ML19290A640
| ML19290A640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1979 |
| From: | Pagliaro J, Schultz W, Wiedeman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290A632 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210523 | |
| Download: ML19290A640 (4) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report Fo. 79-03 License No. 13-02812-04 Priority III Category F(1-A)
Licensee:
Purdue University W. Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Inspection Conducted: September 11, 1979 L13 &k. ?>c
[
\\C) 7 3 Inspectors:
W.
S lt
!. 6
/ ~
,.c.}
. G. Wiedeman
(
, (L.
Approved By: J.AfPagliaro 10- L '71 Chief Materials Radiological Protection Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on September 11, 1979 (Report No. 79-03)
Areas Inspected: The inspection was limited to a review of the procedures for collecting, storing, processing and transferring low level radioactive waste material to a licensed waste disposal facility. The inspection involved 8 inspe-ctor-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
2049 267 7911210 62.b
f DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted This was an announced limited inspection which was conducted on September 11, 1979.
Information in this report was furnished by the following personnel:
John E. Christian, Ph.D., Chairman, Radiological Control Committee Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Radiological Control Officer Richard J. Vetter, Ph.D., Assistant Radiological Control Officer Virgil Konopinski, Director of Division of Industrial Hygiene and Radiological Health, Indiana State Board of Health Hugh Totten, Student Senator, Purdue Student Assn.
Diana McClain, Education Editor, Purdue Exponent 2.
Purpose of Inspection On September 7,1979 William Moreau, an assistant to Senator Bayh (Indiana), contacted W. H. Schultz and reported that a student at Purdue University was concerned about the methods used to store and dispose of radioactive waste at Purdue University.
J. A. Pagliaro and W. H. Schultz contacted the student, Hugh Totten, by telephone on September 7, 1979 and learned that he was concerned about the storage of volatile liquids (toluene) containing radioactive material being stored in two quonset buildings located on University property about two miles from the main campus.
Mr. Totten stated he smelled the toluene from outside the buildings and wondered if there was a possibility that the radioactive waste stored in the buildings could leak out into the environment.
Mr. Totten also expressed some concern about the adequacy of locks on the doors of the two storage buildings.
On September 10, 1979 W. H. Schultz contacted Mr. Totten by telephone and informed him that NRC personr"1 would be at Purdue on September 11, 1979 and Mr. Totten was invited to participate in the inspection.
He stated he would also like to have another individual, Diana McClain, participate in the inspection.
On September 11, 1979 Messrs. W. H. Schultz and D. G. Wiedeman arrived at Purdue University, met with the individuals identified above, and carried out an inspection of the licensee's radioactive waste disposal program.
3'.
Scope of Inspection The personnel who participated in the onsite inspection of the radioactive waste storage facility included: Messrs. Vetter, Konopinski, Totten, Wiedeman and Schultz and Ms. McClain.
2049 268 The waste storage and handling facility consists of two quonset type buildings of metal construction. Each building is about 20 feet by 50 feet and is provided with a concrete floor. The two buildings are separated by about six feet.
It was noted that one of the buildings was used for the storage of liquid radioactive waste, empty 55 aallon drums sad bags of dry powder which is mixed with the liquid waste to produce a solid mass in the 55 gallon drums. At the time of the inspection the licenree had about 200 cans of used scintillation liquid containing tritium and carbon 14.
Each can contained 5 gallons of liquid.
It was noted that the 5 gallon cans were the same cans in which the scintillation liquid (toluene) was received.
Each can was labelled to show the presence of radioactive material and the contents. Several of the cans were checked and it appeared the quantity of radioactive material in the cans ranged from 3 microcuries to 400 microcuries per 5 gallon c:..
The cans were piled in an area which was less than 50% of the area of one of the quonset buildings. They were piled in some cases as high as 5 cans. It was noted that some of the cans were,adly c orroded and presented a possible leakage problem or the collapse of a pile where cans were piled on top of each other. However, at the time of the inspection there was no leakage of the contents of the 5 gallon Cans.
The other quonset building was used for the storage of long and short half life radioactive waste material in solid form. This building was also used to compact dry waste into 55 gallon drums and to store animal carcasses in deep freeze units, 4.
Posting and Labeling It was noted during the inspection that containers, areas and buildings were posted and labeled in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203.
5.
Security Each of the two quonset buildings was provided with conventional type doors which were secured with padlocks. Although it would be possible ts break into the two buildings the method of security appeared to be adequate to protect the contents of the buildings.
In addition,'the storage buildings are located on University property which is located several miles from the main campus. Also, the buildings are located well away from the public road.
2049 269' 3
4 6.
Irdependent Measurements Direct reading surveys were made with an Eberline Model E500-B, NRC No. 133219. The meter was provided with an end window GM probe with 2
a window thickness of about 2 mg/cm. All surveys in the quonset building which was used to store the liquid radioactive waste showed no radiation levels above background. The background radiation level was about 0.02 mR/hr.
Surveys were made in the quonset building which was used to store the solid radioactive waste. The maximum radiation levels noted were at the surface of small plastic bags in which up to millicurie quantities of various isotopes were stored. The plastic bags contained principally phosphorus-32, chromium-51 and 131. Although the labels on the bags showed that millicurie amounts of activity had been disposed the actual contents were well below this amount because the waste material had been in storage for some time. The maximum surface level noted on the bags was 0.7 mR/hr.
Direct reading surveys were made on the exterior surface of both buildings around the entire perimeter and no levels above background were noted.
Wipe surveys were taken at various locations inside and outside both buildings to check.for the presence of removable contamination.
These wipes were submitted to Argonne National Laboratory for analysis.
The wipe surveys were analyzed by liquid scintillation counting and no detectable activity was found.
7.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection a meeting sss held to review the findings of the inspection. The individuals at:ending this meeting included: Messrs.. Christian, Ziemer, Wiedeman and Schultz.
's.
Licensee personnel.were informed that no items of noncompliance were noted during this inspection.
However, during the inspection several items were noted that did not constitute items of noncompliance but could have safety significance.
It was noted dur..ng the inspection that the building in which the liquid radioacti"e waste was stored had a number of 5 gallon cans that were bedif corroded and were piled on top of each other.
If one or more of these cans should start leaking or collapse it could cause the release of significant amounts of toluene into the building.
This would result in a potential fire hazard. Also, it was noted that this building was provided with a conventional type lighting system (some lights had bare bulbs) and with conventional type switches instead of explosion-proof components. The NRC representa-tives expressed concern about this matter to licensee management and requested that further evaluation be made by the licensee to determine what corrective steps could be taken to reduce this potential problem.
4-2049 270