ML19269C015
| ML19269C015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000036 |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Fisher W, Hiatt J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269C003 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0036-78-09, 70-36-78-9, NUDOCS 7901190203 | |
| Download: ML19269C015 (8) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INS?ECTICS AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report No. 70-036/78-09 License No. SNM-33 Docket No. 70-36 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Licensee:
Nuclear Power Systems Windsor, CT 06095 Facility Name: Hematite Facility Inspection At: Hematite, MO Inspection Conductad: November 6-9, 1978 Inspector:
J. W. Hiatt 1t 5:05
/Y E YNik &
/ a - /J - 73' Approved By:
'd. L. Fisher, Chief C-Fuel Facility Frojects and Radiation Support Section Inspection Surearv 6-9, 1978 (Report No. 70-036/78-09)
Inspe,ction on NovemberRoutine, unannounced radiation protection and Areas Inspected:
radioactive waste programs, including: qualifications; audits; training; procedures; instrucents and equipcent; exposure control; notifications and reports; posting, labeling, and control; surveys; records and reports; liquid effluents; airborne effluents; effluent The procedures for controlling effluents; and solid wastes.
inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviaticas were identified Re s u_1_t s :
in the areas inspected.
7 9 0119 0 do3
t DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacte,d J. A.
Rode, Plant Manager
- H. E. Eskridge, Nuclear Licensing, Saf ety, and Accoun: ability Supervisor
- L.
J. Swallow, Quality Assurance Manager
- R.
C. Miller, Production and Materials Control Manager and Acting Plant Manager
- L.
F. Deul, Engineer
- C.
Lovell, Senior Health Physics Technician
- A.
Noack, Foreman J. Harter, Material Control Foreman The inspector also interviewed other health physics technicians and several production operators during the inspection.
- denotes those present at the exit in t e rview.
2.
General This inspection, which began with visual observation of ongoing operations in the oxide building and waste recovery area at 6:00 a.m. on November 6, 1978, was conducted to examine the routine operational radiation protection and radwaste manage-ment programs. During the initial plant tour, the inspector observed the licensee's weekly test of the criticality alarm system; no problems were noted.
Throughout the inspection, the inspector visited all areas of the facility and conducted radiation surveys in the oxide and recycle / recovery buildings.
3.
O_r_qmization and Training There have been no changes in the Health Physics Organization since the last NRC inspection (September 1978).
The organi-zation consists of one supervisor, one senior technician, and two technicians. Normally, three eight hour shifts are worked.
Since the last radiation protection inspection, one new employee had been added to the station staff.
A review of the employee's training records showed that training required by 10 CFR 19.12 and facility License Conditons had been provided.
An oral dis-cussion was used by the licensee to test the employee.
Records indicated that the anntal retraining of employees had been completed for three of the four required topics, emergency procedures, radiation safety, and respiratory protection.
The remaining topic, nuclear and criticality safety, will be covered in December 1978.
Attendance logs serve to document those personnel who receive retraining.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Audits The inspector reviewed records of the weekly internal inspections conducted since the last radiation protection inspection and the preliminary results of the semiannual audit conducted in October 1978 by the NLS Supervisor-Windsor.
The inspector noted that, as a result of the semiannual audit, the licensee is con-ducting more thorough follow-up surveys of decontaminated areas.
The annual audit is planned for December 1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
,Radiolo geal P,rotect_ ion Proc _edures No new health physics procedures have been written since the last inspection; however, the licensee intends to develop additional procedures as time allows.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
6.
.In_s_truments and Ecuipmerg The licensee had on hand an adequate supply of operable and calibrated monitoring instruments.
During facility tours, several survey instruments were examined by the inspector; each hcd been calibrated within the required quarterly frequency.
Review of calibration records indicated that a two point per scale calibration was made on the Technical Associates survey meter, but that a one point per scale cali-bration was made on the Nuclear Chicago survey meter.
This was discussed with the licensee, who stated that in the future a two point per scale calibration would be used on all survey meters.
The licensee continues to check the Nuclear Chicago gas flow proportional counter quarterly for the alpha voltage setting
_3_
3 eta and weekly determines the alpha counting efficiency.
The most plateaus and efficiencies are checked as needed.
check was made in October 1978.
recent identified.
No items of noncompliance were 7.
_ Exposure Control External a.
Film badge records for the period May through September 1978 were reviewed; no exposures above regulatory require-whole body and skin doses The greatest ments were noted.
received during this period were 350 mrems and 1150 crens, Film badges are processed monthly.
respectively.
for required, the licensee keeps forms NRC-4 Although not each employee. The equivalent of forms NRC-5 are also maintained.
b.
Internal The licensee's program f or determining exposure to airborne contaminants consists of lapel sampling, stationary air The inspector sampling, urinalysis, and in vivo counting.
reviewed the licensee's personnel MFC-hour log, which is for based upon the lapel and fixed air sampling results, the period May through October 1975; no exposures greater The than the 40 MFC-hours control limit were noted.
average MPC-hour uptakes per week per operator for the first three quarters of 1973 were 6.2, 4.3, and 3.5, respectively.
Urinalysis data were reviewed for the period January through October 1978.
Samples are taken monthly from operators and maintenance employees and semiannually from supervisors, guards, health physics technicians, and None of the results were greater than office personnel.
=ost were less than 50 pg/L resample action point; tne 15 pg/L.
1977 In vivo counts for uranium were made in August 1978. Most of the results were and June and August the maximum permissible body burden limit well below260 micrograms. One individual; however, of abcut showed a body burden of 84 micrograms from the August and 207 micrograms from the June 1978 count, 1977 count The individual's an increase of 123 micrograms.
_4_
August 1978 count showed 162 micrograms.
The licensee had not expressed the in vivo counting results in units of MPC-hours but had compared the in vivo counting data to the individual's MPC-hour exposure based on lapel and stationary air samples. The licensee had also reviewed the rough in vivo counting data (i.e., the curves upon which the microgram uptakes are based) and had concluded that the in vivo counting results may have been influenced by the possible contamination of the individual with technetium 99.
This item will be considered unresolved until additional in vivo counting data can be gathered.
The next scheduled in vivo count will be made in February or March 1979. Until that time, the individual is being lapel sampled on all jobs with an internal contamination potential.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Posting, Labeling and Control The inspector reviewed the licensee's compliance with posting and labeling requirements specified in 10 CFR 19.11 and 10 CFR 20.203; no problems were found.
The licensee does not use a radiation work permit system.
No problems were noted.
9.
Surveys The licensee conducts smear surveys for operating areas monthly.
Survey records were reviewed for the period June through October 1978; no abnormally high results were noted.
The licensee had also conducted a radiation area survey in November 197S.
Results of this survey were reviewed and compared to survey results obtained during an independent survey done by the inspector; no major discrepancies were noted.
Using the licensee's Nuclear Chicago Model 2650 survey eeter, which was calibrated in September 1978, the inspector surveyed the f acility, concentrating on the recycle / recovery area (Red Room) and the oxide building. Areas of up to 5.0 mr/hr of mixed beta and gamma radiation were found using the meter with the survey probe open, but with the probe closed, eliminating the low energy beta radiation, no readings above 0.5 mr/hr were found. No areas of high occupancy exceed 1.0 mr/hr beta and gamma.
No itecs of noncoepliance re identified.
10.
Pio t_i_f_1 e a_t i_o n_s_a n_d R e p_o_ry Two individuals had terminated employrent since the last radiation protection inspection.
The inspector noted that exposure history results, including bioassay data, had been sent to these individuals.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Criticality Safetv On November 6, 1978, at 7:00 a.m the inspector witnessed the weekly test of the criticality alarm system.
The licensee exposes a different detector each week to a cobalt-60 source ar.d an audible alarm is actuated at each detector locatien.
No problems were noted by the inspector.
12.
L_i,qu i_d,,E_f f 1_u en_t_s The inspector reviewed licensee records of liquid effluents released from the laundry, recycle / recovery system, and site pond.
the licensee's liquid radwaste system can be summarized as follows:
Liquids released to the site pond:
(1) Laundry water, (2)
Filtrate neutralization tank water, (3) Industrial waste.
Liquids released to the evaporation pends:
(1) Filtrate treatment tank, which hold-otissium hydroxide scruboer liquid, (2) Any liquid f rom v 11. ier wash operations.
h o w --
ever, no cylinders are curren l'
being washed.
Records for the period January through October 1978 were reviewed; sampling frequencies and uranium concentrations were within the specifications of the license conditions and 10 CFR 20, respectively. The inspector noted that the average monthly gross beta-gamma concentrations o{6 liquid released from the site pond was about 1.1 x 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter for the above period.
The greatestmontglyconcentrationforthesecondhalfof1977 was 1.8 x 10 microcuries per cubic cent imeter.
The licensee attributes the increase to technetium-99.
It should be noted that the release is still 0.4% of the MPC for technetium-99..
Based upon sludge saeples taken from the east evaporation pond, the licensee estimates that the pcnd contains about 150 kilograms of uraniu at an average enrichment of about 3.9 w/o uraniur-235.
Liquid samples of the west pond indicate a total content of about 6 kilograms of uranium in solution. The west pond also contains a gross beta concentration, attibuted to technitium-99, of about 60% of the restricted area liquid licit for technetium-99.
So items of noncompliance were identified.
13.
Caseous Effluents Caseous effluent data were reviewed for CY 1978 to date.
About 4.3 grams (9.2 microcuries) of uranium-235 and 140 grams (220 microcuries) of total uranium were lost during the above period.
Essed on data free the licensee's semiannual effluent report for the first half of 1978, the average concentration of total uranium released from the exhaust stacks was about 6.4 E -13 microcuries per cubic centimeter, or about 212 of the unrestricted area MFC for uraniur-235.
The above concentration does not include any dilution that would occur between the facility stacks and the property boundary.
The licensee routinely counts the exhaust stack samples daily for alpha activity. However, a beta emitter, technitiur-99, has been observed in liquid ef fluents, and te determine if any technitium-99 could have been eritted to the atmosphere the licensee stated that stack samples froe the recycle recovery building would be analyzed for beta activity.
Stack samples taken during the same time frare technitium-99 was observed in liquid samples will be analyzed.
The aspector discussed with the licensee the possibility of sample line losses of uranium due to the length of some saeple lines. The licensee stated that he felt the losses would be minimal, but that a sa:ple line frot the recycle / recovery building would be analyzed to determine if any uranium had been deposited in the tube and had not reached the saepler. Through discussions with a site engineer and a review of his calculations, the inspec-tor determined that saepling of the exhaust stacks is designed to be done at or near isokinetic flow rates.
14.
Radioactive Solid Wastes One shipment of solid radioactive waste was made since the last radioactive waste inspection.
In May 1978 53 drums and.
18 boxes of solid waste, containing a total of.002 curses of total uranium, were shipped to a licensed burial site.
The inspector noted that the shipeent included 15 millicuries of technitium-99 contained in resin.
No items of noncompliance were found after a review of the records of this shipment.
15.
R e co rd_s_ and_Re po_r t s o f__Fa_d i oa c t i_v e_Ef f_l u eny All required reports were subritted in a timely manner and contained the appropriate information.
16.
IE Circu_1_ar No. 77-14 A memo dated December 1977 documents the licensee's review of the plant water systems for separation of contaminated and noncontaminated water systems.
An air break is used on the potable and deionized water supplies to prevent inadvertent contamination.
17.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 9, 1978.
The following matters were discussed:
The purpcse and scope of the inspection.
a.
b.
The counting of exhaust, stack samples for beta activity.
(Paragraph 13) c.
The two point per scale calibrr. ion of the licensee's Nuclear Chicago survey meter.
' Paragraph 6) d.
The evaluation of sample lines for potential uranium sample losses.
(Paragraph 13) e.
The unresolved item concerning a potential internal uptake of uranium.
(Paragraph 7.b).