ML19341A329
| ML19341A329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371 |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1980 |
| From: | Ganley D UNITED NUCLEAR CORP., UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. (SUBS. OF UNC, INC.) |
| To: | Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341A310 | List: |
| References | |
| NIS-80-6-14, NUDOCS 8101220629 | |
| Download: ML19341A329 (17) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:._ 's UnC MAVAL PRODUCTS Dms:en of Unced %: lear Corporation 67 Sandy oesen Acad Telecrone 203 S48-1511 UnC A UMC RESOURCES Company Uncasde Conne:t vt 06382 NIS: 80-6-14 June 9, 1980 Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 ATTN: George H. Smith, Chief Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
SUBJECT:
Docket No. 70-371 Inspection No. 80-7
REFERENCE:
Letter, G. H. Smith to D. E. Ganley dated May 15, 1980
Dear Sir:
In reply to the referenced letter: Aapendix A, Item A and Paracraph 3 of Details, Audits: We presented infomation to the inspector to justify the UNC Corporate Nuclear Safety Team Review as being more than adequate to meet the requirements for annual review. While differences in opinion developed, we believe that the inspector overlooked the information conveyed as a backup position concerning the detailed review and evaluation of our Radiation Protection Program, made twice during the last year by our nuclear insurance risk specialists. The content of the reviews 'are sufficient to meet to strict literal NRC view of the license words. A copy of the fall 1979 review is attached to our reply. l The intent of the annual review was never to inspect the detailed fine coint-by-fine point compliance aspects of the program as interpreted by the NRC inspector. l The UNC expectation of the annual review was to obtain an overall evaluation of our Radiation Protection Program; for exampl e, Kare we appropriately protecting our employees in performing the program? L9 8101220ka
Page 2 of NIS: 80-6-14 dated June 9, 1980 Uf1C What new techniques were available? 2 Are our personnel doing a professional job? and many similar evaluations. The UNC Corporate Nuclear Safety Team was headed by D.R. Spurgeon, Corporate Vice President of Nuclear Manufactured Products and Services and composed of: R. C. Dunn - Vice President Planning UNC Nuclear Industries Richland, Washington J. W. Riches - Director, Safety and Environmental Engineering - UNC Nuclear Industries Richland, Washington R. Born - Executive Vice President UNC Nuclear Industries Richland, Washington C. Poor - Manager of Projects UNC Nuclear Industries Richland, Washington C. Bowers - President UNC Recovery Systems Wood River, R. I. R. Gregg - Quality Assurance Manager UNC Recovery Systems Wood River, R. I. D. F. Cronin - Manager, Nuclear and Industrial Safety UNC Recovery Systems Wood River, R. I. J. 01 son - Manage *, Operations Naval Froducts Division Uncasville, CT T. Collopy - Manager, Safeguards Naval Products Division Uncasville, CT W. F. Kirk - Manager, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Naval Products Division Uncasville, CT The review was conducted at UNC Naval Products according to the following procedure: 1. A detailed presentation of various areas of our nuclear safety program by the specialists responsible for the program;the presentation was supplemented by VMtten reports for later study by the Nuclear Safety Ret iew Team. See Appendix A attached for Health Physics and Environmental portions of written report. - ~ ~ -
l s Page 3 of NIS: 80-6-14 ~ dated June 9, 1980 Uf1C 2. Questions were asked by team members of the individuals presenting the infonnation at any time. Minutes of the meetings were kept. 3. An inspection of the plant was conducted to evaluate the on-the-scene nuclear safety program. 4. At the conclusion of the two day review a closeout meeting was conducted with General Manager by the entire Nuclear Safety Team. 5. During the ensuing week each member of the team 7,rovided a written report of important items noted to D. R. Spurgeon. 6. A suninary report of the Corporate Nuclear Safety Team was made by D.R. Spurgeon to Corporate Management represented bi -1. A. Aseltine, Vice President. 7. Each item appearing in the report of each team member was followed up by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety manager. Corrective action was addressed to appropriate Naval Products management members. 8. Corrective action was reviewed by Divisional and Corporate Management. The time spent by Divisional and Corporate personnel on Nuclear Safety matters as a result of this review was significantly greater than for any previous annual consultant audit. The value to the Naval Products Division Nuclear Safety program was similarly magnified. The best employee protection contribution of the UNC team of '~ top level technical personnel from several nuclear facilities is to review the total protection aspects of the program, c.. not item-by-item compliance of an existing operation. The item-by-item compliance has been perfonned well throughout the years, as evidenced by the minimum number of Health Physics records comments in the NRC inspections. The team review perfonned, in the manner performed, was the best method of achieving, as noted in paragraph 2.7.1 of our NRC license, " a re-appraisal of the safety prograc.' including the specific addressed Radiation Protection Program. In suninary, A. The Corporate Nuclear Safety Team review meets the intent of the annual audit and was much more productive to the Naval Products Division Nuclear Safety Program. l B. The periodic inspection by nuclear insurance specialists l - 1neets the license requirements. We do not consider that j. an infraction under our license exists. l l l I. E. ~ l I ~
5 s Page 4 of NIS: 80-6-14 dated June 9, 1980 UnC Appendix A, Item B and Paragraph 4 of Details, postina o 10CFR 20.203 (e)(1) requires that the area containing the radioactive material be posted. We have defined the area as our plant manufacturino facilities since radioactive material is present in most all areas of the plant. We consider NPD to be in compliance as posting under 10CFR20.203(e)(1) does not specify each door to be posted or controlled,as is the case for 10CFR203(c) for high radiation area. We do not have any "high radiation areas" at our plant site. The intent of 10CFR20.203(e) is to assure that persons entering the plant area know that radioactive material is present in most all areas of the plant and, thus, reduce the probability of accidental exposure. This knowledge is given to all employees via first day training prior to entrance to the plant. The main entrance (through Building M) to our manufacturing facility, in which radioactive materials may be encountered, is properly posted and is the only entrance used by new employees. The two minor entrances to Building "M" noted as not being posted are used only by a small number of experienced plant personnel, who already are familiar with the contents of the plant. Further, all radioactive components outside of the "B" South l area are encapsulated with uncontaminated metal surfaces, as noted in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report of our SNM license renewal in 1977. These encapsulated, sealed sources of radiation meet the requirements of 10CFR20.204(a) for not requiring posting of the area (i.e., less than 5 millirem per hour at 12 inches for the surface), and are, i in fact, significantly lower in radiation level. l We do not consider that a deficiency under our license exists. Should further infonnation be necessary, please contact us. Very truly yours, V 0'- D. E. Ganley President and General Manager /km1 attachment - -m -
l, I .j, ' + AVR a LIABILITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT l Leo P AA: worm. V<e Rescent ~ V ^ \\ L V tunT C.Pacot.t.CPCU h d-it October 30, 1979 Mr. William Kirk NIS Manager United Nuclear Corporation 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasville, CT 06382 Subjecti ANI' NUCLEAR LIABILITY INSPECTION Name: United Nuclear Corporation (Montville) Date: November 12-13, 1979 Time: 0900 Policy Number: ANI NF-56 Engineer: Paul E. Fuller
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is.in reference to my telephone conversation of October 29, 1979 with you and is to confirm that I will be inspecting your nuclear facility. As we discussed, I am requesting a copy of the UNC Health and Safety Manual and associated HsS Technician procedures, and the record retention policy resently developed for review prior to this visit. I have found that review of such documents has in the past been mutually beneficial, since many of my program related questions will be answered as a result of this review and i:Ime will be saved for members of your staff. The following agenda identifies designated prime areas of review and is sub-mitted in order to schedule the interviews with your staff. While the primary areas are indicated, it may occur that other areas will be addressed. Admi n i s t ra t i ve Con t rol /Sa fe ty Comm i t tees /Aud i t s Radiation Protection and Health Physics Criticality Safety quality Assurance and Control Facility Tour and Physical Inspection Environmental Monitoring Training Emergency Planning Document Avai1abi1ity Reccrd Retention l The Eachonse.Sete 245 [27b Fomesten Aese / Fores:en Correctet C6032 /CC"g7ff)Sg,j'zseer g ect CC3677-77!5 TiFfA MRW VFJLf3
~ g. y p i October 30,1979 Mr. William Kirk NIS Manager United. Nuclear Corporation ,67 Sandy Desert Rcad Uncasville, CT,.06382 Page 2 .i I will present a photo identification card at the time of the inspection ~ ~ " - which may be verified by telephone with the ANI offices. It is my under-l standing that I do not need to submit new security clearance paperwork. I would like to thank you for time and consideration of our Interests and am Ipoking forward to discussions with members of your staff. i i Very truly yours, b sul E. Fuller Nuclear Staff Engineer y PEF:me cc: Messrs. J. S. McCusker T. Germani 4 s G l
$AMfM4Vx 4 ** CORPO RATE NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW FEBRUARY /4, /f", 19 7 9 RADIOLOGICAL AND E;IVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NAVAL PRODUCTS DIVISION DISCUS,SION OUTLINE I. Physical Plant Facilities and Equipment Health Physics Aspects 1. Area Classifications ~ a) definitions i b) control limits 2. Types of Equipment / Types of Operations ? II. Radioactive Effluent Control and Waste Disposal I 1. Evaluation and Control of Airborne air sample network ventilation; point of source 2. Rad Waste Control Rad Waste System Discharge Summary (~ \\_. III. P,ersonnel Radiation Protection 1. Film Badge Program 2. Area Surveys " Worst Case Ev _ cations" 3. Personnel Exposure Control u t Monitoring 4. Internal Exposure a) evaluation and control of airborne radioactivity b) evaluation and control of radioactive contamination c) air sampling to assess internal radiation exposure d) in-vivo counting to assess internal radiation exposure .. h - h H
n- -s ~ IV. Environm3ntal Monitoring l. Field Sampling Sites 2. Stack Sampling NOX 3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Offsite Surface Water and Soil 4. Well Sampling Program Site Plan 9 5. Water Consumption 'easurements of Materials Released to the Environment V. M 1. Spent Acid 2. Materials - Policy ) VI. Emergency Plans and Procedures 1. Assembly Areas - Evacuation, Re-Entry 2. Training - in-house - o ff-site a) Emergency Director Program 3. Coordination with Hospitals -s b' 4. Coordination with Other Agencies VIIs NRC Inspection Results VIII. Summary - Discussion l I g 9 9 \\_- ~ e8 g 9 9
RAD WASTE DISCHARGE ,.C 1978 -l GALLONS EN U(cms) OvERAtt AVERAGE DPM/ML JANUARY 39,082.0 19.6 18.5 FEBRUARY 18,128.7 9.3 17.0 MARCH 40,273.I 15.? 15.3 APRIL 20,603.8 5.3 9.4 MAY 31,682.2 8.7 13.3 JUNE 22,727.0 4.4 9.4 ,-. JULY 42,417.7 12.4 14.3 ~ 35,834.1 9.4 12.7 AueusT,. SEPTEMBER 20,276.9 4.9 12.2 OCTOBER 38,415.4 7.8 10.0 NOVEMBER 27,273.2 9.3 16 5 : 20,499.2 5.8 13.9 DECEMBER TOTALS 357,213.4 162.5 13.5 AVERAGE 29,767 e/MO. 1 CURIES DISCHARGED 8.24 x 10-5 Ct/ex x 112.1 .009 CI =
,I ,l 8 0 ~"."4 i gJ. a.-" s~." g l*
- j'f; :..
.l:.: :.*'l ! l { :. e .1 ~~ q*.l m;* Il 1i~" " e 2
- .a l
~ e .t"- 3 '.(*.i I l o e e i 5 n { 2 9 l 5 .i::.:! l* e j' n' }" , i::. :
- l -
2 e w "" e f;. .'r" 1=,. a" e ~ a
- a =
e~~ - ~ o. l* e-7 i. .7' Il, o v. 9 p LLLLLLLLLLLiLLL 9 e t LLtLL. .c A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA 8' n s oi Tf TrT T T TT T T T T T T T T TTTT e :,2r 3 u C s, 0CCCCOCCO0COOOOOCcCOC tn n T T T T i T T T T 1 T T T T T T T rT TT 2 &io u 0 OOC 0GGOC0O00OO0OoOO0 5 .i. t, ' N N ' 4' 4' 4 N t N N 4 F N N 4 N. N N ' 4' r r 4 r 4 t i =: 4 o 2 J 0 =. - 1 p ts0 ,o i.r0 J r >.i7 eia s o- ,t e2 - ~1 5 uic .s5 L a n c.1 h a a a =. .2 A d. iu: c n c i3 I C as s i. ( r d a. o t, g O=:.-. E Lo a o a P .a
- o. h.c
- .o S
S * e a "4le =- .d i_ * * ~1 e R D' "GT l.(- NM N M 1. O-N0000003000NH00NMwNNH n 2255229221 1 1 3J 1 e
- 5 O c,n su' n'
u 'v s n' u" m (* , ~ - 9 ' ti se* O_s m" l, c* o* j 8]' a l nn
- 0.,.
= A"6 y y. e u"M /, ,. g'8 a e o* w.,, 2 n* r. '8 (, 3 a* tf n* 3 g f):,a - l. o 'a h>1h ,{3[3J) s' N00000300O0MNo0MHnNNH _. a a' / 2255229221 r o0. s* t 1 JE ~_1 S.x.- 3 J. t t e D NY hI 5 ~ ;. D.2 R O T o hiI It I l l I t l l 1 I Il g t 8 i 'l G'C'G G G Gi}GljGG GG'itl1,t t T 4 R-{ i ,l G i GG 2 l E T n AM O ]
- e...
9 L 2 IDS ES E ,s I P F n A O Rt 2 k E s0 RD D R l U
==3""2~1-Or 2 ~ u S = e l 3 n. O nr* ~ = g = C P 6 { n X u' C "" =: e = 0 E t 5' I' M 8 =... P T A R n EC O l, O v N** %a l C i 4 T D 1 R A 7 O ".. - A VT n L I h 0 E. C t 7 .m O p l J., 5 t C s E. 7 T 0 n N g U 0 c t. 1. { 4 N0nt O 4 g m. Pri C ev 5 DF f ns I f V A lA Om:. - i' l V sC
- u. k hA iN
~ Uh h U J ".l I ( ,~ ,j l l,. l f
_ _ = _ _ _........
- --m.-
1 O .I2 i a... ~. ..... ~. .............s 2924 1 HUNTH M J9085 4'2 4,'T 4 II.'!"e"'I e....e 2 2 5 4 R. S. t.andauer, Jr. & Co. l Oswision of Iachnical Operettone, incorporated ' I*
- *?C
l RADIATION DOSIMEIRY J.; g 4.he /M"ll"**",dj',lo',"*,'[o,"3 r - ". - REPORT -.4gpp 1*proa.13:2stss roo0 E '1._ fr 0 8 - M59 uncosuna io enose on untiniuse f 7 ;*,1.,
=.
.a
- 0"*.7" e.u=.
e...e see
- ee *as cea.co en es ooe e e.c.reo eatow CUMvtAnvs torAts.su metuaams l
u ;7,7=. ,;;7 4=l, ... e = { ( j g ~ i, 7,~, g =... ~ w.. -..T_- FOR E XPOSU SE Pf nl a0 O' 01 0630 1970 l i G I N N N P 20 4 I 9 2 SY7 Gl M N N k M 4 I e 8 2 1077 GI P4 W M Pa M w $e 8 2 10'T T I I H l' H H N k M 1 O 2 10'77 8 it I ft Id 0 N 4 N 88 4 e s 8 2 1 C'7 7 G 1 64 M N 40 40 ,H 7 2 ,1177 C 1 H p p p p u e a 7 2 1877 e e t G l N N N N H t. e 7 2 .1377 i G l M N h N N H 7 2 1177 li 1 20 k 20 20 20 20 l G l N 84 N N ,r r 5 2 17 0 l 3 2 370 te Gl W N N N P4 a a 3 2 J7e i e G1 3 30 3C 30 30 3 2 378 G!\\ H H N N N 3 2 310 Ul'] k H N N I 1 478 J H H H M U 1 1 470 3 M N N W 1 1 47 8 o mm 3 g N N N N 1 3 47a i 3 N N N N 1 1 47 fs I annumme UJ M M N N 1 1 478 U2 M N P M g 3 47 e UJ N N N N I 1 478 U,2 U P N N M i 1 4'T O J N N
- d W
e 1 3 47e U F N 8' I 1 478 (G N P N k l 1 1 476 g 8/1 N la M LA.t t 4kW J.-I k j 8 M P k N e. 1 1 478* I Y M/Me8 LI N I' N N 1 3 4,76 l 4 0. Wpcamt. U 2 120 120 120' 120 l 1 1 478 UJ M N >l P l 1 1 4/ 8 e G8 N N N N H I 1 578
- l. O O
w C l M-W N k-6 e e e e e e - k Mi 1i I 57 ee e e o._ 1 ecee ..,4019~'e e f~. L)' ~ @.. _ __ __' _':n..t.'.::'."'.:
- <.y..:: i
- =::= =. I-u..>. ~3 r.!.:.::::: :.::~=. ::. =..:~.:.:.w..e..e..:=.. = 7 ~ ~~ -..
.ur .r a .a i:. ______._______.__._.___.._________.._._______..e_______-_____.____.___.______._ ) ( i
n.. .~ e e e ' 8 + -.. 5 l%b O e 0 i l e f. .r.1 h,.r+. c.n..>n e[ xa.,5..T.*.a* t o a. D 4 O U 5' n.> c.- >m [ l b. h.~
- d4
.~ e W C. l1 1 L:s D. ML:<
- ...a-o... u. k.
LJ L 'r. 3 S.,,.t.%.M ~ m e j 4 .'"J'- 6E* QJ-rw C,4 4* % m.,s v
- .yf f L,,
e y g a.,,- .L ~:~ ~ C.n,..,,a C A. n,l $a3, ~ u i 1 i l t 4
- 4 f
b f i -4 s 1 e s l w e e 9 -,-,.,---r-- .y,,, --,.s,
O t ~ SPACER P.ICKLE OPERATI0ll PRE ASSEMBLY WEIGHT CONTRACT OF COPPER SMALL MEDIUM /LARGE D70 108 LOAD 2 (216) 230 LOAD 1 (230) D62 93 LOAD' 2 (186) 137/201 LOAD 2(274)/ LOAD 1(201 (~. 'i - PARAMETERS AFFECTING PROCESS PH OF CAUSTIC SCRUBBER CAUSTIC FLOW STARTING TEMP. OF ACID OPERATING TEMP. OF ACID AIR SPARGE RATE ACID STRENGTH ADDITIONAL TANK LOADINGS O
1977 NRC INSPECTION RESULTS HEALTH PHYSICS / ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL RELATED INSPECTION NO. TYPE ' 'l' ' INSPECTOR H0uR: ITEMS OF NON-COMPLIANCE 77-08 HEALTH PHYSICS 21 NONE 77-10 ENVIRONMENTAL 18 (1) DEFICIENCY - FAILURE TO APPLY GROSS ALPHA SELF-ABSORPTION CORRECTIONS TO MEASUREMENTS OF LIQUID RELEASES. 1 77-17 CRITICALITY / ENGINEER'ED SYSTEMS 35 (1) DEFICIENCY - OPERATING SUPERVISION DID NOT ASSURE TilAT H.P. CONTROL i E l' i' MEASURES WERE APPROVED. RE: COLOR CODE CHANGE 1 CLEANUP CHECK LIST .77-19 HEALTHPhySICS 22h NONE s a e O 'd
1978,NRC INSPECTION RESULTS IlEALTil PilYSICS/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL RELATED INSPECTION NO. TYPE - INSPECTOR IIOURS ITEMS,0F NON-COMPLIANCE 78-06 CRITICALITY /' (1) INFRACTION - FAILURE TO ENGINEERING SYSTENS 49 FOLLOW ll.P.'PROCED!lRES: MAN llANDLED POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED CONTAINER WITil00T WEARING GLOVES. (2) INFRACTION - AIR BALANCE ~ INCORRECT FROM SECTIONING TO SPEC. LAB TO CHEM LAB. .78-09 IIEALTH PHYS.ICS 24 (1) DEFICIENCY.- CONTAINERS IN PRESS ROOM UNLABELED BUT CONTAINED FUEL. (2) INFRACTION - PORTAL MONITOR
- n 3; i,;. to :
CALIBRATION STANDARD KEPT IN SAFE. NO IDENTIFICATION. l 78-15 CRITICALITY / ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 32 (1) INFRACTION - FAILURE TO. SIGN OFF A CHECK LIST FOR ~ PRESS CLEANUP. 78-16 ENVIRONMENTAL 18 (1) INFRACTION - 25% AND 50% MPC EVALUATIONS WERE NOT MADE AS PER LICENSE AGREE-(,,! f1 MENT.
~ l FIGURE l .-~ ALPHA. DECAY CHARACTERISTICS OF U234, U235, U236, U238 t RATIO OF SPECIFIC SPECIFIC ALPHA CTIVITY OF ISOTOPE TO ~ HALF' LIFE ACTIVITY THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY J F U235 ISOTdPE (YEARS) (DPM/p GM*) U234 2.48 x 105 13,700 2,890 U.235 7.13 x 108 4.74 1 U236 2.39 x 107 140.6 30 U238 4.51 x 109 ' O.739 0.15 L.3 ' DISINTEGRATIONS PER MINUTE PER MICROGRAM HALF LIFE TIME REQUIRED FOR A RADI0 ACTIVE SUBSTANCE TO LOSE 50 PERCENT OF ITS ACTIVITY BY DECAY. EACH RADI0 ACTIVE ISOTOPE HAS A UNIQUE HALF LIFE. D Sk ?,- y a S 4 e k-l _=
e FIGURE 2 TYPICAL RADI0 ACTIVITY C0i1TRIBUTI0liS . I (' '~ OF URAtlIUM BY ISOTOPES SPECIFIC IOTAL ' COMPOSITION ALPHA ACTIVITY ALPHA ACTIVITY ISOTOPE (WEIGHT PsaCEnT) (DPM/>>cM) 0F MIXTURE (PERCENT) 90% U235 U234 -1.05 138.7 94 U235 > 90.00 > 4.3 3. U236 O.22 0.30 0.2 U238 1.1 4.0 2.7 r'- ~ TOTAL - 147 ~ 100.0 ~ O 4 e e a 9 8 e e 9 b p . (' e e --..,.y== e
,.~ N.. - I e l h Page 3 E.. __Pe,r,sonnel Rad,ia, tion, E,xgosuge 2nternal radiation exposure is determined by a bicassay program. Lung burdens, are defined by a quantity of radioactivity,as determined-by whole body counting, (10-9 Curies). nano Curies This figure remains constant of enriched uranium required to yield the nano Curiethe weight while as~a', function of the 234U isotope changes concentration. f Exampld.e Present NPU whole body lung burden = 2i50 micrograms ~ 'of enriched U D70. fuel lung burden ~ = 220 microgrs=s t, D75 fusi lung burden 199. micrograms Proposed new fuel = 145 micrograms (1.8% U234) Wo must restrict a person at 70% requirement and would restrict of a body burden as per license Tho proposed fuel lowers the burden by 44%. sooner based on prssent policy. e e P0ORBRENAL l i .}}