ML19261B199
| ML19261B199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wood River Junction |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261B194 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0820-78-27, 70-820-78-27, NUDOCS 7902140158 | |
| Download: ML19261B199 (9) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
70-820/78-27 Docket No.70-820 License No.
SNM-777 Priority 1
Category A(1)
Licensee:
United Nuclear Corporation Fuel Recovery Operation Wood River Junction, Rhode Island 02894 Facility Name:
Wood River Junction Facility Inspection at:
Wood River Junction, Rhode Island Inspection conducted:
November 28-30, 1978 Inspectors-
/L 1c/
78 D. E. )6na/dson, Ra'diation' Specialist date signed
/
date signed date signed
/2 2;p[7g Approved by:
u J. P. Jiftofir, Chie'f, Environmental & Special date signed Projects Section, FFSMS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 28-30, 1978 (Report No. 70-820/78-27)
Areas Inspected:
Emergency planning and confirmatory measurements including:
coordination with offsite agencies; facilities and equipment; calibration, in-spection and maintenance of emergency equipment; training; emergency drills; emergency procedures; management control of emergency planning; fire protection; radioactive waste management including the collection of samples for subsequent comparative analyses and program for control of quality in laboratory radio-analysis; and environmental monitoring.
The inspection involved 17 inspector hours onsite by one regionally based NRC inspector.
Resul ts : Of the ten areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
790214ol %
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Principal Licensee Employees C. E. Bowers, General Manager
- R. Gregg, Manager, QA
- D. F. Cronin, Manager, Nuclear and Industrial Safety (NIS)
K. A. Helgeson, Health Physics Specialist
- D. Schultz, Manager of Compliance
- denotes those present at exit interview.
b.
Other Personnel F. Fleck, Chief, Alton Volunteer Fire Company S. Amato, Rhode Island Defense Civil Preparedness Ager:cy 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (a/76-09):
Agreements with offsite agencies.
The inspector reviewed a copy of a letter inw. the Rhode Island Defense Civil Preparedness Agency and noted that agreement to support the licensee had been reached.
Regarding an agreement with the Department of Energy (00E) Radiological Assistance Program, discussion with responsible licensee personnel indicated that support by this agency would not be requested by the facility within the scope of the existing emergency plan and implementing procedures.
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (b/76-09):
Precedures and schedules for maintenance, inspection and calibration of emergency equipment and facilities. The inspector reviewed EP-10, Description, Emergency Control Center and Equipment and noted that the licensee had compiled a listing of emergency equip-ment adjudged to be mandatory for implementation of the emer-gency plan. The inspector also noted that the responsibility for maintaining emergency equipment and the frequency at which the equipment is to be checked had been established.
This precedure however, had recently been rescinded (except for the checklist).
(Also see paragraphs 2.c and 5 for further details).
3 c.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (77-10-01):
Required equipment not maintained in position at the Emergency Control Center. The inspector held discussions with responsible licensee personnel and reviewed applicable documentation to verify that the licensee's corrective actions were complete as described in a letter to the NRC dated August 23, 1977.
As a result of this review, the inspector noted that the licensee's corrective actions were not entirely adequate for the following reasons:
(1) The licensee had deleted EP-10, Description, Emergency Control Center and Equipment retaining only a checklist of " mandatory" and " optional" equipment.
(2) No rational for the selection of equipment items as " man-datory" or " optional" could be described.
In particular, the inspector noted that specific items of equipment needed for implementation of the various emergency pro-cedures had been listed as " optional" equipment, i.e. air samplers, emergency telephones, filter papers, etc.
d.
(Closed) Noncompliance (77-10-02):
Formalized, documented emergency director training program.
The inspector reviewed an outline of emergency director training that had been pre-pared by the Manager, NIS. A training examination had also been prepared to evaluate the proficiency of the attendees.
e.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (77-10-03):
Discussion with the Chief of the Alton Volunteer Fire Company indicated that, while the Fire Department would respond (if called), the scope and nature of tt;a licensee's contact and coordination "could be better."
(see paragraph 3 for further details.)
f.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (77-10-04): Alpha self-absorption correction factors.
The inspector held discussions with re-sponsible licensee personnel and determined that the quantity of residue characteristically present on planchets after evap-oration of liquid effluents did not contribute significantly to alpha self-absorption.
3.
Coordination with Offsite Acencies The inspector reviewed records, procedures and written agreements relating to the licensee's coordination of emergency planning with agencies listed in the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures.
The inspector discussed this subject with licensee representatives and persons of the following offsite agencies:
4 Alton Volunteer Fire Company Rhode Island Defense Civil Preparedness Agency These discussions verified that the existing agreements between the licensee and these age cies remain in effect, and that the licensee's contact and coordination (with the exception of the Alton Volunteer Fire Company) were adequate for these agencies to maintain an effective response capability.
(See Paragraphs 2.a for details).
Discussion with the Chief of the Alton Volunteer Fire Company indicated that it had been several years since the Company had been to the facility for a tour or had received training relative to the specific nature and scope of support they would be expected to provide. While the licensee had made several offers to provide such coordination, the scheduled times were during regular work hours, making it difficult for the volunteer firemen to leave work to attend. The Chief of the Alton Fire Company stated that such training must be given on weekends or during the evenings to enable his men to attend.
(See Paragraph 2.e for further details.)
4.
Facilities and Equipment The inspector examined facilities, equipment and instrumentation to verify that items specified in the licensee's Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures were available for use and maintained in an operable state. The inspection included examination of:
the emergency control center and associated equipment; emergency com-munications equipment; criticality alarms; and meteorological instruments.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Calibration, Inspection and Maintenance of Emergency Eouipment The inspector reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of procedures and schedules established by the licensee for calibrating, maintaining and inspecting the emergency response equipment listed in the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures.
The inspector selected a sample of calibration, inspection and maintenance records cover-ing the period August 1977 through November 1978.
The inspection revealed that the licensee's emergency equipment / facilities had been maintained, but that the governing procedure, EP-10, had been rescinded.
(See Paragraphs 2.b and 2.c for details.)
5 6.
Training The inspector reviewed training-related documentation and proced-ures to verify that training required by the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures had been conducted.
Training conducted since August, 1978 included sessions for emergency directors, security personnel and annual employee retraining.
(Also see Paragraph 2.d for details.)
The inspector noted that, while the licensee appeared to have an ongoing emergency plan training program in effect, the scope and nature of the program was not documented in its antirety.
In particular, there did not appear to be provisions for training of offsite agencies nor were there lesson plans / outlines in evidence for licensee employees having emergency duties and responsibilities other than emergency directors.
Licensee management stated that a formalized description of the implementation of the emergency plan training program for all individuals assigned emergency duties and responsibilities (to include offsite agencies) is scheduled for development in conjunc-tion with an impending major revision to the emergency plan itself.
The inspector stated that the complete documented program would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection to verify that it adequately implements the next revision to the emergency plan (78-27-01).
7.
Emergency Drills The inspector held scussions with licensee personnel and reviewed available documentation and verified that drills had been conducted.
During this drill related review, the inspector noted that, although the licensee was conducting drills, there were no 1.covisions in the licensee's emergency plan or implementing procedures governing the frequency, scope, type, conduct, review and audit of drills.
The licensee stated that this area would be addressed in the next revision of the emergency plan and implementing procedures currently being prepared in response to a license renewal condition.
The inspector stated that the licensee's doc"mented drill program would be reviewed during a suLSequent inspection to verify adequacy (78-27-02).
6 8.
Emergency Plan and Imolementing Procedures The licensee's current Emergency Plan, undated, is written to implement Annex B to the f1cility license.
In a letter dated February 27, 1978 from the NRC, the licensee was instructed to prepare and submit to the NRC for review, an Emergency Plan meeting the elements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and Regulatory Guide 3.42.
The licensee has received an extension of the original submittal date (August 1, 1978) to February 1979.
During discussions with licensee representatives, licensee inanagement stated that the pending revision would also address aid clarify those areas of implementation which during this inspection were discussed by the inspector with regard to clarification and/or improvement.
The inspector had no further questions.
9.
Management Control - Emergency Planning The inspector reviewed procedures and license conditions and held discussions with licensee personnel to determine the means by which the development and revision of the emergency plan and procedures are controlled.
The inspector noted that Procedure I-Y, effective July 21, 1977 serves to make the licensee's Emergency Manual (com-posed of the Emergency Plan, Procedures and Checklists) an annex to the licensee's Standard Operating Procedures. This was done "to insure timely review, provide for distribution and setforth proce-dures t )r formulation and approval" as specified in Standard Opera-ting Procedure (S0P) Number 0, dated July 22, 1977.
Discussion with licensee management indicated that S0P Number 0-0 did not apply to the Emergency Manual as well as had been anticipated and that the next revision to the emergency manual would further clarify such things as distribution, review, approval and revising of the Emergency Plan, Procedures and checklists.
The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed in decail once again during a subsequent inspection (78-27-03).
- 10. Fire Protection a.
Facility Tou.-
The inspector, in the company of a licensee representative, conducted a tour of the facility.
Items such as housekeeping, maintenance and fire protection were observed.
The inspector noted that fire extinguishers were located throughout the facility and emergency exits were marked and clear of obstruc-tions. Within the scope of this tour, no problem areas were identified.
7 b.
Fire Inspections The inspector noted that fire inspections of the facility are performed by American Nuclear Insurers. According to licensee management, the last inspection was conducted in June 1977.
The inspector reviewed the report of this inspection and noted the insurance inspection indicated adequate fire protection.
c.
Fire Fighting The inspector noted that certain designated facility personnel are trained in fire fighting and would form the fire brigade which is responsible for fire fighting at the facility.
The local fire department may be called upon if necessary for fire fighting. Discussions with the licensee and a representative of the Alton Volunteer Fire Department indicated that the local fire department personnel would respond if called, but that fire planning coordination needed improvement.
(See paragraphs 2.e and 3.)
11.
Radioactive Waste Management - Confirmatory Measurements The licensee's radioactive waste management was reviewed in the following areas.
a.
Liauid Releases Liquid waste which originates from various sources throughout the facility is collected in a receiving tank, neutralized, and pumped to lagoons for storage. The only release from the facility consist of well water which is used as cooling water and is then discharged to the Pawcatuck River in the process cooling water.
b.
Airborne Particulate Releases Airborne particulate releases consist of particulates vented from the facility after passing through high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters or scrubbers. The licensee stated that particulate samples are isokinetic. The inspector reviewed a sample of the licensee's airborne particulate release data for 1977 and January through October,1978, and noted that no airborne particulate effluent release limits were exceeded. The inspector noted that the 1978 airborne particulate releases consisted of 179 uCi.
8 c.
Split Samples Split airborne particulate effluent samples were taken by the licensee and the inspector for the comparison of analysis results.
Gross alpha analysis will be performed by the licen-see using his normal routine methods of analysis and by NRC:I.
Joint analysis of actual effluent samples and subsequent com-parison of the results determines the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples. The results of these analyses will be reported in a subsequent inspection report.
d.
Counting Equipment The inspector examined the licensee's counting equipment and noted that alpha scintillation, beta scintillation and gas flow proportional counters are used for counting effluent samples.
e.
Laboratory Quality Control (QC) Program The inspector noted the licensee had a limited internal lab-oratory QC program consisting of efficiency determinations weekly, backgrounds daily, and plateaus quarterly.
The in-spector discussed various other aspects of an internal lab-oratory QC program with the licensee.
The inspector noted the licensee has no specific regulatory requirements in this area and therefore had no further questions at this time.
12.
Environmental Monitoring The inspector reviewed the licensee's environmental monitoring pro-gram in the following areas:
a.
Program Management The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiological environ-mental monitoring program as documented in the licensee's Environmental Information Report dated December 1974. The inspector reviewed the licensee's environmental sampling and analysis data for 1977 and January 1978-October 1978 and noted the licensee is meeting all environmental sampling and analysis requirements.
9 The environmental program is administered by Nuclear and Industrial Safety (NIS).
All environmental sample analysis data is reviewed by the Health Physics Speci;iist and Manager, NIS.
The inspector noted the licensee has written procedures for environmental sampling.
The environmental samples are analyzed by the licensee or a contracting laboratory, b.
Quality Control The inspector noted the licensee's environmental sample analyses were performed by a contracting laboratory and inquired if any provisions were made for QC checks of the contracting labora-tory. The licensee said that no spiked or split samples had been sent to the contracting laboratory.
The inspector discuried various aspects of an environmental QC program with the licensee.
The inspector noted the licensee has no specific regulatory requirements in this area.
The inspector had no further questions in these areas.
13.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 30, 1978.
The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspec-tion and the inspection findings.
During the course of the exit interview, Mr. R. Gregg (the senior licensee representative present) stated that the next revision to the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures would address and incorporate all emergency planning requirements as well as the areas discussed during the current inspection relative to clari-fication and/or improvement.