ML19350B636
| ML19350B636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1981 |
| From: | Book H, Cooley W, Thomas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350B629 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1257-80-11, NUDOCS 8103230168 | |
| Download: ML19350B636 (6) | |
Text
__=
4 0
U. 5. !;tCLFiR REGUL* STORY CCIO!ISS10:1 0FF!C OF I! SFEC'"C:; A :D E!! FORCE:E!;T REGIG:1 V Report !!o.
70-1257/80-11 Docket !!o.
70-1257 iicense :To.
SNM-12?7 Safeguards Group 1
Licensee:
Exxon Nuclear Company 2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, WA 99352 Facility :ta=e:
Richland Facility Inspection at:
Richland, Washington Inspection conductea:
December 15-17, 1980 Inspectors: __
'/[$.[) b b
//d/7/
N. J. Cooley,-Fuel Fa911ities Inspector Dhte Signed Date Stgned Ib bdb/
e 1
Approved by: rl. D. Thomas, Ch,ief, Materials Radiological Prot cfian
/ ate Signed
/
^/ [' < /
W,b
- !2 0 !b G4ction Approved ;y:
H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Dcte Signed Branch Su:::: nary :
Insoection on Odcemoer 15-17, 1980 (Report No. 70-1257/80-11)
Areas Inspected: Organization; facility changes and modifications; internal review and audit; safety committee activities; operations review; criticality
(
safety; emergency planning; radiation protection; and environmental programs /
radioactive waste management.
l The inspection involved 18 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Resul ts: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the scope of this inspection.
RV Form 219 (2) 8103230/ff L
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- D L. Cornell, Manager, Manufacturing
- R. H. Purcell, Manager, Auxiliary Operations N. S. Wing, Manager, Analytical Laboratory
- T. C. Probasco, Engineer, Nuclear and Industrial Safety
- R. L. Miles, Supervisor, Radiological Safety M. G. Hill, Supervisor, Chemical Operat'.ons
- M. K. Valentine, Manager, Maintenance tngiaeering
- C. O. Brown, Senior Licensing Engineer.
R. H. Schutt, Formerly Specialist, Criticality Safety
- D. E. Clark, Senior Engineering Assistant E. R. Herz, Engineer, Special Nuclear Safeguards
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Orcanization A replacement for R. H. Schutt as criticality specialist had been hired and that person's reporting date was planned as shortly af ter -January 1,1981.
3.
Internal Review and Audit i
This inspection included a review of the licensee's criticality and radiation safety audits conducted from July through November,.1980.
During that cime five radiation safety audits were conducted by Licensing.and Compliance Personnel. Those audits revealed five instances of visible contamination which required cleanup.
Ouring the same.oeriod of time five criticality safety audits' were conducted by the same grcup. No criticality deficiencies were observed.
A criticality audit of the liquid waste accountability station was conducted. A recommendation was made to lower the agitator at the station to promote mixing. An analysis of sludge'at the station was made and the agitator lowered.
Criticality audit was conducted of the ion exchange columns in conversion line number 2 of the U0-2 plant. The audit verified that process stream monitors had been calibrated each shift against standard solutions; the turbidity meter had been. calibrated twice during tht month of October; 4
differential pressure interlocks for the prefilters and ion exchange columns had been calibrated and checked; the specific gravity loop.
had not:been calibrated although the diluted nitric acid had been verified twice in November for' specific. gravity; operator -
training for the ion exchange columns IAd been conducted for one hour'on each of three' shifts and additional three to ten hours of training was planned.
I' L
wt y
e w F"'
yy,
a
- +
e d-ei+
ee
't y
4 Additional reviews were conducted by the personnel of the Auxiliary Operations Group regarding the accuracy in posting of criticality safety specifications. Seven reviews of that nature were conducted from July through December 15,1980 and no discrepancies were found.
4
- Safety Committee Activities The Start-up Committee for the Health and Safety Council met in September concerning the conversion line two ion exchange columns.
Presentations were made to the Committee r.egarding experience with this system including non-uranium operations, construction, criticality studies and laboratory tests. The council voted to permit comDletion of Dhase 3 of the acceptance test precedures provided that those procedures were fully approved, the criticality
-safety specifications had been prepared and reviewed by a second party, and chemical analyses were preformed before each addition of nitric acid to the system.
A review of the health and safety council meeting minutes indicated that the ALARA subcommittee cnarter had been presented and approved by the council.
5.
Facility Chances and Modifications The status of the licensee's chemical waste lagoon system was discussed in an HRC Report Number 70-1257/80-07 dated August 15; 1980. That matter was reviewed again during the presently reported inspection.
Of the four liquid waste lagoons only lagoon number 2 was suspected of leakage in August, 1980.
In September 1980 the licensee emptied lagoon number 2 and found a leak ~in the northwest corner of the upper Hyperlon liner. No leaks were found in the lower Hyperion liner. The leak was patched using a 20' by 20' patch plus an additional 50' by 50' patch cover.
It appeared that the leak had.been caused by the addition of acid during liquid waste neutralization operations. The licensee added a third layer of Hyperlon forming a neutralization sump to receive the neutralizing acid and to dilute it before dispersal into the lagoon. Those operations were completed by mid-September 1980.
During leak manifold pumping about November 14, 1980, no liquid was discovered between Hyperlon layers in lagoons 1, 3 and 4.
A small amount
'of licuid was pumped from beneath the lagoon number 2 Hyperli layer which appeared to be residual liquid from the previous leak.
. Lagoon monitoring Wells Number 14 and 15 were completed. Data obtainea from those wells indicate the grcund water flow beneath the lagoon system is to the north northeast.
At the time of this inspection, the fifteen monittring wells were being pumped prior to sampling. The ground water gradient beneath the lagoons is small and the pumping is being done to determine if the well water being sampled is more or less stagnant.
6.
Ooerations Review This inspection included visits to the U0-2 building including conversion line number 2 and the location "of the ion exchange columns; room 100; analytical chemistry laboratories; U308 facility; the health physics technician office; and the men's change room. The areas visited had a clean, well-kept appearance. Occasional checks on radiation work procedures, criticality safety specifications, criticality limit area signs and warning signs, in general, indicated area posting was acequate. Operable contamination detection equipment was observed at the steo-off pad entrance to the conversion and powder i
preparation areas and in the mens' change room. Additional radiation detection equipment was available in the health physics technician office as well as fixeo air sample and smear detection and counting equipment. The health physics tecnnician office was also equipped with a small emergency dispensary.
7.
Criticality Safety / Emergency Tests and Drills On July 2,1980 a criticality drill was held as a result of a false alarm. The alarm was activated as a result of welding machine interference with the criticality detector. When this matter was determined and evaluated, the licensee developed a procedure pronibiting welding within 30 feet of any criticality detector.
A critique of that drill was prepared and was reviewed as part of this inspection.
The building evacuated was the Engineering Laboratory Operation.
Evacuation was accomplished in two minutes (two contractors required four minutes). Accountability checks accomplished within five minutes of the alarm indicated one' person missing. Radiation levels.were checked within two minutes. Re-entry of the Engineering Laboratory Building was at seven minutes and arrival of the Richland Police representatives was at nine minutes after the alarm. A preliminary decision that a false alann had occured was made at ten minutes after the alarm. Criticality foils 'were counted at 16 minutes i
and tne trip was confirmed false 'at-19. minutes.
Personnel returned to work' at 20 minutes af ter. the alarm.
g
.,--.9
,_n'9
,.-q
,e,,,9
,,,,,y
,gg
,y y
9
,,s_
W 7s
l The installation of a PA systen speaker in a trailer north of the i
U0-2 building was made as a result of the drill. The two contractors who did not evacuate immediately reported they were in the trailer and could not hear the alan system.
8.
Radiation Protection The licensee's plans and progress with the relocation of fixed air sampler ecutoment was described in the NRC Inspection Report Number 70-1257/80-07 dated August 12-15, 1980. Since that inspection the licensee has identified fixed air sample locations obtained at the breathing zone and listed them by the work areas being monitored.
Approximately 85 air sample stations have been identified as Reoresentative of breathing zone concentrations. An additional 8 fixed sample stations have been identified as Eouioment stations.
Eauicment stations are those which monitor for equipment failures in areas only occasionally occupied by employees.
Reoresentative air samples have been obtained on a weekly frequency during tne month of October-December (4th quarter 1980) to gain experience with the revised air sampling system.
This inspection included a review of air sample results in terms of quarterly averages for the four quarters of 1980.
The first three quarters of 1980 included air sample results obtained before the relocation of fixed samplers to breathing zones and the 4th quarter results include data obtained after relocation.
(Results for the month of December and 4th quarter,1980 airborne concentrations averages were obtained by telephone subsequent to this inspection.)
Ouarterly average airborne uranium concentrations for the area's exhibiting the highest concentrations during the first three quarters of 1980 ranged from 4 to 8 percent of the maximum permissible concentration (MPC). The corresponding quarterly average for the 4th quarter of 1980 increased to 23 percent of the MPC. All airborne uranium concentrations.for any work area at the licensee's Richland Facilities remains less than 25 percent of the MPC for the Year 1980 as averaged over calender quarters. The sudden rise in average uranium airborne concentration in the 4th quarter in 1980 is unexplained at the present time. A licensee representative indicated that additional airborne concentration data was needed to evaluate the fixed sample locations changes.
Conditions of the subject license require the licensee to conduct a bicassay program. Among those conditions are requirements of monthly urine specimens for routine uranium analysis for employees working in uranium contamination.ntrol areas; annual in vivo examinations for those employees; and modification of that bicassay program.according.to Table 3 of Reguatory Guide 8.11,
" Application of Biaassay for Uranium," June 1974, if the most recent quarterly average of airoorne uranium concentration for any work area exceeds 25 percent of the respective DAC (MPC). The licensee's present bioassay program meets those conditions and will not require changes unless a work area quarterly average airborne uranium concentration exceeds 25 percent of the MPC.
This inspection included a review of the licensee's bioassay program analytical results dating from the last NRC inspection through November 25, 1980.
In vivo counting was performed by an independent laboratory on a number of licensee employees during November 13-21, 1980 and final results have not been received at the time of this inspection. Preliminary results indicated no significant deposition of uranium. Urine bioassay results over the same period of time ranged from 10 micrograms per liter (minimum detection limit) to a maximum of 157 micrograms per liter for one individual. That maximum result was measured on November 24. A resamole obtained on December 5 indicated less than 10 micrograms per liter for that individual. Those urine bioassay results indicated no significant deposition of uranium.
The licensee's in vivo and urine bioassay program covers approximately 300 employees. Those employees are divided into two approximately equal groups with each employee receiving an in vivo count annually.
All of the approximate 300 employees receive a urine specimen uranium analysis once each month. Analytical work in both cases is done by independent laboratories.
9.
Manacement Interview 1
The scope and resuits of this inspection were discussed with
+
licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on December 17, 1980. - Licensee representatives were informed that no items of noncompliance were observed within the scope of the inspection.
e