ML19208B626
| ML19208B626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Allen J, Hufham J, Peery W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208B577 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1113-79-16, NUDOCS 7909210095 | |
| Download: ML19208B626 (6) | |
Text
.
pa arcoq'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 4 y'~')/'
y
,q g
REGION ll t
101 MARIETT A sT., N.W.. sulTE 310o o, K' be 8
AT LANT A, GEORGI A 30303 r
o Report No.: 70-1113/79-16 Licensee:
General Electric Company P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Facility Name: Wilmington Manufacturing Department Docket No.
70-1113 License No.
SNM-1097 Inspection at Wilmingt n Manufacturing Department, Wilmington, North Carolina Ef/9 9
Inspectors: 84/- N Date Signed W. W. Peery 7
9 9 79 W
mn q,J. R. Allen
/
ITa te' Signed
/M p //C /~7 7 C./} f/A b y<
Approved by: J. W. Hufham, Sectipa Chief, FF&MS Branch Date Signed
SUMMARY
Inspection on July 23-27, 1979 Areas Intpected This routine unannounced inspection involved 46 inspector-hours onsite in the area of the radiological environmental monitoring program including: management controls, implementation of the program including inspections of monitoring stations and observation of sample collection, review of the environmental monitoring data, analytical sensitivity and quality control for the environ-mental samples, and review of radiological environmental monitoring procedures.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'd/h.blt 3i
$909210Of.5~
v DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
~*E. A. Lees, Manager, Quality Assurance
- L. N. Grossman, Manager, QTD
- J. A. Mohrbacher, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering
- B. F. Bentley, Manager, Fuel Chemical Operations
- W. J. Hendry, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- A. E. Kaplan, Manager, Licensing and Compliance Audit
- G. E. Powers, Senior Nuclear Safety Engineer
- S. J. Menendez, Nuclear Safety Engineer
- W. B. Haverty, Compliance Auditor R. L. Torres, Supervisor, Radiation Protection E. A. Schaefer, Senior Engineer, Chemical Laboratories Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians and one mechanic.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 27, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls Responsibility for the licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program has been assigned through organizational structure including assignments of responsibility to specific organizational elements and individuals.
In addition, responsibility for the program is assigned to organizational elements and individuals through procedures dealing with the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Changes in the program and procedures were reviewed and the determination made that the current program apparently satisfies the requirements of the license. The licensee's procedures provide criteria for sampling, data recording and storage, and internal action levels. A sample of licensee records was reviewed and the determination made that followup to satisfactory conclusion had been accom-9/8.$AD
~
Gereral Electric Company.
The plished for cases in which internal action levels were exceeded.
followup included notification of management and documentation of completion of corrective action. The internal action limits referred to above are well below applitable 10 CFR 20 limits. The results of internal and external audits of the radiological environmental monitoring program were reviewed however, it did not appear from the documentation that the audits were specific to the radiological environmental monitoring program.
. Licensee representatives stated that an audit by the internal plant group Licensee representatives stated that although the is scheduled this year.
results of an audit conducted by an offsite G.E. group did not appear to be specifically addressed in the audit results, they felt sure the environ-They stated that the off-site mental monitoring program was included.
group would be contacted for documentation that the environmental monitoring program was audited and to remind them that the program should be included in their next audit. The audit program will be reviewed during the next inspection.
6.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The licensee's program for Q.C. of analytical measurements includes proce-dures for the calibration of analysis equipment utilizing sources traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Standard manuals from outside agencies are also followed in analysis procedures. Duplicate samples are analyzed and the results reviewed by supervision to assure continuity of analysis results.
Comparative analytical measurements with independent organiza-Review of data tions or agencies have not been included in the program.
and laboratory evaluations revealed that required sensitivities are apparently acheived in the analytical measurements.
7.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program The inspection included a detennination of conformance to commitments in terms of sampling locations, monitoring and measurement frequencies, equipment, specific analysis for radioactivities and documentation of the Location of some river water samples had been moved, however, the results.
Actual intent of commitments for river water sampling appeared to be met.
collections of river water and soil samples were observed.
It was noted that the soil sample was not collected precisely as described in the applicable licensee procedure, however, the method employed appeared to be satisfactory and superior to the procedure as written.
Licensee repre-sentatives stated that procedures will be reviewed and revised as necessary to coincide with actual performance.
8.
Review of Records and Data a.
Air Sampling Offsite air sampling is not utilized by the licensee in their environ-mental radiological monitoring program.
Instead, stack air samples are analyzed and the results plotted on graph paper to detect trends and insure that releases are kept as low as reasonably achievable.
M.L.50
General Electric Company -
rf l
The inspectors reviewed stack sampling data on 33 stacks for the period January 1978 to January 1979.
yacksreleasingthemajorityof effluents are sampled daily and all ot6er stack release points are sampled weekly. The inspectors noted that all measured uranium con-centrations were within the requirements of 10 CFR 20.
The inspectors also observed (through spot-check review of followup documentation) that corrective actions were generated and executed when licensee action levels concerning airborne releases were exceeded. The inspec-tors noted that these action levels are set low enough to provide attention to licensee management well before any uranium MPC is reached at the unrestricted area. Within the scope of the review of the air sampling program the inspectors had no further questions.
b.
Water Sampling (1) Discharge Lagoon The inspectors verified the operability of the flow proportional composite sampler at the outfall of the discharge lagoon specified in the license application and reviewed the data resulting from the analysis of the daily samples taken for the period August 1978 through July 1979. All uranium concentrations were below the licensee action level which is well belew the MPCs specified in 10 CFR 20 for release of uranium isotopes to unrestricted areas.
Within the scope of that review, the inspectors had no questions.
(2) Groundwater Well Sampling Table 6-4 of the Environmental Report dated January 1974 specifies one group of 12 and another group of 9 groundwater wells which will be monitored for uranium on a quarterly and a monthly basis respectively. The inspectors reviewed monthly uranium concentra-tion data on 9 wells around the Waste Treatment area for the period from November 1978 through June 1979. All uranium concen-trations in these 9 onsite wells were far below the MPCs specified in 10 CFR 20 for release to unrestricted areas. The inspectors also reviewed data associated with 12 wells in the vicinity of the final effluent lagoons for the period from the last quarter of 1977 through the first quarter of 1979. All uranium concen-trations for these wells were below the licensee action level for uranium which in turn is 3 order of magnitude below the MPCs specified in 10 CFR 20 for liquid release to unrestricted areas.
The inspectors also noted (through spot-check review of followup documentation) that corrective actions were generated and executed whenever the action level of the licensee for uranium in any of the wells had been exceeded. The licensee stated that these action levels were set as low as possible so that they would be immediately aware of any seepage frua the lagoons so that repairs could be made. The inspectors had no further questions within the scope of this review, sJ t t JAD.4 s&.os-C.
General Electric Company ff (3) River Sampling
/
The inspectors reviewed monthly data associated with uranium analyses of upstream (Castle Hayne Boat Landing) and downstream (Hilton Park Railroad Bridge) water samples taken from the North-east Cape Fear River. The inspectors also reviewed weekly data from the onsite (Dock) sampling point immediately downstream of the site discharge area. The analysis of these water samples for the period of August 1978 through June 1979 showed all uranium concentrations from the three Northeast Cape Fear River sampling points to be less than or equal to 0.01 parts per million (ppm) uranium or about three orders of magnitude less than regulatory limits. The licensee stated that the Rat Island sampling point had been eliminated and the current sampling points (Castle Hayne Boat Landing, Hilton Park Railroad Bridge and onsite Dock) had been established due to the dangers involved in navigating the Cape Fear River in a boat. The inspectors observed a river water Within the sample being taken at the Castle Hayne Boat Landing.
scope of this review the inspectors had no further quest. ions.
(4) Onsite Dam Outfall Samples The inspectors reviewed onsite dam outfall daily grab samples data for the period January 1978 through February 1979 and found all uranium concentrations to be at least a factor of 10 lessThe than regulatory limits for releases to unrestricted areas.
licensee stated that the dam constituted the final holdup point for all site liquid releases from the site.
It was noted that one set of data for the dam outfall samples did not show units (ppm). Licensee representatives indicated that this would be corrected and future data would show units. The inspectors had no further questions within the scope of this review.
c.
Soil Sampling The inspectors observed the licensee's soil sampling methodology as a sample was collected and reviewed the analytical results of all quarterly soil samples taken from 15 sampling points from November of 1977 through April of 1979. Within the scope of that review, the inspectors had no further questions.
d.
Sampling of Nitrate Bearing Liquids and Sludge The inspectors reviewed the analytical results of quarterly samples taken from shipments of nitrate bearing waste to Federal Paper Company for the period of March 1978 to May 1979. All of these results were well below licensee action levels which were well below regulatory limits for release of uranium in liquids to unrestricted areas. The inspectors had no further questions within the scope of this review.
O :D.UO
General Electric Company,
The inspectors reviewed the results of all quarterly sludge samples taken at the Federal Paper Company for the period of May 1975 to January 1979. These samples were analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta and total uranium. All uranium concentrations were well below 5 ppm specified in amendment 6 to SNM-1097 as an action point to perform isotopic analysis for uranium. The licensee stated that they would establish an internal action level and procedural guidance to insure that appropriate action is takea in case a significant level of uranium is detected in the sludge samples from Federal Paper Company.
The inspectors had no further questions within the scope of this review.
(W ;Ca. L*.h)>
C> G *J
- vJ
..