ML20044A773
| ML20044A773 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1990 |
| From: | Alexander Adams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lim T CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007020225 | |
| Download: ML20044A773 (6) | |
Text
e o
June 27, 1990 4
' Docket No. 50-224 Dr. T. H. Lim
- Reactor Supervisor University of. California, Berkeley College of Engineering Department of Nuclear Engineering Berkeley, California 94720
Dear Dr. Lim:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Le are continuing our review of your Decommissioning Final Report and Termination Radiation Survey Results for the University of California TRIGA Mark III Berkeley Research Reactor submitted by letter dated April 16,=1990.
During our review of your report, questions have arisen for which we require l
additional information and clarification.
Please provide responses to the _
enclosed Request for Additional Information within 15 days of the date of this letter.
Following receipt of the additional information we will continue our evaluation of your application.
If you have any questions regarding this review,pleasecontactmeat(301)492-1127.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is_not required under P. L.96-511.
/s/
Alexander Adams, Jr., Project Manager Non-Power Reactor, Decommissioning and.
Environmental Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation-
Enclosure:
As stated l
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION (Docket-file AAdams yau NRC & Local PDRs OGC MS PDNP r/f EJordan
$0 DCrutchfield ACRS(10)
,d WTravers Plant file EHylton No l8$
[AA LTR2 TLim]
x o
@$ct -
PDN, 7 PDNP:P PD jD EHyl n
AAda e g
S eiss 6/p90 6/g/90 6/w /90-
.O fC I on m
'h
p.
et ucw
,,,k k';
UNITE D STATES
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'c l WAsHiNotoN. o._ c. 205s5 k*...+f June 27, 1990 l
Docket No. 50-224 Dr. T. H. Lim Reactor Supervisor University of California, Berkeley College of Engineering Department of Nuclear Engineering Berkeley, California 94720 1
Dear Dr. Lim:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We are continuing our review of your Decommissioning Final Report and Termination Radiation Survey Results for the University of California TRIGA.
Mark Ill Berkeley Research Reactor submitted by letter dated April 16,_1990.
-During our review of your_ report, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification.
Please provide responses to the e
enclosed Request for Additional Information within 15' days of the date of this letter.
Following receipt of the additional information we will continue our i
l evaluation of your application.
If you have any questions-regarding this review, please contact me at (301) 492-1127.-
The reporting ano/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
,1 b -I M
l^
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
roj t Manager Non-Power Reactor, De ssioning-and
'~
Environmental Project Directorate-Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
?
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Enclosure:
As stateo cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 1
.j j
University of California Docket No. 50-224
.g at Berkeley 1
cc:
California Department of Health i
ATTN: Chief Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498-Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Tek Lim Reactor Supervisor Departnient of Nuclear Enginesring l
University of California r.'c Berkeley l
College of Engineering Berkeley, California 94720 AdjudicatoryFile(2)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. '20555 i
1
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL lNFORMAT10N UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. BERKELEY
^
DOCKET NO. 50-224 1.
Page 7, Section 1.4, Decommissioning Alternative a.
Briefly discuss your current plans to reuse Room 1140 for future activities, b.
Will this room be used in an unrestricted manner, i.e., no radioactive material stored or handled in it?
c.
If yes, what release criteria (residual contamination levels and exposure rates) will be used for such purposes?
'd.
If no, what will be the nature of source usage / storage in this room?
2.
Page 13, Section 2.2, Industrial Safety Program Frovide copies of all reportable injuries that may have involved radioactive material and that were submitted to Cal-0HSA.
3.
lable 3.3 Table 3.3 inventory does not show destination of the other control rods, only transient rod. Were the other control rods returned to DOE?
.4.
Page 27, Section 3.3.5, Radiological Condition in Pool Tank Discuss the radiological significance of the plasma are cut of the reactor pool wall which-generated much " smoke and flames".- Specifically address the results of air samples collected and supporting evaluations, including-the protection factor assumed while wearing respiratory protective equip-ment.
5.
Section 3.3.5, Radiological Conditions in-Pool Tank, on pages 27'and 28, a
states that during the removal of.the pool-aluminum wall it was discovered that the back of the plate had multiple layers of-vinyl tape adhering to.
it. The report goes on to state that'the workers-involved in the removal-of the pool liner were placed on supplied air' respirators for the1 remaining-plasma arc operations. The report does not state if this practice was initiated to protect the workers from inhalation of airborne radioactive contamination from inhalation of fumes from the burning vinyl tape. :Since; the title of this section _is Radiological Conditions in Pool Tank, this t
issue should be clarified.
-i
' 1 0.
Page 30, Section 3.3.7, Concrete Removal, last Paragraph This.section describes measurements that the Executive Engineer made in Room 1140.
Provide the following information to clarify this section:
(1) With regard to the Micro R Meter mentioned in this paragraph:
(a) Provide information on the type used, specifically the detector employed, (b) Describe how the instrument was calibrated.
(2) What factors contributed to the high local surface gamma readings?
(3) What Beta measurements were'taken for this section?
7.
Section 8.0, Termination Radiation Survey Plan, on pages 37 and 38,.
identifies the radionuclides possibly contributing.to resicual radioactivity. This list does not include Fe-55, a potential activation product due to the presence of rebar in the concrete, and the relative-high nuclear cross section of Fe-54. Also, Fe-55 has a half-life of 2.6 years. Why was Fe-55 not included and did UCB survey for its presence?
s 8.
Section 8.0 concludes that the acceptable surface contamination limits from Tabl61 of Regulatory Guide 1.86, which apply,.do not include those for Sr-90 and iodines.
The report does not include sufficient. details to support this conclusion.
Provide your rational.
9.
Provide additional information for figure 18. Tables 8.1 and 8.3 by quantifying the term NDA. Define what is meant by "zero" in this context.-
- 10. Table 8.3, the Zn-S detector has nothing listed for efficiency. Please i
fill in the blank.
(
- 11. Tables 3.2 and 8.2 provide the radionuclide concentrations-found in the environs before and after decommissioning. The' locations of. sample collection appear to be different between these'two tables. Also,.for' I
one sample, collected at Strawberry Creek after the decommission, the H
levels of Cs-137 appears to have increased by at least a factor of 2.5 and maybe as much as 7.
The~ report does not explain =the source of.Cs-137, l
the apparent increase after decommissioning, or why samples were not collected in.the same locations before and after decommissioning.
- 12. Section 8.2.4, Data Recording. Verification and Processing, on pages 54 ana 55, states in part that the results of surveys were reviewed and j
evaluated against the five microR above background criterion.and that the
~
results of this review are shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 lists under-i L
Range Gama Exposure Rates 91 m.
Above, the results of measurements with the so-called " micro-r-meters." Micro-r-metersusedNal(TL)' detectors and, as such, are not true exposure rate meters, but event counters. This table should be modified to provide the results from the pressurized ion chamber (PIC) measurements.
e
~.
3
- 13. Procedure 8.01, Radiation Survey Procedure, states in Section 6.8.2 that for " micro-r-meter" readings to cen one meter above the surface that read greater than 10 microR per hour, a Plc reading must be made. The data for block 3AH14 reports a micro-r-meter reading of 16 microR per hour; however, no Plc reading is recorded.
describes on Section 8.2.4. ~ Data Recording Verification and Processin2, When comparing 14.
pages 53 and 54 _ the algorithm used to calculate net opm.
the report results for maximum surface beta-gamma surf 6ce readings reported in Figure 18 to the maximum raw data values in a given unit, we were not able to reproduce the values. -Although the reported results are more conservative (greater) than those we calculated, we need to understand your methodology.
- 15. Survey control-form for_ Zone 1 Unit 4 was performed by Howard Valentine.
Under the section titled Surveyors Notes, it states that grid number 107 had readings of 3000 cpm beta-gamma and 135 microR at I cm. The attached data sheet, however, indicates readings no greater than 100 cpm beta-gamma and 7 microR per hour at I cm. No expiration for this discrepancy could be found in the report.
16.
Procedure 8.01, Radiation Survey Procedure, requires in Sections 6.8.2,.
6.9.1, 6.10.8, and 6.11.1, that micro-r-meter readings be made-at one meter above the center of the blocks selected for survey.
Review of raw-data provided identified a number of blocks for which this procedural requirement appears not to have been followed. These blocks are included-t in Survey Control Form 1-1 blocks IAW2, 1BA4, and 1AZ14, and in Survey Control Form 2-8, line 13, block 2GG5, and line _19, block 2GF5.
These two last blocks had I cm micro-r-meter readings ranging from 14-28 microR per hour.
i 17.
Four Survey Control Forms, 2-2, 2-5, 2-11/12,'and 3-1, indicate that the technicians changed the locations where inrveys were to' be performed.
l These changes were made because the designated blocks did not exist or were not where they were supposed to be. Do these changes reduce the confidence of the survey since some of the sample locations were=not randomly selected? Also, on two survey control sheets, it was noted that due to the size of the survey block the actual survey procedure was modified from that described in Procedure 8.01.
How do these changes affect the survey confidence?
J
.-