ML20214H044

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-112/87-01.Requests Addl Info Re Listed Violation from 870316 Notice of Violation

ML20214H044
Person / Time
Site:	05000112
Issue date:	05/20/1987
From:	Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Egle D OKLAHOMA, UNIV. OF, NORMAN, OK
References
NUDOCS 8705270256
Download: ML20214H044 (4)

See also: IR 05000112/1987001

Text

r

[

. .,

MAY' 2 01987

In Reply Refer-To:

Docket: 50-112/87-01

- The University of Oklahoma

ATTN: -Dr. Davis M. Egle

Director, AMNE

865 Asp Avenue, Room 212

Norman, Oklahoma 73019

Gentlemen:

-Thank you for your letter of April 14, 1987, in response to our letter and the

attached Notice of Violation dated March 16, 1987. Your response was also

discussed during a' telephone-conversation between Mr. Craig Jensen and Mr. Ron

Baer of this-office on April 24, 1987. As a result of our review, we find that

additional information is needed. Specifically, the response directed in

Appendix A, " Notice of Violation," transmitted with our letter of March 16,

1987, requires that the University of Oklahoma provide a written statement or

explanation in reply, for each violation regarding: (1) the reason for the

violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and'the

results achieved, (3) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further

violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Your letter of April 14, 1987, did not contain the required information for the

violations. listed below:

Restatement of Violation A

10 CFR Part 20.401(b) requires that each licensee shall maintain records

in the same units used in this part.

10 CFR Part 20.5 states that " radioactivity is commonly, and for purposes of

the regulations in this part shall be, measured in terms of disintegrations

per unit time or in curies." As described in 10 CFR Part 20.201(b), surveys

are an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production,

i use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other

sources of~ radiation under a specific set of conditions.

The NRC inspector determined on January 29, 1987, that surveys of the

Nuclear Engineering Laboratory to determine radioactive contamination

levels performed during the period January 1, 1985, through December 31,

~1986, were not recorded in terms of disintegrations per unit time or in

, curies.

-

f

l V:FRPS C:FRPS C:RPSB

'

REBaer;df BMurray LAYande

S/k/87 J /f /87 f /p /87

l

7

8705270256 870520 1

0

ADOCK 0500

gDR

_

,- , ,-

.The University of Oklahoma 2

Summary of' Licensee's Response to Violation'A

The~ licensee acknowledges the requirements'of 10 CFR Part 20.401(b)

requiring licensee's to maintain records in specified units and that

records for posting radiation fields [20,203(b) and (c)], airborne

radioactivity concentrations [20.103], radiation levels in unrestricted

areas [20.106], releases to the sanitary sewerage system [20.303], and

survey swipes of packages [20.205] are being complied with. The licensee '

contends that neither the regulations nor any regulatory guide

specifically specifies any units or action levels (standard) for lab

swipes. Therefore,.in the absence of a standard, their-procedure .

. identifies the presence of contamination and sets an appropriate level for

corrective action.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response

The licensee denies the apparent violation. However, the licensee's

response implied that the violation did occur, but no reason is given for

its occurrence. The licensee did not address corrective measures to be

taken to prevent further violations and when full compliance will be

achieved. The licensee has provided no basis for withdrawal of the

violation; therefore, the violation remains as proposed.

Restatement of Violation B

10 CFR Part 50.54(q) requires that a licensee authorized to operate a

research reactor shall follow and maintain in effect an emergency plan.

Your emergency plan requires the reactor staff to review the plan annually

to ensure it was up-to-date.

The NRC inspector determined on January 29, 1987, that the letter of

agreement with the Norman Municipal Hospital, which is contained in your

plan, had expired on October 31, 1984.

Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation B

The licensee acknowledged that the letter of agreement was out-of-date,

but contends that the emergency plan was not implemented is an incorrect

observation. It is the licensee's position that there is much more to the

emergency plan-than the letter update and they believe the emergency plan

has been implemented. The licensee also stated the apparent violation

should be an item of noncompliance, not a violation.

The licensee's response included an updated letter of agreement and stated

that they are presently in compliance with the regulations.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response

The licensee neither admits nor denies the apparent violation. It is

implicit in the licensee's response that the violation did occur. No

reason is given for its occurrence. The response states that the letter

T

. . .

The University of Oklahoma 3

of agreement was out-of-date and an updated letter was attached. The

licensee did not address corrective measures to be taken to prevent

further violations and when full compliance will be achieved. The updated

letter from the hospital does not contain an expiration date. The.

licensee stated that the apparent violation should be an item of

noncompliance, not a violation. An item of noncompliance is a violation;

therefore, the violation remains as proposed.

Restatement of Violation C

10 CFR Part 50.54(q) requires that a licensee authorized to operate a

research reactor shall follow and maintain in effect an Emergency Plan.

Section 10.1 of your Emergency Preparedness Plan states that individuals

with emergency response responsibilities such as the University Police and

Norman Fire Department shall be trained on an annual basis in radiation

safety and the facility emergency procedures.

The NRC inspector determined on January 29, 1987, that training in

radiation safety and the facility emergency procedures was not being

received by all individuals from the University Police and Norman Fire

Department who would respond to an emergency at the facility.

Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation C

The licensee stated that the university radiation safety office conducts

annual training for police and fire personnel. The persons that attend

are generally the higher grade officers with training responsibility

within their own departments. The licensee does not have jurisdiction

over these departments and feel they have completed their obligation to

the emergency plan. The licensee's emergency response procedure requires

that a knowledgeable and trained individual is called and responds during

an emergency. The reactor facility is in the process of being mothballed

and the licensee plans to request that the emergency plan be modified or

deleted.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response

The licensee neither admits nor denies the apparent violation. The

licensee does not propose any corrective action to ensure that support

personnel are adequately trained to respond in an emergency nor action to

prevent further violations. Therefore, the violation remains as proposed.

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

. . .

The University of Oklahoma 4

Please provide the supplemental information within 20 days of the date of this

letter.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Lawrence A. Yandell, Chief

Radiological Protection and Safeguards

Branch

cc w/ enclosures:

The University of Oklahoma

ATTN: Dr. E. H. Klehr, Chairman

Reactor Safety Committee

865 Asp Avenue

Nerman, Oklahoma 73019

The University of Oklahoma

ATTN: Dr. C. Jensen, Reactor Director

AMNE

865 Asp Avenue

Norman, Oklahone 73019

bcc to DMB (IE01)

bcc dist, by RIV:

RPB E. H. Johnson, DRSP

RSB RPSB

RSTS Operator MIS System

R. D. Martin, RA RIV File

R. E. Baer H. N. Berkow, NRR

B. Murray L. A. Yandell

R. L. Bangart R. E. Hall

M. E. Emerson

- _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ - . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ - - - _ _ ____ _-_______-__ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - -

7

4 .

. .

. -,

. m, @@ Mll.

T/re plE2M

LL

University ofOftfahoma }j

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE, MECHANICAL

ANO NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

865 Asp Avenue, Room 212

Norman. Oklahoma 73019

(405) 325 5011

April 14, 1987

Mr. J.E. Gagliardo, Chief

Reactor Projects Branch

USNRC - Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive

Suite 1000

Arlington, TX 76011

Docket: 50-112/87-01

License: R-53

O Dear Mr. Gagliardo:

The following letter is in reply to the inspection of 'fr. R.E. Baer and _

.

the notice of violation sent by your office dated March 16, 1987.

I want to make some general observations concerning the inspection and

the discrepancies that were found. I have been involved with at least 5

inspections of AGN type reactors and no inspector or set of inspectors ever

spent more than 2 days at the f acility. Especially one for which the last

inspection showed no items of non-compliance, no violations, had not operated

during the 10 month period prior to the inspection, sud whose total operating

time during the two year period between it.spections was less than the time

spent by the inspector at the f acility.

The second item that concerns me is the way in which the region of fice

has conducted its evaluation of the report by Mr. Baer. At his exit

interview, Mr. Baer indicated that he considered your violation A to be a

violation, which we disagree with. while your violations B and C he considered

.

to be discrepancies or items of non-compliance, with.which I concurred. With ,

that in mind, we set out to correct those deficiences that he found. Ihe i

,

decision to upgrade those items to violations was not _ warranted and I believe

'

to be incorrect.

The following are specific replies to the list of violations:

A. As stated in the Notice of Violation, it is acknowledged that 10CFR Part

20.401(b) requires that "the Licensee shall maintain records in the same units

used in this part, showing the results of surveys required by $20.201(b)."

j $20.201(a) also states that "when appropriate (our emphasis) such

, evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of materials and

l

'

equipment, and measurements of levels of radiation or concentration of

radioactive material present."

%

()

SP

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

. ;, .

.-

e ,

'

Mr. Gagliardo

-April 14, 1987

,

Page Two

<

$20.201(b)(2) requires that each license make surveys as are reasonable

under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may

be present.

In keeping with our commitment to ALARA, this licensee conducts very

. detailed surveys of laboratories. These " surveys" incicie, as appropriate,

i either measurements of radiation fields in mR/hr using calibrated survey

i meters and/or swipe tests to determine the presence of radioactive

j contamination.

A description of our procedure for swipe tests may be of value in '

'

understanding our position. To determine the presence of radioactive

, contamination.:which,would not produce a radiation field, i.e. an mR/hr field

that could be detected in an area survey, .we take "Q Tip" swipes of physical

locations such as bench tops, sinks, floors, doors, etc. These swipes are

I c- analysed in a liquid scintillation counter along with standards and background

samples. The standards are used to verify instrument performance. The policy

4

in evaluating the swipe results (as. printed out by the instrument in cpe) is -

-

that a sample giving a count rate of pwice background or greater requires

attention, i.e. decontamination. It is our premise that if the standards

verify efficiency performance for the instrument, a comparison of sample and

i background eps values is a valid indication of the presence or absence of

radioactive contamination.

~

!

l

10CRF20 is specific (in units of mR/hr, uCi or dpa) for posting of

i

radiation fields [20.203 (b) and (c)], determining concentrations of

radioactive materials in air in restricted areas [20.103], permissible levels

of radiation in unrestricted areas [20.106], releases of licensed material to

l

a sanitary sewerage system [20.303] and survey swipes of received packages of

licensed materials [20.205]. Our systems comply, with these requirements -

including compliance as to units of radiation measurement.

However, neither 10CFR nor any Regulartory Guide detail specifics for lab

swipes in any units as to " action levels." Contrast this, for example, with

20.205(b)(2) which specifies the limit of removable contamination in

,,

microcuries per 100 square centimeter of package surf ace. In other words , if

an absolute radiation unit standard (dpa or uCi, etc.) exists, then such

conversion would be appropriate.

It is oor contention that, in the absence of a standard, our procedure,

as previously stated, identifies the presence of contamination and sets an

appropriate level for corrective action. And the accuracy of such action is

verified by analyzing standards along with the test samples, as previously ,

described. To convert from cpu to dpm or uCi would be a meaningless (and in '

consideration of the large number of samples we take, a non-productive and

very time consuming) task which would not give any better indication of the

presence of contamination nor give a radiation unit to compare to a standard

since a standard does not exist.

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

-

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

,_.S.

. :. . '

.

...

. . ,

Mr. Gagliardo

April 14, 1987

.Page Three .

~

' '

We therefore do not believe, we are in violation and request that you

,

~ reexamine our procedure of lab survey / swipe methods to determine whether or

not ,it is in fact ameting the intent of the regulations. Should reexamination

result in affirmation of your previous position we .would request that you

establish;a regulatory standard so we_ will be able to set ~ action guidelines in ,

response to the results._we will obtain by performing the conversions you would

require.

,

,

We appeal this violation and feel that we are in compliance at this

<

time.

B. Although the letter was out of date, your contention that the emergency

[ plan was not implemented is an incorrect observation. There is much more to

the emergency plan than the letter update and we feel the emergency plan has

. been implemented and that this should be an item of non-compliance not a

, violation.

An updated letter is attached and_ we are in compliance at this time. _

- C. The Radiation Safety Office has annually conducted training for police

and fire personnel and the University Safety office participates in the annual

i and most monthly tests of the evacuation system. The persons that attend are

generally the higher grade officers .with training responsibility.within their

own departments. The reactor facility and the Radiation Safety office have

also produced and distributed a video explaining the precautions and problems

j. that any be encountered at the facility during an emergency. Wh have also

extended our services in the training of these personnel. We feel that since

we have no jurisdiction over these departments that.we have completed our

i

obligation to the emergency plan.

Since it is obviously impossible to guarantee that every person is

j trained, even if we had compulsory means to do so, the emergency response

i procedures detail that some person from the emergency call list must be

i

contacted. This is to insure that a knowledgeable and trained individual is

'

at' the site during an emergency. In addition to the person from the reactor

staff, the procedure details that the Radiation Safety Office must be

notified. This again is an attempt to insure that a trained individual is

present during any eme rgency.

Although we do not feel we are in non-compliance or violation, this item

will be corrected. As was stated to the inspector and discussed previously

with NRC of ficials in Region IV and Washington D.C., the reactor facility is

the process of being mothballed, hence, the reason it has not been operated in

over a year. The application for modification of the technical specifications

will be completed and sent to the NRC by September 1,1987. As part of that

application, we will request that the emergency plan also be modified or

deleted, deleting the requirement for this training. In the interim, the fuel

has been removed and is secured in the fuel storage facility where it will be

kept during the mothball period.

.- - - - . -.- - _ - - - - -_- - - .-.-. - ..--.

e ' '. . . *

. .

.

Mr. Gagliardo

April 14, 1987

Page Four

We..will be in full compliance when the NRC issues new technical

-

specifications for the mothballed reactor.

If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at

(405) 325-1754.

Sincerley y rs,

.

%

Craig .J sen

React r Di ctor

cc: Davis M. Egle,

Director, ANNE

v

CMJ/sj b

.

-.

.

Attachment

e

4

i

E

i

l

!

l

!

l

,

w,- **'H* *

,

..,; -

.

8

?

-

._

NORMAN REGIONALHOSPITAL

.

April 7, 1987 -

Mr. Craig Jensen

University of Oklahoma

865 Asp, Room 212

Norman, Oklahoma 73019

Re: Services and use of Norman Regional Hospital facilities in the

event of a radiological incident at the University of Oklahoma.

o-

Dear Mr. Jensen:

-

By this letter, Norman Regio'nal Hospital agrees to provide emergency

-

care and other necessary services to the University of Oklahoma in the

event of the implementation of the " UNIVERSITY OF OKLABONA RADIO 1DGICAL

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN". The emergency care specific to a radia-

tion disaster will be provided in accordance with Normen Regional

-

Hospital's radiation disaster plan, and in accordance with our regular

Emergency Department services.

i

!

This agreement will be effective issuediately and remain in force as long

l as the parties are in agreement. In the event Norman Regional Hospital

!

desires to terminate this agreement, a 60 day written notification will

I be provided to the University of Oklahoma.

Sincere 1 ,

3

'

M l' ay

'[CraigW.

, Admini t stor

ones

.

7

J

CWJ: dig

ec: Marge Rosenfelt

Bruce Smith

<

. .