ML20059N339
| ML20059N339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Decker T, Seymour D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059N338 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1113-90-08, 70-1113-90-8, NUDOCS 9010110286 | |
| Download: ML20059N339 (11) | |
Text
$5Mc UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 8'
REGION il k
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
2 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%...+/
SEP E 81998 Report No.: 70-1113/90-08 Licensee: General Electric Company Wilmington, NC 28401 Docket Nos.:
70-1113 License No':
SNM-1097 Facility Name: General Electric Company Inspection Conducted: August 27-31,~1990 fM(lo
(
8 Inspector:
DDYeymour Date_ Signed
~~
~
~
1 Xb[?
Approved by:
A d
T.T.'Fe~cWr7thWf' Date 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 radioactive waste management; radioactive effluent sampling, monitoring, and analysis; and radiological environmental monitoring.
Results:
l
\\
A review of Semiannual Effluent Release Reports indicated that liquid' and gaseous effluents for January 1988 through June 1990, were within regulatory limits (Paragraph 2).
A review of logs and sampling data indicated adequate' treatment and control of radioactive liguid and gaseous effluents (Paragraphs 3 and 6).
A review of sludge sample analyses results from the onsite sanitary waste treatment facility indicated that these results were within the limits specified by the License Application (Paragragh 4).
The Environmental Monitoring Systems were adequate for assessing the accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment (Paragraph 6).
The licensee was developing a document to track environmental radiological measurements which reached or exceeded License Application Action Limits.
This document will be. reviewed during a subsequent inspection (Inspector Follow-up Item 70-1113/90-08-01, Paragraph 6).
The licensee was also planning on developing a more specific' procedure / outline. for planning and documenting the annual audit' of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
This document will be reviewed 9010110286 900928 PDR ADOCK 07001113 C
during a subsequent inspection (Inspector Follow-up Item '70-1113/90-08-02 Paragraph 7). The licensee has begun shipment of calcium fluoride to an outside-vendor (Paragraph 8).: The computer-based status monitoring -and operational.
control system for the Heating,-Ventilation and Air Conditioning system was-not being used for records purposes, but the inspector considered.the use of the system as a maintenance and monitoring tool'to contro1' gaseous ~ emissions to be a licenseestrength(Paragragh5).
In the areas: inspected; violations or deviations were not. identified.,
-t.
\\
i i
i REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- B. Beane, Facilities Engineer
- G. Bowman, Senior Program. Manager, Compliance Improvement
- T. Crawford, Senior Engineer, Environmental Protection
- R. Foleck, Senior Specialist, Licensing Engineering
- D. Hasssler, Supervisor, HVAC
- W. Lewis, Manager, Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing
- R. McIver, Manager, Plant Engineering and Maintenance
- R. Pace, Program Manager
- R. Patterson, Acting Manager, Fuel Manufacturing r
- H. Strickler, Manager, Environmental Protection and Industrial Safety
- J. Summey III, Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Operatien Maintenance
- R. Torres, Manager, Radiation Protection
- C Vaughan, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- P. Winslow, Manager, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management Other licensee employees contacted ~ during this inspection included engineers, operators, technicians, and administrative personnel.
- Attended exit interview Acronyms and Initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragraph, 2.
Semiannual Effluent Release Reports (88045)
Sections 5.1.1.3 and 5.1.2.4 of the License Application and:10 CFR 70.59(a) reguires.the licensee to report gaseous and liquid activity release data on a semiannual basis to the NRC.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's semiannual radioactive effluent release reports _ for calendar years 1988, 1989, and 1990. _ The release data is summarized in Attachment 1 of this report.
Except for January through June of 1989, there has been no significant changes in the gaseous effluents. The increase in' January through June of 1989, was attributed by the licensee, in part, to a ruptured filter.
The licensee also started using an improved method _for determining isotopic uranium during this time frame.
This method resulted in higher calculated values for the isotopic uranium.
I
y 2
There has been an increasing trend in liquid effluents since January 1989.
Again, the licensee partly attributed this to a change in their method for determining isotopic uranium.
The licensee also attributed this to an increase in the number of tankers carrying ammonium nitrate to Federal Paper Board Company.
In January 1990 the tankers were. increased from 5 to 10 tankers a day.
As of August 1990, the number of tankers was reduced back to 5 per day.
{
Another contributing factor was problems with the sampler and with the filters used with their Uranium Process Management Project (UPMP).
Cracks in these filters would cause sludge and/or particulate material from this waste stream to plug up the computerized sampler. This would allow spikes of waste water with a higher than normal uranium concentration to be directed to the Final Process Lagoon (the Final Process Lagoon water did not exceed License Application Action Levels (l.AALs) in 1989 and 1990, as of the date of this inspection). The licensee was considering installing a new sampling system to help alleviate this problem.
Liguid and gaseous effluents for January 1988 through June 1990 were within regulatory limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste Management (88035)
A previous inspection report (89-11) noted that there were two near right angle bends in each _ gaseous effluent stack sample line between the_ sample points and the filter. A commitment was made by the licensee to remove all short radius bends out of the stack probe lines and to replace these probe lines with lines having 12 to 18 inch radius bends.
A completion date of August 31, 1990, was given.
During the current inspection, the inspector observed a licensee taking daily and weekly stack samples (particulate filters).
The licensee who collected the particulate filters used proper sampling techniques and health physics practices.
The inspector determined that eight stacks had their stack probe lines replaced.
The inspector noted the replaced lines; and noted that in several cases the stack sampling assembly had to be rearranged to accomodate the replaced lines. The inspector did note that a few stack assemblies still contained sharp or right angle bends, and that some of the assemblies appeared to have tygon tubing prior to the-particulate filters (there are approximately 35 sampling assemblies overall).
The inspector discussed the stack assemblies and possible improvements with cognizant licensee personnel.
During a telephone conversation on September 19, 1990, the licensee indicated that any stack sampler with sharp bends prior to the the filter i
had been modified, and that where applicable, the tygon tubing had been removed.
Some possible modifications to the calciners' stack sampling assemblies were still being considered.
-r 77
3 3
Section 5.1.1.1 of the License Application requires that airborne dicharge stacks be sampled on a daily sr weekly basis and analyzed for gross alpha-and gross beta.
The inspector reviewed Stack Emmission Reports for 1989 and for 1990 to date.
As of August 9.-1990, total stack emmissions for 1990 for all stacks were 55 microcuries (uC1). This was roughly equivalent to 1989 values for the same time frame..This number was less than the i
1,250'uC1 per quarter limit specified by Section 5.2.1.1 of the License l
Application.
The inspector determined that in 1990 LAALs were not exceeded.
In 1989, there were two instances were a stack sample results did reach the LAAL.
The license documented these results and had records indicating that the i
filters for these stacks were replaced.
Subsequent sample results for
(
these stacks were below the LAAL.
J l
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
SolidRadioactiveWasteManagement-(88035)
(
The inspector reviewed the results of monthly samples of sludge from the licensee's onsite sanitary waste treatment facility for the period of January 1989 through July 6, 1990.
All the wet sludge samples were below the lower limit of detection (LLD) of 0.02 parts per million (ppm) uranium.
The highest concentration in the dried material was 3.57 ppm uranium for August 1989.
Typical values for 1989 and 1990 ranged from 1 to 2 ppm uranium.
For an average enrichment of 2.5 percent uranium-235,1 ppm.
equated to approximately 1.57 picocuries per gram (pC1/g). Sanitary sewage sludge, as authorized by the license, was being spread on a former sanitary sewage lagoon.
4 The inspector discussed the disposal of radioactively contaminated solid wastes with licensee representatives.
As of August 29, 1990, there were 303 waste boxes waiting incineration in the onsite incinerator, and 132 waste boxes were scheduled for shipment' to a licensed recipient for burial.
Within the scope of the review, the inspector determined that the operation of the solid radwaste program was adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Heating, Ventilation,andAirConditioning(HVAC)(88035)
The inspector received updated information on the status of the computer-based status monitoring and operational control system for the i
HVAC system. The inspector determined that the computerized system was not being used for records purposes.
At the time of this inspection the computer-based system monitored all exhaust and recirculation units, and 60 hoods.
Daily pressure drop and airflow measurements were being determined manually for applicable hoods for records purposes. Hood airflow was determined with the hood door opened
<t i
4
4.
a predetermined amount.
The computer-based system also monitored pressure drop across hoods, roughing, and absolute' filters, and ' airflow in. the-hoods; however, the_ computer-based system could not determine, or, adjust, the hood door openings.
The-computer-based readings were being taken every'15 to 30 second:.
T:.e computer program was written to " lock-in" and display the lowest flow and the highest pressure drop across the filters since the last filter change. Personnel: adjusting hood openings, or cleaning or maintaining the hoods would cause this system to lock-in on volues which would be artifacts and which would not be representative of current -hood and filter conditions.
The licensee had a requirement to. investigate the cause of high pressure drop or low flow values within a specified time frame.
At night or during weekends, this requirement would cause some-difficulties with using the computer-based system as the input for official records due-to these artifact values.
The licensee recognized this difficulty and was working to resolve.it and'to verify that this system could meet all applicable license and procedural' requirements. The licensee planned on running the system in parallel withLthe-existing system-(manual) for a minimum of_ six months prior to using it for -
official records purposes.
The system was being used as a maintenance tool and was used to. determine when a filter needed changing.
It allowed the HVAC maintenance team to-react quickly to small changes in the HVAC system.
The use of the computer-based system had increased the chang 1 out of prefilters and. had decreased the change out of absolute filters Another result of the implementation of the computer-based system ha t been a decrease in airborne-effluents, from 215 uCi uranium in 1987 to U G f,1 uranium in'1989.
Other contributing factors to this decrease was tH tracking program that had been implemented by the licensee ' for stack
.nissions.
Each stack's emissions were tracked on a weekly basis, including where applicable, the fluoride emissions.
Hydrofluoric acid, which was generated as 'a result of fluoride-emissions, ate through the absolute filters, causing increases in airborne concentrations.
The inspector considered the ese of the computer-based system as a maintenance and monitoring tool to control gaseous emissions to be a licensee strength.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Environmental Monitoring (88045)
Radiological releases could occur at GE via three effluent pathways:
airborne, liquid, and solid.
As part of this inspection the. radioactive effluent instrumentation syttems used to monitor and control the releases of radioactive materials in effluents were reviewed.
These systems assessed-the accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment.
i 1
[A
,, ~~
5, a.
Section 5.2.1.2 of -the LA _ requires ambient air sampling stattions to.be located in the prevailing wind directions l(SE, S,- SW, NE) and air.
samples to be - continuously collected.
A review of licensee records
- indicated that between January.1990,5 and March 1990, weekly: ambient air samples were ' collected,- composited and' analyzed as required.-: The inspector also verified that -the Lquarterly; average airborne uranium concentration never exceeded 3.45 E-15 uCi. per milliliter, which would' require a particle size distribution evaluation i
b.
Section 5.2.2.1 of-the LA requires soil samples to be collected quarterly and analyzed for uranium concentration to. monitor for the-long-term buildup, of uranium in~ the. soil attributable to plant operations. - The quarterly soil sample results for the first three quarts s of 1990' for 18 sampling _ locations were reviewed by the-inspector.
The LA did not specify an - Action Level-(AL) for these-I samples.
The results for' fourteen of these locations never exceeded GE's internal action guidelines (IAG) of 0.7 to 0.9-ppm uranium.
Four-locations did exceed the IAG._ Three of these sites were within the site boundary and inside' a protected area where a backlog of wooden waste storage boxes had-.been stored awaiting incineration.
The results for these locations ranged froma3' to 151 ppm uranium.
The remaining site had a result of 0.96 ppm. uranium.
The licensee may-I take another sample, at their discretion, when sample results exceed the IAQ. The LA LLD requirements were being met for the analyses.
The inspector also reviewed the results of soil samples obtained from the drainage ditch located between the final process lagoon and the -
Northeast Cape Fear River.
These samples are required to be taken twice'a year and to be analyzed for uranium content.- The LA does not j
-list any Als for these samples.
The results for the first set of i
samples pulled in 1990 for the' drainage, ditch ranged from 3 to 1_5 ppm-q uranium. The LA LLD requirements were being met for:the analyses.
c.
Section 5.1.2.3 of the LA defines. Als for uranium concentrations in j
the. discharge of the final process lagoons.
A. review of the sample results for January 1,1990, through August 23, 1990, indicated that the ALs were not exceeded.
The inspector also reviewed the sample i-results for the weekly composites for gross alpha and gross' beta for q
the time period of January 1,.1990, through May 18, - 1990, and
' determined that the Als were not exceeded, and-that the LA LLDs were being met for the analyses.
i Section 5.2.3.1 of the LA requires the licensee to sample, on a monthly basis, the Northeast Cape Fear River.
These sample results provide a measure of effluent control effectiveness.
The inspector.
i reviewed these results for January 1990 through August 1990.
The uranium concentrations were below the LLD for both upstream and i
downstream sampling points.
l l
-e-:
6, d.
Section 5.2.2.3 of the LA requires vegtable/ forage-samples from specific. areas to be collected twice a year and to'be analyzed for -
fluorides. The objective of this sampling was to'obtain environmental monitoring information relative to the effects of measured fluoride emissions. There were no Als listed in the LA fer this parameter; The inspector determined by a records review that the samples were collected once in 1990 and had been analyzed by an outside ' vendor.
The LA LLD requirements were being met for the analyses.-
e.
Section 5' 2.3.2 ' of the LA _ defines the sampling and analysis; requirements for gross alpha, gross beta and uranium concentration of-samples taken from the ammonium nitrate tank ' trucks. transporting-nitrate solution' to the Federal Paper Board Company for use in their-a waste treatment facility; and specifies liquid and sludge samples to:
be collected at the Federal Paper Board Company.
A review of.the' analyses results for the ;rab samples of the individual Lanunonium r
nitrate tank trucks 'for May 1990, and for the daily-composite of the individual truck samples for January 1990, to ' August 1990,. for uranium-
~
concentrations indicated that LA ' ALs were not being exceeded.
The inspector also reviewed the results of the weekly composites which were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta.
The LA LLD requirements
-l were being met for the analyses.
The inspector. also' reviewedi the i
sample results for the liquid and sludge samples :for 1990..The liguid 1
and sludge sample:. were collected quarterly as required, and LA Als i
were not exceeded, and LA LLDs were being met for.the analyses, i
f.
Section 5.2.4 of the LA' describes the groundwater-monitoring program for gross alpha, gross beta and uranium on and around the plant site..
j This monitoring helps assure the quality of the plant-supply water, j
and provides environmental _ monitoring. information.
There is-approximately 30 wells monitored in this program. 'The inspector j
reviewed the well sampling results for~ the first_ and second quarter of 1990.
Most results' did not exceed the Als 'specified in the LA.
However, one of the. Waste Treatment -Series: Wells' results did exceed the AL of 15'picocuries per ' liter (pCi/1) gross alpha activity.
This-well also had uranium concentrations which exceeded the AL'of 0.1 ppm.
The gross alpha activity decreased from:130 pCi/1'~in January 1990, to
~
53 pCi/1 in June 1990. The uranium concentration ranged from 0.17 ppm a
in March 1990, to the LLD of 0.02 ppm in August 1990.- The-licensee performed additional. uranium concentration - sampling for this well.
1 The licensee indicated that this well is in an area where there were spills of ' nitrate' wastes in the past, and where overhead piping had leaked.
The licensee had performed additional isotopic analyses, or' had resampled, at their discretion.
The overhead pipes were replaced with stainless steel to stop the leaks,'and the well was covered with plastic to try to alleviate contamination by spills or leaks.
The inspector determined through ' a review of documentation and selected records that the licensee had three ' shallow groundwater-monitoring wells which have historically shown elevated values.
Two
?
>+
iL-3G
\\'
y of these' wells were. located next to the edge of the former zirconium sludge storage; area.: and one-well, discussed -'in - the p'revious paragraph, was located near the waste treatment lagoon area.
The wells near the' zirconium sludge-storage area are : required to have monthly grab sample' analyses performed for. uranium concentrations with an Al of 0.1 ppm. uranium.>.'These wells did not show uranium.
concentrations at or near this action -1,evel for January through August' 1990 (typical values were less than the LLD of.0.02 ppm' uranium). The licensee indicated that 1the water from.these wells was not used for human consumption, and that they had initiated, in 1989, a two year
. =
ground water investigation project to identify any past or current contamination sources.
The inspector' determined, that within the scope of the review that the groundwater monitoring program was adequate.
No-violations or -
deviations,were' identified, g.
The licensee discussed with the inspector the development of a
" central" record which would? document' environmental radiological.
measurements that reached or exceeded LA ALs, and which:would also detail, where applicable,- any additional actions the licensee had pursued in response to these measurements. This document would~ enable the licensee to identify trends and anomalies, and would be:a' clear record that the licensee was' meeting LA requirements for these:
measurements.
During the inspection, the inspector. reviewed a draft document developed for this purpose.
The final document. will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
This item will-be tracked'as.
Inspector Follow-up' Item (IFI) 70-1113/90-08-01 No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP.). Audits' (88035)-
Section 2.8.2 of the LA specfies that an audit' schedule be developed.by the-environmental group on an annual basis, and that the' audits be conducted in accordance with a written procedure.
These audits are preformed to' ensure that operational activities conform to documented environmental' requirements.
Pursuant to these requirements, the-inspector reviewed the REMP audit for J
1989, and the audit-schedule and results for audits performed.in 1990, up to the time of this inspection.
The-inspector also reviewed the Pulse Environmental Protection Module for 1989, which.is a self planning program for Health, Safety and Environmental Protection. (This -is an internal GE document).
The inspector also reviewed Practices and Procedures.No.' 40-06 Rev. 11, titled Regulatory Compliance Audits. This procedure describes-the Regulatory Compliance ' Audit Program and requires the licensee to establish 5
the scope and area to be audited and details how to deal with audit-findings.
This procedure was a generic procedure and provided general t
q c
/8-outlines' for conducting and documenting required audits.
This proce' dure was adequate for its intended; purpose.
At the time of this inspection the licensee was developing.a more specific-procedure / outline for the. REMP audits.
This material will be reviewed during subsequent inspections. This will be tracked as IFI 70-1113/90-08-02.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
CalciumFluoride(CaF,) Shipments (88035).
Section 1.8.12 of the LA authorizes the license'e-to transfer quantities of industrial ' waste, primarily CaF, to an outside manufacturer, for the purposes of briquette manufacturing and for use as a steel flux forming material.
This section also requires measurements to be made using a sample plan to provide a 95 percent confidence level that the population i
mean for each shipment is less than 30 pCi per gram on'a dry weight basis, l
i The CaF, ide to ' uranium dioxide. waste was generated from the chemical conversion of ur hexafluor It was an insoluble precipitate ' that j
contained small amounts of uranium.
Prior-to.a recent license amendment authorizing the above shipments, the -licensee has been shipping between three and four million. pounds -(on' a wet basis) of CaF, per year to' an offsite waste burial facility. The CaF waste. met the cutoff: level-(0ption' 1 of the Branch Technical Position for,the' disposal of uranium and thorium waste) that allows burial in an unrestricted area. -CaF from naturally occurring ore. (fluorspar) -contains from 2 to 10 pCi ur,anium. per gram (pCi/g).
The inspector reviewed sample analyses results from several shipments of CaF, rrade-in 1990.
The values of the uranium in:the shipped material'-
ranged from 5 pCi/g to 16 pCi/g..
The' inspector also reviewed the '
statistical analysis and sampling plan - the licensee' had Ldeveloped to provide a 95 percent confidence': level that the population mean for each shipment was less than 30 pCi/g on a dry weight basis.
Within the scope of the review, the inspector determined that the licensee's sample plan for the CaF, shipments was adequate for its intended purpose.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
CountingRoomInstrumentation(88035,88045) j
~
The inspector discussed a recent incident at a waste facility where an incorrect detector efficency 'had been used due to source. strength assumption errors for the strontium-90 (Sr-90) radioactive standard.
The certificate of activity supplied by the source manufacturer did not include the. activity contribution from' the Sr-90 daughter product, yttrium-90, which was equal to that of the Sr-90. This resulted in an instrument beta efficiency that was twice the correct value and subsequently underestimated the beta activity by a factor of two. The ' inspector deterr.ined that the count room did use Sr-90 as a calibration source, but that the licensee-
' y.
j e-9
.l recognized that there was an activity contribution from the yttrium-90,'and corrected for this.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview The inspection scope-and results were summarized on August 31,.1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results-as listed in the sumary.
Proprietary information. is not contained -in this report.
DissentingEcomments were not received from the licensee.
11.~.. Acronyms and Initialisms AL - Action Level CaF - calcium fluoride CFR,- Code:of Federal Regulation GE - Gen'eral Elect'ric-Ccmpany_
HVAC - Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IAG -' Internal Action Guideline IFI - Inspector Follow-up: Item LA - License Application LAAL - License Application Action Level LLD - Lower Limit of Detection i
No. - number NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission pCi - picocurie.
pCi/g - picocuries per gram pCi/1 -~ picocuries per liter
. ppm - parts per milion uCi1-microcurie UPMP - Uranium Process Management Project j
l 1
)
t-l