IR 05000182/1980001
| ML19309D495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Purdue University |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1980 |
| From: | Fisher W, Hueter L, Peck C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D492 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-182-80-01, 50-182-80-1, NUDOCS 8004100383 | |
| Download: ML19309D495 (8) | |
Text
'd f
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION III
Report No. 50-182/80-01
'
Docket No. 50-182 License No. R-87 License No. 13-02812-04 Licensee: Purdue University West Lafayette, IN
,
F.cility Name:
Purdue University Reactor Inspection At: West Lafayette, IN Inspection Cond eted:
nuary 23-24, 1980 2.!/V TO Inspectors:
.
.
ete N.lC. Peck 0 $0lS
'
'
JL /f/&d
.
lltlW. c ' -
,
~
i Approved By:
W. l. Fisher, ief J2.//f/fC Fuel Facility Projects and
~
'
Radiation Support Section Tr.spection Summary:
Inspection on January 23-24,.1980 (Report No. 50-182/80-01)
Areas inspected: Routine, announced inspection of radiation protection program, including:
qualifications; audits; training; radiation protec-tion procedures; instruments and equipment; exposure control; posting,
'
labeling, and control; surveys; notifications and reports; reactor pool water quality; gaseous, liquid, and solid radwaste; and review of licen-see's actions with regard to IE Bulletin 79-19. The inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were found in the twelve areas inspected.
.
l l
l
.800.4100383
.
.
.
.
..
s DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Er. P. L. Ziemer, Radiological Control Officer
- Dr. F. M. Clikeman, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Director
- Dr. R. R. Landolt, Assistant Radiological Control Officer E. R. Stansberry, Reactor Supervisor V. Morris, Health Physicist J. Stephenson, Health Physicist
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
General The Purdue University Reactor is operated princia.lly as a training device for nuclear engineering students. A numb;; of irradiations are also performed, but only for internal use at the University.
Use of the reactor for both training and irradiations has diminished since the last radiation protection and radwaste management inspec-tion, conducted in mid-1978. Two individuals, in addition to the Reactor Supervisor, currently hold operator licenses.
No liquid wastes are generated at the reactor facility. Minimal solid wastes are generated at the reactor facility. These wastes are, in general, short-lived radionuclides stored at the reactor facility until picked up for disposal by the university, under the university broad license, No. 13-02812-04. A licensed waste collector contractor is engaged by the university under the broad license to dispose of the radioactive waste packages as described in Paragraph 11.
This inspection included review of the licensee's response to IE Bulletin 79-19 for both the reactor license and the university broad license, with regard to " Packaging of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Transport and Burial."
The University Radiological Control Organization coverage includes the reactor facility. The Radiological Control Organization consists of the Radiological Control Officer, two Assistant Radiological Control Officers, and several technical staff members, some full-time and some part-time.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during tours of the reactor facility and the university radwaste storage and pack-aging facility.
3.
Training Radiation protection training and instructional requirements of 10 CFR 19.12 are provided through prerequisite courses and/or individual training given by authorized users of radioactive material. The-2-
..
'
Radiological Control Office monitors authorization and training records for radioactive material users.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Instrumentation and Equipment The inspectors reviewed the licensee's monitoring instruments for operability, timeliness of calibration, and adequacy of inventory.
Portable survey instruments (low, medium, and high range), the three radiation area monitors, and the continuous air sampler / monitor had been calibrated within the previous six months (September 1979). The instruments were operable at the time of the inspection. The three radiation monitor alarm set points for the reactor facility were all positioned at 7.5 mR/hr. Current readings on these monitors ranged f rom about 0.06 mR/hr to 0.15 mR/hr.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Exposure Control Direct reading pocket dosimeters are used daily to monitor personal exposure of individuals entering the reactor room.
Additionally, monthly film badges sensitive to beta, gamma, and neutron (Landauer Neutrack) are assigned to reactor operators and other individuals who frequently require access to the reactor room.
TLD ring badges are used when handling reactor fuel. Dosimeter records were reviewed from June 1978 to January 23, 1980, and all other exposure records were reviewed from June 1978 through September 30, 1979. No annual whole body dose exceeded 50 mrem in 1978. For the first nine months of 1979, no individual whole body accumulated dose exceeded 30 mrem. No measurable neutron doses were noted.
No internal exposure determinations were made, due to the lack of significant airborne activity as evidenced by the continuous air monitor readings. Respiratory protection equipment is not utilized.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Surveys The inspectors reviewed the licensee's survey records from June 1978
through January 23, 1980, for the reactor facility.
j Monthly smear surveys and direct radiation surveys of the reactor l
room have shown no significant contamination or significant radiation l
levels. Radiation levels were typically at the background level of
about 0.02 mR/hr. No smearable activity was detected above the
-
!
licensee's administrative limit of 100 dpm/100cm.
l Dosimetry placed in a classroom above the reactor facility for con-tinuous monitoring indicated a maximum possible dose of 30 mrem-3-
...
'
in calendar year 1978 and no detectable radiation during the first nine months of 1979. More recent data were not available for review.
An independent direct radiation survey of the reactor facility was conducted by the inspectors. A licensee supplied Nuclear Chicago Model 2588 " Cutie Pie" survey meter, bearing Serial No. 666, cali-brated September 8, 1979, was used for this survey. Only background levels of radiation (about 0.5 mR/hr for this type instrument) were found. The survey included the labeled trash container (full), the surface of the reactor pool, and the mixed bed demineralizer tank and filter on the reactor water clean-up system.
The licensee stated that direct radiation and smear surveys are continuing to be performed on all experiments and fuel upon removal from the reactor pool. These survey records were not reviewed by the inspectors.
For information regarding airborne surveys and reactor pool water analysis, refer to Paragraph 8.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
posting, Labeling, and Control During the inspection of the reactor facility, the inspectors ob-served the posting of radiation caution signs, the posting of notices required by 10 CFR 19.11, and the means for controlling access to the reactor facility. No problems were identified in these areas. No high radiation or airborne radioactivity areas existed. The reactor room is mainta ned locked and the keys are controlled. The light bulb in an emergency exit light apparently was burned out.
This matter was mentioned in the exit interview.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8.
Radwaste Management No liquid radwaste has been generated or disposed of at the reactor facility since the previous radwaste inspection conducted in June 1978.
Review of monthly analyses by the licensee of one-liter samples of reactor pool water collected since June 1978 showed the following maximum concentrations of activity: 1.6E-6 uCi/ml gross gamma; j
7.4E-8 uCi/ml gross beta; 3.8E-9/dCi/ml gross alpha; and 3.0E-5 j
ja i/ml tritium.
Appendix B of 10 CFR 20 would allow direct release c
to an unrestricted area of water at these concentrations without benefit of either dilution or further cleanup by filtration or de-
,
'
mineralization. About 40 gallons of demineralized water per week are required to provide makeup for evaporative losses. The single floor drain in the reactor room remains sealed to prevent inadvertent
.
releases, i
l The reactor building ventilation inlet and exhaust are equipped with
!
l l
l-4-
..
?-
HEPA filters. A continuous air sampler using a particulate filter is located near the surface of the reactor pool.
This filter is removed and analyzed biweekly for gross alpha and gross beta activity.
Review of these filter analyses since June 1978 showed that airborne concentrations of radioactive materials have not exceeded the limits permitted for release to unrestricted areas. The airborne activity concentration for both gross beta and gross alpha activity ranged from approximately 1.0 E-14 to 1.0 E-16 uCi/ml.
j Any solid radwaste generated at the reactor facility ir, transferred for disposal to the University Radiation Control Services group, who use the services of a licensed waste collector contractor as describ-ed in Paragraph 11.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Procedures ThenewproposedTechnicalSpecifications,whichwereng)became in effect at the time of the last radiation protection inspection-effective in November 1978 upon issuance of Amendment No. 3 to Facility License No. R-87.
This amendment restated the license and amended it in its entirety. The Hazards Summary Report, which previous-ly served as the technical specifications, no longer serves that function.
The licensee has developed and implemented a procedure, in accordance with Technical Specification 3.5.f., to limit the radioactive material content of any singly encapsulated experiment. This procedure would limit the dose to persons in restricted and unrestricted areas, if all of the radioactive material in the capsule were released.
Some other radiation protection related procedures applicable to the reactor are incorporated in the Purdue University Radiological Control and Health Physics Handbook. No discrepancies were noted during a review of selected activities for conformance to radiation protection procedures.
The inspectors inquired about any recent leak check of the 5-curie encapsulated plutonium-beryllium neutron source used as a reactor start-up source. The inspectors noted that there were no specific requirements for a routine leak check.
Licensee personnel stated that no leak checks had been performed during the past several years, due to the difficulty in gaining access to the source'and due to the exposure of personnel involved. The source is located in a dry tube adjacent to the reactor core. This matter was discussed at the exit interview.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
1/lE Inspection Report No. 50-182/78-01 i
l-5-i
!
e
,
t 10.
Notifications and Reports According to licensee personnel and the licensee's records, no theft or loss of radioactive material, overexposures, or other radiological incidents requiring notifications have occurred since the previous inspection of the licensee's radiation protection activities.
11.
IE Bulletin 79-19 The inspectors examined actions taken by the licensee in response to IE Bulletin 79-19, " Packaging of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Transport and Burial." The following findings were made:
The licensee maintains current copies of DOT and NRC regula-a.
tions.
b.
A licensed waste collector contractor is engaged to dispose of radioactive waste packages generated. The licensee receives and maintains waste packaging instructions from the collector.
Implementation of these instructions is assigned to the health physicist who is responsible for the campus-wide pick up and packaging of radioactive wastes.
c.
Instructions and procedures for the packaging and transfer of radioactive wastes are provided in the " Radiological Control and Health Physics Handbook" which is authored by the Radiological Control Committee. The handbook information is supplemented by specific written instructions prepared by the Radiological Control Office as needed. The handbook and instructions are provided to all users of radioactive materials.
d.
Users of radioactive materials are licensed by the Radiological Control Committee.
License applicants are required to describe their projects, their training, and their experience in the handling of radioactive materials. Review and approval of applications is conducted by the Radiological Control Committee.
Licenses are subject to amendment each year.
Every user is i
required to sign a statement that applicable rules and regula-tions pertaining to radioactive materials have been read.
No specific training in radioactive waste packaging and transpor-tation is presently provided, although the licensee stated that such a program of instruction for waste generators would be l
considered.
c.
The licensee developed a procedure for auditing the transfer, packaging, and transport of low-level wastes as required by IE Bulletin 79-19. The procedure, (S.O.P. 79-1), was prepared by the Radiological Control Officer and the Chairman of the Radio-l logical Control Committee. The procedure states that the chair-
-
!
man will appoint a team of two individuals to conduct an annual waste audit.
-6-
.,
t The inspectors examined the record of an audit conducted on October 10, 1979, pursuant to the new procedure. User instruc-tions, pick-up and transport procedures, storage facilities, and records were among the subjects audited.
One of the recommen-dations made was that new waste handling assistants must be given instructions in DOT, NRC, waste collector, and university re-quirements for handling, packaging, and shipping of radioactive materials. The health physicist responsible for radioactive waste collection provided evidence that such instruction is being given.
f.
The inspectors visited the licensee's waste storage facilities to inspect waste packages on hand. One 55-gallon drum was opened and found to contain dry scintillation vials as marked on the package.
While at the waste facilities, the inspectors observed that the licensee had taken action to reduce the fire hazard from toluene, as stated in the licensee's letter to Region III dated October 24, 1979.
In an inspection on September 11, 1979, NRC inspec-tors identified the storage of waste toluene in corroded cans as a fire hazard (Report No. 79-03; License No. 13-02812-04).
Subsequently, the licensee disposed of the contents of the cans, cut off the electricity to the building, and improved building ventilation.
While these actions eliminate the hazard posed by toluene leaking from corroded cans, the current practice of storing toluene in open 55-gallon drums and other large open containers is undesirable.
Also, there is a need for improve-ment in the general housekeeping in the same building, because of the accumulation of discarded metal cans, spilled absorbent material, etc.
12.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (identified in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 24, 1980.
The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance with NRC regulations or technical specifications pertaining to the research reactor (License R-87) had been identified.
The licensee's response to IE Bulletin 79-19 and waste handling and transportation procedures were discussed. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' comments about housekeeping conditions in the waste building (Paragraph 11.f.), and stated that the planned installation of steel shelving should improve the conditions. The licensee agreed that there is a need for disposing of the large volume of toluene.
The inspectors noted that the light bulb in an emergency exit light was apparently burned out. The licensee stated that the light would be replaced. (Paragraph 7)
-7-
v
..
L The inspectors noted that the encapsulated 5-curie Pu-Be neutron reactor startup source had not been-leak checked for several
' years. No requirement exists to conduct a leak test. The difficulty in gaining access to the source was discussed. The licensee agreed to open the top area of the dry tube in which the source is located and check the inside of the tube for any evidence of source leakage.
(Paragraph 9)
.
-8-
,
I