ML20028B564
| ML20028B564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001100 |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1982 |
| From: | Clemons P, Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B561 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1100-82-09, 70-1100-82-9, NUDOCS 8212030032 | |
| Download: ML20028B564 (5) | |
Text
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No. 70-1100/82-09 Docket No. 70-1100 License No. SNM-1067 Priority 1
Category UR Licensee: Combustion Engineering Inc.
P. O. Box 500 Windsor, Ct.
06095 Facility Name: Nuclear Manufactyring Facility Inspection At: Windsor, Ct.
Inspectors:
[ bnv
[b
?. Clemons, Radiation Specialist
~date Approvedby:/_ M d
//[/2 2-4 E. Greenman, Acting Ckfef, Facilities date
/
Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 29 - October 1, 1982 (Report No.
70-1100/82-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced safety inspection of the Radiation Protection Program including:
outstanding items, field inspection, termina-tion reports, source leak tests, bioassay, dosimetry, surveys, training, audits, drills and radiation work permits.
Shortly after arrival, areas where work was being conducted were examined to review radiation control procedures and practices.
The inspection involved 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> onsite by one region-based l
inspector.
Results: No violations wdre identified.
l c
l 1
1 i
l P21203OO32 821119 PDR ADOCK 07001100 C
7 4'-
k
<9
. i - 4 j
~s y
S
'\\
A
,f
-Q kh j
DETAILS g
7 ls s
1.
Persons Contacted
> s, cy 4 g[
4 h
s s,.
3
- x.
b 4'*
- Mr. J. Volare, Se rior Health Physics Technician)'
- Mr. E. Gordon, Senior Radiological Engineer s
U t
- 'r s
~ '
Mr. J. Limbert, t.aGoratory Radiation Engineer /
Mr. R. Sheeran,' Health Physics dnd, Safety G0pervisor qC gh
{s Several other ' licensee emo,1cye%y a(erelnterviewed during the cobrse o j
fC
, l J~ '.,' W.,
the inspection.
'g q
w,
- denotes those preSant,at tie exit Mrview. [
d g'
\\
D b
J..,
.ns 2.
Licensee Action en Prnfous Inspectionindings tJ, '.
. T (Closed) Violatiod(R-f)2-01) Fa'iled to leak dest sources. The licen -
ee's corrective adtfon, as st'ated in a, letter dated June 25, 1982, was 6
verified. The corrective' action appeare{ adequate. *
- fs i'
'=u (Closed) Violation 3202-02) Failed toL(ssue a Radiation Werk Permit.!
The licensee's corrective action, as statqd in a letter datjd.Ju n 25,
/
l 1982, was verified. The corrective actiog appeared adequate..lj i
(0 pen)InspectorFolled-upItem(82-02-03[ ReviewNuclearSafety' Commit-tee Audit Report..The Nuclear Safety ComMttee conducted an audit of the manufacturing faciYity ya, December 16, 1531, and the report had not been issuedatthetimecijhspectionNo. 70-1100/82-02,that was performed in February 1982. The ripord kas issued on March 3, 1982.
During In-spection No. 70-1100/8 M 6 conductef July 26-30, 1982 it was determined that the report dealt'only witn'iriticality safety.
It did not address radiological safety aspects of the fuel mandfacturing operations. At the exit interview on Julg 30,1982,.the.,Upepsee committed to complete and
,s issue the report addressics/ hs/es b ation of the radiological aspects of t
the fuel manufacturing opent%., f Ms of Cctober 1,1982, the report had not been issued.
,'3 J '% ;[
y X
f (Closed) Violation (32-06-04) toitamination of an unrestrichd draa
,n excess of license livdts.' !The licensee's correctNo action, is datid'in-a letter dated September 10, 1982, was reviewed. The correct 94=a Wion
~
.'SV, appeared adequate.
't ?
N ild to impro'ie (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (82-06-06) Licensee actic{sodification air flow on the Downdraft table.
.It was determined that the of the ventilation system'at the Downorc,ft table did improve thh air s
flow. The minimum acceptable flow rate ds 100 fee per minute.f The measured flow rate wns in excess of 2U feet per minute. '
s-A l
e f
/
- }t' l
.t r
g k'
/,*
8 y
,1; A-
- W.
A.
i F.
Q6 y
3 I~
3.
Field Inspection i
On September 29, 1982, the Manufacturing Facility was toured during r;outine operations 'to observe radiation control procedures and practices, j
/- Oca ;tadiation Work Permit had been issued for maintenanca on a sintering ji
~ 'fJhiace. _On September 30, 1982, the Nuclear Laboratories was toured.
No work with radioactive materials was being performed.
f4 No violations were identified.
l
}
4.,
Termination Reports
' 4. / -
10 CFR 20.408 requires a licensee to submit to the Director.of Management anf Program Analysis'a report of an individual's exposure to radiation i
3
+
anf radioactive material incurred during the period 'of employment in the j
p)'
licensee's facility, when the individual terminates employment with the 4
c
- hcensee.
Five 1982 exposure reports for employees that had terminated e
empidyment with the licensee were reviewed. The inspector determined that the reports had been submitted as required.
~
t No violations were identified, fp.. i 5.
S5urce Leak Test jf<}s; s
gI/
3 Condition 15 of License No. SNM-1067 requires encapsulated plutonium
[f sources be tested for leakage at intervals not to exceed six months.
The b(
. licensee has five plutonium sources that must be tested.
Leak test data y
l fN
't *.
reviey d indicated the sources were leak tested October, 1981 and April, 1982.
No' vioistions were identified.
)
s J-i6.k'TrM[ing
,r y
cSection 15.13 of License No. SNM-1067 requires annual retraining for all
'l@
g personnel who handle radioactive materials. Supervisory personnel are
' ^T also included in this requirement.
Training documentation was reviewed which indicated that the required personnel received appropriate training
[.
during November 1981.
!, / I(. @
No violations were identified.
j Q,e l
, ss.
, Bioassay o
3 (f
s
< Condition No. 17 of License No. SNM-1067 requires that the licensee P'/gN j.s T
develop and maintain a bioassay program which meets the specification of
(
Regulatory Guide 8.11, " Application of Bioassay for Uranium".
Regulatory
's,
Guide 8.11 suggests an annual sampling frequency for minimum programs.
j
'\\
'N 4
N,-
- Q f The inspector reviewed urine bioassay data for 10 employees for 1981 to fl D4 c'etermine that the employees were participating in a program as required.
4 l'
q.
} l.
4 The review indicated the employees were participating and no prob'. -is with exposure control were identified.
No violations were identified.
8.
Drills Amendment No. 20 to License No. SNM-1067 incorporates the licensee's Emergency Plan dated July 30, 1979.
Section 8.1.2 of the Emergency Plan states:
" Semi-annual... drills are conducted...".
Documentation was reviewed that indicated that emergency drills were conducted, and critiqued, in October 1981 and June 1982.
No violations were identified.
9.
Dosimetry Dosimetry records were reviewed for the period January - August 1982 for 10 individuals monitored at the Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing Facility.
The review indicated that all exposures were well within 10 CFR 20 limits.
No violations were identified.
- 10. Audits Section 8.3 of License No. SNM-1067 requires monthly audits for radio-logical considerations be performed by a qualified individual. Monthly audit reports for the period January - August 1982 were reviewed to determine that the audits were being performed.
No violations were identified.
- 11. Surveys 10 CFR 20.201 requires that surveys be performed to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.
Inspector review of licensee data indicated that smear, air sample and stack sample surveys were performed during the period January - August 1982. The review did not identify eny problem with exposure control or any condition exceeding regulatory limits.
No violations were identified.
12.
Radiation Work Permits Section 8.2 of License No. SNM-1067 requires that procedures be developed and adhered to.
Procedure 15 of the Health Physics and Safety Procedures Manual, developed pursuant to Section 8.2 of License No. SNM-1067, requires nenroutine maintenance or repair operations on equipment in contaminated areas to be covered by a Radiation Work Permit (RWP).
5 Procedure 15 also requires that Health Physics Technicians set the appropriate requirements for performing the work.
Fifteen RWP s were reviewed for the period July - August 1982 to determine if the appropriate requirements for performing the work specified on the RWP's had been specified. The requirement had been specified.
No violations were identified.
13.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph
- 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 1, 1982. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection, and the inspection findings.
1
_