IR 05000054/1990004

Insps Repts 50-054/90-04 & 70-0687/90-06 on 900727,0823 & 1018.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Repair & Testing of Reactor Pool Sys & Status of Licensee Plan for Decommissioning

ML20058G384
Person / Time
Site:	05000054, 07000687
Issue date:	10/23/1990
From:	Austin M, Carrasco J, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058G366	List: IR 05000054/1990004 ML20058G362
References
50-054-90-04, 50-54-90-4, 70-0687-90-06, 70-687-90-6, NUDOCS 9011130108
Download: ML20058G384 (4)

Text

i ,

..

, . . .' ,

,

U. S, NUCLEA't REGULATORY COMMISSION [

REGION I ,

Report No /90-04; 70-687/90-06 1

'

-Docket'No ;70-687 License No R-81; SNM-639 Priority 1 Category VHBR Licensee: _Cintichem, Incorporated I h, 0. Box B16 Tuxedo, New York 10987

Facility Name

Reactor and Hot Laboratory

!

Inspection At: Tuxedo, New York-j Inspection Conducted: . July 27, August 23, October 18, 1990  !

Inspectors- D C

. Michael A, in,ffidiationSoecialist date i Effluents- iation Protection Section (ERPS) ,

Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards 1 Branch (FRSSB)-

-d i fern 10 22 W

Thomas F. Dr'agolin,\Er4 ject Scienti st, dat6- .!

ERPS, FRSSB

'

, -s e, J. . arrasco, ReactorTngineer, Materials oA+

- /&f

- and Process Section,-Engineering Branch, Division of Reactor Safety- '

f ,

-

Approved by: /e/Pa /pe, '[

s

-Robert J. B#es, . Chief ERPS, FRSSB, date

'

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

._

.

Inspection Summary: Inspection:on July 27, August 23, and October 18, 1990

[Tnspection Report Numbers 50-54/90-04 and 70-687/90-06 ,

r

-_ Areas Inspected: Special inspection ~of_the licensee's activities to observe repair and: testing _of the reactor pool system and_to review the status of.the !

p -licensee's plan for decommissionin Results:. No violations sere identifie Licensee was properly implementing !

the repair and testing plan for the reactor pool system and was proceeding :l satisfactorily with preparation of a decommissioning plan, i

.potiisolos 901023 4 paa ADOCK 0500 o

, l

._

r

!

.;

O

-

',;

.

DETAILS L1,0 Individuals Contacted '

• J. McGovern, Plant Manager

• F. Morse, Manager, Engineering )

E. Pajak, Engineer

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie .0 Purpose l On July 27, 1990, an initial inspection of the licensee's site was conducted ,

- to ensure!that the licensee's activities relating to the repairs in progress of the gamma pit and the transfer canal were being implemented in accordance with the approved repair Specifications Nos. 03730, " Concrete Patch Repairs"; .

03731, " Routing and Sealing of Concrete Cracks"; and 03732, " Grout Repairs". ;

On August 23, 1990, a follow-up inspection was made to review the licensee's '

activities relative to the repair of the reactor pool system and to review the status of the licensee's plan for decommissioning. Following.thest site -inspections, the inspection was continued through October 4,1990, in the Region-I office to review the licensee's records of testing of the repairs to the transfer canal and gamma pit and to review the licensee s October 3, 1990, proposal for use of these facilities for decommissioning activitie The inspection was concluded on October' 18, 1990, when the inspector reviewed the licensee's use of these facilities since-August 23, 199 .0 Reactor Pool System Repairs

>

.On. July 27, 1990,; the licensee's repair activities were reviewed. The inspector observed some of the repair activities in progress, and

. discussed these activities, including the repair contractor's quality assurance of those-activities,'with the personnel implementing the repairs. During the cou.se of the inspection, the inspector.found that-Specification No. 03732, " Grout Repairs," Section 2.1, required the use of n Scotch-seal brand chemical grout "5600" manufactured by 3M. 'The

licensee's consultant, Construction- Technology Laboratory, Inc. (CTL),

recommended- the use of grout "5600" as specified in the. repair procedure '

because of its superior expanding properties. The licensee used grou !

,

-"5600" as specified.in the repair procedure throughout_the pool system ;

i The licensee's activities were observed to be-consistent with the

>

<

, NRC-approved repair plan developed for the gamma pit and the transfer '

canal. During the implementation of- the repair plan, the licensee was:in frequent. communication with CTL. These communications helped assure'that 3

adequate technical support was provided in the. implementation of the! '

repairs. Interviews 1 conducted by the inspector with. engineers and c

'

technical personnel' involved-in the repairs indicated that the licensee was well in control of the' repairs,

~

.

. ,

-

,, .

.

3  ;

On August 23,1990,- the status- of the licensee's repair of the reactor pool-system was inspected again. By that date, the licensee had completed the testing of the initial repairs made in the gamma pit and transfer canal, and the testing of the reactor pool was in progress, When the gamma pit and the transfer canal were filled to capacity during the testing, the_ licensee found that the leak criteria were exceeded in each of the gamma pit and the transfer canal. The licensee identified a small crack,-approximately-one-eighth inch wide and five inches long, near the top of the wall in the gamma pit. The licensee suspected this crack as the cause of the detected leak rate in the gamma pit. With regard to the transfer canal,.the licensee suspected that deterioration of " water traps" installed at the bottom of the transfer canal caused the leak rate detected in this area. Further repairs were initiate The inspector observed the leak testing of the reactor pool after approximately one-third of_the 12-hour test period had been completed. No detectable leak = rate in the reactor pool was observed during the time that the inspector was on sit Subsequent to this on-site inspection, the licensee informed Region I that the reactor pool had successfully passed the leak testing on August 23, 1990, and that the additional repa n., to the gamma pit and. transfer canal had been completed and that these facilities also had been successfully leak tested at the 10-foot _ operating water.le..r1 on September 20, 1990. Licensee records of the testing conducted from August 23 through September 24, 1990 were examined in the Region IJoffice and the test results were discussed with:the licensee via telephone on October 2, 1990.' In a letter dated October 3, 1990, the licensee proposed to operate the transfer canal and gamma pit at the

'10-foot water level for uses related to decommissioning activitie Following an evaluation of the licensee's proposal, the NRC notified the licensee on October 4,1990, -that it could begin the proposed use of the 4 reactor pool system.for decommissioning activitie ,

'

On October 18, 1990, during onsite inspection, the inspector verified that the" licensee controlled the water level at 10 feet (+0, _2 inches) using an-ultra-sonic-sensor. The logs indicated that _the leak rate was well below the maximum rate stated in the repair plan. Canal levels and leak rates (neglecting evaporation) were' recorded at four-hour intervals. On October 15,:1990 the licensee transferred radioactive materials from the reactor _ pool through the transfer canal to the gamma pit and from there to.the hot cell Radioactivity measurements of the pool water-taken=

before, during and after the 25-minute transfer indicated no changes in-pool water radioactivity had occurred. No deviations from the repair

plan and required surveillance activities were noted~during the October 18 inspectio .0_ Decommissioning .

On August 23, 1990, the inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the status of plans for the decommissioning.of the Reactor _ and Hot Laboratory facilities. The licensee was planning a two-step approach to the decommissioning effort and labelled these steps

-

,

-

c n

, -

'

* c

' "

Ih .

L- ^

.

L 4; ,

.

4 ,

t

'" Phase I" and " Phase II". Phase I will include a preliminary radiological-characterization study of the areas to be decommissioned, and it will include the-preliminary decontamination work that can be performed under the existing ,

' license conditions.- Phase II will include the remaining decontamination work that will require an NRC-approved decommissioning plan ("Decon Plan"),

'

and it will also include the licensee's finalfradiological characterization study. The licensee plans to. submit.its Decon Plan to NRC in October 199 The licensee has based its Phase II schedule on the assumption that'NRC

-

approval of the Decon Plan would be obtained in January 1991. Based on this assumption, the licensee plans to have all the radioactive waste and materials ~ removed from the site by the end of December 199 >

The inspector interviewed. licensee management to discuss their plans for personnel staffing while the Decon Plan is being impl?mented. Licensee <

management is taking action to help ensure that certain key personnel in ;

the existing staff are retained throughout the decommissioning effor !

In-addition,-more personnel will be brought on site during Phase II to ;

help expediteh its completion. The inspector made an initial-review of the organization charts in a draf t version of the proposed Decon Plan and found them to be adequate. The adequacy of the staffing will continue to be ' monitored in future inspections as the decommissioning effort proceeds.

.

1 Exit Interview' _

. .

.

_ n The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1.0) at -the conclusion-of the onsite inspections on July 27, August 23,_ f-and October 18, 1990. -The inspectors summarized the purpose and findirigs 3 of the-inspection. In addition, upon completion of all the-transfer canal and ghmma pit repairs and successful testing of these pool components, the inspectors _ reviewed the final test results.and discussed their findings by-telephone with licenseeLrepresentatives~on October 4, 199 i

,

!

.

.5 :

,j r

'

[ :-

~

i h

'

.