ML20058C339
| ML20058C339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000754 |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1990 |
| From: | Hooker C, Pate R, Tenbrook W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C332 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0754-90-02, 70-754-90-2, NUDOCS 9011010173 | |
| Download: ML20058C339 (9) | |
Text
..
+
r U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No. 70-754/90-02 License No. SNM-960 Priority 0 Category Pu, ULR&D
/ Safeguards Group V Licensee: General Electric Company Vallecitos Nuclear Center-(VNC)
P. O. Box 460 Pleasanton, California-94566' Facility Name:
Vallecitos Nuclear Center' Inspection at:
Pleasanton, California Inspection Conducted:
September 4-7, 24-25 and October 5, 1990 Inspectors:
44 1-
/#/AF//e.
E.~ A~. Hooker, Fuel Facilities Inspector-Date Signed
/6h$0 f
f W. K. TenBr#6k, Rac,i
'oh Specialist Dat6 Signed.
Approved by:
a./k
/4//#/76 R6bert J. Pate/ Chief Date Sigfieu r
Nuclear Materials and Fuel Fabrication Branch t
Summary:
l a.
Areas Inspected:
This was a routine unannounced inspection of licensee action on previous inspection findings, transportation of radioactive materials, radioactive waste generator requirements, radioactive waste management, environmental monitoring and emergency I
preparedness. The inspection also included tours of the licensee's facilities.
Inspection procedures 30703, 92702, 92701, 86740, 84850, 88035, 88045 and 88050 were addressed, b.
Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared adequate to the accomplishment of their safety objectives. -No violations or deviations were identified.
9011010173 901024 PDR ADOCK 07000754 C
1 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee:
R. W. Darmitzel, Manager, Irradiation Processing
- L. A. Hanson, Manager, Radioactive Materials Services
- J. H. Cherb, Manager Nuclear Safety (NS)
- G. E Cunningham, Senior Licensing Engineer J. I. Tenorio, Manager, Remote Handling Operations (RHO)
J. Nixon, Specialist Safeguards and Security
)
B. M. Murray,-Radiological Engineer S. K. Jain, Senior Engineer, Radioactive Materials Services R. F. Begley, Supervisor, Remote Handling 1
E. J. Strain, Compliance Engineer G. C. Martin,. Senior Chemist, Fuel Materials Technology L. K. Kessler, Associate Chemist
- Denotes those attending the interview cn September 7, 1990.
- Denotes the individual attending the exit interview on October 5, 1990.
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Followup of Licensee Action on Violations (92702)
Item 70-754/90-01-01 (Closed).
This violation involved the licensee's failure to perform annual calibrations of the Hot Cell area continuous dose rate instruments.
The inspector verified 'that effective corrective action had been imlemented to prevent recurrence as stated in the licensee's timely letter dated July 12, 1990.
The inspector noted that all of the instruments had been calibrated, and the licensee's procedures had been revised to ensure that the subject instruments were included in their calibration program.
This item'is closed.
3.
Followup of Licensee Action on Open-Items (92702)
Item 70-754/90-01-02 (Closed).
This item involved identification of temporary alarm setpoint changes for the Building 102 hot cell area and underwater storage pool area radiation monitoring instruments.
During facility tours, the inspector noted that the licensee had equipped these instruments with a descriptive portable red plastic tag that could be i
attached to the face of each unit to note temporary alarm set)oint changes.
The inspector also noted that the licensee was esta)lishing a l-program to perform routine source response tests of these instruments.
l This matter is closed.
Item 70-754/90-01-03 (Closed). This item involved verification of operability and alarm setpoints of the hot cell negative pressure monitoring units (photohelic gauges).
During this inspection, the inspector observed that the licensee had obtained a certified calibration
2 l
standard (positive and negative pres ~sure measuring device) from the. gauge-manufacturer and were developing procedures for calibrating the hot cell' photohelic gauges.
The calibration of the photohelic gauges will be covered in a future inspection.
This matter closed.
4.
Transportation of Radioactive Materials (86740)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radioactive materials. transportation program for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20, 70' 71 and 49 CFR parts 171 through 189, and the recommendations outlined In various industry standards.
The licensee's NRC approved Quality Assurance Program (QAP-1) and. licensee procedures adequately defined )ersonnel responsibilities and authority.
The Manager, RH0 continues to )e the primary person-responsible for transportation activities at the VNC.
The licensee was very actively involved in shipping Type A and Type B packages containing byproduct material licensed by the State of California.
During the last year the licensee had only made two shipments that involved special nuclear material material (SNM).
One shipment I
consisted of a Type B package containing 140 grams-of U-235 stabilized with byproduct material for waste disposal ~on December 12, 1989, and one shipment of low enriched uranium that was transferred to the GE Wilmington, NC facility in a BU-5 transport container on May 29, 1990.
Based on a review of licensee records, the inspector concluded that pre-shipment inspections and surveys were conducted as appropriate, shipping papers were complete, and the proper notifications and certifications w.ere included. : Copies of recipient licenses and shipping package certifications were also maintained.
The Quality Assurance (QA) group had audited about 10% of the licensee's i
waste shipments as noted in previous inspections.
Personnel involved with radioactive waste and transportation activities were provided initial and annual retraining which included written examinations for all-participants. The license's 1990 annual-retraining was scheduled to start on September 26, 1990.
A review of the 1990 training outline indicated that the subject matter adequately covered transportation and waste handling requirements.
The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully. satisfactory and
~
their program appeared fully' capable of accomplishing its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.'
5.
Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements (84850)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radioactive waste program for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20 and'61.
l Solid radioactive waste activities primarily involve byproduct material underthejurisdictionoftheStateofCalifornia.
As noted in Section 4 above, the licensee had only made one waste shipment containing SNM during the past year.
1
a 3.
I There had been no major changes in the. licensee's program since the.last intpection in this area.
The RHO manager continues to be the person responsible for radwaste processing activities at'VNC. primary; All of the radioactive solid end liquid wastes generated onsite are' transferred to RHO facilities for inspection-and processing.
Solid waste is processed in-Building 102 and liquid waste, via a transport tank, at the WEP.
Based on the review of waste shipment. records and licensee procedures,.the inspector determined that the licensee classified waste pursuant to~10 CFR 1
61.55; that waste met the~ characteristics of 10 CFR 61.56; and that the, prepared war,te manifest and marking of packages were in accordance with 10L CFR 20.311(b), (c) and (d).
Inspections of waste handling a.nd packaging were in conducted in accordance with.10 CFR 20.311(d)(3)
Training for personnel involved with handling and packaging of radwaste H
was discussed in Section.4 above.
The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory and their program seemed fully capable of accomplishing its safety objectives, q
No violations or deviations were identified.-
6.
Radioactive Waste Management (88035)
-l The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, license requirements and recommendations outlined in various.
industry standards. The inspection also included-tours of. Buildings 102 and 103, the Hillside Storage Facility (HSF) and the Waste' Evaporator' Plant (WEP).
During the tours, the inspector also.madeLindependent radiation measurements using an Eberlino R0-2 portable ion chamber, S/N 2691, due for calibration on October 16, 1990.
There have been no significant chanoes in the license's program since.the last inspection of this area.
The Inspect'or noted that radioactive-. liquid waste generated on-site is either solidified or processed at the WEP.
The
.1 licensee continues to only discharge industrial waste water ' collected in l
site retention basins.
The retention basins are sampled for radioactivity and non-radioactive constituents prior to discharge off-site.
The
.i licensee continues'to maintain one dedicated retention basin for the collection;of processed sanitary waste, which was sampled and-' analyzed prior-to being sprinkled on the licensee's property.
Review'of. basin grab sample analysis data of site discharges from January 1 through August 10, 1989, indicated no measurable act!vity was detected.'. Monthly composite samples of basin discharges indicated that there was essentially no difference between material. (natural activity) detected in the influent water and the licensee's discharges.
I Radioactive liquid waste processed at the WEP is held up in a monitor. tank and eventually evaporated to the atmosphere through-a fossil fuel fired boiler.
The monitor tank was sampled prior to processing, with pre-established limits to ensure that radioactive releases.via this pathway would not exceed the limits specified in 10:CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Teble II.
Previously aotable water used for cooling the waste evaporator condenser was aeing collected in a 50,000 gallon rubber-l
4 bladder, sampled and discharged to a small on-site lake (Lake Lee).
The-cooling water is now being transferred to the retention basins.
The inspector noted.that as part of a GE corporate policy for-environmental protection, the-licensee had initiated a program to replace certain single wall steel radioactive liquid storage tanks with new' double wall steel tanks.- Selected old tanks not in use were being cleaned out for ultimate disposal.
The inspector made the following observations regarding this program:
1 (1) The inspector noted that the licensee had cleaned out and relocated three old waste collection tanks (Nos.,4, 5 and 7) from the 300 area t
to'the HSF.
These tanks had been previously used during reactor -
o)erations in the 1960's.
The licensee anticipates on transferring-taese tanks and a large volume of low-level contaminated steel piping and other steel hardware, from the EVESR Condenser Building and other onsite areas, to a reclamation facility in Oakridge, TN.-
Tanks No. 1 and 6 were scheduled to be cleaned out and disposed of by the end-of 1991.
Tank No. 6 will be replaced by a. double wall tank.
H Decommh ioning activities in the 300 area are being conducted under-
-I the' licensee's State License.
(1) During September 4-7, 1990,.the'. inspector reviewed and discussed I
preparations for the removal of an underground storage tank in the Building 102 area with cognizant licensee representatives.
This>25 year old single wall 16,000 gallon steel storage tank was previously used as the RH0 pool overflow collection tank and interim storage for-radioactive waste water. The project also included the replacement of the existing above ground single steel wall 3000 gallon radwaste storage tank with a new 3000 gallon double wall steel. tank. ~This project was being performed under an approved Change Authorization (CA).
The CA included a description of the project safety analysis,.
preparation and tank removal activities,'and radiological and l
industrial safety requirements. - The licensee had contracted for the l
l services of an outside construction firm to assist in the project,
[
Soil sampling and other activities associated with the removal of this tank are discussed in-Section 7 below.
Records of licensee tests and controls for assuring'the quality of counting equipment data were examined. - The inspector noted that there had t
been no changes in counting equipment controls since the last inspection of this area. 'The licensee continues to performance, reproducibility, resolution, perform routine testing-for and efficiency for nuclear counting equipment.
The'10wer limit of detection of samples being counted were within that specified in the license (equal to or.less than 0.1 times the limits the concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Tables I and II).
Inspection Repart No. 70-754/90-01 documented the review of the licensee's testing of ventilation systems, and the calibration.of stack. air sampling i
systems.
L During facility tours, the inspector noted that radiation ~ areas, high i
radiation areas and radioactive materials areas were posted and controlled i
i o
,. ~ - -
w
.n..
i 5
as required by 10 CFR Part 20.
Specialistatus signs were present to warn personnel of the radiation levels for numerous areas where elevated radiation levels existed.: Housekeeping; appeared adequate in most areas:
't toured.
The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory and their program seemed fully capable of-accomplishing its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
J 7.
Environmental Protection (88045)
In addition to the observations ma'de in the above' paragraph, the licensee's Effluent Monitoring and Environmental ~ Annual Summary Report -
for 1989, was reviewed in office. This report was issued in'accordance with Condition No. 14 of the License..The report included a summary of-the radioactive and non-radioactive: releases from the site and measurements of radioactive and non-radioactive constituents in- -
neighboring streams, wells, soils and-vegetation. : Sample analytical-results were noted to be less than or slightly above detection limits.
No.
errors.or anomalies were noted in the report.-
The inspector also visited selected environmental air sampling stations.
The sampling equipment appeared to be' adequately maintained and within their current calibration period.
In regard to the Building 102 underground liquid. waste tank removal, discussed in Section 6 above, the inspectors made the following observations:
(1) During June 1990, the licensee had taken and analyzed 12 soil samples-from 3 locations at 4-depths near the underground tank.
Two control samples frer outlying onsite areas.were also taken and analyzed.
The licensee's sample analysis (Ge-Li-detector gamma scans). indicated that neither Cs-137, Co-60, U-235 nor other gamma emitters were:
I f
detected at levels stat'.stically above the control samples and/or counting room backgrouni levels, t
(2) During the week of Septem5er 17, 1990, the licensee excavated.the soil from around the_ tank and obtained and analyzed random samples of-excavated soil from around The tank.
(3) During September 24-25 the inspectors observed. selected portionstof the tank removal operations. The inspectors noted.that the tank had been surrounded by a bed of pea gravel and.there was no standing water in the' excavated area prior to the tank's removal.
After the-tank was lifted from the excavated area,.a small amount of standing water was noted in the bottom of-the pit.
Since the ground water sample well located within a few inches of the tank had been dry for several months, it was believed that the water in the pit was due to a recent rain storm.
The tank was noted to be covered with tar paper which had been coated with an additional tar coating to inhibit corrosion of ~ the outside surfaces of the tank.
The inspectors observed that some of the tar u
~.
6-
-1 paper on the underside of'the tank had stripped off during the removal operation;'however, there appeared to be no visible physical evidence to suspect the tank's integrity.
l No detectable contamination was observed on the licensee's wipe tests I
of the tanks surface as measured with a portable hand held thin window GM pancake probe.
The maximum dose rate on the tank was noted.
to be about 40 millirem 1er hour as measured by'the licensee using a j
portable ion chamber.
Tie inspectors also noted that adequate.
2 radiological controls and personnel monitoring had been provided for facility and contract workers involved with'the tank removalttask.'
The licensee provided_the inspectors copies of selected Building 102 area well water sample analysis and their excavation: soil sample results for in-office review.
j (4) On October 5, 1990, the inspector returned to observe the condition i
of the tank excavation and to perform confirmatory sampling of soils beneath the tank.
Standing. water was persisting deep in the.
excavation and the licensee had concluded that ground water was the source.
Preliminary licensee surveys showed the> presence of.Co-60 at levels between 0.1 10.0.5 pCi/gm dry, The. inspector and a representative from the California Department of Health Services sampled various locations in the excavation and sampled piles of excavated material stored nearby.
Twelve NRC samples were obtained.
Seven. samples were removed from the excavation, four selected from the licensee's,designatc4 sampling i
points and three taken from. independent areas of the excavation. 'The remaining five samples of excavated-material were selected from material in which the licensee had not identified activity greater than their 0.1 pCi/gm detection limit, and designatedras fill, were to be used to refill the excavatio,n.together with; clean non-contaminated.
The non-contaminated' soil The results of the NRC's soil sample analysis and' review of the licensee's well water and soil sample analysis will be discussed in a-subsequentreport-(70-754/90-02-01).
~
The licensee's performance in this area' appeared fully satisfactory and their program appeared capable of accomplishing its-safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8 Emergency Preparedness (88050)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of their NRC Radiological Contingency Plan (RCP) including; offsite' support, training, t
emergency procedures, plant facilities and emergency equipment.
The inspector noted that by letter dated' April 20, 1990, the. licensee had 4
submitted recent revisions to their RCP pursuant to Condition No..12 of the License.
The revisions were primarily administrative due to organizational changes and did not represent a decrease the response effectiveness of the Plan.
There had essentially been no other changes in
7 the licensee's RCP since the last-inspection of this area.- The inspector:
~
also noted that the licensee continued to maintain current agreements with-the appropriate offsite emergency support agencies,-as identified in.their RCP.
Records of licensee monthly fire protection equipment inspections were-reviewed.
The inspections included verification of fire main valve.
positions, condition of fire hydrants and automatic sprinklers,- sprinkler and halon system alarm tests, and Buildings 102 and 102A early warning circuit tests.
Maintenance and testing of the Building 102A emergency,
diesel generator is described-in Inspection Report No. 70-754/90-01.. The' inspector also observed t;ct fire extinguishers were inspected monthly.
- i No problems were identified in the. licensee's fire prevention system inspection and testing program. During facility tours the inspector-observedtheplacementoffireextinguishersandtheposition(openand/or?
closed) of selected fire suppression system isolation valves.- No concerns; were identified.
The inspector also observed that emergency exits and pathways were adequately marked and easily identifiable.
Based on the review of records and discussions with licer ee ersonnel,-
the inspector noted that (1) initial-and periodic radiolot,: cal, fire protection, first aid and hazardous materials training was being adequately provided to emergency response personnel for their assigned
^
tasks; (2) periodic drills in 1989 had been conducted and critiqued to ensure oersonnel were familiar with their assigned responsibilities; and (3) altlough the 1990 drills had not.been conducted as of this inspection, they had been scheduled to be performed by the end of the year.
The contents of selected onsite emergency equipment cabinets were.
examined.
The. inspector noted that the cabinets contained equipment and-supplies as delineated in the RCP and licensee procedures.
Emergency cabinets were routinely inspected and inventoried by the Nuclear Safety Department in accordance with established procedures.
Radiation survey.
t instruments and sampling equipment were noted to have been checked and.-
calibrated in accordance with licensee procedures.
However,,the. inspector noted that four high range self reading pocket dosimeters:(SRPDs) maintained in the emergency dosimetry kit had not been source checked for t
reliability for an extended period of time. Two of the SRPDs had not been r
checked since January 17, 1989, and two had not checked since February 13, 1989.
The inspector made the following observations regarding this i
matter:
(1) VNC Safety Standard 5.2.1 " External Dosimetry,'! Section 5.D stated,
" Individual o calibrating, peration managers are responsible for acquiring, and issuing self-reading pocket dosimeters.
Calibration can be requested from Facilities Maintenance, Instrument' Calibration Shop.
Calibrations should be performed semiannutlly.",
The inspector noted that the onsite operating components' procedures-required semiannual cailbration checks to be performed on SRPDs used by their staff.
The inspector noted that the Nuc Par Safety Department's procedures adequately delineated source checks and calibration frequencies for instruments used for the radiation protection of personnel; however, SRPDs were not addressed.
8 H
o
'l d
The inspector observations were discussed with cognizant nuclear i
safety personnel which were' acknowledged the licensee representatives.
The licensee immediately made arrangements tc.
replace the four SRPDs with units that had been-recently source
.i checked for reliability.
On September 25, 1990, the inspector noted,
that.the licensee was in the process of amending their procedures to ensure that the SRPDs were checked for accuracy-at six month
- l intervals.
.]
License performance in this area appeared adequate to the accomplishment j
of their safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives, denoted in-Section-
-l 2, on September 7,1990, and at the conclusion of the inspection on.
October 5, 1990.
The scope and. findings of the inspection were
?
summarized.
The licensee was informed that no apparent violations were identified.
The observations described in the report were acknowledged by the licensee.
.l t
i 1
.l
.J I
l l'.
-...