ML20211F849

Insp Rept 70-0371/86-09 on 860915-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Radiation Protection Officer Program,Including Status of Previously Identified Items & Mgt Oversight & Controls

ML20211F849
Person / Time
Site:	07000371
Issue date:	10/20/1986
From:	Cioffi J, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211F819	List: ML20211F816 ML20211F849
References
70-0371-86-09, 70-371-86-9, NUDOCS 8610310278
Download: ML20211F849 (7)

Text

. ,

n U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No. 86-09 Docket No.70-371 License No. SNM-368 Priority 1 Category UHFF l

Licensee: UNC Naval Products Division 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 Facility Name: UNC Naval Products Inspection At: Montville, Connecticut Inspectior Conducted: September 15-19, 1986 Inspectors: .

__ ze m _ /, /O Oh4 l JearA3'Cio fi, Ra ation Specialist date Approved by:

af u ,a[w/A l' M~.~q.antyiky, Chib/ '~date l Faciliti(s Radiati5n Protection Section j EP&RPB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection September 15-19, 1986 (Report No. 70-371/86-09).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiation protection program, including: status of previously identified items; manage-ment oversight and controls; selection, qualification, and retraining of health physics technicians; implementation of the radiation protection program; ex-ternal exposure control; internal exposure control; and effluent and environ-mental monitoring.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified in this review.

8610310278 861021 PDR ADOCK 07000371 C PDR

DETAILS 1.0 Personnel Contacted

• N. Kaufman, President, UNC Naval Products

• R. Gregg, Director, Technical Services i v.. Kirk, Manager, Nuclear and Industrial Safety

• D. Luster, Specialist, Radiological and Environmental Control

• denotes attendance at the exit interview on September 19, 1986.

Other licensee personnel was also contacted and interviewed.

2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine, unannounced inspection was to review the licensee's radiation and environmental protection program with respect to the following elements:

Status of Previously Identified Items Management Oversight and Controls Selection, Qualification and Retraining of Health Physics Technicians Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program External Exposure Control Internal Exposure Control Effluent and Environnental Monitoring 3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items 3.1 (Closed) Inspector Followup (85-09-01 . Calibration of air flow meteringdevicesusedinbuilding"B") South.

The licensee sent 18 rotameters to the manufacturer to verify the calibration of the instruments. All rotameters were found to be within the original manufacturer's calibration specifications.

Furthermore, the manufacturer stated in a letter to the licensee on November 1, 1985 that these particular rotameters were manufactured to require no periodic recalibration, provided they remain clean and undamaged. Since the licensee uses clean, dry, filtered air through these rotameters, no further calibration is required for these air flow measuring devices. This item is closed.

3.2 (Closed) Inspector Followup (85-09-02). Review the licensee's actions relative to increased airborne radioactivity associated with 1 scrap sample sort / package operation.

As a result of this NRC finding, the Nuclear Material Control operating procedure was reviewed, and the Health Physics staff re-viewed the in-field scrap sorting operation.

3 As a result of the licensee's review, the scrap sorting work area was cleaned up and unnecessury equipment and records were removed. A hood with an exhaust and a booster fan was installed in the work area to contain the dust generated during the scrap sorting operation.

Finally, the work procedure was revised to incorporate scrap-sorting techniques which will minimize generation of airborne dust.

The licensaa is considering controlling all future work involving the scrap sorting operation by using the special work permit (SWP). This item is considered closed.

3.3 (0 pen) Violation (86-02-06). Inadequate sampling of three stacks.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this violation in a letter dated July 2, 1986. Based upon the information provided in the letter, a visual inspection of the relocation of the probe in stack S-18 (the Health Physics Hood stack); and the relocation of the sample filter holder for stack S-26, the inspector determined that the licensee's corrective actions,on the sampling of these two stacks were sufficient to eliminate further concern over appropriate monitoring of effluents to comply with regulatory requirements. The licensee stated that no corrective actions had been taken with stack S-17. Therefore this remains open pending further corrective action by the Itcensee.

3.4 (Closed) Violation (86-02-07). No procedure to cover laundry and survey of shoe covers.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions, as stated in a letter dated July 2, 1986. The licensee's corrective actions appeared sufficient to prevent recurrence of this problem. This item is closed.

i 4.0 Management Oversight and Controls The licensee's management oversight and control over the health physics program was reviewed against criteria contained in Special Nuclear Material license No. SNM-368, Chapter 2.

! The licensee's performance with respect to the above criteria was determined by:

discussions with licensee personnel; review of the Health Physics manual and Task Instructions for control of activities; review of selected special work permits (SWPs);

.,, .--~--,--.-,--,.-y-

, , --- ,y-- , , , - _ , - . , . - , . - - , , - - -

4-, - --,v-.,- ,,- -y,- -..,,-v -,

,,-w. 1 -,

4 review of the Health Physics Specialist monthly inspections from January to July 1986; and review of the 1986 ANI audit, dated March 25, 1986, and licensee's subsequent reply to the audit, dated April 15, 1986.

Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were identi-fled. The inspector noted that the licensee's response to audit findings (ANI audit and the internal monthly inspections) was thorough and timely, and all concerns were addressed for proposed resolution when necessary.

5. Selection, Qualification, and Retraining of Health Physics Technicians The licensee's program for selecting, qualifying, and retraining health physics technicians was reviewed against criteria contained in:

SNM-368, Section 2.8, " Training".

The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by:

discussion with the Health Physics Specialist and the Health Physics Technicians; and observations of health physics work in progress during the inspection.

With the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were identified. The licensee conducts an informal on-the-job training program for their health physics personnel. Weekly meetings are conducted for the purpose of discussing any work related problems that may surface, informal retraining, and to schedule work for the following week. The inspector observed that all health physics personnel were knowledgeable in their duties, and aware of the specific radiological

hazards of their work place.

6.0 Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program

, The licensee's program for the control of radioactive materials; posting i

and labeling of areas; airborne and area radiation monitoring; calibration and maintenance of radiation instrumentation; and minimizing contamination to maintain personnel exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) was reviewed against criteria contained in:

10 CFR 20; SNM-368, Chapter 4, " Health Physics Standards";

.. -= - - _.

5 4 >

.%  :- Regulatory Guide 8.24, " Health Physics Surveys during Enriched

,s.( Uranium-235 Processing and Fuel Fabrication";

k%.- s ANSI N7.2-1963 " Radiation Protection in Nuclear Reactor Fuel Fabrication Plants"; and

,Y ANSI N13.1-1969, " Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities",

s .1 ,

, sThe licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined i by:

observations made during tours of the mt.nufacturing facility; review of records of calibration of counting equipment, hand

,. m.

., monitors, and nuclear area monitors;

^' -

review of routine smear surveys of building "B" South from November 1985 to September 1986; s -

review of air sample records from November 1985 to September 1986 j,), for the Sect 4oning Room and the Scrap Recovery Vault; review of hood flow surveys and ventilation balancing records from August 1985 to August 1986; review of the following task instructions:

Task 5-13: B-South Air Balance Measurement Task 5-3: Hood Velocity Measurements Task 2-16: Procedure for Leak Checking Radioactive Source G. Containment.

review of leak test records for sealed radioactive sources for March 1985 and November 1985; review of records of the results of area film badges for November 1985 to July 1986; and discussions with licensee personnel.

Within the scope of this review no violations or deviations were identi-fled. The inspector noted that a licensee strength was observed in the Health Physics staff was committed to maintaining airborne exposure to i personnel as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), as evidenced by the extensive and thorough tracking of the Shear operation air sampling, and

6 the scrap vault operation air sampling. The licensee indicated that through their air sampling and tracking, possible design changes to the current operational set-up could be initiated to improve the air quality for workers in these areas.

7.0 External Exposure Control The licensee's program for monitoring external exposures was reviewed against criteria contained in:

10 CFR 20.101, 102, 104, 202, and 401; SNM License No. 368, Section 4.2, " Personnel Monitoring"; and ANSI N7.2-1963, " Radiation Protection in Nuclear Reactor Fuel Fabrication Plants."

The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by: ,

discussions with licensee personnel; observations of personnel monitoring made during facility tours; and review of Landauer film dosimetry records from January to July 1986.

Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were identified. The licensee was conducting an external monitoring program in accordance with regulatory requirements and their license conditions.

Furthermore, no significant personnel doses were observed, based upon the records review.

8.0 Internal Exposure Control The licensee' program for monitoring the internal exposure of their.

personnel was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:

10 CFR 20.108 and 401; SNM-368, Section 4.2.3, " Bioassay Program";

Regulatory Guide 8.11, " Applications of Bioassay for Uranium";

ANSI N7.2-1963, " Radiation Protection in Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plants".

The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by:

discussions with l'icensee personnel; review of the Helegeson whole body counting records for May 1986; and review of the urinalysis results frcm January to May 1986 for 9 individuals.

r 7

Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were identified. No significant uptakes of radioactive materials were measured by urinalysis or by whole body counting.

9.0 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring The licensee's program for the monitoring of effluent releases (gaseous and liquid), and for environmental monitoring were reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:

10 CFR 20.106 10 CFR 70.59 Regulatory Guide 4.16, " Monitoring and Reporting Radioactivity in Releases of Radicactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Nuclear Fuel Processing and Fabrication Plants and Uranium Hexafluoride Production Plants."

The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by:

review of the gaseous effluent records for January to June 1986; review of records of radiometric analyses for 19 wells located on the site for 1974 to June 1986; visual inspection of effluent stack sampler locations; visual inspection of air sampling stations surrounding the site and well locations; review of the semi-annual effluent report for January to June 1986; and discussions with licensee personnel.

Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations from regula-tory requirements or license commitments was observed. However, the inspector noted during records review that wells designated as T-1 and T-10 had elevated levels of alpha activity. The inspector discussed this elevated alpha activity with the licensee, and the licensee's trending, tracking, and assessment of these elevated levels. The licensee state that these two wells are located near the septic field. Samples from the septic field were taken and are being reviewed by the NRC (NMSS). The inspector stated that pending completion of the licensee's ongoing studies, this matter is considered an as open item, and will be reviewed during a future inspection. (70-371/86-09-01)

10. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in

' Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 19, 1986.

The. inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and findings as described in this report.

i s

,