ML20244B551
Text
~
{ } NUC1. EAR REGUI iORY COMMISSION b j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9.
% ?**
- M /w EAY 141981 EGM 81-17 MEMORANDUM FOR: R. Carlsen, Region I C. Upright, Region II J. Streeter, Region III J. Gagliardo, Region IV.
A. Johnson, Region V FROM: Dudley Thompson, Director Enforcement and Investigations, IE
SUBJECT:
POLICY GUICANCE FOR SAFEGUARDS ENFORCEMENT CASES The recent processing of three different, but related, safeguards enforcement cases concerning the general subject of uncontrolled access to vital areas at nuclear power plants has demonstrated the need for pclicy guidance regarding this subject. In each of the instances in question, inspectors identified pathways into vital areas frc: the protected area that were neither adequately protected nor controlled by the licensee. Although the ease with which each might be exploited by an adversary varied, all of them, if left uncorrected, could provide undetected a: cess to the vital area, and thus each represents as
=- a minimum a violation that if left uncorrec:ed coulc lead to a ratter of signif-icant concern. Tnis of co:.rse fits the general description of Severity Level
> IV as described in the Interin Enforcement Policy, and is sufficient to exclude characterizing such violations as Level V or VI.
l On the other hand, Supplement III C 1 suggetts assignment of Severity Level III to instances where vital area access is neither protected nor controlled. The l
Supplement does not distinguish between instances where portals or other readily exploitable apertures are left totally unguarded or otherwise unprotected and instances where the access point is difficult to identify both.for the potential adversary and the licensee (or for that matter, for the NRC) and is difficult i
to exploit without detection. It appears obvious that there is in fact a distinction between these two extremes in terms of their impact upon the safety and security of the facility. Given this distinction, it is reasonable to assign a lower severity level to those which have a less immediate effect upon the facility's security. Consequently, we have elected to assign Severity Level IV for instances where licensees fail to provide protection and access control and:
- 1) the point of access is other than a portal, window, or other easily exploited pathway; i
- 2) the pathway is difficult to detect as evidenced by the fact that neither the licensee nor the NRC had previously noticed it as a vulnerability; and l F s~r.n - 8't-4 So G/c Nsmyrm %.
N 1 4 1981 Militip?e Addressees -
2-
- 3) the pathway would either be very difficult to exploit in terms of its size or degree of circuitousness, or would require the cooperation of two insiders to achieve undetected access.
'~
ps Er.forcement and Investigations Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: R. Wessman G. Barber T. Brockett
- J. Metzger J. Riesland W. Ward J. Lieberman, ELD L. Bush 1
i e*
l .
I e
p
,.?'-
- j ,,o ase g '
=$}j:.,,cjj'
' UNITED STATES
. *, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 o
- y% II.((J .s f
C.I.; 0 MR1 License No. SNM-928 EA 82-09 EGM 81-31 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III FROM: Dudley Thompson, Director Enforcement and Investigations, IE
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR KERR McGEE - CIMARR0N F This will acknowledge our agreement with the proposed enforcement action set forth in your memorandum dated October 16, 1981, and since revised. (unrevised copies sent earlier to regional enforcement coordinators). Our agreement is based on the NRC consultant's conclusion that an evaluation of the uptake of uranium I could not definitely establish that a regulatory limit was exceeded.
The consultant's use of the ICRP-30 metabolic model and retention function couldPart than result 20,inAppendix estimatingB an uranium intake greater or less (or even the same) limits. As you know, the NRC has not adopted ICRP-30 recommendations. Instead, all NRC u are based on ICRP-2 recommendations.ptake models and resulting concentrations At the same time, however, we recognize that ICRP-2 was meant for intakes on a continuous basis (long term), whereas ICRP-30 is more appropriate for single event (short term) occurrences, such as occurred in this case.
It is also true that the 40 MPC-hour concentration for soluble uranium is a regulatory limit, primarily because of the degree of chemical toxicity of low-enriched uranium, as opposed to the radioactivity of the element. This is based on a conservative approach, with the assumption that for an individual who receives the maximum concentration continuously there could be some risk of kidney damage. In reality, continuous exposure a,t the maximum concentration is very unlikely; generally, such exposures are of a short term duration.
If, through the use of appropriate uptake models, completa voiding, and time of intake, it can be established that the intake was appreciably higher than the regulatory limit, elevated enforcement action might be justified, based on the health and safety radiological significance and an apparent breakdown in the licensee's controls.
)
I f=. r a - ??- 66 Gk muesm q ,, 4
p DEU 3 N
' .q James G. Keppler f I
In view of the above, the following guidance should be used for enforcement l actions involving intakes of soluble uranium: i 1
- 1) When a limit is exceeoed for soluble uranium, and the result. ant intake lies between 40 and 80 MPC-hours per week, Severi y Level III will be assigned, witn no civil penalty.
q
)
21 Considering the uncertainties involved, to assume a suf ficient 1 margin of error that a violation has occurred, escalated enforcement action will be considered on a case-by-case basis whenever an 80 MPC-hour limit per 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> workweek is exceeded for scluele uranium. For those occurrences where 80 MPC-hours have been exceeded, the case, together with an evaluation as to whether civil penalty action is or is not warranted, will be sent to IE for a determination.
j 1
ff N c.c Dudley T pson, Direc Enforcement and Investigations Office of Inspection and Enforcement i
Enc 1: Region III Enforcement Action l dated November 19, 1981 1' cc: H. Thornburg .,
N. Moseley .
i T. Harpster !
J. Lieberman, ELD R. Wessman G. Barber T. Brockett J. Metzger D. Sly, SRSI R. Carlson, RI (w/o enc 1)
C. Alderson, RII " "
R. Warnick, RIII " "
J. Gagliardo, RIV" "
A. Johnson, RV " "
)
o NOV191931 Docket No.70-925 Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. W. J. Shelley, Director Regulation and Control Kerr-McGee Center Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Gentlemen:
1 This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. C. C. Peck of this office on July 15-16, 1931, of activities at your cimarron Uranium facility authorized by NRC Special' Nuclear Material License No. SNM-928.
Our preliminary findings were discussed with Dr. E. R. Goltra, Mr. G. J. Sinke, Mr. A. W. Norwood, and members of the Cimarron facility staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspection was conducted to examine activities related to the exposure of two individuals to soluble airborne uranium as reported in your letter dated May 29, 1981. The inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures personnel.
and representative records, observations, and interviews with-During this inspection, certain of your actiitiesv appeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed. Appendix.
The inspection showed that action had been taken to correct the identified noncompliance and to prevent recurrence. Consequently, no reply to this noncompliance matter at this time. is required and we have no further questions regarding, this _.
The item in the attached Notice of Violation is classified as a Severity Level III violation in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7, 1980).
As stated in Section IV.B of the Policy, monetary civil penalties are normally assessed for Severity Level III violation. After careful consideration of this specific violation, s.
-% t t ? r $ $ D l; 1 ,
- l l
i Kerr-McGhe Nuclear Corporation pgy19 @
we have determined that civil penalties are not appropriate. Similar violations in the future may result in imposition of civil penalties.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed ::spection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you or your contractorsthat it is necessary believe you to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), ,
days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a(a) n:tify this offic request for I
l withholding; and (b) submit wi hin twenty-five (25) days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information .
l Section 2.790(b)(1) requires th.at any such application must be accoarpanied by ;
an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the !
document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the be reasons withheld whichdisclosure.
from public are the bases for the claim that the information should This section further requires the state-ment to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4).
The into information a separate sought part of to thebeaffidavit.
withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible l If we do not hear from ycu in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the Public Document Room .
l The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you hav,e, concerning this inspection .
Sincerely, original signed by . -
A. Bert Davis g V James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation i 2. Inspection Report 70-925/81-03 cc w/encls:
B. E. Brown, General Manager, Manufacturing DtfB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
RII RIII RIIIrh Pecn so g
Gr ger o
RIII
&R I RLI -
6 Ridgway Davis 10/1/81 gl 18 ' fKepler n l}t 9 ll j $ n ))
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. _