IR 05000013/1981003
| ML20033D268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Lynchburg Research Center, 07000824, 07000825 |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Hosey C, Kahle J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D246 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-013-81-03, 50-099-81-03, 50-13-81-3, 50-99-81-3, 70-0824-81-02, 70-824-81-2, NUDOCS 8112070468 | |
| Download: ML20033D268 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,. . . / 'o,, UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o n r - REGION ll [[ 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 310o Q ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 70-824/81-02, 50-13/81-03, and 50-99/81-03 Licensee: Babcock and Wilcox Company Lynchburg Re. search Center Lynchburg, VA 24505 Facility Name: Lynchburg Research Center Docket Nos. 70-824, 50-13, and 50-99 License Nos. SNM-778, CX-10 and R-47 Inspection at L nchbur esearch Center near Lynchburg, VA Inspector: . /4!%8 /p/ J.B.Kahfe D' ate 61gn'ed Approved by: M /8 / e C. M. HodgV, Actir g Section Chief , Date Signed Technical Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division . SUMMARY ~ Inspection on September 28-October 2,1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 21 inspector-hours on site in the areas of external exposure, bioassay program,: air sampling program, contamination-control, internal audits, respiratory protection and followup on previous inspec-tion findings.
Results Of the 7 areas inspected, no-violations or deviations were identified in 6 areas;; 1 violation was found in 1 area.
, 8112070468 811125 PDR ADOCK 05000013 .0
- PDR-
- ,
-_ __ _ . _ _ . . . . . REPORT DETAILS 1.
' Persons Contacted Licensee Employees , !
- T. Engelder, Laboratory Director
- C. Bell, Facilities Manager J. Cure, III, Health and Safety Supervisor
- A. Olsen, License Administrator
- S. Pennington, Health Physics Engineer l
Other licensee employees contacted included 3 technicians and 2 office personnel.
l !
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 2,1981 with - those persons indicated'in paragraph 1 above.
i i j 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings ! (Closed) Infraction, 70-824/79-06-04, Improper Use of Respirators-Inadequate Protection Factors. The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective action specified in their response of. November 12,-1979. _ The. licensee.is -using powered ' air respirators and a supplied air respiratory system. 'These devices provide protection factors of 1000.and 2000 instead of the 50 previously used for the assault masks. The concentrations of radioactive material in the air (Hot Cells and Isolation Area) did not exceed the valves - D specified in Table I, Column 1 of Appendix B to.10 CFR Part 20 by a factor: greater than the protection factor provided by the respiratory protective l equipment.
f l 4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified dur'ing.this inspection.
p 5.
External Exposure l a.
An examination of the monthly R. S. Landauer film badge. reports showed that external radiation exposures to individuals were within the!11mits specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a). - A licensee representative stated that even though'it'was the policy to keep external exposures within thcse l limits, Form NRC-4 information was1 maintained for; employees. For the i calendar year of.1980, two individuals' exceeded 3 rem of penetrating. radiation. A total of.223 individuals were badged.
i .-.,_ _ .
. . . .
b.
Routine visitor personnel are given a TLD dosimeter.
If personnel monitoring equipment is required by 10 CFR 20.202, such as entering a high radiation area, a Landauer film dosimeter is provided.
c.
The records reflected that pencil type pocket dosimeters are worn by radiation workers as required by the conditions of the license.
6.
Internal Exposure a.
In-vivo An examination of the body counting results showed no significant-internal deposition of fission, activation or corrosion products. No positive lung counting results were detected for U-235.
b.
Urinalyses
An examination of the urinalysis results for 1980 and 1981 indicated that all uranium results were less than 5 micrograms per liter except
l one which was 8 micrograms per liter. The investigation level is 20 l micrograms per liter. All urine analyses for plutonium were less than l 0.0 i 0.03 dpm/ liter.
c.
Respiratory Protection The inspector discussed the respiratory protection program with a > l licensee representative.
Essentially, three types of respiratory ' protection devices are available to employees, an assault mask, a powered air blower unit and a supplied air respiratory system (SARS).
The representative displayed and explained the use of powered air unit.
The operation of the SARS including maintenance, testing, alarm l systems, condensate trap, filters, etc., were explained to the
inspector. The inspector verified that masks were stored properly and examined the plastic suits for the SARS. The inspector verified that i records were maintained for the testing and training of' personnel with regard to the proper use of the respiratory protection equipment. The inspector verified that the annual physical exams were given to radia-tion workers who may be required to use respiratory protection equip-ment.
d.
Air Sampling An examination of the air sampling records showed that. the average concentration of airborne uranium in the working areas.was approxi- -14 mately 5x10 microcuries per mil'1111ter. : Discussions with licensee representatives revealed.that routine air _ samples are collected for a period of one week at an air flow of about 1.3 cubic feet per minute - or greater. - A Gelman glass fiber filter is used. - A licensee repre-sentative presented ~ the vendor's literature which stated that the-filter collection efficiency was 99.9 percent for 0.3 micron particles.
A licensee representative stated that.self absorption (dust loading and t
. . . .
burial) would be determined on samples where sufficient activity was collected to make a reliable analysis. Filter papers are counted for 20 minutes on a Beckman Wide Beta II Counter which has a background of 0.04 cpm for alpha and approximately 1.0 cpni for beta. The counter is source checked prior to counting the air sample filters. A graph of the source check results showed essentially no deviation over a period ' of a year.
< ' 7.
Surveys The inspector verified that the following surveys were made in accordance with the license conditions and procedural requirements.
a.
Hood face velocities.
b.
Building air flows.
c.
Clean area contamination surveys.
d.
Controlled area contamination surveys.
e.
External radiation levels.
It was noted that areas were cleaned and a resurvey completed when contami-nation action levels were exceeded.
8.
Postings a.
Observations by the. inspectors re;ealed that radiation-areas, airborne radioactivity areas and radioactive material areas were posted as required by 10 CFR 20.203.
b.
The inspector verified that areas posted as high. radiation' areas were locked and-it was noted that -the Hot Cell Isolation areas was also alarmed. A licensee representative stated that the facility supervisor and health physics controlled the keys to these areas.
It was noted by the inspector that notices to workers _ were. posted c.
pursuant to 10 CFR'19.11.
9.
Audits and Internal Reports The inspector verified that the monthly health physics audits were completed ~ in accordance with Section A.6.4.1-of-the license application. An-examina-tion of the annual ~ report. showed that it was mc+4 in accor/.ance with ' the requirements of Section A.7.5 of the license application.
M bII w
, . .
10.
Records and Reports From observations and examinations of records mace during the inspection it appeared that records were being retained in accordance with 10 CFR regula-tions and license requirements.
The inspector verified that the annual personnel monitoring summary report had been submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 20.407 and that termination reports were made pursuant to 10 CFR 20.408.
11.
Instrument Calibration The inspector verified that survey and laboratory instruments were cali-brated in accordance with the requirements of the license application and the licensee's procedures.
12.
Inhalation Incident a.
On August 4, 1980, an individual while cleaning out a hood in the Loop Sampling Room of the Radiochemistry Lab contaminated his clothing and spread radioactive contamination to other parts of the Radiochemistry Lab.
The contamination problem was detected when the individual monitored himself with the personal radiat. ion frisker as he exited the contamination control area. A nasal smear showed 60,000 dpm. Licensee representatives stated that the contaminated areas were isolated and-later decontaminated. The individual was decontaminated and requested to submit fecal and urine samples.
Licensee representatives stated that the radioactive contamination was residual contamination from high burnup fuel samples.
b.
Fecal and urine sample results showed that the individual inhaled approximately 10 percent of the-quantity limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table I, Column 1.
Plutonium 238, 239, 240,. Americium 241, Curium 242, 243, 244, Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 radionuclides were considered in the evaluation. A body count of August 12, 1980 showed a Co-60 lung burden of 1 percent and a Cs-137 maximum permissible body burden (MP8B) of 0.08 percent.. A body count on 1/30/81 showed 1.14 percent of the MpBB for Co-60, Cs-137 and I-131.
Urine samples collected on 1/2/81 showed 0.0 2.0 picocuries per liter for Sr-90.
c.
The inspector inquired about the air coricentrations of radioactive material to which the individual had 'been exposed.
Licensee repre' sen+atives stated that an air sample had not been collected in the imnediate work area.
The routine Radiochemistry Lab air sample was collected on'the opposite side.of the' room approximately 25. feet away.
The sample was not representative of the concentrations of radioactive materials which the individual breathed.
The weekly average concen- -1E tration results from the. sample were 8.62x10 microcuries per milli- -13 liter alpha and 3.14x10 microcuries'per milliliter beta..'A licensee representative stated that the air -sampler alarm would activate at ~ approximately 2-3 MPC-brs for Sr-90 and did not alarm the day of the incident.
F l
- -
.. , ! ! l
l d.
The inspector asked if the hood cleanup work was done under operating procedures or a radiation work permit.
A licensee representative stated that a radiation work permit had been issued for the work. He < p.
further stated that there was a communication problem when the permit ! was issued. The supervisor had essentially directed the individual to cleanup a different hood and the health physics representative,did not understand the extend of the cleanup. A copy of the radiation work permit was not available because the individual had taken all three copies of the permit into the Radiochemistry Lab when he performed the cleanup work and the permit became contaminated and disposed of in the contaminated waste. The individual and the supervisor were not avail-
able for interview by the inspector because they are no longer employed !' at the licensee's facility.
[ e.
The licensee was informed that failure to make suitable concentration measurements of radioactive material in air to detect and evaluate , l airborne radioactivity in restricted areas was a violation of the 10 CFR 20.103a(3) (81-02-01).
It was emphasized to licensee j representatives that the radiation work permit system apparently did not provide the controls for which it was intended and that a licensee must demonstrate that air sample. concentration measurements are representative of the air breathed by individuals.
The inspector accepted the bioassay analyses to determine the quantity of radio-active material inhaled by the individual.
13.
Licensee Action on Inspector Identified Items (Closed) Inspector Followup Item, 70-824/79-06-01, Determination of the l Uranium Bioassay Adequacy for One Individual. The in-vivo, fecal and urine data for the particular individual showed no internal deposition of uranium.
. The sampling frequency for the individual exceeded the frequency specified i in the Regulatory Guide 8.11, Application of Bioassay for Uranium.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item,. 70-824/79-06-02, Development of Radiation Work Permit Procedure. A procedure,.B-HP-1, Procedure for Use of Filling ' Out of Radiation Work Permit, was developed and established in Novermber 1979. The procedure contained the approvals of the Nuclear Safety Officer, the Health Physics Supervisor, the Building Supervisor and 'the Safety Review Committee Chairman.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item, 70-824/79-06-03, The licensee'_s procedure, LRC-TP-95. Respiratory. Protection Program, _ was revised October 31, 1979 to strengthen the procedures with regard to training, tests, records and use of-respiratory protection devices.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item, 70-824/79-06-05,' Determine the Efficiency of the'NNFD Waste Treatment Facility for Fission, Activation and Corrosion ~ Products. An evaluation of the NNFD' waste ' treatment plant process with a laboratory mockup showed the~ decontamination efficiencies to be less than 50 percent. The licensee,~a Research and Development Facility, is not required i
r .. . .. ..
to report pursuant to'10 CFR 70.59. In addition, 10 CFR 70.59 pertains only to special nuclear material, not fission, ~ activation or corrosion products.
-A license representative stated, however, that B&W-LRC was performing gross beta analyses of the B&W-NNFD liquid waste on a routine basis.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item, 70-824/79-06-06, Develop Procedures to Pickup and Receive Radioactive Material Forsuant to 10 CFR 20.205(a)(b) and (c).
Procedures B-GP-3, C-GP-4, and A-SP-2, Receipt of. Radioactive Material, have been developed for implementing the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 20.205(a)(b) and (c).
. c F , e n .% -_s A a.
_ }}