IR 05000243/1982002
| ML20054L664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oregon State University |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1982 |
| From: | Book H, Garcia E, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L659 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-243-82-02, 50-243-82-2, NUDOCS 8207080343 | |
| Download: ML20054L664 (8) | |
Text
.. - - - .-
-
, #
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
9eport No. 50-243/82-02 Dccket No. 50-243 License No. R-106 Safeguards Group Lictnsee: Oregon Se a University Corvallis, C e mn 97331 Facilitf Name: TRIGA Mark II Inspectica at: Cor_ vallis, Oregon Inspection conducted: May 24-26, and teleohone conversations on June 7, and 14, 1982 Inspectors: _t [ 8/ Ma /f/2_
E. M. Garcia, Radiation Specalist Date Signed Approved by: c e 8 J,2/fA A.~ WenslawsTci, Chief, Reactor Radiation Protection D6te S'igned Section Approved by: . CD-1 M b H. E. Book, Chfe^f, Radiological Safety Branch Date Signed Summary:
Inspection on May 24-26, June 7, and 14, 1982 (Report No. 50-243/82-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of the radiation control program including fuel transfer, posting and labeling, personnel monitoring, training, instrument calibration; effluent nonitoring; emergency planning including procedures, training, equipment, test and drill The inspection included a facility tour and a radiation survey. This inspection involved 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> onsite by one inspecto Results: No items of noncompliance or diviations were identified.
r 8207080343 820622 PDR ADOCK 05000
- __ _- -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ ..__.. ___ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . - - _ _ , _ , ,
.
_ _ . _ _ _
'
'
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted j Oregon State University Personnel
- C. H. Wang, Radiation Center Director and Reactor Administrator I
- A. G. Johnson, Radiation Center Assistant Director ;
B. Dodd, Assistant Reactor Administrator !
- D. Pratt, Radiation Specialist R. Farmer, Work Study Student
.
Corvallis Fire Department Personnel r
i R. Davis, Battalion Chief J. Hiller, Captain :
G. Tuyls, Fire Inspector l-
!
- Denotes the individuals present at the exit intervie . Radiation Control Fuel Transfer ,
The first day of the inspection the licensee was transferring spent fuel from the reactor vessel to the bulk tank. The inspector observed this operatio The individuals engaged in the transfer were wearing anticontamination !
coveralls, gloves and booties. Each had a film badge and pocket ion chamber. A graduate student in health physics was observed 4 using a CP-5 ion chamber to determined radiation levels as the fuel I
was move She would take readings as.each assembly was brought near the water surface of the reactor pool. These measurements were done to assure that the dose rate from each assembly .was
within the predicted limits and thus the individuals moving the fuel ,
'
would not be unduly exposed. After this measurement was made all
'
- individuals on the top of the reactor would nove to a low exposure
^
area and the operators moving the fuel from the overhead crane .
would then transfer it to the bulk tan !
Other individuals were stationed outside the reactor building with ~
environmental radiation monitors (micro-r-meters). Radio contact was kept with the individuals outside the building. When a fuel ;
assembly was about to be transferred the individuals were informed so '
that they may note any increase in the background dose rate. In order to keep dose rates ALARA additional shielding had been built L around the bulk tan t
__,___,-.___,_____,__m , _ . - - _ , , _ . , , _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _
_ _ .-
.
,
. -2-
.
The inspector observed several individuals leave the Reactor Ba Each adequately used the "Frisker" station to monitor their hands,
' feet and body. A smear survey was conducted after the evolution
, was completed. The radiological control methods used appeared appropriate for the potential hazar No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
2 Posting and Labeling Copies of NRC-Form-3 were posted at several locations within the facility. The forms were old editions, but had the NRC Region V telephone number corrected on them. The inspector provided the licensee with the latest version of the form. Copies of 10 CFR 19 and 20 were also pasted. The inspector verified that radiation, and high radiation areas were properly marked. Radioactive material containers and work areas were marked. The entrances to the Reactor Bay had signs indicating the area to be an airborne radiontive area when the reactor was operating. This marking is for the potential Ar-41 that may be present. The licensee uses a special device to indicate a high radiation area. When the reactor is at 1 negawatt the device is activated. An individual approaching the high radiation area interupts a light beam. A buzzer sounds and an amber light flashes. A high radiation area sign is located by the signal This active means of alerting an individual entering a high radiation area appears to work wel No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Personnel Monitoring Personnel dosimetry is accomplished by means of film badges, pocket ion chambers, finger ring TLDs and neutron ER (extended range)
dosimeters. Other than the pocket ion chambers, the dosimetry service is provided by contractors. R. S. Landauer Jr & C provides monthly film badges and neutron ER dosimeters. Radiation Detection Company provides the quarterly film badges and finger ring TLDs. Individuals are assigned a monthly or quarterly film badge ,
depending on their potential exposure. Those individuals likely to l receive an extremity or neutron exposure are assigned finger rings :
or neutron dosimeters accordingly. The neutron ER dosimeter includes an albedo TLD dosimeter system and a recoil proton track recorde This system permits dose measurements from thermal and epithermal neutrons. This neutron dosimetry is an improvement over the previously used NTA film. Prior to being issued personnel dosimetry, an individual must complete and sign a form that requests information about their current calender quarter occupational radiation exposure. This form meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.102(a). The inspector reviewed the records of two recently
-
. . - ,
--_ - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,
-
.
-3-hired individuals and the form had been completed. Review of exposure records for the period January 1,1981 to March 31, 1982 indicates that the exposures received are consistant with those reported in tM annual report for the year July 1,1960 to June 30,1981. fio whole body exposure in excess of 300 mrem per quarter had been recorded. The pocket ion chambers issued to the inspector during the inspection had stickers indicating that they were within the calibration due dat flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie d. Training The licensee's radiation protection training program falls in two categories, that provided to employees and non class users, and that provided to classroom students. The first program consist of a manual, a two and one half hour video tape, and a one on one discussion. The manual is entitled, " Guidelines for the Radiation Safety Program at the OSU Radiation Center". The manual includes the subjects listed in 10 CFR 19.12. Copies of flRC Form 3, Regulatory Guide 8.13, " Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure",
and Draft Regulatory Guide OH 902-1 " Instruction Concerning Risk from Occupational Radiation Exposure" are also included. The video tape is designed to cover the topics in the manual. The supplemental one on one discussion is directed toward the radiological safety aspects of the individual's specific job duties or research project. After completing this training individuals are ask to sign a form to acknowledge the training receive The inspector selected two recently hired individuals and noted that signed copies of the form were on file. The licensee stated that the manual needed some updating since its last revision (Revision 5, 1980). The updating would be accomplished as time permit Classroom students receive an orientation on the first meeting of the class and selected portions of the manual discussed above. The inspector noted that sign up sheets of the students participating in the orientations were kept by class and dat When the video tape was first prepared, members of the staff were asked to view it as a form of retraining. The sign up sheets indicate that 40 individuals took part in the retraining on fiay 14 and 26, 198 The licensee's training program appears to meet the intent of 10 CFR 19.1 j No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie I i
. . - -
- . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
'
.
,
.
-4- Instrument Calibrations The inspector reviewed the calibrations records. It was noted that for the period of review, January 1979 to the present, the records indicate that annual calibrations had been performed on the = radiation monitors as required by Technical Specification 4.3.3. These monitors are the area, continuous air, exhaust gas, and exhaust particulate monitor Seven portable radiation survey instruments were selected by the inspector. All had calibration stickers indicating they were within the calibration period. Review of the records confirmed they had been calibrated as noted on the stickers. One instrument record, that of a Model CP-5 Serial Number 2545, had one range that was outside the acceptable response range as noted in the procedure entitled " Operator Training Manual and Operating Procedure for,the Radiation Center Gamma Instrument Calibration Facility". The individual who had conducted the calibration stated that this anomaly was due to having only one pot to caiibrate three ranges. He could only get two of the ranges to be acceptable. The Assistant Director had the instrument removed from use and replaced with another CP-5 that had individual calibration pots for each rang Other than the anomaly noted above the calibration program and procedures appear to be acceptabl No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Effluent Monitoring The inspector reviewed the airborne effluent nonitoring syste All the significant potential discharge paths are monitored. Argon-41 is the significant (>99.9%) airborne effluent released from the facilit It is produced by the activation of Argon-40 present in atmospheric ventilation air. The main locations for Ar-41 production are the air spaces of the exoerimental facilities in the vicinity of the reactor core. The ventilation system for these experimental facilities is called the " argon vent system". Other sources of the Ar-41 are the reactor room ventilation air and the rabbit system hoods ventilation. The exhaust from these three sources is mixed and filtered prior to being sampled and released. The licensee operates the argon vent system fan during reactor operation. This fan draws air at a nominal flow of 100 cubic feet per minute (CFM). The i mostly dilution air from the reactor room exhaust has a nominal flow I
._ _. .. _ _ . __ __ _
.
.
-5-of 12,000 CFM. The exhaust gas and particulate monitor has a small sampling pump to continuously samole the effluent. At the time of the inspection the licensee would turn off the argon vent system and the exhaust monitor pump at the end of the operating day. The reactor room exhaust fan is on continuously. The inspector asked about any residual Ar-41 that might be released after the exhaust monitor cump was turned off and thus not be measured. The licensee stated that an evaluation had been made and it had been concluded that the additional activity released after the argon vent system fan was turned off was insignificant. The licensee later informed the inspector that to clear any possible questions they plan to' add a positive flow restriction to the argon vent system. ' This restriction would shut off the argon vent line and prevent any release from the argon vent system when the exhaust monitor pump was not operating. The licensee's explanation and plan of action appeared to be reasonable and appropriate to the inspecto .
The calibration of the exhaust gas and particulate monitor have been performed as required, (see the paragraph on instrument calibration) . The gas monitor is calibrated against known quantities of Ar-41. The calibration includes confirmation of flow rates. An independent determination of the accuracy of the exhaust gas monitor was conducted by a graduate student. This study identified an intermittent sample dilution due to a leaking gasket in the monitor's particulate filter paper housing. This problem was corrected and the monitor's accuracy was then confirmed. The licensee's evaluation of the sample dilution concluded that the problem was intermittent (dependino on who last closed the filter housina) and of insignificant impact (maximum increase annual dose commitment to be less than I 1.0 mrem in the unrestricted area). The licensee concluded that no change in the reported quantaties of radioactive material released to the atmosphere was necessar The licensee has taken several steps to reduce the releases of Argon-41 from the site; most notable the sealing of air leakage into some of the near core experimental facilities and the installation of _ a nitrogen gas purge system for the rotating rack facility. These improvements will reduce the total curies of Ar-41' released from about l 42 in the period July 80 to June 81 to about 30 in the 81-82 year to about 12 in the 82-83 yea l l
-
. . ,
-6-The atmospheric releases of radioactive caterial to the environment are within the technical specification requirements, and the ,
licensee is seeking to keep releases as low as is reasonably .
achievabl flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this a rea . Emergency Planning The inspector noted that instructions for responding to emergencies were conspicuously posted throughout the radiation center. The emergency plan records for the period January 20, 1980 to April 30, 1982 were reviewed. According to the records training was provided to facility personnel and to the different outside agencies on a annual basi Agreement with Good Samaritan Hospital to accept irradiated / contaminated individuals was reaffirmed on August 1980 and August 11, 198 Evacuation drills and emergency exercises were conducted on flovember 5, 1980 and October 22, 1981, and an emergency exercise was conducted on April 1,1981. A major exercise with eight outside agencies was conducted on January 20, 1980. The scenario for this exercise consisted of a radiological transportation accident, however, the simultaneous interaction with the various outside agencies provided valuable training that could be translated to energencies at the reactor sit The inspector interviewed members of the Corvallis Fire Departmen They concurred that they have had recent training provided by the staff of the reactor facility. One individual stated that the training had been the most valuable he had received on radiological emergencie The inspector examined the contents of the OSU radiological emergency kit located at the main Corvallis Fire Department station. The kit appeared to be complete, the portable survey instruments had current calibration stickers and had charged batterie The emergency preparedness of the Reactor Facility, staff, and outside support agencies appears to be adequate for the potential hazar flo items of noncompliance or deviations were note . Tour / Radiation Survey The inspector accompanied the center's Radiation Specialist on a tour and radiation / contamination survey. The inspector used a Keithly fon chamber survey meter model 36100 serial number 11108, property number flRC 009163. The inspector's instrument was calibrated on December 7, 1981 and is due for recalibration on December 7, 1982. The licensee's survey was consistent with the measurements made by the inspector. The facility looked clean and no significant floor contamination was detecte Radioactive material containers were properly labeled and radiation and high raidation areas were correctly poste '*
. .
.
-7-The inspector reviewed the recent survey records. The results of previous surveys were comparable to those noted by the inspecto tio items of noncompliance or deviations were note . Exit Interview The inspector met with the individuals noted in paragraph 1. The extent and findings of the inspection were presented. The insoector commented that it was a pleasure to visit an exemolary facility. The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance had been identified.