should be mitigated based upon its: (1) prompt identification and reporting. The licensee states that it was informed by its dosimeter vendor on July 29, 1986, of an apparent overexposure and reported this apparent over-

! exposure to the NRC within the 30 day reporting period. The licensee further

states that it was infomed by the vendor on September 12,1986, .that the over-exposure had been recalculated and the apparent dose increased from 23.5 rem to

, 115 rem, and reported this new information to the NRC on October 7, 1986; j (2) corrective action to prevent recurrence. The licensee's corrective actions i

! include a decision made on July 29 not to repeat the thulium wafer process until i resolution of this problem and the establishment of a committee the day of the t incident to review the unplanned exposure which then met the next day to review its investigations; (3) prior good performance. The licensee states that no

previous extremity overexposures have occurred, and that a whole body exposure that occurred on November 8,1979, was promptly reported and effective corrective

actions were taken; (4) lack of prior notice of similar events; and (5) lack of multiple occurrences.

4 L NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response

} The NRC agrees that the licensee reported the extremity overexposure in 1 accordance with regulatory requirements. However, reporting of overexposures 1

is always required and submitting a report 22 days after becoming aware of the

apparent overexposure is not considered prompt. In addition, the report was L _. - .- - . - . _ .. _ . - . - - _ - . - - .- .

i j Appendix incomplete in that it did not describe the cause of the overexposure or correc-

• tive steps planned to prevent recurrence. Furthermore, the licensee did not

itself identify the violation. The fact that the vendor sent the licensee infomation concerning the overexposure which. a licensee is required to report 4

1 is not sufficient to merit crediting the licensee with identification of the violation.

I With regard to the licensee's corrective actions, the NRC staff agrees that

) discontinuing the thulium-170 pellet handling operations was prudent. The NRC

recognizes the licensee's corrective actions. However, the NRC does not

consider the licensee's corrective actions to be unusually prompt and exten-2 sive but the usual corrective actions expected of licensees.

i With regard to the licensee's prior performance, the NRC staff agrees that the I ,

licensee had no previous extremity overexposures. However, the simple absence of a previous extremity overexposure is not a sufficient basis for mitigation

, of a proposed civil penalty. Indeed, to emphasize the seriousness of an over-l exposure, had the licensee's previous actions resulted in a prior extremity j overexposure, the currently proposed enforcement action would have been more 3 severe. Finally neither lack of prior notice nor lack of multiple occur-rences provide a basis for mitigation of a civil penalty. Instead, these '

j factors are used to escalate a civil penalty if there are multiple occurrences

or prior notice.

] In sum, none of the five factors addressed by the licensee 'in response to Violation I.A. provide a basis for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty.

1 Restatement of Violation I.B i

! 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 of

! radiation under a specific set of conditions.

i Contrary to the above, in July, August, and October 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 l 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 i preoperational dry runs. Furthermore, the licensee did not satisfactorily  ;

evaluate extremity dosimetry placement to ensure that the researcher's l

. extremity exposure was adequately monitored. Failure to adequately perform  ;

i these evaluations may have contributed to the extremity overexposure of  !

! approximately 115 rem to a researcher's hand in June 1986. j 1

i. Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee argues that the proposed civil penalty should be mitigated fo, this violation based upon the factors set forth in Section V.B of the NRC Enforcement Policy. Specifically, the licensee argues that the penalty should

---

.--r,en----..,-,. r-, - e- -,-we- ,---,-,-,-,,-rr-- +,,c, w-. ---v - -,m. ---n - , , - - . -v,,--,-m..- - ,.,- -.m,~,--,-

e.

i Appendix 6 be mitigated based on its: (1)promptidentificationandreporting. The licensee 4.

asserts that identification of this failure was made by its "Comittee to Review Unplanned Unusual Exposure" on July 30, 1986, the day after its dosimeter vendor i

reported that the TLD finger ring had recorded a 23.5 rem dose, and that the Comittee recomended that a dose rate map be created to assist in evaluation of the accumulated dose; (2) corrective action to pmvent recurrence, which

consisted of discontinuing the thulium wafer process until resolution of the i problem, and adopting a procedure for calculation and review of expected dose

! rates;-(3) prior past perfomance. The licensee asserts that the thulium wafer

' transfer process is unique at its facility and there are no other high beta exposure sources for which to consider past performance; (4) lack of prior i notice of similar events; and (5) lack of multiple occurrences. '

l In addition to its arguments for mitigation, the licensee appears to challenge

. the portion of this citation that criticizes its failure to perfom preoperational

dry runs. The licensee asserts that, because of the exploratory nature of the

thulium transfer operations, dry runs were not considered, and would not have i contributed infomation of value for the July, August and October 1985 ' operations.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response t

While the NRC agrees that a Comittee was convened to review the event after notification of the apparent overexposure by the dosimeter vendor, licensee ,

identification of its failure to adequately evaluate the thulium operation and of formal recomendations to improve future similar operations were not made

! by the Comittee until August 6,1986. As previously noted, similar thulium-170 i

operations were conducted on three previous occasions and the evaluation short-comings could have been identified based on earlier operations. In these

.l circumstances, mitigation for prompt identification and reporting is inappro-i priate. -

I With regard to the licensee's corrective action, the NRC agrees that discontinuing i an operation untti that problem was resolved was prudent. Again, the NRC

recognizes the licensee's corrective actions. However, the NRC does not consider

! the licensee's corrective actions to be unusually prompt and extensive but the t

usual corrective actions expected of licensees.

h With regard to the licensee's prior past performance, the NRC considered miti-i gation. However, after balancing the licensee's prior past perfomance against the multiple examples of failure to do adequate evaluations within the period

! of a year, the NRC concludes mitigation is not warranted. Finally, as already

i. discussed, lack of prior notice of similar events does not provide a basis for

mitigation of a proposed civil penalty.

f With regard to the licensee's arguments concerning its failure to perform dry runs, the NRC believes dry runs should always be done when curie quantities are handled, even for exploratory operations, in order to familiarize personnel with the operations so that exposures can be minimized.

NRC Conclusion The licensee has not provided a sufficient basis for mitigation of the civil penalty. Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $4,000 should be imposed.

r- ,

MAY 2 21987

-University of Missouri DISTRIBUTION:

PDR SECY JTaylor, DEDO JLieberman, OE ABDavis, RIII EFlack, OE JGoldberg, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV FIngram, PA GJohnson, RM BHayes, OI SConnelly, DIA EJordan, AE00 OE File DCS I

MedesLp s h as --y OE@ $GC o fA D:

EFlack JGoldberg ABDavis J i berman J lor 5/ jgp'87 5//f/87 .5/ao/87 5A /87 5 /87 I

- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _-- _ - - - _ - - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _