ML20155C606

Insp Rept 70-1151/88-12 on 880829-0902.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiological Liquid & Gaseous Effluents,Radiological Environ Monitoring & QC

ML20155C606
Person / Time
Site:	Westinghouse
Issue date:	09/23/1988
From:	Kahle J, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155C603	List: ML20155C600 ML20155C606
References
70-1151-88-12, NUDOCS 8810100116
Download: ML20155C606 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _

UNITED STATES

, [pa N og%,*

• /

NUCLEAR REGULATOHV COMMISSION f \*- REGION 11 hI

, 101 MAHIETTA STREEY,N W.

~t ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323 y

% .~ .~.s SEP 2 0 M Report No.: 70-1151/88-12 Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Columbia, SC 29250 Docket No.: 70-1151 (Fuel Division) License No.: SNM-1107 Facility Name: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Inspection Conducted: August 29 - September 2, 1988 Inspector; 22 R. R.,N rston u W Date Signed 87 Approved by. M J.

(, O di1It

,/ Kahle, Section Chief

'/b'?//2 Date Signed D tion 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, and quality control.

Results: In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

1 l

l 0810100116 880926 PDR ADOCK 07001151 C PNV

e REPORT DETAILS l

1. Licensee Employees Contacted

• R. Fischer, Senior Engineer, Regulatory Engineering H. Foster, Regulatory Engineer

• W. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

• W. Hartnett, Manager, Columbia Customer Support

• J. Heath, Manager, Regulatory Operations

• E. Keelen, Manager, Manufacturing

• E. Reitler, Manager, Regulatory Engineering H. Shannon, Regulatory Engineering Technician J

• Attended exit interview

2. Audits (88035, 88045)

License Application, Section 3.1.2.3, Item (7), states that specific responsibilities of the Radiation Protection Component shall include audits of license activities for compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations, licenses and permits and documentation of these audits to facilitate corrective action. License Application, Section 3.1.4.5, states that the Radiation Protection Component shall perform quarterly data audits of environmental quality to assure that chemical and radiological effluents and environmental concentrations are within license and permit conditions. License Application, Section 3.2.1.2(7), states that the Radiation Protection Component shall perform an evaluation every two years (or more frequently if a problem is identified) of vendors used to analyze environmental or bicassay samples. 4

~

The inspector riviewed the Monthly Summary Effluent and Environmental f Monitoring Repo:'s for January through June 1988. The report included r chemical and radioactivc parameters of liquid effluent discharged to the  !

, Congaree River; results of environmental air monitoring; and airborne '

effluent releases from the Fellet Area Furnace Air in Exhaust A, and the 1 Chemical Process Air Exhausts. This report provided the data audit i i required by Section 3.1.4.5 of the License Application.

The licensee performed an audit of the vendor performing radiochemical analyses in December 1986. This audit was documented in a previous inspection report (70-1151/87-13). The vendor performing chemical analyses was evaluated through participation in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) QA Program. The inspector reviewed a letter frcm EPA to NPDES Permit Holder, L dated August 19, 1988, discussing results of the licensee / vendor analyses of a liquid sample for pH, Total Suspended Solids, Oil and Grease, Ammonia (Nitrogen), Biological Oxygen Demand, and free Chlorine. The ,

licensee / vendor results were rated "Acceptable" for all analyses. [

No violatiens or deviations were identified.

6

2

3. Procedures (88035,88045,84844)

Lict.nse Application, Section 3.2.1.1, states that written procedures describing general radiation protection requirements shall be maintained and followed.

The inspector selectively reviewed applicable Regulatory Affairs Procedure: shd Health Physics Operating Procedures, specifically those which had been revised since the previous inspection (inspection report 70-1151/88-06).

No violations or deviations were identified.

4. Records (88035, 88045, 84844)

The inspector reviewed selected parts of the fcilowing records:

a. Letters, Westinghouse to South Carolina (DHEC),

Subject:

Quarterly Groundwater Survey, March and June 1988,

b. NPDES Daily Discharge Monitoring Report for months of March through July 1988.

c. Weekly NPDES Pemit Discharge Report, April through July 1988,

d. Ambient Environmental Air Monitoring Data Surrrnary Log (Weekly) for January through July 1988,

e. Controls for Environmental Pollution (CEP) Analytical Results for Environmental Samples taken March through July 1988, and Effluent Composite Samples taken March through June 1988,

f. Letter, J. N. Carr and Associates, Inc., to Westinghouse, dated August 10, 1988,

Subject:

Analyses on Effluent Samples, NPDES Analyses on Effluent Samples, taken July and August 1988

g. Effluent Air Weekly Reports for January through June 1988,

b. Gaseous Effluent Calculations, weekly for week ending April 17, 1988 through week ending July 10, 1988,

i. Effluent Air Sampling Report for February 28 through July 10, 1988.

j. Effluent Monitor Discharge for August 1988.

k. NPDES Effluent Results for August 1988

1. in-Place HEPA Filter Test (D0P) for March through August 1988.

m. Tennelec Calibration Data for July and August 1988.

3

n. Daily Tennelec Checks for August 29 through September 1,1988.

Results of records review were discussed with licensee representatives.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Effluent Release Reports (88035) 10 CFR 70.59 requires the licensee to submit a report to the NRC Region II office within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year specifying '

the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous six months of operations. 10 CFR 20.106(g) requires licensees engaged in uranium fuel cycle operations to be subject to 40 CFR 190 which limits the annual whole body dose to any member of the public to 25 millirem. l The inspector reviewed the effluent report for the period January 1 -

June 30, 1988 (dated August 25,1988). The table below summarizes 1985 -

1987, and January - June 1988 effluent data.

EFFLUENT

SUMMARY

FOR WESTINGHOUSE ACTIVITY RELEASED (microcuries)

, 1985 1986 1987 1988(1sthalf) i l

Gaseous Effluents 1,536 1,505 1,399 738 Liquid Effluents 246,200 111,171 57,164 13.287 i

1 The gaseous releases continued with no significant changes, but a i l significant decrease was noted in liquid releases for the six month l 4 period, continuing a trend noted since the peak in 1985. Licensee  !

j representatives stated that the continuing decrease was due to filtering l

! of the waste stream and continued followup to assure that all contaminated waste straams were routed through the cleanup system. 3

.f No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Radioactive Waste Management (88035)

The inspector and a licensee representative discussed waste management and i toured the liquid waste treatment facility. The licensee representatives I stated that prior to exiting the plant, radioactive liquid waste was held in quarantine tanks, and an online monitor was set to alarm at 0.8 MPC I

(10 CFR 20 Appendix B. Table II, Column 2), and to terminate release at 1.2 MPC. Liquid wastet were then routed to the advanced wastewater i treatment system, where uranium was removed to levels less than abcut 1 1.5 E-6 uCi/ml.

i I

1 4

Upon exiting this part of the process, distillation was used to remove ammonia, and lime was added to separate fluorides. The effluent was then routed through several lagoons to allow slurry to settle. After pH adjustment, clorination, and aeration, the liquid was sampled, analyzed, and discharged to the River.

The inspector and a licensee representative examined and discussed several of the gaseous release points. The plant had a total of 40 release points, and radioactivity was controlled primarily by the use of HEPA filters. Airborne effluent sampling was done by use of isokinetic probes which continuously drew a sample through a fiberglass filter paper. The samples were changed on a 24-hour cycle and, af ter a 12-hour delay, counted for gross alpha.

The inspector's review of the records indicated that the effluent release I and monitoring program was conducted in accordance with license conditions.

I The inspector aise reviewed the calibration records for the Tennelec I counting systems used to count the effluent air samples. No discrepancies were noted.

1 No violations or deviations were identified.

j 7. Environmental Monitoring Program (68045)

License Application, Section 2.7 specifies requirements for the conduct of the Environmental Monitoring program.

The inspector discussed the program with licensee representatives,  ;

reviewed selected procedures and analytical results for the period from i March through July 1988. The inspector and a licensee representative also i toured the vicinity of the plant, inspecting the licensee's sampling i stations and equipment at air, surface water, well water, and fallout

. stations, it was noted that the environmental air samplers had been i calibrated at the required interval. Licensee representatives stated that

no organizational changes had taken place since the previous inspection (70-1151/88-06).

i

8. ConfirmatoryMeasurements(84844) .

l

! The inspector advised the licensee representative that *he NRC had not yet '

i received the analytical results from the liquid process sample provided by

! the licensee subsequent to the previous inspection.  !

l (0 pen) IFI 70-1151/88-06-01: Compare NRC/ Licensee analytical results for  !

, a split process sample. This item will be closed subsequent to the NRC's r i

analysis being completed and the results compared with the licensee's  !

i results.  !

l  :

i 1 1 I a  !

I l

I

~

5 The inspector requested that the licensee provide the NRC with an effluent air sample (filter) and a gross alpha analysis of the sample. The inspector informed licensee representatives that a comparison of the licensee /NRC analytical results would be considered an IFI and reviewed in a future inspection.

(0pened) IFI 70-1151/88-12-01: Compare results of HRC and licensee analyses of effluert sample.

No violations or deviations were identified.

9. FollowupItems(82701)

(Closed) IFl 88-IN-22: Disposal of Sludge From Onsite Sewage Treatment Facilities. 1.icensee representatives stated that sewage sludge was incinerated at the site.

10 Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were sumarized on September 2,1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the

)

areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed above. Proprietary information is rot contained in this report.

Dissenting coments were not received from the licensee, i

I I

1 i

I  !

\

1 l l

.i 1

i i

i I

l

_ . . . . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ .