ML19263A717
| ML19263A717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371, 07810004 |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1978 |
| From: | Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263A705 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0371-78-16, 70-371-78-16, NUDOCS 7901020136 | |
| Download: ML19263A717 (8) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 70-371/78-16 Docket No.70-371 Category A(1)
License No. SNM-368 Priority 1
Licensee:
United Nuclear Corporation Naval Products Division 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 Facility Name:
United Nuclear Corporation Inspection at: Uncasville, Connecticut Inspection conducted: October 4 6, 1978 Inspectors:
1 M
/f) 3( 2f D. Dona dsop, Radiation Specialist date signed date signed date signed
/D!31 9
Approved by:
1 m
J. P. Stoffr,/ Chief', EnV1ronmenta and date signed Special Projects Section, FF&MS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 4-6, 1978 (Report No. 70-371/78-16)
Areas Inspected:
Emergency planning including:
coordination with offsite agencies; facilities and equipment; calibration, inspection 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 programs for control of quality in laboratory radio-analysis. Environmental monitoring.
The inspection involved 18 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regionally based inspector.
Results: Of the eleven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in eight areas; and two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (Infraction - failure to take remedial actions in response to air samples which exceeded control limits - paragraph ll.b; Infraction - failure to make required post-drill reports to the General Manager - paragraph 7).
Region I Form 12 7 9010 2 013Co (Rev. April 77)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- D. E. Ganley, Acting General Manager
- W. F. Kirk, Manager, NIS
- D. R. Luster, Radiological and Environmental Control Specialist E. A. Barton, Industrial Health and Safety Specialist
- T. J. Collopy, Manager, Nuclear Safeguards J. Lawrence, Production Manager M. T. Vandale, Environmental Technician The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees including members of the production, security and health physics staffs.
- denotes those present at exit interview.
Other Personnel J. Platt, Jr., Chief, Mohegan Voleteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad A. Heubner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved item (77-10-03): Use of liquid effluent drip samples for measuring and report'ag liquid effluent data to the NRC.
The inspector held discussions with licensee management and environmental technicians and determined that, while a drin samle technique does not represent the optimal method, it is sufficiently proportional and representative in light of the procedures being used to collect the samples and the radiological characteristics of the liquid effluent.
(Closed) Noncompliance (77-10-01): Failure to use self absorption corrections in gross alpha measurements of liquid effluents.
The inspector noted that the licensee had completed a program to determine the self-abscrption factor versus solids deposition on a counting planchet for liquid radweste.
This program resulted in the development of an alpha self-absorption factor of 1.4.
A review of the licensee's liquid radwaste measurements verified that this factor is and has been applied to all such measurements since November 1977.
The licensee's corrective actions are completed as described in a licensee letter to the NRC dated July 21, 1978.
3 3.
Coordination with Offsite Agencies - Emergency Planning The inspector reviewed records, procedures and written agreements relating to the licensee's coordination of emergency planning with agencies listed in the Emergency Plan ar.d Implementing Procedures.
The inspector discussed this subject with licensee representatives and persons of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Mohegan Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad.
These discussions verified that the existing agreements between the licensee and these agencies remain in effect, and that the licensee's contact and coordination were edequate for these agencies to maintain an effective response capability.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Facilities and Equipment - Emergency Planning.
The 11spector examined facilities, equipment and instrumentation to verify that the 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 equipmed; criticality monitors; meteor-ological instruments; and medical treatment / decontamination fccilities, both onsite and at the local hospital.
(Lawrence and Memorial Hospital was contacted during a similar inspection of another licenses who also utilizes this facility.)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Calibration, Inspection and Maintenance of Emergency Eouipment The inspector reviewed a sampling of calibration, inspection and main-tenance records covering the period July 1977 through September 1978 for all emergency equipment and instruments. The inspection revealed that the licensee's emergency equipment / facilities had been maintained as required by existing procedures and schedules.
Nc items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Training - Emergency Training The inspector reviewed training-related cocumentation and procedures and interviewed two persons selected from the licensee's emergency
4 organization to verify that training required by the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures had been conducted. Training conducted since JirTy 1976 included sessions for Emeroency Directors, fire brigade, general employee retraining, radiation monitors and first aid / medical personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Emergency Drills The inspector reviewed records of emergency drills conducted since July 1977. Two evacuation drills, several fire drills and a first-aid / medical drill had been held.
During this review, the inspector noted that reports of the results of each drill had not been sub-mitted to the General Manager as part of the plant auditing program.
The inspector infonned the licensee that the failure to provide such reports constituted noncompliance with Section 2.7.4 and 6.8.3 of the facility license.
(78-16-01) 8.
Emeroency Plan Implementing Procedures The inspector reviewed and evaluated any changes to the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and determined that the revised procedures provided the same or higher degree of preparedness as previous ones and that changes had been reviewed and approved as required.
The inspector examined copies of the implementing procedures located in the Emergency Control Center and verified that they were up-to-date.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Management Control - Emeroency Planning The inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures and held discussions with responsible licensee personnel and verified that a program of management control over emergency planning activities exists. This program consists of the general delineation of planning responsibilities and authorities; provides for periodic reviews, audits and updates of Emergency Plan implementation; and, delineates respon-sibility for overall conduct of reviews, audits and updates.
10.
Fire Protection a.
Facility Tour The inspector, in the company of a licensee representative, conducted a tour of the facility.
Items such as housekeeping,
~
5 maintenance, and fire protection were observed.
The inspector noted that fire extinguishers were located throughout the facility and emergency exits were well marked and clear of obstructions.
Within the scope of this tour no problem areas were identified.
b.
Fire Inspections The inspector noted that fire inspections of the facility are perfonned by the Nuclear Energy Liability Property Insurance Association (NELPIA).
The last inspection was conducted on October 4,1976.
The inspector reviewed a report of the last NELPIA inspection for which a report had been issued.
The insurance company noted several deficiencies which had been since addressed by the licensee.
c.
Fire Fighting The inspector noted that certain 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 Mohegan Volunteer Fire Department indicated that the local fire department personnel had been on the site for familiarization training.
d.
Training The inspector reviewed training records for fire brigade personnel and noted that the fire brigade personnel were trained in fighting any type of fire which may occur at the facility.
The inspector reviewed a sampling of the monthly fire brigade training records covering the period July 1977 through September 1978.
The inspector had no further questions in these areas.
11.
Radioactive Waste Management - Confirmatory Measurements The licensee's radioactive waste management was reviewed in the following areas.
a.
Liquid Releases Liquid waste which originates from various sources throughout the facility is collected in receiving tanks, centrifuged and/or filtered, neutralized, and discharged to the septic
~
6 system.
The licensee samples and analyzes samples from the retention tanks prior to discharge.
During discharge, a continuous drip sample is taken and analyzed after the discharge is complete.
The inspector reviewed a sampling of the licensee's liquid effluent release data covering the period July 1977 through September 1978 and noted that no liquid effluent release limits were exceeded.
The inspector noted that, during 1977, 7,480 uCi of radioactivity were released to the septic system.
b.
Airborne Particulate Releases Airborne particulate releases consist of particulates vented from the facility after passing through high efficiency particu-late (HEPA) filters.
The inspector reviewed a sampling of the licensee's airborne particulate effluent sampling data covering the period July 1977 through September 1978.
During this review, the 4spector noted that on lloccasions, effluent samples indicated concentrations of U-235 in excess of 25% and 50% of the 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II limits.
The inspector held discussions with licensee personnel and determined that these levels had not been investigated or evaluated as required by license condition 4.1.2.
Specifically,sixsgn excess of 25% of the 10 CFR 20 limit (>2.2 dpm/M )ples were in gnd5were in excess of 50% of the 10 CFR 20 limit (>4.4 dpm/M ).
The inspector informed the licensee that the failure to immediately resample and investigate these values constituted noncompliance with Section 4.1.2 of the facility license conditions.
(78-16-02)
The inspector noted that the 1977 gaseous effluents consisted of 43.10 uCi.
c.
Split Samples Airborne particulate effluent and liquid effluent samples were taken by the licensee and split with the inspector for the comparison of analysis results.
The liquid sample was taken from radwaste tank #T1.
Airborne effluent samples were taken from locations S-1, S-4, S-24, and S-25.
Samples will be analyzed for gross alpha by the licensee using his normal routine methods and by the NRC:I contracting laboratory (Department of Energy Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory).
Joint analysis of actual effluent samples and subsequent comparison of the results determines the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples.
The results of these analyses will be reported in c subsequent inspection report.
7 d.
Counting Equipment The inspector examined the licensee's counting equipment and noted that Nuclear Chicago automatic gas flow proportional counters and NMC PC-3T gas flow proportional counters are used for counting effluent samples.
e.
Laboratory QC Program The inspector noted the licensee had a limited internal labor-atory QC program consisting of efficiency determinations twice per week and daily backgrounds. The inspector discussed various other aspects of an internal laboratory QC program with the licensee. The inspector noted the licensee has no specific regulatory requirements in this area.
12.
Environmental Monitoring The inspector reviewed the licensee's environmental monitoring program in the following areas:
a.
Program Management The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program and noted that the licensee is required to take six air samples for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period bimonthly, sample surface water quarterly, take soil samples semi-annually, sample ground water quarterly, and sample the septic tank effluent bimonthly.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's environmental sampling and analysis data and noted the licensee is meeting all environmental sampling and analysis requirements.
The environmental program is administered by the health physics department. All environmental sample analytical data are" reviewed by the Radiological and Environmental Control Specialist. The inspector also noted that the licensee had finalized written instructions for environmental sampling. All environmental samples are analyzed by a contracting laboratory.
b.
Implementation of Monitorino Program The inspector reviewed all the licensee's environmental analyses results for July 1977 through September 1978 and noted the licensee was meeting all of the environmental sampling and analysis requirements.
8 c.
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 laboratory.
The licensee said that no spiked or split samples had been sent to the contracting laboratory.
The inspector discussed 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 paragraph
- 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 6,1978.
The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the inspection findings.
Licensee management acknowledged the items of noncompliance.