ML20003C980
| ML20003C980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000984 |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Book H, Cooley W, Thomas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003C977 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0984-80-02, 70-984-80-2, NUDOCS 8103180973 | |
| Download: ML20003C980 (4) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!"11SSI0tl 0FFICF 0F l'ISPECTIO'l A'10 EilFORCEMEflT
'IEGIO t V 70-984/80-02
. Report!!o.
t Docket tio.70-984 Licer,:e fio.
Sti't-942 Safeguards Group 6
Licensee:
Pacific fjorthwest Laboratories Cattelle Blvd.
Richland, Washington 99352 Facility flame:
Pacific flerthwest Laboratories Inspection at:
Rieniand. Washinoton Insoection conducted:
Decencer 18, 1980 Inspectors:
M.,- N,%[,,
.1/a My W. J. Cooley, Feel FactJities Inspector Date Signed Date Signed 4
l,,
(
'7
~c,i Approved by:
..- ' * '~
d4 J/
,9 cT
,M' j-e v R.D. Thomas, Chief,itate'rialfRadiological Date Signed Protection Section MP.. Approved by:
Ur ths-td
.Z
.7, - S /
c H. E. Snok, Chief, Fcel Facility and 'fatorials Date Signed Safety Branch Summary:
i insnocticn on Omher 18,1930 (Recort !!c. 70-984/80-02)
Areas Insnected:
Organization; facility changes and modific;tions; internal audit and review; radioactive waste management; and inventory.
The inspection involved 7 inspector-hours onsite by one PIRC inspector.
Results:
10 itens of nonconpliance or deviations were identified v,ithin the scope of this inspection.
C-8108180973 ij RV Form 219 (2) u-
PETAILS 1.
Persons _ Contacted
- 9. V. Larson, Manager, Occucational and Environmental Protection Department "C. 1. Richey, Manager, Radiological Fafety and Engineerina J. R. Huston, Senior Development Engineer
- 1. V. :lisick, Senior Research Scientist D. E. Friar. Research Scienti3t J. 3. derry, Senior Technical Soecialis,t
+
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Orqanization Ms. D. E. Friar presently has the lead responsibility for the concuct of aucits and acoratsals of all licensee facilities.
The audi: resconsibilities of W. H. Knox, wno has terminated since tne last inspection, were aosoroea in tnis change.
3.
Inventory At the time of this inspection, the licensee's inventory of special nuclear materiai. held under the subject license remained very mucn less than one effective kilogram. Approximately 13 kilograms of low enricheu urap' n was being usea in the development of decontanination tecnniques.
That acerial had been recently received by-the licensee and a large portion rentained in its shipping containers.
4.
Intnrnai deview and Audit The licensee is re-evaluating the entire area of auditing.
All princioai facilities-used by the licensee had been audited in 1980.
fro Much of that work had been accomplished by assembling _ teams of exoerts in several fields.
The licensee's experience was that the teams becane cumbersome when used in audits and appraisals of a single facility.
The present plans are to use smaller teams and to scread that expertise over a longer period of time.
Subsequerit to this inspection, the rcport of an annual appraisal vf Building 306-W was reviewed.
No licensed radioactive material had been'used in that building for more than one year.
The date of that appraisal was September 4,1930.
The subjects covered in the appraisal were radiation protection, training, hazardous caterial shioping, waste management, energency preparedness, and nuclear safety. The appraisal was. performed by a team of five person: representing expertise in the six subject areas covered.
The appraisal was based on the experience of previous audits and appraisals of building 306, the buiding 306 Safety Analysis Report, and a checklist of specific questions derived frnm that background information.
The annual appraisal report we.s dated Septenber 24, 1989.
The reonet was well Organized and well written, giving the appraisal team nemhers and operations representatives contacted, and listing the subject areas reviewed along with the significant observations in each area.
The report was transmitted to Building'306-W area management on October 14, 1980.
That tr nsmittal stated that no serious safety de."iciencies were found.
The transmittal offered six observations whic.5 the acoraisal team considered sicaif fcant and requiring the evaluation of ooerations management.
Those observations were addressed to the adequacy of posting and reccrd keeping, the availability of adequate air sampling and contamination detection instrumentation, and the need for additional training in the area of hazardous materials shipping procedures.
The transmittal placed a limitation on the date of reply to the appraisal team's observations.
A timely reply to those observations was dated October 29, 1980.
The reply addressed each of the six observations, presented an
' evaluation and proposed action in each case.
~
5.
Radioactive Maste Management / Monitoring of Liquid Waste Rotention Basins and Tanks With respect to its use of HRC licensed radioactive materials in privately owned facilities, this licensee does not make use of evaooration ponds or submerged radioactive liquid waste lines or tarks. All liquid radioactive waste generated by the licensee in his private work is solidified and disposed of to a licensed land gx burial facility, The subject licensee occasionally uses radioactive material under prime contract to the Department of Energy (license exempt) and NRC licensed material simultaneously in the same facility.
In those cases, easily separated solid and liquid licensed material waste is appropriately treated and sent to a licensed land burial facility.
Maste which cannot be separated or which a e clearly prime contract material waste are transferred to Department of Energy waste handling facility located at the Hanford reservation.
For the nast several years thro %.. the presently reported inspection the cnntribution of radioactive waste from the licensee's private operations has been minimal as compared to that generated in its prine contract work for the Department of Energy.
. - 6.
f4nacer.ent Interview The scoce and the results of this inspection were discussed with licensee nnar;er.ent at the conclusion of the inspection on December 18, 1980.
Mr. Richev was infomed that no items of nnqcompliarce or deviations were observed within the scope of the insrection.
t
.t.