ML23040A000
| ML23040A000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07003103 |
| Issue date: | 02/09/2023 |
| From: | Masters A NRC/RGN-II/DFFI |
| To: | Padgett W Louisiana Energy Services, URENCO USA |
| References | |
| EA-22-046, EN55861, IR 2022001 | |
| Download: ML23040A000 (6) | |
Text
W. Padgett 1 February 9, 2023 EA-22-046 EN55861 Mr. Wyatt Padgett Compliance Manager Louisiana Energy Services dba Urenco USA (UUSA)
Urenco USA P.O. Box 1789 Eunice, NM 88231
SUBJECT:
URENCO USA - NRC RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Padgett:
On April 29, 2022, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Inspection Report 07003103/2022001 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML22119A057) which contained non-cited violation (NCV) 07003103/2022001-01, "Failure to make a required report." In letters dated June 13, 2022 (ML22172A014) and August 3, 2022 (ML22221A004), you provided a response to the inspection report contesting the NCV and provided additional information concerning the contest, respectively.
We conducted a detailed review of your response and the applicable regulatory requirements in accordance with Part I, Section 2.8.2, of the NRC Enforcement Manual. After consideration of the basis for the contest, the NRC has concluded that the inspection report correctly characterizes the violation. As such, the NRC is upholding the NCV. The NRCs evaluation of your response to the NCV is contained in the enclosure to this letter.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, Rules of Practice and Procedure, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or in the NRCs ADAMS, accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
W. Padgett 2 If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Robert Williams of my staff at 404-997-4525.
Sincerely, Signed by Masters, Anthony on 02/09/23 Anthony D. Masters, Director Division of Fuel Facility Inspection Docket No. 07003103 License No. SNM-2010
Enclosure:
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response to Non-Cited Violation 07003103/2022001-01 cc w/encl: Distribution via LISTSERV
ML23040A000 OFFICE RII/DFFI RII/DFFI RII/EICS RII/EICS OE NAME T. Sippel R. Williams M. Kowal S. Price C. Rivera DATE 12/08/22 12/09/22 12/12/22 12/20/22 2/6/23 OFFICE NMSS/DFM RII/DFFI NAME S. Helton A. Masters DATE 1/30/23 2/9/23 NRC EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSE TO NON-CITED VIOLATION 07003103/2022001-01 Restatement of Non-Cited Violation (NCV)05000416/2020002-03 Title 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1) requires, in part, that licensees "notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the discovery of any of the following events involving licensed material: (1) An unplanned contamination event that: (i) Requires access to the contaminated area... to be restricted for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by imposing additional radiological controls or by prohibiting entry into the area; [and] (ii) Involves a quantity of material greater than five times the lowest annual limit on intake specified in Appendix B of §§ 20.1001-20.2401 of 10 CFR part 20 for the material."
Contrary to the above requirements in 10 CFR 70.50, following the February 28, 2022 spill, the licensee failed to notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of an unplanned contamination event that required access to the contaminated area to be restricted for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by imposing additional radiological controls, and involved a quantity of material greater than five times the lowest annual limit on intake for uranium.
Summary of Licensee Response In letters dated June 12, 2022 (ML22172A014), and August 3, 2022 (ML22221A004), URENCO USA (UUSA or licensee) contested that a violation of NRC requirements occurred and provided its position that it was in compliance with the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1) for reporting unplanned spills.
The licensee asserted in its June letter that Measurements and estimates have concluded that 4.6 x 10-1 Ci were spilled outside the berm and that, a Contaminated Area did not exist and therefore reporting is not required per 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1)(i). A Contaminated Area is defined in UUSAs Safety Analysis Report in Section 4.7.1.3 which states the following: LES defines a Contaminated Area as an area where removable contamination levels are above 16.7 Bq/100 cm2 (1,000 dpm/100 cm2) of alpha or beta/gamma activity.
In its August letter, the licensee clarified the basis for asserting that 4.6 x 10-1 Ci were spilled outside the berm and that UUSA is basing the contamination area not being required based on radiological surveys for loose contamination in the area not on an increase in radiation levels (or a lack of increase in this case). The contamination areas were posted based on a conservative approach and good radiological practices to minimize the chances of personnel coming into contact with fluids containing uranic material that could weep from the unsealed flexible seals between the wall foundations and slab of the coated concrete floor.
Therefore, the licensee asserted that NCV 07003103/2022001-01 should be withdrawn.
NRC Evaluation The NRC reviewed the licensees letters, dated June 12, 2022 and August 3, 2022, EV 149668, the NRCs requirements found in 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1) and applicable guidance including ISG-12, Reportable Safety Events per 10 CFR Part 70 Appendix A, Revision 1.
In its contest letter, the licensee documented the following positions to support the conclusion that a violation of NRC requirements did not occur:
Enclosure
That a Contaminated Area did not exist and therefore reporting is not required per 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1)(i). A Contaminated Area is defined in UUSAs Safety Analysis Report in Section 4.7.1.3 which states the following:
o LES defines a Contaminated Area as an area where removable contamination levels are above 16.7 Bq/100 cm2 (1,000 dpm/100 cm2) of alpha or beta/gamma activity.
That the berm was a contaminated area, and that measurements and estimates have concluded that only 4.6 x 10-1 Ci were spilled outside the berm Requires access to the contaminated area to be restricted In reviewing the licensees positions described above, the NRC staff noted the licensee was equating the UUSA Safety Analysis Reports definition of contaminated area and the term as it appears in §70.50(b)(1)(i). However, the NRC staff determined that the two terms are not contextually equivalent. The term contaminated area as it appears in §70.50(b)(1)(i) simply refers to the area in which the unplanned contamination occurred and could be satisfied independently of whether the UUSA SAR criteria for contaminated area is met. Therefore, NRC staff determined that UUSAs argument that a contaminated area did not exist is an insufficient basis for contesting the violation.
Therefore, the NRC staff considers this spill to meet this requirement in the regulation for reporting under 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1).
Involves a quantity of material greater than five times the lowest annual limit on intake In reviewing the licensees positions described above, the NRC staff noted the licensee stated that measurements and estimates have concluded that only 4.6 x 10-1 Ci were spilled outside the berm in its June 12, 2022, letter. The licensee stated in its August 3, 2022 letter that:
The initial calculation [referring to information provided after the March inspection] was made with the assumptions that the entire area established as a contamination area (2ft by 20ft) was uniformly coated with the fluid from the tank at a depth of 1/16th of an inch and that the entire unrecovered contents were included in the calculation for a worst case scenario. These assumptions gave a calculated volume of 5.9 L for spilled fluid.
UUSA has revised the initial assumptions to provide a more accurate evaluation of the spill.
Initial values were very conservative and based on the incorrect assumption that Spill Activity is determined on airborne exposure limits, not the Quantity of Material. As the conservative estimation provided an airborne activity below Airborne ALI, these assumptions were not questioned until UUSA clearly understood the reporting requirement of 70.50(b)(1)(ii).
The revised calculation had the actual measured area (2 in wide expansion joint where the fluid had travelled 9 feet) used for the area as well as a much more realistic depth of 1/32nd of an inch for fluid depth. This yielded a much more realistic 0.18 L [actually 0.11 L] for spilled fluid.
NRC staff determined that this logic related to the volume (and thus quantity) of material involved is valid. However, these revised measurements and calculations were performed 2
outside of the twenty-four hour time frame for reporting. NRC Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 12 (ISG-12), 10 CFR Part 70, Appendix A - Reportable Safety Events, provides guidance on reportable safety events for Part 70 facilities. Although this specific ISG is limited in scope to the reporting of events in accordance with Appendix A to Part 70, it provides useful guidance that can be applied to other events reportable under Part 70, such as 10 CFR 70.50. ISG-12 states, Twenty-four hour reportable events involve less safety significance than one-hour reportable events and sometimes require more extensive evaluation to determine reportability. The twenty-four hour time period for reportable events is intended to allow licensees sufficient time to make this determination. However, if the determination cannot be completed within this time frame then the event must be reported to the NRC Operations Center within twenty-four hours of discovery. Based on this guidance, licensees should submit reports to the NRC within twenty-four hours if it cannot be determined within twenty-four hours whether a report is required.
Reason for Access Restriction The final criteria for reporting under 10 CFR 70.50(b)(1) is: (iii) Has access to the area restricted for a reason other than to allow isotopes with a half-life of less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to decay prior to decontamination.
Because Uranium has a half-life far greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, any access restriction is necessarily for a reason other than to allow isotopes with a half-life of less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to decay prior to decontamination. Therefore, this reporting criteria is also satisfied.
Acknowledgement of final spill analysis As previously stated, NRC staff determined that the argument related to the volume/quantity of material involved in the spill, that the licensee presented in its June 13, 2022 and August 3, 2022 letters, is valid. Had this, or a similar analysis, been performed at the time of the February 28 spill, it would have demonstrated that the spill was not reportable. However, these revised measurements and calculations were performed outside of the twenty-four hour time frame for reporting, and do not negate that a violation of regulatory requirements existed following the February 28, 2022 spill, until the spill was reported in EN55861.
NRC Conclusion The NRC staff concludes that UUSA has not presented a sufficient basis for overturning the violation. Therefore, NCV 07003103/2022001-01 is upheld.
3