IR 05000005/1985001
| ML20127L729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1985 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Tuccinardi T, Weadock A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127L716 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-005-85-01, 50-5-85-1, NUDOCS 8506280110 | |
| Download: ML20127L729 (7) | |
Text
n-
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 85-01 Docket N License N R-2 Priority -- Category F Licensee: The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 Facility Name: Breazeale Nuclear Reactor Inspection At: University Park, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: May 7-9, 1985
-
/
Inspectors: d . h [ % b 4'_ (c//1[3f A. Weacock, Radiation Specialist date
. ../
'
.T. Tuccinardi, Radiation Specialist 6l/ f ff date Approved by: M,[ M ///9/75'
M. Shanbaky, Chief / date
-
PWR Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 7-9, 1985 (Report No. 50-05/85-01).
Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the licensee's Radiation Protection Program. Areas inspected included posting and labeling, instrument calibration, surveys and sampling, dosimetry, controls during experimentation, and reports and audits. The inspection involved 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> onsite by two region-based inspector Results: No violations were identified during the course of this inspectio One unresolved item concerning licensee calibration of area radiation monitors was identified. Details are included in Section PDR 0 ADOCK 05000005 PDR L:
_ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS 1.0. Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed:
- Dr. W. F. Witzig - Head, Nuclear Engineering Department
- Dr. S. H. Levine - Director, Breazeale Nuclear Reactor
- Mr. I. B. McMaster - Deputy Director, Breazeale Nuclear Reactor
- Mr. R. W. Granlund - University Health Physicist
- Mr. R. E. Totenbier - Operations Supervisor
- Mr. T. L. Flinchbaugh - Reactor Supervisor Mr. D. S. Vonada - Research Technologist, Instrumentation and Control Mr. D. C. Raupach - Reactor Supervisor i
Other licensee personnel were also interviewed during the course of this inspectio * Attended the exit interview on May 9, 198 .0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following elements:
-Status of Previously Identified Items-Instrument and Monitor Calibration-Surveys and Sampling-Dosimetry and Exposure Control 1 -Controls during Experimentation-Reports and Audits 3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items 3.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-05/84-03-01):
, Haphazard storage of potentially contaminated components. The inspector viewed the shielded " cave" storage area in the reactor bay and determined it was adequately posted and that all stored items
-
were in a secure condition and were identified as being radioactive materia .0 Posting and Labeling The inspectors toured the Pennsylvania State Breazeale Reactor (PSBR)
immediately after the entrance interview. Posting of the facility and labeling of radioactive materials were in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203
requirements. The inspectors did note minor housekeeping and posting concerns, including:
. . . -- .- ---- . . _ . -
.
I
-Non-contaminated, out of use equipment posted as containing radioactive material-Improper disposal of used anti-contamination gloves
" Radioactive Material" signs on the doors to several laboratories which became obscured when the door to the lab was left ope The licensee took immediate action to improve housekeeping and upgrade radiological posting. The inspector determined that facility housekeeping has been identified as a concern by the licensee (see Section 9.0) and corrective actions have been taken. The University Health Physicist now makes regular walk-through tours of the PSBR facility to evaluate general housekeeping and compliance with 10 CFR 20. Identified problems are assigned to specific members of the PSBR staff for correctio No violations were identified in this are .0 Instrument and Monitor Calibration The inspector evaluated the licensee's program for calibration of radiation detection instrumentation by the following methods:
- Review of portable survey instrument and area radiation monitor calibration procedures and records
- Inspection of in place equipment and stored instruments for calibration stickers
- Discussion with licensee personne Within the scope of the above review, the following concerns were identifie The University Health Physics Staff uses an Eberline neutron detector to perform neutron surveys for the reactor facility. Althnugh not specif-ically mentioned in the PSBR Technical Specifications, the University's byproduct material license No. 37-185-4 requires health physics survey instruments to be calibrated every six months. A review of calibration records for the Eberline detector No. NRD-1 with PRS-IP readout revealed the following calibration history:
DATE CALIBRATED NO. CALIBRATIONS MISSED 12 October 1981 11 March 1983 2 15 September 1983 0 18 September 1984 1 The inspector verified by a review of facility survey records that the detector was used for surveys during the above time periods. A review of the calibration data for the above indicated dates showed that the instrument response remained consistent over time.
i
.
.
The adequacy of instrument calibration frequency will be further examined during a subsequent inspection of the University material license (05/85-01-01).
Yearly calibration and weekly alarm set point checks of the reactor bay and beamhole laboratory area radiation monitors are required by the Technical Specifications. The licensee has two monitors situated on the reactor bridge to allow continued operation while anr of the monitors is being calibrated. The inspector reviewed the following material to evaluate compliance with Technical Specification requirements:
. Procedure CCP-10, Calibration of Area Radiation Monitors
- Procedure CCP-8, Air Monitors Calibrations
- Victoreen Instruction Manual, 845 Series Area Monitor
. Area Monitor Calibration data for 1984, 198 * Selected " Radiation, Evacuation and Alarm" checklists for 1984 and 1985 The inspector determined that all radiation monitoring equipment was being calibrated and alarm set points were being checked at the frequencies required by the Technical Specifications. The inspector noted the above calibration procedures did not include specified acceptance criteria to indicate when the monitor was adequately responding to a known radia-tion field. Evaluation of monitor response and the need for subsequent adjustment was determined by the individual performing the calibration The licensee stated that the individual performing this evaluation has significant experience with this monito The inspector reviewed the 1984 calibration data for the Victoreen ionization chambers used to monitor the reactor bay area. Monitor response was checked by exposing the chambers to known dose rates ranging from 10 mr/hr to 10,000 mr/hr. The inspector noted as-left instrument readings differing by as much as 100%, with average difference values of 20-30%, with the calibration field at dose rates of 1000 mr/hr or less. The reactor bay area monitors are set to alarm at 30 mr/hr and 200 mr/h ~
The licensee indicated that the reactor bay ionization chamber monitors had a history of poor performance and the as-left readings that were noted on'the calibration data sheets were the best that could be obtaine Particular problems were experienced in achieving satisfactory agreement in the upper portions of the monitor range (2000+ mr/hr). The inspector noted the licensee had identified calibration problems with these particular monitors to the NRC in a report dated May 198 The inspector also noted that calibration data included in this 1980 report showed a better agreement between monitor response and actual dose rates than what the licensee is currently achievin *
,
,
' '
-
o
, ,
In a telephone conversation subsequent to this inspection the inspector indicated to the licensee that a failure to include specific acceptance criteria in the calibration procedures may have led to a general decline in monitor performance that was not recognized or corrected by the licensee. The licensee indicated they would perform an evaluation of their monitor calibration data and procedures to determine if this was the case and if electronic adjustments can be made to bring the monitors within an acceptable agreement range with the calibration radiation fiel Adequac- f performed monitor calibrations, and the licensee's calibration proced will remain unresolved pending examination cf the results of the 1 e's evaluation and subsequent corrective action to improv the reliability of radiological surveys (05/85-01-02).
6.0 Survey and Sampling 6.1. Surveys Routine and job-specific radiation and contamination surveys of the PSBR facility are performed by the staff of the University Health Physics office. The inspector reviewed selected facility surveys performed during 1984 and 1985 and found them to be adequate in scope and .
conten Post-job contamination surveys used to release work areas
were found to be particularly comprehensiv .2 Effluent Sampling Review of licensee sampling and discharge records revealed that the licensee has not released any liquid effluents during 1984 or 198 The licensee uses ion exchange beds and evaporators to purify their reactor water; this treated water is then used as pool makeup wate Evaporator sediments are dried and packed in drums as low level wast The licensee continuously monitors reactor bay air for airborne
particulates during reactor operation; however, measurements of Argon-41 concentrations in the reactor bay area and exhaust air are not routinely performed. The University Health Physics staff indicated that facility and environmental Argon-41 mea,urements were scheduled to be performed during the summer of 1985. Review of this data will be performed during a subsequent inspectio (50-05/85-01-03).
7.0 Dosimetry and Exposure Control Film badges for personnel radiation monitoring are provided for the users of the PSBR by the University Health Physics Office, which also issues dosimetry for other radioactive material users on the Penn State campu The University contracts with Landauer to provide film badge and badge processing services. In addition to personnel monitoring, the University Health Physics Office also posts TLD's in various locations throughout the
-
, . - - - _ . . - . -. - - . .. . _ . __ -- .
.
.
PSBR facility and in the surrounding environment. These area and environ-mental TLD's are calibrated and read by the University Health Physics Staf The inspector reviewed selected exposure records for users of the PSBR for 1984 through February 1985 and noted the majority of personnel showed no detectable exposure. Exposures recorded from area film badges were consistent over time and agreed with facility radiation survey record The inspector discussed quality control with the University Health Physicist and determined the licensee regularly spikes film badges to evaluate the processing capabilities of their vendor. Spikes are per-formed using gamma, neutron, and beta radiatio'n, and given over a wide exposure range. Results of the spikes are routinely reviewed by the University Health Physicist. The inspector reviewed results of the spikes and had no further questions in this are No violations were noted in this are .0 Controls During Experimentation
,
The inspector evaluated the licensee's implementation of radiological controls during the performance of irradiation experiments by review of the following:
- Procedure SOP-5, Experiment Evaluation and Authorization
- Procedure SOP-6, Sample Encapsulation
- Procedure SOP-7, Sample Irradiation
Procedure SOP-8, Release of Irradiated Samples
- Procedure S0P-9, Pneumatic Transfer System Operation
- Reactor Safeguard Committee review of RCA Tube
- Control Room Logbook
- University Isotope Committee " Authorizations to Use Radioactive Material" Book
- Selected "PBSR Irradiated Sample Release Forms" Within the scope of the above review it was determined that the licensee is adequately controlling the performance of irradiation experiments. The inspector found that the Reactor Safeguards Committee review of the RCA Tube experiment has adequately addressed Health Physics concerns involved in the experiment. Specific radiological precautions were developed and included in the experiment authorization package which is maintained in the control roo . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.-
.;-
Experimenters using the PSBR facility require written authorization by the University Isotope Committe Each authorization lists specific isotope activity limits and is reviewed by the senior reactor operator prior to releasing the sample from the reactor to the experimenter. This ensures the experimenter has received appropriate training, utilizes appropriate radiological controls, and does not receive any material exceeding the limits of their specific byproduct materials licens The "PBSR Irradiated Sample Release Forms" are filled out for e?ch irradiation experiment and are used to document the transfer of the sample to the experimenter. This form requires a survey of the sample be per-formed by either the reactor facility or HP Staff prior to sample releas The inspector reviewed selected sample release forms for 1984 and 1985, and determined that surveys were being performed prior to releas No violations were identified in this are >
9.0 Reports and Audits The following records and audits were reviewed during the course of this inspection:
- Twenty-ninth Annual Progress Report of the PSBR, July 1,1983 to June 30, 198 * Reactor Safeguard Committee Meeting minutes for the following dates:
December 14, 1983; March 8, 1984; June 12, 1984; August 23, 1984; October 15, 1984, and January 22, 198 * 1984 Audit of the PSB The inspector noted that audits and reports were being performed as required by the Technical Specifications. Reactor Safeguard Committee Meeting minutes were extensive and discussed all concerns regarding radiological conditions. The December 1983 and March 1984 meeting minutes included extensive discussion concerning additional high radiation area controls required by the installation of the RCA beam tube. The January 1985 meeting minutes identified facility housecleaning and posting problems which initiated licensee corrective action . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 9, 1985. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed at that time. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.