ML19259A907
| ML19259A907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001201 |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis, Gibson A, Millsap W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259A906 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1201-78-15, NUDOCS 7901110186 | |
| Download: ML19259A907 (7) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES
[p>#8800 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,o,,
R EGION 11
- g g y, g
101 M ARIETT A sTRE ET. N.W.
g ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
- o
'%, *... + /
Report No.:
70-1201/78-15 Docket No.:
70-1201 Licensee: Babcock and Wilcox Company Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Post Office Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Facility Name:
Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Inspection at:
Lynchburg, Virginia Inspection conducted:
November 13-17, 1978 Inspectors:
J. H. Davis l
O' ~
O/8 /
Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on November 13-17, 1978 (Report No. 70-1201/78-15)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection covering radiation pro-tection procedures; instruments and equipment; external exposure control; internal exposure control; posting and labeling; contamination control; surveys; and notifications and reports. The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours on-site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e 7901110/N
RII Rpi No. 70-1201/78-15 I-l DETAILS I Prepared by:
had
/2/e/7f J. H. Da s, Radiation Specialist Date Radiati Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch ID. / rh.a.~ D a/ M W. J. Millfpp, Radiati@ Specialist Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: Novembe 13-17, 1978 k-t 2 /s /7 /
Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Cnief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Persons Contacted E. J. Silk, Plant Manager
- J. Ficor, Manager, Quality Assurance
- D. W. Zeff, Manager (Acting), Safety, Licensing and Safeguards
- R.
L. Vinton, Health Physicist K. E. Shy, Supervisor, Health and Safety P. A. Cure, Health Physicist E. Cyrus, Shift Supervisor Technicians, Four Operators, Three
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Unresolved Item (70-1201/77-2/2), Radioactive liquid releases to unrestricted areas. Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that Facility Engineering and Health and Safety had agreed to install a filtration system similar to the one which had been leased for testing purposes (see Report No. 70-1201/78-3, paragraph 4). Licensee represen-tatives stated that requests for quotations would be made shortly.
Approval of the expenditure had not been obtained from corporate head-quarters.
Licensee representatives adjusted their objective for filter installation to March 1, 1979.
Licensee representatives stated that careful attention is being given to potential sources for contamination of liquid effluents.
RII Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-2 3.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were disclosed during the inspection.
4.
Radiation Protection Procedures Examination of selected health and safety proce'dures revealed that the licensee had developed procedures required by 10 CFR 20 and license conditions. Examination of a licensee internal memorandum dated August 4, 1978, and entitled " Health and Safety Annual Procedure Review", revealed that the annual review of health and safety procedures required by license conditions had been completed. No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Instruments and Equipment Examination of radiation instrumentation calibration records for July through October 1978 revealed that ca?ibrations had been performed at the frequency required by license conditions. During the inspection, an inspector verified that selected instrumentation available for use were operable, bad been calibrated within time periods required by license conditions and, if applicable, alarmed at indicated alaru points. No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
6.
Exposure Control a.
External Exposures An inspector examined personnel dosimetry reports dated October 9, 1978 and November 8, 1978 to determine cumulative and quarterly exposures for the current year.
The records revealed that apparently no individuals had been exposed to external radiation in excess of the limits established by 10 CFR 20.101.
Examination of self-reading dosimetry records for July through October 1978 revealed that individuals engaged in sealed-source manipulation wore self-reading dosimeters as required by license conditions.
No # tems of noncompliance were identified in this area.
b.
g ernal Exposures (1) Air Sampling (a) An inspector reviewed the weekly average static air sample results for the time period from the week ending January 8 to the week ending October 29, 1978 for the following static air samplers:
blender glove
RIl Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-3 box (#10); slug press (#12); granulator scrap feed hood
(#13); and pellet press (#14). The inspector noted that during the second quarter of 1978, air sampler #10 ex-ceeded 25 percent MPC on the average as was the case for air sampler #13 for the second and third quarters of 1978. The inspector reviewed the corrective action and documentation required by License Condition 8.2.3 when a quarterly average air sampler exceeds 25 percent MPC.
The inspector had no further questions.
(b) An inspector discussed with a licensee representative his provisions to account for the losses due to penetration of the air sampling filter media as well as the losses due to alpha particle absorption by the filter media (burial).
The licensee representative stated that published DOP test data show that the filter media efficiency varied only insignificantly from 100 percent and that it was assumed that losses due to burial were also insignificant. The inspector expressed concern that these losses might be large enough to significantly prejudice the licensee's determination of the concen-trations of airborne radioactive material. The licensee representative stated that these matters would be taken under consideration.
The inspector stated that he would review the results of the licensee's efforts during a subsequent inspection (78-15-01).
(c) An inspector reviewed the weekly average air sample results for the time period from the week ending July 7J to the week ending October 29, 1978 for air sampler #21 located near the grinder feed hood and noted that the weekly averages were consistently in excess of 25 percent MPC during the months of September and October 1978. The inspector expressed concern about these elevated airborne concentrations and discussed with a licensee representative the possible relationship between the elevated airborne concentrations and the marginally acceptable f ace velocity for the grinder feed hood noted in paragraph 10.a.(1).
The licensee representative stated that a general solution addressing both the grinder feed hood air flow and the elevated levels of airborne contamination was under
..-tive consideration. The inspector stated that he would review the results of the licensee's efforts during a subsequent inspection (78-15-02).
4, I
i e
1 RII Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-4 (2) Bioassay l
(a) An inspector reviewed the results of vendor lung counts made on March 6 and 7, 1978 and on August 14 and 15, 1978 1
and compared these results to the licensee's internal action level of 125 ug U-235 (Procedure AS-1121, " Uranium Bioassay Program").
In no case did the inspector note a lung burden in excess of 100 ug.U-235. The inspector j
j noted three individuals who, on the basis of perhaps inconclusive data, appeared to have increasing lung i
3 i
burdens.
A licensee representative stated that he was aware of these apparent trends and that these three i
individuals were scheduled for lung counts at the next 1
opportunity. The inspector had no further questions.
j t
(b) The inspector reviewed urinalysis results for thirteen f
selected individuals for the years of 1977 and 1978, and l
compared the results to the internal action level of 15 l
ug U (Procedure AS-1121, " Uranium Bioassay Program"). In
,?
! /2 no case did the inspector note a result in excess of the 7
action level. The inspector had no further questions.
(3) MPC-Hour Records The inspector reviewed the MPC-hour records for the third quarter of 1978 and the fourth quarter of 1978 to November 13 for all persons for whom the licensee maintains these records.
These records were compared to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103(a)(1) and 20.103(b)(2).
The inspector noted no
,(
(
case in which these limits were exceeded. The inspector had no further questions.
(4) Respiratory Protection Program j
s
_j, Examination of Health and Safety Procedure AS-1109, p-
~4l
" Respiratory Protection Program", Revision 4, dated April 18, l
1978, revealed that respiratory protection procedures and a i
policy statement had been establ_ished as required by 10 i
CFR 20.103.
L.,
I An inspector examined annual medical and training records for r
j five licensee personnel who worked in the controlled area of the licensee's facility and detertained that these phases of j
the program had been completed in accordance with 10 CFR 20.103.
i Discussions with Health and Safety technicians revealed that workers required to wear respirators were fitted and tested each time the respirators were donned.
Discussion with g
licensee representatives and examination of selected respirator survey records for June through August 1978 m.m
RII Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-5 revealed that the licensee's program for cleaning, decon-taminating, surveying and inspecting respirators was being conducted in accordance with licensee's procedures.
Observations r.ade by the inspector revealed that respirators ready for use were stored in sealed plastic bags and were readily accessible.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the area of internal exposure control.
7.
Posting, Labeling and Control a.
Posting and Labeling Observations made by the inspectors during the inspection revealed that posting and labeling were performed in accordance with regu-lations and license conditions.
b.
Contamination Control An inspector examined selected surface contamination survey rerards for July through October 1978. Discussions with licensee represen-tatives and examination of Health and Safety activities records indicated that corrective actions had been implemented in those cases where contamination levels had been found above action levels, as required by license conditions.
At the request of an inspector, a licensee representative conducted a smear survey in the pellet production area and the change room adjacent to this area; the seventeen smears were taken at locations selected by the inspector. The results of these smears were compared to the licensee's contamination control action levels and were discussed with a licensee representative.
The inspector had no further questions on contamination control.
c.
Radiation Work Permit Program An inspector examined selected Radiation Work Permit records for September through October 1978. Discussions with licensee represen-tatives and examination of the RWP file indicated that the RWP program was conducted in accordance with licensee procedures. No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
RII Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-6 8.
Surveys a.
Area Surveys Direct radiation survey records for the area surrounding the fuel rod scanner dated October 26, 1978 and contamination control surveys for the period July 1 to November 11, 1978, revealed that these surveys had been performed as required by license conditions and 10 CFR 20.
b.
Sealed Source Leak Tests Examination of sealed source leak test records dated June 13, 1978, and discussions with licensee representatives revealed that tests were performed at the f requency required by license conditions. No leaking sources had been identified by the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
9.
Notification and Reports Examination of the terminated employee file for January through April 1978 revealed that a notice of exposure had been furnished to the
-individual as required by 10 CFR 20.409. The licensee had furnished NRC reports required by 10 CFR 20.407, 10 CFR 20.408 and 10 CFR 70.59.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
10.
Ventilation and Air Filtration Systems a.
Hood and Elephant Trunk Face Velocity Surveys (1) At the request of the inspector, a licensee representative, in the inspector's presence, performed a f ace velocity survey of twelve hoods and four elephant trunks in the pellet production area.
In all cases, the hoods and elephant trunks met the requirements of License Condition 8.2.2 of 100 linear feet per minute for hoods and 1300 linear feet per minute for elephant trunks.
However, the grinder feed hood face velocity only barely exceeded the limit, a fact which gains significance due to its relationship to another problem discussed in paragraph 6.b(1)(c). The inspector had no further questions.
(2) An inspector reviewed the licensee's records of the air flow surveys of hoodr and elephant trunks for the time period from August 3 to Vovember 14, 1978, and compared these to the requirements of License Condition 8.2.2.
In all cases, the
RII Rpt. No. 70-1201/78-15 I-7 surveys had been performed weekly and in each case the average face velocity exceeded the applicable limit. The inspector had no further questions.
b.
HEPA Filters An inspector discussed licensee representatives procurement specifications which u.o been implemented by the licensee.
Licensee representatives stated that establishing the specifi-cations was an attempt to avoid potential problems regarding the procurement of suitable HEPA filters for the ventilation system.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
c.
DOP Testing of Ventilation Filtration System An inspector discussed with licensee representatives their practice of DOP testing across two banks of HEPA filters (see Report No.
70-1201/78-6, paragraph 10.c).
Licensee representatives stated that the instrument used for this purpose was capable of detecting leakage below that quantity which would indicate a system efficiency required by license conditions.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
11.
Bulleting and CircularsBulletin 78-07, " Protection Afforded by Air-Line Respirators and Supplied Air Hoods". Licensee representatives stated that no supplied-air hoods nor air-line respirators were used at the facility. A formal negative response was submitted by the licensee on June 19, 1978 (Closed).
12.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on November 17, 1978, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
.