ML20150C866

IE Inspec Rept 70-008/78-05 on 780926-29 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Emergency Planning & Environ Protec

ML20150C866
Person / Time
Site:	07000008
Issue date:	10/24/1978
From:	Greer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150C855	List: ML20150C852 ML20150C866
References
70-0008-78-05, 70-8-78-5, NUDOCS 7812040106
Download: ML20150C866 (8)

Text

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report No. 70-008/78-05 License No. SNM-7

. Docket No.70-008 Licensee: Battelle Columbus Laboratories 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 Facility name: Battelle Columbus Laboratories Inspection at: West Jefferson Site Inspection conducted: September 26-29, 1978 c

Su <

(YM t 23[97[

Inspec to r:

R. J.

reer Approved by:

T.

. Essig, hief

_IO Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspection on September 26-29, 1978 (Report No. 70-008/78-05)

Areas Inspected:

(1) Routine emergency planning inspection, including:

coordination with offsite support agencies; emergency facilities and equipment; training; emergency drill records, and, (2) Routine environ-mental protection, reluding: an examination of the licensee's environ-mental monitoring program for 1977; and routine confirmatory measurements, including a discussion of the comparative analyses of site effluent samples, and collection of particulate and charcoal filters.

The inspec-tion involved 30 inspector-hourc onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results: For the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

7812040l @

1 DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

• H. Toy, Licensing Coordinator (BCL) 3 D. Miller, Battelle Columbus Emergency Coordinator l

• J. Dettorre, Radiological Site Coordinator f

l

• W. Gallagher, Site Emergenqy Coordinator C. Postle, Researcher l

R. Evans, Environmental Health Physics Supervisor c

H. Faust, Emergency Site Unit Leader D. Flint, Personnel and Environmental Survey Units Leader l

• K. Brog, Department Manager, Physics, Electronics and Nuclear Technology W. Tinapple, Chief, Security

• Denotes those present at exit interview.

Other 'ersonnel R. Hockenbury, Chief, West Jefferson Fire Department R. Anderson, Deputy Sheriff, Madison County H. Parkle, Sherif f, Madison County R. Myser, Assistant Director, Radiation Safety Office, Ohio State University Hospital N. McAffee, Assistant Director, Ambulatory Nursing, Ohio State University Hospital 2.

General This inspection included a review of the implementation of the Battelle Columbus Laboratories Emergency Plan and Procedures l

Manual. This manual was updated in November 1977.

Annex B to License No. SNM-7 requires that the licensee develop and maintain an emergency plan and implementing procedures for coping with radiation emergencies. Only the facilities at the West Jefferson Site which are covered by the SNM-7 license were considered during l

this inspection.

l This inspection also included an examination of the licensees' environmental monitoring program and the report for 1977, as well as the confirmatory measurements program.

3.

Coordination with Offsite Suppott Agencies The Ideensee's emergency plan specifies that arrangements be established with agencies in the city of Columbus and in _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

Madison County which would respond to an emergency at the West Jefferson Site. The inspector and a licensee representative visited the West Jefferson Fire' Department, Madison County Sheriff's Office, and Ohio State University Hospital. Representatives of these agencies stated that coordination with Battelle Columbus personnel is good and that the training provided to them by Battelle personnel is adequate.

The County Engineer has advised Battelle personnel and these offsite agencies that the main access road, State Route 142, to the West Jefferson Site will be closed for a two-week period for repair of a railroad crossing.

The inspector discussed this closing with Battelle personnel and with the response agencies to determine whether this would present a problem during an emergency response.

All agencies stated that alternate routes are available, ahich take at most ten minutes longer.

The inspector identified no problems in this area.

4.

Emergency Equipment a.

Emergency Supplies and Equipment The inspector examined the emergency supplies and equipment located in the Plutonium Laboratory (JN-4) and also in the reactor building (JN-3).

A licensee representative stated that an inventory of this equipment is conducted at routine intervals.

Supplies appear to be in good condition and all survey instruments were operational.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

b.

Emergency Control Center In response to problems identified during a drill conducted in 1977, the licensee has relocated his Emergency Cbntrol Center to the second floor of the reactor building.

Thus, the radio communication problem and the confusion problems which existed in the former location no longer exist.

Meteorological equipment which is now housed in a trailer is to be relocated on top of the reactor. building within a few weeks.

c.

Training The inspector discussed training for plant and offsite support agency personnel. Training for offsite agency i

personnel is not documented although discussions with agency representatives revealed that such training is conducted and the representatives stated that they con-sider it to be adequate. A licensee representative f

4,

-er

-++vm'r,y-,e m ce-.-

r.

.g-,e-wwm--+-ve,.,

-w,wr-w,w,r-,y-we m

-r

,,m-awee oce*w=-w-.-va w w w w

-mm-+ ecn ew e e r e---.e.nwie++ re r w ee-a w r-*a r e w - =r v esim -a *

=+ei+,ww. e

==%>*.we--rw-Ne ur er--ree--w w a-r e m '

stated that training for Ohio State University Hospital per-sonnel in decontamination procedures will be conducted shortly.

New Battelle employees are thoroughly trained in the emergency plan, and line management is responsible for an annual review of emergency procedures with involved personnel.

The inspector examined selected training records and determined that such training has been conducted.

No items of noncomplian.ce gr deviations were identified.

d.

Medical Arrangements The licensee has no onsite first aid facility at the West Jefferson Site. However, a first aid team and first aid supplies are maintained, as well as decontamination supplies and showers. In the event of an emergency, the victim will be transported to the Ohio State University Hospital by the West Jef ferson Township Emergency Squad.

5.

Test and Drills The licensee conducted an emergency plan drill in August of 1978.

The drill simulated a criticality excursion caused by a shipping cask being dropped into the storage pool and causing two fuel rods to contact each other. Because of the shielding provided by the water in the pool, the criticality alt.rm was not triggered.

How-ever, the excursion released fission gases which triggered the continuous air monitor. The personnel involved reported seeing a blue flash and a bubbling in the pool. As they exited the building, one slipped and fell and injured himself.

This drill did not involve the West Jefferson Ambulance Service, but the Ohio State University Hospital was involved.

Critiques of the site drill and of the hospital response are currently being reviewed.

These critiques identified some problems, and the licensee is presently initiating action for several items.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

6.

Decisional Aids The West Jefferson Site manager and the Site Emergency Coordinator are currently developing applicable decisional aids for the West Jefferson site.

7.

Fire Prevention and Protection The licensee utilizes guide lines as opposed to specific procedures for fire fighting in the plutonium laboratory.

The site emergency fire brigade receives fire fighting trainir.g in the form of a _ -,... -.., _ _ _ _. -.. _.. _ _... _ _..,. _,.. _ _. _ -. _., _ _ _.... -. _.. _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _..

i I

sixteen-hour course conducted by a local fire chief.

In addition, a fire fighting demonstration and exercise is conducted by licen-see personnel.

The licensee is' insured for fire protection by Nuclear Energy Liability-Property Insurance Association (NELPIA). American i

Nuclear Insurers is responsible for conducting semi-annual fire inspections.

The inspector examined records of the last inspec-tions, conducted on March 21,1978 and September 8 and 9, 1977.

No significant hazards or f'indings were disclosed.

In addition to the insurance inspections, the Department of Energy conducts fire inspections annually as part of their overall inspec-tion program and the licensee conducts fire inspections. The inspector examined the results of the last DOE inspection which was conducted March 21-22, 1978.

No recommendations or findings were noted.

The inspector examined fire detection equipment in the laboratory.

All local alarm boxes are tested weekly. Fire bells are tested monthly and each individual detector is tested annually. The inspector examined selected records of these checks and found them to be conducted as required. The inspector also examined selected fire extinguishers and fire hoses and found them to be checked as required. All fire alarms, beside alarming locally, also go to the security control building at the site as well as the King Avenue complex.

8.

Environmental Protection The licensee conducts an environmental protection program as a prime contractor for the Department of Energy.

Analyses of environmental samples are presently performed by the Eberline Corporation; however, the licensee has just received an intrinsic Geranium detector and hopes to perform certain of these measure-ments in-house in the future.

The inspector reviewed the 1977 Environmental Monitoring Report and determined that it contained all the elements necessary to determine the environmental impact of offsite releases. No unusual trends were noted.

The licensee stated that new air sampling equipment has been installed.

Ihe new equipment was leak tested before instal-lation and was found to have no leaks.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

F

,---i7,--.,e,smn-*.i.e.--

=--,-.w-vrm.-e i.r rw.,

em..-,..--.r-ev.

-...-,.,,w,

r. w w w --w..

--mi--

..n -- -w,-

~,,. w.-' ws w,, e, = v.w w - mm,v u u r v e- - - v- =rw e v=w

-v v ei r r t w o w-,i w r tw

=r*

9.

Confirmatory Measurements Analytical results (shown in Table 1) of a particulate filter com-posite, charcoal adsorber, collected during the previous inspection and particulate and charcoal spike submitted to the licensee were discussed with licensee representatives.

The Criteria for Comparing Measurement Results are given in Attachment 1.

The results for alpha on the particulite composite, and for cobalt 60 on the spiked particulate filter were in disagreement with the results from the NRC Ref erence Laboratory (RESL).

The licensee representatives rechecked calculations and efficiency determinations and could find no cause or explanation for the apparent disagreements.

The inspector collected composite particulate filters and a charcoal adsorber for future comparison.

10.

Exit In t e rview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 29, 1978, and summarized the purpose and scope of this inspection and its findings.

Attachments:

1.

Table 1 - Confirmatory Measurements Program, Battelle Columbus Laboratories

2. - Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements

, l r

4 i

TABLE I U $ NUC LE A F. F E GUL A TOR Y C OMMI SS LO N OFFICE Of iNSP EC TI ON A ND E Nr 0R CE ME NT CONFIRM ATORY. ME ASUREMENTS PROGR A M

~

FACILITY: BATTELLE FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1978 o,

---

NRC-------

---L IC E N SE E

---NRC* LICENSEE----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

P JILTER ALPHA 3 3E-06 3 0E -0 7 1 2 E -07 1 8E-07 3 6E -0 2 1.1 E + 01 0

BETA 8 4E-05 2 0E-06 6 5E-05 1 9E -0 6 7 7 E -01 4 2 E + 01 A

C IILTER I 1 31 1.8E-03

1. 4 E -0 3 00 00 00 1 3E +00 N

CO 60 1 0 E-0 4 2 0E-05 1 2E-04 3 5E -0 5 1 2E+00 5 0E +00 A

F 4 PIKE 0 CO 57 3 3E-03 1 1 E -0 4 2 8E -0 3 3 0E-05 8 5 E -01 3 0E +01 A

CS 1 34 9 2E-03 3 5E -04 1 4 E -0 2 3 0 E -0 4 1 5E+00 2 6E + 01 P

I CS 1?7 6 5E-0 3 2 9E-04 4 9E-03 9 0 E -0 5 7 5 E -01 2 2E + 01 A

CO 60 7 6 E -0 3 3 5E-04 1 4E-02 3.0E-04 1 8 E +0 0 2 2f+C; D

C SFIKED BA 133 E.6E+04 Ss0E+03 5 3E+04 00 6 2E-01 1, 7 E + : ',

P (E ST RES ULTS:

a = A G R E E ME N T 0=0 ! S A GRE E ME N T P=POSSIBLE A G REE ME NT N=NO COMP A R I SOf.

I b

9 4

C e,

i I

s l

ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS 4

This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.

The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.

In these criteria, the judgment11 bits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated one signa uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as

" Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement should be con-sidered acceptable as the resolution decreases.

The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance. The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.

RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"

<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison

>3 and <4 d.4 2.5

0. 3

- 3.0 No Comparison T4 and <8 0.5 2.0 0.4

- 2.5 0.3 3.0 I8 and <16 0.6 2.0 0.4 2.5 1.67 0.5 T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6

- 1.67 0.5 2.0 T51 and <200 0.80 -

1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6

- 1.67 3

1.25 0.75 - 1.33

_200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 "A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:

Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 kev.

Tritium analyses of liquid samples.

"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:

Cam =a spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 kev.

Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.

Cross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.

l l

e

.s

.-e

,e ne v

. -,