IR 05000166/1987003
| ML20236K996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Maryland |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1987 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Weadock A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236K968 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-166-87-03, 50-166-87-3, NUDOCS 8708100089 | |
| Download: ML20236K996 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report N /87-03
,
Docket N l i License No. R-70 Priority -
Category G Licensee: University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 Facility Name: Maryland University Training Reactor Inspection At: College Park, Maryland Inspection Conducted: June 16-17, 1987 Inspector: [- 7 8!E7 A. Weadock, Radiation Specialist date Approved by: _M % . ps[# 7/2p'f7 M. Shanbaky, Chief / da e '
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 16-17, 1987 (Report No. 50-166/87-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's Radiation Protection Program. Areas inspected included Posting and Labeling, Reports and Audits, Surveys, and Exposure Contro Results: No violations were identified. One unresolved item, concerning adequacy of the licensee's sampling of the reactor sump tank, was identified and is discussed in Section PDR ADOCK0500g6 G .
.
.
1 Details 1.0 Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed:
- Roush, Chairman, Department of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
- F. Munno, Director, Nuclear Engineering Programs
- 0. Ebert, Nuclear Reactor Director
- R. Belcher, Associate Reactor Director
- S. Hand, Health Physicist L. Powell, Health Physicist
- Attended the exit meeting on June 17, 1987,
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection activities performed in association with the reactor
- license. The following areas were included in this review
Follow-up to Previously Identified Items,
Posting and Labeling,
Reports and Audits,
Instrument Calibration, a
Surveys and Sampling,
Dosimetry and Exposure Contro .0 Follow-up to Previously Identified Items 3.1 (Closed) 84-02-03: Failure to follow Health Physics procedures during conduct of experiments. The inspector identified, by discussion with the Reactor Director and review of a memo to all MUTR operators dated June 26, 1984, that the researcher involved in the above event was counselled and that all MUTR Reactor operators received instruction concerning the importance of following procedure This item is considered close .2 (Closed) 85-02-01: Licensee to revise area monitor calibration procedures to require recording of "as found" monitor readings. The licensee has revised surveillance procedure 205, " Area Radiation Monitor Calibration,"
to require recording of "as found" as well as "as left" values during monitor calibration. The inspector reviewed calibration data for the licensee's most recent calibration of the reactor bridge and exhaust monitors (May, 1987) and verified "as found" and "as left" values were recorded. This item is considered closed; however, a new item concerning the installation of new area monitors has been opened and is described in section l
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
l i
3.3 (Closed) 85-02-02: Licensee to develop procedure to insure representative sampling of reactor sump tank. The licensee has developed surveillance procedure 208, " Sampling of Water in Sump Tank," which requires recircula- l tion of tank contents for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> prior to samplin The inspector toured '
the sump tank area and noted a copy of the procedure was posted in this are This item is considered closed.
I 4.0 Posting and Labeling l Licensee compliance with the posting and labeling requirements of l 10 CFR 20.203 was evaluated by tour of the Maryland University Training i Reactor (MUTR) facility on June 16, 1987. The inspector also performed l
independent survey measurement Area housekeeping and posting of radiological areas and materials was generally found to be acceptable, however, one concern was identified I during the facility tou The inspector noted that a 55 gallon drum located in the reactor hot lab and used to dispose of radioactive trash was not labeled as required by 10 CFR 20.203(f). Specifically, the drum ,
did not feature a radiation caution symbol and the words " Caution" or l
" Danger, Radioactive Material." Inspector survey of the drum, however, )
did not indicate the presence of radioactive materials in excess of 10 CFR 20 Appendix C limits; consequently, no violation is being issue The licensee indicated that all waste receptacles were routinely labeled j in the MUTR facility; however the drum in question had recently been l changed out and a new label had not been affixed at that time. The drum )
was subsequently labelled by the license .0 Reports and Audits The following records and audits were reviewed during the course of this inspection:
Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) Meeting minutes for the following dates: May 15, 1987; March 30, 1987; December 11, 1986; September 30, 1986; July 14, 1986; April 10, 1986; January 22, 1986,
1985 ALARA Audit,
1985 independent facility audit,
MUTR Annual Operating Report covering the period from June 30, 1985 to June 30, 198 The inspector noted that the licensee was complying with Technical Specification (TS) requirements as to the performance of required independent facility audits of reactor operations, holding of RSC meetings, and preparation of annual operating report .
! , 4 l One concern was noted during the above revie Licensee Technical l Specifications require that an annual audit of the facility ALARA program be performed by the Reactor Facility Directo The inspector noted that no ALARA audit for 1986 had been performe The inspector also noted that the Facility Director's computer generated list of TS required surveillance, audits, and reports did not reference the ALARA audit requiremen YSe licensee indicated that the ALARA audit typically consists of a review of Torility personnel exposure records with subsequent investigation of ,
unusual or high exposures. The licensee indicated this review was per- I formed by the Facility Director during preparation of the 1986 MUTR Annual Report; however documentation of this review as an audit, separate from the Annual Report, was not done.
l The inspector reviewed the 1986 MUTR Annual Report and noted it contained l l a discussion of the number of personnel monitored and overall exposur !
!
The inspector also noted that the 1984 and 1985 ALARA Audits had been complete In light of the above, and in consideration of the facility's extremely low exposure (see section 8.0), failure of the licensee to l document the 1986 ALARA Audit was not considered a violation; however, I the inspector indicated more aggressive actions should be implemented to '
insure future documentation is maintaine The Reactor Director concurred and revised the computer-list of TS l surveillance and requirements to include the ALARA Audits. The Reactor i Director also indicated additional measures would be evaluated to insure audit completion, specifically i) including a discussion of the audit on the RSC formal agenda, and ii) including the ALARA audit as part of the MUTR Annual Repor This area will receive continuing review during subsequent inspection .0 Instrument Calibration Adequacy of the licensee's program for calibrating Technical Specifica-tion (TS) required radiation monitors was reviewed by the following methods:
discussion with licensee personnel,
review of surveillance procedure 205, " Area Radiation Monitor Calibration,"
review of 1987 and 1986 monitor calibration record The inspector determined the licensee is calibrating the reactor bridge and exhaust area monitors at the frequency required by the TS. The inspector did note, however, that despite a recent revision (see paragraph 3.2.), procedure 205 did not require an electronic calibration be performed and did not specify monitor reading acceptance criteria for
__-____- - _ -
a
.
. 5 g i
l routine calibrations. The inspector did subsequently verify by discussion l j
with I&C personnel that the bridge and exhaust monitors are routinely electronically calibrate The inspector aise noted during review of calibration data that monitors are in fact routinely calibrated to acceptable standards, typically averaging 5-10%.
During this inspection the licensee was in the process of installinq new Victoreen monitors to replace the current reactor bridge and exhaust monitors. The licensee stated that the surveillance procedure devb)vved to control calibration of these monitors would include the following:
- require an electronic as well as radiological calibration, I
require recording of "as found" and "as left" values,
include monitor readout acceptance criteri Licensee development and implementation of this procedure will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-166/87-03-01).
7.0 Surveys and Sampling Monthly routine radiation and contamination surveys of the MUTR facility I are conducted by the Radiation Safety Office staff. The inspectcr reviewed selected facility surveys for 1987 and the latter half of 1986 and noted the following:
survey scope and frequency appeared adequate,
radiation levels were negligible and no instances of loose '
contamination were note The inspector did note, however, that many survey forms were not completely filled in by the Radiation Safety staff; this observation was communicated to the license Job specific surveys are performed by the reactor staff to support ongoing experimentatio The inspector reviewed the Control Room and Isotopes logbooks and noted that 1) adequate surveys are being performed to support experimentation, and ii) documentation of survey information in the Isotopes logbook has improved since the last inspection in this are Monthly samples of the reactor pool water are collected and analyzed by the Radiation Safety Staf Samples of the reactor sump tank water, taken prior to sump tank discharge to the sanitary sewage system, are also collected and analyzed by the Radiation Safety Staf The inspector reviewed reactor sump tank water analyses prior to dis-charges to the sanitary sewage system completed in 1986 and 198 Licensee analysis of these samples includes a gross beta count by liquid
l'
, , 6
,
scintillation counter and a gross gamma count by sodium iodide crystal.
l The inspector noted that licensee analysis results typically showed no detectable activity; however, minimum detection sensitivity as noted on-
,
l
!
l the analysis forms typicall> averaged 1E-5 uCi/ml for the gross beta l l method and 1E-4 uCi/ml for the gross gamma metho CFR 20 Appendix B, l Table 1, Col. 2 limits for any mixture in which the identity or concentra-
! tion of any radionuclides is not known is 4E-7 uCi/ml.
! The inspector questioned the ' adequacy of the licensee's analysis methodo-i logy, in that the detection capabilities of the licensee's counting systems appeared inadequate in analyzing to the sensitivity requirements l of 10 CFR 20 Appendix B.
l Despite an apparent analysis problem'as described above, the inspector was
able to determine that the potential for any effluent discharge above the >
limits of 10 CFR 20.303 was extremely unlikely. The primary source of water to theireactor sump tank is fPcm the reactor pool. The inspector reviewed 1987 monthly gamma isotopic analyses of the reactor pool water, collected and analyzed by the reactor staff, and noted that the reactor pool water consistently shows limits well below those specified in 10 CFR 20.303. Typical activity levels for the reactor pool water ranged from 1E-11 to 1E-12 uCi/ml for various identified isotope The Inspector also determined, by discussion with the Radiation Safety staff, that no credit is taken for dilution of effluent releases by the average daily quantity of sewage released into the sewage system by the licensee, as allowed by 10 CFR 20.30 At the time of this inspection the licensee's Assistant Radiation Safety Of ficer (Asst. RS0),-who holds overall responsibility for the Radiation Safety group's counting lab and equipment, was not present for intervie Thc inspector subsequently contacted the Asst. RSO by telephone on June 30, 1987, to discuss sump tank sample analysis methodolog The Asst. RSO acknowledged a problem with meeting 10 CFR 20 sensitivity requirements, and stated that the following actions would be taken:
subsequent sump tank samples would be analyzed by gamma spectroscopy to insure lower limits of detection for gamma-emitting isotopes are adequate;
steps would be taken, either by changing analysis methodology or by calculating and taking credit for average sewage flow dilution factors, to insure adequate sensitivity for non gamma-emitting isotorp Adequacy of the licensee's sampling methodology remains unresolved pending implementation and review of the above corrective actions (50-166/87-03-02).
- -__-___--______
.
e
,' 7
'
Licensee calibration and quality control methodology for counting instruments maintained by the Radiation Safety staff will receive additional review during subsequent NRC inspection (50-166/87-03-03).
8.0 Dosimetry and Exposure Control Dosimetry for the MUTR facility staff is provided by the campus Radiation Safety Office, which also supplies badges for other campus users. The inspector reviewed selected monthly exposure reports from the licensee's dosimetry vendor (Landauer) for 1985, 1986, and 1987. The majority of MUTR facility personnel monitored during these periods showed no detect-able exposure. The highest annual exposure noted during the above review was 100 millire Within the scope of the above review, no violations were note .0 Exit Meeting
- The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in section 1.0)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 17, 1987, The inspector suinmarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the report at that time.
l