IR 05000264/1997201

Insp Rept 50-264/97-201 on 971202-03.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Aspects of Surveillance,Experiments,Radiation Controls,Design Change & Emergency Preparedness (69001)

ML20198B431
Person / Time
Site:	Dow Chemical Company
Issue date:	12/18/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198B423	List: IR 05000264/1997201 ML20198B418
References
50-264-97-201, NUDOCS 9801060315
Download: ML20198B431 (8)

Text

. . . . .

q; + -

..; <

i

-. ;

.-

'

' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION

,.

_

!

Docket No: . 50 264' -

.

i License Nos:- R 108 -'

i Report Nost - _ 50 . '7201 (DRPM) s

!

Licensee: - DOW Chemical Company .

Facility Name:4_DOW Nuclear Research Reactor Location: -Midland, Michigan Dates: December 2-3, 1997 t

inspector:- T. M. Burdick Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non Power Reactor ano Decommissioning Project Directorate

'

l:-

F i,

i l

! P : Db15971218K 05000264 V e _

PDR t i

'

.

.

s

.

Executive Summary DOW TRIGA Research Reactor Report No. 50 264/97201(DRPM)

This routine, announced inspection included aspects of surveillance, experiments, radiation controls, design change, and emergency preparedness (69001)

Surveillanco (69001)

• Annual fuelinspection was conducted by the licensee with no unusual finding (Section 1.0)

Experiments (69001)

e The licensee had prepared an experiment which involved replacing the rotary specimen system, developed a detailed procedure and presented it to the Reactor Operations Committee for review and approval as required by Technical Specifications. (Section 2.0)

Radiation Control (69001)

• The inspecto observed work in progress with continuous health physics coverag ALARA was consciously promoted throughout the licensee's activities. (Section 3.0)

Design Change (69001)

e in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the licensee evaluated the rotating specimen system replacement for unreviewed safety questions. (Section 4.0)

Emergency Preparedness (69001)

,

• The inspector observed the annual Emergency Plan drillin progress. (Section 5.0)

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

-. . . --

-

..

.;

... a

,

,

DETAILS

.

. Survellionce i insoection Scone (69001)

~

The inspector reviewed fuel surveillance documentation to determine compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications (T.S.) 4.0. -

'

b_ Observations and Findinas Routine annual fuelinspection was documented as require Conclusions No concems were identifie .0 Experiments Inmambn Scone (69001)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's proposal to perform the rotary specimen system replacement under the mgram to control and approve experiments to determine compliance with tne requirements in T.S. 3.6. and 6.2 Ongoing removal of the system was also observed, Observations and Findinos The procedure was detailed and appeared to take the necessary requirements and precautions into account. Reactor Operations Committee approval was documente Ongoing activities were observed by the inspector and appeared to be consistent with the approved procedure and. Technical Specification The licensee encountered only minor difficulty during the removal procedure and carefully considered alternatives and consequences before proceedin Conclusions

- The experiment was conducted in accordance with properly reviewed and approved procedures and was acceptably documente !

i

. .

,

_= -

= _ _ a._w w . ..

..

, . -

,

..

. 2 --

. 3.0 - Radiation Control

' insoection Scone f89001)

The inspector reviewed the radiation protec' ion aspects of the ongoing replacement of the rotary specimen system to determine that the requirements in 10 CFR 20 were met, Observations and Findinos The inspector reviewed the licensee's ALARA evaluation of the system replacement and determined that it was consistent with the licensee's ALAPA program and 10 CFR 20. The Radiation Safety Officer was present during u significant work affecting radiation exposure. Actions to ensure that radiation hazards were identified and enntrolled were deliberate and conservativei Dose rates measured during the removal of the rotary specimen chamber were measured frequently and values were established for on-contact as well as at the pool surface to confirm calculated levels. Contact readings were measured from remote distances so that no exposure was received. The sample chamber contact readings ranged from 13 to 33 Rem per hour. The readings at the pool surf ace with the specimen rack submerged at the desired Icng term storage deptn were negligible. The 21/2 inch diameter drive shaft tube protruding above the water surface was reading about 1/2 mrem per hour at the open en The sample tube-end reading was negligibl At the time of the inspection the licensee han .stablished an accep tble plan and f acility for storing and immobilizing the rotary specimen rack in the pool for

_

an extended period untillater removal following sufficient decay. An acceptable lead shielded storage cave was prepared in the reactor room should premature removal from the pool be deemed necessary. The licensee had made preparation for out-of-pool storage with assumptions and precautions to minimize radiation effects in adjacent area Alarming dosimeters weie used to supplement badges, finger rings and self reading dosimeters to ensure doses were carefully monitored. No significant dose rates were detected at working distances above the pool surface, Conclusions

. All badged reactor personnel exposures were closely controlled and monitore No significant exposure occurred during the removal and storage of the sample syste ,

.

, -:,_ n.w . .n- .- - - ,

.,

...

.

.

-3-4.0 Design Change Insnaction Scoca (690011 r

The inspector reviewed the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to determina compliance with requirement Observations snd Findinas Because the replacement system was virtually identical to the old system there were no concerns identified. A review of the Technical Specifications and the Safety Analysis Report revealed nothing that conflicted with the evaluation conclusio Conclusions The licensee made an acceptable evaluatio .0 Emergency Preparedness

• Insosction Scone (69001)

The inspector reviewed the emergency plan, observed the annual drill, and interviewed licensee employees to determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q). Observations and Findinas The drill was integrated with the ongoing removal of the rotary specimen rac A high raoiation condition was simulated wnen the highly radioactive and somewhat buoyant specimen chamber was assumed to float uncontrollably to the pool surfac Performance standards and expectations were prepared and used to evaluate the participants. The Radiation Safety Officer and a DOW safety staff member were evaluators along with the reactor superviso Response from on-site support was prompt. Actions taken during the drill focused on evacuation of the affected inside areas and isolation of the surrounding outside grounds that were adjacent to the reacto Responses from the operations personnel were prompt and appropriate. Use of emergency equipment was extensiv The inspector could not verify that the licensee had at least made contact with off-site agencies during the last annual drill. It is a biennial action required by the plan. Although the licensee believed it had been done last year, they plan to document the action in future drill . -. . .- . . . . . - -

a

.., .,

..

-4-

.

-The inspector noted that the Plan requires drills to be conducted quarterly but the drills appeared to be associated with the DOW safety program for-conventional chemicalindustrial emergencies in three of the four quarters.--The licensee will consider clarifying this in the next revisio > Conclusions The licensee conducted an annual drill that met the requirements to demonstrate ability to respond to and to mitigate the consequences of an *

even .0 - Exit interview (30703)

The inspector presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management during a telephonic exit meeting on December 3,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. The inspector asked the licensee whether any material examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. They

. identified no proprietary information.

,

a w- w +-

, . . . _ _ _ - _ .

,

19-

! e; 1 ...

Persons Contacted {

DOW Chemical Comoany

. Sus'en Butts Facility Director -

• Ward Rigot

. Reactor Supervisor _ >

Janet Grappin Radiation Safety Officer Mike Buckmann ' Senior Reactor Operator Tim Lickly - - Reactor Operations Committee-Mary Draves , DOW Safety Department The_ inspector also contected other supervisory, technical and administrative staff personnel-as well. .

- * Denotes those attending the exit meeting on' December 3,199 Insnection Proceduras Used  :

IP 69001 Class ll Non-Powcr Reactors .

Items Ooened and Closed <

None List of Documents Reviewed Safety Analysis Report Safety Evaluation Report Reactor Operating License

._ Technical Specifications Surveillance' Procedures Surved ance Records Emergency procedures

- Emergency Plan List of Acronyms Used ALARA~ As Low as Reasonably Achievable

.CFR Code of Federal Regulations

.DRP Division of Reactor Program Management HP- Health Physics

.NRC' Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'PDR- Public Document Roo RSO Radiation Safety Officer ROC ' Reactor Operations Committee

!SAR Safety Analysis Report

' T.S.'

-

- Technical Specifications

.

e m- -q

. )!i ll, 1 l ' I

,

. !

.

_

F e

. O b _ i x

n a

E G

A P

O N

A E

a c

e

.

M_M _

_

_

t a

h C

s r

e c

a r

h T 4

l .

_ 6 (

9 m

1

l it e

_

1 'I _

1 l

E E

_ _

n E

T

)

a g

_ _

_

_

s A E y n _

eila l

D T l n

i n _

A - _ et O e yin D p oI

)

R E

l f

o )-

_ _ l pS s L (

i S

.C mT I l

ER E

E t e

a l

O!

NE _ _

t u

g D Am o n t E or _ e&

s i n l ef oe d e _ l u E v .

hd t e _ - Cma l

c O innia N n N t

)

S Mi A l

l i

F t

b _ s a

F R ,

E o Ode (

I (

L F

M Ya t E

e l _  :

d _

e T Rla o _

_ d S Tc Y Ns K C

.

l l

.

_ _

_

C o I S E e C S g o .

pan I D S O r

N _ _

_

g r

UTA o R I

E e l t

n O I W D (n U W l e 2

_

t O B ib u 1 L R - T S s m e c n e LOY OTL o

p l lp p _

s o

I s l FC N RA Y

e S u _

C B Y R '

OEO TR D B l _

CRS D

'

t EEM s

g E

B l _ _ d

e PWE S

M s W E

o NOT l

le C

.

_

_

PI B s v

_

_

I VI la e .

U E ri 1 e s S R ot L _

_

u W

E tcIin l

y

_ _

_ a e i t

r C N 4 pS sT T e _

nI l v _

R e _

N i e S _

a E :. 6 l _ _

e r

P O b l _

_

A O is N n _

_

l a

o T

E 2 p s

l

_ _

_ n o

K -

e _ it C

, -

R l

_ c .

_ n O d  : u D a: _

F ee l 3 _

_

_

_

P n 0 L ma K C

e it S

_

L o p n A i

s e

N I

D y U M E .

S 5 t R T T

_

.

s a U I s

.

L B m :  : t

.

. e 2 N _

_

e r

n o T I I t E b e C N 1 3 it P e

l n O m m U

_

y t U _ u l

r .

m o a O N t

a D _

e o l

u 1 l

a 1

.

_

_ r u l C

/

g  :

.

t _

d y e

_

O it l it _ e r R N 0 s m  :. n _ _

c o

a r

a :

n o U r m E T a N P

_

.

e

.

l

_ l M R 2 r _

_

n m c T .

u

_ O

_

u q S o N P t e  :

_

i S

_ N E

r o S MU E T e _

_

_

t c

.

E R p l

_

_

e V T e m TA t p l

U I

S R e I T l _

s O I _ n

_

9 I t

S _

_ I N W

_

_

-

_

-