ML20216H693

Insp Repts 70-0371/87-03 & 70-0820/87-01 on 870518-22.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Radiation Program,Including Status of Previously Identified Items,Mgt Oversight & Controls & Training of Personnel

ML20216H693
Person / Time
Site:	07000371, 07000820
Issue date:	06/19/1987
From:	Cioffi J, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216H678	List: ML20216H676 ML20216H693
References
70-0371-87-03, 70-0820-87-01, 70-371-87-3, 70-820-87-1, NUDOCS 8707010519
Download: ML20216H693 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATGRY COMMISSION REGION I 70-371/87 03 Report Nos. 70-820/87-01 70-371 l Docket No.70-820 License No. SNM-368; SNM-777 Priority 1 Category UHFF Licensee: UNC Naval Products Division 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasville, CT 06382 Facility Name: UNC Naval Products; Inspection At: Montville, Connecticut and Wood River Junction, Rhode Island Inspection Conducted: May 18-22, 1987 Inspectors: ,

Md M d-M -M I pgJeanA.Cioffi,RadiationSpecialistFRPS date Approved by: RLNvv4 4

_M. M. Shanbaky, Chief," Facilities

)W V 6 M/B7 ~

da t'e Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 18-22, 1987 (Report No. 70-371/87-03 and 70-820/87-01).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiation protection program, including: status of previously identified items; manage-  !

ment oversight and controls; training of personnel; implementation of the radiation protection program; external exposure control; internal exposure control, effluent and environmental monitoring; and radioactive waste management and. transportation activities.

Results: No violations were identified in this review.

b C

DETAILS I

1.0 Personnel Contacted

• N. Kaufman, President, UNC Naval Products .

• R. Gregg, Director, Technical Services )

• W. Kirk, Manager, Nuclear and Industrial Safety j

• D. Luster, Specialist, Radiological and Environmental Control l

• De' notes attendance at the exit interview on-May 22, 1987.

)

Other licensee personnel were also contacted arid interviewed.

2.0 Purpose 1-The purpose of this routine, unannounced inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following elements:

Status of Previously Identified I'tems d Management Oversight and Controls {

Training of Personnel Implementuion cf the Radiation Protection Program l External Exposure Contros 1 Internal Exposure Control Effluent and Environmental Monit Wing Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation Activities Wood River Junction Radiation Protection Activities 3.0 Status of Previous)v Identified Items

{

i (0 pen) Inspector Follow-up Iten (70-371/86-09-01). Review the sample results of wells 7-1 and T-10 for elevated activity.

This item is discussed in Paragraph 9.0.

4.0 Management Oversight and Controls i Tha licensee's ranagement oversight and control over the health physN1 prqgram vts reviewed against criteria contained in Special Nuclear i Material license No. SNM-368, Chaptw 2. '

j The licensee's performance with respect to the above criteria wais determined by: ,

1 1

discussions with licensee personnel; . 1

. review of the Health Physics manual ard Task Instructions for 1 1

control of activities; and review of the Health Physics Specialist monthly inspections from January, 1986 to May, 1987. 1

(!

i

, 1

= m _ u i

3 R

3

. 1 Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. However, the inspector noted some weaknesses in the licensee's radiation protection pro-cedures (Task Instructions). The Task Instructions did not contain  !

clearly defined guidance in the creas of: airborne radioactivity )

activity determination, appropriat' equipment to use for surveys, nor the j method used for reporting results to ensure consistency in the recording of data. Interviews with Health Physics technicians indicated that there was some confusion over the performance of non-routine tasks and analyses because there were no clearly extablished guidance for performing these occasional activities. The licensee stated that the Health Physics pro-cedures were under revision, and that additional detail would be added to enhance procedure quality. This area will remain unresolved and be reviewed in a future inspection. (70-371/87-03-01). )

i The licensee fulfills their license requirement for an annual independent l audit by the audit performed by the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI). At the time of the inspection, the written report of 1987 annual ANI audit i had not been issued. This audit will be reviewed in a future inspection. )

i 5.0 Training of Personnel The licensee's program for the training of all facility personnel was reviewed with respect to 10 CFR 19.12.

(

The licensee's performance related to the above requirement was determined by review of the incoming personnei Radiation Worker Orientation training and associated written test. ,

I Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The J licensee presented a one and a half hour long training session to a small i group of new employees. The topics covered included specific information  !

on the radiological hazards encountered at their facility as well as 2 general radiation protection information. Personnel were required to pass a written test with a score of 75's or better. i 6.0 Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program The licensee's program for the control of radioactive materials; posting  ;

and labeling of areas; airborne and area radiation monitoring; 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";

Regulatory Guide 8.24, " Health Physics Surveys during Enriched Uranium-235 Processing and Fuel Fabrication"; and ANSI N7.2-1963, " Radiation Protection in Nuclear Reactor Fuel Fabrication Plants".

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

observations made during tours of the manufacturing facility; review of selected smear survey records for Building "B" South; review of selected air sample records for Building "B" South; review of selected area film badges in all areas of the plant; and discussions with licensee personnel.

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The inspector noted one door which lacked the appropriate " CAUTION -

Radioactive Materials" posting, which was immediately corrected by licensee personnel.

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

10 CFR Sections 20.101, 20.102, 20.104, 20.202, and 20.401; 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 August 1986 to December 1986.

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The licensee was conducting an external monitoring program in accordance with regulatory requirements and his license conditions. Furthermore, no significant personnel exposures 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 Sections 20.108 and 20.401; 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 licensee personnel; review of the Helegeson whole body counting records for November 1986; and

)

l review of the urinalysis results from June to December,1986 for )

selected individuals. j j

Within the scope of the review, no violations were identified. No

]

significant uptakes of radioactive materials were measured by urinalysis I 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 Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents l from Nuclear Fuel Processing and Fabrication Plants and Uranium Hexafluoride Production Plants."

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

review of the semi-annual effluent reports for January to July,1986 and August to December, 1986; review of gaseous effluent records for selected stacks from October, 1986 to March, 1987; review of records of radiometric analyses for 19 wells located on site for January 1986 to January 1987; and discussions with licensee personnel.

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The licensee was monitoring his gaseous effluent, liquid effluent, and environmental paths in accordance with regulatory requirements and license conditions.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's data for wells T-10 and T-1 for 1986 (identified as open item 86-09-01 in NRC Inspection Report 70-371/86-09).

Elevated activity continued to be found in both wells during the first two quarters of 1986. During the third quarter, the enriched uranium analyses indicated very low activity was present (T-1: 7.9 0.9 picocuries per liter; T-10: 6.81.0 picocuries per liter). However, during the fourth quarter of 1986, analyses of the T-10 well sample indicated 322.7 15.6 picocuries per liter of enriched uranium activity. The fourth quarter T-1 well sample result indicated 4.5 0.7 picocuries per liter (enriched uranium).

The licensee stated that they would continue to monitor these wells and trend the data. The licensee further stated that the termination of

T l

e 6

discharging their liquid waste to the leach field would probably eliminate the contamination of these wells. No apparent offsite releases were identified by the inspector. The licensee's action on this matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

10.0 Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation Activities The licensee's program for radioactive waste management and transportation of waste was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:

10 CFR 20.301 and 311 10 CFR 61.55 and 56 10 CFR 71 The licensee's performance related to these criteria was determined by:

review of the Special Nuclear Material Shipping Guide; review of records for radioactive waste shipped to Barnnwell, S.C. ,

and Richland, Washington; and discussions with various licensee personnel.

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The licensee ships dry, active waste (DAW), contaminated oils and organics, and used filter material with undetectable radioactivity for burial to one of the two low level waste sites mentioned above. Any material containing significant quantities of radioactive material is shipped to a processor for recovery. The inspector reviewed shipping manifests, waste characterizations, and associated radiation / contamination surveys and QC checks on three waste shipments. All paperwork was in order, and manifest tracking was timely and complete.

11.0 Wood River Junction Radiation Protection Activities The inspector visited this site on May 16, 1987 and toured the grounds and buildings. Records review included air samples, smear surveys and radiation surveys of the Lagoon Building, and environmental TLD results and well analyses for the site.

No measurable radiation was _ identified on the air samples, smear surveys or radiation survey records. The environmental TLD measurements for 1985 through May 1987 indicated that backgound levels ranged between 10 to 20 millirems per month. All well samples were at the minimum detectable activity levels.

The licensee stated that they were awaiting a final NRC environmental survey and the removal of drums of dirt before final decommissioning of the facility was accomplished.

i o

. 7 12.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee's representatives.(denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May. 22, 1987. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and findings as described in this report.

1

!