ML20134F347
| ML20134F347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1985 |
| From: | Cioffi J, Clemons P, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F323 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-193-85-02, 50-193-85-2, NUDOCS 8508210068 | |
| Download: ML20134F347 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000193/1985002
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 85-02
Docket No.
50-193
. License No. R-95
Priority
Category F
Licensee:
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission
Nuclear Science Center
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Facility Name:
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission
Inspection At:
Nuclear Science Center, Narragansett, RI
Inspection Conducted: June 11-12, 1985
Inspectors
M.
I
</
(!7
~
~
$
ean A. C16ffi, Radiatisfi Specialist
date
O Y' .
,A
r
Y
Wl
Afercy ClemonT, ~ Radiatio,n/ Specialist'
dat4
'
Approved by:
M.,N <IM/
f!7
76
~
Mohimad Shantiaky, Chie'f VPWR Radiation
dat6
'
Protection Section, EPRPB
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 11-12, 1985 (Report No. 50-193/85-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of previously identified items;
radiological controls - including posting, labeling, and access control,
contamination surveys, personnel exposur records, calibration of instrumenta-
tion; effluent monitoring, airborne eff ents, liquid effluents, and transport-
ation activities. The inspection invol
d twenty-one inspector hours onsite by
two regionally based NRC inspectors.
Results: One violation - failure to maintain documentation of test certifica-
tion for reactor building cleanup system high efficiency particulate filters
(paragraph 4.1).
$hf93
1
- _ . , _ _ - - , .
-
_.
- - - - . - -
'
.
.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
- M. Doyle, Director of Operations
- N. Jacobs, Radiation Protection Officer
E. Spring, Reactor Facility Engineer
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
2.1 (Closed) IE Circular (79-SC-09)
Informs licensees of Scott Air Pack
Respirator problems noted in IE circular 79-09. The inspector discussed
the details of this item with the licensee and concluded that this was not
an issue of concern at this facility. The licensee does not use the
respirators.
2.2 (Closed) Violation (83-01-01) RIAEC failed to appoint a Health Physicist
on April 5, 1983. The licensee's corrective actions, as described in
Inspection Report No. 83-01, were verified by reviewing internal memoranda
which discussed the reassignment of responsibilities during the period of
the absence of a qualified health physicist. Additionally, the licensee
modified their organization to include two individuals, a Radiation
Protection Officer, and a Health Physicist, to insure adequate coverage in
the event of an emergency.
2.3 (Closed) Violation (83-01-06).
Licensee failed to post outside door into
heat exchanger room with high radiation sign. The licensee's corrective
action, as documented in Inspection Report No. 83-01 and verified on a
tour, appears sufficient to prevent recurrence.
2.4 (Closed) Follow-up (84-02-11). Improve the ability of the stack sampling
equipment to obtain a representative sample. The stack sampling equipment
has been relocated to a point inside the reactor building, and fitted with
an isokinetic probe to assure representative sampling.
The licensee is
!
gathering data to determine the effectiveness of the new sampling location
and is reasonably certain,with preliminary measurements,that the new
sampling location is providing more accurate data on the amount of argon
being released through the reactor building stack.
3.0 Radiological Controls
The licensee's program for radiological controls was reviewed against
criteria contained in:
10 CFR 19.11. " Posting of notices to workers"
10 CFR 20.101, " Radiation dose standards for individuals in
restricted areas"
,.
.
.
3
10 CFR 20.103, " Exposure of individuals to concentrations of radio-
+
active materials in air in restricted areas"
10 CFR 20.201, " Surveys"
10 CFR 20.202, " Personnel monitoring"
10 CFR 20.203, " Caution signs, labels, signals, and controls"
10 CFR 20.401, " Records of surveys, radiation monitoring, and
disposal"
.
The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined
by a tour of the facility, a review of selected records, and discussions
with licensee personnel.
Within the scope of this review, the following was found:
3.1 Posting, Labeling and Access Control
The " restricted area", as defined in 10 CFR 20.3(a)(14), consists of the
Nuclear Science Center building. Access into the building is controlled
through one door which is kept locked, or under surveillance, at all
times.
Keys to the door area issued only to Nuclear Science Center staff.
Section A.2 of Appendix A to the facility license states that the boundary
of the three acre Nuclear Science Center is considered the restricted area
for the reactor as defined in 10 CFR 20, and will be conspicuously posted
to prevent unauthorized entry. The boundary, as defined in the facility
license was not conspicuously posted.
Furthermore this area does not
constitute the " restricted area", as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The inspector
discussed this inconsistency with licensee representatives. The licensee
stated that they will seek an amendment to the license to redefine the
" restricted area" of the facility in more accurate language. This item
will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (50-193/85-02-01).
3.2 Contamination Surveys
The inspector reviewed the licensee's contamination survey records cover-
ing the period January 1983 through December, 1984. No detectable
activity in any of the areas surveyed was noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.3 Personnel Exposure Records
The inspector reviewed personnel exposure records covering calendar years
1983 and 1984. The review indicated that, in general, personnel at this
facility receive no detectable exposures based on film badge results.
If
some exposure is reported, the Health Physicist conducts an investigation
into the possible reason to assure that the reported dose is accurate.
All investigations are documented.
No items of noncompliance :cre identified.
.
.
- . -
. _ - -
-
- _..
. - _ _ . __
_
- - .
_ -.
.
.
4
!
I
i
3.4 Calibration of Instrumentation
i
i
.
The licensee calibrates portable survey instruments three times a year.
'
The licensee has a calibration facility which is kept locked during
'
periods of non-use. A flashing light signals personnel to stay clear of
i
.
the area during instrument calibration.
Records of survey instrument
!
- l
calibrations were reviewed and found to be in order.
I
, The licensee performs a functional check of area radiation monitors daily.
However, the inspector noted that no calibration of the detectors high
1
range (10 mR/ hour to 100 mR/hr) is performed.
The inspector discussed
with the licensee the need to ensure that the area radiation monitors'
high range was operable.
The licensee stated that they will establish a
calibration of the high range of the area radiation monitors on a routine
i
frequency. This item will be reviewed in a future inspection.
(50-193/85-02-02),
+
i
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.0 Effluent Monitoring
6
4.1 Reactor Building Cleanup System
i
The licensee has a cleanup ventilation system which is designed to
i
activate when the reactor building evacuation button is pressed, isolating
the building ventilation and routing the air through a high efficiency
i
filter bank.
I
!
The cleanup system is required by the technical specifications to centain
j
two absolute filters which have been individually tested and certified by
j
the manufacturer to have an efficiency of not less than 99.97% when tested
!
with 0.3 micron diameter dioctylphthalate smoke. However, the licensee
l
could not provide the documentation to verify that the cleanup filter
!
system met the requirements stated in the technical specificatiens. This
1
is an apparent violation of the technical specifications (50-193/85-02-03).
l
There has been no subsequent in place filter test performed on the
(
clean-up system filters to ensure that the filter bank will perform as
i
j
stated in the technical specifications.
i
!
The inspector asked the licensee if any periodic evaluation was made of
i
" Testing of Huclear Air-Cleaning Systems".the cleanup system's in
!
The licensee stated that
.
in place filter testing was performed in October of 1971,,
h
!
i
1
I
1
,*
.-
5
In a telephone conversation on June 24, 1985, with Dr. Shanbaky of the
Region I NRC staf f, and Mr. Doyle, the director of Operations for the
research reactor, Mr. Doyle stated that in place testing of the reactor
building clean-up system with D0P penetrant, will be performed in the near
future.
This item will remain unresolved pending further review by the NRC
(50-193/85-02-04).
4.2 Airborne Effluents
The inspector reviewed airborne release data for 1983 and 1984. The
licensee monitors for gaseous and particulate releases, as required by the
technical specifications, however, only argon is released to the environ-
ment. The yearly average of argon released in 1983 was 1.49 x 10-4 uti/cc.
In 1984, the yearly average of Argon released was 1.92 x 10-4 uC1/cc.
The
inspector noted that these releases were less than 1% of the limits
specified in the technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.3 Liquid Effluents
The inspector reviewed the licensee's liquid effluent release records for
1983 and 1984.
In 1983, the licensee released 19856 microcuries of
activity (primarily 11-3).
This amount of activity was higher relative to
previous years. The licensee stated that the increased amount of activity
discharged was due to extensive pool cleanup activities in an effort to
locate and isolate a reactor pool leak.
In 1984, the amount of activity
released was 1520 microcuries of activity. All releases were within the
Ifmits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table II, Column 2.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.0 Transportation Activities
The inspector reviewed the documentation for a shipment of dry solid and
absorbed aqueous waste made on April 26, 1985.
The waste shipment
consisted of approximately 90 cubic feet of spent resins and dry active
waste.
The manifest reviewed met all the requirements specified in
10 CFR 61.55, 61.56, and 20.311.
-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee management (denoted in Section 1.0) at
the conclusion of the inspection on June 12, 1985, to discuss the scope
and findings of the inspection as detailed in this report.
At no time during this inspection effort was written material provided to
the licensee by the NRC inspector.
I
!
.
.
-
.