ML20138N761

Insp Rept 70-1113/85-16 on 850924-26 & 1007-11.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Program to Maintain Radiation Exposures Alara,Ie Info Notices & Followup on Previous Inspector Identified Items

ML20138N761
Person / Time
Site:	07001113
Issue date:	11/26/1985
From:	Collins T, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N743	List: ML20138N740 ML20138N761
References
70-1113-85-16, NUDOCS 8512240147
Download: ML20138N761 (13)

Text

-=m ,

,+ + -

. , g:. >

e;

" (: 3.- s : : j, hy = -.

UNITED STATES '

M [ _- o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

(a ,* . . g ',

~

-[ REGION ll

" 0 (- .g j',' .101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.

.- s .

' ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 _

V <

'~ '

4..+ c . DEC 171%5 M Report No.:: 70-1113/852~

~

16

.: Licensee: } General' Electric Company E Wilmington, NC': 28401

-bocket(No.t 70-111'3. License No.: -SNM-1097-

)Fasility.Name: General. Electric Compa'ny.

' ' ~

l

+ 2 Inspection: Conducted: 'S ptember:24-26 and-October 7-11,'1985'

! Ins'pectof: a N - '

< - T. R. Collins: D&te Signed' li AccompanyingiPersonne:1 C. M.1Hosey (September 24-26,1985)-

Approved by- b W // 1d[25 -

C.;M. Hosdy',Section Chief -Date. Signed:

Division'of RadiationcSafety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

'IScopei This routine, _ unannounced inspection ' entailed inspector'-hours'in the

~

'i

areas of'. followup on' allegations, program to maintain radiation exposures as low

~

i .,

. asireasonably :.~ achievable ~ (ALARA), 'IE ' Information ' Notices, and' followup on O

' previous; inspector identified Litems.

~

~

U 'Re'ults: s :No vi61ations or,deviat1ons were identified.

R

=

b p -

e ++

f '., ,

8512240147 851217 7

& s PDR ADOCK 07001113 *3

-C _

PDR g s .

k 4

w .

-en r

> b &

9 7=

g. .

w _

y y ,

9 s N y Y.

4' E EREPORT DETAILS' 7 1. Persons' Contacted -

TLicsns'ee:'Einployees . _

~

^ l*W.[W. McMa' hon, Manager,: Quality Assurance

**C.7M.lVaughan, Manager,.. Regulatory Compliance 4 .* L.C A.'Sheely, Manager, Fuel

Qualityi

. *T.JPh Winslow, Manager,oChemet Laboratory-

, . *T. Brechtlein_, Ma' nager, Fuel: Chemical Quality. Control

• R. :L. :Torres, Manager,: Radiation Protection iCXSchmidt,LMedical: Director-

• .S'tP.lMurray",, Nuclear-Safety-Engineer-

^

P.jS. Stan_sbury,: Nuclear Safety:Engin'eer-Dl T.:Barbour, Radiation < Protection-Shift-Supervisor

_ TR. GL lewis, Radiation Protsction Shift Supervisor E. D.DNance, Radiation Ssfety Monitor:

D.JC.1Whaley, RadiationiSafety-Monitor

~

r .

iC. G.:Kerr,'Ridiation; Safety Monito'r S. D. Smith, Radiation Safety Monitor-

,w R. L. Brown, Chemet Lab Test Operator'- A M.iSavage, Chemet. Lab TechnicianL

~

~Gi M.!Coranado,1Ch' emet Lab, Technician

~ , 1* Attended exit interview on October 10, 1985 i

f*.*AttendedfexitinterviewonSeptemb'er;i26and.0ctober 10, 1985- -

32. Esit: Interview-The 0 1'nspection. scope and findings were summarized on' Septsmber 26 and-

~

0ctober 10U1985,1withithose persons indicat'ed in paragraph 1 'above. . The

,inspectoridiscussed. with licensee -managementftheJ results of allegation.- '

. followup Jand L the J program : fori maintsining ' radiation exposures ' As Low As-c $ Reasonably. Achievable;(ALARA). :The licensee did not identify as p:oprietary iany/of' the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during: this 1.i n specti on. -

$ - :3. l Licensee: Action on: Previous Enforcement Matters r 4 7Nottreviewed4during thisiinspectlon.

J4. - Allegation Discuss' ions and Findings

.N0TE: LThe pronoun "he"11sLused throughout this' report without regard to the sex of the sindividual .to protect zthe identity of confidential sources of s

-information to the: maximum extent possible.

Y. ' Y '.

^'

^

~ . . :. - '?

g.m ,

a 4-2-

u: '

a. LA11egation J ~ ' ' !Alleg'er statedjthat an. individual was contaminated in 1982 or_ early 1983 while working in a controlled area. Alleger stated that ;this person. also:had his finger cut off and is still working at the plant.

.  ? Accident occurred: while . individual was grinding small pellets or. .a

,  : grinding 1 machine. Alleger is concerned that the- incident was not reported ;to the .NRC or OSHA 'and'.that the incident was 'not reported. in

?the individual's medical records at.the plant.

- IDiscussionJ i.: -

4 ;The inspe'ctor discussed the contents of the individual's medical record with.the licensee's medical director. The'_ . inspector noted that the event referred to by.the alleger occurred in 1981 and is documented in f the -individual's medical record. 'The end of one of his fingers was

' smashed sand the tip' was - amputated. The_ record indicates Radiation .

Safety sur.veyed the wound at the emergency room.and found it not to be p . contaminated. The individual was' escorted to the emergency room- by

. Radiation Safety.

~ Finding g

_ The" allegation was not substantiated. Although the event occurred as inoted in the'. allegation, it was described in detail in the individual.'s medical

• record. There is no NRC reporting requirement ~ for injuries

occurring ,within restricted areas at . licensed fuel facilities. No violations ~ ~ or deviations ~ were identified. The allegation ~was also referred _ to Occupational Safet'y :and Health Administration (OSHA) to determine 1f there_were any OSHA notification requirements violated.

l b .-

= Allegation-

^ .A11eger. stated that hetwas contaminated when'someone dumped a container Jof.' liquid uranium down the sink and_ it splashed h.im. He claimed that

'he was. contaminated :on a small area on the bridge of his ' nose. The event'-occurred.in-1978 in~the WetLLab. Alleger stated that the liquid

. Luraniun. caused a.smalliburn on the bridge ~of his nose when the material gotg up under the bridge L of?his' glasses. Alleger stated that his

! concern was that thislinformation .is not' in his medical records and.he -

- feels that; the injury was-intentionally not reported. Alleger was seen

by a doctorfin L the> dispensary. He was sent to a skin specialist who did not mention the nose' injury in his letter to the-plant.

Discussion

- The inspector discussed the contents of the alleger's medical record,

.with the : licensee's medical director. The inspector noted that the event?which - occurred May 28, 1974, is documented in the alleger's medical.-record. :0n August 1974, he was referred to a dermatologist who

' diagnosed his ' condition as contact dermatitis which was caused by-

,a < **J r *-

yn -

c ,

z. s- ,

, 2 j f;f p, 3R ' , "' ~

^ ~

a. q;g < , -y; ,

f  ;

q y3%;{ 37 - 'n- 'm .,..m s

," fc

,_4.

& ; &y uhy ' y

- ' l n . ;.

- >- - ' H g

--., tw

+ ,>

s

.c

+

.3_

, .. ~ F Y,E Y y : Q,ca L4 m : n .. ..

l+.

- l. l

.. ' ~

2> .D '

sultra'violetilight. iThe specialist also' indicated that- the condition-

< %_ q , y% 7wasinot' caused;bya radiation: exposure received _ atiGE. Contamination i -

= -

'. v -

a surveys twere) performed byJRadiation ~S_afetycbeforeithe alleger:was:

released? to thejmedical s clinic . for %treatmenti 5 The alleger ~ wasinot

? sg. contaminated ~whenJreleased.- -

e C's g

' Minding' W

N.[ *'f f (T'heRallegationNasinotis'utistantiated. Although; the 'eventl occurredias C J Enotedzin the allegation,!it?was documented in.the 4ndiv'idual's medical y, ,

'E < record. ;.Thefdermatologist didl discuss.the.nosefinjury in'the. letter to

[D 1 _4fy -e ithefplantiandlattributedwthe injury .to ~ ultraviolet; > light.  :

No 3$% 72;#J ? *Nviolations/ orldeviations were. identified. .The1 allegation wasD also

'ir' ferred- e to(0 SHAT to? determine' if any OSHA- reporting l requirements were S

p, ,

9x -

violated. . t .

gg y . cr LA11egation _ '

~. .

I %_-- g  : - , ,, .., . . . .  %, . , .. -

9 ;A1legeristated :that he; wa's scontaminate'd .in ~ths1 Fall -of--1981~,' while m - V ~

A4g . Jpreparing{ sam'plesfof:li_quidiuranium in the %U' titration area-of:the_ Wet?

~

q- 1- '~

7Labc' "When ?he cturned :a" 500ml flask containingiliquid; uranium upside , -

% %v > /downfforimixing,1theLneck of~theLflask-broke'and cut"his5rightLthumb'to -

1 f 1" /the'bbne. .:!He; stat'ed 4thatiwhen1 the broken edge of- the ' flas(cut' his-

- /E . jthu_mb,. the liquid (uranium-made contact with the wound. Ayleger; stated.

n';, %_

ithatihis= concern'was'that.there were:no entries on.his medicalfrecords -

. iso;thatjthe; plant!wo~uld'not have to, report the accident; -

. 2 js { R g p ] # N biscuhion b;, h _s aThelinspect'orIdiscuss'eMthe contents; ofi the1 alleger'simedical recordi

s m iwithithenlice'nsee's medical director. LThe Winspector-noted that the J Q [i!' ':if M ' Tevent described?byHtheeallegerioccurred on~_0ctober113,-:1980,: and is 4 RX e,i',,

~

d6cumented <in :the alleger's. medical? recor'd.1The wound was: surveyed _ by-

, lRadiationvSafetyf andifound notnto beiradioactively ; contaminated. -+

u; +

[AccordingFto thelmedicalirecord the alleger; was seen - by .the clinicz M>~- ~

?three'.timesfafter th'e initial treatment; and;;in'each case,Jthelhealing_

' - ,f a z - (process-.was<said tolbe; progressing;normally.

, , ~ . ,w _

~

4B 3 ~ ~

,<FiMing: '

f 4 -* - - ,

e g - ~ ,,v r i' '

. OThejallegation was;not substantiated. Although the event occured-as -

, g@f 4 w (notedintheyallegation,itwas.documentedinthe' individual'smedical-  !

e a grecord. iNo ! violations. or deviations were identified. The allegation g ,F . X wasSalso 7 referred n tov 0SHA to determine cif - any OSHA reporting .

g -

1. [ 7 requirements were1 violated.

% [d] IAllegation

^ '

> ,' ' Alleger'sfattorney'provided the-names, addresses and telephone numbers 4

JofithreeJworkers whowere reportedly overexposed. The individuals are Q ^ -

- - < %v-E .

L

• Y

,ll:s+ y n,. f g 4 -s

y. f- ij g

$h%M_ S: --

~ "

f ,

[ ~

v v.r 4

referred to in the-following discussions as A, B, C and D. Individual D-was' identified las being potentially overexposed.

Discussion (Through _ a_ review 'off records.. 'andL . discussions with licensee representatives' the inspector e' valuated the radiation exposure history

. of the vindividuals named .in the ' allegation. In each case,; the inspector reviewed ::the results .of:: lung counts, urinalyses, 'and the

. assigned ' airborne radioactivity concentrations (MPC-hours) to which geach was. exposed. -Individual AL B, and C'are currently employed in the-L Chemet , Laboratory. Individual:D is no longer employed by GE;;however, he'was. employed in the Metallurgical section of the Chemet Lab.several~

years:ago. Individual A's lung counts and urinalysis results are all

' lessi than ; minimum detectable value -(75 pg U 2" for lung counts and

.-5 'ug/L1 for urinalysis): for the system -performing the count. The assigned airborne data for Individual A appears to be typical for workers:in the

lab,' ' and- well below regulatory limits. A review - of Individual A's

' external radiation l exposure record '(film badge /TLD) indicated that he received no significant external exposure while employed by GE.

Individual' C's lung' counts ~ appear to be less than the - minimum

detectable' value for. the. lung counter. On- April 29, 1976,

~ IndividualiC's. urinalysis results . indicated an exposure of 4344

~

, ' micrograms -Uranium per liter (pg/L) on a routine monthly urinalysis.

According to .the licensee's investigation the individual worked in the .

Lisotopic area and rare earth analysis' area during the preceding weeks.

lThe; second sample-.' collected on April 29, 1976,, indicated a radioactivity _ concentration of 18.7 : pg/L. On April 730,- 1976, the radioactivity concentration in the urine was J1ess than 1 ug/L. The licensee's -investigation indicated that the individual had been working with small iguantities 'of . U0iF2 in 100cc of solution ;with a' UO2 F2 concentration of 0.'11~gU/g solution. The work was being performed in a hood. Airborne concentrations in Individual C's breathing zone would '

have. had to be between 12. and 193 times MPC (121 x 10 'uC1/cc to 1930 '

x'10 ' uCi/cc) for-the: urinalysis results to have been valid. An air

= sampler 11ocated approximately-15 feet away indicated air concentrations '

of; 0.5 x 10 " uCi/cc. Had the- quantity of uranium present -in this sample' been excreted in the urine, the licensee determined that the

-intakes would have had to' been between .11.and 174 mg of- uranium. The

individual was examined by- a' medical doctor and no kidney damage was 5: n'oted. l Single ~ intakes of 9.8. mg uranium could result in kidney damage (9.8 mg U intakes: could result in urine concentration of 2000 pg/L).

~

Based on the quantity'of material handled, medical exam and' air sample 1results the licensee concluded that no overexposure occurred, and assumed the sample had been cross' contaminated during collections or analysis; - A review :of Individual C's external radiation exposure l record -(film badge /TLD) indicated that he received no significant exposure while employed by GE.

c -

~

{,y{,

~

- % co .

-dM/pa.1 a ,

., m m,

. - g ,_

g w '

5'

>s (

y e ;;U , ,

_ t

"[ ,

. % Ly< y  : , _

i*

W I TheMi.nspector3 reviewed Ithe ? exposureirecordj of::MIndividdldBSand s

' discussedithe record with a tlicensee1 representative. J Between June 1973-

?' '

Land Februaryi1985 !Indilvidua118sreceived-711 lung counts'with .the1results -

~

w/ ' G ranging; fromlless1 thanl minimum- detectable '::value - (approximately ;75 tyg-

. > - J ~' (Up235 tot 270 pg .U-235);;withhmostyvaluesL ranging (from'120 toil 70 3pg; ~

a 7',y ( es

• U,-235 2 During Lthisiperi_od . Individual? B _ worked ~ in1theschemical

- : operations tarealof L the7 fuel { manufacturing: facility. 1The . .licenseel

~

~

' ]~%, jperformed % detail 3 review : ofnth'e exposure , record and on1 August: 13, .

4,. ^

.1979,:placed Individual B on pe'rmanentErestriction and transferrsd:him1

- - nto the~ Chemet Lab. Since; transferring to the-Chemet : Lab' Individual: B's -

M

~

lungl counts (haveidecline'd t and :havelbeen less than ' minimum ' detectable q~ ~

z .  ::valudJ since TApril? 8,g1981:. fA' review of; the" records-' indicated .that each

+ '

, ftime a :lungicountfresult was above the licsnsee. action' level,1 action

1' 'lrequired

by L the 1icensee :was completed. Individual B's-- intakes: of -

,  ! radioactive, material;wasasignificantly below the NRC limit specified in.

X ,-

<10 CFR E20~.103(a)(1). Aireview of; Individual B'syexternal:_ radiation

/exp(osureMecord (filmibadge/TLD) ~ indicated -- that he ~recieved no g .. ssignificant. external 4 exposure-while.~ employed by GE.

F JAtriview joff the D exposure! record' (film badge /TLD,- lung (counts,n m

?~ (urinalysisandassignedairbornedata)of. Individual'D>performedbyfthe:

^ 1 < inspector 11ndicated that'he had received nolsignificant' exposure:while-Temployed by: GE.

~

k , .

7 c S . Finding; ww .. _. .. -- .. .

'r

~

~4-h4 ' =The iallegationiwasinot; substantiated. The review of recordsk and -

T"s idiscussionstwith licenseelrepresentatives did not indicate any'oflthe.

N {individualsimentioned in--the allegation received any radiation exposure i

~~2 Lin' ~ excess ;of: NRC 7 11mits. ?No' violations or deviations were identified.

g' .* rel lAllegationi

~

a ..

s J Alleger: stated 1that:.the ? scrubber on top of the' isotopic lab had n'ot: -

+een : o'perational L sinceslast year. and only' recently had Deen-made :

- > operational, e ~'_

r'. .-' y

~ '

~

, (Discussion and Finding l 2" % c STheMinspector Ereviewed .. records of scrubber- operational. checks' and=

h- 7 1 (discussed (the finstallation .and; operation of - the - new Chemet. Lab

- 1 ventilation L exhaust = system 1 scrubber with licensee - representatives.

9 f  : Prior.to^ August-1984J the Chemet Lab ventilation exhaust passed:through

, - ithel chemical areasscrubbers.

5- . K JIn / August.19849aLseparate scrubber for the Chemet Lab exhaust became ioperational. 'At that time, Chemet Lab activities involving the

• ' -handling of . radioactive material were temporarily stopped to- permit

p. _ connection of the exhaust to the scrubber system. Personnel in the

• s Elicensee's ventilation 1section - perform daily checks of the system and

~

n< u < __

monthly periodiccmaintenance. The inspector reviewed the licensee's e

i ..o .

[.$ 1 ' '

u_ ,

- . +t sig 'i*-

p.m p- <

a 1 p< -

g.s ,

6-1 m '-'

idailycheckfrecordsfor1984Eand1985anddeterminedthatairfrom-the

Chemet Lab was passed through a

scrubber' prior to rele'ase.

The Jallegation was -substantiated ' in that thei new, Chemet : Lab scrubber wasj positioned ?on~ the - roof ~for ;an' unspecified . time before it was F '

connected to theTexhaust' system.. However, there'was no indication that-

'the~ J11censee failed to pass the' air exhausted from the- Chemet Lab

.q through. ani.operatio'nal scrubber. . No violations or deviations of NRC -

requirementsLwere identified.

~

~, -

. fc ; Allegation:

Alleger- stated thatf the three monitors installed in the lab on

December _ 3,; 1984, : were 8 ' feet above the . floor level and therefore, too.high. No' air monitor was installed to monitor hood where fluoride

~ samples-are: prepared.

. Discussion and Finding The : failure.' tor locate airisamples in the Chemet Lab.such that the

concentrations _ measured f were 1 representative =of the concentrat_ ion-

.- - breathed by ; workers 'was 'ident'fied as .a1 . violation of 410 CFR 20.103(a)(3) in- Inspection Report .No.; 70-1113/84-17. The licensee -de'nied the > violation. However,- in - a letter dated September 23,. 1985- sthey were directed to .' provide appropriate

~

-% ~ corrective;actio_n - to ensure adequate -air- sampling is provided. = The j m _

Lallegation was substantiated.

g. Allegation-t 2 Alleger stated that the-criticality alarm 'ad h been-giving false-alarms

<and although it had been worke'd on,-it wa's;not_ evident'to him that-the _.'

alarm wasnoperable at all.

^

Discussion land Finding .

This allegation was discussed in Inspection L

Report No.'70-1113/85-04 and was'.'not substantiated. ?No violations or deviations were-

identi fied.-

N m- W.-  ? Allegation:

k EAlleger stated that technicians working . in the Chemet Lab are not-

qualified: to. work in the Lab' and could be falsifying records due to production pressure from management.

Discussion and Finding - ,

/The inspector reviewed training and qualification records for selected

~

_personnelithat. worked in the Chemet Lab and concluded after this review

~

~ that personneliworking in -the Chemet Lab met the licensee's training V -

+ #

Q

~

L- 7 c

(andl -qualification requirements. The -allegation concerning;

_ : qualifications 1 of Chemet Lab personnel was . not' substantiated. ~ No violations or deviations.were. identified.' -The allegation concerning

z. -

. falsifying records J 'being ' reviewed independently from this _ inspection.

1.  ; Allegation A11eger stated thati ho'urly workers 'were . not properly trained in the -

handling of gadolinium powder and may have unknowingly contributed to

unnecessary contamination.

Discussion and' Finding.

IThe[inspectorconcludedthroughdiscussionswithChemetLabtechnicians and Chemet-Lab supervision -that no special training is required for

. personnel to handle gadolinium powder other than in Chemet Lab.

operating procedures. The inspector . determined by his review of

. records that personnel-working in the gadolinium area had been trained

~

.and' had ireviewed appropriate operating procedures for handling

gadolinium. The allegation was not substantiated. No violations or

.. deviations wereLidentified.

J. Allegation?

LAlleg'er stated ; that he had heard that gloves and _ lab coats are coming -

out of the plant -laundry still contaminated and that the laundry is not

doing _a. good job washing contaminated laundry.

Discussion:and Finding

~

-TheLallegation was. substantiated, in that gloves and lab coats do~come' outlof the laundry contaminated. However a review by the inspector of survey results of protective clothing performed by.the licensee for the

_ period of January 1984- to September 1985 indicated that contamination

' levels' on protective clothing after laundry were well within the plant administrative contamination limits _ of ~ 2,200 'DPM fixed and

~220 DPM/100 cm2 ismearable. No violations or deviations were identified.

0 (k._ Allegation LAlleger' stated thatalab technicians are handling samples without gloves especiallyfin ths fluoride area. Alleger also stated that the samples

are contaminated.

Discussion and Finding

The inspector interviewed six Chemet Lab -personnel (technicians and

. operators) and through discussions it was determined -that Chemet Lab jpersonnel had _ not in -all cases worn protective clothing (gloves) while

'l

.m y

gg 37 ,

p= -

Y'- b 9,. a f/N' ,=4 ,

~. f  : ..

mn ~y e, '

b _

r -

W~

f ,

i' -

, m _

\, 3 J

8;

~

- c .

- , p 7 f '?

3; 4 .

~

. . _ -r.

'j' . , ,2 han' ,.dling d potint'ially :: contaminated samples.: _ Licensee , . procedure .

C NSRL6.'1.0,1 General;uRequirements'-for. theD Ch' emet : Lab, .did Jnot

.V- ,

W 1 X:speci fically? requi re ' personnel : to ; wear glove si anytime ' they; are han'dl ing

~J L s samples.JThis:Lproblem had -apparentlyj occurredJ in,the :past; however, .

"f~ ' "*,

iduring;;thisi inspection ' as TwellJ asiprevio'us; inspections (in 1984 L and.

?1985,7the' inspectors observed; Chemet:, Lab personnel wearing gloves;when o . H handlingisamples.J No violations or~ deviations Lwere Lidentified.

jf _

a- ,

4 11. iAl. legation

,.,- m ,

[1_

?"l 0 Mlleger] stated (thatjRadiation Safety would:.callbahead to lthe Labs to-blet-the supervisor >know that-they were coming and theLsupervisors would-

have;; areas cleaned upsbefore Radiation Safety personnel arrived.

, ] wl .  ; Discussion;a'nd Finding;

% ^$Thelinispectdr intervieweisix) Radiation 1 Safety Monitors and ChemetiLab

~

[

~

y, J. -

-; Techniciansand:through discussions with these" personnel. it could not

• ; be ysubstantiated:that? Radiation Safety; personnel 'would . call ahead to 1 '

'1 ithe ?ChemetiLab: to Linform :themithat. Radiation. Safety were comingEto z

" ~

. perform; routine ? contamination n control surveys. No. Violations L or .

+

y, '

1 deviations:were: identified.

t. im .- ? Allegation .

43'

~

9 _ sfj leger : stated - thit personnel. were -improperly' removing paper / notebooks sda ..__ cfrom.the(Chemet: Lab without proper surveys.

q7 ~

_: y

• J_ l Discussion 1and Finding.

A

. - The inspector l. .._ interviewed eleven ' Radiation Safety Monitors and Chemet; -

~

m ~"

' Lab' c1 Technicians;and;through { discussion's- with these: personnel. it .was n determined [th'atipersonnel : have : been Lobserved Lin' th'e :past exiting the

' gg Chemet? Lab without: properly surveying personal items. -However, failure .

x.. ' ' ~ ,

[to ' survey? persona _1 ; items;wasu notJ observed in trecent , months. ' During:

a - - l thisiinspection,=:: the11nspector .did not[ observe ~ personnel : exiting' the "J 4EChemetilab without surveying material? prior ;o exiting. -In discussions

. , lwithiilicen' seers personneli this " situation - had occurred previously;- 1

<g ,

d- however, ;. corrective lactionJ taken~ 'by i the slicensee'- has, apparently.

ES

~

eliminated this problem. Radiation Safety has; implemented a

program to

periodic. ally -nionitori selected : controlled ' area;'on a: weekly basis to

assureLpersonnel;areiproperly surveying themselves ' and materials' when

~ ~

- i exitingfcontrolled) areas.E :The. inspector ~_ reviewed -.results of Ethese "surveillancesi LThis" allegation 1was< substantiated. . However, ' actions -

P , - staken byLthe; licensee to correct'the problem appeared to.be~ effective.

(No _ discrepancies 'have _ been identified' where ~ personnel- were exiting

, , Jcontrolled j areas Limproperly. No' _ violations or deviations were e _

~ Eidentified. __

,, e-

,. - - 4

+

t

, , 4 4 . . - _

u-.[ ,l ~-l lk f ~s 5

G W ~~ , ,

p(L T: .

r a.~ .

a. -

s 9-

n. fAllegation Alleger stated .that con'taminated urine samples 'were .being dumped down, a

~

csemi.-controlled ' area ; sink in the EnvironmentalLLaboratory. Alleger's

- concern - was' Lthat . these c samples 'were : dumped in ' uncontrolled sinks t . without; proper sampling. prior to release.

Discussion-and Finding.

The1 inspector . reviewed- a ' Chemet and Environmental ' Lab design drawing

_ . - thatirevealed the exact location of each sink and its associated flow:

diagram. LAfter. review,'.'the inspector determined that~ the'. effluents -in

~

,'each: sink .in : the Chemet Lab flows to?a controlled waste processing system 'and isl sampled prior.to. each release. The inspector concluded safter ' his . review - that no NRC requirements were violated. This allegation was not substantiated. No? violations or deviations.were identified.,

(o. E. Allegation-LAlle'ger. statedi that the Chemet. Lab. ventilation system's. intake was from

. a' controlled.-area and that the filter and grill of the ventilation

, system was heavily contaminated.

1 Discussion and Finding..

'. . . _.~

lIn- February 1985,Dthe licensee performed contamination' surveys of the lgril1J and roughing filter ~ of .the recirculation ventilation system and found contamination . levels zof - 60 DPM/100 cm2 - smearable . contamination

. and _800 to' 2,000 DPM fixed contamination. ~These levels are-below the lic'ensee's controlled area-limits for.the Chemet Lab as' stated in their s

~

? License Application which are 1,000 DPM/100 cm2 smearable and 2,200 DPM

fixed.- A review 'of ' previous contamination surveys"in the ~ Lab. did not

~

~

indicate ^any prior ' surveys of the ventilation- systems grill. _.

Calculations _ perfo'rmed.by the inspector indicated that' the buildup of the contamination levelsJ on the roughing filter could have been the

~

_y . result.of normal operation of the recirculation system and the presetice V -of airborne- ' uranium ' concentrations ~in the Lab .that are less than one-tenth of- one percentL the concentration -spectfied in -10 'CFR 20, Appendix. B, Table 1~, - Column 1. . Ccntamination of the filter and the

- grill at levels indicated by the licensee's s'urveys' did 'not represent

the presence'of significant airborne radioactivity in the Chemet Lab.

1This allegation was substantiated, in that, the ventilation system was

'found to be slightly contaminated above background levels; however, levels 'of radioactivity did not exceed the licensee's controlled area

~

limits 'and did notiexceed any regulatory limits. No violations or

. deviations were identified.

L.

yq=y - r. ,

m -

": n . . , -

<jx h 4 n- ,

.::p c , .-

^

~ - (,v . - s 10L

,p?

n; x.

.n y_ _ _

M ;f5.7jAsLowAs1ReasonablyAchievableL(ALARA). Program (83822)-

1 l ~ '

wl ' :Para $raphi2} and 3[of Lthe: Licensee? s Application for Ocense No. lSNM-1097, . -

.. t. N ' dated 5/14/84,trequires(the ;11censee' to conduct an ALARA Program to reduce i Nw fradiation.fexposureskto; personnel. .LicenseeiProcedure Policies and

- ^; Proc ~edures t40-31p Revision ' 0,1 Radiation' Safety Committee,~ : . requires. the :

- : Radiation RSafety? Committee? to. meet;at least monthly to! identify any ALARA

• fconcerns 2and ,to; resolve previously31dentified problem areas. f The Lcommittee

,- iconsists tof representatives from Fuel: Chemical -Operations, Fuel Fabrication'-

7 + 0perations b Chemica19 and Ceramic J Engineering,.. : Components . and . Fuel; y[

' a "e LFabricationu Enginaering Facil_ities, eFuel- Quality and Regulatory Compliance.

tTheCrepresentatives" from Regulatory . Compliance 1 (Mana'ger, Radiation-

i. Protection) acts"as1the Chairman for'the Radiation ~ Safety Committee.

?' -

Thelins'pect'or - selectively reviewed ' the minutes offmonthly: Radiation Safety 1 -

.. (Committee meetings;and annual ~ ALARA repo'rts _ required. by . the . licensee's

(application for.:the periodi ofJ1979 to present. The 'results of these' reviews

'l _ '

f  ; revealed ithat the ? licensee :-hastidentified and corrected numerous : ALARA conc. erns:withinaspecific: controlled ' areas to reduce radiation exposures to

, im ^ -

tpersonne1;.c The following-areas are a selected number of the areas that were

"# tidentified: andpcorrected by5the f Radiation Safety Committee' to reduce radiation exposures-to personnel:

a.bInstall Blow-back Filters on Grinders-mm ,-

~ ; '_ N1)':[Avera'ged f30%'of MPC before installation of filters

~

~

2,;% : ,. . m: _(2) Averaged < 20%.0f MPC after installation.of, filters m_ . ~ ,

_r . .. ., .. - - . - .

T

b. MInstall: Red . Cap; Scrubbers

]e J ,[, - . .~hr'.

f(1) :Averagdd greater.than 25% of MPC before installation'of scrubbers

> y ,

f(2) 1 Averaged lessithan 10%~_of MPC-after.instellation of scrubbers-ci '"FM0"l Stacker 1 Pallet Mbdification *

.. Stacker 1 Pallet . modification was done to prevent puncturing - bottom of

~ ~

fcansJ being stored on . the? stacker ^ array. After . modification ~ was

, ~ +' Lperformed no reported indications of powder spills on pallets have been 11dentified; JThisihas eliminated spread-of contamination and potential:

p "

fairborne problems.

Y',( .

d. RHydrolysis Scrubber' Upgrade

% . After installing new scrubbers,: the ; airborne levels of Fiscal Week 1-6

, in 019819 were -47% -'ofi the' 4th . quarter 1980 airborne levels. The-

' ~ '

upgrading of.;'new scrubbers in !this ' area had been very effective in i ,^

~

reducing; airborne-radiation levels.

~

r 3 J

's *

- . . s

-[. -.

Q: ,

3. "

kc a.l ,. - .

,-g 4 J~,

--.-= _.;,; - m , _, _, , _,. _ ._ _,,,_,_ _ _ ; _ _,, _ _._. _ ,__.,,,..,._

C ft . '

• E

- , s g ';  ;.;

3

. 11

~

(e. Rad Cap' Areal

Rad Cap area-_ exhaust _was improved to reduce area airborne rac'

activity clevelsfin t1981. Modifications resulted .in .75% reduction in the number -

of shifts where' the concentration exceeded the concentration -specified

. sin 10 CFR 20, Appendix'B,=. Table I, Column.1.

- f. Calciner Area Upgrade in calciner containment in 1983,_which included installation of a' new Lyalve to eliminate air in leakage and the' installation of. heavy

~

e .

E dutyiboots. In .1983, prior to .the _ modifications, the plant Lexperienced -

72 reportedLperturbationsf(air concentration :on one airJsampler or in one Jarea from one eventr exceeded 'the value in 10 CFR 20, Appendix.B,;

Table -1, Column _14for, uranium).

After the modifications - only 9 nerturbations have' occurred. No1 ruptured boots have occurred since the i19831 modifications. . New projects, have been proposed. in 19851 by the

Radiation Sa~fety Committee to further. reduce the airborne radioactivity concentrations lresulting from the calciners.

}The above examples; represent a selected. numb'er of projects ~ initiated by-the Radiation Safety . Committee to reduce exp'osures at this facility to Las low as: reasonable: achievable.

mThe -inspector. concluded' after his. review that the .licensae's ALARA program

_isf adequate land has been effective' in controlling and reducing. personnel

~

radiation-exposures. No violations.or deviations were identified. ,

.6. ' Fume: Hood ~ Face 1 Velocities:(83822)=

Paragraph 3.2.2.'1,L of. the Licensee's Application for License No: SNM-1097, dated 5/14/84, Inter-Area L Air Flow Design and Table 3.1 requires that all Efume hoods shall maintain a face velocity of' > 80 linear _ feet per . minute

--(LFPM);and shall be-checked monthly to assure these hoods meet the required

~

Eface: velocities.

The11nspector: selectively? reviewed L the -required monthly checks ~of fume

-hoods,- specifically in the Chemet Lab,.from January 1985 to September 1985, and' concluded that the face velocities met the. required > 80 LFPM.

No: violations or' deviations were : identified.

J7: :IE.Information Notices l(92717)

The' following IE Information Notices were reviewed to ensure their receipt

-and review by appropriateJ11censee management:

IN'84-24, Physical Requalification of Individuals to Use Respiratory Protective Devicest

~ e , y y on = ++ - + rw +c , y

p . .

> ~

J $

~

(

y 12 f:

F '

.IN 84-34, Respiratory User' Warning: Defective Self-Contained Breathing iApparatus-Air Cylinder .

--IN 84-40,~EmergencyLWorker Doses IN 84-56;; Respiratory Users Notice;for-Certain 5-minute Emergency-Escape Self-Contained Breathing'Ap'paratus

~

IN!84-59,JDeliberate Circumventing of Station Health Physics Procedures JIN'84-60, Failure of Air-Purifying' Respiratory Filters to Meet.

Efficiency Requirements

,f

IN 84-72, Combustible Gas: Mixtures in Solidified Radwaste

~

IN 84-75,-Defective Detector Tubes'Model No. 71623 for Eberline Analog JTeletector.Model 61128

. IN 84-82pGuidance for Posting Radiation Areas

, ;IN 85-06,. Contamination of Breathing Air Systems

~

'IN ~85'-31; 4 Build-up ,of. Enriched U .in . Ventilation Ducts and Associated

-Effluent -Treatment' Systems -

IN 85-46,fClarification of Several Aspects of Removable Radioactive

~

g . , Surface

Contamination . Limits for Transport Packages IN '85-60, -Defective ' Negative ' Pressure, Air Purifying Full Facepiece

. .  ! Respirators:

i No violations orl deviations were.-identifled.

J.

3 p

qt l'

b ina .

. . _