ML20046B654
| ML20046B654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Decker T, Gloersen W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046B651 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1151-93-04, 70-1151-93-4, NUDOCS 9308060017 | |
| Download: ML20046B654 (15) | |
Text
'
(g""#C%#o.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON UNIT ED STATES
.[
REGION 11 n
h 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323 go) 1 gb Report No.:
70-1151/93-04 Licensee:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Columbia, SC 29250 Docket No.:
70-1151 License No.: SNM-1107 Facility Name: Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Inspection Conducted: June 14-17, 1993 inspector:
V)
//7/
~#
/ :/ 78 W. B. Gloersen
,/
Date Signed Approved by:
/ IW i(
7//.2 3
T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological liquid and gaseous effluents, solid radiological waste disposal 1
and transportation, radioactive material transportation activities, and radiological environmental monitoring.
Results:
The licensee had implemented an effective program to monitor and control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The activity released during 1992 in the liquid and gaseous effluents and the resulting doses were well within the limits specified in the License Application,10 CFR 20, and 40 CFR 190, respectively (Paragraph 4).
The licensee had provided and maintained adequate facilities for preparation, packaging, and shipping solid radioactive waste (Paragraphs 5 and 6).
The licensee had effectively implemented the required environmental monitoring program (Paragraph 7).
l 9308060017 930713 PDR ADOCK 07001151 C
ppg e
i REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. Ervin, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Materials Management and Product Records
- R. Fischer, Senior Engineer, Requlatory Engineering
- G. Gantt, Senior Engineer, Regulatory Engineering W. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs
- J. Heath, Manager, Regulatory Operations
- J. Hooper, Engineer, Regulatory Engineering i
- E. Keelen, Manager, Manufacturing J. McCormac, Senior Engineer, Process Engineering
- S. Mcdonald, Manager, Technical Services J. Purcell, Manager, Traffic and Storeroom Services T. Ross, Planning Specialist, Uranium Planning and Services
- C. Sanders, Manager, Nuclear Materials Management and Product Records
- R. Williams, Technical Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview on June 17, 1993 2.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents.IB8035) a.
Radioactive Liquid Waste License Condition 9 of Materials License No. SNM-1107 authorized the use of licensed materials in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the License Application and approved supplements thereto.
Section 1.3.6 of the License Application described the sampling, monitoring and recording of radioactivity concentrations in liquid process wastes prior to discharge to the Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF).
In addition, Section 1.3.6 specified the process for liquid waste treatment.
The inspector toured the WWTF with licensee representatives.
Compliance with the 10 CFR 20.106 radioactivity in effluents limits for discharge of liquid waste to the unrestricted area was assured by a continuous on-line gamma ray spectroscopy system using sodium iodide (Nal) detectors within the main plant's chemical controlled access area. The on-line monitor had the capability to isolate discharges to the WWTF when the concentration of U-235 exceeded 3.0E-05 uCi/ml.
A combination of L
I I
i 2
l l
quarantine tanks, diversion tanks, and filtration operations were available to assure that the liquid waste was below the unrestricted area release limit. After the liquid waste was monitored with the on-line Nal detector system, it was pumped from the final pump out tank to the WWTF for further uranium removal external to the main plant. The licensee utilized a polishing operation to further reduce the uranium concentration in the liquid waste stream so that it could be recycled through scrap j
recovery.
l The liquid waste stream was then discharged to the chemical waste treatment facility. The major (chemical) liquid waste generated in converting uranium hexafluoride into uranium dioxide was ammonium fluoride. Slaked lime (calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) simultaneously supplied the necessary pH adjustment required for ammonia distillation and fluoride removal capability. The slurry was then pumped to a steam distillation column to strip the free i
ammonia from the waste stream for recycle in the ADU process.
Sodium hydroxide was used for supplemental pH adjustment to assure I
all the bound ammonia was converted to free ammonia. Recycled ammonia hydroxide was stored for reuse in the ADU process. On-line specific ion electrodes and pH conitors allowed the licensee to control the process and meet National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) discharge limits. After the ammonia was removed, the still bottoms containing calcium fluoride waste were further treated by pumping them into a lagoon for solids removal and fluoride removal using quiescent settling techniques.
Following the settling process, the clarified liquid was transferred to either the north or south batch industrial waste lagoon for discharge via the single plant outfall. Chemical analyses of the lagoon dictated the allowable daily discharge rates. The process waste was combined with the sanitary waste and other miscellaneous waste streams prior to discharge via a single four inch line to the Congaree River.
4 Liquid wastes from the calcium fluoride dewatering process were discharged to one of the batch industrial waste water lagoons.
j Following treatment and assurance that NPDES parameters were met, i
the liquid was combined with the other liquid efflunt described above and discharged to the Congaree Riter.
Based on observations and interviews with licensee representatives, it was apparaent that the WWTF was operating i
within its normal design parameters such that the release of I
radioactive materials in the liquid effluent would be minimized.
j b.
Sanitary Sewerage Waste System 10 CFR 20.303 specified the conditions for disposal of licensed material by release into sanitary sewerage systems. The licensee operated an onsite sewage treatment facility.
Sanitary waste was
3 treated in a 75,000 gallon extended aeration package plant followed by a 1,500,000 gallon sanitary lagoon which was used as a l
polishing pond. Gaseous chlorination was installed to assure compliance with the fecal coliform parameter.
Prior to discharge i
the waste water was dechlorinated with sulphur dioxide. All domestic wastes, shower water, cafeteria water, and miscellaneous waste streams were routed to the sanitary waste system. The treated water discharged from the Sanitary Waste Facility flowed into the liquid effluent discharge line which incorporated a continuous proportional effluent sampler as described below. The l
waste water was included as part of the total plant liquid effluent.
c.
Radioactive Liquid Effluent Sampling and Analysis Section 2.2.7 of the License Application specified the sampling and analytical controls for liquid waste disposal.
The liquid effluent released to the Congaree River from the WWTF was required to be sampled continuously by a flow rate proportional sample collector. The licensee discharged approximately 130,000 gallons of liquid effluent per day. The licensee collected daily samples from the proportional sampler to monitor for NPDES chemical parameters and gross alpha activity.
30-day composite samples were required to be analyzed for gross alpha activity, gross beta activity, and isotopic uranium. The inspector noted that the monthly composite samples were sent to a vendor laboratory for the required analyses. The inspector also reviewed a tabulation of the uranium isotopic analytical results
'i for the monthly composite samples of the liquid effluents collected during January through December 1992 and determined that i
the concentrations of U-234, U-235, and U-238 were well below their limits as specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B.
I The inspector reviewed procedure R0-05-004-A, " Alpha Activity of a Water Sample (Any Sample in Liquid State)," Revision 5, December 16, 1988, and noted that the procedure did not include correction factors for the proport'onal counter due to the self-absorption of alpha particles from residual material contained in the sample matrix. The inspector discussed the significance and the need to determine the correction factor for the self-absorption of alpha particles as a function of the mass of residual material on the counting planchet. The licensee agreed to evaluate the self-absorption correction factor for alpha particles and procedure R0-05-004-A. The inspector informed licensee management that this item will be tracked as an inspector followup item (IFI) (IFI 70-1151/93-04-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
L i
4 l
3.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents (88035) a.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Sampling and Controls License Condition 9 of Materian icense No. SNM-1107 authorized the use of licensed materials in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the License Application and approved supplements thereto.
Section 3.2.3.6 of the License Application specified the sampling l
and analytical controls for gaseous effluents.
Continuous sampling was required during production operations for those operations which could result in exhausting radioactive materials to unrestricted areas.
Collection and analysis of those samples was required to be performed on a schedule determined by the Radiation Protection Component of the licensee's organization to assure the required sensitivity of the measurement. The adequacy of the gaseous effluent controls was required to be determined by representative stack sampling to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 190. Also, if the radioactivity in the plant gaseous effluents exceeded 1500 microcuries per calendar quarter, a report was required to be submitted to the NRC which identifies the cause for exceeding the limit and the corrective actions to be taken to reduce release rates.
The inspector reviewed procedure R0-06-002, " Roof Effluent Air Sampling and Counting," Revision 7, July 9, 1992, and determined l
that it included provisions for the daily collection of air particulate samples from 44 sampling locations and analysis after i
a 24-hour decay period. The inspector noted that the licensee utilized a one minute counting time on a proportional counter for the air particulate samples. A one minute counting interval on t
the licensee's proportional counter would result in a minimum analytical sensitivity of approximately 3.2E-13 uCi/ml. The MPC for insoluble U-235 in an unrestricted area is 4E-12 uCi/ml. The inspector discussed methods to improve the lower limit of detection of the licensee's analytical equipment, including increasing the counting time and air sample volume.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
The inspector selectively reviewed the Effluent Air Sampling Report (daily results) for April 1993, the Weekly Summary af Gaseous Effluents for January - May 1993, and the Semi-Annual Gaseous Radiological Discharge Reports for January through December 1992. During the time period between January - December i
1992, the gaseous effluents at the point of discharge from the stacks represented an average discharge concentration of i
approximately 10.7 percent of the unrc:tricted area MPC.
It should be noted that these values would be further diluted at the i
site boundary.
l i
c
i 5
l The inspector accompanied a technician to observe the daily I
collection and analysis of the stack air particulate samples. The stack samples wtre collected and analyzed in accordance with procedure R0-06-002, " Roof Effluent Air Sampling and Counting."
During the tour, the inspector did note that several sample delivery lines did not appear to be installed in accordance with the guidance in ANSI N13.1-1969, American National Standard Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities.
I In particular, the inspector noted that the following sample delivery lines had two or more 90 degree bends between the sample collector probe and particle collector:
Furnace Exhaust Line 5 HAP Vent MAP Combined Exhaust j
)
ANSI N13.1-1969 recommends that 90 degree bends (or " elbows") in i
sampling lines should be avoided if at all possible, but when they
)
are required, the bend radius of the elbow should be as long as practical, and design flow rates through any line containing an elbow should be kept low.
It is recognized that flow patterns in elbows are complex, both in laminar and turbulent flow, and give rise to particle deposition greater than in the same length of straight tubing. No adequate theoretical treatment and very little experimental data are available to define deposition loses quantitatively as a function of tube diameter, bend radius, flow rate, and particle size. However, ANSI N13.1, indicated that particle deposition appears to increase markedly with particle size and flow rate.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments on the effluent sample delivery systems noted above and agreed to evaluate their sampling line configurations with respect to the guidance in ANSI N13.1 (IFI 70-1151/93-04-02).
b.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Filtration Section 1.3.6 of the License Application describes the air filtration requirements for gaseous effluent streams from the 1
Controlled Area. Section 3.2.3.2 requires that for ventilation i
and containment equipment and systems, the effectiveness of the final HEPA filters shall be determined by an in-place dioctyl phthalate (D0P) test or other suitable testing means selected by the Radiation Protection Component, following filter changes.
Section 2.2.5.6 requires that HEPA' filters be replaced either on a routine schedule or when airborne concentrations, hood velocities, j
w
6 differential pressure drop, or D0P (or acceptable substitute) penetration measurements indicate that replacement is necessary.
The maximum differential pressure permitted across a HEPA filter shall be eight inches of water for negative pressure systems and four inches of water for positive pressure systems.
Gaseous effluent streams from the Chemical Area of the Columbia Plant were appropriately treated to remove and filter radioactive particulates prior to discharge to the environment. This treatment process included preliminary filtration, contact with high efficiency liquid scrubbers, and/or final discharge through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.
The licensee performed HEPA filter in-place leak tests in accordance with procedure R0-05-037, "HEPA Filter System Leak Test," Revision 2.
The procedure requires that maintenance persor.nel complete a Health Physics Request Form so that a DOP test can be performed on a HEPA filtration unit that has been changed due to a drop in the differential pressure or some other reason. During the tour, the inspector verified that for selected HEPA filtration units, the differential pressure across the HEPA filters were operating in accordance with the specifications noted above.
Prior to performing a D0P test, the Maintenance Utility Operator would accompany the HP Technician to insure that the filter installation was complete and that controls were adjusted before starting the motor on the fan, including dampers, interlocks, process equipment interface, and rersonnel safety.
The inspector reviewed DOP test results for 1993 and noted that approximately 40 tests had been successfully completed from January - May 1993. The date of the DOP test, test results, and technicians initials were entered on a data log sheet.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Records and Reports of Radioactive Effluents (88035) a.
Semiannual Effluent Release Reports 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 I of each year, specifying the quantity of each the of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous six months of operation.
If the quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting periods are significantly above the licensee's design objectives previously reviewed as part of the licensing process, the report shall cover this specifically.
u
I 7
t The effluent data presented in Table 1 were derived from the licensee's effluent reports.
T ble 1 it Effluent Summary for Westinghouse Activity Released (millicuries) i Year Gaseous Effluents Liauid Effluents 1985 1.54 246.20 1986 1.51 111.17 1987 1.40 57.16 i
1988 1.44 34.54 1989 1.23 53.93 1990 1.23 24.34 1991 1.16 38.00
+
1992 0.99 18.56
?
The total gaseous radioactivity discharged during 1992, was 0.99 millicuries of uranium, compared with 1.16 millicuries during 1991. The licensee has experienced statistically significant downward trends during the last five years. Simil arly, 18.56 millicuries of uranium was discharged to the Congaree River in 1992, compared with approximately 38 millicuries during 1991.
i Although there was a significant decrease in total liquid i
radioactivity discharged in 1992, during the last five years there were no apparent statistically significant trends identified. As indicated in Table 1 above, the annual totals for gaseous i
effluents since 1987 were less than 1500 microcuries, therefore no
~
reports to the NRC were necessary for exceeding the License Application limit of 1500 microcuries per calendar quarter.
i The inspector reviewed the reports for 1992 and discussed their content with the licensee's Senior Regulatory Engineer. The licensee attributed.the decrease in'the quantities released to the following: improved administrative controls for segregation of small unfiltered liquid waste streams into the waste treatment i
systems; improved operating practices for secondary filtration and removal of uranium from liquid waste generated by the ammonium diuranate (ADU) conversion process; and a shift in the manufacturing operations to more use of the direct UF, to U0 2 powder conversion process and less use of the ADU conversion process.
i u
_m.
.m.
~
L j
8 b.
ALARA Reports Section 3.1.2.5.1 of the License Application requires that the t
Regulatory Compliance Committee submit a formal report to the Plant Manager every six months reviewing personnel exposures and i
effluent release data.
The inspector selectively reviewed portions of the ALARA Report pertaining to effluent release data for January through June and July through December 1992.
In that report, the licensee identified that a UF, release occurred in the MAP-IDR vaporizer area hotbox on kiln #621 in October 1992. The licensee identified j
the release as a Local Emergency in accordance with the Site Emergency Plan. The cause of the release was determined to I
originate from a loose packing gland nut on the block valve in the UF, transport line. There were no measurable environmental l
releases nor elevated contamination levels.
Bioassay results indicated that several employees were exposed during the release l
which lasted several hours; however, no excessive exposures occurred as indicated in bioassay results. The corrective actions i
which have been taken would appear to prevent a recurrence.
The licensee's ALARA Report for January through June and July through December 1992 indicated that the average gaseous discharge j
concentration for those periods were approximately 10.7% and 10.6%
l of the unrestricted area MPC. Those reports also indicated that l
the gaseous effluents for 1992 resulted in the following calculated annual infant lung doses:
Table 2 f
Calculated Doses Due To Gaseous Effluents Year Receotor Location Dose (mrem) % 40CFR190 Limit 1992 Infant-Plant Lung Boundary 3.3 13%
1992 Infant-Nearest Lung Residence 1.7 7%
j Realistically, the offsite doses would appear to be much lower if one examines the environmental airborne activity concentration data. As noted in Paragraph 7 below, the licensee continuously samples environmental airborne radioactivity concentrations at four site boundary locations.
In 1992, the total average uranium air concentration at the site boundary was less than 0.1 percent i
of the unrestricted area MPC. Hence, the resulting site boundary lung dose would be insignificant.
j m
9 1
The inspector also discussed with the licensee the inclusion of other environmental sampling analysis results (surface water, ground water, soil, sediment, fish, and vegetation) in the July -
December ALARA Report.
Presently, the licensee only addresses the r
site boundary air sampling results.
Results from the other i
sampling parameters could provide a meaningful conclusion that the l
licensee's effluent releases from the facility had minimal radiological impact on the surrounding environment.
Licensee l
management acknowledged the inspector's comments.
l Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee had i
implemented an effective program to monitor and control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents.
The activity released during 1992 in the liquid and gaseous effluents were well within the limits specified in the License Application and 10 CFR-20.106; and the resulting doses to offsite receptors due to gaseous effluent releases were well within the 40 CFR 190 limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Radioactive Solid Waste (88035, 84850) a.
Onsite Processing and Storage Section 2.2.8 of the License Application specified that facilities would be provided and maintained for the preparation, packaging, and transferring of solid and high level liquid radioactive wastes to a licensed disposal facility.
The inspector toured the licensee's solid radioactive waste processing and storage facilities and discussed their operations with cognizant licensee personnel. The licensee indicated that the solid waste was segregated into two categories, combustible and non-combustible.
The combustibles were incinerated, acid leached, and processed through solvent extraction.
The residues were packaged, stored, and eventually shipped for burial or i
shipped to a processing facility for compaction and then burial.
The non-combustibles consisted mostly of contaminated metals. The metals were decontaminated by liquid honing when possible and released as scrap metal if survey results indicated that the contamination had been removed or was below release limits.
Metals which could not be sufficiently decontaminated for release were shredded, if possible, and disposed of in the same manner as combustible residues. The inspector determined, from observation of processing operations in progress at the time of the tour and the above discussions, that the facilities were adequate for preparation, packaging, and shipping solid radwaste and that the facilities had been adequately maintained.
l l
l
-e-10 I
During several tours of the licensee's solid radwaste processing areas, the inspector noted the following radwaste storage areas:
Storage Room (in-plant)
Dock Area #4 (in-plant)
Low-Level Radwaste Building (LLRWB) (outside)
Area adjacent to LLRWB (outside)
UNH Tank Truck Well Area (outside) l 1
Cake Waste Area (outside)
It was apparent to the inspector that an excessive amount of processed material waiting to be reprocessed was being stored in 17-H drums in the outside waste storage areas. Some oc the material appeared to have been stored for relatively long periods of time, since several of the 17-H drums were in poor physical condition due to exposure to varying weather conditions. The i
inventory control labeling on several drums was unrecognizable (note: Section 3.2.2.4 of the License Application exempts the licensee from the labeling requirements of 10 CFR 20.203(f)). The drums predominantly contained low levels of uranium in an " aqueous waste cake" matrix. The inspector noted the approximate number of 17-H drums in the following areas: (1) Area adjacent to LLRWB (80 17-H drums); (2) UNH Tank Truck Well Area (5017-H drums);
and (3) Water Glass Cake Area (5017-H drums).
Additionally, the inspector noted two 17-H drums of clean material (soap) was stored with contaminated material in the UNH Tank Truck Well Area. The practice of storing clean materials with contaminated materials would place an additional burden on the licensee during the release process of the " clean" items. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments, released the clean material, and stored the clean material noted above in a more suitable location.
In addition, the inspector noted that the licensee did not have any mixed-waste stored onsite, however the licensee did have the following quantities of hazardous waste stored onsite:
317-H drums of nickel hydroxide (non-radioactive) 3 17-H drums of acetone (non-radioactive)
In summary, the inspector did not note any significant problem.
areas with this aspect of the licensee's program.
)
I i
11 b.
Onsite Contamination The inspector reviewed with the licensee the onsite burial or abandonment of radioactive materials in locations around the Westinghouse-Columbia facility. Based on interviews with the licensee and a review of records, including a summary report previously initiated by the licensee addressing the same issue, it was determined that the licensee has not been involved with the onsite burial of radioactive materials at the Westinghouse-Columbia facility. However, the iicensee did identify one area involving the pipe trench between the southwest expansion and the WWTF.
In this area, various pipes had been rerouted so that they would be above ground. The licensee had elected to leave the old, slightly contaminated pipes underground. This area became part of a new building and was subsequently covered with concrete. The licensee's records documented the location of the buried pipes in the old pipe trench for future use during decommissioning.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Transportation Activities (86740) 10 CFR 71.5 requires that licensees who transport licensed material outside the confines of its plant or other place of use, or who delivered licensed material to a carrier for transport, shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189.
10 CFR 20.311(b) and (c) specifies, in part, the i
requirements for waste shipment manifests.
I The inspector reviewed selected records of radioactive waste shipments made from January 1993 to June 1993. The shipping manifests examined were consistent with the 10 CFR 20.311(b) and (c) requirements. The radiation and contamination survey results were within the limits specified for the mode of transport and shipment classification and the shipping documents were being completed and maintained as required.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the shipping records from January 1993 to June 1993, associated with radioactive material shipments made in DOT Specification 7A containers. The inspector reviewed the records of the licensee's determinations for selected packages and determined that they had been fabricated in accordance with an approved design as specified in DOT specifications. The inspector noted from past records that the licensee maintained on file for at least one year after each shipment the supporting documentation regarding the package specifications as required by 49 CFR 173.415(a).
The inspector also observed waste shipment number SEG-45 on June 15, 1993. The shipment involved the transport of 7617-H drums of Class A, unstable, solid uranium oxides (scrap metal) with a total U-235 weight of approximately 102 grams to a licensed waste processor. The inspector's observation included shipment preparation, package loading,
12 vehicle and package surveys, and shipping paper preparation. The inspector did not observe any significant problem areas, other than a minor point of confusion regarding the emergency telephone number information on the shipping papers (Bill of Lading).
In this example, the licensee included on the Bill of Lading both the CHEMTREC toll free telephone number as the number to use in the event of a transportation i
accident and the Westinghouse telephone number for additional technical assistance. However, the Bill of Lading also indicated that the i
Westinghouse technical assistance telephone number was also the
" EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBER." The licensee agreed to review the wording regarding the emergency telephone number information used on the shipping papers for both waste and materials shipments with regard to the requirements of 49 CFR 172.604 (IFI 70-1151/93-04-03),
r No violations or deviations were identified.
i 7.
Environmental Monitoring Program (88045)
I a.
Audits Section 3.1.2.3 (7) of the License Application specified that the Radiation Protection Component was responsible for audits of licensed activities for compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations, licenses, and permits and for documentation of these audits to facilitate corrective actions. Section 3.2.1.2 (7) of the License Application specified that the Radiation Protection Component would perform an evaluation every two years i
of vendors used to analyze environmental or bioassay samples.
The inspector reviewed an audit, dated January 28, 1993 of the licensee's environmental monitoring program. The audit addressed, in part, the areas of timeliness of sampling and analysis of environmental samples and adherence to procedures for collection of air samples.
The licensee did not identify any significant problems in this program area. The inspector also reviewed a report, dated December 15-16, 1992, for an audit of the vendor laboratories used by the licensee for analyses of environmental and bioassay samples. The audit addressed, in part, the laboratory's staffing, quality assurance methods, certification, procedures, records, and training. The licensee did not identify any significant deficiencies in the vendor laboratories. Both audits were conducted by the licensee's Senior Regulatory Engineer.
b.
Program Implementation Section 2.7.1 of the License Application specified the sampling and analytical requirements for the licensee's environmental monitoring program. Referenced tables and figures indicated which media were to be sampled, sampling locations, sampling frequency, i
types of analysis, and analytical sensitivities.
I i
13 The inspector reviewed the following procedures and determined that they included provisions for collecting and analyzing the environmental. samples at the frequencies and locations specified in the License Application: (1) R0-06-003, " Ambient Environmental Air Monitoring for Radioactivity;" (2) R0-06-006, " Collection of Routine Weekly and Monthly Environmental Samples;" and (3) R0 007, "Two Inch Well Sampling." The following table summarizes the sample types and the collection frequencies:
Table 3 Westinghouse Environmental Monitoring Program Number of Collection Sample Type Locations Minimum Analysis Freauency Ambient Air 4
Gross Alpha Weekly-continuous particulate sampling Vegetation 4
Gross Alpha / Beta Semiannually and Fluoride Surface Water 3
Gross Alpha / Beta Quarterly (Onsite)
Surface Water 3
Gross Alpha / Beta Quarterly (Congaree River)
Fish 1
Gross Alpha / Beta Annually Sediment 1
Total Uranium Annually Soil 4
Total Uranium Annually Groundwater 10 Gross Alpha / Beta Quarterly (Onsite Wells) and Ammonia The inspector accompanied a licensee representative and observed the collection of the four ambient air particulate samples and three onsite surface water samples.
The samples were collected in accordance with the guidance in R0-06-006, " Collection of Rcutine Weekly and Monthly Environmental Samples." The ambient air sampling equipment was operational and the flow meters had been calibrated.
The inspector also reviewed the analytical results for the following med, and determined that the environmental samples had been collected a3d analyzed in accordance with their respective procedures: ambieat air particulate samples during January through May 1993; vegetation samples during May 1992; soil samples during December 1992; sediment samples during May 1992; fish samples during May 1992; groundwater samples during June 1992 through April 1993; and surface water during October 1992 through May 1993. The licensee's ALARA Report for July through December 1992 indicated that the average ambient air particulate concentration at the site boundaries was less than 0.1 percent of the 10 CFR 20 maximum permissible concentration for unrestricted areas.
l
~
i i
14 Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee had effectively implemented the required environmental monitoring program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview i
The inspector met w'*h licensee representatives indicated in Paragraph I at the conclusion o'
'e inspection on June 17, 1993. The inspector summarized the scope j findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. Although proprietary documents and processes were occasionally reviewed during this inspection, the proprietary nature of these documents or processes have been deleted in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
Item Number Cateaory. Description. and Reference 70-1151/93-04-01 IFI - Evaluate the self-absorption correction factor for alpha particles and review procedure R0-05-004-A, Alpha Activity of a Water Sample i
(Paragraph 2.c).
70-1151/93-04-02 IFI - Evaluate effluent sample delivery line configurations with respect to the guidance in ANSI N13.1 (Paragraph 3.a).
70-1151/93-04-03 IFI - Review the wording regarding the emergency telephone number information i
used on the shipping papers for both. waste j
and materials shipments with regard to the requirements of 49 CRR 172.604 (Paragraph 6).
i 1
i l
.. -,