IR 05000326/1979005
| ML19207B664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1979 |
| From: | Book H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207B662 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-79-05, 50-326-79-5, NUDOCS 7909050058 | |
| Download: ML19207B664 (5) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMIS5 ion OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-326/79 4 5 Docket No.
50-326 License No.
R-ll6 Safeguards croup Licensee:
University of California at Irvine Irvine, California 92717 Facility Name: University of California at Irvine - TRIGA Inspection at:
Irvine,CampU-. - University of California Inspection conducted:
Jun; 19-21.,1979, j
j Inspectors:
[( (
[/N/[f J.
Curfis, Radiation Specialist Ajate vigned Date Signed Date Signed
'
-
7//.Ph/
Approved By:
-
/ '/4 / r e-O
_
H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Facility and Materials
'Date Signed Safety Branch Suma ry.
Inspection on June 19-21, 1979 and telephone conversation with licensee representative on June 22, 1979 (Report No. 50-326/79-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection, environmental controls and emergency response planning programs.
The inspection included a tour of the facility, observation of reactor operations for sample irradiation, examination of records and logs of operations activities, radiation surveys, personnel monitoring and audits; and.nterviews with operators, the reactor supervisor and University staff with rad W 3l cal safety responsibilities.
The inspection involved 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> onsite by or NRC inspector.
e Resul ts - There were no items of noncompliance or deviations identified in this inspection.
c.
,, 7 9._
.>.. x <w v G; RV Forrr 219 (2)
790905cosa u
'a
=~
,_
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Professor G. Miller, Reactor Supervisor Mr. P. Jerebek, Senior Reactor Operator, Assistant Reactor Supervisor
- Professor F. Rowland, Chemistry Faculty, Reactor Operations Committee Member
- Mr. W. Smirl, Enviror. mental Health and Safety Officer, UCI
- Mr. J. Tripodes, Health Physicist, UCI Other student operators and reactor experimenters present during the inspection.
- Indicates presence at exit interview.
2.
General Operations - Tour The reactor facility is located on the ground floor of the UC Physical Sciences Building.
The reactor is a 250 KW TRIGA pool type reactor with pulsing capability.
The current operating schedule indicates reactor operation for ten tc Lvienty hours per month.
This is lower than a pre-vious use period of operation for twenty to forty hours per month when one group was performing routine neutron activation analysis on irradiated samples. Most of the operations utilize the pneumatic transfer " rabbit" system or the rotary specimen rack for irradiation of samples for neutron activation.
The other principal use is for operator training.
The inspector toured the facility and observed reactor operations, discussed irradiated sample removal and monitoring procedures.
The licensee has recently installed a portal type, multi-detector GM tube monitor at the door between the control rooms and the reactor room.
Persons leaving the reactor roon pass thru this for exit monitoring.
Posting and labeling practices were observed.
A meter survey of radiation levels was made in the area adjacent to the reacter poal at approximately three feet from the floor level.
Levels of.I and.2 mR/hr were detected using a DIGIMASTER GM type survey meter, NRC Number 356, last calibrated June 15, 1979.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Organizational Changes The operating staff consists of the Reactor Supervisor, Assistant Supervisor who is a graduate student, and four or five operators who have reactor operator or senior reactor operator licenses.
The turnover of student operators averages one or two persons per year.
w...u-u 3
-
'
et, :(20
_
<
n IL !
J t s)
-2-
.
The Reactor Operations Committee is composed of faculty members and the Campus Radiation Safety Of ficer.
There have been some changes in faculty membership due to rotation of duties and faculty sabbatical leave taking.
The Campus Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) left that position on May 14, 1979; the University is presently seeking someone to fill that position.
In the interim, an assistant to the RSO who recently joined the staff, is partici-pating in the surveillance and technical support programs which the campus Safety Office provides for the reactor operations.
4.
Examination of Records Personnel monitoring, visitor log, sample irradiation and monitoring records, operations manuals and various other logs and audit records were examined.
Results of contamination and radiation level surveys were examined.
Per-sonnel exposures for 1973 were in the 0 to 280 mRea range.
Extremity monitor-ing by TLD rings showed a range from 50 to 1750 mrem for persons who routinely manipulate irradiated samples.
Radiation and contamination surveys results were low and in the expected range.
Contamination levels of 0 - 350 cpm and radiation levels of 0.1 to 20 mrem /hr were reported on the routine surveys.
Contamination greater than two times background was found on surfaces such as sample retrieval tubes where it was expected and controlled.
Radiation surveys of the facility are made in shut down and full power modes.
No significant radiation levels were recorded for locations in or around the reactor facility.
The highest levels, in the ranga of 20-100 mrem /hr, were related to irradiated samples or residual activity in the ion exchange resin of the water purification system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Radiological Protection - Procedures and Practices The inspector reviewed procedures related to radiological protection at the reactor facility.
These are presented in the reactor operations nanual and procedural memos issued by the Reactor Supervisor.
Formalized procedures are reviewed by the P,eactor Operations Committee.
Periodic contamination and meter surveys are performed by the operations s ta f f.
Fixed monitors are calibrated and the Constant Air Monitor is response checked on a routine schedule.
The inspector noted that annual pool water sampling and reactor room air sampling and analysis had fallen behind schedule.
Licensee representatives recognized the failure to meet their schedule and indicated that they had a request to the University administration for additional personnel to take responsibility for timely and thorough performance of this type analysis and to carry out other oper-ational radiation safety procedures.
Manpower ceilings and budgetary limita-tions had delayed positive action to date.
Since this was a failure to meet a self-imposed schedule and licensee representatives indicated that effort would be expended to perform the tests, no formal action was taken on this item.
bibh.i
'O
~'
.
-3-The inspector noted improved procedures for providing for personnel monitoring of experimenters, monitoring of irradiated rabbit samples prior to removal from the " rabbit" terminus, survey reporting and exit monitoring for personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Emergency Planning The licensee has an emergency plan for various emergency conditions at the facility.
Emergency response equipment and instruments are provided.
In-struments were operable and recently calibration checked.
No drills have been conducted, but operators and persons authorized unescorted cccess to the facility are provided emergency response training in evacuation alarms and routes.
A licensee representative reported that arrangements for transport and treatnent of contaminated or possibly contaminated persons had been made with the Campus Student Health Center and the UCI medical facility.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Ef fluents Annual Argon-41 gaseous releases are determined by calculation based on values derived from Argon-41 content of air released from the pool surface and from the irradiated air circulated thru the pneumatic sample transfer system during operation.
Argon-41 concentration values for these two sources of a' lorne effluent have been determined by measurements of air samples taken auring 250 KU reactor operation and are considered conservative values (greater than the average of actual values).
The licensee does not nonitor the drains of the sinks in labs adjacent to the reactor room.
Liquid waste containers are provided and used for any liquid radioactive wastes and the small quantities generated at the reactor are transferred to the E.H.&S. office for disposal under the State license.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Environmental Monitoring The licensee maintains an array of eleven TLD dosimeters at five locations adjacent to the reactor and six at more remote campus or off-site locations to monitor for any effect of reactor operations on external radiation levels.
The close-in dosimeters located adjacent to the facility on laboratory walls show levels greater than the background levels as determined by three of the dosimeters placed in other buildings on campus.
The radiation levels reported are well within 10 CFR 20 limits for unrestricted areas and no upward trend is indicated.
- 4
,,4 ggfT'
s a r
<. s q"? o:e9 s x > r-
-
.
_4_
The licensee has discontinued the routine environmental sampling program initiated in the period prior to and immediately following the first year of reactor operation.
In discussions with the Campus Environmental Health and Safety Officer, the inspector stressed the importance of establish-ing some means of monitoring to establish that the reactor operation has no adverse environmental impact.
Surveillance by the Radiation Safety Office staff and establishment of periodic or routine effluent monitoring was discussed.
No precise plan for inproved environmental impact assessment was discussed but the Environmental Health and Safety staff indicated that this would be an area the Campus Radiation Officer would be asked to address in the near future.
9.
Exit Interview At the end of the inspection, the inspector held exit interviews with licensee representatives from the Chemistry Department and the Environmental Health and Safety Office. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed. No items of noncompliance were identified.
o _,
, n t_
- -
-
a
<
- -}
'
,'
g3 4
&s.N U'"Y'