ML20246F338

Insp Rept 70-0754/89-03 on 890809-11 & 14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radioactive Matl Transportation,Radwaste Generator Requirements & Mgt,Environ Monitoring & IE Info Notices

ML20246F338
Person / Time
Site:	07000754
Issue date:	08/24/1989
From:	Fish R, Hooker C, Prendergast K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246F329	List: ML20246F324 ML20246F338
References
70-0754-89-03, 70-754-89-3, GL-85-02, GL-85-08, GL-85-2, GL-85-8, IEIN-84-27, IEIN-84-56, IEIN-84-60, IEIN-84-75, IEIN-84-82, NUDOCS 8908300263
Download: ML20246F338 (6)

Text

_

ofl ,, Q . .

b fX <

l(

fy ;V - ,

- - t 9 /,y > .

,, . J T,; ' .

^ 1,- U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

k, # 4 g'.

REGION V -

r .m s .

W5.e: b' is .

F s y Report No. 70-754/89-03 ,

License No. SNM-960 Priority 0 Category V Safeguards Group. V -

Licensee: General Electric Company Vallecitos Nuclear Center P. O. Box 460 Pleasanton, California 91304 Facility Name: Vallecitos Nuclear Center Inspection at: Pleasanton, California Inspection Conducted: August 9-11 and 14, 1989 Inspectors: d// / T/#.f/#7 C. A. Hooker, uel Facilities Inspector Date Signed a#$ .n m0 Date Signed h/93/F1 K. M. Prendergast,(Ejnergency Preparedness M nalyst Approved by: , ;r-R. Fish, Chief hM[9 Ddte 6ig'ned i Emergency Preparedness Section Summary:

a. Areas Inspected:

This was a routine unannounced inspection of transportation of .y radioactive materials, radioactive waste generator requirements,

-radioactive waste management, environmental monitoring and follow-up on N,.

IE Information Notices. The inspection also included tours of the licensee's facilities. Inspection procedures 30703, 86740, 84850, 88035, j 88045 and 92701 were addressed.

< i

b. Results: ,

i In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable of Lb'

• a l

D ., accomplishing their safety objectives. No violations.or deviations were' .y identified. ,

j k

- c

+

j 1 s

4 8908300263 QfrOS23 , yl

't ,5 ,' F;DR ADOCK 0 700 g e u o- .

A _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

gyy J ~ >

PW

,qw <w.

m 3 L; e r ,

< 1

[xg b e' _

g ~ (h ,

2

- l s DETAILS-3 7

4 0 -

1. Persons Contacted Licensee:

• R. W. Darmitzel, Manager, Irradiation Processing 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 R. F. Begley, Supervisor, Remote Handling E. J. Strain, Compliance Engineer W. Springsteen, Specialist L. K. Kessler,. Associate Chemist o

• Denotes those attending the exit interview on August 14,1989.

In addition to'the individuals noted above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's' staff.

2.  ; Transportation of Radioactive Material's (86740)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radioactive materials transportation program for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 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 personnel responsibilities and authority. The Manager, RHO had been assigned as the primary person-responsible for transportation activities at the VNC.

The licensee maintains several NRC approve'd shipping containers and is very actively-involved in shipping Type A and Type B packages containing byproduct material licensed by the State of California. During the last 15 months'the licensee had only made a two shipments of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) that consisted of one waste shipment, No. 88-21-01, on May 25, 1988, containing 30 grams'of U-235 in solidified waste and irradiated BWR test fuel rods returned to Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co.,Ltd.

of Japan'on March 10, 1989. Based on a review of receipt-and shipping frecords for these packages, the inspectors concluded that receipt and W 'pr2-shipment inspections and surveys were conducted as appropriate, d' -'

shipping papers were ccmplete, the proper notifications and 1 , . certifications were included and the exclusive vehicle drivers appeared

-to have been properly. instructed. Copies of recipient licenses and

. /2 a N shipping package certifications were also maintained.

'e .The Quality Assurance (QA) group audits about 10% of the licensee's waste shipments. . Personnel involved with radioactive waste and transportation i activities were.provided initial and annual retraining which included F

f

/ fe , ,l e 0 j

i , i W , ;

Q i'; F ' d , .h

%. Y, ,n, 'g

' u ',

'~

. y ,, -( j ' i i e r s  :.

y  : 2: ,\s , x

, t

$ ,. , s

', WH tten' examinations for all participants. The-last annual retraining was

v. t * < conducted on March 28; 1989, with about 32 personnel in' attendance. The L* _g . training $rogramwas'welldocumented-andthesubjectmatteradequately e y covered transportation.and waste handling requirements.

c - .,?

The blicensee'superformance in this area appeared fully satisfactory and .

? their program appeared fully capable of accomplishing its safety s -j _ ' objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.

3. ' Radioactive Waste' Generator Requirements (84850)

The ' inspectors reviewed the licensee's. radioactive waste program for.

compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. The .-

t inspection also included tours of Buildings 102 and 103, the Hillside Storage Facility (HSF) and the Waste Evaporator Plant (WEP). During the tours, the inspectors also made independent radiation measurements using an Eberline R0-2 portable ion chamter, S/N 2691, due for calibration on October 18, 1989.

The. inspectors noted that the licensee had not made a waste shipment of SNM since May 25,.1988. Solid radioactive waste activities primarily involve byproduct material under the jurisdiction of the State of California. The WEP had only been operated three days since January1, 1989.

There had be'en no major changes in the' licensee's program.since the last inspection in this area. The. licensee's QAP-1 and procedures adequately defined personnel responsibilities and authority. The Manager, RHO was assigned as the primary person responsible for radwaste' processing activities. ~ Radioactive waste is generated by several components at VNC.

All solid and liquid waste were being transferred to RHO facilities for inspection and processing. Solid waste is processed in Building 102 and

. liquid waste at the WEP.

The inspectors reviewed NUREG/CR-3864, Characterization of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes and Waste Packages of General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, dated November 1984; data from routine waste stream analysis; the waste manifest for the May 25, 1988, waste shipment; and selected licensee procedures. Based on these reviews, the inspectors determined that the Licensee classified waste pursuant to 10 CFR 61.55; that waste met the characteristics of 10 CFR 61.56; and that the prepared waste manifest-and marking of packages were in accordance with 10 CFR 20.311(b), (c) and (d). Inspections of waste handling and packaging were conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 20.311(d)(3)

In addition to QA's involvement discussed in paragraph 2 above, the inspectors noted that NS also performs periodic (every two years) independent reviews of the radwaste program. The last review, NS Review-Radwaste Handling, dated February 24, 1989, was examined. The NS review appeared to be comprehensive and well detailed. Several minor l , 'deficien'cies were identified. The deficiencies were administrative in

?9 nature and did not represer t a safety problem. The responses and corrective actions appeared appropriate.

,- I

^

l a_ l _-  ?

,- 3 Training for' personnel involved with handling and packaging of radwaste was discussed in paragraph 2 above,.and appeared adequate.

During facility tours the inspectors made the following observations:

The inspectors noted that radistion and high radiation areas, and.

radioactive materials areas'were posted and controlled as required

. , by 10 CFR Part 20. Posting of radiation warning signs in the

. , basement area of Building 102 was noted to be improved. Special

, status signs were present to warn personnel-of'the radiation levels for numerous. areas where clevated radiation levels existed.

Housekeeping at the HSF had improved from' that noted in previous inspections. Numerous deteriorating wooden and metal containers had ,

' ' , been disposed of and the.inside grounds were well. maintained. ~

m ;f< However, the inspectors dii note that the grass in the nearby field was!talliand dry and had grown up to the fence surrounding this 1  !

, facility without an-established fire berm. During the inspection and'at the exit interview on August 14, 1989,. the inspectors discussed the advantages of maintaining a fire berm between the HSF ,

p fence and the nearby field. The inspectors observations were

> < acknowledged by the licensee.

t Radiation and contamination monitoring equipment and air samplers were'noted to be operable and were within their current calibration s ' period at all facilities visited.

There were several laboratories in Building 103 posted with Criticality Limit Area (CLA) signs where SNM was not being used or stored. Based on discussions with cognizant licensee representatives, SNM had not been used in some of these areas during

.the past two years. The inspectors encouraged the licensee to 1 evaluate the need for the CLA posting if SNM was not being used or stored in these areas.

The inspectors also noted that housekeeping in the several of the BuilcHng 103 laboratories was not up to the standards displayed in other areas onsite.

The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory and

.their program seemed fully capable of meeting their safety objectives.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3. Radioactive Waste Management (88035)

.The-inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with 10 CFR Part 20,-license requirements and recommendations outlined in various industry standards.

There have been no significant changes in the license's program since the last inspection of this area. The inspectors noted that radioactive

. liquid waste generated on-site is either solidified or processed at the WEP. Industrial waste water is collected in site retention basins and sampled for radioactivity and non radioactive constituents prior to 1

j 1

l

___________J

4

~

., e discharge off-site. The licensee: maintained one dedicated retention basin.for the. collection of processed sanitary waste, which was sample.1 and analyzed prior to being sprinkled on the licensee's property. Review  ;

l' -

of basin grab sample analysis data of site discharges from January 1  !

through August 10, 1989, indicated no measurable activity was detected.

Monthly' composite samples of basin discharges indicated that there was ,

essentially no difference between measurements of influent water and the 7 / ,

licensee's discharges. s i

Radioactive iiquid waste' processed'at the WEP is held up in a monitor tank and eventually evaporated to the atmosphere through a fossil fuel

4 fired b' oiler. :The monitor tank was sampled prior to prccessing, with pre-establistied limits to ensure that radioactive releases via this  !

1t pathway would' not exceed the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix

, f B, Table II. ' Potable water used for cooling the' process condenser on the

- waste evaporator was:being collected in a 50,000 gallon rubber bladder, ,

j sampled and discharged to a small on-site. lake (Lake Lee). Review of.. :i sample analysis data from the bladder discharges indicated that no radioactivity was being released to Lake Lee. j The inspectors examined Nuclear Safety Procedure 4350, Flow Calibration of Air Samplers, and records of calibration and sample data for the licensee's stack samplers and monitors for Buildings 102 and 103 and 4 environmental air sampling stations (Nos. 051-054) for 1989. The records documented that the calibration of the licensee's air samplers was conducted semi-annually using NBS certified equipment and in accordance with the licensee's procedures. The licensee's records also documented that samples were collected from the stacks-and the environmental air '

samplers on a weekly basis and that releases of radioactive materials were well below the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.

The licensee's procedures for. assuring the quality of counting equipment data were examined. -The records were noted to include routine testing for performance, reproducibility, resolution, and efficiency for nuclear counting equipment. Records for the year 1989 of routine counting equipment testing were examined and considered satisfactory. The records documented the equipment was operated within the specifications stated in their procedures. The lower 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).

Records of annual licensee in-line filter testing for 1988 and 1989 along with Nuclear Safety Procedure 5200 Testing and Maintenance of Site Absolute Filters, were examined. The procedure requires annual aerosol testing for retention of 0.3 micron diameter homogenous dioctyi sebacate (005) particles, monthly delta pressure tests for in-line filters, and semi-annual hood flows. The licensee's records indicated that filter testing and hood flow measurements were being performed in accordance with their procedures. When filters failed to demonstrate a retention efficiency of greater than 99.95 percent, maintenance was performed and the filters were retested in a timely manner to ensure Lhat the proper filtering efficiency was being obtained.

s,

L, .w-

. 5 iTheclicensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory andz their progFam seemed fully capable of meeting their safety objectives. No violations ~or deviations were identified.

4. Environmental protection (98045) ln' addition to th'e observations made in the above paragraph, the

~

J -

r; . ,

" licensee's Effluent, Monitoring and Environmental Annual Summary Report

.Lg for.1988,.was' reviewed:in the office. This report was issued in

1. ,"M :~ {jk1 accordance:with ' License 1 Condition 14. The report included a summary of the' radioactive and'non radioactive releases from the site and ki

.J g

, measurements of radioactive and nonradioactive const'tuents in c neighboring streams, wells, soils and vegetation. Sample analytical g

results vere noted to be less than or-slightly above detection limits.

c TheNns'pectors noted'that Section II, item B, ' tack Monitoring, stated,

• 4 in part:

a "Eight stacks at VNC required either regular or intermittent.

L f, sampling durisig 1986".

3 Thelicenseeacknowledg,hdthattheyear1986wasinerrorandthecorrect

. period should have been 1988. At the. exit interview on August 14, 1989, the licensee informed toe inspectors that they would submit a letter of correction regarding thi s matter. By letter dated August 16,'1989, the licensee submitted their correction to the report. No other errors or anomalies were noted in the report.

The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory and seemed capable of meeting their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Follow-up IE Information Notices and Generic Letters (92701)

The inspectors verified that the licensee had received and reviewed IE Information Notices Nos. 84-56, 84-60, 84-75, 84-82, 89-27 and Generic

. Letter. GL-85-08. The Information Notices had been reviewed for applicability to the licensee's facility. With respect to GL-85-02 '

concerning electronic transmission of termination reports, the licensee elected not to adopt this method due to costs involved.

6. Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives, denoted in paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on August 14,1989. 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.

-- -- --___ _ -