ML19289E514
| ML19289E514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1979 |
| From: | Dan Collins, Gibson A, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E510 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1151-79-02, 70-1151-79-2, NUDOCS 7904210276 | |
| Download: ML19289E514 (5) | |
Text
'p* ar%g#o, UNITED sTATI?S NUCtEAR REGULATOR'.' COMMISSION
[
o REGloN il 5
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s.o*ses*/
Report No.:
70-1151/79-2 Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Fuel Division Drawer R Columbia, South Carolina 29205 License No.: SNM-1107 j
Inspectors:
V d!I!)i D.
M.' Collins, Radiation Specialist Date Signed h7h9 G. L. Troup, Radgation Specialist Dhte Signed Approved by:
<h4 d Il / ~/ 'l A. F. Gibson, Section Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed
SUMMARY
Inspection on January 30 - February 2, 1979.
Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of radiation protection instrumentation, external and internal exposure control, posting, labeling and control, notification,and reports, unusual occurrences and previous inspection findings.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (deficiency: posting of door into UF bay (79-02-01)). No apparent 6
deviations were found in six areas.
790421027k
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. J. Harnett, Manager, Materials
- R. C. Drescher, Manager, Chemical Operations
- W. L. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- C. F. Sanders, Manager, Radiological and Environmental Engineering
- E.
K. Reitler, Fellow Engineer L. J. Weatherford, Manager, Health Physics Operations R. K. Burklin, R&E Engineer L. Coco, R&E Engineer R. Hayes, R&E Engineer R. Fischer, R&E Engineer J. Heath, Associate R&E Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included 4 technicians, 1 operator.
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 2, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. With regard to the unlabeled burial boxes in the outside area (paragraph 7.d), licensee repre-sentatives stated that the boxes would be labeled and/or posted. With respect to the posting of the door to the UF bay, licensee representatives 6
stated that a more permanent method of posting would be investigated and the proper posting installed.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (78-15-01) Labeling Contaminated Scrap Disposal Boxes.
Disposal boxes in the outside areas have not been labeled.
(paragraph 7.d.)
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
External Exposure Control a.
An inspector reviewed the licensee's program for external exposure control, including review dosimetry records and exposure history files, observations of control practices, and discussions with
. licensee personnel.
Specific areas inspected were:
(1) personnel monitoring requirements of 10 CFR 20.202.a; (2) permissible doses of 10 CFR 20.101.a; (3) extended permissible doses of 10 CFR 20.101.b; (4) exposure nistory requirements of 10 CFR 20.102; and (5) exposure records of 10 CFR 20.401.a. The inspector reviewed both the report provided by the contractor who provides the dosimetry service and the plant exposure report in determining compliance with the exposure limits. A licensee representative informed the inspector that no one was currently authorized to receive extended doses per 10 CFR 20.101.b. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
In reviewing the exposure report and records, the inspector noted that one individual had recieved doses to the skin which were higher than other workers doing similar work. Although his quarterly doses for the first three quarters of 1978 were within the limits of 10 CFR 20.101.a, the total dose was higher than those of other workers.
A licensee representative stated that this would be reviewed and discussed with the individual to determine possible actions to reduce his doses to the skin. The inspector had no further questions.
c.
10 CFR 20.104 specifies the limits for occupational exposure (external and internal) of minors. A licensee representative informed the inspector that no minors were employed in the radiation controlled areas of the plant. The inspector reviewed the dosimetry printout and determined from the dates of birth that no minors were included in the program.
The inspector had no further questions on the exposure of minors.
6.
Internal Exposure Control 10 CFR 20.103, 10 CFR 20.201, License Condition 25 and Section 3.2.2 of the license application, requires the licensee to limit intakes of radioactive material, to survey to verify that concentrations were below limits and to take actions at specified action points which are below the limits. An inspector reviewed list of personnel on work restriction, investigation reports for exposures greater than permissible concentrations and records of any exposures greater than regulatory limits. A licensee representative stated that to personnel had been exposed to greater than the regulatory limits; this was confirmed by the work restriction and investigation files. The inspector had no further questions.
7.
Posting, Labeling and Control a.
10 CFR 20.203.(b) et. seq. specifies the posting and control requirements for radiation areas, high radiation areas, airborne radioactivity areas, and radioactive materials. License condition 12 specifies the posting requirement for containers in lieu of the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203.(f). During tours of the plant areas,
. the inspectors observed that entrances to the restricted area were posted as required and that the entrances to the health physics laboratory area were posted with the required container warning signs.
b.
On January 30, the inspectors observed that a door which provides access from the outside into the UF bay was not posted. Licensee 6
representative acknowledged that the door should have been posted it provides access to radioactive materials areas as well as as potential radiation and airborne radioactivity areas. On February 1, an inspector observed that the same door had a container warning sign affixed but no other warning signs. After investigating the situation, a licensee representative stated that the required signs had been affixed on January 31, but due to the door banging against a structural member when it was opened, the plastic signs had broken and fallen off. A licensee management representative stated that action to install more durable signs, such as painting the signs on the door or installing metal signs. The inspector informed licensee management that this was considered to be an item of noncompliance in that the door was not posted in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203(c) and License Condition 12; this was acknowledged by licensee management representatives.
c.
10 CFR 19.11 requires that current copies of certain documents be posted or a notice stating where the documents may be examined be posted and that Form NRC-3 be posted. An inspector observed that the required notice and Form NRC-3 were posted in the main hall entrance to the restricted area. The inspector noted that the Form NRC-3 was not the current revision; during the inspection the licensee obtained copies of the current revision. The inspector had no further questions.
d.
In RII Report No. 70-1151/78-15, paragraph 6.a it was noted that three boxes were placed in the area outside of the main process building for the collection of contaminated material for shipment for offsite burial and licensee representatives had stated the boxes would be labeled to indicate that the boxes were only for, and contained, radioactive materials. On February 1, an inspector toured the outside area and observed that the three boxes had been removed; however, six new boxes were located in the area and con-tained radioactive materials but the boxes were not labeled.
Licensee representatives stated that these boxes would be labeled or barricaded. The inspector stated that Unresolved Item 78-15-01 remained open.
. 8.
Contamination Surveys a.
License Conditions 18 and 26 require the licensee to limit and to survey for contaimination. An inspector discussed the contamination survey program with licensee representatives. Additionally during tours of the operating areas and non-contamination controlled areas of the plant, the inspector performed surveys for total and removable contamination. No items of noncompliance were identified by the inspector.
b.
The inspector took smears for loose contamination in two areas in the operating area which had just been wet mopped. The smears indicated that the contamination levels in these areas were within limits but were higher than expected for a just cleaned area. This was discussed with a licensee representative who acknowledged that the contamination levels were higher than usual and stated that this would be discussed with the cleanup personnel to assure that the cleanup effort does remove the contamination rather than spread it over a larger area. The inspector had no further qustions.
9.
Radiation Protection Instrumentation a.
Sections 2.2.4 and 3.2.1 of the license application requires that the licensee maintain and calibrate radiation survey instruments.
10 CFR 20.103, 10 CFR 20.201(b) and Section 2.2.6 of the license application requires the licensee to perform air sampling. During tours of the work areas, the inspectors observed the operability and use of contamination survey instruments at controlled area exits, observed that current calibration stickers were affixed on survey instruments, portable air samplers and impingers, and observed the location and operation of various stationary air samplers. The inspectors also discussed the functional tests used to verify the operability of survey instruments with licensee representatives.
b.
On January 30, an inspector observed that the survey instrument at the UF exit door was not operating. A licensee representative 6
accompanying the inspector halted individuals from exiting through the door since they could not survey themselves for contamination.
The licensee representative then had a sign placed on the door
. notifying workers not to use the door as an exit. The inspector had no further questions.
c.
License condition 24 requires that the licensee replace HEPA filters in recirculating ventilation systems at a specified differential pressure.
The inspectors observed that selected recirculating systems had differential pressure gages installed and the gage readings were within the license limits. An inspector reviewed the log sheets for various filters and noted that the readings for two
, filter housings had been erroneously recorded. This was confirmed by a licensee representative, who stated that the individuals taking the readings would be instructed on reading the gages. The inspector had no further questions.
10.
Notification and Reports a.
10 CFR 20.405 and 10 CFR 20.408 requires that the licensee submit reports to the hTC for overexposures to radiation or radioactive materials and upon termination of work, respectively. The inspector discussed the exposure records with a licensee representative, reviewed the external exposure records for the first three quarters, 1978 and the internal exposure restricted list for 1978 and various personnel exposure files.
Based on this review, the inspector determined that no overexposure reports were required and that termination reports were submitted as required by 10 CFR 19.13.
The inspector had no further questions.
b.
10 CFR 20.402 specifies the reporting requirements for the loss or theft of licensed material.
The inspector discussed this with a licensee representative. The licensee representative stated that no losses or thefts of NRC licensed material had occurred and that no reports were required.
c.
10 CFR 20.403 specifies the reporting requirements for incidents involving overexposures or the release of radioactive materials.
Based on the review of external exposure records, the inspector determined that no overexposure incident reports were required. A licensee representative informed the inspector that an unplanned release had occurred on January 19, 1979 when excess vacuum in the ventilation system had drawn water from the scrubber in the scrap recovery area; the water leaked out of the ventilation duct and ran into the storm drain.
The licensee representative stated that based on the water sample concentrations and amounts of uranium released, no report was required.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation and had no further questions.