ML20079J063

Suppls 831027 Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-129/83-01.Corrective Actions:Accuracy & Thoroughness of Records,Especially Insps by Radiation Safety Ofc Personnel,Improved

ML20079J063
Person / Time
Site:	05000129
Issue date:	12/09/1983
From:	Collins W, Slacks S WEST VIRGINIA UNIV., MORGANTOWN, WV
To:	Verrelli D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20079J050	List: ML20079J063 ML20079J099
References
NUDOCS 8401240200
Download: ML20079J063 (4)

Text

C

1. ~

0, West Virginia, MEDICAL CENTER TTniversity m o a o ^ a T o a w- acsr viaoisia reso.

Schoolof Medicine Department of Radiology Division of Medical Physics and Radiation Safety Telephone: 304-293-3413 December 9, 1983 D.M. Verre111, Chief Project Branch I Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, GE 30303

Dear Mr. Verrelli,

As the result of the conference call on 22 November 1983 between S.T. Slack of this university and several officials of the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission we wish to add a supplemental response to our letter of 27 October 1983, replying to your letter of 24 August 1983 (inspection report 50-129/83-01).

We misinterpreted the request for information on corrective action on the first violation, believing that it applied only to license R-58. Since there is no licensed activity taking place under this license, we did not feel that any information could be provided.

Since we have been informed that this request for information on corrective action extends to all of our licenses, we can state that actions have been taken to improve the accuracy and thoroughness of our records, particularly where this involves inspections by radiation safety office personnel.

We found that the inspector had not obtained complete information about the disposal of the demineralizer beads. The technician who had checked them had performed a check of gamma radiation levels and had taken samples for alpha and beta counting. The beads were then disposed of before the results of these counts were available.

Hence, when . there was a question about the results of the beta counts, a second sample could not be obtained in order to resolve these questions, and interpretations had to be based on past experience with similar sampling. We recognize that the material 8401240200 840105 PDR ADOCK 05000129 G PDR

4,

~. s should not. have been disposed of until the testing was complete and consider. this to be the substantive basis for the violation. We agree.that this. constitutes a breach of good practice, particularly in dealing with unfamiliar radionuclides. .For most of our licensed materials, there are already in place procedures which would prevent

- this sort of occurrance.. Efforts are being made to see to it that in all situations.-proper determination of the activity or lack thereof is made prior to disposal.

Sincerely, William E. Collins, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs b(

Stephen T. Slack, Ph.D.,

Radiation Safety Officer STS/tds 9

I um i i 't i g

/. I West Virginia,' MEDICAL CENTER

"[Jniversity uoRGANToWN. WEST VlRG1NIA 24506 School of Medicine Department of Radiology Division of Medical Physics and Radittion Safety Telephone: 304 293 3413 December 9, 1983 D.M. Verrelli, Chief Project Branch 1 Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, GE 30303

Dear Mr. Verrelli,

1 As the result of the conference call on 22 November 1983 between S.T. Slack of this university and several officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we wish to add a supplemental response to our letter of 27 October 1983, replying to your letter of 24 August 1983 (inspection report 50-129/83-01).

We misinterpreted the request for information on corrective action on the first violation, believing that it applied only to license R-58. Since there is no licensed activity taking place under this license, we did not feel that any information could be provided.

Since we have been informed that this request for information on corrective action extends to all of our licenses, we can state that actions have been taken to improve the accuracy and thoroughness of our records, particularly where this involves inspections by radiation safety office personnel.

We found that the inspector had not obtained complete information about the disposal of the demineralizer beads. The technician who had checked them had performed a check of gamma radiation levels and had taken sampics for alpha and beta counting. The beads were then disposed of before the results of these counts were available.

Hence, when there was a question about the results of the beta counts, a second sample could not be obtained in order to resolve these questions, and interpretations had to be based on past experience with similar sampling. We recognize that the material i

i

,y; should not have been disposed of until the testing was complete and consider this to be the substantive basis for the violation. We agree that this constituten a breach of good practice, particularly in dealing with unf amiliar radionuclides. For most of our licensed materials, there are aircady in place procedures which would prevent this sort of occurrance. Efforts are being made to see to it that in all situations, proper determination of the activity or lack thereof is made prior to disposal.

Sincerely,

/~ .cf &

William E. Collins, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

/ ,fuT 0 Stephen T. Slack, Ph.D.,

Radiation Safety Officer STS/tds 1

,