IR 05000054/1993003
| ML21342A355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054, 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1993 |
| From: | Joyner J NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Mcgovern J Cintichem |
| References | |
| IR 1993003 | |
| Download: ML21342A355 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
Docket Nos. 50-54 JAN, 4 $1 70-687
Mr. James J. McGovern I Plant Manager Cintichem, Inc.
P. 0. Box 816 Tuxedo, New York 10987
Dear Mr. McGovern:
Subject: Combined Inspection Nos. 50-54/93-03 and 7~687/93-03
An announced safety inspection was conducted by Ms. Laurie Peluso and Mr. Thomas Dragoun of this office, accompanied by Ms. Barbara Y ohngberg of NYS Department of
1 of decommissioning activities at Environmental Conservation, on November 16-18, 1993, your facility authorized by NRC License Nos. R-81 and ~NM-639. Discussions of our findings were held by Ms. Peluso and Mr. Dragoun witti you and members of your staff at the conclusion of this inspection on November 18, 1993. \\
Areas reviewed included* the status of previously identifi~ items, maintenance of the exhaust gas monitoring system, laboratory quality assurance, pr~ures and recordkeeping, *
strontium analysis program, and the water management ~rogram. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedu:tes and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the insperitor. I.
. r I Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were observed.. The overall quality of your laboratory prograihs was. good. No reply to this letter is required. \\ *
Your cooperation with us is appreciated. I I I
S. 11 mcere y,
. I ~. -~
I mes H. J ner:, Chief acilities Rad10 ogical Safety I and Safeguards Branch Divisidn of Radiation Safety I
and Safeguards I
I i
Cintichem, Inc. 2
Enclosure:
- NRC Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-54/93-03 and.70-687/93-03
- REGION I
- Report Nos.: 50-54/93-03 and 70-687/93-03
.Docket Nos.: 50-54 and 70-687
License Nos.: R-81 and SNM-639
Licensee: Cintichem, Inc.
P. 0. Box 816 Tuxedo, New York 10987
Facility Name: Research Reactor and Radiochemical Processing Laboratory
Inspection At: Tuxedo, New York
Inspection Conducted: November 16-18, 1993
Inspectors: ~
Thomas Dragoun, roject Scientist, Effluents *
Radiation Protecti n Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved By: --=:::,==\\,i,!~~A..!....l,....l,.L.::.~~,),,,J:,.J::,t::,,~~* :::,;"~-----
Ju Joustril, Chief, S, FRSSB, D v * ion of Radiation S ty and Safeguards
Areas Inspected: Status of previously identified items, maintenance of the exhaust gas *
monitoring system, laboratory quality assurance, procedures and recordkeeping, strontium analysis program, and the water management program.. *
Results: No safety concerns or violations of NRC regulatory requirements were observed.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
1.1 Licensee Personnel
- J. Adler,*Manager, Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs (TLG)
L. Glander, Supervisor, Health Physics I J. Garrett, Manager, Site Operations and Security
- J. McGovern, Plant Manager *
- F. Morse, Project Manager, Decommissioning J. Olynyk, Laboratory Supervisor *
R. Strack, Manager, Quality Assurance I L. Thelin, Health Physicist * i * *
- E. Truskowski, Manager, Health Physics and E~vironmental Monitoring.
I 1.2 New York State Personnel i I I
- B. Youngberg, NYS Department of Environmenr Conservation
- Attended the exit interview on 11/18/93. Other ~icensee and contractor personnel were interviewed during the course of the inspectipn.
I 2.0 Status of Previously Identified Items I I
I
- 2.1 (Closed) Followup Item (50-54/93-02-02) Licensee to ensure that the flow rate in the airborne exhaust monitoring systems are adjusted to ensure isokinetic sampling.
The Health Physics Manager was made responsibl~ for determining if flow in the exhaust duct had changed and if the sampling syst¢m flowrate needed adjustment.
The responsibility for adjustment of the* sampling system flowrate was assigned to the Health Physics Supervisor. A review of records ibdicated that the sampling systems were properly adjusted.
2.2 (Open) Followup Item (50-54/93-02-03) Increase 1the sensitivity of the laboratory.
analysis of airborne exhaust samples by increasing I count times and compositing samples. Count times were increased from one mµiute to ten minutes. Weekly samples are now composited and counted quarterl~. Filter media samples from 1992 and 1993 held in storage were composited and counted. The licensee is evaluating I methods for statistical assessment of analytical results, many of which are less than I minimum detectable activity (negative values). This final item will be reviewed in a future inspection. * [
!
i
3.0 Maintenance of the Exhaust Stack Monitorin& System
The exhaust stack monitoring system continuously monitors the airborne gaseous and particulate activity in the main duct leading to the elevated stack. This equipment was checked daily by an instrument technician and the results recorded. There are two concentration, and the other for a weekly average alarms, one for an instantaneous.
concentration set at 25% of the maximum permissible concentration specified in NRC regulations. The alarm setpoints are based on calculations by the Health Physicist which factored in the contributions from the various radioactive isotopes in the *
Reactor Building and Hot Lab Building, which both discharge into this duct. This approach appeared to be reasonable. A review of records indicated that all discharges were within limits.
4.0 Analytical Laboratory Performance*
In addition to the continuous stack monitor, there are separate sampling systems on.
the Reactor Building and Hot Lab Building ducts which feed into the main exhaust
~uct. These sampling systems contain particulate and carbon cartridge filters that are changed weekly. There is also a weekly charcoal filter sample drawn from the main.
stack. All filter media are analyzed for activity in the on-site laboratory, which also *
analyses liquid effluent samples. The inspector reviewed the performance of the laboratory program through observations of maintenance and calibration of equipment, interviews with laboratory and Quality Control personnel, and a review of procedures and recordkeeping. *
4.1 Quality Assurance
The site Quality Assurance group consists of a supervisor and an auditor with a chemistry background. The QA program for the laboratory consists of maintaining control charts, providing spiked samples for analysis,* periodic audits, and participation in the EPA Laboratory Intercomparison (EPA Lab) program.
Parameters to be control charted are determined by the QA group. The lab technicians report any out-of-band condition to the QA group and place the effected apparatus.out-'-of-commission until an evaluation is completed. The QA group also prepares spiked samples using radioactive material obtained from the EPA and certified by NIST.. The number of spiked samples is targeted to be about 10% of the to~ number of samples processed by the lab. Some spiked samples are decay corrected and reused. An audit was conducted from February to April 1993. No major deficiencies were noted in the report.
. The licensee participates in several categories of the EPA Lab program including measurement of alpha, beta, and gamma emitters on airborne filter media (began in 1991), gamma emitters in water (began in 1992), and strontium 90 in water (began in 1993). All results met th~ EPA acceptance criteria. The inspector observed that the
. 4 I analytical results for gamma activity were consis~ntly reported near the high end of the EPA acceptance band. This observation was confirmed by the QA auditor and laboratory supervisor. The lab supervisor stated that in order to get a broad energy spectrum for the calibration of the thin window, high efficiency, N-type germanium detectors a mixed standard source consisting of ~timony-125, europium-154, and europium-155 was used for*the annual calibration] This calibration extended the I useful range of the detectors into the soft x-ray region ( < 10 Kev) and allowed identification of atoms from their characteristic x-py emission (usually the K-alpha spectral line). As a result, the analytical capability of the laboratory was excellent.
However, the lab_ supervisor determined that four\\of the gamma peaks from the Eu-154 were coinciding with gamma peaks from the 9ther isotopes in the standard
- source. The effect of this coincidence co.unting ~as to lower the apparent efficiency of the detector by 10 % to 20 % in the range between 24 7 Kev and 873 Kev. The.
computer software then raised the corrected counts for samples with gamma peaks in this region. The reported activity was therefore lp % to 20 % higher than the actual activity. The lab supervisor stated that although the reported activities were always conservative, the software will be modified to eliminate the coincidence counting. *
The results for the 1994 EPA comparison are exp¢cted to be much closer to the.mean value. This represents an excellent licensee initiative.
. I Within the scope of this review, no safety concerris were identified. The inspector concluded that the* assurance of quality in the labotatory was*. I... excellent.
I 4.2 Procedures and Record Keepin2 * 1
The inspector reviewed the procedure manuals to evaluate the implementation of the effluent control programs in accordance with Sectipn 7. 0 of the NRC-approved Decommissioning Plan. The Health Physics (HP-M) and the Health Physics Environmental Laboratory (HP-EM) Manuals conthlned the procedures for soil and water sampling, sample preparation and analysis, Jalibration of counting instrumentation, quality assurance and quality contl-~l pr~ures, and the water management program. The procedures were clear! concise, and contained the
- required direction and guidance for implementing effective programs. The inspector
. noted that several of the procedures were in the prbcess of revision to reflect program. I changes. Procedures of the HP-EM manual correctly referenced procedures and forms of the HP-M. The inspector noted that therb were *no obvious mistakes or I
omissions. The inspector noted that the licensees record keeping was very good. The *
licensee was able to locate files and records upon tequest in a timely manner. Forms, such as the water release permit form~ contained the appropriate information, and accurately coincided with the appropriate procedurbs, with one minor exception. The,
1 Chain of custody, release permit, licensee made a note and will correct immediately.
- and sample control forms were effectively used according to procedures. Based on the procedure review and discussions with personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee has in place effective procedures and recordkeeping for the effluent controls program.
4.3 Sample Preparation and Countin&
- The inspector reviewed laboratory* activities including processing, preparation,.
analysis of the sample media, and reporting of results. The inspector also followed an actual sample through this process. The inspector noted that after samples had *
been analyzed, the results were transferred by hand into a logbook and were subsequently transferred to a computer spread sheet. which was used to produce reports to the NYS-DEC. The records indicated that all gaseous and liquid discharges were within limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II.. During a review of these final steps, the inspector and licensee found that a former employee had made errors in transcribing data from the computer spreadsheet to the report form. The licensee has initiated an investigation and will take steps to ensure that transcription errors are detected and corrected. This was an isolated case and is not an NRC regulatory concern. The inspector noted that the licensee counts samples twice, once to meet their release criteria and once to meet analysis criteria. The release criteria was logged but the analysis* criteria was not logged. The inspector noted that the difference in the two results did not* significantly alter the final results. Within the scope of this review,* no safety concerns were identified. *
- . 4.4 Strontium Analysis
The radioactive isotope Sr-90 has presented unique problems for the licensee. It has been frequently detected in the water in sump S-4, it is one of the limiting isotopes in the NRC approved soil release criteria, and is difficult to quantify. The licensee used the services of an off-site analytical laboratory but experienced delays in obtaining results.. To resolve the~e issues, the licensee recently developed an on-site laboratory program for strontium analysis. The inspector interviewed the lab personnel and determined that they were experienced and qualified. Both water and soil samples are prepared in the lab. The analytical technique consists of passing a prepared liquid sample through an ion specific resin column. 'J'he strontium is then eluted from the column with nitric acid, the eluant is dried on a planchet _and counted with a thin window alpha-beta detector. The detector system is calibrated with an Sr-90 and Pu-239 standard sources. The lab reports the sample counts to the lab supervisor who corrects for in-growth of Y-90 using a computer spreadsheet program. The minimum detectable activity of this procedure for water samples was* reported to be about 8E-10
µCi/ml and about 0.2 pCi/mg in soil. Both values are well below the applicable limit. The licensee is participating in the EPA Lab program for Sr-90 and achieved acceptable results in the 1993 round.
r.
Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns were identified. Licensee management was commended for developing this program.
. I
'
5.0 Water Manaa=ement ProlmlID.. I
\\ I.
The inspector reviewed the water management prqgram to verify the licensee's ability
- to effectively control liquid releases to the enviroqment in accordance with the and Security has the Decommissioning Plan. The Manager of Mainten'ance responsibility for the water management program.! The inspector toured the licensee's *
facility including the reactor building (Bldg 1), thJ hot cell building (Bldg 2), and the locations of the 5,000, 10,000 gallon storage tanks and the mobile tankers. Water surface from buildings 1 and 2 flow to the SK tanks and water from other ground/
water sources flows to the retention pond. The lqK tanks are no longer used. After the tanks and/or pond has been sampled, analyzed, and verified for release, the Utilities Technicians release the tanks. The ins~tor noted that the Utilities Supervisor reviews the release log book daily and :confirms that the status of the tanks and the position of the valves are correct. Based t>n the above review and discussions with personnel, the inspector determined that the ~taff members understood the importance of the effluent control program and implemented the program effectively and p:rofessionally. i * *
6.0 Exit Interview I
The inspector met with the licensee representative$ indicated in Section LO of this report on November 18, 1993 and summarized th~ scope and findings of this inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
I