IR 05000047/1993001
| ML20128G714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000047 |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1993 |
| From: | Dragoun T, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G696 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-047-93-01, 50-47-93-1, NUDOCS 9302160087 | |
| Download: ML20128G714 (5) | |
Text
. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
,, ,
F
>
U. S. NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.: 10-47/93-01 Docket No.: iL42 License No.: Rdd Licensee: U.S. Anny hinterial Teclinology IAbDatory
- 195 Arsenal Street Watertownu hlai5achusett Facility Name: Anny Materiab_EcGudLRndDL Inspection At: Watertown. Massachusetts inspection Conducted: huniarv 6-8.1993 Inspectors: .a act% 2 73 Thomas'DraghtM Pmject Scientist, Effhients - date .
Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities
'
kadiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSD)
Approved B 3
- / .k e / [b l 'l'il
,, /diarie Miller, ting Chief ERPS, FRSS13, date Division of Ra lation Safety and Safeguards Areas Rnkwed: Status of decoinmissioning,- revised release criteria, shipment of radwaste, environmental soil analysis, and preparations for the tennination survey.
L-Risulln; Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns or violations were observed. The
. final phase of deconunissioning was proceeding smoothly.
!
!. 9302160007 930204 7 t
gDR _ADOCK-0500
.
w-w
.
IllII' AILS l'tnmtLC9nlatted D. Anderson, Analytical Services hianager (SEG)
- P. Black, h1TL Assistant Radiation Safety Officer
- R. Chase, h1TL Project hianager
- P. Cornetta, h1TL Radiation Safety Offleer T. !!astman, Shipping Supervisor (CNS)
- A. Feldman, Rad. Control and Safety Officer (SEG)
J. liensch, Radwaste Supervisor (SEG)
G. hicDonald, Chem / IIP Technician (SEG)
- J. Naughton, Cdr. Watertown Site G. Policastro, Instrumentation Supervisor (SEG)
D. Shult, Radiological Engineering (SEG)
- Attended the exit interview on 1/8/93. Other licensee and contractor personnel were contacted or interviewed during the course of the inspectio .0 Elillni.DLl'.rtilmisly IdiatifitsLItem'i (C1mni) FollmwpjituLl992dl3Sl)
Licensee to establish a date for the completion of the final nidiological survey report. The licensee stated that the repon will be provided to the NRC on April 1,1993. Tids matter is close .2 (Closeti) FollemR.litRLIE2-lll-ill)
Licensee to document the basis for tne release of concrete from the sit Technical Basis Document Ah1TL-ADht D-203 was sent to the NRC on October 15, 1992, This matter is close .0 Status of Decnmminimilug The inspector toured the licensee's facilities and noted the following, The reactor pool-concrete walls have been removed down to a level Dush with the building support pad
~
in the basement, hiuch of the concrete flooring that was adjacent to the pool walls was also removed. The imbedded piping in the basement floor has been chipped out.
7 Thennal insulation was being stripped from the containment steel dome. A section of ventilation ductwork connected to the containment isolation valve was still in place but scheduled for removal. The containment.was essentially a hollow shell. The postings and radiological controls were deactivated during the inspection and the containment opened to unrestricted acces . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . __
.
L
The inspector performed a slow, walk around survey with a sensitive micro R survey meter of all accessible areas in containment. No radioactive material or contamination was detected. All radiation readings were at background (10 to 15 micro R/ht). The inspector similarly surveyed the outside area trenches, dirt piles, and cistern excavatio A few boxes and barrels of low level radwaste remained in storage inside the fenced area awaiting shipment. No other radioactive material was detected. The interior and exterior surfaces were being spray painted with the cross hatch pattern to be used during the detailed termination mdfation surve Within the scope of this review,
'
decontamination of the facility appeared to be proceeding smoothl .0 Revised Helease Criterhi In a lleensee letter dated October 15, 1992, the criteria for unconditional release o ,
concrete and other porous material were described. The volumetric radioactivity limit was set at background radiation level plus or minus three standard deviations. To determine background, the licensee performed a detailed survey on a clean block of concrete. The data was documented in Technical Basis Document AMTL-ADM D 20 This resulted in release criteria that were more conservative than limits at other decommissioning facilities. Ilowever, surveys of the concrete removed from reactor structures showed levels below those obtained from the clean block. Licensee management decided to lower the value of background to that obtained from the structural concrete. Since this provided additional conservatism, the inspector accepted >
the licensee's revised criteria. Approximately 70 concrete blocks were surveyed and released using the revised criteri .0 Badgaste Processitig The prime health physics contractor, Scientific Ecology Group'(SEG), developed six different sets of dose to curie conversion factors for waste packages to account for the ,
'
different waste streams, such as concrete, cistern sludge, and reactor components. The analysis of waste stream samples was done off-site by an accredited laboratory. The inspector reviewed the isotope mix and concentrations used in the conversion factors and found them to be reasonabl Records indicate that all waste was categorized as Dry Active Waste with Low Specific Activity except for the reactor beam tubes which were Class A waste. No liquids or resin wastes were generated. Most of the waste (about 19,000 eu.ft.) was packaged in
"D25" boxes, with lesser amounts in a "C-Van" (about 7,600 cu.ft.) or in 55 gallon ,
drums (about 400 cu.ft.). Only a small amount of packaged waste remained on site awaiting shipmen Packaged, characterized waste was administratively transferred to the shipping broker, Chem-Nuclear Systems (CNS), for removal from the site. Records' indicate that all shipments off-site were by exclusive use vehicles. Notifications to the Commonwealth
, .- - - - - .. _-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ - _ _
l i
!
'
'
of Massachusetts were completed in a timely manner. There were no direct burial shipments, instead all waste was sent to the * Waste Consolidation Facility" operated by :
CNS for the Anny. On site records of the shipments were incomplete in that there were i no recortis of receipt or final disposition of the waste. The licensee indicated that the .
Waste Consolidation Facility was also the repository for all waste records. The inspector !
requested that the licensee conduct an independent audit to verify that records regarding ,
MTL waste were complete and satisfactory. The licensee stated that Anny AMCOM will complete an audit by March 12, 1993, and forwant a copy of the repod for NRC !
review (50-47/93-01-01).
!
'
Within the scope of this review, the inspector detennined that pmcessing of waste was done well and in accordance with the regulatory requirement : EntirJmmnttill Soll Amihi !
SEO continues to take a large number of soil samples on-site and off site. The on site sarnles are taken at tennination survey grid locations and include shallow and deep (3 feet) core bores. Off site samples were taken from 36 locations in the surrounding - ;
community to detennine background concentration ,
Samples are dried, sifted, and prepared using generally accepted technique. Samples are analyzed in the on. site SEO laboratory with 10% split with the Anny for independent i analysis. On-site analysis consists of a gamma scan for isotope identification and gross alpha-beta measurement. Counting techniques were good and achieved an. acceptable minimum detectable activity. SEO also sends selected samples to an independent laboratory for confinnatory analysis and participates in a quality control progmm using spiked sample The inspector reviewed selected sample results and found them to be within the range of typical environmental samples. There was a backlog of off-site samples due to the long count times (5,000 seconds). The inspector noted that there was no criteria for comparison of results between the various laboratories. The licensee stated that criteria would be develope ,
i Within the scope of this review, the soll sampling and analysis programs were .
!
detennined to be goo .0- Irnnhia11mi Survev Premmillmis
'
The inspector reviewed the 36 sampling points in the surrounding community that will be used as baseline radiological conditions for the area. The-locations met the
.
requirements specified in: the Decommissioning Pla The licensee maintains .
photographs, maps, and identification numbers to uniquely identify each location. The y value for background is not yet detennined tiecause all samples have not been analyzed.-
'
l-
~ - - _ ., --
_ .. _ . - _ . , . _ . . _ . . _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ..
.
.
.-
S The licensee plans to use the Ludlum hiodel 2350 portable meter with a sodium imilde detector for direct radiation measurements during the tennination sun cy. This is a state-of-the-art, computer controlled meter with capability to digitally store nullation readings for downloading and analysis. The licensee is aware that the NRC's contractor will use a different instrument, a pressurized ion chamber (PIC), to verify the survey data. The licensee conducted comparison tests and detennined that the Ludlum meters over trspond by factors of 1.6 to 1.8 relative to the Plc. The licensee stated that this issue will be resolved prior to the final survey repo Within the scope of this review, the inspector detennined that prepamtions for the tennination survey were goo .0 blLinirnint On January 8,1993, the inspector met with the personnel denoted in Section 1.0 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.