ML19256E263
| ML19256E263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E253 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1113-79-17, NUDOCS 7911020032 | |
| Download: ML19256E263 (6) | |
Text
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g a
REGION 11 k
e'['
101 MARIETTA sT., N.W., sulTE 3100 0,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303C3 Report No. 70-1113/79-17 Licensee: General Electric Company Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Facility Name: Wilmington Nuclear Fuel Plant Docket No. 70-1113 License No. SNM-1097 Inspection at General Electric uclear Fuel Plant near Wilmington, North Carolina Inspector:
M 6/ss/79 G. L. Trou'p V
Dath Signed Approved by:
dE N.7/[79
~
A. F. Gibsoh, Section Chief, FF&MS Branch Date Signed
SUMMARY
Inspection on August 13-16, 1979 Areas Inspected This special, unannounced inspection involved 29 inspector-hours onsite concerning the identification of radioactively contaminated materials which had been improperly disposed of in a land fill.
Results Of the areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was found (release of materials above NRC limits (79-17-01)). No apparent deviations were found.
v s 192 4
19110 g o
.h
6 LETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. J. Alkema, General Manager W. J. Hendry, Manager, Regulatory Compliance R. M. McIver, Manager, Facilities
- A. L. Kaplan, Manager, Licensing and Compliance Audits J. A. Mohrbacher, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering W. B. Smalley, Senior Engineer, Environmental Protection W. B. Haverty, Compliance Auditor G. F. Finders, Compliance Auditor E. A. Schaefer, Senior Engineer, Chemical Labs R. J. Keenan, Shift Supervisor, Radiation Protection Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians.
PAtt%ded exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 16, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector stated that the release of materials contaminated above the NRC limits was considered an item of noncompliance. The licensee representative acknowledged this and discussed the corrective actions which were being considered. These are discussed in Paragraph 8.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Identification of Material On August 9, 1979, the licensee informed Region II that material from a.
the radiologically controlled areas of the plant had been identified in a land fill on private property in an adjoining county. The initial identification of the material was made by a lice: see employee who observed white coveralls in the fill after the fact that trash from the licensee's site was being dumped in the fill had been brought to his attention by a relative. A piece of a set of coveralls was taken to the plant and surveyed; contamination was detected on the piece of material but was below both the licensees administrative limits and the NRC license limits for the release of material from the controlled
} Q,3 area.
g 1
b.
After the employee informed his supervision of his findings, licensee representatives visited the fill site on August 8, and recovered gloves and sample vials which are used in the controlled area of the plant. Survey results on these materials showed no detectable contam-ination. Based on the identification of materials from the plant in the land fill and the results of the investigation as to how the material from the plant was deposited in the land fill, licensee management had all of the fill material removed and replaced with dirt. On August 9-10, approximately 125 cubic yards of material were removed and taken back to the plant for sorting and identification.
Results of the sorting and identification are discussed in paragraph 6.
An investigation by the licensee as to how the material from the plant c.
site ended up in the land fill revealed that a driver for the trash disposal contractor had taken three loads of trash and dumped them in the fill at the request of the land owner, rather than transporting the material to the authorized disposal site. Disposal of material by the contractor.. for clean trash. The presence of material from the controlled area in the trash was investigated further and is discussed in paragraph 7.
Those materials which were identified as not related to the controlled area of the plant were subsequently traneported by the trash disposal contractor to an authorized land fill / disposal site.
6.
Survey Results After the fill material was removed and returned to the plant site, a.
licens e employees screened the material and identified materials which could have come from the plant. These materials were further sorted to identify material which might have come from the radiologic-ally controlled areas. Material identified which could have come from the controlled areas incIndeJ sample vials, rubber gloves, rubber shoe covers, coveralls, cloth gloves, ragc and some miscellaneous pieces of trash which could be identified with the controlled area.
b.
The licensee conducted radiation surveys of the material on August 13.
Survey results of the sample vials showed minor contamination on three vials which was less than the NRC license limits. Survey results of the other seven vials showed no readings above background.
The survey identified five rubber gloves and three rubber shce covers c.
which exceeded the NRC limits for the maximum amount of fixed alpha
- adioactivity and/or average amount of fixed alpha radioactivity.
Annex C to NRC license SNM-1097 specifies a maximum amount of 25,000 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm )
2 and an average amount of 5,000 dpm/100 cm. The licensee resurveyed 2
certain of the material on August 14 and confirmed that certain shoe covers and gloves exceeded the license limits. The highest readings found on the shoe covers based on the August 14 results were 30,700 2
dpm/100 cm 2
maximum and 10,200 dpm/100 cm average; the highest readings i"){b \\
. 3 found on the gloves based on the August 14 readings were 30,700 2
2 dpm/100 cm maximum and 14,800 dpm/100 cm average. All values were rounded off and were based on the exterior surfaces; no credit was taken for exposed interior surfaces.
d.
As this material had been released outside of the controlled area and was determined to be in excess of the NRC license limits, the inspector informed licensee management representatives that this was considered to be an item of noncompliance against condit. ion 14 of license SNM-1097.
This was acknowledged by licensee management representatives (79-17-01).
The inspector performed a safety evaluation of the situation based on e.
the survey results and determined that there would be no significa:.
health hazard to the public from exposure to the materials.
7.
Identification of Release Path During the week immediately preceding tbr disposal of the material, a.
the plant was in a shutdown.
Contractor personnel were refinishing the floor in the new decontamination facility.
Several of the con-taminated gloves found in the fill area had either a yellow or gray paint-like material on them.
A contractor representative identified this material as the base sealane (gray) and top coating (yellow) which had been applied to the flooi. The contractors who applied the floor covering wore rubber gloves, rubber shoe covers and coveralls, all of which were found in the fill. The licensee's investigation determined that the contractor personnel removed the clothing and placed it in a plastic bag. The bag was then placed in the change room on the " hot" site of the step-off pad, an area considered as potentially contaminated. However, during a cleanup of the area, the bag of used clothing was apparently removed with other trash from the change room and discarded into a trash container, which was subsequently removed to the land fill.
b.
The sample vials initially identified in the fill area were traced by means of a sample number on a vial back to the ChemMet laboratory.
Saaple vials and glove::, as well as general trash, are placed in waste bags in the lab; the Lag _ are transferred for sorting and disposal as radioactive waste when full. During the shutdown, a contractor replaced the floor tile in the main hallway, lab office spaces, and the ChemMet lab. A licensee representative informed the inspector that when the tile was removed from the lab, it collected as contaminated material and packaged as radioactive waste. However, when the fill material was removed from the fill area some floor tiles were found. Apparently a waste bag from the lab was filled with material during the floor tile removal and was placed in the change area rather than transferred to the old decontamination facility. During the cleanup the bag was apparently picked up and transferred outside to a trash container, which was subsequently removed to the land fill. While touring the lab area, the inspector noted that while the tile was being renjoyed, it appeared possible that the two doors in the change area were open
[b
$9
. o at the same time and the bag of waste could have been pushed out of the vay of the workers, moving it from the lab out into the surrounding area; this was acknowledged by licensee representatives as a very probable situation.
8.
Corrective Actions On August 14 the inspector met with licensee management representatives a.
to discuss the actions which were being taken and which would be taken to prevent the release of contaminated materials from the control. led At that time management had placed a " hold" on the shipment areas.
off-site of trash containers until they could be examined and verified not to contain material from the plant convolled areas.
b.
A responsible licensee representative stated that the following actions would be considered as part of the resolution of this problem:
(1) Inspect the contents of the trash containers for the presence of materials which might have come from the controlled areas. This was identified as a short term corrective action and was directec to be implemented by a memorandum from the Plant Manager on August 16, 1979.
(2) Study the feasibility of using colored clothing for use in the controlled areas so that any misplaced or improperly disposed clothing could be readily identifici.
(3) Study the sources of and flow paths for wastes generated to identify changes which might be required in the handling of wastes.
On August 16, the inspector discussed with a licensee representative c.
several items which had been identified during tours of the plant which could affect the control of wastes, including positive identifi-cation of waste bags in temporary controlled areas and at change area boundaries. The licensee representative acknowledged these items and stated that they would be reviewed.
9.
Environmental Monitoring a.
Following the removal of the fill material the licensee collected twenty-four soil samples from the area and analyzed them for uranium.
Results of the soil sample samples showed uranium concentrations of 0.01 to 0.21 parts per-million uranium (ppm U). These values are in the range of uranium in the soil at the plant site collected in 1967 during the preoperational environmental monitoring, which showed 0.1-0.42 ppm-U, as reported in the Environmental Report (NED0-20197).
b.
Th-apparent agreement between sample results collected prior to plant operation and after removal of the material indicates that there was no residual uranium left in the area from the material. However, the 1 56 196
. o licensee has sent the samples to an independent laboratory for evalua-tion of the uranium-235 content and comparison of the U-235 with the_
amount of U-235 in natural uranium.
This evaluation will provide additional information concerning the source of the uranium identified in the soil, On August 13, the inspector accompanied by licensee representatives, c.
toured the fill area and took radiation measurements of materials around'the area. No measurements above background levels were identi-fled.
10.
Procedures The inspector reviewed 18 of the licensees procedures for the handling and disposal of radioactive materials, in'luding Practices and Procedures c
(P/Ps), Process Requirements and Operator Documents (PRODS), Nuclear Safety Instructions (NSIs) and Calibration and Opration Instructions (COIs).
These procedures establich the controls, survey requirements, release limits, classification and disposal requirements. The inspector pointed out to a licensee representative that an apparent weakness in the procedures was that the control procedures were written for the established work areas and that requirements for the handling of materials in temporary controlled areas (such as work areas set up on the roof to w rk on equipment like the ventilation scrubber) are not addressed.
The licensee representative acknowledged this and stated that this would be reviewed (79-17-02).
55197.