IR 05000150/1979001
| ML19289D700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ohio State University |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1979 |
| From: | Fisher W, Hiatt J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289D701 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-150-79-01, 50-150-79-1, NUDOCS 7903140171 | |
| Download: ML19289D700 (8) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGI(G III Report No. 50-150/79-01 Docket No. 50-150 License No. R-75 Licensee:
Ohio State University 2070 Neal Avenue Columbus, 0 11 43210 Facility Name: Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Inspection At: Nuclear Reactor Site, Columbus, Ohio inspection Conducted:
January 9-10, 1979
/
l n
/
L Inspector:hJ.W.liiatt
/ [O <f;/7 'f__
Anprovea m t.
Is i e'f j /2Mf __
'
.
Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section Inspection but..a:
'
Inspection on January 9-10, 1979 (Report No. 50-150/_70-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of radiation protection a'
radwaste management program, including:
organization; audits; training, procedures; ins t rure nt s and equipnent; exposure centrol: posting, labeling, and control; surveys; notifications and reports; effluent releases; records and reports of effluents; effluent control instrumentation; and solid radwaste.
The inspection involved 14 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7903140111
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persors Contacted
- B. liajek, Associate Director, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory R. Bailey, Ph.D., Senior Reactor Operator and Senior Nuclear Engineer R. Myser, Radiation Safety Officer, ORHS
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other personnel, including stud,nts and licensed reactor operators.
2.
General This inspection, which began at 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1979, was conducted to exanine the routine operational radiation protection and radwaste management programs.
An initial tour of the facility was made at 9:40 a.m.
During the tour, the inspector, using a licensee survey meter, performed an area survey of the facility.
Licensee conformance with posting and labeling requirements was noted.
The reactor, which had been shut down January 4, 1974, did not operate during the inspection.
3.
Organization The Nuclear Reactor Laboratory (NRL) staf f consists of the Associat e Director and the Senior Nuclear Engineer (both of whon are Senior Reactor Operators), three part time c' actor operators, and a part tire secretary. The responsibility for radiation protection surveillance is shared between ';RL and Office of Radiological Health and Safety (ORHS) personnel. The ORHS representative routinely visits the "RI, weekly and spends about an hour per trip at the facility, performing smear and area surveys and collecting pool water samples.
Special surveys ara performed as needed, and, if nceded, additional health physics expertise is available from the ORHS. The NRL staff performs routine smear and area surveys.
In addition to the NRI. staff, about 7 graduate students frequent the facility.
No problems were noted.
-2-
~
.
.
.
.
4.
Training Except for the secretary, all members of the NRL staff are NRC licensed operators who received adequate radiation protection training as part of the licensing process.
Experimenters are trained pursuant to 10 CFR 19.12 by either the Associate Director or the Senior Nuclear Engineer.
This training is outlined in licensee procedure H-15, " Orientation of Experimenters to Radia-tion Safety Procedures." Experimenters are required to read the procedure and sign a form stating that training has been received.
The inspector reviewed the procedure and noted that the health protection problems associated with exposure to radiation were minimally covered.
This matter was discussed with the licensee.
A copy of Regulatory Guide 8.13, " Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure," is given to each female staf: member and each experimenter.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Audits Audits are performed semiannually by the Audit Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Operations.
A person qualified in radiation protection, the campus Radiation Safety Officer, is a member of the subcommittee.
Records of the two audits performed for CY 1977 and the audit performed for the first half of CY 1978 were reviewed.
The audit for the last half of CY 1978 had not been performed at the time of the inspection.
The inspector noted that problem areas identified by the Committee had been corrected.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Operations meets quarterly.
Minutes of meetings held in CY 1978 were reviewed; no problems were noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Radiation Protection Procedures There have been no changes in the licensee's radiation protection procedures since the last inspection.
Currently, there are thirteen radiation protection procedures contained in the NRL Procedure Manual with one, " Radiation Zoning and Access Control," under development.
The Associate Director had intended to incorporate into the Manual a procedure entitled " Campus Wide Coordination of
- 3-
.
.
,
,
Real or Potential Radiation Exposure Accidents." However, develop-ment of this procedure would be within the jurisdiction of the ORHS, and, according to the licensee, no such procedure is being planned.
No problems were noted.
7.
_ Instruments and Equipment
_Po_rtable Survey Instruments a.
The licensee had on hand an adequate supply of operable and calibrated survey instruments capable of detecting both low and high levels of radiation. The low ranges of the instruments are calibrated quarterly, using two Co-60 sources, by a raembe r of the NRL and the ORHS representative.
The high ranges are calibrated annually, using a Cs-137 source located in the Department of Veterinary Medicine.
Instrument calibration records were reviewed for CY 1978; no problems were noted.
During the initial tour of the facility, the inspector noted that the licensee had functional, calibrated instruments and nonfunctional instruments stored adjacently in the storage cabinet. The licensee stated that the nonfunctional instro-ments were usually stored in a dif ferent locker and that NRL staf f members would be reminded to keep the instruments separate.
b.
Area Radiation Monitors A review of calibration records for CY 1978 showed that the area radiation monitors ( ARM's) had been calibrated at the 40-day frequency required by Technical Specification 9.3.
The ARM's are calibrated using Co-60 sources.
Technical Specification 9.l(d) requires that before e ich day's operation a " front panel calibration" of the reactor instru-mentation, including the ARM's be performed. This "calibra-tion" consists of exposing each ARM to an internal source and verifying both the reading and the monitor's alarm function.
The inspector selectively reviewed the licensee's " Reactor Prestartup Checkout Sheets" for the period April 20, 1978, through December 11, 1978, and noted that for each day reviewed the front panel calibration had been performed.
-4-
.
.
c.
GM Counter A review of the "GM Counter Logbook * for CY 1978 showed that the GM counter, used for counting smears, was checked for According to these daily checkv, operability bef ore each use.
the ef ficiency of the counter had not changed significant1v since May 1975, the date of the last calibration. Volta; the last time in January plateaus are determined annually, 1978, d.
Caseous Effluent Monitor monitor is calih ated annually usinn ';RL The gaseous effluent for Calibratine thr-Radiation Safety Procedure H-3, " Procedure Gaseous Effluent Monitor."
Since Ar-41 is the major isotore of Ar-41, produced in the reactor, is released, a known amount thorough injected into the monitor and recirculated to get nixing. Then, over a period of time, readings are taken from of Ar-41 in microcuries can be nlatted the monitor. The amount in counts per second and a against the monitor's responseRecords from the last calibration, calibration curve generated.
performed in March 1978, were reviewed; no problens were noted.
No itens of nonconpliance were identified.
S.
Exposure Control External a.
Self-Film badges are used for routine personal monitoring.
for dosimeters and ring badges are available pocket reading expected in which higher than normal radiation levels are jobs (e.g. fuel inspection).
Film badge records for CY 1976 werc reviewed. The highest anaual whole body and ext remity exposuret respectively.
recorded for 1978 were 30 mrems and 170 mrens, Forms SRC-4 are not kept by the NRL.
b.
Internal licensee has no routine bioassay program and relies on The Until May 1978 smear surveys to define any problem areas.
This nonthly monthly air samples had been taken by the ORHS.
in sampling was stopped because the sanpling program had been for several years and no activity was ever detected.
effect feels that a baseline has been estab-The licensee, therefore, lished which shows that, under normal operating conditions,
- 5-
.
.
.
there is no hazard from airborne radioactive material.
The licensee plans to keep a portable air sampler at the NRL to be used in case an unexpected event occurs.
The inspector reviewed air sample and smear survey results for CY 1978; no airborne radioactivity or contamination were noted.
The possibility that terminating all air sampling may be in non-compliance with 10 CFR 20.103(a)(3) was discussed with the licensee, who stated that some form of air sampling would be considered.
This item is considered unresolved.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Posting and Labeling During facility tours the inspector reviewed the licensee's com-pliance with posting and labeling requirements specified in 10 CFR 19.11 and 10 CFR 20.203.
No problems were noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Materials Most radioactive material received at the NRL is covered under the University's broad license (34-00293-02).
The licensee occasionally irradiates samples which are taken from he NRL to laboratories on the University campus or are shipped from the campus.
When material leaves the NRL the licensee form " Radio-active Material Produced for Shipnent" must be completed.
Information contained on the form includes the isotope shipped, the amount, the Trcnsport Group, and the survey results.
The inspector reviewed the completed forms for CY 1978 and noted that there were about ten instances of removing material from the NRL.
No activity above one millicurie was noted to have been shipped from the University.
No problems were noted.
11.
Surveys The NRL staff performs area surveys weekly or after each day of ieactor operation, whichever is most frequent.
Smear surveys a e conducted by the NRL staff weekly.
The ORHS representative cc, ducts area and smear surveys monthly.
The inspector reviewed both NRL and ORHS records for CY 1978, compared the results, and noted no major discrepancies.
Normally, radiation levels are less than 1 mR/hr; however, following a reactor run of several hours the-6-
.
.
.
.
demineralizers may read 10-20 mR/hr.
It was noted that the sample storage area sometimes had readings around 10 mR/hr.
Both areas we re properly posted.
The inspector conducted an area survey during the initial plant tour and on January 10, 1979, perforned a smear survey at selected locations. No discrepancies from licensee survey results were noted.
No items of nonconpliance were identified.
12.
Radwaste Management
_ Liquid Radvaste a.
There were no controlled releases of liquid waste in CY 197E; however, on November 18, 1978, an uncontrolled release occurred.
Due to a na1 functioning float switch, about 1900 gallons of reactor pool watcr overflowed the pool and were released to the sanitary sewer via floor drains.
Liquid samples taken on November 18, 1978, showed no activity above background, as did samples taken before the event on October 30, 1978.
In addi-tion, no contamination of the facility floor was detected by a smear survey. The licensee concluded that no activity was released. The inspector reviewed the licensee's docunentation of the release, and noted no problems.
No i* ems of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Caseous Effluent-The quantity of Ar-41 released is based on the theoretically derived ratio 8.79 nil 11 curies af Ar-41 produced per ki:-br o'
reactor operation. Release concentrations are determined by dividing this quantity by the volume of air exhausted f rom the building as estimated from the continuous flow of a 50D cfr fan. Licensee calculations show that for CY 1978 about 0.01 curies of Ar-41 were released. This corresponds to an average annual concentration of 1.9 E-9 pCi/cc (4.83 of Table II, 10 CFR 20).
The inspector noted that by using the calibrated Ar-41 monitor the licensee has the ability to estimate the actual concentra-tion of Ar-41 being released by observing the strip chart.
- 7-
..
,
.
e c.
Solid Radwaste Solid radwaste, primarily absorbent and filter paper, gloves, and activation analysis samples, is collected by the ORHS for disposal via a licensed waste disposal facility. During CY 1978 ORHS collected about two 30-gallon drums of waste from the NRL.
13.
Notifications and Reports A review of records and discussions with licensee representatives indicated that there were no problems in the licensee's compliance with 10 CFR 19 and 10 CFR 20 reporting requirements.
14.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-compliance or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 8.b.
15.
Exit Interview The inspector met with Mr. Hajek at the conclusion of the inspection on January 10, 1979, and further discussed the inspection findings via telephone on January 16, 1979. The following matters were discussed:
a.
The purpose and scope of the inspection.
b.
The separation of functional and nonfunctional portable survey instruments.
(Paragraph 7.a).
The licensee stated that the instruments are normally segregated and that in the future more attention would be given to this matter.
The need to include in the training program more thorough
_.
instruction concerning the health protection problems associated with exposure to radiation (Paragraph 4).
The licensee stated that this instruction will be given.
d.
The termination of routine air sampling (Paragraph 8.b).
The licensee stated that some type of routine air sampling would be considered.
- 8-