IR 05000243/1985001
| ML20128H026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oregon State University |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1985 |
| From: | Cillis M, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128H012 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-243-85-01, 50-243-85-1, NUDOCS 8505300389 | |
| Download: ML20128H026 (10) | |
Text
,
..
'
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
REGION V
Report No.
50-243/85-01 Docket No.
50-243 Licensa No.
R-106 Licensee:
Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Facility Name:
TRIGA Mark II
,
Inspection at:
Corvallis, Oregon Inspection conducted:
March 25-26, 1985
,
5 z f[
Inspectors:
.
M. Cillis, Radiation Specialist-Date Signed Approved By: N 16 g/ 3/96*
,
Facili(Y@as, Chief Date Signed G. P.
~~
nbs Radiological Protection Section Summary:
Inspection on March 25-26, 1985 (Report No. 50-243/85-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based
? inspector of the reactor operations program, radiation protection program, environmental monitoring program,' emergency preparedness program,-
transportation activities; including personnel monitoring, surveys, instrument calibrations, ' reactor operator requalification program, standard operating procedures, surveillances, ALARA, reactor maintenance activities, experiments, organization, licensee evaluations of Information Notices, and a tour of the-facility. The inspection involved 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> of onsite time by one inspector.
Results: Of the seventeen areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
l 8505300389 850
PDR ADOCK 050 243 G
+PDR
,
~
l l
li
y 3,
-
-
-
-
.
,
..
I
%.
.
.: c
. -,.
'
.
DETAILS
'
t
. - 1 ~.
Persons Contacted
~
. *A.
G.' Johnson, Assistant Director, Radiation Protection and Regulatory
--
~ Affairs
'*DrE B.zDodds, Assistant Reactor Administrator
- T..V.-Anderson,-Reactor Supervisor Dr. ;S. E. Binney, Chairman, Reactor Operations Committee H. Busby,. Electronics Technician f* Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview on March 26, 1985.
-2.
! Reactor Operations V
a.
General
- The inspection disclosed that the facility continues to-provide
-
support for reactor related research"and teaching programs.
~
A review of' reactor. operating records disclosed that a total of
- 198.7 kilowatt hours werecgenerated-from January 1 through March 26,~
1985. The inspector-witnessed one. reactor operation involving -
reactor'startup.. The startup was performed-consistent with the
,
licensee's standard operating procedures and the. Technical Specifications.
~
No violations or deviat'ioris were identified.
b.
Organization, Logs, Records t
The organizational structure for the operation and administration of
~
,
'the TRIGA reactor facility remains unchanged from that previously
' reported.
Through' discussions.with licensee. representatives and an examination
of selected facility records, ~ the inspector found the staffing and qualification of personnel, including =c=bers'of the Rcactor-Operations Committee, to be consistent with the Technical;
-
. Specification,'Section 6.i " Organization."
s Representative samples of facility records and maintenance logs for
'
- the period of June 1983 through January 1985 were examined to verify
-
the performance of reactor operation activities.
f:
' Specific records examined were as follows:
[.,
Control Room Log Sheets
'
'
Startup-and Shutdown Checklists L
Maintenance Log
. Rod Calibration p"
. Power Calibration Instrument Calibration Records
,
p
,
I
'
,
,
- c
'
d_
I-
'
,
,
,
.,,
y
,,
,e
.,
.
.
y-
-
y
-..,,
u. -, -,,
, -, -
y
-.
..... -
~~
{s,
,
'
2"
~
.,7 s
.... -
.
t
[
'
'
'
-
' Operational Procedures
- Console Logs
'
' Daily Power Logs -
_
Reactor Supervisors Log '
- -
Scram Log
.
- Survey (radiation,'. contamination, and. air) records.
Emergency Procedures-
~
-
Training: Records-Environmental Monitoring Records
'
10.CFR 50'.59 Evaluations
,,,
- No violations or deviations were identified.
.
c.
Review and Audit
,
L
. The licerisee'sf review and audit program prescribed in Technical
- Specification; Section;6.2,'" Review and Audit" was examined. The
-
~ examination-included a review of the? Reactor Operation Committee c
>
(ROC) written charter;' ROC committee meeting minutes, ROCL
,
surveillance and audit' reports for the period of 1983 through March 1985,,and a discussion with-the ROC Chairman,
' The inspector concluded th t~the Review and Audit program implemented b'y the ROC met'or exceeded the' requirements specified in
.
the Technical Specification,.Section 6.2.
I'
' No violations or, deviations were identified.
-
d.
Reactor Operational Procedures
,
Thh inspection included an examination of the licensee's operating procedures prescribed in Technical Specification, Section 6.5,
~
" Operating Procedures." = Procedures. examined were those associated;
,
,,
'
with reactor startup, shutdown, steady state operations, and conduct of experiments.
The inspector noted that the procedures are periodically reviewed
-
for technical adequacy by the licensee's staff.
'
A walk through of a selected procedure checklist (e.g., OST Rep 2.0,
' f
" Reactor Startup Checklist Procedure") was made for. the purpose of =
,
. verifying the procedure was technically adequate for accomplishing its intended purpose.
'
- No violations or deviations were identified.
e.
. Chan'Res to the Facility, to Facility Procedures and Reactor i
- -
Experiments D
Changes'made to the facility, facility procedures, and experiments-since the previous inspection were examined for compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.59, " Changes, Tests'and Experiments."
.
.
c
+
-(
n,
. F'
k'
-p
E:.
"
n-
.
i-e
~The examination disclosed that there were five changes-which were
.
. reviewed pursuant'to 10 CFR 50.59. A summary of each change is as follows:
Addition of a " Ventilation Dampers Closed" annunciator to the
. reactor console day / night switch.
Installation.of new flow rate regul'ating valves in three argon
'*
vent lines entering the' argon ventilation system manifold.
- Installation of a reactor control room smoke detector.
- Installation of amphenol plugs into the control rod electrical
'
cables.
- Minor changes to the Oregon State Triga Reactor and Radiation Center emergency response plan.
The licensee's evaluation of the above items is described in the licensee's annual report dated September 15, 1984. The inspector verified, through the review of reactor operation maintenance records and discussions, that no recent changes were made which may be considered as an unreviewed safety question pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
No violations or deviations were identified.
f.
Experiments A review of the experiments that were accomplished since the last inspection was conducted. The review disclosed that no new experiments have been conducted. Those performed were consistent with the Technical Specificatica, Sections 6.2.d, " Review and Audit," and 6.5, " Operating Procedures."
No violations or deviations were identified.
g.
Surveillances Records of surveillance checks conducted daily, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually were selectively examined and found to be consistent with the appropriate requirements prescribed in the Technical Specifications, standard operating procedures, and licensee's commitments.
No violations'or deviations were identified.
L'.
y3
--
<
^
.
_
'
4-
.
.
t..
6, '
&
3.
Training
'The licensee's general employee training (GET), emergency preparedness
_
.
'
'
~~ training, reactor operator, and senior reactor operators training and requalification programs were examined.
~
Training'less'on plans, study guides, attendance records, and examinations -
were reviewed.
,
'
iTheLinspector concluded all.of that the licensee's training programs met
~
~
or exceeded their commitments described in their emergency plan, in 10 CFR Part 19.12, " Instructions to Workers," and in their NRC approved'
reactor and senior-. reactor. operators requalification program.
No. violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Emergency Preparedness The licensee's capabilities for responding to emergencies as described in their Emergency Plan of July 24, 1984, and for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.54(q)1and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E'were' examined.
The inspector verified through discussions, review of emergency-procedures, training records, memorandums.of understanding with offsite
'
-organizations, and an inspection of emergency equipment,.that the licensee has fully implemento. their-commitments described in their-emergency plan.
The' examination revealed that a. full scale drill involving offsite agencies was-conducted.on July 20, 1984. Additionally, the examination disclosed that an evacuation drill, involving the reactor staff, was held
.on November 6, 1984.
The inspector also verified that emergency equipment located at various locations on campus, were routinely inventoried. The inspector noted that radiation detection instruments and pocket ionization chambers-
-
stored in emergency cabinets were routinely calibrated.'
-The inspector _ concluded that the licensee's emergency response capabilities had been maintained at a level that met or exceeded 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E requirements.
.
'No violations ~or deviations were identified.
5..
IE Information Notices (ins)
'The inspector verified that the licensee was receiving and evaluating ins for applicability to the Oregon State Triga Reactor facility.
Discussions with the Assistant Director of Radiation Protection and
_
Regulatory Affairs revealed that records of the receipt and review are j,
. maintained.
The inspector confirmed that licensee evaluations of all applicable ins
' issued since 1982 were accomplished.
?:~
.
.- c
__..,___,-;
. _ _.
-..
., _. -,.. _ _, _ _ _.. _ _,. _ _, _,
-, -,,,.
,,. _ _
r,.
. ;_
c
-
,
.
,
- %
5.
.
~
ye
-
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
- x 6.-
Environmental-' Monitoring Program-
Records associated with the-licensee's environmental monitoring program
-
which'is' described in Part 5, Section F of<the licensee's annual report'
sof September 15,.1984'were examined.
The environmental program: consist of.the following:
s
.Onsite! environmental sampling.
'
Offsite environmental sampling The?onsite environmental monitoring program includes:
,
.
Direct area monitorirg with thermoluminescent dosimeters-(TLDs).
. Routine (daily, weekly, and monthly)' radiation and contamination
'
-
-
surveys.
_
- '
Monitoring of airborne.particulates and gaseous activity being
,
_
l discharged from the stack.
,
.
_ Routine sampling.of the. liquid' effluent release pathways.
-
,
,
,
- The offsite environmental monitoring program includes:
'*
-Routine sampling of soil, water,' vegetation and for airborne activity.
- Direct area monitoring with TLDs.-
Environmental sample analytical results for 1983 and 1984 were reviewed-
'and were found to be-consistent with the-valuesJreported'in the licensee's annual-report of September 15, 1984.
'The radioactivity" levels observed from the offsite environmental
,,
monitoring program gave no evidence of change-in the environs due to
_ reactor _ operations.
~
)The' inspector noted that the licensee's environmental monitoring program-exceeded the program specified in the Technical. Specifications.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
L7.
Radiation Protection Program
'a.
' Surveys and Effluent Releases The inspector verified that. direct radiation surveys, contamination
-
surveys, and surveys-of airborne particulates, liquids and gaseous
'
!~
,
L effluents are performed _on'a routine schedule by the licensee's
- radiation protection staff.
"
,
3 -
,
ie
>
K
_
'
- es,
.
-
'
m
.
>
c-
' '
"
-
,
2.,
-
'6-
'
'
.
-
p.
r
- The monitoring' program. appears to be consistent with110 CFR
-
-%'
'Part 20.201, " Surveys". The examination also' revealed thatirecords of surveys are' recorded and maintained:in accordance with 10 CFR
,
,
'
'
Part< 20.401, " Records _ of'~ surveys, radiation monitoring, iand
.
disposal." 'The reactor pool water is routinely. checked-for
>
- conductivity, pH,.and radioactive levels as prescribed in.the
,
JTechnical Specifications.
' Survey records for-the period of July.1983 through March:1985 were
- reviewed during the inspection.
' Argon-41 ' releases for 1983 and 1984 ranged ' from :12.66 to 14.65
. '
curies.
The diluted concentration of Argon-41Lat the pgint of.
-
g
' release' averaged between 7.6 x 10 uCi/cc to 9.5 x 10
- uCi/cc.
,.
These values are less than three percent of the Maximum Permissible Concentrations ~(MPC);provided in Section 3.6.2'of the Technical
. Specifications.
'Theannualaverageconcentrationfor. liquids,excludingtrgtium, associated.with' reactor' operations for 1984 was 1.96 x 10 uCi/cc.
This value is(much less than one percent of the NPC allowed by
- 10 CFR:20,' Appendix B.
The licensee's survey program includes daily (work days) radiation and contamination surveys, and special_ surveys;for non-routine work.
.
.The inspector noted that survey results _are. reviewed by the reactor staff for abnormal trends and for ALARA considerations.
No violations or deviations were identified.'
'b.
-Personnel Radiation Dosimetry-o
,
-
~The licensee utilizes a film badge /TLD program that is contracted
!
'
from Radiation' Detection Company _for assuring' compliance with 10 CFR n'
-Parts 20.101,'"RadiationLDose Standards for Individuals'in
,
Restricted Areas, 20.102, " Determination of Prior Dose," 20.104,
~
" Exposure of; Minors," and 20.202, " Personnel Monitoring." -.The licensee's personnel monitoring program has not' changed from what is described in Region V Inspection Reports 50-243/82-02'and 50-243/83-01.
The inspector reviewed personnel dosimetry records for the period of January 1983 through March _1985. The exposures' recorded'for the whole body, extremities, and skin of'the whole body were well below the. regulatory limits as specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a). The exposure records for visitors were also' examined and found to be consistent with'the values reported in the licensee's annual report r
f
_(Table 5-4) of September 15, 1984.
No violations'or-deviations were identified.-
c.
-Posting and Labeling
[
.
The inspector verified that the licensee's posting and labeling
'
Lpractices were consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11, " Posting of
,
.
-
i
,
s Y
to
- -
=. --
,
w (Ts-l
^ -.:
'
.,
,
.-
,
. Notices to Workers" and 10'CFR.Part 20.203, " Caution ~ signs,~1abels, signals,:and controls.
,
'
~ No violations or deviations were identified.
~
,
'd.
Instrument Calibration
.
~
EThe. licensee's program related to the calibration-of portable ;
- radiation-detection monitoring equipment was examined.
"
~A review of calibration records confirmed that the' licensee's calibration program is consistent with ANSI N-323-1978, " Radiation
-
Protection Instrumentation Test and' Calibration".
. ;
,
Technical Specification', Section 4.3.3 requires that area,
' continuous' air, exhaust gas, and exhaust particulate monitors be-calibrated at-intervals not to exceed 14 months, a review of records disclosed that the calibrations'were performed at the required intervals.
LNo violations or deviations were identified.
e.
- As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
.The inspector noted from direct observations that the ALARA principals prescribed in 10 CFR 20.1 were constantly practiced by
~ he -staff during the inspection. The Oregon State Test Reactor-t staff continuously evaluate methods'for maintaining personnel exposures and reactor operations consistent'with the ALARA concept.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
8.
. Radioactive Waste The inspector examined the-licensee's records and procedures associated with the handling and disposal of solid radioactive wastes that are generated-from reactor operations.
~The examination. disclosed._that the. licensee has established procedures for the handling and shipment of radioactive waste that appear to be consistent with the appropriate' regulatory requirements prescribed in:
.
10 CFR Part 20.311,_" Transfer for Disposal and Manifests."
- 10 CFR Part.61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste".
'
10 CFR Part 71, " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material."
'
. Department of Transportation 49 CFR Parts 0-199.
b l s.
-
u-
.
a
~
_
_
l i u
.
s-
"
.
The waste generated by the reactor is routinely shipped to an approved'
. burial (e.g., U. S. Ecology) site.under the University's State'of Oregon radioactive materials. license.
The inspector noted that reactor operations normally generates approximately 7 to 9 cubic feet of waste on an ancual bases.
No ~ violations or deviations were identified.
9.
. Facility Tour-i
'The inspector toured the licensee's facility to check the general state of housekeeping and to verify that radiation monitoring instrumentation
'
were in current calibration and operating properly.
Independent surveys were performed using an Eberline Model R0-2 ion-chamber radiation detection instrument, NRC No. 008985, S/N 837, calibrated on February 25, 1985.
The inspector noted the facility cleanliness was excellent. No fluid
' leaks or piping vibrations were observed. All fixed and portable instrumentation' observed were in current calibration.
The independent radiation measurements confirmed that the licensee's posting and labeling practices were consistent with 10 CFR 20.203 requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Special Licensee Report
'A licensee notification made on January 23, 1985, informed the Region V staff that low level air concentrations of radioactive noble gas above
- background was detected at the TRIGA facility. The licensee suspected a leaking fuel element. A special report, pursuant to Technical Specification, Section 6.7.b.2, was submitted to Region V on February 5, 1985.
,
The report explained that gamma spectroscopy analysis of the Constant Air Monitor (CAM)particulatechannelfiltergaveanindfgatiRb,00Rb,k$gwas I"
suspgggedtobeshort-livedfissionproducts(e;g.,
Cs,
~
and Ba).
The report further explains the corrective actions that were taken to ascertain the cause for the airborne concentrations that were observed.
The tests fai!ed to provide any positive' indication of a fuel cladding defect and therefore the licensee concluded they could return to normal reactor operations. The licensee implemented the following surveillance program prior to resuming normal reactor operations:
~
Increased surveillance of the CAM during and after operations.
- t A
-
s:
s
-
^
~
_ _
.
.
.
- -
_ For a period of one month after returning the ' reactor to normal
~
operation, the~ reactor top CAM's particulate filter paper will be
,
- analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.
?
At-the. conclusion of the one month period,-the licensee's routine
- air'. surveillance program will be changsd to include a weekly gamma spectroscopy analysis of a daily CAM filter paper.
~
Through discussions held with licensee representatives and a review of
- the analysis records between the period of: February 5,'1985, and
--March 25, 1985, the inspector concluded that the additional corrective actions have, failed to provide a positive indication of a possible fuel'
' defect.
-The licensee informed'the-inspector that they plan to continue with the
- corrective actions described in their February 5,1985 letter.
No. violations or deviations were identified.
.
Ell. Exit Interview
,
The inspector met with the individuals (denoted in paragraph 1) at the-conclusion of.the inspection on March 26,' 1985. The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The. inspector commented that'the licensee's performance in the areas inspected were exemplary..The licensee was informed that no _ violations or deviations were. identified.
l r
(
i
,
l' _
-