ML20151Y882

Responds to Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty on 880713 in Amount of $5,000.Corrective Actions:Dosimeters Issued to Current NSC Employees Reviewed & Updated

ML20151Y882
Person / Time
Site:	05000128
Issue date:	07/28/1988
From:	Richardson H TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
Shared Package
ML20151Y885	List: ML20151Y882 ML20151Y903
References
EA-88-092, EA-88-92, NUDOCS 8808290074
Download: ML20151Y882 (16)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ .

Texas Engineering Experiment Station The Texas AQA University System a College Station, Texas 77843-3577 409/845-1321 IEEE July 28, 1988 Director ,

Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No.: 50-128, License No. R-83

Reference:

EA 88-92

Subject:

Licensee Reply to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated July 13, 1988 (NRC Inspection Reports 50-128/88-01 and 88-03)

Dear Sir:

The following response is submitted by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Licensee), a part of the Texas A&M University System, in regard to the notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil penalty issued on July 13, 1988 by the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV Office. This reply is submit ~ced under oath of affirmation and represents the views and i opinions of the administration of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station and the management of the Nuclear Science Center.

This response is organized in two separate sections. One addresses the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty and the other addresses the inspection findings documented in Section 2 of NRC Inspection Report 50-128/88-01.

Also attached to this response is the report of the Reactor Safety Board Sub-committee chaired by Dr. John W. Poston. This report is the detailed review of beam port experiments discussed in the Confirmatory Action Letter of March 17, 1988 (R. D.

Martin, NRC Region IV, to Dr. H. H. Richardson).

I want to assure the NRC that I am fully committed to safe operation of the Nuclear Science Center and to observing all federal regulations. As you recall, I committed to a review of the radiation protection program during the Enforcement Conference on April 5, 1988. The review will be conducted by 8808290074 080729 gDR ADOCK 0500 a ((/

0I .

c Page 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 28, 1988 John W. Cure, III and Tawfik Raby. Mr. Cure is President of Health Physics Consultation and a recognized authority in the field of health phycics. He has conducted many similar reviews at a wide variety of installations around the country. Tawfik Raby is Deputy Chief, the Reactor Radiation Division at the National Bureau of Standards. Mr. Raby is well known for his expertise in the field of research reactor operations and management.

Mr. Cure and Mr. Raby will come to College Station on September 15 and 16. Prior to their arrival, we will be providing them with in-depth information about the radiation protection programs at the Nuclear Science Center. During their stay on campus, Mr. Cure and Mr. Raby will speak with all of the individuals involved and conduct all review they consider useful to provide an independent assessment of our radiation protection program. The dates of September 15 and 16 were chosen since this would be after the beginning of the fall semester so that all personnel at the Nuclear Science Center, the office of Radiological Safety, and the Administration of the Texas Engineering Extension Station will be available.

Both reviewers will be completing reports within one month after their visits. These will assist me in providing a strengthened radiation protection program for the Nuclear Science Center. In addition, effective July 21, 1988, I have appointed Dr. John W. Poston, Head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering, to the position of Director of Nuclear Reactor Research Programs in the Texas Engineering Experiment Station.

This position appears in our recently amended Technical Specifications in the line of responsibility from the Director of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station; i.e., the Licensee, to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Research Programs to the Director of the Nuclear Science Center. Dr. Poston is an internationally recognized authority on health physics and radiation protection.

He has had extensive experience in industry, national laboratories, and universities. He will provide extremely valuable expertise and leadership in the conduct of our programs at the Nuclear Science Center.

Page 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 28, 1988 We are not contesting the civil penalty, and a check for

$5,000.00 has been mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. on July 21, 1988.

Respectfully submitted hibWY Dr. Herbert H. Richardson, Director Sworn to before me the undersigned authority this 1st day of August , 1988.

d - n 17 1 & YJ b t E o ,. nN kaa /. ~

/S$!

Notary Public Barbara Blaine Smith c(Date)

In and For Brazos County, Texas Commission expires 10-8-90 Enclosures xc: R. D. Martin, USNRC, Region IV K. L. Peddicord, Assistant Director, TEES J. W. Poston, Head, Nuclear Engineering Dept.

F. Jennings, Chairman, Reactor Safety Board D. E. Feltz, Director, Nuclear Science Center

Reply to'a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Texas A&M University Docket No. 50-128 Nuclear Science Center License No. R-83

-College Station, Texas EA 88-92 The following is J in response to the USNRC Region IV letter of July 13. 1988 re-garding violations _and the proposed imposition of civil penalty.

I. Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty A. 10CFR20.202(a) requires, in part, that each licensee supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment to, and shall require the use of such equipment by, personnel who enter restricted and high radiation areas.

10CFR20. 201( b) requires that each licensee make such surveys as may be necessary to comply with all sections of Par t 20. As defined in

- 10CFR20,201( a ) , "survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incicent to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions.

Contrary to the above, during the period August 19 through November 17, 1987, an experimenter working in a high radiation area containing a mixed gamma neutron radiation field was not provided appropriate neutron personnel monitoring equipment. In addition, an adequate evaluation was not made to determine compliance with 10CFR20.101 which limits radiation doses to individuals in restricted areas in that the dosimeter was not properly placed to measure the maximum dose received by the experimenter.

10CFR20.202(a) Inappropriate Personnel Monitoring Equipment (1) Admission or Denial of Alleged Violation:

The violation is admitted to have occurred as stated.

(2) Reasons for the Violation:

The violation can be attributed to two key reasons: The primary 4

reason was the failure of the Sr. Health Physicist to realize that the experimenter's dosimetry (Landauer TLD-100) was not calibrated, or intended for use in monitoring of neutron dose rates. In addi-tion, formal review of the experiment was not conducted by the NSC Staff (including the Sr. Health Physicist, NSC Director, and the Experimenter) prior to commencement of activities. Formal review of applicable procedures, badge type and placement should have been part of the initial experiment review process.

( 3) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken:

(a) The TAMU Radiatior. Safety Office and the NSC Have evcluated dosimetry services which are currently available from the University's regular dosimetry vendor, Techeps/Landauer Inc.

At the request of the RSO, the vendor has agreed to supply a new dosimeter combination comprised of a film badge and a NUTRAK-ER badge in a single envelope. The film badge contains a beta , ' gamma , thermal neutron sensitive film while the NUTRAK-ER badge consists of an albedo TLD package and a CR-39 packet. This combination should provide response to neutrons of all energies encountered at the NSC.

(b) The type of dosimeters issued to current NSC employees in-cluding NSC Management and to NSC Experimenters have been reviewed and updated.

(c) The procedural requirements regarding tra.ining and review and approval of experiments have been reviewed and upgraced. For details of the proposed system, refer to the attached report of the Reactor Safety Board Subcommittee (Appendix A)

(4) Corrective Steps That Will be Taken:

Implementation of corrective actions listed in (3) above should be sufficient to prevent recurrence of this type of violation.

2

c -

(5) The Date for Full Compliance:

New dosimetry and procedural revisions concerning experiment review and approval shall be in place by January 1,- 1989 B. 10CFR20.202(b)(3) defines a "High Radi3 tion Area" as any area, accessible-to personnel, 'in which there exists rsdiation at such levels that a major portion of the body could receive in any 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> a dose in excess of 100 millirem.

10CFR20,203(c) requires, in part- that each high radiation area be posted with signs bearing the radiation cymbol and the words CAUTION -

HIGH RADIATION AREA and that each entrance or access point to a high radiation area shall be: (1) equipped with a control device which shall cause the level of radiation to be reduced below that of a high radiation area; or (2) equipped with a control device which shall energi2e a con-spicuous visible or audible alarm signal in such a manner that. the individual entering the high radiation area and the licensee or a supervisor of the activity are made aware of the entry; or (3). maintained locked except during periods when access to the area is required, with positive control over each individual entry.

. Contrary to the above, during the period August 19 through November 30, 1987, on various dates and for various periods of time, an area adjacent to Reactor Beam Port No. 1, with dose rates greater than 100 millirem per hour (up to 5 rem /hr)' of combined gamma and neutron radiation levels was not posted with a sign bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTION - HIGH RADIATION AREA, and each access was not controlled in accordance with 10CFR20.203(c).

10CFR20.203(c) liigh Radiation Area Not Posted (1) Jdmission or Denial of Alleged Violation:

The violation is admitted to have occurred.

(2) Reasons for the Violation:

The reason for the violation was determined to be inadequate radiation surveys. Installation of the beam collimator in NSC -

Beam Port No. 1 was performed while the reactor was operating in a different part of the reactor pool. Therefore, the initial radiation survey which was conducted was of little or no value.

In the ensuing three week period (August 19 through September 8),

until another survey was completed and borated paraffin blocks were first utilized to reduce beam radiation levels, the reactor was operated for various lengths of time on eight days when recorded power levels and reactor positions produced high radiation . levels at the exit of Beam Port No. 1 whether the beam port door was open or closed. During those first eight days, no "CAUTION HIGH RADIATION SIGNS" were posted and adequate use of the NSC Lower Research Level flashing lights (10CFR20.203(c)(2) controls) cannot be determined from existing documentation.

(3) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken:

(a) Use of Beam Port No. 1 has been halted and will not be allowed to recommence without Reactor Safety Board approval.

(b) A beam stop has been constructed and positioned to attenuate radiations exiting Beam Port No. 1.

(c) A fence with locked gates has been constructed to restrict access to the Beam Port No. I facilities.

(d) The fenced area has been posted with signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTION - HIGH RADIATION AREA and equipped with a local red flashing light to alert persons entering the area and remote audible and visual indicators to alert control room reactor operators of entry into the area.

(e) A video camera has -

a lled on the NSC Lower Research Level (LRL) to alle.. t er' room personnel to monitor entry and egress on the LRL ant. ,a enable control room personnel to better monitor activities on the LRL and specifically in the Beam Port No. I area.

k 4

o ..

(f) Review and evaluation of Radiation Area and High Radiation Area Controls has been conducted both by the Radition Safety Office and by the Reactor Safety Board Subcommittee. The resulting RSB Subcommittee recommendations are presented in the attached report ( Appendix A)

(4) . Corrective Steps That Will be Taken:

In the RSB Subcommittee. Report several additional changes are out-lined which will affect beam port expc'iments on the NSC Lower Research Level. In general these include changes to existing warning signs; changes in LRL access restrictions; changes in mezzanine level access restrictions; changes in 10CFR20. 203( c )( 2) contrcl circuitry; and associated procedural changes. For detailed information concerning RSB required modtfications refer to the attached RSB Subcommittee Report ( Appendix A).

(5) The Date for Full Compliance:

~

Full compliance with physical and procedura1 changes described in (3) and (4) above shall be completed by January 1989 C. 10CFR19 12 requires, in part, that all individuals working in a re-stricted area be instructed in the health prctection problems associated with exposure to radioactive materials or radiation, in precautior.s or procedures to minimize exposure, and in the purposes and functions of protective devices employed.

Contrary to the above, during the period of August 19 through i November 30, 1987, the licensee did not instruct at least seven individuals working in a restricted area near the Reactor Beam Port No. 1 in the radiological hazards associated with working in the area, the methods to be employed to reduce their exposure from the

- beam port, or the proper positioning of dosimetry to ensure accurate dose toeasurements.

it :

10CFR19.12 Insufficient Health Physics Instruction (1) Admission or Denial cf Alleged Violationr The alleged violativns are adTitted to have occurred.

1 (2) Reason for the Violation:

{f tlc chief experimenter, the Mechanical Engineering graduate student for whom the research was being conducted, and' one of the Nuclear Engineer 4.ng graduate students was each provided verbal instructions by the NSC 3r. Health Physicist. However, no written documentation of subject matter or written tests (with the exception of routine NSC facility indoctrination training) was generated or administered to any of the three. The only indication that spec'fic health physics information regar' ding Beam Port No. I was communicated is a radiation .n'rvey containing limitod written instructions which was signed by the chief experimenter. Two other NSC employees whose participation in the experiment was arranged by the chief experi-menter without the knowledge of or assistance from the NSC Health Physics Staff, were provided no health physics training.

Training was inadequate for all persons involved due to insnfficient health physics data presented to the experimenters, language /

communication barriers, complete lack of instruction, and/or dis-regard for information provided, (3) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken:

A comprehensive experiment-related training program has been developed by the NSC staff and incorporated in the RSB Sub-committee recommendatiors.

(4) Corrective Steps That Will be Taken:

(a) The approved RSB Subcommit.ee Report requires that training be developed for all existing and future NSC experiments.

(b) NSC personnel, NSC-HP personnel, and NSC experimenters will 6-

E be required to complete these training sessions prior to being allowed to conduct or take part in the experiment.

(c) The beam Port No.1 experiment will not be allowed to restart k until training is completed.

(d) The experiment review r.nd approval syetem defined in the attached BSO Su'committet o Report includes consideration of training requirements as an integral part of the process.

(54 Date for Full Compliance:

(a) Training program implementation shall be completed by 1 March 1989 II, yiolation Not Assessed a Civil Penalty 10CFR50.59(a) requires, in part, that the holder of a license may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unlers the proposed change involves a change to the Technical Specifications or is an unreviewed safety question. An un -

reviewed safety question is created if the consequences of an accident or the malfunction of equirrent important to safety previously evaluated may be increased.

10CFa50.59(b) requires that the licensee maintait, records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the safety analysis report. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.

Contrary to the above, the licensee had not performed a d documented a safety evaluation for a modification made to radioactive .. quid effluent storage tank No. 3 Specifically, during the period January through December 1986 the licensee modified the drain line, which is described in Chapter IX of the safety analysis report, creating a potential unmonitored drain path by installation of an open ended drain line that contained only a single iso-lation valve. No evaluation was performed to evaluate this change to a

's

single unlocked isolation valve even though all other potential-drain paths  ;

contained double valve isolation or locked shut valves.

i A. 10CFR50.59(b) Undocumented Facility Change This is an unresolved item from a NRC inspection of January 12-14, 1987, reference 50-128/87-01, which was addressed in a letter (8 April 1987) from D. E. Feltz, NSC, to R. D. Martin, NRC Region IV. At that time the valve was plugged and use of the tank suspended until proper review. 'he auxiliary liquid waste tank is normally empty and not on line to the.

liquid radioactive waste system. The installation of the valve was re-ported in the 1986 NSC Annual Report issued March 1987 At that time proper documentation of the valve installation as not an unreviewed safety. question was unavailable. A review by a NSC staff meeting

. July 11, 1988 concluded that the valve offers no new hazard to thse previously reviewed in the SAR or SOP's and the Reactor Safety Board

approved a revised SOP (VII-C8) to properly document the valve addition

( Appendix B'. The valve will remain plugged until needed and will be used as directed by revised SOP.

1. 4 q-O' h,2+ Reply to NRC Inspection Report 50-128/88-01 Section 2 Texas A&M University Docket No. 50-128 Nuclear Science Center License No. R-83 College Station, Texas EA 88-92 The following 'is in response to Open Items documented in the inspection findings in Section 2 of NRC Inspection Report 50-128/88-01. March 30, 1988.

I. Effectiveness of Health Physics Personnel at the NSC 128/8801-06 The circumstances of the conduct of a single series of experiments were the

. bases of the conclusion that facility HP's were intimidated by NSC experi-menters and that radiation protection requirements were not being aggres-

~

sively enforced. This was addressed at the April 5, 1988 Enforcement Conference and it was stated that there was no intimidation of the HP staff.

The licensee is reformulating procedures to help strengthen review and approval of experiments as well as experimenter and staff training.

(1) The experiment review and approval procedures provide for documented health physics interaction and for Reactor Safety Board review of potential radiation protection problems. The experiment training program will includo documented health physics training by certified HP instructors for anyone involved with experimental facilities.

(2) These draft procedures, shown in Appendix A, are scheduled to be finalized by August 15, 1988.

(3) The experiment review and approval will be fully implemented by January 1, 1969 The experimenter /NSC staff training will be implemented by March 1, 1989 l

Neutron Dose Rate Instrumer.ts 128/8801-07 II.

As discussed at the $ April 1988 Leetin6 at NBC Region IV Headquarters and -

! later verified in the NRC Inspection Report 50-128/88-03, the NSC neutron I

L l

• * , - ' .- ,a, .,

J i.

dose rate instrument responded approximately three times higher than did the NRC instrument. This difference is as expected in view of the .different calibration sources utilized. In addition. the upper range of the instrument is significantly greater than the 1 rem /hr stated in 88-01.

(1) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken:

The TAMU Office of Radiological Safety, in support of the NSC, has pur-chased one new auto-ranging neutron dose rate instrument. The instru-ment was requisitioned prior to 1 May 1988 as per previously stated TAMU commitments and was received 19 July 1988.

(2) Corrective Steps That Will be Taken:

The newly received auto-ranging neutron dose rate instrument will be sent to Southwest Radiation Calibration Center of the University of Arkansas for calibration to a D 0 moderated 2 Californium-252 standard.

The Cf-252 - calibrated instrument shall then be experimentally compared to the TAMU RSO's PuBe calibration sources.

l (3) The Date for Full Compliance:

The new instrument shall be calibrated to D 02 moderated Cf-252 and placed into service at the NSC by 1 September 1988.

III. Hand and Foot Monitors 128/8801-08 As promised in the 5 April 1968 conference at NRC Region IV Headquarters in i

Arlington, reviews of (1) the NSC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) re-garding use of the monitor; (2) the contamination control philosophy for the NSC confinement building; (3) procedures regarding maintenance of the moni-tor. and (4) the procurement of additional monitors or equipment as necessary hat. 5een completed. In conclusion, the high readings on the monitors were l

due not to dirt or debris but to reactor production of radioactive gases (particularly N-16 and Ar-41) which is especially high during maximum power operations in the stall-end of the pool. Relocation of the monitor is not advised due to its critical location at the exit of the NSC Materials l

l 2

l l e '.

l

, g 3. 3 Handling Area. Tne Materials Handling Area where the monitor is located is designated as a shoe cover area. Additional shielding would be largely ineffective since :penings large enough to facilitate insertion of hands and feet must be maintainea.

Additional hand and root monitors located near the exit of the confinement building (near the Reception Room) were consid3 red. However, a comparison of cost-versus-benefit does not favor the purchase. As basis for thia judge-ment, even with 800 cpm background, a minimum count rate of less than 200 cpm above background should be easily detectablo.

Finally, NSC operating history does not indicate that any problems exist for which routine facility surveys and existing monitors are not adequate to control.

(1) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken:

(a) Radiation Safety Office review of open item No. 128/8801-08.

(b) The monitors have been cleaned and verified to be free of con-tamiration.

(2) Corrective Steps That Will be Taken:

The NSC Health Physics staff will routinely clean the monitors to en-sure that background levels are maintained as low as practical.

( 3) The Date for Full Compliance: >

These actions address all aspects of concern identified in open it.5 128/8801-08 and are considered to be fully implemented.

IV. Diving Activities 128/8801-09 The licensee has refered the evaluation of the radiation exposure control aspects of diving activities in the reactor pool to the Reactor Safety Board.

(1) On July 14, 1988, the RSB reviewed and approved original pool dive pro-J

cedures. These procedures have bean assigned to the SOP's. The pro-cedure addresses all aspects including staff review 'of primary and contingency plans (as necessary), personnel assignments, reactor safety, personnel safety (health physics), training, and documentation. A copy or the procedurtt is found in Appendix C. The procedures evaluated with respect to Information Notice 82-32 and revealed no significant dis-agreement. Additionally, the TAMU RSO has purchased appropriate radia- '

tion detection equipment to be used in conjunction with NSC meters to measure. dose rates in the reactor pool.

(2) Future pool dives will follow these procedures.

(3) These actions address all aspects of concern identified in open item 128/8801-09 and are considered to be fully implemented.

l l

l l

1 4

,,_.-.-~-.s -~----n-- -. . - - -a..- -- - - +- a ~ a. ---.+------s.=-- - ~ su nu -~. - u ---s - w - .. u

. - ~~ s 3 3 4

4 D-I i

I

.I l

?

4 _.

J 1

l l

J

.t' s

Y 4

1 9

b i

\

t l- APPENDIX A l

O