IR 05000047/1991001
| ML20029C339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000047 |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1991 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C334 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-047-91-01, 50-47-91-1, NUDOCS 9103270185 | |
| Download: ML20029C339 (4) | |
Text
....
=..
b U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 1
~"~
Report No._50-47/91-01 Docket No. 50-47 License-No. R-65 Licensee:
U.S. Army Material Technology Laboratory 405 Arsenal Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02171 Facility Name: Army Materials Research Reactor Inspection at: Watertown, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
February 14, 1991 Inspector:
' ihe AMkh
/2-
~/
Thomas F. Dragoun, Krfject Scientist Date Effluents Radiation crotection Section (ERPS)
.
Approved by:
-
-Otherrlicensee personnelLwere also' interviewed during the course of this
inspection.
,-
'2.0_- Purpose
-The purpose of:th'is-routine, announced-inspection of: the deactivated
reactor _ facility _ was to review the status of the following program 3 -
. elements:
i
,
'
Maintenance'of the Physical Condition of the Facility,
-.
Radiation. Protection Program and
-
LDecommissioning.
- -
3.0 ' Physical-Condition'
. :
.
'
'
'
The inspector toured-the varicus areas inside the reactor containment enclosure.
The airlock remains intact and with access. control provided by Base Security. LA Kaman Nuclear Neutron = Generator linear accelerator.and
."
t a californium radiography-source have been installed inside the fact.lity.
' Use-of thisLequipment-for: neutron -scattering and spectroscopy by experimenters -
'
=has;resulted in generally acceptable' heat,;1ight and ventilation in the
. enclosure. ;The reactor pool and auxiliary support systems remainJintact
'
-
although there has been no fuel on. site for many years..The. pool'is Ldrained but ~used to store activated components which creates a high?
' radiation area.at the' bottom of the pool. 1This1 appears to be the only
'
?sigr.ificantiradiological. hazard associated withEthe reactor.
<
LThe-condition?of the reactor auxiliary. systems-in the basement was generally)
-
satisfactory except fo'r the: service water: system, _ There appeared to.bn.
.
extensive: corrosion of the;small diameter water pipes, with. leakage :at a t
, few location's.-. An audi t by the Reactor-Safeguards ' Committee (RSC). in -
- August;1990' documented Lthisiproblem along"yf th 6ther: maintenance deficiencies.
-
-Insconsiderationcof the good-oversight by the RSC,'the inspectorLhad no
,
efurtherDquest' ions;in this area.
'
'
.
I
!
fi
e gw e
, s e
.a.
<
,,,a
-
,r
,, - -. ~
--v-
,
iv-,
, --
-
...---,w.-
~
-
--nn-
-r
,,re,,
-
.
- ~ _._. _
..
.
_ -.
.
_.
_-___
-. ~.._ _ _ _ _._ _
.g'
t
.
,n t
'
-
~ 4.0 -Radiation Protection Program
-.
Radiation' surveys of the facility were completed as required by Technical
-
' Specification Section 3.. Smear ch9cks for loose contamination were analyzed for alpha, beta-and gamma radiation using. sensitive laborate y
,
'
equipment.
All results were at or near-background levels. Dose r:tes were;also at background le'els except for the lower area of the reactor v
,
pool, as~ discussed above,.and.1 to 2 mrem /hr in contact with the reactor coolant filter-resin tanks.
The reactor pool was properly posted with
= warning signs._ There were many other~ radiological hazard postings in'the
reactor containment but these were related to-various neutron experiments and uses of-by product material.
Survey information was. recorded on floor I
~
plan maps.which-is a good practice. All records were readily available.
.
The1 inspector ~noted-that the: semi-annual cvey ~ due in January 1991. was
1 not' cone. -The Radiation Protection Officer (RPO) stated that the radiation
. protection technician had quit and there was sone dif ficulty in hiring a-replacement..The RP0 was performing'the technician duties and this was-causing some~ delay-in completir-the survey. LThe1RPO stated.that the.
survey would be complete within a few weeks.
.The inspector inquired as
to the extent that.the RPO and his staff will' support decommissioning activities; The RP0 stated that most of:the decontamination and release surveys will be done-byL contractors due to the small licensee staff and
.the;11censee's limited radiation survey equipment inventory, 5.0) Decommissioning
,
The-status of decommissioning was determined from discussions with the
. Realignment:and Closure Program Manager. _ Preparations for decommissioning
'
. began tin 1987 when:a contractor-(Idaho Nationsl_- Engineering. Laboratory)
~
- w'asL hired 'to1 conduct -a' " Reactor Characterization Study" Thisl study was
-,
Leompleted cin June 11990; A second study', " Decision Analysis 1 Report",-
providingsoptions for decommissioning was completed in July 1990 -by the same contractor. : Based aon these studies,. the U;S.' Army: Toxic and Hazardous
- Material; Agency -(USATHMA)' is preparing a Decommission Plan which is
-
expected to be completed by'mid year 1991.
.The' actual decommissioning.
-;
tworklwill be performed byLthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and various-
-
Econtractort.
TheJinspector.was not allowed to review'any reports.but requested a-I description of the radioactive' waste' disposal arrangements.
This
-
mir, formation was notLavailable. The inspector strongly recommended that
'the appropriate licensee personnel contact NRC-Headquarters personnel to Lobtain; guidance ~ regarding _thef contents.of an' accent" ie decommissioning-plan. -These matters will be-reviewed in' future *
,ec t i on s ~.
,
l
_
_
.:
!
s k
jt u,
., W ;#,,,
.
~, -
-
- ~. ---..._ _,.-.. _ -..- --..,.-.......- ~.. _ _ _.-,--- - --~ _._ _.._u
-.
~ -
-
_
_
._
-
.
.-
4 6.0 Audits The Reactor Safeguards Concittee (RSC) continues to meet semi-annually or
.more frequently and provides oversight and direction for the reactor facility.
This is a good effort.
The RSC is completing audits of plant activities as required by Technical Specification Section 2(b). The inspector reviewed the audit findings'and found them to be excellent quality.
The RSC has also reviewed the results of contractor decommissioning studies and provided c,mments.
The inspector had no further questions.
7.0 Exit-Interview The inspector met with the Reacter Facility Supervisor at the conclusion of the inspection on February 14, 1991, and discussed the findings of the inspection.
l.
l L
!
l l
l l.,