IR 05000186/1978005
| ML19269C930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1979 |
| From: | Hiatt J, Miller D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269C926 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-186-78-05, 50-186-78-5, NUDOCS 7902210167 | |
| Download: ML19269C930 (9) | |
Text
.
.
S.
NUCLEAR RLL.L LAi oH. COM':I S S I O';
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEME51
REGION III
,
Report k.
Su-186/76-05 Docket '. 50-186 License ::o. E-1G3 Licensee:
University of Missouri Research Park Columbia, Mo 65201 Facility Name:
Research Reactor Facility inspection At.
Research Reactor Site, Celurbia, MO Inspection Conducted:
December 5-7, 1978 I/" I7 g ')
I 'U
_
Inspectors:
J. W. Hiatt
,
-
?
-
D. E. Miller d?
/ NA +
/ / 5 ," <
'
f}
J !
'
/
h.J. N'e r.Aw} ur I / f / 7 '/
t u
L. Fi Chief Approved By-W.
,
Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section Inspectica Summary Inspection on December 5-7, 1978 (Report No. 50-186/78-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of radiation protecticn and radwaste management programs, including: qualifications; training; radiation protection procedures; it.struments and equipment; audits; posting, labeling, and control; exposure control; surveys; actifications and reports; effluent releases; effluent control instrumentation; records of effluents; reactor coolant water quality; and previous items of noncompliance and commitments.
The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours on site by twe NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7902210 4 7
.
.
DLlAllS 1.
Persons Contacted
.-
- R. Brugger, Director, Research Reactor Facility
- D. Alger, Associate Director, Research Reactor Facility
- 0. Olson, Manager, Reactor Health Physics
- S.
Morris, Reactor Radiochemist
- P. Keenan, Assistant to the Vice Presidcnt-Research AC. Thorpson, Chairman, Reactor Advisory Committee C. McKibben, Reactor Manager
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including health phvsics technicians and licensed operators.
2.
General This inspection, which began with visual observation of facilities and equipment, posting, labeling, and access controls at 1:10 p.m.
on Decerber 5, 1975, was conducted to exarine the routine operational radiation protection and radwaste management programs.
During the initial tour of the facility, the inspectors, using a licensee survey meter, perforced surveys at selected locations.
Licensee conformance witi posting and labeling requirerents was noted.
Areas visited during this and subsequent tours included the reactor control roor, the hot cell area, the bear port floor, and the laboratories in the reactor building.
The inspectors also observed the return of <
rabbit through the P-tube syster into a laboratory.
I.e itens of noncompliance were notec.
3.
Previous Iters of Noncompliance and Commitments The following items of noncorpliance, detziled in IE Report No. 76-01, were reviewed:
(Closed)
The uncontrolled and unposted entrance to a high radiation area (Paragraph 9).
(Open)
The development of health physics procedures (Paragraph 7).
The following licensee commitments resulting from previous IE inspcetions were reviewed:
-2-
.
.
(Closed)
The high background levels detected by the stack sampling syster (Paragraph 11.c).
(Closed)
The comparison of " cap sources" to a known radiation
"
field (Paragraph 11.b).
(0 pen)
The evaluation of the collection efficiency of the charcoal sampler due to high flow rate.
The research project to determine the efficiency at various fle.,
rates is continuing.
Dualifications Since the last radiation protection inspection, the licensee has hired another full time health physics technician, bringing the total number of full time technicians to three.
Both practical and health physics theory training will be provided the net technician by the Manager, Reactor Health Physics.
Following the termination of the health physics laboratory technician in December 1978, the health physics organization will consist of the Manager, Reactor Health Physics, three full time technicians, and a work / study student.
No problems were noted.
5.
Licensee Audits Minutes of the Reactor Advisory Cormittee meetings held in June and September 1978 were reviewed.
Committee membership and meeting frequency requiremente were met.
No forral audits of the health physics program had been performed; howevcr, the Campus Radiation Safety Office has scheduled an audit of the facility for the week of December 11, 1978.
The licensee's internal audit system identified and corrected one iter needing corrective action.
The inspector reviewed the cer-rective action, which appears adequate.
6.
Trainine The Manager, Peactor Health Physics continues to provide radiation protection orientation to experinenters or other personnel new to the facility, k'ritten documentation of * hose receiving training is provided on file cards. Quarterly 'ectures directed to the entire facility staff had been used fo. retraining; however, atten-danc2 was small, and the licensee now intends to give retraining-3-e
.
.
lectures separately to each work group (e.g., operators, reactor services, experimenters).
The Manager, Reactor Health Physics has restarted the series of
'
weekly one-hour lectures for the health physics technicians.
The goal of these lectures is to expand the technicians' gene ral kr c. 2 -
edge of theoretical and practical health physics.
Topics covered in the first lectures included 10 CFR 19 and 10 CFP 20.
No problems were noted.
7.
Pro edures In response to an iter of noncompliance identified in IE Report No. 78-01, the licensee stated that eight procedures would be developed by August 31, 1979.
The item of noncompliance will remain open until these procedures are implerented.
Since the last radiation piatection inspection (May 1976), Procedure HP-l_,
" Transfer of Radioactive Material within the Reactor Building,"
was written and approved.
The procedure was reviewed by the inspector; no probleer wera noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Exposure Contisl a.
External The licensee's vendor's film badge reports, which are equiv-alent to Forms NRC-5, were reviewed for the period June through October 1978.
Badges are processed biweekly for individuals who work in the reactor containment and r.onthly for all other employees. The licensee has begun issuing ring badges to reactor operators and experimenters who work with the P-tube syster.
The greatest vhole body doses recorded for CY 1978 to date and the third quartet 1978 were about 2600 trers and 700 mrers, respectively.
The licensee does not maintain Forts NRC-4.
b.
Internal The licensee routinely performs tiltium analysis on urine samples collected randomly from reactor operators.
The inspector reviewed results of this sampling from May 1978 to the time of the inspection; no problems were noted.
';c whole body counting is performed; however, the licensee-4-
.
.
relies on continuous air monitors, daily tritium air sarp;e',
and smear surveys to define any probler areas.
Records fror the above indicators were reviewed; no itens of noncorplianci were identified.
..
9.
Posting, Labeling, and Control During facility tours the inspectors reviewed the licensee's compliance with posting and labeling requirements specified in 10 CFR 19.11 and 10 CFR 20.203.
In IE Report No. 78-01 the licensee was cited for inadequate control of an entrance to a high radiation area.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective action; no problems were noted.
This item is there-fore considered closed.
Fourteen radiation work perrits (RWP's) were written in CY 1978.
The licensee is currently working on a standard operatinE procedure which will specify when an RRP is required.
Currently, RWP's are written only for a limited number of jobs (e.g., handling resin, filter changes, etc.).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Radiation Surveys The insnectors selectively reviewed records of direct radiation, swipe, and air sample surveys conducted since the last radiation protection inspection (May 1978).
The licensee uses a check sheet in the Health Physics Office to ensure that established survey frequencies are followed.
The licensee continues a routine daily tritium air sampling prograr in the containment.
Independent samples are analyzed by both the health physics section and the reactor radiochemist.
Results from both groups were compared, and no major discrep-ancies were noted.
Results fror June to December 1978 were reviewec; no concentration above 5.0 E-7 microcuries per cubic centimeter was observed.
Particulate and gaseous continuous air monitors (CAM's) are located in the containment on the bear port floor.
Audible alarns are sounded if alarm setpoints are exceeded.
.
-5-
.
.
11.
Instruments and Fquipment a.
Portable Survey Instruments Records of calibrations done since May 1978 were reviewed.
"
All inscruments in service are calibrated at six-month intervals by the licensee. The licensee has been sending high range instruments to a contractor annually for cali-bration of the upper scales.
The licensee stated that he has experienced significant delays in the return of these instruments because of shortage of parts, etc.
b.
Area Radiation Monitoring System (ARMS)
Using a four-curie Cs-137 and a 16-millicurie Co-60 source, each of which had been calibrated at specific distances in-house using an R-meter, the licensee calibrated the ARMS detectors and reestablished the expected re.epense to two cap sources used routinely to secondaril-calibrate the response correction roniters. The inspector noted that
-
of about 30% was made to correct the previous secondary calibration.
No problems were identified.
c.
Stack Monitor Syster The particulate, gaseous, and iodine monitors were calibrated August 7, 1978, using sources traceable to NES.
Records of the calibration were reviewed by the inspectors; no problems were found.
In July 1978 the licensee moved the stack monitoring syster to an area further from the P-tube sample line.
This should help reduce the background on this system and irprove the monitor sensitivity.
The licensee also installed new sample lines and in early CY 1979 intends to install a new sample probe, designed for isokinetic sampling.
No problems were noted.
12.
Primarv Coolant Activity Records of primary coolant water sarpling and analysis were reviewed for the period June through November 1978.
The technical specifi-cation requirements for sampling frequency and maximum permissible 1-131 concentration were met.
-6-
.
identified.
No items of noncompliance were leactor Building 1 solation Functional Testing 13.
.
Building ventilation isolation is verified during each reactor
.
startup by exposing the reactor bridge tonitor, building exhaust plenum monitor, and backup building exhnost ronitor to an external source and observing the reaction of the building dampers.
The inspector reviewed startup checksheets for the period August through December 4, 1973, and noted that, in addition to checking the licensee also verifies the operability building isolation, and alarm function of the area radiation monitors.
No problems were identified.
14.
Radwaste Management Liquid Radwaste a.
Records of liquid radwaste discharges to the sanitary sewer and to the atmosphere from the cooling tower were reviewed for the period July through Noverber 1976.
During the period reviewed, a total of 0.0; curies (about 90' of which was tritium) was discharged to the sanita.y sewer and C.17 curies of tritium was discharged to the coolitg tower basin.
Liquids discharget containing isotopes other than tritium were not to the cooling tower basin. The licensee has considered all of the tritium to be gaseous effluent discharged via evap-oration in the cooling tower.
The inspector noted that the cooling tower D.
in is in a blowdown mode a significant amount of time during operation.
In the blowdown mode some of the tritium previously discharred to the cooling tower basin is discharged to the sanitary Insufficient sewer and not evaporated as previously indicated.
information concerning blowdown frequency, make-up flows, etc. was available during the inspection evaporation rate, to determine whether discharge via the blowdown pathway when added to the direct discharge pathway could approach any 10 CFR 20.303 limit.
The inspector discussed uith the licensee the nee'
to reevaluate his method of liquid tritiur release quanti-fication, recalculate releases, and revise effluent reports as necessary.
-7-
.
b.
Gaseous Radwaste The concentratien of Ar-41 released per megawatt-day 1:
calculated based on results of grab samples, and the total
'
amount released is then obtained by multiplying the average concentration of Ar-41 produced per megawatt day by the number of megawatt days of operation.
The gaseous effluent data reported in the licensee's Annual Report, covering FY July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978, were reviewed.
No tech-nical specification or 10 CFR 20 limits were exceeded.
In order to stay within the technical specification limit, the licensee still refrains from using one of the P-tubes.
During FY 1977-1978, about 2000 curies of Ar-41 was released.
The inspector noted that the licensee's radiochemist has related Ar-41 grab sample concentrations to readings on the Ar-41 stack monitor strip chart.
Consequently, the licensee now has the ability to estimate the actual cent;.1-tration of Ar-41 being released at any time by observing the strip chart.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Solid Radwaste One shipment of barrels and boxes of solid waste, containing a total of about 15 curies in 120 cubic feet of raterial, was made in May 1978 to a licensed 'surial f acility.
The inspector reviewed records of this shiprent and no problems were noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
15.
Notification and Reports A review of records and di3cussions with licensee representatives indicated that there were no problems in the licensee's compliance with 10 CFR 19 and 10 CFR 20 requirements.
16.
Exit Interview The ir.spector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 7, 197S.
The following matters were discussed:
The purpose and scope of the inspection.
a.
-8-
'
b.
The status of previous items of noncompliance and commitments.
(Paragraph 3)
c.
The need for an evaluation of the amount of tritium being
.-
released from the secondary system to the sanitary sewer (Paragraph 14.a).
The licensee stated that this evaluatiin would be made.
_ 9_