ML20214H044
| 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
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."
%
()
_. _- - -- .-. - _ - - . ~ . _ . . .
. ;, .
.-
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
<
. .