IR 05000030/1978001
| ML19276E462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Plum Brook File:National Aeronautics and Space Administration icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1979 |
| From: | Fisher W, Hueter L, Riden M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276E457 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-030-78-01, 50-185-78-01, 50-185-78-1, 50-30-78-1, NUDOCS 7903140195 | |
| Download: ML19276E462 (4) | |
Text
,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-030/78-01; 50-185/78-01 Docket No.50-030; 50-185 License No. TR-3; R-93 Licensee:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center - Plum Brook Station Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Facility Name: Plum Brook Reactor Facility Inspection At: Plum Brook Reactor Site, Sandusky, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
December 13, 1978 kf
&Y
,
/_,_'/
^
Inspectors:
L. J. Hueter
--
k Y
in,.,
..,
1. D.
den f'C'[ '
y1,J.,n-
.
.
L Approved By:
W. L.'F1 er, Chief
/
c2 3 - 7'/
Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section Inspection Summary Inspection On December 13,1978 (Report No. 50-030/78-01; 50-185/78-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of radiological protection, including: qualifications of administrative personnel audito; procedures; exposure control; posting, labeling, and control; surveys and other routine surveillance; records; and reports. The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in any of the seven areas inspected.
7903140115
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
Didelot,
- T. Junod, PBRF Radiation Protection Of ficer J. Braeunig, Fbnager Standby Maintenance Group
- Denotes those present at the exit in te rview.
2.
The inspectors arrived about 8:15 a.m. on December 13, 1978, to inspect the activities associated with the " possession only" license for both the Plum Brook Test Reactor (License No. TR-3) and the Mock-Up Reactor (License No. R-93).
No attempt was made to separate inspection activities between the two licenses.
3.
In preparation for the standby condition, all fuel and many sources were properly disposed of.
As a result, termination of licenses SNM-603, 34-06706-01, and 34-06706-02 took place on issuance of a new license, 34-06706-03 effective June 26, 1973. This byproduct license covers: (1) any byproduct material as solid activated reactor components and health physics instrument calibration sources, (2) hydrogen-3 in beryllium reflector pieces, and (3) polonium-210 as activated solid bismuth bearing materials, all stored and used at the Plum Brook Station.
Byproduct Material Lic ase No.
34-06706-03 was inspected by NRC on September 19 and 20, 1978 with no items of noncompliance being identified.
4.
There have been no changes in the group of qualified individuals making up the principal staff (i.e., PBRF Manager and alternate and Radiation Prctection Officer) from that noted at the time of the March 27 and 28, 1975 inspection. These staff members appear to have performed their functions well.
5.
Annual audits (the latest on February 28, 1978) have been performed by Lewis Research Center Audit Team.
These comprehensive audits have shown no instances of not following technical specification requirements, including periodic surveillance.
6.
Required records and annual reports are being prepared and maintained.
The annual reports address any procedure or facility changes, mainten-ance activities, summary of in-plant and environmental survey data, and items of interest.
Since the March 1975 inspection there have been no procedure changes and the one facility change appears to have been properly reviewed and approved.
-2-
- a 7.
Amendment No. 06 to License No. TR-3 was issued December 17, 1976, permitting exclusion from the controlled area and from licensing requirement certain buildings and structures and the grounds adjacent thereto.
This acendment was to be effective when the areas are shown to be free of contamination and separated from the PBRF by security barriers and isolation of process piping.
The government agency indicating a desire to use a part of the facility has not yet made a final decision on the move.
Therefore, little has been done to prepare for the authorized change. The area in question has never been a contaminated area although within the currently PERF fenced area.
8.
Essentially the entire facility was toured. No discrepancies with respect to conditions specified in the technical specifications were observed. Posting, labeling, and controls appeared adequate.
The problem of ground water seepage into the hot pipe tunnel noted during the March 1975 inspection has apparently been solved. Actions noted as being planned at that time (i.e., examination of building drainage systems and work on them) proved ef fective in stopping the seepage.
9.
Cathodic protection system was energized at the time of the inspection.
Some problems have been encountered with the system such that a portion of the containment vessel wall is not currently oeing provided to recommended level of cathodic protect on.
NASA i
is evaluating the need to renovate the system.
10.
Personal monitoring data show no one has reachec 100 mrem whole body dose at the facility since 1973.
11.
The key control system is still used and tours are still being conducted three times daily by security personnel.
Safe Work Permits are still used for any non-routine type of activities.
12.
The routine direct radiation surveys, smear surveys, air sample surveys, and water sample surveys both from within plant and the environment continue to show stable to slowly declining levels of activity, commensurate with radioactive decay.
13.
The licensee had adequate supplies of routinely calibrated survey and monitoring instruments.
14.
The Communications Center was manned. The alarm panel was energized.
The alarms are to indicate electrical and equipment malfunctions; intrusion of the containment vessel, Hi-Level or Hot Retention Area Sump; and cooling tower fire.
-3-
.
,
,
b 15.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 13, 1978.
The inspectors discussed the scope and findings of the inspection.
The following matters were specifically discussed:
The inspectors stated that no items of noncompliance or a.
deviations were identified.
b.
The inspectors asked as to any future plans for the facility.
Licensee representatives indicated that a decision was made to forego plans of any future operation of the facility. NASA, by an Ad Hoc Committee with NRC consultation, identified a number of options as to the future for the facility. A study was then performed under NASA contract to evaluate the various options and any new options found appropriate and to report to the Ad Hoc Committee.
This has been completed and the Ad Hoc Committee has recently recommen,ded to NASA management the option that would eliminate all reactor produced radioactivity from the site (total dismantlement). However, no final decision has yet been reached.
It was stated that if this option was selected, dismantlement activities would still probably not start for at least a year.
-4-