ML20058L283
| ML20058L283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000398 |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1990 |
| From: | Austin M, Bores R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L281 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0398-90-02, 70-398-90-2, NUDOCS 9008070093 | |
| Download: ML20058L283 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:p.; i LCU ' r r U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I L ' Report No. 70-398/90-02 I Docket No. 70-398 i License No. _SNM-362 Priority _1_ Category VHRD j m L -Licensee: U. S. Department Of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology" { Gaithersburg, Maryland 2DS99 c F Facility Name: National Institute of Standards and Technology j-Inspection At: Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspection Conducted: June 5-7, 1990 l -Inspector: /) //21 o 7 W 90'
- k. A. Austin, Radiatio'n SpecTalist, Effluents A da ty' i
Radiation Protection Section, Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards-Branch (FRSSB), r Division of Radiation Safety and Saf eguards (DRSS) a Approved by: ) 7/W/% R.,J. Be s ChfiT.~~fTTTUents Radiation 'date . Protection Section, FRSSB.-0RSS m Inspection Summary:' Inspection on June 5-7, 1990 (Report No.- 70-398/90-02)- Areas' Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by one region-based i inspector of the licensed program including review of operations,' safety committees and radiation protection. Results: No violations or deviations were identified. I. f 9005070093 900725 PDR ADOCK 07000398 C PDC
f WI ll - k 1 .j' 6, 1 a t- [ f - t i DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted L I
- B. S. Carpenter. Director, International Relations i
H. E. Dyson, Health Physics Technician E D. M. Eagleson, Health Physicist o' "B. L. Frey, Accountability Assistant r
- T. G. Hobbs, Chief, Health Physics Unit
- C. E. Kuyatt, Director,' Center for Radiation Research
- L. E. Pevey, Chief, Occupational Health & Safety Division W. R. Webber, Health Physicist i
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also 4 interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection.- 2.0 Review of Operations The inspector examined al1 areas of the site where radioactive material is handled to observe operations and activities in progress and-to inspect the nuclear safety aspects of the facility. The inspector observed that all radiochemistry involving alpha emitters was confined to the Radiation Physics Building 245. The inspector also observed that the licensee had decontaminated and was not using the r Plutonium Vault Room and the Alpha Chemistry Room in Chemistry Building 222. [ t The inspector observed that areas to which access was controlled for l radiation protection purposes were each posted as a " Radiological Huard Control Area". The inspector found that there were no requirements to ) wear shoe covers in areas where radioactive materials were handled. In most of'the laboratories used for handling radioactive materials, tre inspector observed that the cleanliness requirements for. product quliity assurance helped ensure that the contamination control requirements for health physics were consistently met. In many cases, the operator or-l researcher in a given laboratory implemented more stringent contamination control requirements than would otherwise be imposed 'for health physics purposes. In general, the inspector observed that various combinations of independent I and diverse projects involving radioactive material could be concurrently in operation in the licensee's facilities on any given day. Because of this situation, the licensee's Health Physics (HP) personnel must rely _upon the research worker to initiate and implement certain radiation safety precautions, such as the placement of temporary access barriers when californium-252 neutron source exposures are being performed. In discussions with the inspector, licensee management and HP personnel acknowledged the important involvement of the research workers in the overall radiation safety of site operations. l s-r_ i
r-y.- b p 3 L No inadequacies were identified. 3.0 Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) The inspector examined the minutes of an RSC meeting held on December 1, 1989, which presented the findings of an audit conducted by the-licensee's Radiation Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS). The inspector also made a general review of other licensee files pertaining to RSC activities. In general, the RSC appeared to be used effectively to bring management attention to major concerns, and the RSRS audits were candid' and thorough. 4.0 Health Physics Organization In discussions with licensee HP personnel, the inspector found the staff to be competent and technically qualified. The inspector observed that all major HP tasks had been defined and responsibilities'had been speci-fically assigned to HP staff memoers. The inspector commended the licensee for a well-organized HP staff and comprehensive HP program. However, the inspector also noted that the HP program had been functioning for over a year without a full-time Supervisory Health Physicist (SHP). The inspector found that the Chief _of the Health Physics Unit had been " acting SHP" during this time period, and that the licensee did not know wher, the vacant position would be fillea with a fu'l-time individual. The inspector stated that this prolonged lack of a fully staffed Supervisory HP organization could bagin to have a detrimental effect on the HP program. The licensee acknow - a ledpad the inspector's concern and was taking action to address t% matter. 5.0' Procedures and Record _ keeping-I Discussiens'with the licensee HP personnel indicated that they were know-ledgeable of-their respective duties and that radiological surveys were ?.. being properly performed from a technical standpoint. However, it was not clear that HP personnel were familiar with the applicable Health Physics' . Instructions (HPIs) that described how given HP tasks were supposed to be consistently performed, For example, an HP technician responsible for conducting the checks of ventilation hood air flows was unaware of the HPI describing the performance of this task, although ne did appear to be properly performing the required checks. In addition,.the inspector found that documentation of HP surveys were not being well maintained and did not clearly demonstrate that the work was always being performed as required. The inspector recommended that the HP personnel re-familiarize themselves-with those HPIs for which they were responsible, and that the HP records retention practices be reviewed for possible impree m at. The inspector stated that a combination of possibly outdated prt-ces and incomplete recordkeeping could contribute to confusion in the lementation of the HP program which could lead to compliance concerns in future inspections. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and indicated it would review HP procedures and recordkeeping practices for possible improvements.
0 - (i r 2' M - # ,.J,' ' "[3 ) ' i . 4 t.',-. y ? '.g. ,( y-' p'l I,- P,) \\'. { 'f ) p, .3 3
- . j -
i i 4 m s, 7j. r. . mng g ~;vam' ' s:-, i .x ~ .o 1 s y a.i k. Y'- ,s 4 ,l t t ."r t 1 n r. . p. .. sm; s r +.. , 4' . !~ r 4 + v. L. -) 1 s i (6.0; Exit Interview w.;lq , The inspector met?with the licensee representatives indicated.in '. paragraph;1'at.the. conclusion of.the inspect 1on' on June'7,.1990: 'The; F - -in.spectorisummarized the. scope of the inspectionLand the= findings! e - a c f[ ? 1 .) k / s ? l +.> r* t,. i p.:...s , !t 2s, .~r.'- -t g. .- j - i -! e - 4 b 4 l !.l t I,. h ~.' h ! l t } ((. 5 ,s i e 3,
- I b
s t. -kA 't r I,i .@t g r --i. r, 'I / l ,;. V B t. 7 i
- j n;
,i >+ -,i e ,i ifg > 3 )f) V, )[1 L.. ',) ; 'p
- 5 i
.i ' '1.< ' a e 4 1 ijh 4 .l s., x .a. b
- m.
i i Y y v ll -4 g II. - i 'i 1 s .j .w p h , -{ '. ; g: 3 . 1 [, < i h 1
- l=
7 h.J i h
- i. i.
'h 4: ~! i I 'a .'? .g. h $y l-(. 8 ,. g ;, ( f ~ a .s x '. o..n.w.,.. --)S,- - ;. w .r m 4 ,.g..., .) .,,,....,.. +.. ~}}