IR 05000369/1993006
| ML20045E497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1993 |
| From: | Decker T, Gloersen W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045E486 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-93-06, 50-369-93-6, 50-370-93-06, 50-370-93-6, NUDOCS 9307020146 | |
| Download: ML20045E497 (12) | |
Text
.
,
,
g""Dg UNITED STATES
. -[(
Jg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_
-
o REGION 11
,
-$-
.E_
101 MARIETTA STREET. N W.
'*
't ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323
%*****/
JUN 0 31993 Report Nos.:
50-369/93-06 and 50-370/93-06
.
Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street
- i Charlotte, NC 28242
'
Docket Nos.:
50-369 and 50-370 License Nos.: NPF-9 and NPF-17
Facility Name: McGuire 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: May 3-7, 1993
//
a,'
i
,
_/ w f/2 5
Inspector: \\-//unsv/[ i o
c
,
W. B. Gloersen
/[/>
Date Signed
.
./
.
/
-
sng Approved by:\\
/W W /
IOoIEL S~
T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section
' Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch
>
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY'
.
Scope:
.
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of transportation of radioactive material and solid radioactive waste management.
'
Results:
'
!
In the areas inspected, one non-cited violation was identified for unauthorized disposal of licensed radioactive material (Paragraph 8).
The licensee had effectively implemented a program for shipping radioactive materials and for properly classifying and preparing radioactive waste' for.
shipment to a land disposal facility.
The licensee's program for training and.
.
qualification of Radioactive Materials Control Specialists was effectively implemented. The licensee's audit of the Solid Waste. Management Program was generally thorough and well documented.
-
.
_
.
t 9307020146 930603
>
DR ADOCK 05000369
'
,
i
.
.
t
'?
REPORT DETAILS
,
,
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. Byrum, General Supervisor, Radiological Protection T. Bunch, Training Support Supervisor
- B. Caldwell, Training Manager
- J. Correll, Supervisor, Radiation Protection R. Cross, Engineer, Regulatory Compliance
'
- J. Foster, Radiation Protection Manager
'
- M. Geddie, Station Manager M. Kowalewski, Scientist, Environmental Management
- L. Kunka, Nuclear Production Engineer, Regulatory Compliance
- T. McHeekin, Vice President R. Michael, Manager, Chemistry
- M. Pacetti, Engineer, Mechanical
_
'
J. Pope, Associate Scientist, Radiation Protection
- K. Robinson, Chemistry R. Sapp, Specialist, Radiological Protection M. Seagal, Nuclear Station Instructor
- R. Sharpe, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- H. Vanpelt, Engineer, Mechanical Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, and office personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- T. Cooper, Resident Inspector
- K. Van Doorn, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview on May 7, 1993.
2.
Audits (86750, 86740)
Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.2.9 requires that audits of unit activities be performed under the cognizance of the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) in the following areas: (1).the conformance of facility operation to provisions contained within the TSs and applicable license conditions; (2).the radiological environmental monitoring program; (3) the ODCM and implementing procedures; and (4) the PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM-(PCP)-and implementing procedures for processing and i
packaging of radioactive wastes.
The inspector reviewed the following audit / assessment reports:
.
QA Audit NG-92-04: Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and Process'
Control Program, April 3,1992 1992 Surveillance Reports on Radiological Protection Activities
'
a
-
-
.
The above audit assessed, in part, the adequacy and effectiveness of the ODCM, PCP, preparation and shipment of radioactive material. The audit covered the areas specified in TS 6.5.2.9.
It was noted that the licensee conducted the audit of the ODCM and PCP approximately once per year.
In general, the audit was thorough, detailed, and well documented. The audit team did not identify any program weaknesses in-.
the areas noted above.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
3.
Changes (86750, 86740)
The inspector and the licensee discussed any changes since the last-inspection in organization, personnel, facilities, equipment, programs, and procedures that may affect solid radioactive waste management and the transportation of radioactive materials.
The inspector reviewed this area and noted that the only significant programmatic change involved the implementation of a new automated waste
'
tracking program (RADMAN) in October 1992. As RADMAN was implemented, tho licensee switched from Corporate to a station specific waste classification and waste form implementation program. Aside from several procedural revisions as noted in this report, there were no other program changes noted during this inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Training and Qualifications of Personnel (86750, 86740)
l 10 CFR 19.12 requires the licensee to instruct all individuals working
'
or frequenting any portions of the restricted areas in the health protection aspects associated with exposure to radioactive material or.
radiation, in precautions or procedures to minimize exposure, and in the purpose and function of protection devices employed, applicable provisions of the Commission Regulations, individuals responsibilities and the availability of radiation exposure data.
49 CFR 172.700(b) specifies a systematic training program that ensures a hazmat employee has familiarity with the general provisions of the hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180), is able to recognize and identify hazardous materials, has knowledge of the specific requirements of the hazardous material regulations applicable-to the functions performed by the employee, and.has knowledge of emergency response information, self-protection-measures-and accident ~
prevention methods and procedures.
49 CFR 172.702 requires hazmat employers to ensure that hazmat employees are trained and tested on the training subjects covered in Section 172.704.
.
,
-
.
.
.
,
l
.
1 49 CFR 172.704(a) specifies the requirements for general awareness, i
function-specific, and safety training.
Subparagraph 172.704(a)(2)
requires that hazmat employees receive training concerning hazardous material regulatory requirements specifically applicable to the functions the employee performs.
Paragraph 172.704(c) requires that hazmat employees receive required training at least once every two years.
TSs 6.3 and 6.4 described the requirements for training and qualification of licensee personnel.
The licensee's training program was implemented through the Employee Training and Qualification System (EQTS) which consisted of general emplnyee training, technical training, and employee / professional development training. The technical training consisted of initial training, on-the-job training and qualification, and continuing training.
Radiological Materials Control (RMC) Specialists received 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> of initial in-house technical training in Compliance with Radioactive Material Shipping and Disposal Regulations (CRAM); 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of outside (vendor) technical training in Department of Transportation regulations once every other year (re: IE Bulletin 79-10); and 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of hazardous materials training once every other year. The EQTS for RMC Specialists consisted of approximately 12 tasks as described in Radiation Protection Manual Section 7.13, Qualification Task' List.
The inspector reviewed the qualifications, training, and experience of seven persons responsible for the processing, storage and shipping of low level radwaste and radioactive materials.
It was.noted that Radioactive Material Control Specialists received refresher training in January 1993, in the form of a workshop provided by a waste processing contractor, in DOT /NRC regulations, waste license burial requirements, and operating procedures for the transfer, packaging, and transport of radioactive material.
In addition, radwaste personnel were knowledgeable in the specialized computer software program (RADMAN) in waste classification, characterization, and radioactive materials shipments.
RADMAN training was provided in August 1992.
In addition, all of the RMC Specialists and Supervisor received training in the area of transportation of hazardous materials in December 1992.
This training was organized and conducted by the licensee's Training Department and met the requirements for content as specified in 49 CFR 172, Subpart H, noted above. The inspector noted that the licensee did not administer a written examination to test the RMC Specialists knowledge of hazardous materials safety and regulations.
The licensee made note of this observation-and informed the inspector that individuals would be tested before October 1993. Other than the observation regarding the lack of an examination, the inspector did not note any problem areas with this portion of the licensee's training.
program.
-
-
_
.
4 In addition, the inspector verified that the licensee had an up-to-date i
copy of the DOT regulations. These regulations were maintained in the RMC Supervisor's office and they were readily available for the RMC Specialists to use.
!
!
Based on the aboce reviews, it was concluded that the licensee's program-for training and qualification was effectively implemented.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facilities (84750, 86750, 65051)
I The inspector reviewed the licensee's capability for temporary,.long-term storage of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).
Presently, the licensee has no dedicated long-term LLW or Dry Active Waste (DAW)
storage facility, nor had the plans to construct one in the immediate
'
future. The inspector did note; however, that the licensee had the capability to stage temporarily LLW or radioactive materials in the following areas:
DAW Storage / Transfer Area (Building 302)
-
Filter Storage Bunkers (Auxiliary Building, Room 818)
-
DAW Remote Storage Building (near Turbine Building)
.
DAW storage area in Sea-Land containers (outside Turbine Building)
The inspector toured the facilities identified above, and noted that the licensee did not have an excessive amount of DAW or other forms of radioactive waste stored onsite. The radioactive waste onsite at the time of this inspection was predominately waste associated with-the
'
refueling outage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Solid Radioactive Waste Management (86750)
10 CFR 20.2006(d) requires a licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility to prepare all waste so that the waste is classified in accordance with 10 CFR 61.55 and meets the waste characteristic requirements of 10 CFR 61.56. It further establishes
.
specific requirements for conducting a quality control program and for
,
maintaining a manifest tracking. system for all shipments.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's solid radioactive waste management
program for wastes generated from McGuire Nuclear Station operations.
.The review included the following: adequacy of implementing procedures to classify and characterize properly the waste, to prepare the i
manifest, and mark packages; overall performance of the process control and quality assurance programs; and the adequacy of required records, reports, and notifications.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the
'{
.
-
_
_
,
-
,
,
methods used by the licensee to assure that the waste was classified properly, met the waste form and characteristic requirements of 10 CFR 61 and met the disposal site license conditions.
In general, the licensee's procedures provided sufficient detail and guidance to allow technicians to package and verify properly radioactive waste package
,
contents, classify the waste, and prepare the waste manifest.
The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below and determined that they adequately addressed the following: assuring that the receiver has a license to receive the material being shipped; assigning the form, quantity type, and proper shipping name of the material to be shipped; selecting the type of package required, labeling and marking the package; placarding the vehicle; assuring that the radiation and contamination limits are met; and preparing shipping papers.
HP/0/B/1004/01, Receipt and Opening of Radioactive Materials
-
Packages, April 7, 1993
.
HP/r. 3/1004/02, Preparation and Shipment of Radioactive Material,
-
.
March 17, 1993 g
HP/0/B/1004/03, Determination of the Waste Classification for
-
Radioactive Waste Offerrd for Shallow Land Burial,* March 22, 1993 HP/0/B/1004/04, Preparation and Shipment of Mechanical -Radwaste
-
Filter Media, March 26, 1993
'
HP/0/B/1004/09, Preparation and Shipment of Processed Radwaste
-
Material and Irradiated Components, March 3,1993 HP/0/B/1004/10, Preparation and Shipment of Dry-Active Radwaste
-
'
Materials, April 22, 1993 HP/0/B/1004/13, Receipt of Vehicle for Shipment of Radioactive
Waste, January 1, 1993 HP/0/B/1004/14, Preparation and Shipmen.
' Dewatered Resins,
-
March 18, 1993 i
PT/0/B/4600/69, Sample Analysis Requirements for Determination of
-
Waste Classification, January 27, 1993
,
'
McGuire Nuclear Station 10 CFR 61 Waste Classification and Waste
-
'
Form Implementation Program Manual, October 1992 -
The inspector noted that the site specific waste form and classification
manual was well documented and organized.
Section 3.0 of the manual specified the sampling of the following waste streams:
Dry Active Waste (smear samples)
-
Primary Bead Resins (batch tank discharge sample)
-
.
-
.
,
Secondary Powdered Resins (recirculation resin backwash sample)
Secondary Bead Resin (air fluff vessel drain sample)
'
Filters (composite samples)
Zeolite and Carbon (grab sample during change out)
-
Irradiated Components (case by case sampling methods)
-
Under normal operating conditions, the licensee would perform analyses of the above waste stream samples annually. However, the following factors would affect the sampling frequency: (1) difficulty in obtaining sample of a particular waste stream; (2) frequency of process vessel change out; (3) variability of waste stream radionuclide distribution; (4) availability of analytical capacity for particular radionuclides; and (5) statistical analysis of historical data with cross-correlation to plant operational history. There were no apparent problems noted with this portion of the licensee's program.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's program for segregating DAW and clean trash.
Basically, all clean waste was ultimately sorted and bagged. The licensee utilized a color coding system for clean and contaminated trash: (1) translucent orange bags were used for clean trash; and (2) yellow bags were used for contaminated trash. The inspector toured the licensee's Clean Trash Segregation Facility (CTSF)
which was operated by licensee personnel. This facility was a Hydro Nuclear System design and was equipped with the following: (1) Sorting Monitor System (four gas flow detectors / friskers); (2) Process Control System (shredder and compactor); (3) Conveyer Monitor System (two sets of gas flow detectors on conveyer belts); (4) Volume Reduction System (bagging of shredded clean trash); and (5) Bag Monitor System (NaI detector). The equipment was fully operational and calibrated.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the mieimization of radioactive solid waste.
The licensee had established a program through information campaigns, management attention, training, and incentives to reduce the dry active radwaste (DAW) generated and stored onsite. The licensee implemented the following programs to achieve waste reduction:
(1) secondary powdex resin reduction due to improved chemistry controls; (2) recycle mop heads (if < 5 mR/hr, then reuse, otherwise discard);
(3) minimize packing materials entering the radiation controlled area (RCA); (4) awareness training on LLW reduction techniques; (5) formation of Quality Improvement Team on waste reduction; (6) formation of working group on tool reuse; (7) radwaste reduction incentives (coffee mugs with OSCAR (our station can achieve reduction)); and (8) reduction in the number of radwaste receptacles in the RCA (resulted in reducing radwaste volumes by approximately one third).
In 1992, the licensee's three year i
l l
'
.
.
-
..
_.
_
__
..
_
,_
,
.
.
,
average for solid radioactive waste buried was 79 cubic meters per unit (m'/ unit) as compared to an industry average of approximately 109 m'/ unit.
From January to April 1993, the licensee was well below its goal for solid radioactive waste buried.
'
During this inspection, the inspector made several tours of the I
licensee's facility and did not note any excessive radwaste storage in outside areas.
DAW that was being temporarily stored was secured and placed in Sea-Land containers. The inspector did not observe any loc:e i
bags of contaminated materials or DAW in the yard.
In general, the licensee's facility was generally clean and tidy considering that the facility was in a refueling outage.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's program for hazardous waste
.
control, accumulation, inspection, and storage. Site Directive 2.4.3 required the licensee to perform weekly-inspections of hazardous waste locations within the facility. At the time of this inspection, the
.'
licensee stored hazardous wastes in Room 818B and the mixed waste /decon room. The following waste streams were identified: (1) waste isopropyl alcohol (from incore thimble cleaning operations): 18 gallons; (2) waste acetone (from incore thimble cleaning operations): 33 gallons; (3) freon filters: 18 gallons; (4) freon sludge: 18 gallons; (5) grit blast filters: 18 gallons.
The licensee was apparently exempt from mixed-waste storage permit regulations, since each waste stream was less than 55 gallons (volume equivalent waste drum).
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Shipping of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes for Disposal and Transportation Activities (86750, 86740)
,
10 CFR 20.2006(b) and Appendix F to 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2401 requires each f
shipment of radioactive waste to a land disposal facility to be
'
accompanied by a shipment manifest that indicates as completely as practicable; a physical description of the waste; the. volume; the radionuclide identity and quantity; the total radioactivity; and the principal chemical form.
10 CFR 71.5 requires that licensees who transport licensed material outside the confines of its plant or other place of use, or who delivered licensed material to a carrier for transport, shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR Parts
,
170 through 189.
t 49 CFR 172.203(d)(i) requires, in part, that a shipping paper contain a 24-hour emergency number, as prescribed in subpart G of Part 172 of this
,
subchapter.
t
,
- --
.. -
- -
-
-
- -
. -
-..
--
-
.
.
i
!
The inspector reviewed selected records of radioactive waste and radioactive materials shipments performed from February 1992 to April
1993. The shipment record.s were chosen for variety of type, quantity shipped, and destination. The shipping manifests examined were consistent with the 10 CFR 20.2006(b) and the applicable sections of 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189 requirements.
The radiation and contamination survey results were within the limits specified for the mode of transport and shipment classification-and the shipping documents were being completed and maintained as required.
In addition, the inspector contacted a representative from the State of South Carolina
during this inspection and verified that there were no problem areas or
violations identified by State Radiological Health inspectors regarding
'
licensee waste shipments since the last inspection.
The inspector reviewed the licensee'_s quality control (QC) program to ensure that the QC requirements of 49 CFR 173.475 and 10 CFR 71.87 prior to each shipment of radioactive material were met and that the internal
'
inspection requirements of 10 CFR 71.121 were met.
During this review
'
process, the inspector verified that for shipments involving the handling, loading,-and unloading of NRC CoC packagings, the licensee utilized maintenance and QC representatives to perform QC checks and to verify at mandatory inspection hold points that each closure device of r
the packaging, including any required gasket, was properly installed and secured and free of defects and that the package had been loaded and closed in accordance with the written procedures of the CoC. However, it was noted that for the other QC inspection requirements prior to each
,
shipment of radioactive material involving external radiation and contamination levels, proper completion of shipping papers,- and package
-
marking and labeling as required by DOT regulations; the individual inspecting the activity was generally the same individual performing the l
activity being inspected. The inspector discussed Regulatory Guide (RG) 7.10, Establishing Quality Assurance Programs for Packaging Used in the Transport of Radioactive Material, Section 2.10.3 with licensee representatives which stated that inspection personnel should be
'
independent from the individual performing the activity being inspected.
!
The licensee provided the inspector with a copy of Duke Power Nuclear Guide 7.10 which was a document that either accepted or took exception
+
to the guidance provided in RG 7.10.
In this particular situation, the
,
licensee took exception to the guidance in Section 2.10.3 of RG 7.10.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the potential problems with a
,
QC program that allowed individuals to inspect and verify completion of
'
their own activities. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
t In addition, the inspector reviewed the shipping records for the same time period indicated above to determine whether radioactive material shipments were made that required the use of DOT Spec. 7A containers.
,
The inspector reviewed the shipping records associated with radioactive
!
materials shipment RSR 92-18.
In that shipment, radioactive material
and equipment were shipped in DOT Spec. 7A package. The inspector reviewed the records of the licensee's determinations that the package P
I
~
.
,
had been fabricated in accordance with approved design as specified in D0T specifications.
It was determined that the licensee met the documentation requirements of 49 CFR 173.415 for 7A packages.
-
The inspector also verified that for NRC-certified packagings used by the licensee, the Certificate of Compliance (C0C) for the packages were maintained and up-to-date. The inspector reviewed the handling, loading, and maintenance procedures, license, and safety analysis reports for the radwaste shipping casks used by the licensee and identified no apparent problems. The inspector verified that for each package used, the licensee was a registered user of the package for shipment of radioactive materials and that the package be shipped in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 173.471.
The inspector also reviewed the waste. shipment manifests noted above to
,
determine compliance with the 24-hour emergency telephone requirements specified in 49 CFR 172.203(d).
Based on-a review of selected waste shipment manifests during the time period noted above, the inspector concluded that the licensee satisfied the emergency response requirements. The inspector noted that the manifests clearly displayed the 24-hour emergency telephone number as 704-875-4282 (RP Shift Supervisor). However, the inspector noted that the driver's instruction sheet listed the following two emergency response telephone numbers:
(1) 704-875-4000, extension 2495; and (2) extension 4282 after 1630 hours0.0189 days <br />0.453 hours <br />0.0027 weeks <br />6.20215e-4 months <br /> (RP Shift Supervisor).
The inspector discussed this potential
.
^
area of confusion with the licensee and it was agreed that the additional telephone number on the driver's instruction sheet would be
.
the technical information contact and that the driver's instruction
sheet would be revised accordingly.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Inadvertent Disposal of Sludge Containing Radioacive Debris to the Waste Water Collection Basin (WWCB) Spillway (86750)
- t On July 9,1992, the licensee discovered that debris (sediments and sludge) containing small amounts of radioactive material from the Unit 2
-
Refueling Water Storage Tank (FWST) sump had been deposited in the concrete spillway leading into the WWCB spillway. The following concentrations of radionuclides were identified: Co-60 (2.66 E-6 uCi/ml); Cs-134 (2.27 E-7 uCi/ml); and Cs-137 (1.09 E-6 uCi/ml). The sediments had been c'eposited in the spillway on July 8,1992, by a
.
vacuum truck that was being used to clean out various sumps.within the protected area.- Sediment sample analysis ~results indicated that
-
concentration of radioactive material was greater than what would be allowed by the onsite landspreading disposal permit (see Paragraph 9).-
The incident occurred primarily due to poor communications between the Radiological Protection and the Instrumentation and Electrical (IAE) who inadvertently disposed the radioactive material in the spillway. The
,
-
.
,
licensee thoroughly documented this incident, including the corrective actions to prevent recurrence in Problem Investigation Report (PIR) 2-M92-0116 and McGuire Safety Review Group (MSRG) Inplant Review Report (IRR) 92-11.
The licensee also identified management deficiency as a cause of the incident due to lack of an adequate policy or procedure to govern control of work involving tasks which generate waste materials. No policy or procedure existed to ensure proper interfaces were made prior to the start of such a job to determine the need for special precautions, permits for disposal, licenses, or methods of disposal of waste materials generated, or to ensure such interface. occurs if the job scope changes to cause such waste materials to be generated. As a result, personnel involved in this incident were not aware of the appropriate persons to contact prior to the disposal of the sediments and sludge gathered from the sumps. Disposal requirements were not considered by the personnel using the vacuum truck to remove the sediments and sludge from the Unit 2 FWST sumps.
Personnel involved in the work on the FWST sumps failed to see a need to contact.the RP Department regarding the disposal of the waste material when it was decided to clean the sediments and mud from the sumps.
The licensee initiated the following corrective actior'
including actions to prevent recurrence: (1) Personnel from the Chemistry, RP, and Environmental Management groups were immediately notified of the problem; (2) Appropriate personnel began developing a method for determining the extent of the contamination and developed a method for removal of the contaminated material; (3) Personnel involved determined that the concentration of radioactive material present-did not exceed any federal or State regulatory limits; (4) Removal of all contaminated material was completed; (5) IAE personnel initiated work orders to perform a general clean up of the areas inside the shield walls surrounding the Units 1 and 2 FWSTs, to prevent further depositing of debris in the FWST sumps; (6) General Employee Training sessions will include discussions on the need to handle radiation controlled areas (RCAs) located outside the normal RCA in the same manner; (7) Management personnel developed policies and procedures to govern control of work activities involving tasks which generate waste materials to insure proper interfaces with appropriate RP, Chemistry, and Environmental Management group personnel are made to control disposal of the waste; and (8) Management is expected to evaluate the barriers in place to control potentially contaminated materials to insure that all materials released from the Protected Area are sampled appropriately for the presence of radioactive contamination.
After reviewing this incident, the inspector informed the licensee that the inadvertent " deposit" of radioactive material in the WWCB spillway was an unauthorized disposal.of licensed material.
10 CFR 20.301(a) and (b) do not permit the disposal of licensed material except by transfer to an authorized recipient or as authorized by 10 CFR 20.302. This
,
issue was identified as a violation of 10 CFR 20.301 (a) and (b).
'
However, this violation will not be subject to enforcement action i
.
...
.
.
.
.
..
_
_
.
.
-
.
-
.
,
.
because the licensee's efforts in identifying and correcting the violation meet the criteria specified in Section VII.B of the
'
Enforcement Policy (LIV: 50-369,370/93-06-01: Unauthorized disposal of licensed material in the WWCB spillway).
One licensee-identified violation was identified.
9.
Onsite Disposal of Very Low Radioactive Waste (86750)
The inspector reviewed.the licensee's program for the land farming disposal of conventional waste water treatment system residues, contaminated coil, and sewage sludge containing very low concentrations of radionuclides and the landfilling of initial holdup pond sludge. The landspreading site was located on company property which was fenced and was only accessible from the company controlled area. The l'icensee applied to the NRC under 10 CFR 20.302 for disposal of low-level contaminated waste water residue on June 18, 1984. Approval for the handling (dredging and transport) and storage (landspreading) was granted on November 2, 1984. Pursuant to 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1), the NRC's regulatory requirements include the handling and storage of radioactive wastes. Disposal aspects of the licensee's procedure were the regulatory responsibilities of the State of North Carolina, which is an Agreement State. The licensee received approval from the State of North Carolina on November 9,1984 for the disposal (landspreading) of this material. The disposal activities were authorized by North Carolina Radioactive Material License Numbers 060-379-5 and 060-379-7. The licensee controlled the quantity of radioactive material entering the landspreading site by procedure HP/0/8/1003/21, Landfarming and Landfilling Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern, December 18, 1992. The inspector toured the landspreading site with a licensee representative and noted no apparent problems with the operation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives indicated in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 7,1993. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection, including the non-cited violation. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any proprietary documents or processes during this' inspection.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
Item Number Description and Reference 50-369,370/93-06-01 NCV - Inadvertent disposal of sludge containing small quantities of radioactive material to the WWCB spillway (Paragraph 8).
_. _
_
_
_
_