MINUTES OF MEETING JEFFERSON LAB RADIATION REVIEW PANEL MEETING December 1, 2005 ARC Room 428-2:00pm

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING JEFFERSON LAB RADIATION REVIEW PANEL MEETING December 1, 2005 ARC Room 428-2:00pm ATTENDEES Jim Murphy (chair) Erik Abkemeier (vice chair) Steve Suhring Doug Higinbotham John Kelly Bert Manzlak Keith Welch For more details on any of these items, please review the slides available at the end of this document. 1. Experiment Safety Review with Technician as a Member of the Team - Attached please find the formal response of the Physics Division to the request that a Technician be a member of the Experiment EH&S Review(E 2 R) Process 2. HKS Experiment Maintenance RSDR Corrective Actions include: Briefed Experimental Hall Groups on importance of obeying signage and looking out for others Hall C management evaluating if oversight of users is adequate Item for Future Discussion: Current Policy requires all Users to have current RadWorker 1 training, this includes janitorial staff. Is it necessary? Could this be reevaluated to consider the necessity of this training. 3. Be-7 found outside Radwaste Processing Area RSDR amounts found were not near action levels, but may not have occurred had storage been indoors out of the elements. Soil sampling in the area will now be performed every month. 4. H-3 and Be-7 in LCW Cooling Water Tech. Basic documents have been developed to determine levels in water which could cause undesirable radiological conditions and subsequent mitigating actions. 5. Proposal for a project to pipe exit stair sumps to Experimental Hall floor drain sump - This project has many benefits and would cost ~$80, Proposed JRRP Charter Attached please find the proposed updated JRRP Charter which reflects the changes brought about by the dissolution of the JEHSC Committee. Please send comments to Mary Jo Bailey by December 9, 2005 prior to insertion into the EH&S Manual Chapter 2240.

2 MEMORANDUM Date: September 7, 2005 To: Jefferson Lab Radiation Review Panel From: Lawrence Cardman, Physics Division Associate Director Subject: Response to: Request to Review Experiment EH&S Review(E 2 R) Process I fully agree that the laboratory has a responsibility to minimize personnel radiation exposure; the Physics Division is fully committed to and supports that goal. The divisions E 2 R process allows for input from a wide variety of technical expertise in support of our efforts to ensure the safe conduct of experiments. Any strengthening of the advice we receive on radiation-related issues would be most welcome. Indeed, we look forward to receiving (and responding to as fully as we have in the past) any and all advice on radiation issues from the Radiation Control Group and engineering staff. As you know, they are already integral in the experimental review process. With respect to the specific suggestion that we explicitly include a non-exempt technician in future review committees, I will note that the Physics Division does not distinguish between non-exempt and exempt staff when it comes to advice on safety issues and we fully expect that all aspects of safety will be completely analyzed and discussed with all staff working on or affected by an experiment before that experiment is approved for beam delivery. When a non-exempt employee has specific relevant expertise we will include him or her in the review. We fully expect exempt employees who are members of a review committee to include any and all issues and concerns raised by non-exempt employees into the list of issues and concerns addressed by the review. To the best of my knowledge, there was not an initial anticipation (as your memo implies) prior to the experiment startup that the Viton O-ring in the HKS beamline would have to be replaced on a weekly basis. This anticipation arose only after difficulties were encountered in obtaining clean beam transmission through the Hall C beamline and an unexpected and unusually long period of learning how to thread the beam through the beamline was necessary. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the E 2 R process missed this. However, you are correct in noting that it was at the insistence of the Hall C Leader that the Viton O-ring was replaced by an Indium seal to avoid a possible recurrence and to minimize unnecessary radiation exposure to the lab staff. He should be commended for this action.

3 Jefferson Lab Radiation Review Panel [Chapter 2240 Jefferson Lab EH&S Committees --- Rev.?????? ] Membership of the Jefferson Lab Radiation Review Panel (JRRP) includes the RadCon Manager (permanent Chairperson), the Deputy RadCon Department Head, two senior representatives from each of the Accelerator and Physics Divisions appointed by the respective Associate Director, a senior representative from the Administration community (i.e., non-accelerator or Physics Division), appointed by the respective Associate Director, the Jefferson Lab Medical Director and the EH&S Reporting Manager (ex officio). Other members may be designated by the Lab Director as appropriate. The JRRP proactively serves to advise the RadCon Department and senior management on matters of radiation safety. The panel reviews, comments on, and recommends approval of documentation for signature by the Lab Director, Director s Safety Council and Associate Directors as applicable, thereby establishing policy and procedures for Jefferson Lab operational radiological safety. The JRRP is responsible for: 1. Reviewing the Jefferson Lab ALARA ( A s- L ow- A s- R easonably- A chievable) Program activities and reports. 2. Conducting critiques on deficiencies and proficiencies in radiological control activities. 3. Reviewing plans for first-time or infrequent activities and changes of scope. 4. Reviewing recommendations from the Radiation Control Department. 5. Making recommendations to Director s Safety Council, senior management and to those responsible for conducting the actual programs regarding the above reviews. The JRRP meets as needed; however, in order to provide continuous improvement to the Radiation Control program, a goal of quarterly meetings should be set. The chairperson ensures that minutes of the meetings are recorded and forwarded to the Director s Safety Council.

4 Voting quorum for JRRP issues is two-thirds of the official membership. Note that a designated replacement for an official member may vote for an official JRRP member who cannot attend. For all issues involving changes to existing laboratory policy, or significantly impacts human resource commitments (e.g., necessitates greater than one-half FTE resource), a vote for or against a proposal shall be conducted. A two-thirds majority of quorum is the minimum vote in favor of a changing action that should be forwarded to the Director s Safety Council for action. In the event of a favorable vote for a proposed policy change, the JRRP chairperson shall brief the Director s Safety Council of the proposed policy change. If the JRRP vote is not unanimous, a dissenting voting member of the JRRP shall be invited to present his/her views before the Director s Safety Council concurrent with the JRRP chairperson. Note that all regulatory and statutory requirements applicable to the Jefferson Lab shall be enforced at all times, and no JRRP review or Director s Safety Council review is required for implementation.

5 December 1 JRRP Meeting Experiment Safety Review Technician member of team HKS Experiment Maintenance RSDR Be-7 outside Radwaste Processing Area RSDR H-3 and Be-7 in LCW Cooling Water Tech. Basis Doc. Proposed JRRP Charter

6 Experiment Safety Review with Technician on Team Memory Refresher: Chair and Co-chair drafted letter of recommendation to Physics AD to examine Experiment Safety Review Process Would Technician be valuable? No formal response

7 HKS Experiment Maintenance RSDR User disconnected HKS fission target in posted Radiation Area Contact RCG Prior to Entry w/o RadCon approval Corrective Actions: Briefed Experimental Hall Groups on importance of obeying signage and looking out for others Hall C management evaluating if oversight of users is adequate

8 Related Issue Do we need all users, janitorial staff, etc. to be Rad Worker I trained? Current policies: All users must be RadWorker I trained to have unescorted Accelerator Site Access. All Custodian Staff need RadWorker I training.

9 What s the big deal? RadCon resource strain to do 10 CFR 835 practical factors training Some people have difficulty with the test Some users get argumentative don t want to go through training If RW I training only for those who need it (i.e., wrench turning users, select custodians), less likely to go into RCAs (e.g., if need to badge in to experimental halls, this automatically excludes those w/o RW I training)

10 So, what do you want? Consider feasibility of minimizing RW I trained non-lab personnel in respective divisions Report back at next JRRP meeting Goals are: Increase Efficiency Minimize likelihood of putting non-lab employees unnecessarily in harm s way

11 Detectable Be-7 Outside of Radwaste Processing Area During quarterly soil and sediment samples discovered Be-7 (and subsequently Co-60) in levels above MDC Nobody Panic not near action levels Stresses need for indoor waste processing facility Changed procedures to sample soil in area monthly until have indoor facility Processed and packaged waste that had accumulated

12 H-3 and Be-7 in LCW Cooling Water for HKS DZ and EZ magnets Due to high beam loss in those areas Anomalous H-3 only in localized areas, not in entire system; Be-7 not cleaned up rapidly in resin beds Nobody panic not at action limits Developed Tech. Basis Document to be proactive, determine levels in water which could cause undesirable radiological conditions, and subsequent mitigating actions

13 Tech. Basis Document Recommendations Regulatory parameters are for post contamination, or for discharges offsite TBD provides framework to determine constraining radiological parameters that if not mitigated lead to a potential regulatory exceedance, or highly undesirable radiological condition Provides recommended corrective actions Provides site specific guidance Current situation: at the discretion of RadCon

14 Related Item 8 Exit Stair Sumps around CEBAF collect AC Condensate, pumped to Tanks Tanks sampled for tritium, etc. If results above MDC, tank transported to Bldg. 92, and mixed with beam dump water for HRSD discharge If less than MDC, dump on ground

15 Proposed Project Pipe Exit Stair Sumps to Experimental Hall Floor Drain Sump Gains efficiency (person doesn t need to sample and collect tanks) In event of mishap (overflow of tank) water doesn t wind up on ground $80K project If accelerator S/D during summer, good opportunity

16 Proposed JRRP Charter No more EH&S Committee RadCon Head is new Chairman Membership is the same (minus Jim Murphy) Reports to Director s Safety Council Quorum ¾ of official membership 2/3 majority vote to bring policy change to DSC Dissenters choose a representative No vote/ consensus required on non-interpretive regulatory requirements