ML20215D619
| ML20215D619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000072, University of Utah |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215D610 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-86-136, NUDOCS 8610140229 | |
| Download: ML20215D619 (6) | |
Text
,-
]
l APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES University of Utah Docket Nos.50-072 Salt Lake City, Utah 50-407 License Nos. R-25 R-126 EA 86-136 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 9-12, 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 'ommission proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),
42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalties are set forth below:
I. Violations Assessed Civil Penalties A. Failure to Identify Radioactive Material 10 CFR 71.5(a) requires, in part, that each licensee who transports licensed material outside of the confines of its plant or other place of use shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transportation of DOT in 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189.
49 CFR 171.2(b) requires, in part, that no person may transport a hazardous material in commerce unless that material is handled and transported in accordance with Subchapter C of 49 CFR.
I
- 1. 49 CFR 172.200(a) requires, in part, that each person who
{ offers a hazardous material for transportation shall describe the hazardous material on the shipping paper.
l ry 49 CFR 172.203(d) requires, in part, that the description for a gjsg shipment of radioactive material must include the name of each pga. radicnuclide and the activity contained in each package of the oc shipment in terms of curies, millicuries, or microcuries.
en ID O Contrary to the above, on or about January 25, 1986, radioactive
$2f material in the form of a TRIGA reactor core component was
@@ transported from the University of Utah campus to a location in Salt Lake City for maintenance and back to the university o without shipping papers.
i ~x
@Q l
l Q10 2. 49 CFR 172.403(a) requires that unless excepted from labeling by 49 CFR 173.421 through 173.425, each package of radioactive material must be labeled as provided in this section.
REMOVAL OF THE PAGES ?M RKED "SMEGUARDS 'WonM ATIO*J -
DECOiJTROt.S THE If ~ MWD CP a c y . ..
l
0 .
_7_
Contrary to the above, on or about January 25, 1986, a radioactive reactor core component which was not excepted from labeling as provided by 49 CFR 173.471 through 173.425 was transported from the University of Utah campus to a location in Salt Lake City without labeling.
- 3. 49 CFR 173.475(1) requires, in part, that before each shipment of any radioactive materials package, the shipper shall ensure by examination or appropriate tests that external radiation and contamination levels are within the allowable limits specified in Subchapter C of 49 CFR.
Contrary to the above, on or about January 25, 1986, a radioactive reactor core component was transported from the University of Utah campus to a location-in Salt Lake City without first conducting a _ radiological survey to determine external radiation or contamination levels.
These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement V).
(Civil Penalty - $500).
B. Failure to Perform Adequate Survevs and Control Licensed Material
- 1. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee shall make or cause to be made 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.
Contrary to the above:
- a. The radiological survey program regarding loose surface radioactive contamination and radiation dose rates conducted g
during 1985 and 1986 was not adequate to evaluate the extent
(
of radiation hazards present in that it failed to. identify loose surface contamination and radiation levels up to
!' 100 times greater than ambient background levels in the reactor facility.
s.
- b. Surveys performed in the University of Utah Engineering Machine Shop (unrestricted area), following maintenance work on radioactive TRIGA reactor components on January 15, 16, 23, and 24, 1986 were not adequate in that they failed i to identify extensive radioactive contamination on the floor and on several machines.
rWOV *{': !* , .. ...;..,,..._, , ,
-Ducc.;JT o
- *'pu-
... . + , . c.,; og,g3.-
l-
- c. The licensee fnfled to identify, during surveys conducted on June 11, 1986, the extent of radioactive contamination present throughout the University of Utah Engineering Machine Shop.
- d. As of June 10, 1986, the licensee had not performed radiological surveys of the tierrill Engineering Building potable water supply that had been cross connected to the TRIGA reactor pool water recirculation system since 1983.
- 2. License Condition 2.A for the TRICA reactor establishes the location of the TRIGA reactor facility as on the campus of the University of Utah. License Condition 2.B.(1) authorizes the licensee to possess, use, and operate the facility at the desig-nated location in Salt Lake City, Utah, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in the license.
License Condition 2.C states, in part, that the license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in Parts 20, 30, 50 of 10 CFR, Chapter I.
10 CFR 30.34(c) requires, in part, that each person licensed by the Commission pursuant to the regulations in this part shall confine his possession.and use of the byproduct material to the locations and purposes authorized in the license.
Contrary to the above, during January 1986, the licensee removed radioactive core support components from the TRICA reactor and took them to unauthorized locations off campus for maintenance work.
These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV).
(Civil Penalty - $2,500).
II. Violations Not Assessed A Civil Penalty Three Physical Security Plan violations are discussed in Appendix B.
The material enclosed in Appendix B contains Safeguards Information as defined by 10 CFR 73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Therefore, the material in Appendix B will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
A. Failure to Implement Operator Requalification Program 10 CFR 55, Appendix A, establishes the requirements for the implementation of a reactor operator requalification program. The licensee's Reactor Operator Requalification Program, submitted to the NRC on March 8, 1983, and approved on April 12, 1984, requires, in REMOVAL OF THE PAGES MARXFO "CfMGUanrn' mironMATION' DECONTROLS THE f;56 '/.Irr;0 i CF Tri,; uw .. .
o
_4_
< part, that "the requalification program will include planned lectures, an annual evaluation of the licensed operator's knowledge and performance, and that records will be maintained for each individual and will contain the following information:
l Current copy of either the individual's reactor operator or i senior reactor operator license.
- ~
Copies of all written examinations administered to the individual and correct answers given to the individual during the requalification period.
I
- The annual evaluations of the individuals documented in a I memorandum for record.
4
- The individual's requalification program progress checklist.
4 t
i The summary of additional training received by the individual documented in a memorandum for record and any additional documentation."
i Contrary to the above, as of June 12, 1986, the licensee had not con-j ducted planned lectures, documented annual operator evaluations, nor 4
maintained certain records required for individual operators.
4 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B. Failure to Establish Procedures TRICA Technical Specification 6.8, " Operating Procedures " requires, in part, that operating procedures shall be in effect for performing 4
preventive maintenance-and calibration tests on the reactor and associated equipment.
- Contrary to the above, as of June 12, 1986, written procedures had not been established for maintenance work performed on the TRICA reactor l
core upper support structure during December 1985 and January 1986.
i This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
C. Failure To Perform A 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation 10 CFR 50.59(a) requires, in part, that the holder of a license may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change t
involves a change to the Technical Specifications or is an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety question is created if the consequences of an accident or the malfunction of equipment impor-
- tant to safety previously evaluated may be increased.
]
3
' ~
BEMOVAL C' TH.E__P o O_rs "a n:" ?. ."- ' v '.* m . ' . " - * * " . ' . ' .
. . . ~ .
DECCN "= :L S h ;9 t _._ ' v ' '. A G _ i c h _;. .._
1
~
<W9W !M " w~n r~g y yy .. p m.. . .. ..
-oc. o: ; - -
x .: .c..._ r.. - _ , _
1 1
10 CFR 50.59(b) requires that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute cbsnges in the safety analysis report. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, during March 1985, the licensee made a modifi-cation to its TRIGA reactor coolant recirculation system involving the interface of two systems with the reactor water tank recirculation system. No written safety evaluation was performed to determine whether this change constituted an unreviewed safety question even though the release of radioactive effluents via these two pathways was not discussed in the SER.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
D. Failure to Properly Install and Test Filter System TRIGA Technical Specification 3.5 requires that the reactor shall not be operated unless the facility ventilation system is operable, except for periods of time not to exceed 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to permit repair or testing of the ventilation system. Technical Specification 5.6 states that "the facility is designed so that the ventilation system will normally maintain a negative pressure with respect to atmosphere to minimize uncontrollable leakage to the environment. The free air volume within the reactor building is confined when there is an emer-gency shutdown of the ventilation system." The Safety Analysis Report, Section 4.6.2, Emergency Operation, states, "The outlet vent will be equipped with a by-pass HEPA filtration system which will be darpered into operation. This will provide a continuous filtered exhaust and maintain the reactor area...under negative pressure. The flow under filtering conditions will be such that a negative pressure of at least 0.1 inches of water will be maintained."
Contrary to the above, as of June 10, 1986, HEPA filters in the reactor ventilation system were not properly installed to ensure the requirements of Technical Specification 5.6 and Section 4.6.2 of the Safety Analysis Report would be satisfied. The filter was I
installed so that it was not sealed to its mounting opening, the flow of air was in the wrong direction through the filter, and the l
' filter was installed in the wrong orientation. The HEPA filters were in this configuration for a period of time exceeding 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, and no documentation was available to verify that either an evaluation or in-place testing had been performed to ensure the system was operable.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Utah is hereby l required to submit to the Director, Of fice 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 IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the date of l
I this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged l violation: (1) adnission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons l
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 Fi ven 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.
Vithin the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Utah may pay the civil penalties 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
-cumulative amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should the University of Utah fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amounts proposed above. Should the University of Utah elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(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 penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately frce the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 but may incorportte parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The University of Utah's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing civil penalties.
Upon-failure to pay any civil penalties due which has 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
/
(0 C Robert D. r n Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas, MOVAL OF THypy '" - - - - ~ me "! FORMATION-DECONTPOLS1 +.,.V.ENT.
this M ay of October 1986. .. _. ,