IR 05000062/1979002
| ML19269F498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Ewald S, Gibson A, Wray J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269F441 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-79-02, 50-62-79-2, NUDOCS 7912210191 | |
| Download: ML19269F498 (7) | |
Text
ga nea
.
UNITED STATES h
7, NUCLEAR GEGULATORY COMMISSION g
- r REGION 11
'#
o 101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3
.....
Report No. 50-62/79-02 Licensee: University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Facility Name: UVAR License No. R-66 Inspection at UVAR site near Charlottesville, Virginia Inspected by:
.d
/c /.2 3 /7 7
%
S
. Ewald
/
Date Signed f k bt/N
'r /2 3 / 7 1 J
R.
r
/
Date Signed t
Approved by:
)
(O[23[]of A. F.'Gibson, Section Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed
'
SUMMARY Inspection on September 18-21, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine. unannounced inspection involved 44 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of (G.adiation protection including review of procedures posting, labeling, personnel dosimetry, training, ventilation, radiological surveys, and instrument calibrations; (2) waste disposal including review of reported effluents, liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring, sampling, and accountability, and solid waste disposal; (3) review of licensee reported events and previously identified items.
Results Of the 16 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 14 areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction - Failure to lock high radiation area - Paragraph 8).
One apparent deviation was found in one area (Failure to source and leak test pocket dosimeters - Paragraph 7).
2167 110
/7 /
7912210
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- T. G. Williamson, Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering and
-
Engineering Physics
- B. L. Shriver, Director of Reactor Facility
- J. P. Farrar, Reactor Supervisor
- H. W. Berk, Radiation Safety Officer
- M. G. Bickel, Health Physicist
- P. E. Benneche, Reactor Engineer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspcction scope and findings were summarized on September 21, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Items discussed included one item of noncompliance and one deviation. With regard to the item of noncompliance involving the door to the demineralizer room, licensee representatives stated the lock has been changed and is currently locked. The inspector stated that the response to this item should address administrative controls over the keys to this door.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (78-02-01): Calibration of Constant Air Monitor. The inspector reviewed procedures, approved in April 1979. This item is dis-cussed in Paragraph 9.
(Closed) Deficiency (78-02-02): Maintenance of Survey Records. A review of survey records revealed no instances of missing routine survey data.
Surveys are discussed further in Paragraph 8.
(Closed) Deviation (78-02-03): Pocket Dosimeter Source and Drift Checks.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this item and various records indicating implementation of a program.
Inspector findings in this area are discussed in Paragraph 7.
(Closed) Deviation (78-02-04):
Laboratory Hood Flows Below 100 lfpm. An inspector measured hood flows using an NRC thermoanemometer and verified hoods used for handling radioactive materials provided adequate flov.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (78-02-05): Argon-41 Monitor Location. The inspector noted the Argon-41 monitor detectorc had been moved to the edge of the reactor pool where they are in the main ventilation flow path. The inspector had no further questions.
2167 111
.
.
.
-3-
,
(Closed) Unresolved Item (78-02-06) Sensitivity and Calibration of the Hand and Foot Monitors. The inspector reviewed licensee corrective actions and had no questions. These actions are discusseo further in paragraph 10.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (78-02-07) Calibration of Contamination Monitoring Instruments. The inspector reviewed licensee tests and calculations of detector efficiencies and had no questions.
.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Posting and Labeling The inspector observed the posting of NRC rm 3's as required by by 10 CFR 19.11 and noted the labeling and control of radioactive materials in accor-dance with 10 CFR 20.203 and 20.207. The posting of radiation and high radiation areas is discussed further in Paragraph 8.
6.
Training The inspector reviewed training materials and recent attendance sheets for the radiation safety orientation lecture given to new workers.
Licensee representatives stated attendance at this orientation is prerequisite to issuance of a film badge and acquiring a building key to permit offhour admittance. The inspector had no questions or comments on the training program.
7.
Personnel Dosimetry and Exposures The dosimetry program involves several classifications of workers.
a.
Permanent facility staff are issued monthly film badges and pocket dosimeters. Non-routine workers are issued quarterly film badges and visitors are issued self reading pocket dosimeters.
Pocket dosimeters are also used to supplement film badge dosimeters when certain tasks are being conducted. The inspector reviewed monthly dose records for the period September 1978 to August 1979 and quarterly records for the period July 1978 to June 1979. No overexposures nor exposures in excess of anticipated doses were identified.
b.
The inspector noted the use of three film badge dosimeters in a routine " spiking" program.
These film badges were exposed to a Co-60 source of known strength at calculated dose rates. The responses reported by the film badge processer included substantial " Beta" exposure and frequent underestimates of the expected Gamma exposure.
The inspector expressed his concern over the apparent misrepresenta-tion of the film badge dosimeters responses to the Gamma source.
Licensee representatives stated that further investigation of the discrepancies will be pursued.
2167 112
.
.
.
-4-
.
c.
Tha inspector informed licensee representatives of changes to 10 CFR 20 concerning transient workers and the requirement for prior exposure histories from persons who may be exposed to levels of radiation in excess of 25 percent of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a).
Licensee representatives stated that they are aware of the changes and are complying with the new regulations by obtaining prior exposure histories from every person who is issued a film badge. The inspector reminded licensee representatives that this new requirement also pertains to visiters and for the case of visitors less than 18 years of age, prior exposure history records must be obtained if exposure to 2.5 percent of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a) may be expected.
The inspector had no further questions or comments in this area.
d.
The inspector discussed use of pocket dosimeters with licensee repre-sentatives.
Regulatory Guide 8.4, " Direct Reading and Indirect Reading Pocket Dosimeters," describes elements of an acceptable pregram an references ANSI N13.5, 1972, " Performance Specifications for Direct Reading and Indirect Reading Pocket Dosimeters for X-and Gamma Radia-tion." Regulatory Guide 8.4 Section C.1 states, in part, that pocket dosimeters should be tested for response and leak rate prior to initial use and at maximum testing intervals of 6 months if the dosimeters are used to supplement another, primary, form of dosimetry. Acceptance rejection criteria are referenced to ANSI N13.4-1972 Section 9.
A previous inspection (Rpt.
No. 50-62/78-02, October 17-20, 1978)
revealed these tests were not being performed and the item was cited as a deviation. The licensee response of December 19, 1978, stated source and drif t check procedures had been developed and perr.onnel directed to perform these tests every six months. The inspector reque sted a copy of the procedure to review and licensee representa-tives were unable to find any copies. The inspector reviewed several memorandums dr.ed in December 1978 indicating the procedure was complete at that time. A new procedure was written and issued September 20, 1979. An inspector reviewed this procedure and noted no acceptance criteria for drift checks had been included. Licensee representatives stated this omission would be corrected.
An inspector reviewed records of source and drift checks performed on e.
October 25, 1978, January 8, 1979 and January 9, 1979. No source and drift checks had been performed since January 9,1979. The inspector verified the six pocket dosimeters available for use during the inspection, had performed within acceptance criteria during the January 8 and 9 tests. A review of visitor log entries revealed six instances latween August 27, 1979 and September 10, 1979, where new dosimeters had been issued without initial source and drift checks.
f.
The inspector stated that failure to perform source and drift checks for pocket dosimeters as discussed in Reg.
Guide 8.4 and ANSI N13.5, 1972, would be considered as a deviation from generally accepted industry practices (79-02-02).
2167 113
.
.
-5-
.
8.
Radiation and Contamination Surveys The inspector conducted independent direct radiation surveys with the a.
reactor shutdown of the (a) demineralizer/ filter area, (b) trash dumpster, and (c) parking lot and grounds.
The inspector found no unposted radiation areas or areas in excess of anticipated radiation levels.
The inspector conducted an independent contamination survey of (a) the laboratory sink and facility storm drains, (b) liquid radwaste collec-tion tanks, (c) demineralizer/ filter equipment, and (d) ground floor reactor bay portal area. No contamination greater than background was identified.
b.
The inspector reviewed weekly radiation and contamination survey records for the period November 1978 to September 1979.
Certain records did not include any radiation survey results. These records corresponded to periods when the usual surveyer was not available to perform the surveys and were conducted by qualified individuals but ones unfamiliar with the survey procedure.
Licensee representatives stated that in the future, all surveys will be ccnducted uniformily.
Certain surveys of equipment did not include equipment area radiation data.
The inspector stated that equipment area radiation surveys (18 inches from the equipment surface) should be incorporated into future surveys.
Surveys conducted on July 6, 1979 and March 9 thru 30, 1979, indicated c.
that the surface of the demineralizer was reading greater than 1 R/hr after reactor shutdown. Most of the radiation is due to radioactive sodium deposited on the demineralizer bed.
Licensee representatives stated that the door into the demineralizer area is not locked nor equipped with an audible alarm following shutdown. Although no area radiation survey data was available, the inspector concluded, based on the surface radiation measurements for the dates specified above, that the demineralizer/ filter room door constituted an unlocked, non-alarmed.
access point into a high radiation area. This is an item of noncom-pliance (79-02-01) pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2).
The inspector noted that the door had been locked and corrective action taker, as of September 20, 1979.
d.
A review of surveys conducted between May 11, 1979, and June 29, 1979, indicated that an area of unknown size on the ground floor near the fuel storage room and heat exchanger room may have met the criteria for a " radiation area" specified in 10 CFR 20.202(b)(2) and was unposted as required by 10 CFR 20.203(b). The records reveal that on the above dates radiation levels of 10 mr/hr were registered against the wall. The inspector stated that for such instances in the future, the surveyer should back off from the wall until a reading of 5 mr/hr is reached and rope off and post the area appropriately.
Licensee representatives acknowledge the comment and the inspector had no further questions.
2167 114
.
.
.
-6-
,
9.
Instrument Calibration An inspector reviewed portable survey instrument calibration records a.
for the period October 24, 1978 to July 26, 1979, and verified that the procedural and frequency requirements of instrument calibrations were being met.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
b.
An insector reviewed calibration data and procedures for the various
-
fixed radiation monitors. Technical Specification 3.2 lists the required monitor channels and Technical Specification 4.4 requires these channels be calibrated at intervals not to exceed 8 months. The inspector reviewed calibration records for the period October, 1978 through ceptember, 1979 relative to four fixed area monitors (Reactor Face, Reactor Bridge, Demineralizer Room, and Hot Cell). The inspector had no questions on the above items.
c.
The inspector reviewed two calibrations of the Constant Air monitor performed during the previous year and reviewed the new procedure relating to this calibration dated April 1979. The inspector noted two minor typographical errors in the calculation portion of the procedure, which licensee representatives stated would be corrected.
Based on the monitor calibration data, monitor response data, and typical background levels, the inspector calculated the monitor could be expected to alarm within 3.5 MPC-hours, assuming an unidentified mixture of fission ~acciviation product activity. The inspector had no further questions 10.
Personnel Contaminatici. h itoring Due to the nature of the licensee's operation, frequent handling of a.
radioactive samples maybe required of facililiy personnel. As a precaution, a " hand and foot" monitor is located near the mair. exit to allow staff to monitor themselves for gontamination. University contamination limits of 500 dpm/100 cm beta gamma on hands, skin and removable from shoes are specified in the University Radiation Safety Guide.
b.
During a previous inspection (RII Rpt No. 50-62/78-2) the sensitivity of the hand and foot monitor had been an item of concern. An inspector discussedthisitemwithlicenseerepresentativeswhosgatedithad been decided it was iripractical to replace the 30 mg/cm Geiger-Mueller tubes with thin window tubes to improve sensitivity.
Instead, the remote probe has been replaced with a thin window " pancake" probe for use by personnel when contamination is suspected. The inspector measured system efficiency and estimated the minimum detectable activity at approximately 300 dpm.
11.
Annual Report An inspector reviewed the facility annual report, dated January 11, 1979, The inspector discussed the reported 2.8 curies of Argon-41 released to the 2167 115
..
.
,
-7-
,
atmosphere with licensee representatives. The reported activity released is calculated based on concentrations of air in water, water system flow and the assumption that all Argon 41 is released. The reported release is therefore, a conservative calculated value. The inspector had no further questions.
12.
Liquid Releases The inspector reviewed procedures for analysis and release of radio-a.
active liquids. The procedures address collection of liquids in one of two batch tanks, recirculation through a filter medium, and after sampling tank contents and pond water, release with pond dilution water to a stream. The inspector reviewed release records for the period November 7, 1978, to July 31, 1979, and noted that the present seven month total release for calendar year 1979 was 0.4410 millicuries.
Although this quantify of radioactivity was greater than that released from the same period in 1978, it was well within NRC regulatory limits.
The licensee acknowledged that a particular experiment requiring continuous operation of the reactor over a few weeks period contributed to the increased liquid releases seen this year.
b.
The inspector examined the laboratory sink and storm drain system to ascertain the probability of uncontrolled and unmonitored releases from the reactor building. Drainage from laboratory hood sinks are collected in the liquid radwaste collection tanks. A storm drain outside the ground floor entranceway collects most runoff from the parking lot, effluents from the reactor bay floor drains and decontamination sink, two ground level sinks including the future hot
' chemistry lab sink, and the floor drain beneath the Cavalier Reactor used for draining that pool after appropriate monitoring.
Both the drainage to the collection tanks and the pond are monitored as stated in paragraph (a). The remaining laboratory sinks and storm drains release to the sanitary sewer system. The inspector expressed the concern for a potential unmonitored release from lab sinks and was informed that lab users are instructed to collect all potentially contaminated rinse water for disposal by the waste management group.
It was suggested that these sinks and storm drains emptying into the city sewer system be periodically surveyed to ensure compliance with this directive. The inspector conducted an independent contamination survey of sinks and storm drains (c.ee paragraph 8) and detected no radioactivity.
2167 116