ML20211H915
| ML20211H915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1986 |
| From: | Barr K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Crow W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211H877 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606260118 | |
| Download: ML20211H915 (15) | |
Text
_. - - . . _ . .
- et UggfT3pSTATESr g*- NUCLEAR RE1ULATORY COMRMSSION g f
g ne. an n.
Se18AARGETTA STREET.N AU. -
l' d'
- ATLANT4,GEORotA Se323
- JUN 10I19st.- .
MEMORANDUM FOR: ' W. T. Crow, Acting Chief.
Uranium Fuel Licensing Branchi .
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety .
l Office.of Nuclear Materials Safety and S4feguards FROM: Kenneth!P. Barr, Chief Nuclear Materials Saf6ty. and: Safeguards Branch Division of RadiationiSaf6ty and. Safeguartis.
SUBJECT:
- CONFIRMATORY RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE BABCOCK AND WILCOX, '
LYNCHBURG RESEARCH CENTER'(LRC),' BUILDING C', PHASE I.
LYNC@llRG, VIRGINIA, DOCKET 70-824 i f Our memorandum. of February 19, 1986, forwarded Inspection Report No. 70-824/'
85-08, which detailed the results of our closeout inspection and confirmatory surv::y of Phase I of Building C. The licensee's letter to you of March 25, 1986.
responded;to the six issues we identified in our inspection report relating to-I the release of 80ilding C. Enclosure 1 contains.our assessment of the licensee's position on each issue. As noted in ~our previous memorandum, certain: samples obtained during the confirmatory survey were. sent to DOE /RESL in Idaho for nalysis. The .results of tnose analysis.and our evaluations are attached in Er, closures 2-and.3.
4 The cdequacy of the scope of the licensee's surveys, the disposition of the facility stack and the high background radiation levels in Building C are issues -
l which NMSS should. resolve with the Itcensee. We also feel that HMSS should .
, resolve with the licensee exactly what their objective is, release of Building C l fer unrestricted use or confirmation a certain level of decontamination has been echtsved with the building remaining under licensed control. If the latter is . l l the licensee's objective, we do not believe it would be necessary or useful for ,
Ragicn II to conduct any further confirmatory surveys. j A, -
8J
~
aeet -
Kenneth P. Barr
Enclosures:
- 1. Region II Assessment of Licensee Response to Close Out Survey l Findings ..
- 2. Special Sample Results from ,
Confirmatory Survey
- 3. Soil Sample Results from Confirma .
tory Survey . - '
l 8606260118 860620
! PDR ADOCK 07000824 .
C PDR .
G
,,%.,- w - --- - --,--.-g-. ,_e ,--y ,.-------,,--r-.,,---- ,,,--e,-,,_- .mmem-iya.,m,9--o,w-, , . w,-w- w -
e _ - . _ . . . _ _ - -
. r. .
I ENCLO'SURE li REGION II ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE RESPONSE' TO CLOSEOUT SURVEY FINDINGS
- 1. Finding A Off gas ducts which'are still in service run.through the Phase I area. The site effluent stack is shown in the Phase I map as part: of the area being released. Release of Building C for unrestricted use would cause the site gaseous effluent release point to be outside of the. restricted area .
boundary.-
Licensee Comment The off gas duct work in the Phase I area: services Phase III.*This duct work will be removed when decontamination of Phase III is complete. No off gas ducts will run through any released portion of Butiding C after the decontamination project is finished.
Region II Response Removal of the ducting during Phase III' has the potential for recontam-inating Phase I areas and may pose an unevaluated hazard to future occupants until it is removed. ,
Licensee Comment The stack and fani room will continue to serve the Building B hot cells and release is not being sought. LRC is seeking NRC concurrence that the excavation beneath the fan room has been decontaminated to release levels and can be permanently refilled.
Region II Response The licensee submitted a revised phase. boundary map with their response.
The revised map indicates that the stack is excluded from release, but indicates that the fan room is included
- in Phase III. This needs to be clarified'as it is our understanding based on the licensee's comments, that the fan room will continue in service.
As for the excavations under the fan room, our confirmatory surveys were in agreement with the licensee's results. It fs our understanding that what the licensee means by " permanently refilled" is that no further sampling of the excavations will be required in the future wh4to the license is .
terminated. NMSS;should consider informing the licensee if this is the NRC position.
O e
-r. r- ,- - - - - - - - - - ,,,,.-m . , , , , - - . , - - - - - - -- ,, - - - - , - , , - - - -,-g,- y,.-, , --- - - - - -----r- , - , - - , - -
l, Enclosure 1 2
- Licensee Comment- . ..
How .the stack and fan room will be phy,sically isolated from all non-use areas . remains an open. issue. This tssue- will be resolved as the license -
conditions for reoccupation of Building C are clarified.- -
Region II_ Response Continued use of the site stack in its present location would cause the site gaseous effluent release point to be outside. of the' restricted area boundary. The ultimate disposition of the stack should be resolved with the licensee.-
- 2. Finding Bi_
Background gamma radiation levels from sources outside' of Building C may cause unmonitored personnel occupying Phase > I, if it were released, to receive an exposure in excess of 500 millirem in a ' year.
Licensee Comment ,
A lid shield has been designed for the Building.J Annex and it is expected that tho gamma background will be well below the sina mr/ year limit. This
- will be confirmed. by surveying all of Building.C, and will be reported to NRC in the Phase III' report.
Region I_I__ Response The concern over the radiation levels.in regard to exposures to future building occupants remains valid. Regardless of the source, radiation levels throughout the Phase I area remain in excess of the 10 microrem/ hour release limit. As noted in the confirmatory survey report, the background radiation levels in several areas is also such that adequate beta gamma scan surveys cannot be performed.
- 3. Finding C No surveys were performed in the fire equipment room. Only fifteen alpha contamination smears were performed in the' front portion of the Old Central Stores. No other surveys were made. Throughout t.he Phase I area, only floors were surveyed for beta gamma contam'ination and direct radiation.
Licensee Comment The fire equipment room will be surveyed and reported in the Phase III report. Additional random direct and removeable beta / alpha surveys will be performed in the front portion of the Old Central Stores on the floors and walls. Results will be reported as a supplement to the Phase I report.
e
. - v -- -
g
- y.p,;.7
- s. ,.
Y , . .
EacEzare.1- J .
Jturtsw 11 Alesannese- ' -
Region'11 has'no comments.
Licensee Coament -
i The survey plan in Building C called for'100N ilph's survey of< floors, walls, ,
1 and. ceilings in laboratories, and f6r beta surveys of about 1/3 of, floor, e '
grids. This' plan provides a sound b& sis for.the Building C release surveys.h -
i Region.II Response We continue to believe that representative: areas of al.1 surfaces should be. . .
surveyed to show compliance with all the applicable release criteria. ,
- 4. Finding 0 The licensee did not remove paint from surfaces containing the~ original coat-of paint .or in areas where special nuclear material' had not been- handled" (Labs 25, 26, 27, and:Old Central S' tores).
Licensee Comment This is no evidence from the finding' of contamination under:the paint on the. .
Lab 44 floor, from the building history,. or from the survey of original painted surfaces to suggest that the approach is flawed:and that paint chip stmp1.ing on the 'unstripped walls of Labs- 25y 26F27/ .or Old Central Stores ' -
is warranted. -
Ragion.II Response:
Samples of paint and concrete were obtained~ during our confirmatory survey.
As discussed in Enclosure 2, every sample showed detectable alpha and beta radioactivity. The licensee should make a reasonable effort to survey and decontaminate these painted surfaces.
- 5. Finding E A smear reading 1612 dpm of alpha contamination was found on the inside of a l pipe in Lab 4'4. The possibility of residual contamination e.1sewhere in the pipe and its removal should be evaluated.
Licensee Comment 2
A 24 inch by 6 inch. cloth was pulled through the entire length of the electrical conduit >with a fish tape. The total activity on the cloth was 60 dpm, or <4 dpa/1004:m2 Conventionalismall ' area smears were also.taken at O
i
Enclosure 1:- 4 i
cach end of the conduit. One smear read'3 d m/100ca r , and the other read .
r 0 dpm/100ca . Based on these findings,. LRC does not believe removal of the ,
conduit is necessary.
Region _II Response .
We beTieve that finding, even low levels. of contamination in an electrical conduit is significant. The conduit is 9.Sifeet long and has at least one 90* bend. Direct surveys of the internals are not possible. This finding also calls:into question the licensee!s judgement that numerous such items, such:as electrical conduits, water lines, service air lines, etc., did not need to be surveyed on the basis that no potential existed for those systems having been contaminated.
- 6. Finding F Soil . and. concrete samples collected in the U-233 process area were not analyzed by the licensee for U-233 content.
Licensee Comment ,
Soil was assayed f6r U-233 activity using an indirect method.
Region II Responso We concur that the assay for U-233 was adequate based on the clarification provided in their response and review of the results of our confirmatory surveys.
2 P
4 0
I I - . _ . . _ , . _ . , , - _ _ , _ - - , _ . _ . . . _ _ _ - . _
r _ _ _ .-- _
l ENCLOSURB 2:
SPECIAL SAMPLE RESULTS FROM C0NFIRMATORY SURVEY Appendix G to inspection report number 824/854)8 contained.a description of e 15 special . samples that were obtained during the confirmatory survey (Table 1). .-- -
)
The samples were forwanted to the Department of Energy's Radiological Environ-ment.a1 Sciences Laboratory (RESL) for analysis- All samples were initially ;
c:unted for gross alpha and beta radioactivity and isotopic identification by -
gamma spectroscopy (Table 2). Two of the samples were then' processed by chemical' .
stparation and' counted on a surface barrier detector (Table 3).
AF1 of the ' samples revealed detectable alpha and beta radioactivity. The : .
findings also suggest that' many items or systemr which the licensee assumed to hava no potential for contamination, were in fact contaminated. We suggest that the licensee be required to perform representative surveys of all items and systems in areas to be released. l t
l l
.. l
. 1 O
e .
.w - , , , , . - - - , . - - . --.-.-w- , , ,...,-,,m. ,y.,----, . - - , , --- -m--,-ww.- - ,
4 TABLE II -
SPECIAL~. SAMPLE LOCATiTONS AND1 DESCRIPTIONS .'
$ ample No.: Date . .Locationi Desertation .
1 11/20/85~. Pit under Lab 50,i grid 1778 Sludge from pit sump North wall. of Lab 44 Paint from backside 2 11/20/8S'- ! .
of electrical conduft 3 11/20/85'. South ceiling of thb 44 Paint from exterior '
of water pipe -
4 11/21/8S' Southeast corner of front Cloth wipe inside 4 hallway. of ventilation: duct 5 11/21/85'- Ventilation, portal;between Approximate 4" X 4" .
Labs 27 and 50 patch from furnace -
filter 6 11/21/85' West side of Lab 43 Cloth wipe inside of-ventilation duct -
7 11/21/856 ' ' Ceiling of Lab 43 e' ' Sediment from dead- -
leg of sprinkler header - approxi-mately one pint of .
water filtered through a #41 filter 8 11/21/85'. Front hallway. wall, east of Concrete and paint door 6, grid 377 9 11/21/85/ Office 1, east wal-.1, grid II Concrete and paint .
10 11/21/85' Lab 43, north wall... east of .. Concrete and paint door grid 1059:
j 11- 11/21/85^ Lab 44, southiwall,' east of Concrete and paint door, grid 1291 12 - 11/21/85h Lab 27, nor.th wall. grid 832' Concrete and paint -
13 11/21/8Sn ' Lab 25, north wall; grid 501 Concrete and paint . .
14~ 11/21/85/- Lab 52, north wall,igrid 1571 C6ncrete and paint .- . .
' - 11/21/85r. Lab .53,2:floora grid 1678i 15 concrete from around : c',:. .
sump t
- - - - , . . - - , ,. , - . - - . . - ,,_-.,-,.__.,a._ . . - - , - _ _ . , , . , . _ , , , - - _ . - , , . - , - - - . , - - - , , _ . , , . - .
TABLE 2 i SPECI AL SAlifj,E ANALYSIS teCUom)
Samole No. Cross Alohs cross Bets gg:.iq U-235 f.etalql An-241 CE-137 1 1714 1215 NO HQ NQ NQ 0.0816.'12 2 412 714 NO ND ND ND 0.320.2 3 3817 1116 ND NO ND ND 0.0310.08 4a 3516 4816 ND MD ND ND 8t4 Sa 320140 158114 ND ND ND ND '313
- 6a 2114 261b ND ND NO ND 313 74 1312 .311 ND ND NO ND 1.110.05 8: 20th 3315 ND NO NO ND 0.2020.15 .
' 9 1413 2315 ND NO NO ND 0.0910.15 10 712 1214 NO NO NO NO 0.0910.09 11 1012 2515 ND ND ND ND O.0510.10 .
12 2114 2915 NO ND ND NO 0.1610.13
. 13 1614 3816 NO ND ND ND 0.071D.10 14 1013 613 ND ND ND ND 0.131D.22 15 1914~ 111% ND ND ND ND 0.13ko.09
~
{'
- a
, e. Results are reported in pCl/ Sample f
[
b.
.- ND. .=..N.one...De.tec.t.ed
, ?g ' *% ***.
- g. , ,
.c .' w- . . .
t t
. i. ,
I ".P
= .
. ~
4 k
h6
TABLE 1
- PROCESj{p SPECIAL $ AMPLE ANALYSIS i
Sample 110. Pu-239/280 Th-230 u-231/233 y-121 Am 241 f.u:-211 4 Th-228 Th-212 M :
-3(pCl/ge) 10.610.3 0.8710.05 30.910.9 0.5810.06 0.5510.06 0. 62:10.06 3.7210.14 0.1910.08 1.2310.07 .<
5(PCl/ semple] 4.310.11s 0.7010.2 32.,1it.2 1.7010.3 0.9010.4 f.5010.3 85.0012 3.7010.3 35.9011.2 o
e e
9 9 e
. g a, %
'; g. ,
g e
tt 6'l Wh . ..
a w
. = , . -
.' .*3:. .. .,
. . ...g i
e .
^- 1 o .
- . g .
e
- 3
.j
. *:e
. .. ,e, , , , ,
- I l .
i ENCI.dSURE G S0IL SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CONFIRMATORY SURVEY' Appendix H to inspection Report 70-824/85-08 contained a description of 14. soil .
4 samples collected within the excavations under Pha'se I.of Building C. Appendix 4I of tha report contained a> description of 9 samples taktn from drums of soil which the licensee had previously- analyzed and two background soil . samples. All i
simplos were forwarded' to DOE /RESL for analysis. All samples were.. initially
. ccented for gross alpha and beta radioactivity and isotopic identification by -
. gamma spectroscopy (Table 1). Eight of the samples were then processed by
! chemical separation and counted on a surface barrier detector (Table 2). A coupsrison was then performed of the results of the latter analysis for six of the drum samples .and licensee results (Table 3). As a final check of the
, 1(csnsee's analytical techniques. DOE /RESL prepared a spiked sample and forwarded it to the licensee for analysis. The licensee's results were compared to the spiked values (Table 4) using the criteria in Table 5. Based on a review of the spiked and split sample results it was determined that the licensee's sample analysis had been performed in an acceptable manner. .
1 e
9 hg -
e r
- e e e I
,, . - , , , - , - , - - . . . , , - - , - .- , n- -.-. . . , , _ , ,, . . , , , -
TAB d 1 .
Og;AYATION. 0$UM AMO BACKGROUNO 80lL SAMPLE ANALY$l_$ ,
Comme isotoole Samole to Cross Alpha Cross Sete Co-60 U-235 Pa-2iism An-241 Cs-137 p.QJ/_qjn oCI/as oCl/es oCilam oCl/on oCl/es oCl/se .
SNt132 i:Soll #11 a28'13 8512 NO .09t.06 -1.312.1 NO .011.04 8881133 LSoll #2,1 a-311 a6t3 ND .091.06 Siis NO .051.04
$N1134 (Soll #3 I a-722 a1115 ND .101.07
- 515 NO .091.05 SN1135 " Scil #4 I a-311 e412 ND- .072.06 814 ND 151.05 SN1136 1,Soll #5 I a-712 a814 ND .001.07 Of6 ND .041.05 SNt137 I Soli .
a-OfD.3 a1015 ND .101.06 -314 ND .151.05 Sll1138 l Soli p a-211 a814 ND .211.07 515 ND 15t.05 d
$N1139 I;Soll J a-211 a914 NO 051.04 515 NO .22t.06 '
1 SN1140 1 Soll J a-1.010.3 a322 ND .021.07 915 ND .101.04 SN1141q8oll (10 a-1.010.3 a7t3 ND .011.07 -515 ND .021.05 i SN1142 i Soll #11 . a-912, a1015 .691.09 .011.05 '113
- 11 0 .25t.07 .
SN1143q$oll #12 a=1.010.3 a412 ND .0516 -214 ND .011.05 8811144 cSol1 #13 '
a-813 a814 ND .141.06 015 ND .101.08 8811145 l'Soll #14 1
a-411 a814 ND .042.06 513 ND .051.05 Sil1146 ll801iPDP6308 a2116 a713 ND 291.06 -1.513.9 1.791.16 .001.05 8111147 l'Soll POPD 383 a3218 a1516 ND .29t.07 015 2.9*.2 .011.02 SN1148 I Soll PDP0 542 a-712 a713 ND .051.06 -114 im .101.04
- SN1149 l'Soll PDPD 836
- 4215 a1115 No .01t.06 414 ND .161.05 SN1150 i:Soll PDPD 1834) a0.010.3 a1215 No .211.06 -1.613.3 leo .022.03 .
SN1151 LSoll PDPD 1917) a2015 a713 ND .271.06 614 1.531.14 .121.04 eSoi.I eackgrou.n.d, 22ik 1215 ND .011.06 -614- ND 0.$1.05 ,.
. 211,1,152,,.9 . . . . ,
SN1153 C5cil Background) 1914 1415 ND .07t" 07 -215 ND .331.06 3811 1 531 1 Soll PDPD 312 a96124 a1918 ND .491.06 1115 4.910.2 041.04
. 8111155 Isoll PDPD 420)) a126131 a1717 ND .462.07 -214 S.5t3 .04*.05 a-211- aSi4 1.071.16 .05t.05
$111156 lSoli POP 01173l ,
ND .061.04, 114
[
- a. Soll background gross alpha and beta levela have been subtracted. -
- b. Results are reported in pCl/Samp,le. -
- e. NO - none' detected. . .
i d.-
Other isotopes identified in some semples by gamma spectroscopy were Ac-228, X-40. Pb-212, and Pb-214.
1 1
4 l ,
- e .
J
~
. . % g.
TABLE _2 ,
PROCE1310 SAMPLE ANAtNSf 3 incl /a_el ..
Pu-2)A Pu-239/240 113-223 Th-230 Th-232 -
- 12 V_-211 SN1146 1. 1. 5 112.01 4.50i.14 1.132.05 1.1.%2.05 1.112.05 . 1.17 .27t.02 . 1.06 -
SN1147 2.421.08 261.02 9.01.3 .941.05 .931.05 .971.05 9.12,2 .362.0R 3.444 10 SN1151 1.371.05 .181.01 6.62.2 .931.05 .912.05 .911.05 8.81.2 .421.03 3.611.10 841152 .00171.0035 .01.00? .002t.002 1.042.04 .991.04 1.131.05 1.111.04. .04t.01 1.051.03 SW1153 0061.004 .0021.002 .0141.003 1.211.05 1.24i.05 1.111.05 1.281.04 .071.01 1.241.04 SN1154 4.21.2 .47!.06. 13.81.5 1.39t.12 1.42i.14 1.241.12 9.6i.3 .381.06 4.41.2' SN1155 7.52.3 1.121.09 40.1t1.2 2.031.16 1.43i.13 1.712.13 13.81.4 .78t.0a 4.51.2' SN1156 .931.03 .061.01 3.801.11 1.001.04 . 971.04 1.00t.04 1.362.04 .071.01 1.28 .04 e
r
. [
. h e.
'O'
.s . . ,_
- g
., . ,d h g 1
.c;-
4
? .
1
- .- ~ . .' A
. P:
g .'
~
f.>
7, .
=
, v se ,
- d .; *
- F
. $(
> fI
- i
o -
TABLE,A **
paM LRC/NRC 20MPAMfiQtlt oCUmm ,-
3 ...
[ Am241 Pu (239.238.2t:0) Th232 U f 233. 214. 215)
- secolo AW d!LG DM . EB9 BW 58G AW BHG .
$9054 3.08 k.2 16.57 14.27- .99 1.24 17.04 9.9a SN11$3) 5.74 7.5 30.a9 r40.22 1.1ts 1.71 . 22.56 14.5a SN1156 1.2s .93 6.92 3.ss .95 1.00 3.44 1.43 SNt146 '.95 1.49 4.09 4.61 1.76* 1.11 4. 2.1
- 1.73 SN1147 . 1.71 2.42 7.38 9.26 1.76* .97 2.01* 9.44 SN115,1 .95 1.37 8.10 4 6.95 1.75* .91 k.98* 9.22
- Includes seen bookground
'j .
e E- }It/. , ,. . *,
. . 9 e - *
. ...?
. -s s . i
~
. y
{
. .. . i . !* . , ,
., . ~
e' r 0
,y 1*i h.
e *
, 't ,
- s. - . .
> 9 t
e
. - [s
.9 g . ,
. . .' . . g ,
TABLE 4 ,
No.C 3.P_t_ME0 Soft SAMPLE o .
Ratio compar(slon .
Istone BW. ocl/cm ffRC. DCl/cm Resolution Licensee /NRC Coope rlson Pu-239 <3520? 7.3 i 51 15' IM Ro ramnarlson Am-241 6.6 4.7 1 .33 Its 1.41 Agreement Nb-94 ,97.8 71 1 5.0 14 1.17 Ag reement
- Ucensee used indf rect rathods to secount for plutenlum during decontaminetton surveys. -
Spilt sampling between licensee and NRC showed their Indirect methodology to be adequate.
e i >
, b .
e ,
.h . .
4* f *** g P
9
.x .
~
4
. .. g a
..,a 9
.v g
.p s
E{
g
I TABLE!5 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING NALYTICAL'. MEASUREMENTS This' table provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and vsrification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program. .
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison.of the NRC's value to its associated uncertainty. As that ration, refstred to in this program as " Resolution," increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement ;should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. .
RATIO = -LICENSEE VALUE~
NRC REFERENCE VALUE Resolution Agreement
<4 0.0 - 2:5 47 0.51- 2.0 -
8 - I5 0.62- 1.66.
16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 .
51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200- 0.85 - 1.18 t
e 1
l
.. l 1
i I
- - - - - - - ,.-- . . , - - - - - , . ,_,..-.,,,_,-___-,,,-.-.,.n.. - . , , , . . . . . - . , _
1 4
4 s
1 4
'I i
! NMSS/FuelCycle Material FCUF
/
l FCAF ab.
1 Cr2!!ct # 7 0'ld4 Project #
~
02cr 1
PDR / '
l LPDH Retum to Gh.
- SS 395 1
i
~
i i
i I
1
. . . - . , , . , _ . . . , _ , , , , . _ - _ _ . .,.m . . . - . - - . , ,, ,. . _ . , _ , ~ , . . . - _ . - _ .. . . -, _ ., , , . ,c. .---