ML20040C378
| ML20040C378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1981 |
| From: | Franklin L, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040C360 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1113-81-11, IEIN-81-16, NUDOCS 8201270584 | |
| Download: ML20040C378 (7) | |
Text
..
'o UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3 E
REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o#g,.....[
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
~
Report No. 70-1113/81-11 Licensee: General Electric Company P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Facility Name: Wilmington Manufacturing Department Docket No. 70-1113 License No. SNM-1097 Inspection at Wilmington Manufacting Department site near Wilmington, NC Inspector: d // G
~
Date Signed i
L. A. Frank 1-in '
/
/d-4?2-A/
Accompanying Personnel:
A. F. Gibson, NRC, Region II j
C. M. Hosey, NRC, Region II Approved by:
W
/$ 2.Lh /
C. M. HofeW Acting S ection Chief
~Date'S'idned Technical Inspection Branch Engineering and Techhical Inspection Division
SUMMARY
Inspection on September 21 - 25, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of radiation protection procedures, posting and labeling, radwaste manage-ment, transportation activities and followup on outstanding open items.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four areas; one item of noncompliance was found.in one area (Failure to follow personnel survey procedure when exiting the control area).
l l
8201270594 811230
{DRADOCK 07003213 PDR l
j
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. Hendry, Acting Manager - Quality Assurance
- C. Vaughn, Manager - Licensing and Compliance Manager
- G. Brown, Acting Manager - Nuclear Safety Engineering
- J. H. Bradberry, Jr., Emergency Preparedness Coordinator R. Foleck, Senior Specialist - Licensing Engineering J. W. Currier, Manager - Fuel Fabrication Quality Control K. R. Cleveland, Process Control Engineer T. D. Brechtlein, Manager - Fuel Chemical Quality Control J. Sutton, Chemical Inspector
- D. T. Barbour, Acting Manager - Radiation Protection J. L. Keith, Specalist - Manufacturing Engineering J. Menick, Senior Engineer J. Mims, Manager - Traffic and Material Distribution C. Ogle, Auditor - Quality Assurance
- G. E. Powers, Senior Nuclear Safety Engineer
- D. W. Brown, Manager - Powder Production Unit
- R. C. Pace, Manager - Fuel Support Operation
- W. T. Russ, Acting Manager - Fuel Manufacturirg
- N. E. Stroud, Acting Manager - Finance
- B. F. Bentley, Manager - Fuei CSemistry Operation
- P. E. Younghans, Manager - Materials Operation
- G. McKenzie, Acting Manager - Manufacturing Technical and Engineering Operations C. Shipp, Manager - Industrial Safety W. Smalley, Senior Environmental Protection Engineer S. Murray, Nuclear Safety Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included three technicians.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview 1
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 25, 1981, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abcve. The status of six open items were discussed at this meeting.
One violation (Failure to Follow Personnel Survey Procedure) was discussed and the Manager of Quality Assurance acknowledged the inspector's concern.
The areas inspected were noted at this exit meeting.
It was further noted by an NRC representative that housekeeping in the fuel manufacturing area was in need of improvement. Cleanliness appears to have deteriorated over the past several years.
i l
2 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspector Identified Items a.
Closed (0 pen Item) 81-07-05. This item concerned the certification of self contained breathing apparatus regulators.
The licensee has initiated a program that will certify these regulators annually. This in conjunction with monthly inspections meets manufacturer's recommend-ations. The inspector had no further questions.
b.
Closed (0 pen Item) 81-07-01. This item concerns the averaging of air samples prior to assig ing MPC hours to employees working in the fuel facility.
This item has been changed to an unresolved item and is discussed in section 4.a.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in the following paragraph.
a.
The licensee has several work areas that contain multiple air samples individually placed at the different work locations.
Timekeeping for personnel at specific work locations is not maintained by the licensee and therefore for pu poses of assigning MPC hours the multiple air sample activity is averaged. The inspector stated that this was not a good health physics practice and in certain areas could result in underestimating radioactivity levels to which an employee was exposed.
Failure of the licensee to accurately determine the MPC-HRS for an employee would be in violation of 10 CFR 20.103.3 and 10 CFR 20.401.G.2. The inspector stated that the licensee should reevaluate the use of averaged air sample data.
This item remains unresolved (81-11-01) pending a more detailed review of the licensee's program during a subsequent inspection.
5.
Bulletins, Circulars and Notices a.
IE Information Notice No. 81-26, Compilation of Health Physics Related Information Items.
l Part 1:
Use of Recirculating Mode (Closed Circuit) Self Contained l
Breathing Apparatus (Rebreathers). This unit is not in use by this licensee and this part is not applicable.
j Part 2:
Use of Chemical "00P."
This licensee does not, at present, have a quantitative mask fit booth in operation. A unit, however, has been purchased by this licensee.
The licensee stated that they would consider using a substitute for DOP.
L
3 Part 3:
Placement of Personnel Monitoring Devices for External I
Radiation Exposure. Fuel facilities do not normally have the type of radiation exposures seen in power reactors. Licensee representatives stated that they consider the portion of the body receiving the highest exposure when determining the placement of dosimetry devices.
Part 4:
Personnel Entry Into Inerted Containment. This part does not apply to this licensee.
Part 5:
Evaluation of Instrument Characteristics When Using Portable Radiation Survey Instruments. This item concerns the geo-tropism of certain instruments. The licensee has a small.
inventory of instruments that can ne effected by this problem but these instruments are not normally in use. A licensee representative stated that training on this problem will be given to radiation protection personnel.
6.
Transportation Activities Licensee procedures were examined by the inspector and appear adequate. A job description is formalized which designates the duties of the Manager of Traffic and Material Distribution.
Shipping and receiving procedures were examined and appear adequate.
The inspector reviewed selected training records for training performed in 1980 and 1981 for various functions. This included training for shipping, receiving, handling, accidents, etc. Training was given to North Carolina State Police, U.S. Coast Guard personnel, and licensee employees in many departments.
A Quality Assurance Audit is performed for transportation activities on a regularly scheduled bs d s.
A Quality Assurance Audit Record for shipping containers dated October 1980 was examined and acpeared adequate.
Deft-ciencies noted in this audit we re followed by a tracking system and all deficiencies were corrected in a timely fashion.
The inspector observed the operations in the area designated for sorting and packaging of radwaste, etc. The licensee performs a comprehensive sort to separate items which can be reused or reprocessed at the fuel facility, from those that will be shipped out as radwaste. Several containers were exam-ined and were free of any free-standing liquid. The proper containers were being used for offsite shipment of radwaste as well as for the shipment of reclaimable materials.
Radioactive material shipment records for the period January 1980 to August 1981 were selectively reviewed. These records appeared to meet all of the requirements of the Department of Transportation and burial facility.
4 Packages awaiting shipment were examined at random and were labeled in accordance with 49 CFR 173.393 Closure devices and gaskets were in place with a proper seal. Additionally, where applicable, bracing ana cushioning materials were in their proper place.
7.
Periodic Maintenance of Packagings Containers were er.amined for bulk uranium shipments as well as fuel bundle shipments.
Procedures for quality assurance were detailed and appeared adequate. This inspection included the bulk shipment containers for fuel pellets, powder, and compounds as well as both inner and outer containers for fuel bundles. All containers enamined appeared to be in good condition.
8.
Radioactive Waste Management a.
The inspector selectively reviewed liquid and airborne releases for 1981. No deficiencies were noted in these records. The monitoring of liquid and airborne release is done by grab sampling.
Calibration records for radioactivity counting instruments were examined.
The inspector had no further questions.
b.
Waste treatment procedure, licensee Prod. #80.69 was reviewed. A daily check of all ef fluent records is required. A supervisory review of these records is performed to insure accuracy and to detect any trends.
This procedure appears adequate.
9.
Radiation Protection a.
Instruments and Equipment Instruments of each type in the licensee's inventory were examined to verify operability and alarm settings, where applicable.
Calibration records were examined, along with the system in use, for maintaining instruments in calibration. A weekly routine functional check is made of all instruments and during this check the calibration date is checked. In accordance with license procedure NSI-0-4.0, any time a location change is made for any instrument this information is rechecked. Provided that no instrument faiis during the calibration period, Beta Gamma Instruments are culibrated on a six-month frequency and Alpha Instruments on a three month frequency. The inspector had no further questions.
b.
Posting and Labeling The inspector reviewed the licensee's posting and control of radiation areas, high radiation areas, airborne radioactivity areas, contamina-tion areas, radioactive material areas, and the labeling of radioactive material during tours of the plant. No violations or deviations were observed.
5 c.
Training The inspector attended the radiation protection orientation given to new employees. The duration of this training is approximately three hours but may vary depending on class size, etc. The overall training appears adequate and covers information required by 10 CFR 19, and the Appendix to Regulatory Guide 8.13 concerning exposure to radiation during pregnancies.
The inspector noted that no mention was made regarding volume reduction of radioactive waste during this presenta-tion. The licensee has an active radioactive waste reduction program and the inspector was informed by several licensee representatives that this is normally mentioned during orientation of new employees.
d.
Change Rooms (1) License Condition 9 of the license requires that licensed material be used in accordance with statements, representations and condi-tions of Appendix A, as contained in the licensee's application.
Appendix A, Section 4.1 requires that operations and activities shall be directed by the designated area manager who shall estab-lish written operating procedures.
Procedure PROD No. ICR08, Personal Survey-Leaving Controlled
- Areas, requires that individuals hold the scanner probe approximately h-inch away and slowly pass it over the hair, face, chest, hand, wrist, ankles, shoes and TLD badge.
(2) During this inspection approximately thirty workers were observed exiting the controlled area. Approximately 25*. of these workers did not monitor themselves properly. Personnel failed to hold the instrument scanner probe in close proximity (approximately h-inch) of the body and to pass the probe slowly over the required areas.
In some cases the probe was held no closer than three to five inches from the body and was moved at a very rapid rate. This is a violation (70-1113/81-11-04).
10.
UF Release 6
A UF Release occurred at approximately 12:00 P.M. on September 15, 1981.
6 this release lasted for approximately 228 minutes. Total activity released was 332.24 microcuries.
This release occurred as a result of a flange gasket rupture in the vaporization room.
The licensee did not determine downwind dose calculations as it was felt that the release was not signi-ficant enough to warrant those additional calculations. This opinion was based on the fact that the offsite dose from a release in 1978 of approxi-mately ten times the size of this incident were found to be negligible. The inspector was provided with a summary of all calculations used.
6 The inspector stated that the licensee should have promptly performed a detailed assessment of the offsite dose to the general public. A licensee representative stated they would develop the capability to promptly assess offsite dose following an incident.
This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection (81-11-02).
Wind speed and wind direction equipment was not equipped with a recorder.
During the course of an emergency it would not be expected that this infor-mation would be the first thing to be checked.
Usually a time lag will occur, and yet, the wind speed and direction at the actual time of the release is vital information. During the course of the recent release, this information had to be provided by the local weather station, located at the airport.
The inspector stated that a recorder should be added to this equipment. A licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comment and said they will consider installing some device to give them a permanent record of wind speed and direction (81-11-03).