IR 05000113/1979003
| ML19263D858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1979 |
| From: | Book H, Curtis J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263D857 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-113-79-03, 50-113-79-3, NUDOCS 7904130344 | |
| Download: ML19263D858 (4) | |
Text
~.
U. S. t;UCLEAR REGULATORY C0'4:ilSS10il 0FFICE OF IllSPECTI0il AliD E!!FORCEMEllT REGI0il V Report flo.
50-113/79-03 Docket flo. _50-113 License flo.
R-52 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Univerity of Arizona College of Engineering Tuscon, Arizona 85721 Facility flame:
Triga Mark I Inspection at:
Tucson, Arizona Inspection Conducte February 20-23, 1979 3 //y/79 Inspectors: h/
/
Date Signed
[J. R. Curtis, Radiation Specialist Date Signed Approved By:
fdne
'
.Shp/77 tem <
.
.
H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Facility and Materials 'Date Signed Safety Branch Summary:
Inspection on February 20-23, 1979 and telephone conversation with_ _ licensee _
representative March 2,1979 Report flo. 50-113/79-03 Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the radiation protection, environmental controls and emergency response planning programs.
The inspec-tion involved a tour of the facility; examination of records and logs of operations, maintenance activities, radiation surveys, personnel monitoring results, material transfer and emergency response procedures; and interviews with various members of the reactor operations and radiological safety staff.
The inspection involved 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> onsite by one flRC inspector.
Results:
There were no items of noncompliance identified in this inspection.
Y O U413 05 IE:V Form 219 (2)
.
DETAILS _
l.
Persons Contacted
- Mr. H. Doane, Reactor Supervisor Mr. R. Wells, Associate Reacter Supervisor
- Dr. R. L. Scale, Head fluclear Engineering Departnent Mr. G. Spriggs, Nuclear Engineering Department Instructor Dr. D. Hetrick, Chaiman, Reactor Committee
- Mr. Carl Irwin, University Radiation Control Officer
- Dr. B. Westerman, Director, Radiation Control Department Dr. M. Young, University Radiation Control Health Physicist
- Dr. R. Gallagher, Dean, College of Engineering
- Indicates presence at the exit interview.
2.
General Operations - Tour The inspector toured the reactor facility and adjacent facilities, observed reactor operations conducted for nuclear and physical para-neter measurements, and interviewed principal reactor operators.
110 items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Organizational Changes Professor G. !!elson, Head, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, is on sabbatical leave from the University; Professor R. Seale, Head, Nuclear Engineering Department, has assumed the formal duties and responsibilities of the position during his absence.
Mr. Harry Doane has been employed to fill the position of Reactor Supervisor that had been vacant at the last inspection.
He has had previous TRIGA Reactor experience at Cornell University.
Doctor Brian Westeman was selected to fill the position as Director of the Radiation Control Office in the Health Sciences Department.
The mission of this office includes the surveillance of the radiation control and environmental protection programs at the University of Arizona Reactor. The Health Sciences Department is also responsible for emergency response planning and support in emergency situations involving radioactive materials.
Dr. Westerman and his staff have been revising the Emergency Response Plan in this are The Campus Radiation Control Officer and Campus Health Physicist, who provide radiation protection surveillance and support to the Univer-sity TRIGA Reactor, report to Doctor Westerman.
No items of nonconpinnce or deviations were identified.
4.
Examination of Records Personnel monitoring, access control, sample irradiation and monitoring records, material release records and various logs, memos and proce-dures related to radiation and environmental protection and emergency response planning were examined.
Results of surveys, monitoring records and personnel monitoring results were all acceptably low and within the expected range.
Radiation levels associated with irradiated sample handling were in the 0 to 100 mrem / hour range. Personnel doses reported for the 12 persons who regularly have access to the reactor were in the range of zero to 1085 mrem / year.
Eight of the reported exposures were zero. There was a project within the Nuclear Engineering Department to manipulate some Cobolt-60 sources in an irradiation facility during 1978 and the major portion of the other four exposures was attrDuted to work on that project.
No areas of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Radiological Protection - Procedures and Practices The inspector toured the facility, observed limited reactor operations and reviewed the procedures used to establish the radiological protection program at the reactor.
The principal document containing operating procedures, UARR 100, had been revised in early 1978 to incorporate changes in the emergency pro-cedures area. This document had been reviewed and recently approved by the reactor committee.
Access control, personnel dosimetry, sample monitoring and posting and labeling practices were observed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Emergency Response Planning A revised Emergency Procedure had recently been approved by the Reactor Committee and had been the subject for a requalification training session held with reactor operators in mid-February.
The session included a
" walk thru" exercise in which the reactor facility and adjacent hall-ways were isolated by erecting barricades at predetemined locations using prepared signs and barrier rop '
-3-
'.
An emergency kit has been provided.
It is located in the Nuclear Engineering Department Office. The items in the kit were examined and found to be consistent with the inventory list.
A formal drill involving other elements of the University of Arizona Emergency Response Plan, e.g., Radiation Safety and Health Services, has been delayed pending a revision of their overall plan. The dir-ector of the Radiation Control Office indicated that an exercise would be conducted as soon as their revised plan was approved and dis-tributed to the involved parties (the Health Services Hospital Emergency staf f, University Security Officer and dispatch office, etc.).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Environmental Monitoring - Effluents The University's environmental monitoring program at present consists of routine exchange of 14 sensitive TLD dosimeters located on build-ings at various distances from the building that houses the reactor.
The results of this monitoring program are reviewed by the University Radiation Control Office and have always indicated levels in the back-ground range. Attempts have been made to extend the environmental ronitoring program, b t known limits of the sensitivity of the instru-mentation available to the Radiation Control office have imposed a limit on the program.
Efforts are being made to establish a periodic soil and air sampling program capable of demonstrating that reactor operations have no negativ^ impact on the local environment.
Some questions arose concerning the adequacy of the licensee's surveys and evaluations to determine compliance with 10 CFR 20 limitations of effluents to unrestricted areas. A limited study which involved Argon-41 measurements in reactor pool water and reactor room air had been per-formed and documented in mid-August of 1978. The licensee was using this study as a basis for determining compliance with 10 CFR 20.106.
It was not clear from the report of this study whether operating parameters were representative of conditions for maximum Argon-41 production.
Exam-ination of the Reactor Safety Analysis Report resulted in the conclusion that calculated production values and Argon-41 measurements during ex-tended periods of 100 kw operation at similar facilities yielded Argon-41 concentrations less than 10 CFR 20 limits for release to unrestricted areas.
It was established that the duty cycle of the reactor and the schedule of use of the irradiation facilities that create Argon-41 during opera-tion are variables that merit consideration for calculating estimates of gaseous releas.
.
-4-
.
.
The licensee representatives agreed to formalize their gaseous release evaluation methods and consider irradiation facilities used and reactor power for periodic assessment of Argon-41' production.
N6 items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Radioactive Waste A small volume of contaminated or potentially contaminated solid waste, in the form of plastic bags, gloves, kimwipes and used labora-tory equipment is generated at the reactor.
The waste is collected monthly by the Radiation Control Office staff and the snall amount of activity involved,10 to 50 microcuries per year, is incorporated into waste from other university programs and disposed of under terms of the University of Arizona state license for radioactive materials use.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives, including the new Dean of the College of Engineering, at the conclusion of the inspec-tion on February 23, 1978, and summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and discussed the findings.
There were no items of noncompliance. At that time licensee representatives made no commitment beyond that discussed in item number 7.