IR 05000054/1993001
| ML20045D886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054, 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045D877 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-054-93-01, 50-54-93-1, 70-0687-93-01, 70-687-93-1, NUDOCS 9306300171 | |
| Download: ML20045D886 (4) | |
Text
,
. _.
_
. _ _
_ _.
._
_
_
_.
.. _
_-
.
.
.
1'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.: 50-54/93-01 and 70-687/93-01
,
Docket Nos. 50-54 and 70-687 License Nos.:
R-81 and SNM-639 Licensee:
Cintichem. Inc.
P. O. Box 816 Tuxedo. New York 10987 Facility Name:
Research Reactor and Radiochemical Processine 12boratory Inspection At:
Tuxedo. New York Inspection Conducted:
May 25-27.1993
,
Inspector:
udg1w
[
<
,
Thomas I5ragoup( Project Scientist, Effluents
' date' ~
Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved By:
(
S//7/I7 Robert J. ges, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division ot' Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected: Status of decommissioning, environmental monitoring, radwaste processing, and radworker requalification training.
Results No safety concerns or violations of NRC regulatory requirements were observed. The radworker training technique was innovative and effective. One unresolved item was identified, details in Section 3.0.
9306300171 930621 PDR ADOCK 05000054 G
.
.
i
.
\\
'
DETAILS l.0 Individuals Contacted J. Adler, hianager, Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs (TLG)
D. Grogan, hianager, Waste J. hicGovern, Plant Manager F. Morse, Project hianager, Decommissioning E. Troskoski, Manager, Health Physics and Environmental Monitoring
,
Above personnel attended the exit interview on 5/27/93. Other licensee and contractor personnel were interviewed during the course of the inspection.
2.0 Decommissionine Status The inspector reviewed the status of decommissioning relative to the schedule in Section 3 of the NRC-approved Decommissioning Plan (DPlan). Excavation to about 30 feet below grade in the yard area has fully exposed the hold-up tank, which was being decontaminated prior ?o demolition. Inside the reactor building all equipment has been cleared from the pump room and wall / ceiling decon was underway prior to removal of imbedded pipe runs. Similar work on imbedments was occurring in the reactor pool and i
stall area prior to demolition of the walls. The transfer canal inner walls were being removed. In the hot lab building the floor in front of the hot cells has been completely removed, exposing the ventilation system and area under the cells. These areas were found to contain contaminated soil rather than bedrock as expected. The discovery of contaminated soil rather than bedrock in these areas may result in a 50% increase in projected waste volume and lead to increased disposal costs. The licensee was taking bore samples to assess the extent of this problem. Since load bearing structures were being removed from the reactor and hot cell buildings, the licensee is adding shoring and bracing to maintain structural integrity. Each installation is designed and approved by a certiGed professional engineer. Attention to construction ' safety appeared to be good.
Radiation protection controls in the work area continued to be good Utch work zone was enclosed in a separate plastic tent to minimize the spread of contamination during decon operations. Signs and postings were appropriate. Experienced health physics technicians provided continuous job coverage. Total radiation exposure for the project was 140 man-rem for the period July 1992 to April 1993. The primary source of exposure was work on the hot cells. At the current rate of progress, the licensee estimated that the buildings will be decontaminated and an interim termination survey performed during the first quarter of 1994. The NRC will arrange with its contractor, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), to conGrm the survey results prior to building demolition.
Within the scope of this review, no deficiencies were noted.
- -
-...
..
- -.
.
-
- - -.
. -
- - -
-
- - -
-
--
- - -
t
-.
.
-
.
.
3.0 Environmental Monitorine Section 7 of the Decommissioning Plan describes the elements of the radiological environmental monitoring program including the sampling locations, collection frequency, and required analysis. The inspector accompanied licensee personnel on a tour of three of Ove airborne / direct radiation monitoring stations and six of nine water sampling locations. The air sampling pumps and filters at each location were found in good operating condition and secured in a locked enclosure. Each pump was equipped with a flow compensator that automatically adjusted the air flow as the filters became loaded between weekly change-outs. Sample heads contained a particulate filter and a iodine cartridge. Radiation dasimetry was located inside the enclosure or nearby. The NRC and New York State dosimeters were collocated with the licensee's equipment at several stations.
Water sampling locations appeared to have well-mixed flow and provided representative sampling of near surface drainage from the site. The inspector reviewed the preparation and counting of air, water, fish, and sediment samples in the onsite laboratories. Generally accepted techniques were in use and laboratory personnel appeared knowledgeable and experienced.
The inspector noted the following strengths and weaknesses. Records of analysis were well kept and easily retrievable. Improved laboratory procedures for soil sample analysis were recently issued. There were five high efficiency intrinsic germanium detector l
systems available in the lab. However, three of the systems were non-functional. This l
was attributed to problems in the new power supply / analog-digital converter, bugs in the latest version of the computer software, and disagreement between the site QA/QC group j
and HP regarding the proper parameters to be control charted. The Lab Supervisor
'
indicated that these problems would be resolved in the near future and did not impact the lab's ability to analyze routine samples.
The inspector also noted that air particulate filters were counted for gross beta-gamma activity using a thin window GM tube. Data were reviewed by the licensee to detect any l
abnormal increases above background. None were reported. However, Table 7.1 of the l
DPlan specines that a gamma isotopic analysis be performed on the weekly air particulate l
51ters. The licensee stated that the gross analysis was done in response to NRC concerns that beta only emitters could be present.
The licensee initiated a review of correspondence with the NRC to clarify the current requirements in this area. Although l
the analysis currently being done is a generally accepted practice, any changes to the monitoring program specified in the DPlan should be formally submitted for NRC-approval. In a telephone conversation on June 17, 1993, the NRC Region I position I
regarding analysis of environmental air particulate samples was discussed. The licensee stated that a technical review is continuing and based on the latest information, a revision to the DPlan is under consideration. This matter is unresolved and will be reviewed in a future inspection. (50-54/93-01-01 & 70-687/93-01-01)
l l
,
._
!.
l
-
4.0 Waste Disoosal l
l In August 1992 an NRC inspection found many changes-in the radwaste program including replacement of the Radwaste Supervisor and issuance of a new radwaste manual.
The inspector toured the waste packaging, storage, and shipping areas accompanied by the new Radwaste Supervisor. All packages were found to be clearly marked, labeled, and stored in a designated area. Records for 55-gallon drums selected
at random by the inspector were quickly retrieved and found to be highly detailed,
.!
including the name of the job foreman that generated the waste. The implementation of this program appears to have been very effective and overall performance was found to be excellent.
However, the inspector noted that many unlabeled drums and items wrapped in plastic that were observed during the previous inspection are still on site.
The Radwaste Supervisor stated that these items were not waste but were stored by various supervisors pending disposition. The inspector stated that these items should be labeled to indicate ownership to prevent inadvertent disposal as radwaste. Licensee management stated that this matter would be reviewed.
The inspector toured an area set up in the basement of the engineering building (Building
- 3) set up for the unconditional release survey of the large block sections of concrete that have been cut from walls and floors. The blocks were initially surveyed in the work area l
and then trucked to the low background area for the final survey. The HP technicians i
take direct measurements using sensitive alpha, beta, and gamma survey meters and also take smears. The survey procedure was highly detailed and the technicians were
!
knowledgeable of the requirements. Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns were identified.
5.0 Requalification Trninine
,
Licensee procedures require all personnel with controlled area access to participate in annual refresher training. Training consisted of a written test that covered security, general and radiological safety requirements. The instructor then discussed only those questions that were answered incorrectly by any class member. A videotape, taken in a mock-up of a controlled area with supervisors as actors deliberately making mistakes, was shown to the class. For each of the 25 " scenes", the class was asked to identify and
!
record the mistake. These were then reviewed. Total training time was about two hours.
Class participation was good. The inspector concluded that the training was
,
l mnovative, efficient, and effective.
l l
6.0 Exit Interview l
l The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in Section 1.0 on May 27, l
1993 and suinmarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
!
l
.
.
.
__.