ML20012D357
| ML20012D357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T, Roth J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012D352 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0687-90-02, 70-687-90-2, NUDOCS 9003270224 | |
| Download: ML20012D357 (4) | |
Text
_
i i,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No.
70-687/90-02 Docket No.
70-6E License No. SNM-639 Priority 1 Category _UHBR Licensee: Cintichem, IncorJerated B 7 ox 816
~
~
.Tuxede. New York 10987 Facility *Name: Het Laberatories I;s*>ec tion At: Toxedo, New York Inspection Corducted: Janut.ry 25-26, 1990 7!/
IO Inspectors:
1
'J.Rpt),ProjectEngineer, Effluents date RadioTogical Protection Section, Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Bruch, Divit, ion of Radiation Safet.v and Safeguards dMAm 3J YO T.
F.' DragoNn,jsenior Radiation Specialist
'date Facilities Radiological Protection Section FRSSB, DRSS Approved by:
J//S/fp
, J. BorVs, Chief Ef fTuents Radiation date Protection Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 25-26, 1990, (Inspection Report No. 70-687/90-02)
Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection by two region-based inspectors to obtain samples of reactor and environmental discharge water for independent analysis and to review and observe licensee's actions preparatory to entering an exhaust duct (a high radiation area).
Results:
No apparent violations or deviations were identified.
9003270224 900315 PDR ADOCK 07000687 n
Prin
t t
DETAILS i
1.0 Individuals Contacted l
l J. J. McGovern, Plant Manager D. J. Gallaher, Vice President, Operations, Medi-Physics, Inc.
T. Vaughn, Manager, Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs F. Morse, Manager. Engineering W. G. Ruzicka, Manager, Nuclear Operations J. Gunther, Staff Health Physicist
(
J. Stewart, Supervisor, Health Physics T. B. Rice, Health Physics Technician II The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personne? during this inspection, r
2.0 Independent Sampling As a part of the NRC's continuing independent testing of the licensee's c)pability to analyze environmental and in plaht liquid samples, the following liquid samples were obtained by the inspector during this inspection on January 25., 1990.
Sample No.
Location Time 1
Reactor Water 3:50 p.m.
2 S 12 4:15 p.m.
3 S-4
":30 p.m.
4 S-4 ;X 4:40 p.m.
S-12 is located inside the holding pond discharge gate.
Location S-4 is at the manhole to the storm drain in the parking lot south of Building 3.
IX refers to the S-4 water after treatment through ion exchange columns.
The water samples identified above were packaged and returned to the NRC Region I laboratory for analyses.
The licensee and NRC analytical results for selected isotopes are compared below.
These results indicated that although some measurement discrepancies exist, the licensee has sufficient analytical capability to analyze the required samples.
Concentration (microcuries/ mil,1111ter) l Sample NRC Licensee Reactor Pool I-131 (3.610.2)E-5 Information not I-133 (1.04 0.04)E-4 available at time of Na-24 (6.2710.02)E-3 inspection, will be l
Mo-99 (2.8710.08)E-4 reviewed at the l
H-3 (3.41110.004)E-4 licensee's facility i
r
-m
-.m
,~
j 2
Concentration (microcuries/ milliliter)
Sample NRC Licensee S-4 I-131 (2.18310.005)E-4 (1.6410.01)E-4 I-133 (1.8810.14)E-6 (1.6010.20)E-6 Mo-99 (1.4310.14)E-5 (1.8810.20)E-6 5-4 IX I-131 (2.1t0.2)E-7 (2.310.9)E-7 H-3 (1.5410.07)E-6 S,12 D 131 (4.410.3)E-8
< 6. 2 E-8 3.0 R_adiological h urai of Won-Routine Wnrk On January 23, 1990, the lictusee notified the NRC Rigion I office of their intention to conduct a direct examination of the hot cell ventilation exhaust duct upstream and downstream of the main exhaust filter bank.
Because of the high radiation levels expected (1 to 3 R/ hour dose rates) inspectors were dispatched to the site to review the licensee's actions.
During this inspection, the licensee's actions with regard to preparation for and examination of the exhaust duct were examined.
Radiological controls used during work on the " north" exhaust air filter bank were reviewed with respect to criteria contained in 10 CFR 20,
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation".
That review consisted of observation of work plans, pre-job briefings, job performance, interviews with selected personnel, and review of selected documents.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were observed.
The purpose of the exhaust air filter bank is to remove radioactive iodine and particulates from the vented air. The bank is a standard design consisting of a roughing filter, high efficiency filters (HEPA),
and charcoal filters in a large housing.
The work was performed in two parts. The first task involved an entry into the air filter bank on the downstream side to inspect the ductwork for cracks or openings. The second task involved replacement of the highly radioactive HEPA filters and then an inspection of the upstream ductwork. A video camera was used to record the results of the inspections.
+
r a
3 Radiation levels were high (1 to 3 R/hr) inside the " north" filter bank because the adjacent " south" filter bank remained on line during the work.
Radiological surveys completed by HP technicians on the previous day were used to establish protective requirements in the Radiation Work Permit (RWP). Three separate radiological control zones were created around the filter bank to account for differing radiological conditions.
Step-off pads, boundary ropes, postings, and other equipment were prestaged in the area.
Protective requirements were found to be conservative for the radiological conditions encountered.
A pre-job briefing was held with all workers, HP techlicians, and supervisors in attendance. A good exchange of information occurred.
Oversight and control during the job was excellent. The work proceedeo efficiently and without incident.
Personnel exposures were well within the administrative limits established for +.he work.
The inspector noted one minor improvement item. On the RbP for this job as well as several RWPs posted on the bulletin tcara, there waA no informction in the block labeled "SURVEr'.
The radioleg1:al survey data is actually on a separate forne.
Since workers must he infornied of existing conditions, the data should be included on the kWP form or referance should be made to the appr9priate data sneetr.
The licensee stated that this matter would be revi w ed Fellowup cf the licensee's actions en this iten was identifiec as an Inspector Followup Item (687/90-02-01).
4.0 Licensee Discussions i
Tne inspectors held continuing discussions with those individuals denoted in Paragraph I during the inspection.
The findings were presented as they were identified.