ML20235G374
| ML20235G374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1987 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Mcgovern J EECCINCH |
| References | |
| EA-87-030, EA-87-30, NUDOCS 8707140231 | |
| Download: ML20235G374 (6) | |
Text
m D C3 f
+p. 3
_[
o,{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. UNITED STATES p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55
\\...o /
l JUL 0 91987 Docket No.70-687 License No. SNM-639 EA 87-30 Cintichem, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. James J. McGovern Plant Manager P.O. Box 324 Tuxedo, New York 10987 Gentlemeni
Subject:
Response to " Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty "(NRC Inspection No. 87-01)
We have received your letter dated April 23, 1987, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) sent to you with our letter dated March 26, 1987, and your check for $12,500 in payment of the proposed civil penalty. Our letter and Notice described violations identified during an NRC inspection.
In your res pnse to the notice, (Items B, C and F ui the Notice)you deny three of the eight cited violations and detaii your corrective actions for the violations. After careful consideration of your response, we have concluded, for the reasons given in the enciosed Appendix, that a sufficient basis was not provided for withdrawal of any of the violations.
We have reviewed the specific corrective actions taken in response to the individual violations, as set forth in your letter. No further response is required. We will examine im)1ementation of these corrective actions during a j
future inspection, l
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, 1N W'T 36T}!.
or eputy Exe tive Director for j
for Regional Operations p
Enclosure:
Appendix-Evaluation and Conclusion Y
p cc w/enci k
/)[\\g Public Document Room (PDR)
Nuclear Safety InforTaation Center (NSIC) l\\
y State of New York l
/i B707140231 670709 1-PDR ADOCK 0700060" l
l C
PDR j
l
\\
\\
e-4 APPENDIX
, EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION In the licensee's response dated April 23, 1987 to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated March 26, 1987, the licensee pro-vides full payment of the civil penalty. However, the licensee also denies three of the eight violations, specifically, Violations 8, C and F of the referenced Notice. Provided below are (1) a restatement of'each contested violation; (2) a sumary of the licensee's response concerning the violation, and (3) the NRC evaluation of the licensee's response.
1.
Restatement of Violation B 10 CFR 20.405(a) requires that each licensee shall notify the NRC in writing within 30 days of an exposure of an individual to radiation in excess of the applicable limits set forth in 10 CFR 20.101.
Contrary to the above, during the third calendar quarter of 1985, a maintenance worker performing repairs on mechanical manipulator. hands in the Radiopharmaceutical Laboratory, a restricted area, received a cumulative exposure to the left hand of 21.453 ram, an amount in excess of the limit set forth in 20.101, and the NRC was not notified of the exposure.
Summary of Licen_see Respoge While the licensee admits that a radiation exposure in excess of the limits set forth in 10 CFR 20.101(a) occurred, the licensee claims that extenuating circumstances exist for denying that the failure to report the overexposure to the NRC constitutes a violation. Specifically, i
the licensee claims that since the overexposure essentially resulted from byproduct material which is regulated by the State of New York, rather than special nuclear materisl which is regulated by the NRC, the 21,453 rem exposure received by the individual was not required to be reported to the NRC. The licensee indicated that this determination was based on guidance j
set forth in a May 13, 1982 letter from the NRC concerning the regulation of co-mingled material.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response 3
The NRC maintains that the radiation exposure to the hand of the ir.dividual referenced in Violation A is regulated under the authority of the licensee's Special Nuclear Material license issued by the NRC, and therefore, should have been reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 20.405.
This interpretation is consistent with the guidance set forth in the referenced May 13, 1982 letter from the NRC, notwithstanding the fact that only a very small amount of the exposure resulted from special nuclear material. That letter states that "other byproduct material, not as well separated, which continues in process or storage, co-mingled with licensed special nuclear material will be censidered to be subject to NRC regulatory authority on the grounds that safety of handling of the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - ~
special nuclear material requires NRC control of the co-mingled byproduct material at these phases of the procrss." Therefore, since this material was co-mingled, it was regulated by the NRC, and the resultant over-exposure should have been reported ;o the NRC. Accordingly, an adequate basis has not been provided for withdrawal of the violation.
2.
restatement of Violation C 10 CFR 20.202(a)(1) requires that each licensee shall supply and require the use of appropriate monitoring equipment by each individual who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent of the applicable value specified in 20.101(a).
Contrary to the above, on several occasions during 1985 and 1986, an individual entered the Radiopharmaceutical Laboratory, a restricted area, where he was likely to receive a radiation exposure to the hands in excess of 25 percent of the limits set forth in 20.101(a) during the performance of maintenance on highly contaminated manipulator hands, and the individual was not required to use appropriate personnel monitoring equipment (TLD rings) on the hands to measure the raaf ation received from this activity.
Summary of Licensee Response In denying this violation, the licensee stated that the individual was required to use a wrist dosimeter while working on manipulator hands, and the use of wrist dosimeters rather than ring dosimeters was an acceptable practice since (1) the use of wrist dosimeters had not been specifically questioned by the NRC during previous inspections, and 2) for many exposure situations, the critical organ is the red bone marrow located in the foreann.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response Contrary to the licensee's assertion, the crit'ical exposure in such cases is to the hand, and in particular, to the fingertips, not just to the red bone marrow of the arm.
In determining the appropriate personnel moni-toring devices to use for measuring occupational exposure in specific work situations, the licensee is responsible for assessing both the nature of the work activity and the specific characteristics of the source term.
Due to small source geometry considerations and the relatively rapid decline in dose rates with distance typically seen with beta-emitting sources, the practice of monitoring exposure at the wrist will not adequately evaluate the dose to the fingertips, and therefore, is not acceptable.
The fact that the NRC had not specifically questioned the use of wrist dosimeters during previous NRC inspections is not relevant since NRC inspections only audit a portion of a licensee's program.
I '
Although the unusually high hand exposures received by one worker, during the third and fourth quarters of 1985, demonstrated that it was likely for an individual to receive an exposure in excess of 25 percent of the regulatory limit while handling manipulator hands, the licensee did not t
subsequently require the use of TLD rings by a second worker while he handled manipulator hands. Since the exact cause of the high exposures was never thoroughly investigated or identified by the licensee, the licensee should have required the use of TLD rings for both workers to properly monitor hand exposure. The failure to do so constitutes inade-quate personnel monitoring. Accordingly, an adequate basis has not been provided for withdrawal of'this violation.
3.
Restatment of Violation F 10 CFR 19.12 requires in part that all individuals working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted area shall be instructed in precautions and procedures to minimize exposure, in the purposes and function of protective devices employed, and in the applicable provisions of Commission regulations and licenses for the protection of personnel.
Contrary to the above, during the third and fourth calendar quarters of 1985, two individuals performed repair activities of radioactively contaminated manipulator hands in the Radiopharmaceutical Laboratory, a restricted area, without having been adequately instructed in (1)
I procedures for perfonning surveys of radioactive material, as well as instruments and technique to be used; (2) appropriate criteria and actions to be taken in response to the results of survey measurements; and (3)NRCextremitydoselimitsinPart20.
Sunrnary of Licensee Response In denying this violation, the licensee claims that all employees received basic radiation safety training in avoiding radiation exposure and in the principles of radiation exposure, and on-the-job training from the Health Physics (HP) group concerning the use of survey equipment.
In addition, the licensee also stated that employees must pass a written test to measure the sufficiency of one's training prior to assignment to a permanent work station. Furthermore, the licensee states that work procedures established for the manipulator repair work had appeared effective in nwintaining extremity exposure at fairly stable levels until these unusually high exposures occurred.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response The NRC acknowledges that both individuals performing the manipulator hand repair operation had received prior training in, and demonstrated a basic understanding of, general radiation safety principles. However, specific on-the-job training or instructions were not provided to the workers to assure they understood either the specific radiological hazards associated with the manipulator hand repair operation, or appropriate response required whenever a significant radiological condition existed.
I L
I
)
l 1 i
}
During the inspection, the licensee indicated that no written, approved' procedures existed to control this activity. As a result, the two workers i
performing the mar.ipulaic" repairs were not performing radiological surveys j
in a consister; manner, and were relying on informal, individually developed dose rate criteria as radiological holdpoints. The individual who received L
the overexposure indicated he routinely performed radiological surveys by holding the meter approximately one foot from the source rather than at contact. This individual also inappropriately relied on an adjacent area monitor, which was incapable of measuring beta radiation dose rates, as a i
radiological "go-no go" indicator. Accordingly, an adequate basis has not been provided for withdrawal of the violation.
i e
q i
1
)
l
)
'JUL O'S 1987 P
Cintichem,_Inc.
~
'bec w/ encl:'
RegionIDocketRoom(w/ concurrences)
SECY-Congressional Affairs H
-J. Taylor, DEDO W. Russell, RI.
D. Holody,'RI J. Lieberman, OE S. Schinki, OGC J. Zerbe, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors, RII-III Enforcement Officers, RIV-V F. Ingram, PA J. Crooks, AE00-B. Hayes, 01--
S. Connelly, OIA q
E. Flack..IE V. Miller, NMSS D. Nussbaumer, OSP 3
IE/ES File
' l IE/EA file EDO Rdg File DCS I
1 1
- e 2
&%a _
M dd h h:
OE D:
.EFlack SSohD WRussell JL'ie erman JM a lor 7/ 7/87 7/ 7 /87 7/g /87 7/g/87 7/ r 87