ML19270H754
| ML19270H754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1979 |
| From: | Soong A, Stevenson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Crow W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001030063 | |
| Download: ML19270H754 (3) | |
Text
L P Dti, p astCo UNITED STATES
,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisstON
+
[g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 kN
/
DEC 7 I9Id MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. T. Crow, Section Leader Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FROM:
A. L. Soong Uranium Process Licensing Section R. L. Stevenson Uranium Process' Licensing Section SUB JECT:
TRIP REPORT Purpose To visit the fuel fabrication facilities of the Exxon Nuclear Company at Richland, Washington, to discuss the pending application for renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1227 with Exxon representatives, and to observe an inspection of the facilities by Mr. William Cooley, the principal inspector of the Exxon facilities fron Region V, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Place and Date Exxon facilities on Horn Rapids Road, Richland, Washington, November 27-30, 1979.
Dis cussion General - The site visits were concerned with (1) the discussion of outstand-ing questions on Exxon's license renewal application, (2) observation of the plant equipment and operation, and, (3) observation of an inspection by Mr. William Cooley from Region V.
The major contacts in the Exxon organization were Mr. H. Paul Estey, Manager, Licensing and Compliance, Operating Facilities, "r. Robert Miles, Supervisor, Radiological Safety, and Mr. Robert Purcell,-
l'anager, Auxiliary Operations.
1678 142 8001030 b6>
_C
W. T. Crow UEO 7 Ib79 Comoliance With 40 CFR 190 Mr. Estay was shown draft copies of the text by Dr. E. Y. Shum summarizing Dr. Shum's analysis demonstrating that Exxon now complies with the EPA 25 mrem maximum annual dose requirement promulgated in 40 CFR 190. Mr. Estey had no disagreement with the text describing the analysis or the text of a draft order that would modify the Exxon license (impose maximum effluent release values) to ensure continued compliance with the dose requirement.
(1) Discussion of Outstanding Questions Drafts of the approximately 24 outstanding questions on the renewal were discussed with Messrs. Estey, Miles, Purcell, Schutt, Hansen, Fastabend, and Probasco. Most of the questions we raised will be answered by Exxon's submittal of additional information in the application, following receiot by Exxon of a formal set of our questions (scheduled for transmittal to Exxon December 10). There was some discussion of Exxon's approach to RG 8.11
(" Applications of Bioassay For Uranium") since Exxon makes frequent precau-tionary use of masks during equipment cleanouts. Exxon intends to provide justification for their bioassay program.
(2) Observation of Plant Ecuipment and Operation So that we could see the entire Exxon facility, the plant tours encompassed areas that fir. Cooley did not inspect as well as areas he formally inspected.
In general, Mr.' Cooley was reviewing Exxon safety and environmental release records during the plant tours (and also during our lunch breaks) which were not part of the inspection.
U0, Building - Explanations - descriptions of the various operating areas were given by Exxon supervisors: Robert Miles, Roger Sharp, Marion Hill,
<en Chidester, and Ralph Brinkerhoff. We saw the HP office, laboratories, pellet presses, storage areas, furnaces, conversion areas, quarantina tanks, large moderation-controlled blenders, waste barrel counter (Cooley had one loaded barrel opened to inspect the contents), scrap recovery area, ceramic area and fuel assembly area. (The sequence of observations did not strictly follow the process sequence.)
Auxiliary Operations Messrs. Estey and Miles showed us the waste lagoons, waste drum storage area, warenouse, site of the planned new waste monitoring station and future Waste Uranium Recovery Building ("WUR"), the trailer where 7'.' enriched uranium is stored, the Waste Storage Building, and sampling equipment on the ventilation stacks.
At the Waste Storage Building we saw a slab tank from the scrap recovery operation which bad been seriously distorted.
1678 1 0
W. T. Crow DEC 7 1973 Mixed Oxide and Soeciality Fuels Building We saw the area for poison rod fabrication, the laboratories and the mixed oxide area. There were no activities being conducted with mixed oxide and Exxon plans to package all of the sealed-off, plutonium-contaminated glove boxes for transportation to a licensed burial site in the near future.
(3) Observation of Inspection (The results of Mr. Cooley's inspection of the Exxon operation will be reported from Region V in the normal fashion.) We observed and participated in Mr. Cooley's review of: nuclear criticality safety analyses (particularly the analyses of a new ton exchange type uranium waste recovery system), waste handling procedures, status of projects, audit procedures, emergency planning (including a visit to the emergency command post), organization and personnel, control of procedures, environmental releases, transportation program, bicassay program, safety committees, posting of criticality safety speciff-catiens and radiation safety controls, use of masks, air sample datt., and cause of the slab tank distortion recently discovered by Exxon.
Although we lef t the site before Mr. Cooley's closecut interview, he had reviewed his major findings (through Thursday) briefly for us on Thursday af te rnoon.
k cd A. L. Soong Uranium Process Licensing Section c rhvhW R. L. Stevenson Uranium Process Licensing Section 1678 14 4