IR 05000243/1997001

Insp Rept 50-243/97-01 on 970317-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations,Maint & Facility Support

ML20138H612
Person / Time
Site:	Oregon State University
Issue date:	05/02/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138H603	List: IR 05000243/1997001 ML20138H598
References
50-243-97-01, 50-243-97-1, NUDOCS 9705070231
Download: ML20138H612 (25)

Text

. . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ .. _ .. ._._ _ _.____....._ ___ _____ ..._._. _ _ . '

.

! ENCLOSURE

!

3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

, REGION IV

.

..

Docket N l

'

. License No.: R-106

j Report No.: .50-243/97-01 1

!

l'

Licensee: Oregon State University i

Facility: TRIGA Mark-Il Reactor l

Location

Radiation Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon

.

f Dates: March 17-20,1997

Inspector: J. Blair Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist

j Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachment: Supplemental Information

"

.

i i

.

i

!

I

I

!

l i

.w 9705070231 970502

PDR ADOCK 05000243 G PDR 2

!

i e

l-2-

!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l

l Oregon State University TRIGA Mark-ll Reactor Facility NRC Inspection Report 50-243/97-01

'

This routine, announced inspection reviewed the reactor operations, reactor maintenance, surveillance testing, experiments, reactor oversight, reporting, reactor operator l requalification, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and security program Operations

• Reactor operations were conducted safely. No safety limits or limiting conditions for operation of the reactor were exceeded. Reactoi surveillance tests were properly performed (Section 01.1).

• Reactor experiments were properly reviewed and approved (Section 01.2).

• A non-cited violation was identified involving the failure of an experimenter to obtain approval before irradiating two samples (Section 01.2).

• The control and accountability of special nuclear material on site were properly maintained (Section 01.3).

• An excellent program for review and approval of reactor facility procedures by the reactor operations committee was maintained (Section 03.1). j

• Annual operating reports for the reactor facility met reporting requirements j (Section 03.2). l

• The licensed reactor operators and senior health physicist were very knowledgeable of reactor operating procedures and health physics activities (Section 04). I

• The reactor operator requalification program was conducted and documented as required. Alllicensed operators had an active license (Section 05).

• A good radiation safety training program for personnel working in the radiation center and the reactor facility was implemented (Section 05).

• The organizational structure and staffing of the radiation center and reactor facility 1 met requirements. The reactor operations committee membership met requirements j (Section 06). l I

!

• Required audits, reviews, and reactor f acility inspections were conducted by the reactor operations committee (Section 07).

a

. - _ _ _ - _

-

l I

i

.

-3-Maintenance .

• Reactor maintenance activities were performed in accordance with approved procedures (Section M1).

Facility Sucoort

• Portions of the radiation protection program were not effectively implemented (Section R1.1).

• The licensee's radiation survey results agreed with the NRC's radiation survey ,

results (Section R1.1).

• A non-cited violation was identified involving the failure to post and control access into a high radiation area (Section R1.1).

• A non-cited violation was identified involving the failure to post a radiation area (Section R1.1).

• Radioactive gaseous effluents released from the reactor facility met regulatory limits. A good environmental monitoring program was maintained around the radiation center and reactor facility (Section R1.2).

• Generally, transfer of radioactive byproduct material produced during the irradiation of samples in conducting experiments met applicable regulatory requirements (Section R1.3).

• A non-cited violation was identified involving the transfer of byproduct material to ,

an unauthorized recipient (Section R1.3).

• The calibration and quality control programs established for self-reading pocket ion chamber dosimeters met regulatory guidance. Portable radiation protection survey instruments, area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and exhaust stack monitors were properly calibrated and maintained (Section R2).

• Radiation protection program procedures were properly reviewed, approved, and maintained (Section R3).

• An excellent emergency preparedness program was maintained. Annual training was provided to onsite and offsite emergency response personnel (Section P1).

• The approved physical security plan was properly implemented. The physical security system was installed and operated in accordance with the physical security plan. Alarm response personnel were properly trained. Physical security system testing was conducted as required (Section S1).

f

..

.

-4-f

Report Details

.

q l -l i

.

-

l. Operations l

i- i 01 Conduct of Operations i

!

0 Reactor Operations ]

'

l l inspection Scoce (40750) j

!-

l The inspector observed reactor startup and operation and reviewed surveillance records and operational logs.

l Observations and Findinas l

The reactor was routinely operated approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> per day,5 days per week,'for the purpose of laboratory teaching, reactor system testing, reactor surveillances, and sample irradiations. The inspector noted during a review of operations logs that the reactor facility experienced 24 unplanned reactor scrams l

between July 1,1994, and March 17,1997. The unplanned reactor scrams were l caused by a variety of reasons. The inspector determined that the unplanned l scrams did not involve any significant safety issues. The licensee addressed i unplanned scrams appropriately.

,-

On March 18,1997, the inspector observed reactor startup and operation. The

!- reactor operator performed properly. All reactor safety systems performed

satisfactoril j l

Based on the review of the reactor logs and test records, the inspector determined j l that no limiting conditions for reactor operation were exceeded and that the reactor-- j was operated in accordance with Technical Specification requirement . All reactor surveillance tests required from July 1994 through March 1997 were ;

performed properly. The required radiation monitoring systems were operational

'

and calibrated annually and their setpoints were verified weekly. The reactor room i ventilation system was operational and functioned properly.

l Experiment authorization forms documented analyses of irradiation experiments

! performed by the reactor supervisor and approved by the reactor operations committe ,

!

,

.

- -- ., , . .- ,

-- - - - , , .

- _ _ .. . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ ___ . _ _ _ _ _

.

5-

, Conclusions Reactor operations were conducted safely. No safety limits or limiting conditions for operation of the reactor were exceeded. Reactor surveillance tests were completed at the required frequencies.

!' 01.2 Exoeriments ,

I Inspection Scooe (40750)

,

The inspector reviewed:

! 1

• Control and conduct of the active approved reactor experiments l

• Selected reactor irradiation request forms

'

, Observations and Findinos I

No new experiments for the reactor were approved since the previous NRC inspection conducted in May 1994. Eight active experiments were properly l reviewed and approve Generally, experiments were performed in accordance with approved procedures l using appropriate reactor conditions and were properly documented in the reactor console log. Selected reactor irradiation request forms were properly completed, i

in a letter dated December 23,1996, the licensee informed the NRC that an experimenter had irradiated two samples prior to receiving the proper approval On December 3,1996, an experimenter performed a routine series of sample i

irradiations. The experimenter independently completed three separate sample irradiations using properly approved irradiation requests. When completed, the experimenter decided to irradiate two additional samples. Upon completion of the two additional irradiations, the experimenter brought the uncompleted irradiation requests to the reactor control room for approval signatures. Since the irradiation requests were not properly approved prior to the irradiations, the reactor operator notified the reactor supervisor and instructed the experimenter to immediately meet with the senior health physicist. The licensee's post-occurrence review of the unapproved irradiation requests indicated that the irradiations were not unusual, and they would have received the senior health physicist's and the reactor supervisor's signatures of approval.

l Technical Specification 6.5.a states that operating procedures will be established

'

for performing experiments. Operating Procedure 18, " Procedures for the Approval and Use of Reactor Experiments," required that both the senior health physicist and the reactor supervisor approve tha irradiation request prior to the performance of the experiment (sample irradiation).

c

!

l

. -

_ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ .- _ _ _ _ - __ _

-.

<

s r -6-l l

l

! ~

l The failure to follow procedures is considered a violation of Technical l Specification ,

l l The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions addressed in their  ;

l December 23,1996, letter. The experimenter's authorization to use the reaGor's ,

i experimental facilities was suspended immediately. The senior health physicist and l the director of the radiation center met separately with the experimenter and discussed the seriousness and significance of the event. The experimenter was .

l required to read Experiment B-3, " Irradiation of Materials in the Standard Oregon ;

,

State TRIGA Reactor Irradiation Facilities," and the following operating procedures:

I Oregon State TRIGA Reactor Operating Procedures 10, " Operating Procedures for Experimental Facilities," and 18, " Procedures for the Approval and Use of Reactor 1 Experiments." The director of the radiation center met with the approved users of I the reactor facility and reminded them of the need to notify the reactor control room !

at the start and end of each irradiation request. The part of procedure 10 relating ;

to the use of the pneumatic transfer facility was changed to include the requirement for experimenters to notify the reactor control room whenever an irradiation request is started and completed. The inspector determined that effective corrective actions had been implemente The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-243/9701-01). Conclusions

- The reactor experiments were properly reviewed and approved in accordance with Technical Specification requirements. A licensee identified violation of failure to follow reactor operating procedures while irradiating samples is dispositioned as a noncited violatio .3 License Conditions and Control and Accountability for Special Nuclear Material Insoection Scope (85102)

The inspector reviewed:

• Material control and accountability for special nuclear material  ;

• Nuclear Material Status Forms  !

Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the licensee possessed a 3-curie sealed polonium-l 210 beryllium neutron source, which was in the reactor core. Nine fuel elements I were stored in storage' racks inside the reactor tank. Eighty fuel elements, one

!

. . - - - -- -- .. .-_

-

.-

_ _ . . . _ . . .~ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . - _ _ .

.

.

!

!-

ai ' .i

I~

!

I a

j instrumented fuel element, and three fuel follower control rods were in the reactor

. core. The inspector's inventory agreed with the licensee's last fuel inventory

-

performed September 30,199 >

j The licensee's special Nuclear Material Status Forms 742 and 742C for the period l

April 1,1994, through September 30,1996, were verified. The licensee's

. calculations indicated that the reactor fuel contained approximately 11.08 kilograms ,

of uranium-235 which was less than 12.83 kilograms of uranium-235 allowed by ~

j- the reactor operating licens ]

$ . Conclusion  ! The control and accountability of special nuclear material on site met the conditions l

of the reactor operating licens !

l

I

,

03 Operations Procedures and Documentation j i

! 0 Procedures 1

!

<

-l Inspection Scoce (40750) i

.

Procedures listed in the attachment were reviewed to determine compliance with ,

• Technical Specification requirements, Observations and Findinas i

The licensee had 8 approved active experiment procedures and 27 approved reactor operating and maintenance procedures. Since the last NRC inspection conducted in May.1994, no new experiment procedures were approved ~ and 23 of the 27 reactor operating and maintenance procedures were revised and approved. All reactor facility procedures were reviewed and approved by the reactor operations i committee. The reactor facility's procedures provided adequate guidance to ensure l that reactor experiments, operations, and maintenance activities were conducted )

properly and consistently to meet Technical Specification requirement Conclusion An excellent program for review and approval of reactor facility procedures by the reactor operations committee was rnaintaine .2 Reoorts and Notifications Inspection Scooe (40750)

Reports and notifications to the NRC were reviewed to determine compliance with Technical Specification requirement _ - , .- - -- . . .

.

.

-8- Observations and Findinas - -

The annual reports of the reactor facility activities and operations for the period July 1,1994, through June 30,1996, were submitted in a timely manner. No required special reports were issued to the NRC since the last NRC inspection of the reactor facilit c .- Conclusion Annual operating reports for the reactor f acility met reporting requirement Operator Knowledge and Performance Insoection Scope The inspector interviewed three senior reactor operators (including the director of the radiation center, the reactor administrator, and the reactor supervisor), a reactor operator, and senior health physicist. A reacter startup and shutdown were observe Observations and Findinas The licensed reactor operators and senior health physicist were very knowledgeable of the reactor operating procedures and associated health physics activitie During the reactor startup and operation discussed in Section O.1, the reactor operator performed reactor operational manipulations properly, Conclusions The senior reactor operators, reactor operator, and senior health physicist were very knowledgeable of the reactor operating procedures and health physics activitie Operator Training and Qualification Inspection Scoce The inspector reviewed:

• Education and experience of the reactor staff and the reactor operations committee members

• The reactor operator requalification training program l

• The orientation and radiation safety training program for personnel working ;

in the radiation center and the reactor facility i i

_ _ . _ . . . _ _ _. . . - . _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . --. _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ . . _ . . _

u

~

<

.

9 i l

i i

!

, Observations and Findinas I t

.

The inspector verified that alllicensed operators had an active license, i t i The reactor staff and reactor operations committee members met the qualifications [

] per Technical Specifications.

l .The latest approved revision of the reactor operator requalification program was

- dated March 15,1988. Observations of operator manipulations were documente *

The lecture outline for the reactor operator requalification program was l j'

.

comprehensive, and it included all the required subject material. Comprehensive

'

l annual written examinations for 1994,1995, and 1996 were given and successfully passed by the senior reactor operators. The completed examinations L were included in the senior reactor operators' individual training records as required.

i Annual medical examinations were satisfactorily passed by the reactor operator Personnel who worked routinely in the radiation center and the reactor facility had received radiation protection and emergency training at the beginning of the academic year. The training conducted by the radiation center staff met the

! requirements of 10 CFR 19.12.

1 t Conclusions l i-1 The reactor operator requalification training program was conducted and documented in accordance with a NRC approved program. -The training conducted-by the radiation center staff met the requirements of 10 CFR 19.1 Operations Organization and Adrninistration i Scoce of insoection (40750)

The organization and staffing for the radiation center, reactor facility, and reactor ,

'

operations committee were reviewed to determine compliance with Technical Specifications requirements, Observations and Findinas All organizational positions were filled with qualified personnel. The licensee had four senior reactor operators and one reactor operator. The following personnel changes were made since the previous inspection:

• The director of the radiation center retired, and the former reactor administrator was promoted to director of the radiation cente * The reactor supervisor retirad, and a senior reactor operator was promoted to reactor superviso , . - . - . - -- . . ~ ~ . ~ . - . . - . . . . . ~ . _ . - -_ . --

.

- .

'

t

- 10- ,

!

I'

,

. * The former senior health physicist was promoted to reactor administrato ;

'

i

) =- .The former health physicist was promoted to senior health physicist.

!

^

The radiation center and reactor facility supervisory controls and operational !

responsibilities were implemented as specified in the Technical Specification ,

'

i

! The reactor operations committee membership was in accordance with Technical 4- Specification and the reactor operations committee charter requirements.

i

!. Conclusiong

.

l The organizational structure and staffing of the radiation center and reactor facility 4~ met the Technical Specification requirements. All organizational positions were !

filled with qualified personnel. The reactor operations committee membership met j Technical Specification requirements.

l 07 Quality Assurance in Operations i,

'- Scoce of Inspection (40750) i

l The inspector reviewed:

l

• Audits and reviews conducted by the reactor operations committee between

. February 18,1994, and February 17,1997 i

'* Minutes of the reactor operations committee meetings between >

l

February 18,1994, and February 17,1997 _

i Observations and Findinas

!

3 The reactor operations committee meetings were held quarterl l l'

} The reactor operations committee meeting minutes documented that qu'arterly j audits and reviews of reactor operations, operating procedures, surveillance tests, ,

and reportable occurrences were performed as required by the Technical I

Specifications. In addition, the reactor operations committee performed quarterly

'

' audits of radioactive effluents released to unrestricted areas, personnel radiation doses, radiation surveys, and radioactive materials shipment ,

Annually, the reactor operations committee reviewed and approved active experiments; proposed changes to the reactor facility, procedures, and Technical Specifications which involved potential unreviewed safety questions; reactor  ;

operator requalification program; health physics procedures; emergency plan; ;

physical security plan; and annual operating report were performed as required by '

the Technical Specifications and the reactor operations committee charte ,

,

, , ,-

.

,

-11- Conclusions The reactor operations committee met as required and conducted audits, reviews, and reactor facility inspections as required by the Technical Specifications, 11. Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance Scope of Insoection (40750)

The inspector reviewed significant maintenance activities performed between July 1994 and March 1997, and their associated 10 CFR 50.59 review Observations and Findinas The licensee performed many modifications to the reactor and the reactor facilitie I These included the following:  ;

l

• An upgrade of the percent power channel, pulsing channel, and the fuel element temperature test circuit ,

I

• Replacement of the selector switch for the fuel element temperature safety I channel I

e Installation of a 10 megohm resistor in the pulse monitoring circuit of the !

power range monitor )

'

• Modification of the pulse monitoring circuit of the power range monitor

• Installation of overflow drains in the reactor building and the heat exchanger roofs

• Removal of the green lights on the top of the reactor building

• Removal of one fuel element from the G-ring

• Installation of the bulk shield tank liner The inspector verified that all reactor maintenance activities were performed in accordance with approved procedures. No unreviewed safety questions were identifie Conclusion Maintenance activities were properly performe . . . .- .- .- ...- . .- - -. .- -.-. ._-.- -.- - . - . - . . -

_

of g

I-12- l

l I

\

! .

IV. Facility SuDDort )

I I

R1 ' Radiological Protection Controls

R Radiation Protection Proaram J

" Scoce of Inspection  :

'

The radiation protection program was reviewed to determine compliance with j

, 10 CFR Part 20 and Technical Specification requirements. Specifically, the i inspector performed independent radiation surveys and reviewed: i l

• Radiation exposure records for reactor facFity staff ,

.* Selected radiation and contamination surveys for 1994-1996 ]

• Radiation postings of areas within the reactor facility  !

• Radiation postings of areas outside the reactor facility Observations and Findinas  ;

The inspector performed an independent gamma radiation survey in the reactor room on March 18,1997, while the reactor was operating at 1000 kilowatts. The ]

1, inspector's radiation survey results compared very well with the radiation survey '

! results obtained by the radiation protection technologist while he was i simultaneously performing his daily surve I

4; l

All personnel who worked in the reactor f acility were issued proper i

beta / gamma / neutron personnel dosimetry devises. Personnel exposure records for I

!

1994,1995, and 1996 indicated that the limits of.10 CFR 20.1201 were not

exceede i: A comprehensive radiation survey program was implemented. The survey records did not indicate radiation levels above allowable limits.

i The inspector toured the reactor facility and noted that radiation areas and i radioactive material areas were properly posted.

Prior to the startup of the reactor on March 18,1996, the inspector witnessed the removal of the thermal column shield wall, the opening of the thermal column, and the introduction of samples into the thermal column for irradiation. The inspector

+

also witnessed the opening of beam port number 2 and its inspection. The senior

! health physicist performed special neutron and gamma radiation surveys during l- these two operations. Good as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) radiation

'

practices were used during the two operation . l

.

A

_ __ .. , - - - . _ _ - - , . - , _ . _ . - . . _ . - _

-, .. . .m. , w .- .

....a... .. _ . . . . .. .. .. .

.. . =- . .x:& .

MM et*,'u*1EGE.CT,C, mst -

.m f.v Massunt2~.;;v A >., .e ~#" - ~*** "' / ~ . . ~ -~

mmc.r~.ns

~

'M_. "."f*-"?'"*

.sn.czarny mn.nasum.-

-~~~."~*"-*l-*~""'"****~*.'...

,r:r:1. ,;sartmemursnbe.*e:--g .:.s w~w

., '

=-

.- -

3,,.,r7 ,,,. ,, ,r E . 4_;;wac. ;;.M_ ._ _M. m., ;d.. _. ~

d 5 M.,, A'.xsm-r r. , yd;.M, _ W .. .,,,. a;=:-in,W.; m c4 _h.ji_@5E_i ; _is, ,.-T.;+,4.5,#,u

.w

_ . -.

_

.

[a 2-

$ng~. c. m yp.- ., .-

3 . .,q.. ,,m_., .

s.,. > y.- . ,. .  ; g. ;.4, . gz u .

s.- .

,,.

.

[.<,_

m---~. y, _r g ;,-~ gw ,.z-

.

_

/

- - - -

..

%_ , . .

~,g,,, -

.._y,---, ,,

. _ . . . . . . , -g n,, -

_,_,,,,;;,,gy - - ~ ~ - - -

g rgy

.. .. .. . ._ - . _ , . . , ,

r.:e.-4 aa .ssw.s mw ,.: .. . w,.y s ,- : t;w...c.a.:.sa.m;

.4,.._

.m.. _ ...,m -: ,.,;,,..;.u..w.=,;

. . ga .w.;,, _--

(, . ..m. .% n h,r~~,=.ns: . .mw-.

.

n-.m , y., , %.,w_,,m, w.r .__ . w ~ a a_n w

<

.

-

. :~, m.. s. m.. . ,wn _ n ;w .-m:em m#v m . .

,

, .

g

.m _ . ., m .. _ , . .

,12, ,,. .,. ,, ;-a-wg ; ,m, .

g%o, .:m:c . , 7 _ .

-

., . .

m.a,.. 4. . d .r. m

.%., s

- . . .> .- ,

~ .

.

.

W ~ ~ - m .- v .~~~ m,

.

..

m; wry ~- =~ . .~.,: :::w~ ww a a__ w-- ~-

.

.. . . . . . , ~

. . . . .~-.-:.

w

,..- .

a.n.- -.= .. - - - _ _

~ = . -. . _

- .. .

.

.- , . . . .

--

. - . - .

~

trpwrr - . : v-w -~.~

, -- >~~ -

~~.m ~ ~.p: u e: nul.h.t.w-a % c.:~: -- , fw'~i n+-.~a.;2& .n . + l,h.~GM, -.E.. =.%- :&.j:m.;a...~ir&. GW . .W. .- .x.c 4-n.L+M

~n ~n ~.. ..n. .s_i?. .~R:.-ws%.,W

.

>

- ~ ~ ~ - * %g~"~ .

-

.- . -  :; ~ I w mw, w mom m m - +

k-r.m me n .~ty:v W~ N.~ Facl\ity support ~ '

-

<a a us p,gre hn .m=.2=: s': ., w.:::c :.

......-_.a,-. a ' -= w.1.- w : m ~.--:.:. . : ^:: , .c

.

yW .

, F;nw.swn,h.u,ke,. :m aw- - A ~% .tra- .: .; ..L ~:7 .:

. - . _ _ . _ m ~ _ . -p.- '. . m w._, _._ __. . . ~. .

_'. _ .- - - - - - - .,-_,'s..-..

-

,

-men.m.m.~,

.e e- w v m ^ l totection Controis. -- . _ , .

--

- fi --: ,

-

7 u _

--

-

ye pt_ c. .

. RT c'.Radiol _

cu.CE'**9 cgic .=_. ._; r.._ r .m.~~ ._nwrb _..s_-s-w.-ww .m -

.a. .e __._ :~. _ . . a m m. : =

M. .... r. m . .;.w~s_ n. _ .e.. m .. m-.

s

,

NN S^b"*"5 .;.$. - NON_ #~

.M,_-.._.-"4_"_*l'-"z"'~" _ . _ 2 # ' ** . J ". ,_*.T.h, . '* ." *":" _. * *".*.'"'""+ ?i"._ q *d,' '=..,

mc.t..s=; {

wwmm .:n"**R.jr..j m Radiation_.Proteetion'O r"o"a' _.u 'ra

, . .

.

m

_

_ . m ; .

. ~ ._ ..,,_. ,,

.

_h Q

.

~

• • 5'ghffg-~ h.L&_o;,1t";1.NQ'"Q-e.e * * . A .ge(Q&.*.2r Q y . si$$lti

.k1,

.

. f_ h a

-.Q. 3h.hi*Wr t. ., *, f,~gcope. of.Insoeetionw-t-__.._,._g'. ._ a-atu.y m'(%\gu.._

,

.._ n n .. - ny n.a &. .w, y . , ,

..

~w-m

-

e .. ; . a ,e~ m w :- - .

. . . . .

, m- ~; ; ~f m-M.cex em.- m. w e;w .~ '

i

%

6 .

- %xi :a ,.e m .w

~w~~- . r:t

-- e , u Ltc .%.,e w# W e. ,.m. ~ .e ww

_ ,-

r.- e- .- x )

n. 'm p#rW ~;

,

,- #,m.%.~.cis@e75*h10 iatton_@gaMesiewe'd

MMW~sMMW1 CFR;Part';20'a'nd Te'chnical:'

, -~

3Mm~

~

_

,

-

i - . .

.

q

1. 3 .

!

~ ~' y .y e

- sn.sp_e_ ctor p_erform,ed,1nEpindent .,,. ura m _ ,_ w ca;. = a . u _ -2.a;m u. ,

m _ x,7,,wyy m

- -

' .

-.- . ; in  ;.w.:. A __ _ ,,,,w w =.az,g,;x y ;

-

4.., .

m.__,._z._. . - __ - :- - ~ ~ ~

1 '

- MM"

= .r,:= mu-GM*Ra. d.iation:

m .ru exposure records.for reactor CaciHt'y staff-.---

- -

,

.

. .

- ==::.:=- u.w u

.-

u..n,.=.= Selecte ..-.=m-iarad. tio,n and contamination, surveys f.or,;.1_ ,, ,aqw g;.w"37 _ . _ . . . . .

i y.,

"

within the reacto.r:f acig.ty **.i.",.w.p'._~_

-

.

._= . .e=_. =s Rad _istion_: postings _o .are_as . . f _,

~

re,a..ctor; pac. p,n;ga,g,, ,,,...w' w^w%,

.._._m - 3.:

._- -m.mmumu

.. - . -

__

ovc ca..g r Radi.a.tton post. .ings of;nareas a.n . outside,th .

.. s a, %

..,--."-

.

. .-~ . .. - ~~mn. mo . y : n o9..'.,

-

--- 4

gv; ;gy,m.se..e 4,-

.jg g:; t, 3-.s l ,m,'. . e %

.q, v . . , ,y .,. .;,e M -E bM' Observations and Findinas .; g . .

--._...

, gg,,. yg.gg ..

iation survey in th, e reac or-mm m .

.

. ,

..;

..

_. .~. - .

. . . - . .

.s

..

,

t The inspector performed an indepen ent 9amma rad. . . ..

.

. The -

while the reactor was operating at 1000 kilowatts;.

-

-

room on March 18,-1997, inspector's radiation survey results com ared very wen with the3,radiatio echnolog(st while he was Jesults obtained by the radiation pro

.

' simultaneously performing his daily surve .

,

u. '

-

~ .. m

^

All personnel who worked in the reactor werefacility not were 1994,1995, and 1996 indicated that the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201

.

exceede A' comprehensive _ radiation survey program was implemented. The s did not indiyate radiation levels above allowable limits, I The inspector toured the reactor facility and noted that radiation areas and radioactive material areas were properly poste l 18,1996, the inspector witnessed the Prior to the startup of the reactor on March

,

'

Jremoval of the thermal column shield wall, the opening of the thermal cl the introduction of samples into the thermal column for irradiation. The inspec i

'

m_

J'.m .also witnessed the opening of beam port number 2 and its inspectio s a n

/2^ Rd -

Thealth physicist performed special neutron

. .

c . p(actices were used during the two operation '

- , p .-

t 1-T 1 k .

1 ' ,

'% #

> . . ,

e -

-.

--

e

.

- 13-in a letter dated November 8,1996, the licensee informed the NRC that they had identified a posting and control violation. While performing a radiation survey on October 16,1996, the licensee identified a high radiation area adjacent to the reactor that was not properly posted and controlled. The high radiation area was on a moveable aluminum bridge which spanned the bulk shield tank. The top of the bulk shield tank was surrounded by chain railing On August 15,1996, the pipe stanchions and the chain railings around the top of the bulk shield tank perimeter were removed to investigate the source of water leaking from the reactor's thermal column. When the stanchions and the chain railings were removed, there was no longer a barrier to prevent access to the bridge are A radiation survey, performed on October 16,1996, while the reactor was at 1000 kilowatts thermal power, showed that the whole body dose rate on the bridge 30 centimeters above the water surface in the bulk shield tank was 140 millirem per hour. The licensee determined that the high radiation area had become accessible ;

when the chain railings were removed on August 15,199 The licensee determined that only one person was on the bridge over the bulk shield tank while the reactor was operating. The person's pocket ion chamber indicated an exposure of 8 millirems.10 CFR 20.1601(a) states, "A control device that, upon entry into the area, causes the level of radiation to be reduced below that level at which an individual might receive a deep-dose equivalent of 0.1 rem in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from the surface that the radiation penetrates."

The failure to post and control entry into a high radiation area is a violation of ;

10 CFR 20.1601(a). l The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions contained in their November 8,1996, letter. The corrective actions included the removal of the 1 bridge from the top of the bulk shield tank and the chain railings were repositioned I around the top of the bulk shield tank so that their was no physical means for an individual to enter the area above the bulk shield tank in the high radiation are I The inspector verified that effective corrective actions were implemente !

The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable l time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-243/9701-02).

l l

l

!

Q

- 14-In a letter dated March 12,1997, the license informed the NRC that they had !

identified a radiation area in the restricted area that was not properly posted for a 40-minute period on February 24,1997. The licensee determined that the lead ;

shutter was not completely closed following a routine inspection performed on beam port number 2. As the reactor was started up on February 24,1997, the reactor supervisor noticed an elevated count rate on a survey instrument located in i the reactor room. The licensee's surveys determined that radiation levels I associated with beam port number 2 were 350 millirem per hour on contact with the beam port door and 50 millirem per hour at four feet from the beam port doo The high radiation area near the beam port was properly posted and controlle l However, the licensee identified radiation levels of 43 millirems per hour existed for j about 40 minutes in the restricted area just outside the reactor room's outside '

double doors and inside the reactor facility's perimeter fence, this radiation area was not properly poste CFR 20.1003 defines a radiation area as an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.005 rem in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or any surface that the radiation penetrates. 10 CFR 20.1902(a) requires that the licensee .

shall post each radiation area with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation j symbol and words " CAUTION, RADIATION AREA."

The failure to post a radiation area in the fenced, restricted area, outside the reactor )

f acility, is a violation of 10 CFR 20.1902(c).  ;

<

The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions which were included in their March 12,1997, letter. The corrective actions included the following: (1) the lead shutter was completely closed as soon as the problem was recognized, (2) the dry wooden plug was placed back in the beam port, (3) procedures were revised to l require the verification of the status of the beam port by a second person, following any changes to the beam port status, and (4) the lead shutters in beam ports numbers 2 and 4 were lubricated. The inspector verified that effective corrective actions had been implemente This violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-243/9701-03). Conclusions Portions of the radiation protection program were not effectively implemented. The licensee identified two violations that resulted from a failure to properly post and control entry into a high radiation area and a failure to properly post a radiation are , . , , , . , . _ . _ , , , _ ~ .

_ _ . . . . . _ _ _

• ;

.

15-i R I .2 - Radioloaical Effluents and Environmental Monitorina Insoection Scope (40750)

j The inspector reviewed the radiological effluent and environmental program Observations and Findinas i Radiological gaseous effluent releases were well below regulatory limit ,

The licensee had implemented a environmental monitoring program which consisted l<

' of 29 thermoluminescent dosimeter stations,14 grass sampling sites,4 soil r sampling sites, and 4 surface water sampling sites surrounding the radiation center  ;

,

,

property, The environmental program data for 1994 through 1996 showed no unusual radioactivit ; Conclusions Radioactive gaseous effluents released from the reactor facility met Technical &

'

Specification requirements. A good environmental monitoring program was maintained around the radiation center end reactor facilit I

,

i

R1.3 Transoortation of Radioactive Materials Insoection Scoce (86740)

The inspector reviewed selected shipping records for shipments of radioactive i byproduct material l

Observations and Findinas  !

!

The licensee made no shipments of special nuclear material since the previous NRC l inspection conducted in May 199 ,

,

in general, the licensee had properly transferred radioactive byproduct material to t recipients authorized to receive such material. However, in a letter dated December 23,1996, the licensee informed the NRC that, between April 7,1995,  ;

and September 10,1996, seven transfers / shipments of byproduct material were }

i made to a recipient who was not authorized to receive such byproduct material, The shipments involved irradiated fission track samples.

! 10 CFR 30.41(c) states in part, that, before transferring byproduct material to a  ;

i l specific licensee of the Commission or an Agreement State, the licensee

! transferring the material shall verify that the transferee's license authorizes the  ;

receipt of the type, form, and quantity of byproduct material to be transferre t

?

t I

t

_ __ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ -

.. The transfer of byproduct material to a recipient not authorized to receive such material is a violation of 10 CFR 30.41(c).

The ir<spector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions contained in their Decenber 23,1996 letter. The corrective actions included the following: (1) the senior health physicist and the director of the radiation center met separately with the peison who made the seven erroneous shipments and discussed the seriousness of the event and the importance of following established procedures, (2) the licensee reviewed 91 previous transfer / shipments in 1996 for similar errors, and (3) the experimenter / recipient was notified of the problem with the seven byproduct shipments and informed that no further shipments would be made until the recipient's license was amended. The inspector verified that effective corrective actions had been implemente The violaticn was licensee identified, corrected .within a reasonable time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-243/9701-04).

1 Conclusions Generally, transfer of radioactive byproduct material produced during the irradiation l of samples in conducting experiments met applicable regulatory requirements. A licensee identified violation of 10 CFR 30.41(c) is dispositioned as a noncited violatio R2 Status of Radiation Protection Instrumentation Inspection Scooe (40750)

The inspector reviewed the following:

• Program for issuance of self-reading pocket dosimeters to visitors in the reactor facility

• Inventory of portable radiation survey instruments and calibration records for -

1994-1996

• Calibration records for the area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and exhaust stack monitors -

i Observations and Findinas Visitors to the radiation center were issued a gamma sensitive pocket ion chambe ;

These self-reading pocket ion chamber dosimeters were calibrated and drift checked l semi-annuall I

_

._

l .

l t

l i

o

- 17-l The reactor facility's inventory of portable radiation survey instruments was adequate. All portable survey instruments were properly calibrated. The portable radiation survey instrumatation calibration and quality control programs met regulatory guidanc The 12 gamma area radiation monitors, the continuous air monitor, and the exhaust stack monitors (gas and particulate) were operational in the reactor facility and met Technical Specification requirements. The area radiation monitors, continuous air j monitor, and exhaust stack monitors were calibrated annually. The alert and alarm !

setpoints for these monitors were checked and verified quarterl .

l Conclusions '

The calibration and quality control programs established for self-reading pocket ion )

chamber dosimeters met regulatory guidance. Portable radiation protection survey instruments, area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and exhaust stack monitors were properly calibrated and maintaine R3 Radiation Protection Procedures insoection Scope (40750)

Radiation protection procedures listed in the attachment were reviewe Observations and Findinas All health physics procedures were reviewed and approved by the reactor operations committee as required by the Technical Specifications, and the reviews were documented in the quarterly reactor operations committee meeting minute Selected radiation protection procedures were verified that they were updated and included proper terminology, references, and requirements in accordance with revised 10 CFR Part 20. The reactor f acility's procedures provided adequate guidance to ensure that reactor health physics activities were conducted properly and consistently to meet Technical Specification requirements, Conclusions Radiation protection program procedures were properly reviewed, approved, and maintained. An excellent program for review and approval of reactor facility procedures by the reactor operations committee was maintaine l

!

\

t l

. - .. . - . .--.-. _- - .. . - . - . - . . . . . - . . - - . . . - . - - . - . . . . _

l'~

l

,

'

e-18-  !

.

I

, P1 Conduct of Emergency Preparedness Activities Scoce of Inspection l

i The inspector reviewed the following: .

• Emergency plan f

• NRC approved revisions to the emergency plan

,

• Emergency implementing procedures * Exercise and drill scenarios and critiques

• - Emergency calllists

• Letters of agreement from local offsite support organizations l

• Training records ,

l  ;

'

l Observations and Findinas

'!

Emergency calllists were accurate and posted in numerous prominent places throughout the radiation center and the reactor facilit Emergency preparedness training was included in the annual requalification training i program for reactor operators. Annual training for fire and police personnel was conducted, as required. At the beginning of each academic year, the licensee conducted training of the emergency plan and emergency procedures for all 'l perscnnel working in the radiation cente The emergency exercises and drills were performed at the frequencies required in l the emergency plan. The licensee's scenarios of the emergency exercises and drills l

'

and their associated critiques and evaluations performed following the exercises i provided excellent documentatio Letters of agreement with the City of Corvallis for ambulance and fire department services and Good Samaritan Hospital for emergency medical services were maintained and curren Conclusions

!

An excellent emergency preparedness program was maintained. Annual training was provided to onsite and offsite emergency response personne S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities Insoection Scoce e

The physical security program was reviewed, and the security equipment was

inspected.

!

i

!

!

)

. - . ..

.

,.

..

i l -19- Observations and Findinas Two revisions to the physical security plan were submitted to the NRC since the previous NRC inspection. These revisions were reviewed and approved by the .

NR The radiation center site, reactor facility, and the physical security equipment met the physical security plan's requirements. All physical barriers required by ti 3 physical security plan were installed and operational. Access to the radiation center and the reactor facility were effectively controlle The security lock and key control program was effectively implemented to maintain security of the radiation center and the reactor facility. Security keys were inventoried quarterl There were no security problems or safeguards events since the pr'evious NRC inspectio Security alarm response personnel were trained annuall Tests of the reactor f acility's security system were performed in accordance with l the physical security plan. The inspector witnessed a satisfactory test of the i security system on March 20,1997. The security system experienced very few l

'

problems and was well maintaine Personnel responsible for controlling safeguards information were knowledgeable of the requirements for storage, marking, reproduction, destruction, and transmitting safeguards informatio . Conclusions The NRC aporoved physical security plan was properly implemented. The physical security system was installed and operated in accordance with the physical security plan. Alarm response personnel were properly trained. Physical security system testing was conducted as required. The security key control program and records were excellen V a Manaaement Meetinas l X1 Exit Meeting Summary l

l

'

The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee representatives on March 20,1997. The licensee's representatives acknowledged the findings presented. The licensee identified the physical security plan as proprietary informatio . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ - _ _ _ . ._._.__-.__.-__.___.__._..---_-._. .'

... i

.  ;

.p j ATTACHMENT e

{

-

! SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I

!

i 1

, PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED ,

>

l Licensee l

.. .

? S. Binney, Professor, Chairman of Reactor Operations Committee 8

! .B. Dodd, Professor, Director, Radiation Center ,

!' A. Hall, Reactor Supervisor j

J. Higginbotham, Associate Professor, Reactor Administrator l v . D. Pratt,' Senior Health Physicist

!

f S. Crail, Reactor Operator .

.

[

j W. Warnes, Associate Professor, Member.of Reactor Operations Committee l t

I i

LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED i'

1 IP 40750 Class ll Research and Test Reactors Operations Procedure l I l IP 81401 Plans, Procedures, and Reviews l'

l e

< IP 81403- Receipt of New Fuel at Reactor Facilities

. IP 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic j Significance l

'

IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting - Reactors i

!  :

IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities l f

.

i

! ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED l

Opened j

j -- 50-243/9701-01 NCV Failure to follow reactor operating procedures while ;

}. irradiating samples using the pneumatic sample transfer i

facility i'

50-243/9701-02 NCV Failure to properly post and control access into a high !

'

radiation area 'l 50-243/9701-0 NCV- Failure to properly post a radiation area l 50-243/9701-04 NCV Failure to verify that a recipient of shipped radioactive byproduct material was properly licensed I

!

-

!

._. ..

.

.

.

e-

-2-Closed 50-243/9701-01 NCV Failure to follow reactor operating procedures while irradiating samples using the pneumatic sample transfer facility 50-243/9701-02 NCV_ Failure to properly post and control access into a high radiation area 50-243/9701-03 .NCV Failure to properly post a radiation area 50-243/9701-04 NCV Failure to verify that a recipient of shipped radioactive byproduct material was properly licensed LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Operatina Procedures " Emergency Operating Procedures," March 1996  ;

! " Reactor Startup Checklist Procedures," February 1995 l " Reactor Shutdown Checklist Procedures," March 1996 l

! " Reactor Operation Procedures," March 1996 l l " Procedures for Maintaining Reactor Operational Records," March 1996 i " Administrative and Personnel Procedures," January 1996 " Operating Procedures for Reactor Water Systems," February 1996 " Reactor Power Calibration Procedures," August 1995 " Control Rod Calibration Procedures," February 1995 10.0 " Operating Procedures for Reactor Irradiation Facilities," November 1995 11.0 " Fuel Element Handling Procedures," January 1994 1 " Control Rod Maintenance, Removal, and Replacement Procedures,"

December 1994 l

13.0 " Monthly Surveillance and Maintenance Procedures," December 1994 j i

1 " Quarterly Surveillance and Maintenance Procedures," February 1996 j I

!

!

- .m - _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

.q

.. l p< l

• l J-3-( l

\

i L

!

1 " Semi-annual Surveillance and Maintenance Procedures,' December 1994

'

l 1 " Annual Surveillance and Maintenance Procedures," May 1994 j s

'

1 " Reactor Room Ventilation System Procedures," February 1995

!. ,

l 1 " Procedures for the Approval and Use of Reactor Experiments,"  :

L January 1994  :

j 1 " Equipment Maintenance and Calibration Procedures," May 1993  ;

20.0 _ "Special Nuclear Material Control and Accounting Procedures,"  !

i February 1997

!

2 " Procedures for Reporting of Defects and Non-Compliance," May 1995

'

-

!

! 2 " Emergency Power System," December 1994 l L 23.0. " Crane Operation Procedures," October 1987 i

c l

'

l 2 " Physical Security System Functional Checks and Control Room Exit Procedures,"

l May 1993

2 " Reporting Requirements," July 1996

l 2 " Procedures for the Use of External Monitoring and Recording Devices," November 1

!

1994  ;

I 2 " Procedures to Follow in the Event of a Commercial Electrical Power Failure," J February 1993  !

!

Exoeriments l I

A-1 " Normal TRIGA Operation," July 1992  !

" Irradiation of Materials in the Standard OSTR Irradiation Facilities," November I B-3 1989 B-11 *lrradiation of Materials involving Specific Quantities of Uranium and Thorium in the i

Standard OSTR Irradiation Facilities," January 1989

, B-12 " Exploratory Experiments," January 1994 l

B-23 " Studies Using TRIGA Thermal Column," March 1992 l B-29 " Reactivity Worth of Fuel," December 1976 I

!

!

I __ _ _ ., .- . , - a

.

.

O-4- i

\

B-30 " Irradiation of Jet, Diesel, and Furnace Fuels," February 1992 B-31 "TRIGA Flux Mapping," December 1988 Operator Trainina Proaram

" Oregon State University Requalification Program for Licensed Operators,"

May 1988 Radiation Center Health Physics Procedures " Guidelines for the Radiation Protection Program at the OSU Radiation Center,"

January 1997 " Procedures for Receipt Radiation Surveys and Unpacking of Packages Containing Radioactive Material," January 1997 "OSU Procedures for Transfer, Packaging, and Transport of Radioactive Materials Other Than Radioactive Wastes," January 1996 " Water Analysis," January 1997 " Standard Quality Assurance Procedures for Laboratory Radiation Detectors,"

January 1997 1 " Procedures for Hood Air Flow Surveys and Hood Filter Changes," September 1996 11.0 " Procedures for Testing and Certification of OSU Radioactive Materials Shipping Containers," January 1997 1 " Procedures for Performing the Neutron Generator Monthly Contamination Survey,"

January 1997 1 " Procedures for Collection and Biological Analysis of Environmental Soil, Water, and Vegetation Samples," January 1997 1 " Tritium Urinalysis Bioassay Procedures," January 1997  ;

1 " Operating Procedures for the Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD)

Program," October 1994 1 " General Leak Testing Procedures for Sealed Radiation Sources," January 1997 1 " Maintenance and Calibration Procedures for Radiation Protection Instrumentation !

(Including Operator Training Manual and Operating Procedures for the Radiation Center Gamma instrument Calibration Facility)," January 1994

,

.

?

o-

'

-5-20.0 " Radiation Survey Procedures for the Release of items for Unrestricted Use,"

January 1997 21.0 " Operating Procedures for the Gamma Irradiation Facility," January 1997 2 " Personnel Decontamination Procedures," January 1997 2 " Procedures for Performing Routine (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual) Radiation Surveys and Non-Routine (Special) Radiation Surveys," January 1997 27.0 " Procedure for Performing the Routine Semi-Annual Floor Survey for Fixed and Removable Radioactive Contamination," January '1997 2 " Background Radiation Measurements Using the Trout 16.5 Liter Shonka Chamber and Shonka Model 104 Electrometer," January 1997 3 " Transfer and Control of Activated Cadmium Cups," January 1997 3 " Procedure for Sampling and Pumping the Liquid Waste Hold-up Tank," January 1997 3 " Stack Gas Effluent Analysis," January 1997 3 "TRIGA Tube Wash System Procedures," January 1997 34.0 " Orientation and Training Program for the OSU Radiation Center," January 1997

.

. _._ _

'

l 4

• :

1. - j-c  ;

-6-  ;

t

,

! i i ,

_EfrDeroency Plan and Procedures l l

" Oregon State University Radiation Center and TRIGA Reactor Emergency Response Plan,"

i December 1996 ERIP O " Emergency Procedures for Emergency Response Personnel--Class O Emergency-- -

Personnel and Operational Events," December 1996  ?

ERIP 1 " Emergency Procedures for Emergency Response Personnel--Class l Emergency-- !

Notification of Unusual Events," December 1996 ,

!  :

ERIP 2 " Emergency Procedures for Emergency Response Personnel--Class II Emergency-Alert," December 1996  ;

)

'

ERIP 3 "OSTROP Emergency Operation Procedures (OSTROP 1.0)," September 1995 ERIP 4 " Emergency Procedures for Laboratories and Areas Where Radioactive Materials are

-

l Used," September 1994  :

!

-

,

ERIP 5 " Radiation Center Complex Evacuation Procedure," December 1996 l

,

ERIP 6 " Emergency Procedures to Follow on Receipt of a Bomb Threat," December 1996

'

i

'

l ERIP 7 " Emergency Activation and Notification Procedures," December 1996  ;

ERIP 8 " News Release Policy and Guidelines," December 1996

!

Physical Security Plan

" Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor Physical Security Plan," August 1996 Annual Reports

!

Annual Operating Report for July 1,1994 - June 30,1995 Annual Operating Report for July 1,1995 - June 30,1996 l

!

g I

!

(

!

.

. . . . . --