ML20215N023

Requests Reconsideration & Possible Mitigation of Proposed Civil Penalties Under 10CFR2.205 Re 861006 Notice of Violation.Three Alleged Violations Stemmed from Same Incident & Should Not Be Classified Separately

ML20215N023
Person / Time
Site:	05000072, University of Utah
Issue date:	10/29/1986
From:	Brophy J UTAH, UNIV. OF, SALT LAKE CITY, UT
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
EA-86-136, NUDOCS 8611040181
Download: ML20215N023 (7)

Text

- - _ . . _ . . __ _ . . . - _ __

THE UNIVERSITY

• UTAH 29 October 1986 Director '

Office of Inspection and Enforcement '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docket Nos.50-072 & 50-407 License Nos. R-25 & R-126 EA 86-136 i Re: Protest of Civil Penalties per 10 CFR 2.205

Dear' Sir:

A detailed response-to the Notice of Violation dated October

'6, 1986, as required by 10 CFR 2.201, is being sent to you under separate cover. The purpose- of this letter is to request

' reconsideration, and possible mitigation, of the proposed. civil penalties, as provided for under 10 CFR 2.205. The bases for this request are explained briefly below and presented in detail in the appendix.

Two civil penalties were proposed in the-Notice of Violation, each one related to several alleged violations." categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem." In the first group of three alleged violations pertaining to transportation, all three evolved from a single incident, and one of those allegations is. i not admitted. We .believe that characterizing the remaining two admitted violations, resulting from a single error in judgement, as multiple violations for the purpose of escalating the Severity Level of the violations-is not. justified in this_ case.  ;

Of the second group .of five alleged ' violations related to radiological surveys and control of radioactive material, one (I.B.l.d) is not admitted, one (I.B.1.a) is admitted in part, and three (I.B.1.b, I.B.1.c-and I.B.2) are admitted. -However, one of '

the admitted violations (I.B.2) also stemmed directly from the same isolated incident that caused the - two - violations of trans- l portation regulations. As with the first group of violations, we are not denying that violations occurred, nor are we implying that improvements -in procedures are not ' required. Rather, we are suggesting that the nature and number of the actual incidents of the violations, even when taken in the aggregate, do not warrant categorization as Severity Level III.

8611040181 861029 PDR Vice President ')

O ADOCK 05000072 for Research s i PDR i 304 Park Building 1 Salt 12ke Oty, Utah 84tl2 T~

(801) 581 7236 NI a

EA 86-136: Protest of Civil Penalties Page 2 The University of Utah does not request a hearing in connection with this protest of civil penalties. We will be pleased to rely on your office for a fair resolution to this request.

)

Sincerely, f[f}y'{ hGk O mes J. B, p y, h .

ice Pres 143ent for R search

Enclosure:

Appendix A: Response to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties i

CC:

1 Robert A. Martin, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Larry B. Anderson, Director Utah Bureau of Radiation Control P. O. Box 16700 Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0700

University of Utah 29 October 1986 Docket Nos.50-072 & 50-407 License Nos. R-25 & R-126 EA 86-136 APPENDIX.A PROTEST OF CIVIL PENALTIES

Reference:

Response to Notice of~ Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, Appendix A to letter from James J. Brophy dated 29 October 1986.

I. Violations Assessed Civil Penalties-  !

A. Failure to Identify Radioactive Material

1. Transportation of radioactive' material without shipping papers.

2. Transportation of radioactive material without a label.

3. Transportation of radioactive material without first conducting a radiological survey to determine external radiation or contamination levels.

As pointed out in our response to the Notice of Violation, we admit the first two and deny the third of these ' alleged violations. The reasons for the admitted violations, and our corrective actions, are described in the referenced response.

In requesting possible remission or mitigation of the proposed civil penalty, we ask your consideration of the following additional information:

1. Prompt Identification and Reporting The episode that led to these violations, as well as violation I.B.2, occurred on 21-22 January 1986. The error was discovered by the Reactor Safety. Committee at its meeting on 28 January 1986. The Committee took immediate action to prevent further occurrences of this type, as well as to determine the reporting requirements for such an incident. By memorandum dated 29 January 1986, the Radiation Safety Officer reported to the Reactor Administrator that he could find no regulatory requirement for reporting this incident to the NRC. As the regulatory authority for an agreement state, the Utah Bureau of Radiation Control was - also queried

EA 86-136: Protest of Civil Penalties Appendix A - Page 2 regarding reporting requirements; the Bureau agreed with the conclusion that the incident was not reportable.

l This conclusion- was - af firmed by the Reactor Safety-Committee at its next meeting on 13 March 1986. *

2. Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence i

, The Reactor Safety Committee gave explicit instructions

] to the Acting Reactor Supervisor (Senior Reactor i

Operator) at its 28 January 1986. meeting to notify the Radiation Safety Officer prior to transfer of any potentially radioactive material from the reactor facility. The Committee, at its 13 March 1986 meeting, determined that a new procedure must be drafted by the facility staff for the removal of non-experimental radioactive materials. _ At its 12 August 1986 meeting, the Committee established a subcommittee to' review and rewrite, as necessary, the Facility Operations Manual.

All of these Committee actions are related to the recognized need to improve management controls over facility operations by means of more explicit procedures and more formal reviews and audits of facility activities.

3. Past Performance The NRC inspectors stated in' their inspection report that "the licensee.had on several occasions in the past (June 1983, January 1984, and January 1986) transferred radioactive TRIGA ~ components (core support grid plates and heavy water tanks) to unlicensed locations off-

, campus for maintenance work such'as wo] ding and anodiz--

ing." In actuality, a heavy water tank was taken to the University's welding shop. once (June 1983) and to a-commercial shop once-(January 1984). These violations i

all resulted from a single root cause, i.e. - the belief by the' reactor operating staff'that there was a level of '

activity below which specific licensing and transpor-tation requirements .did not apply, and the' lack of'a

specific procedure'to instruct them.to do otherwise.

1 .

1 l In contrast to the three incidents cited by the Notice of Violation, the facility has.successfully demonstrated i

its ability to transfer numerous radioactive shipments, e.g. spent fuel, reactor core components and irradiated samples, in full compliance with NRC, - DOT and state regulations. .This past performance has been accompanied l by fully documented procedures, detailed radiation j surveys and minimal' radiation exposures to . personnel.

2 These numerous radioactive shipments have never resulted

in any violation or citation by previous NP.C' inspectors.

I i

-n ,,.,n ,- , - - , , , , - , ~ . - , - . . - - , , . - - , . - - , - . . . - . , . . , ~ , -

t I

• j EA 86-136: Protest of Civil Penalties Appendix A --Page 3 I Furthermore, the reactor facility's record -(since the

initial licensing of the AGN-201 reactor in 1959) of low l annual radiation exposures to the operating staff and

laboratory students demonstrates - care and concern for j effective radiation safety.

4. Prior Notice of Similar Events This was the first notification of this particular .

event, and prompt action was taken. There has never been any tendency to ignore, or fai to act on, any indication of a . violation of a regulation or license condition.

x 5. Multiple Occurrences

] Since the admitted violations, i.e.- transporting

radioactive material without shipping papers and transporting radioactive material without proper labels are so closely related, and since they resulted from a single root cause, it seems that categorizing them as

} multiple occurrences for purposes of increasing the.

1 Severity Level of the violations la unjustified.

B. Failure to Perform Adequate Surveys and Control Licensed Material i 1. The Notice of Violation lists four instances of alleged violations of the survey requirements contained -in 10 CFR 20.201(b):

a. The radiological survey program conducted in the 1

reactor facility during'1985 and 1986 was not adequate  !

I to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards present. H 1 b. Surveys conducted in the machine shop on January 15, 16, 23, and 24, 1986 were not adequate in that'they j failed to identify extensive contamination on the floor i and several machines.

4 c. During surveys conducted on June 11, 1986, the extent of radioactive contamination present in the machine shop was'not identified.

. d. . Radiological surveys were not performed of the

potable water supply that had been cross connected to the reactor pool water recirculation system.

l l

2. Removal of radioactive core support components to

unauthorized off-campus locations.

I i .

~

e EA 86-136: Protest of Civil Penalties Appendix A - Page 4 i

For simplicity, the last item (I.B.2) is addressed first, since it relates to the other violations just discussed. As pointed 'out in the referenced response, admitted violation

, I.B.2 resulted from the same incident the led to adm.tted

. violations I.A.1 and I.A.2. With respect to this violation, we offer the same justification for remission -or mitigation of the proposed civil penalty as offered for the previous two, i.e. (1) that we detected the violation, (ii) that we took prompt and effective action to correct the problem and

-prevent further occurrences, (iii) that our past performance in this area has been good, (iv) that we have not ignored any prior notices of similar events, and (v) that the previous i similar violations all resulted from a common cause, which i ~has now been identified and corrected.

I The violations identified in items I.B.1.b and I.B.1.c are l admitted, and the problem described in item I.'B.1.a is

partially admitted; however, we deny that the allegation in

I.B.1.d constituted a violation. Consequently, only items a, b and c are addressed here. ,

1. Prompt Identification and Reporting On Wednesday, 18 June 1986, only four working days after i i the exit conference on this inspection, a. meeting of the

]

staff of the Radiological Health Department was held for the purpose of reviewing the results of the inspection.

l Particular emphasis was given to the need for improve-

, ment in conducting radiation surveys. On Friday,. 27

{ June 1986, a training session on performing and report-j ing surveys was held at the reactor facility. These j prorrpt. responses to the discovery .of problems in our surveillance program are indicative of our concern for j maintaining a high quality radiation protection program.

2. Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence l Specific instructions have been given to the reactor j operating staff regarding the need to notify the 4

Radiological Health Department whenever surveys are required of materials to be taken'from the facility to

assure that surveys are made with instruments of l sufficient sensitivity.

The health physicist who performed the survey of the machine shop on 12 ' June 1986 and ' failed to find the residual contamination has been formally reprimanded.

l l

t-h f

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

4 EA 86-136: Protest of Civil Penalties Appendix A - Page S I

The Monthly Check Log forms.used by the reactor operat-ing staff have been modified to include more detailed survey results.

a 3. Past Performance 4

The radiological surveys conducted in the past have been adequate to control radiation exposures to personnel at

, levels that are ALARA. The surveys were conducted

, . conscientiously every month, both by the reactor

! operating staff and by radiation safety personnel. The failure to record all of the detailed results does not imply any deficiency in performance of the actual surveys.

t

4. Prior Notice of Similar Events Since we have never before been cited for . inadequate surveys, there have been no prior notices of similar events to which to respond.

5. Multiple Occurrences Although we admit to multiple occurrences of inadequate documentation of surveys, plus two instances of surveys l that were inadequate to detect existing contamination, i

we would like to point out.that they took place within a relatively short period of time and they were corrected j promptly.

i i

i 4

i I

i I

i i

h

-- -- .. - - - , , . - . . - . . . . . - - -