ML20151C390
| ML20151C390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07105971 |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1988 |
| From: | Orlosky P BUFFALO MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804120405 | |
| Download: ML20151C390 (4) | |
Text
_._.
3M%
s" 2) l.M o
o BUFFALO MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER March 31, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Document Control Desk i
Washington, D.C.
20555 1
Attention: Document Control Desk Report of a minor license violation i
This letter is a follow-up of a verbal report made to the NRC, Region I office on 3/25/88.
Ms. Susan Peleschak accepted the message.
The violation to be described pertains to our Technical Specifications, section 6.2.2 (4)(a) and our Operation Procedure #41, Sections III A and C.
These pages are attached.
The neutron activation analysis program at the BMRC involves the irradiation of large numbers of samples in a dry vertical thimble located in the reactor reflector. The thimble is 215 inches in diameter (6.35 cm) and the sample bundles are 4 to 5 cm diameter by 12 inches long.
Samples are raised and lowered on a 4
string, and exposures are typically 20 minutes or less.
l In the evening of 3/24/88, a bundle of compressed dried vegetation samples was being exposed in the thimble. When the 20-minute exposure was up, an operator j
pulled on the string and found considerable friction. With some difficulty, the
)
bundle was raised enough to get it out of the flux. The operator leit it in this position, checked effluent monitors, and checked for contamination. The Operations Manager was informed of events. Use of the facility was suspended.
i On 3/25/88, with full health physics coverage available, the bundle was removed i
from the thimble and taken to a lab hood for inspection.
It was found that the 1
heat-shrink plastic tube that held the bundle together had been heat sealed at I
]
both ends. Gases evolved during irradiation had inflated the tube, causing it to bend in the thimble. Discuss, ions with the experimenter revealed that the j
samples that caused the problem were from a riew supplier.
Their material differed l
from previously irradiated.aaterial in two respects--the samples were 5 cm in di meter instead of 4 cm, and the plastic sleeve was heat sealed at the ends inst.ad of being taped closed. These changes were not described in an approved Service Request.
i The Operating Committee met on 3/25/88 to discuss the incident. They approved i
a revised Service Request for 5 cm diameter samples as long as the plastic 4
l sleeve is cut to ensure venting of any off-gases.
(Many 5 cm diameter samples i
of other than vegetation have been irradiated in the past.) Any off-gases released are vented through the facility stack exhaust system, i
4 8804120405 88G331 l
C PDR SUNY BUFFALO. ROTARY ROAD, BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14214-TELEPHONE (7 l6) 8312826 e EasyLink 62910144 J
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Furch 31, 1988 Page Two The described incident did not result in above-normal personnel exposures, effluent releases, or contamination levels. ihe reactor and its experimental facilities were not threatened and was not shut down, although it would have been if the sample could not have been removed from the flux.
We hope to avoid future events of this nature by taking the following steps:
1.
Inform all experimenters of the need to communicate to the BMRC staff any changes in materials, equipment, or procedures, even if they appear to be trivial.
2.
Place all Service Request information in a computer-generated file so that it is easier for operators to review what has been approved.
We have been in compliance with our license since the Operating Committee meeting held on 3/25/88.
If any additional information is desired concerning the matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Director, Mr. Louis Henry, or myself.
Yours truly,
.h Philip M. Orlosky Operations Manager i
amf i
cc: NRC Region I D. Rennie J. Fox M. Pierro enclosures - paga 33 of Technf.:al Specifications page 2 of 0.P.
- 41 l
(8) The NSC shall review the following:
(a) experiments referred to it by 'the Operating Committee because of the degree of hazard-involved or the unusual nature of the experiment (b) reportable occurrences (see Section 6.4)
(c) proposed changes to the facility license, changes to technical speci-fications, and experiments or clianges made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, 6.2.2 Operating Committee (1) An Operating Committee shall exist as a subgroup of the NSC.
(2) The Oper'ating Committee shall consist of the Center Director, the Radia-tion Protection Services flanager, and the Operations Department Manager.
The committee shall seek advice and comment from other qualified individuals as appropriate.
(3) The committee shall meet as frequently as needed, flinutes will be main-tained for all formal meetings.
(4) The Operating Committee shall perform the following:
(a) review experiments which present no new significant safety problems (b) approve additions to or revisions of any Operating Procedures (c) review abnormal occurrences (d) perform facility inspections
- 6. 3 facility Audit (1) A consultant will be retnined by the university to perfoim an annual audit of reactor operations, lhe consultant shall be nominated by the Director i
of the OliRC and shall he an individual with expertise in the nuclear fleid.
The consultant shall submit a report on his findings to the Director of the BilRC.
(2) The consultant shall audit the following:
(a) reactor operators and operational records for compilance with internal 4
rules, procedures, and reailations, and with license provisions (b) existing operating procedures for adequacy and accuracy j
(c) plant equipment performance and its surveillance requirements 1
l (d) records of releases of radioactive effluents to the environment i
i Amendment No. 20 33 i
CP tA l (5/07) t I
The reactivity worth of samarium in the core will not be j
i included in excess reactivity limits.
1he reference core j
condition w(Il be known as the cold, xenon-f ree cri tical l
l condition.
SecurecLExperiment:
A secured experiment is any experiment,.
experimental facility, or component of an experiment that is l
held in a stationary-position r elativu to the reactor by i
mechanical means.
The restr aining forces must be substantially greater than those to which the experiment might be uuhjected by hydraulic, pneumatic, buoyant, or other forces that are normal to the operating environment of I
the experiment, or by forces that can arise as a result of credib1e mal func t ionc.
!,)1 secured Exoer iment :
An unsecured experiment is any t
e xper i merit, experimental facility, or componerit of an i
experiment that is not a secured experiment as defined d
above.
III. General A.
A service request form, with pertinent information regarding the nature of the experiment, the scheduling desired, the estimated types and amounts of radioactivity, and other cogent ha;:ards, shall be i
completed by the experimenter or a atsff member.
i 1
B.
If the shipment of tadioactive materials is i
anticipated, a copy of the appropriate license must be l
j on file.
Transfers of radioactive materials to
]
SUNY/Duffalo users must be approved by the Raniation Protection Service itanager or the Radiation Safety l
Officer.
C.
The Operating Committee must approve the service request.
Modi fication may be required.
If the 1
Operat itig Commi t t oo fenis that the expnriment poses i
unusual or unknown problems, or that the Committno lacks the proper credentials to make a sound Judgment, they will refer the request to the huclear Safety Con.mi t t en.
The Nuc1 var Gafety Committne shal1 make j
appropriate recommendatiens.
1 j
IW Limitations on '.xnerimentu j
A.
Technical Spec i f i cat i on Limits j
1.
Experimentn r.hni1 he deninnod and oporated to i
prevent local boiling of the moderator coolant or i
mol tirig of any structural component of the experiment.
I i
g l
J l
\\
~
\\
. I