ML20058B255
| ML20058B255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001201 |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1990 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058B253 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1201-90-05, 70-1201-90-5, NUDOCS 9010300050 | |
| Download: ML20058B255 (7) | |
Text
I i
n 9
UN11 EJ ST ATES l;
' y, pa m40 9'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON A
f REGION 11
)
j 101 MARIETTA STRE ET,N.W.
p I
ATLANTA, GIORGI A 30323 0Cli78 Report No.:
70-1201/90-05 Licensee: B&W Fuel Company Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, VA 24505 Docket No.:
70-1201 License No.:
SNM-1168 i
Facility Name:
Comercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Inspection Conducted: September 17-20, 1990 Inspector:
b kf/7d EY. Karston Date Signed AL t -
/p//4 #
Ap p rov e d by :'t. TC'be tW',' thTeT~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Fate Signed
~
Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological liquid and gaseous effluents, radiological environmental monitoring..
t instrumentation, and audits.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The
-licensee's p-ograms for radiological environmental monitoring and controlling and monitoring liquid and gaseous effluents appeared to be ade<Jate.
The licensee had expanded the size.of the evaporator.used to ev6porate liquid radwaste, since the volume of waste had increased due to the addition and operation of the Service Equipment Refurbishment Facility (SERF) system.
This evaporation continued to be an adequate means of reducing the quantity of
' radioactivity released to the environment.
9010300050 901017 PDR ADOCK 07001201 C
v l
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted i
R. Alto Plant Manager 1
R. Coleman, Senior Monitor E. Coppola, Manager, Quality and Safety
- K. Lester, Manager, Health Physics and Licensing
- G. Lindsey, Foreman, Health-Safety
- Attended exit interview 2.
Audits (88035,88045)
The License Application.Section V, 6.6, requires that an internal audit program shall be maintained to provide assurance that plant activities are conducted safely and in accord with license specifications. Health-Safety personnel shall conduct, at least weekly, a formal audit of plant status relative to nuclear and radiological safety.
Independent auditors shall conduct health physics inspections quarterly, t
The inspector reviewed recent quarterly Health Physics Audits and weekly Health-Safety Audit Reports to verify compliance and assess quality.
The Weekly Health-Safety Audits for September 7,1989, through August 20, 1990, were reviewed. Discrepancies were usually corrected on-the-spot; if not, they were followed up until corrected.
Corrective actions appeared to be timely and adequate.
The inspector reviewed the following quarterly Health Physics Audits:
HS-89-4, conducted on December 19, 1989 HS-90-1, conducted on March 6, 1990 HS-90-2, conducted on July 9, 1990 The audits were conducted by personnel from B&W, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (NNFD), which assured independence.
The audits covered various subject areas and included findings and recommendations.
Each audit report included an attached memo from a licensee representative, dis-cussing the findings and reconmendations and stating proposed or imple-mented corrective action.
The inspector reviewed the Health-Safety Weekly Audit Reports specified in the. preceding paragraphs.
Identified discrepancies fell mainly in the occupational safety area.
Corrective action was usually taken on-the-spot. and each audit discussed the status of previously open;1tems.
The audit programs were conducted in accordance with the License Application.
No violations or-deviations were identified.
?
c 3.
Procedures (88035,88045)
The License Application,Section V, 6.5, states the requirements for Health-Safety procedures. The inspector reviewed Health-Safety Procedures pertinent to radiological effluents and radiological environmental monitoring programs to verify compliance and assess quality. Most of the procedures had been reviewed and revised during the current year.
The procedures adequately implemented requirements st6ted in the License Application.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Instrumentetion and Quality Control (88035,88045)
The License Application,Section V 8.3.4 and 8.3.5, require that calibration be performed at least semiannually on laboratory counting instruments, that the instruments be calibration-checked daily, and that field check sources be available for assuring functional response of instrumentation prio' to use.
Health-Safety Procedure AS-1129, Calibration and Maintenance of Radiation Instruments, provided instructions for calibration of radiation survey and radioactive particulate counting instrumentation.
The inspector toured the plant accompanied by a cognizant licensee Health-Safety Foreman and a Senior Monitor to evaluate capability and j
verify compliance.
Part of the tour included the Health-Safety. Office which had been used as a count room. The inspector examined the counting systems to evaluate capability and to verify compliance.
The lab was
. equipped with a NMC PC-4 Gas Proportional Counter, a NMC Gas Proportional Counter Cr verter Model PCC-11T, a shared NMC Decade Scaler DS-1T, and a a
NMC Automatic Counting System (ACS) Gas Proportional Counter.
The licensee Foreman stated that the ACS was used to alpha count air samples.
the PCC-IIT was used to alpha and beta count air and water samples, and the PC-4 was used as a backup for alpha counting and water samples.
The remainder of the lab counting equipment had been moved to the South i
Mezzanine in the Plant.
This was the' area where the air cleanup filtration equipment and 'the liquid radwaste evaporators were located.
This area. was equipped with an Eberline BC-4 Gas Proportional Beta Counter, a Ludlum Model 1000 Alpha Scintillator count system, and a new
.Tennelec Gas Proportional counting system.
The Foreman stated that the Tennelec would be used to count smears and air samples, the Ludium woul/
be used to count-smears, and a Ludium M-20A Alpha Scintillator System located in the Controlled Area was used to count controlled area smears.
The inspector reviewed the calibration records for the above instruments l
and verified that the calibrations were conducted at the required intervals.
No violations or deviations were identified.
, l
=
L c
5.
Airborne Effluents (88035)
License Application Section V 8.1.1, states requirements for airborne effluents.
The inspector reviewed the Quarterly Gaseobs Effluent Reports for the third quarter of Calendar Year (CY) 1989 through the second quarter of 1990 to verify compliance.
The Reports showed that daily sample collections were made and total gross alpha analysis performed for the Controlled Area Stack (SERF 1 and the Pellet Loading Room (PLR)) and the SERF 2 Stack.
The Reports sunnarized the daily releases on a monthly basis, then provided quarterly suninations and averages.
The totals released end the average concentrations were within required limits.
The inspector also reviewed the Gaseous Effluent Air Sampling &
Volume Measurements records for the stacks, which showed that the senples were isokinetic.
These checks were performed quarterly.
The inspector also toured the building, and examined the airborne effluent treatment systems.
HEPA filter housings and magnehelic gauges were examined.
The systems appeared to be in good condition and to be operable.
Based on this, the record reviews, and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee's program was adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Liquid Effluents (88035)
The License Application Section IV, 10, and Section V, 8.1.2, specify the requirements for the liquid waste program.
Health-Safety Procedure i
AS-1104, Kaste Water Effluent Control, implements the program.
The inspector toured the plant with a cognizant Health-Safety Foreman and examined the liquid effluent processing and monitoring equipment to evaluate capability.
The two retention tanks were still used for non-radioactive Industrial Waste Water.
The water was sampled and analyzed for radioactive particulate, pH, and Trichloroethelene (TCE).
If release criteria were met, the waste water was released into the wet weather stream, where it eventually reached the James River.
Licensee representatives stated that Sanitary Waste was piped underground to the B&W-(NNFD) treatment center for treatment and discharge. Clean noncontact cooling water and stonn runoff was discharged to the fire pond where it was-sampled prior' to release.
Waste water from Controlled Areas was directed to the holding tank system, then to the evaporator system, where it was evaporated, then the vapor passed through the airborne effluent HEPA filters to the' atmosphere.
The holding tank system was expanded since the previous' inspection as was the evaporator system, due to the addition of the SERF system Controlled Area waste.
The inspector reviewed the Semiannual Effluent Report for the first half of 1989, the Waste Water Evaporating System Sludge Inspection Record for September 1989 through August 1990, and the Sample Collection and 1
o 4
Analytical Record to verify compliance.
The inspector determined from the records that liquid releases were within required limits and that the i
sludge in the evaporator was maintained at less than one inch in depth.
Samples had been taken at the Retention Tanks and analyzed by NNFD for TCE, and samples had been taken at the outfall and analyzed by NNFD for Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
Liquid effluent releases for the period from January through June 1989 were determined to contain less than one percent of the Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) of radioactive material.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Changes to the Program (88035,88045)
The inspector toured the plant area with a cognizant licensee Foreman, reviewed changes in processes and equipment, and discussed those changes with the Foreman and other licensee representatives.
The addition of the SERF at the South end of the plant and its operability required some l
change to the program.
SERF perfonred cleanup and decontamination of radioactively conteminated equipment.
This allowed the ECH0-330 facility to be shut down and cleaned up (though not yet decontaminated).
The SERF 2 structure had been added to the South end of the West well of the plant, and excavation was being done for SERF-3, just outside the plant fence on the West side of the yard.
The work conducted in SERF-1 required monitoring for mixed fission product activity as well as the alpha and beta monitoring previously required.
Environmental air sampling was being conducted continuously rather than for eight hours per month.
This activity anticipated the requirements in the license renewal, which was scheduled to be implemented on September 30, 1990.
The licensee had procured and installed new air samplers capable of continuous monitoring.
Some personnel changes had taken place, but were not expected to affect plant operations.
The changes in the monitoring programs were expected to maintain or improve the safety of plant operations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Air Handling Units (88035)_
The Licente Application, Section 9.1.3.d. states that effluents exhausted to the entironment pass-through two HEPA filtration stages.
All HEPA units were protected by pre-filters.
The Section further states that-pressure diep across pre-filter systems will be monitored and that the filter be. eplaced. when the pressure differential reaches 4 inches of water.
Li:ense Application, Section-8.1.1.a states that at least one filter in tach system shall be equipped with a device for monitoring differentibi pressure.
Differential pressure shall be checked weekly and filters replaced when damage is evident, or when the differential pressure exceeds four inches -of water.
Section 8.1.1 also states that_ airborne effluents shall be controlled by HEPA filters and that filtration efficiency shall be evaluated in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 3.2,
o 5
Efficiency Testing of Air-Cleaning Systems Containing Devices for Removal of Particles.
System efficiency shall be evaluated at least annually and minimum acceptable system efficiency shall be 99.90 percent.
The efficiency tests had been performed by a vendor at the plant.
The inspector reviewed the test records to verify compliance.
The records showed that all systems had been tested on December 2,1989, and had passed with an efficiency of 99.99 or 100 percent.
The system on the ECH0-330 facility had been tested and had passed on January P5, 1990. The testing had been done as a result of a filter change.
The inspector reviewed the Manometer /Magnehelic Audit records for the weekly checks to verify compliance.
The inspector reviewed the records for the period from September 11, 1989, through September 10, 1990.
The records showed that the HEPA filters were changed out before the differential pressure readings could exceed 4 inches water.
Included in each audit was the PLR negative pressure audit, which checked the differential over the boundary of the PLR.
When the SERF Controlled Area became operational, the licensee added it to the negative pressure audit program.
The Magnehelic/ Manometer checks and the negative pressure audits yielded the expected results.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Environmental Monitoring Program (88045)
The License Application Section IV, 20, and Section V, 8.1.4, state the requirements for the environmental monitoring program.
The inspector and a licensee Health-Safety Foreman toured the Retention Tank Building, examining the facility, the nearby environmental thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD), and the nearby environmental air.
sampler.
The sample station near the highway was also examined.
This station consisted of an air sampler and several yards away was a TLD.
The air samplers were operation and calibrations were current.- The inspector examined the environmental sample analysis records and the bar graphs of the values drawn by the licensee.
From the above inspections and reviews, the inspector determined that the program was being conducted in accordance with requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 10. Allegation Followup (99014)
An anonymous individual contacted an agency of the Commonwealth-of Virginia with an allegation, which was then passed on to Region-11.
The individual stated that he was an ex-employee of B&W, and that waste was being dumped into the swamp on B&W property.
It was fenced but not posted, and he was told to stay away from the area when he asked about it, i
t
.i
1.
i r
o 6
Discussion:
The specific property was not identified. During this inspection and the one at the B&W NNFD-Research Lab, personnel did not know anything about such dumping, and with such sparse information, the inspector could not really investigate in depth.
The only swanp that anyone knew about was the area surrounding the wet weather stream which was used for releases from the Retention Tanks.
In the past, this system was used for radioactively contaminated waste water.
With the inception of the evaporator system for disposal of water from the Controlled areas, this system was cleaned up to some degree and was subsequently used for nonradioactive industrial waste water.
This water was monitored for radioactivity, pH, and TCE prior to release.
The swampy area fed by the wet weather stream has been monitored for radioactivity for several years.
==
Conclusion:==
Based on the limited information provided in the allegation and the onsite review-of licensee waste disposal procedures, the inspector determined that disposals were being made in accordance with requirements.
11.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 20, 1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the _ inspection findings.
No dissenting concents were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not
' identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
l
~
b..