ML17251A821

Responds to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-244/86-15 on 860811-15.Failure to List Fe-55 on Shipping Manifests Severity Level V or Inspector Followup Item.Finding Re Lack of QC Insp Procedure for 10CFR61.65 Invalid

ML17251A821
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	10/08/1986
From:	Kober R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
NUDOCS 8610210084
Download: ML17251A821 (10)

See also: IR 05000244/1986015

Text

j.TOIL SlsJC ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION

~89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y.14649-0001

TCLC><ONE A~ci cooc v<e 546 2700 October 8, 1986 Dr.Thomas E.Murley, Regional Administrator

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406 Subject: I&E Inspection

Report No.86-15 Notice of Violations

R.E.Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No.50-244 Dear Dr.Murley: Inspection

Report 86-15, which covered radioactive

waste shipments from Ginna stated in part: "As a result of the inspection

conducted on August 11-15, 1986, and in accordance

with the NRC Enforcement

Policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix C), the following violations

were identified:

A.B.10 CFR 20.311(b),"Transfer for Disposal and Manifests", requires, in part, that the manifest accompanying

radio-active waste shipments indicate as completely

as practicable

the radionuclide

identity and quantity, and the total.radioactivity

of the shipment.49 CFR 172.203(d),"Additional

Description

Requirements", also requires that the name of each radionuclide

in the radioactive

material must be included on the shipping papers." Contrary to the above, during the period January, 1983-June, 1985, the licensee failed to identify the radionuclide

Iron-55, its activity, and by the omission of Iron-55, the total radioactivity

on the manifests for the radioactive

waste shipments made during the stated period.Technical Specification 6.8,"Procedures," requires that procedures

be established, implemented, and maintain-ed.Procedure No.A-1001,"Inspection

and Surveillance

Activities,"developed

pursuant to the above, requires, in

~k~l ei/t

Page 2 of 5 part, that quality requirements

obtained from regulatory

requirements

shall be included in Quality Control Inspection

procedures.

10 CFR 20.311(d)(3), Transfer for Disposal and Mani-fests," requires the licensee to conduct a quality control program to assure compliance

with 10 CFR 61.56,"Waste Characteristics." Contrary to the above, the regulatory

requirements

required by 10 CFR 61.56 are not included in any Quality Control Inspection

procedures.

A Quality Control Inspection

procedure has not been developed, and implemented, for the dewatering

process to assure compliance

with 10 CFR 61.56." RG&E's response to these findings is presented below.RG&E agrees with finding A as stated in that we did not include Iron-55 on our shipping manifests.

In early 1985, we became aware that Iron-55 was being discovered

in waste shipments from other utilities.

An investigation

of our analytical

results from our effluent monitoring

program along with confirming

analysis from Science Applications

Inc.(SAI), who performed the analysis required by 10 CFR 61 for, Ginna, indicated Iron-55 was indeed present in np'to~7-8.in our waste streams.From that point in time, we began including this isotope on our shipping manifests."The Low Level Waste Licensing Branch Technical Position on Radioactive

Waste Classification" issued on May ll, 1983, states that for 10 CFR 20.311 requirements, significant

quanti-ties is defined as greater than 7 uCi/cc.The Iron-55 was only 5.8 uCi/cc f or the shi ment in uestion and in any of our shipments since 1985, we have not exceeded t s value.A definition

of 49 CFR 172.203 was provided to us by the inspector during inspection

86-15 in the form of a letter from Thomas J.Charlton, Chief, Standards Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation, Materials Transportation

Bureau of the U.S.Dept.of Transportation, to Mr.Peter T.Tuite of Waste Management

Group Inc..This clarification

defines the cutoff point for listing radionuclides

on the shipping manifest and indicates"any radionuclide

whose activity comprises less than 14 of the total activity within the package may be omitted" from the shipping manifest.Since July, 1985,.we have been in compliance

with this interpretation.

SAI who performs both our waste stream and environmental

analysis has confirmed our compliance

with this position.

1

E Page 3 of 5 RG6E believes that a notice of violation should not be issued for the inspection

report finding because of the NRC policy to encourage and support licensee initiatives

for self-identification

and correction

of problems.10 CFR 2, Appendix C notes that NRC generally will not issue a notice of violation for a finding that meets all of the following tests: (1)"It was identified

by the licensee".

We identified

the manifest omission in July, 1985.(2)"It fits severity level IV or V".In your report, you have identified

this as a level IV violation.

(3)"It was reported if required".

We do not believe this was reportable

since the waste classification

would not change because the other isotopes which are found in our waste stream have much greater biological

significance

and therefore determine the classification.

In fact, 10 CFR 61 does not require analysis for Iron-55, since it was deemed to be of less significant

concern to the public.(4)"It was or will be corrected, including measures to prevent recurrence

within a reasonable

time".This was corrected in mid-1985 and we periodically

check with the contractor

performing

our waste stream analysis to ensure there are no other isotopes which would exceed 1%of the total activity and thus need to be incorporated

on the shipping manifest.(5)"It was not a violation that could reasonably

be expected to have been prevented by the licensee'correct'ive

action for a previous violation".

There was no previous violation which would have led us to correct this deficiency

sooner.If the notice of violation does stand, it would seem that the criteria stated in 10 CFR Part 2, Supplement

V, would place this violation the severity level V rather than IV.For this to be considered

a level IV violation, one of the following criteria would have to be met: 2~"Package selection or preparation

requirements

which do not result in a package integrity or surface contamination

or external radiation levels in excess of NRC requirements.

Other violations

that have more than minor safety or environmental

significance." Criteria (1)obviously does not apply.Criteria (2)also does not seem to apply.For there to have been any safety

Page 4 of 5 significance, this incident would have to lead to improper categorizing

or labeling.This was not the case.Iron-55 has been identified

by the NRC in 10 CFR 61 to be an insignificant

environmental

concern, since it is not a required analysis isotope.Iron-55 presents a significantly

smaller radiotoxicity

problem than Co-60, making it a minor environmental

problem.Therefore, while Iron-55 was not listed until mid-1985 as part of the isotopic library, we feel that this did not present a significant

problem and should be no more than a severity level V violation or the finding should be noted only as a inspector follow item.RG&E does not agree that finding B is valid for the following reasons: 2~Quality Control personnel involved in radioactive

waste shipments are qualified to perform QC activities

by the completion

of the same training courses provided to the Health Physics personnel, responsible

for the actual shipment.QC Inspectors

are familiar with all requirements

for shipping radioactive

waste.ANSI N-18.7, indicates that procedures

should be written in a manner commensurate

with the qualifications

of the.personnel performing

the procedure.

The procedures

used to perform these tasks provide adequate guidance for qualified personnel to perform these tasks competently.

The referenced

Quality Control Inspection

Procedure in the inspection

report was QCIP-21.2, Shipping Package HN-100 Series 2)2Ag 3g and 3A Inspection

for Shipment g.This QCIP is used to verify proper handling of the cask during the loading and unloading of the cask from the transport truck.Radioactive

Discharge procedure RD-10.12, Handling, Loading and Unloading of the Hittman Nuclear HN~O Transport Cask Series 3, is the procedure used to control the actual loading of the cask with radioactive

waste.The quality control involvement

in the implementation

of this procedure is via"surveillance" of the procedure and processes.

Procedure RD-10.12 requires notification

of QC for assignment

of inspection

personnel prior to starting the job as well as QC attendance

at a meeting prior to starting the job and a verification

by QC of a proper Certificate

of Compliance

for the cask to be used prior to starting the job.The procedure also requires a QC review at the completion

of the job.Based on these items, QC is involved and performs surveillance

from the beginning to the end of the job.We feel this is adequate QC involvement

in the implementation

of RD-10.12 and no changes to QCIP-21.2 or any other QCIP associated

with radioactive

3~Page 5 of 5 waste shipments is warranted.

While it is true that Ginna Administrative

Procedure A-1001,"Inspection

and Surveillance

Activities" requires in part that quality requirements

obtained from regulatory

requirements

shall be included in Quality Control Inspection

Procedures, (QCIP'), it also states that these quality requirements

are obtained from procedures, drawings, specifications, codes and standards.

An important process in preparing radioactive

waste shipments is dewatering

the shipping container.

The Hittman Cask procedure~HN-100 Series 3 which was used for the shipment inspected, assures adequate final dewatering

by running the dewatering

pump for a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> time period.The Hittman process of using the"run time" of a pump as the method for removing water was selected based on a series of qualification

tests run by Hittman.As stated above, since QC surveil-lance is used to verify-proper implementation

of the RD procedure, QC Surveillance

Report 85-0577 was written which indicated and verified that the pump was run for l-l/2 hours during the final dewatering

process.In summary, RG&E does not feel the violation is justified and requests that the violation be removed from the record.V truly yours, Ro er W.Kober Subscribed

and sworn to me on this 8th da of cto er, 1986.LYNN L HAUCK Notary PuQc in the Ststrr oI Neer Yorit MONROE COUNIY Comission Expires Nov.30, 19'