ML19345H204
| ML19345H204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Book H, Curtis J, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345H200 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-81-03, 50-326-81-3, IEC-80-14, NUDOCS 8105010206 | |
| Download: ML19345H204 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000326/1981003
Text
-
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Raport No. 50-326/81-03
-
Do'cket No. 50-326
License no, R-116
Safeguards Group
University of California at Irvine
I.ic e n s e e :
Irvine, California 92717
-
University of California at Irvine - TRIGA
Facility Na=e:
Irvine, Campus - University of California
Inspection at:
March 2 - 5, 1981
Inspection conducted:
Inspectors: 9
&
3
7 f/-
[/. R. Curtis, Radiation Specialist
' Dat/S igned
-vI77/?/
Approved By:
na
n-a J/
F. Wen'slawski, Chief, Reactor Radiation Protection Section Dai!c Si,fned
_
Date Signed
3!27
/
d-*
Approved By:
/'
H. E. Book, Chief, Radiological Safety Branch
Date Signed
S u:==a ry :
,
. . .
Insoection on March 2-5, 1981 Report No. 50-326/81-03
. . . .
.
Areas Inscected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection,
radioactive materials transport, environmental controls and emergency response
planning programs; follow-up on licensee action on an item of non-compliance
identified in Inspection Report 80-02, and licensee response to IE Circular
"
80-14. 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 interviews
with operators, the reactor supervisor and University staff with radiological
safety responsibilities. The inspection involved 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> onsite by one
NRC inspector.
Results: There were no items of noncompliance'or deviations identified in
this inspection.
.
. ;.
.
. . . . . . .
.,
.,,. RV Form 219 (2)
'
, , .
-
-4 ;4::
..
.
. . .
.
..
. ;:. u.; . . .;,. . .
-
-
810503opog
'
h'
Y%"L&
,
.-
_
.
_
_
.
_ _
-
-
-
.
4
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
- Professor G. Miller, Reactor Supervisor
Mr. P. Jerebek, Senior Reactor Operator, Assistant Reactor Supervisor
- Professor F. Rowland, Chemistry Faculty, P.eactor Administrator
- Mr. W. Smirl, Environmental Health and Safety Officer, UCI
- Mr. J. Tripodes, Health Physicist, UCI
- Professor M. Moe, Reactor Operations Committee Member
Other student operators present during the inspection.
- Indicates presence at exit interview.
2.
General Goerations - Tour
The reactor facility is located on the ground floor of the G Physical
Sciences Building. The reactor is a 250 KW TRIGA pool type reactor
with pulsing capability. The current operating schedule indicates reactor
operation for two to ten hours per month.
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
installed a portal type, multi-detector GM tube monitor at the door
between the control room and the reactor room.
Persons leaving the reactor
room pass thru this for exit monitoring.
Posting and labeling practices
were observed and appeared to be in compliance with 10 CFR 19.11 and
A meter survey of radiation levels was made at various locations around
the facility at approximately three feet from the floor level. Levels
of 0.2 to 3.0 mr/hr were detected using a Xetex Mini GM tube survey
meter, NRC Number 008327 last calibrated January 30, 1981.
l
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Oraanizational Changes
The operating staff consists of the Reactor Supervisor, Assistant Supervisor,
who is a graduate student, and two or three operators who have reactor
operator or senior reactor operator licenses. The turnover of student
l
operators averages one or two persons per year.
l
l
!
-
_
.
_
.
.
-2-
The Reactor Operations Comittee is composed of faculty members, the
Reactor Supervisor, and the Campus Radiation Safety Officer. There
have been some changes in faculty membership due to rotation of duties
and faculty sabbatical leave taking.
The Campus Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) and his assistant, Mr. W.
Nabor, have actively participated in the surveillance and technical
support programs which the campus Environmental Health & 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. Personnel exposures for 1980 were in the 0 to 550 mrem
range.
Extremity monitoring by TLD rings showed a range from 70 to
700 mrem for persons who routinely manipulate irradiated samples.
Radiation and contamination survey results were low and in the expected
range.
Contamination levels of 0 to 500 cpm and radiation levels of
0 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.
Residual activity in the ion exchange resin of the water
l
purification system resulted in recorded levels from 2 to 17 mrem per
hour within one foot of the resin tanks. The highest levels recorded,
i
in the range of 10 to 1200 mrem /hr, were close-in measurements made
in connection with retrieval of irradiated samples. Appropriate shielding
was used to reduce these levels.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified,
l
5.
Radiolooical Protection Procedures
The inspector reviewed procedures related to radiological protection
at the reactor facility. These are presented in the reactor operations
manual and procedural memos issued by the Reactor Supervisor.
Formalized
procedures are reviewed by the Reactor Operations Comittee.
l
The Reactor Supervisor has initiated a program of review and revision
l
of the Operations Manual and Standard Operating Procedures. The last
overall revision date for the manual was June 1977.
Sections concerning
access control to the facility and transfer and transport of radioactive
materials have been given recent attention and these revised sections
have been reviewed, or are in the process of review and approval by
the Reactor Operations Comittee.
l
I --
-
. . - - - _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ . _ _
_. __.
_ _ . _ _ _
_ _ . _ _
.
'
.
-3-
The inspector noted that some of the surveillance, instrument calibration,
recording and reporting practices are not presently being performed
as prescribed in the procedures. This was discussed at length in the
exit interview. The inspector was advised that licensee management
was aware of the problems in this area and that, after considerable
but unavoidable delay, two significant moves are underway to correct
them.
1) A one-half full time equivalent position has been authorized
to provide additional manpower to perform radiation safety oriented
activity for the reactor facility. The Reactor Supervisor and the Radiation
Safety Officer will coordinate the effort to ensure that appropriate
surveillance activities and instrument calibrations are performed on
a timely basis. 2) The Reactor Supervisor has been relieved of normal
teaching duties for the spring quarter for the specific purpose of providing
for the time to continue the review of the operations and procedures
manuals, and to improve training and supervision of reactor operators.
The training effort will be focused on the new Standard Operating Procedures
and will be oriented to give assurance that the prescribed recording
and reporting requirements are understood and put into practice.
The Reactor Operating Committee has been appraised of the problem areas
and will audit the progress of the procedural revision and other corrective
actions.
!!o items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Emergency Planning
The licensee has an emergency plan addressing various emergency conditions
at the reactor facility.
Emergency response equipment and instruments
are provided for in the plan.
Recent false alarms of the surveillance
instrumentation have exercised the amergency notification system for
off hours; no formal emergency drills or exercises have been held.
Operators and persons authorized unescorted access to the facility
are provided emergency response training in evacuation alarms and routes,
i
The licensee has made arrangements for emergency transport and treatment
of contaminated or possibly contaminated persons.
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Effluents-Gaseous and Liauids
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 that is circulated thru the pneumatic
sample transfer system during operation. Argon-41 concentration values for
these two sources of airborne effluent have been determined by calculation
or by earlier measurements of air samples taken during 250 KW reactor
operation and are considered conservative values (greater than the average
4
-
.
of actual values). A new stack monitor has been designed and is in
the final ,tages of assembly. The licensee representative indicated
that it will be installed and incorporated into the recently acquired,
computerized surveillance and intrusion alarm system in the near future.
It is anticipated that this monitor will improve upon the measurement
and evaluation of gaseous releases from the facility.
Experimenters who might generate liquid waste at the facility get training
on proper disposal techniques. Liquid waste containers are provided
and used for any liquid radioactive wastes. The small quantities generated
at the reactor are transferred to the E.H.& S. office for disposal under
the State license.
f o items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Environmental Monitorina
The licensee does not maintain a program of routine environmental sampling
and analysis. Airborne and surface contamination survey results from
inside the facility are low and seldom exceed normal background levels;
the licensee indicated that manpower effort for a routine environmental
sampling and analysis programs cannot be justified under these conditions.
The licensee maintains an array of ten TLD dosimeters at six locations
adjacent to the reactor facility and four others at locations on and
off campus. The results reported for the dosimeters located on the walls
of the reactor room exceed the background levels established.by the
dosimeters placed at other buildings on campus. The radiation levels reported
are in the range of 50 to 100 millirem per year, well within the 10 CFR 20
limits for unrestricted areas and no upward trend is indicated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Transportation Activities
Licensee activities that involve transportation of radioactive materials
under the jurisdiction of NRC or D0T regulations are those in which
samples irradiated at the reactor are packaged and transferred or shipped
to organizations who arrange to use the reactor.
Procedures for confirming
that materials are transferred to persons who have authority to possess
radioactive materials and procedures for proper monitoring and packaging
of radioactive material for transport were reviewed and discussed with
licensee representatives.
Records and reports of the shipment of a
one curie Sodium-24 source were examined and discussed with members
of the Environmental Health and Safety Office who participated in the
work.
Based on this examination and discussions with licensee representatives,
the inspector concluded that the licensee had established procedures
related to transport activities, had procured information and conducted
training to assure that persons who perform activities related to packaging
and transport of radioactive materials are aware of the regulatory requirements,
and had applied proper practices in a shipment of radioactive materials
that were subject to NRC and D0T regulations.
+
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
,s
-
, , , , , ,
-
.,y
- - - - ,-
, , , - - , - - , ~ - , , ,
- - - . - - ,
..
'
.
'
.
5-
-
10.
Followup on Distribution of IE Circular 80-14
Neither the Reactor Supervisor nor the Radiation Safety Officer recalled
having received IE Circular 80-14, Radioactive Contamination of Plant
Demineralized Water System....
The inspector provided them with a copy.
They evaluated the possibility of such an event at their facility and
concluded that no cross connects existed between the pool and its cleanup
-
system that could contribute contamination to a potable water source.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11. Status of Licensee Corrective Action in Response to An Item of Noncompliance
A special inspection at UC/Irvine in December 1980, identified an item
of noncompliance related to proper instruction of workers with regard
to radiological hazards and associated risks. The licensee responded
to the December 8, 1980 notice of noncompliance on December 24, 1980.
The licensee did not agree with the citation and supported its position
in the response. The licensee also described corrective actions taken
and proposed to extend its access control and hazard and risk instruction
policies. A new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on access to the
facility was written, and was reviewed and approved by the Reactor Operations
Committee. Persons who visit the facility to perform work of any type
were identified and a formalized instruction program and certification
system was promulgated.
The inspector reviewed the S0P and the instructional material that was
being offered to persons who were identified as workers who would enter
the restricted area of the facility.
,
i
Two persons who entered the facility to do repair work on a refrigeration
l
unit had been instructed according to the new program. The part of the
program involving formal certification that the instruction had been
given had not been fully implemented in this case. The inspector
concluded that instruction of the individuals who entered the facility
,
to do repair work had been instructed as required by 10 CFR 19.12.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives as indicated in Section 1
'
of this report at the close of the inspection. The scope and findings
,
of the inspection were discussed, including detailed discussion of licensee
plans as described in paragraph three of section 5 of this report.
fio items of noncompliance were identified.
,
,wm,,----~-m
~,-,-.,y-
. ,
.--,,,,,%-.m,,,__.
,_ ,._.-. - ,
,_r,,-,
.,_,,..,.----,._.m._.,-_..~e--
, . -
-.--e..~e,
,w
, , - -
-