ML20235W088

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-297/87-03 on 870929-30.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Internal & External Exposure Control & Assessment,Control of Radioactive Matl & Contamination, Surveys,Monitoring & Transportation of Radioactive Matl
ML20235W088
Person / Time
Site: North Carolina State University
Issue date: 10/07/1987
From: Hosey C, Revsin B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235W069 List:
References
50-297-87-03, 50-297-87-3, NUDOCS 8710150584
Download: ML20235W088 (8)


See also: IR 05000297/1987003

Text

_

UNITED STATES

j p magg,

p 4- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

y" n

-

REGION 11

< , 'j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

  • 's ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i

'

\*****/ _

OCT 0 01987

\

Report No. 50-297/87-03

Licensee: North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 27607

Docket No.: 50-297 License No.: R-120

Facility Name: North Carolina State University Pulstar Reactor

Inspection Con ucted: September 29-30, 1987

Inspector: 3. Mb _

/O/ 7

Date Signed

B. K. Revstn'

Approved by: ado /0[7[J 7

C. M. Hosey, Sec tion Chief Date Signbd

Division of Radi ation Safety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine, unannounced, onsite inspection was conducted in the area

of radiation protection and included: internal and external exposure control

and assessment; control of radioactive materials and contamination, surveys,

and monitoring; transportation of radioactive material and followup on previous

enforcement items, Bulletins and Circulars.

Results: One violr. ion - failure to maintain and adhere to radiation control

procedures.

8710150504 a71007

PDR ADDCK 05000297

G PDR

_- _ , . - _ - _ _ - . _ - _ . . __- - _ - - _.

i

.a .

REPORT DETAILS

1 ~. .- Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

P. J. Turinsky, Head, Department of Nuclear Engineering

G. D.. Miller, Associate Director, Nuclear Reactor Program

K. V..Mani, Reactor health Physicist

T. C. Bray, Reactor Operations manager

D. W._ Morgan, Radiation Protection Officer

.

!

T. L. Brackin, Radiation Safety. Specialist

.

2.. Exit Interview.

The inspection sccpe and findings were summarized on' September 30, 1987,.

with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. - One violation

i

.containing three examples of failure' to maintain.and/or adhere to written

radiation control procedures (Paragraphs 4.e and 4.f) were discussed /in

detail.. One unresolved item * (URI) concerning calibration- records for

,Eberline RM-14 personnel friskers- (Paragraph 4.f),- was also discussed.

~

. Licensee management acknowledged the. findings and took no exceptions. 'The-

~1icensee did not identify as proprietary any of' the material provided .to

or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

3. LicenseeAction'on'PreviousEnforcementMatters(92702)

(Closed) Violation'(50-297/87-01-01) Failure'to post documents required by

10 CFR 19.11. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response' dated 'l

j

April . 21, 1987, and. verified that the corrective action stated in the

response.had been implemented. J

l

]

.(Closed) Violation (50-297/87-01-02) Improper shipping papers and failure

to meet limited quantity shipment requirements.' The inspector reviewed

the licensee's response dated April 21, 1987, and verified that the

corrective action specified in the response had been implemented.

(Closed) ' Violation- (50-297/87-01-03) Failure to verify authorization of

transferee to receive byproduct material. The inspector reviewed the

ilicensee's. response dated April 21, 1987, and verified that the corrective

action specified in the response had been implemented.

  • An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required to l

.,

l ' determine whether they are acceptable or may involve a violation or deviation.

I

m __ J

_

!

.

.

2

4. Radiation Control (83743) l

a.. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires the licensee to perform such surveys as may i

be necessary and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate

,

the extent of the radiation hazards that may be present.

Procedure HP-20-14, Radiation and Contamination Survey. Pulstar Bay,

Revision 1, January 1,1986, required that direct radiation surveys -

be performed monthly. The inspector reviewed the results of the

monthly direct radiation surveys between January 1 and September 1,

1987. The licensee stated that surveys were performed after the

reactor had been brought to 100 percent power for at least

30 minutes. Routinely, both gamma and neutron surveys were performed

and in general, dose rates were low, i.e., less than one and five

millirem per hour respectively.

.No violations or deviations were identified.

I

b. 10.CFR 20.202 required that appropriate personnel monitoring devices

be worn by personnel likely to receive an exposure in excess of  ;

25 percent of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.101 or who enter high

radiation areas.

10 CFR 20.101 stated the quarterly radiation exposure limits to the

whole body, skin of the whole body and extremities.

During tours of the facility, the inspector observed personnel

monitoring devices being worn. The licensee used film badges

supplied by a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation program

approved vendor for measuring official dose. From July 1, 1986, to

June 30,1987, the academic year, the inspector verified that

exposures were well below regulatory limits in that the highest j

individual exposure was 60 millirem (mrem) followed by two i

individuals with exposures totaling 50 mrem each. J

l

The inspector discussed the use of extremity dosimetry with the l

licensee with particular reference to loading and down-loading j

stringer baskets. These aluminum baskets hold the plastic bottles i

containing target material while they undergo irradiation in the l

reactor pool. The licensee stated that to the best of their j

I

knowledge this question had been addressed a number of years ago but

the results of this study were no longer available for review nor l

'

could the licensee recall the results of the study. The licensee

stated that it was not uncommon for dose rates from the baskets to

reach 5-10 Roentgens per hour (R/ hour), but that general practice was

not to actually remove the baskets from the pool but to release the

plastic bottles from the basket which would then float to the top

where they could be retrieved. Additionally two radiation monitors

were located overhead (6 to 8 feet) and would alarm should any

_ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

. .

3

unusual radiation field develop. The set point for the

Geiger-Mueller (GM) detector was 2.5 mR/ hour while the ionization

chamber detector had two set points, an alert at 10 mR/ hour and an

alarm at 100 mR/ hour. Receiving an alarm at 100 mR/ hour required

building evacuation. Due to the location of these monitors over the

reactor bridge and at the loading /down-loading area for the

stringers, the licensee felt confident that should any abnormal

radiation field exist, personnel would be sufficiently alerted.

Additionally, film badges worn by personnel had not indicated any

exposure problems. The inspector stated that depending on the

position personal dosimetry was worn by individuals, the whole body

dosimeter could be two to three feet from the activated aluminum

basket while the fingers could potentially reside next to this

radiation source. In conclusion to these discussions, the licensee l

agreed to re-evaluate the extremity dose received by personnel at the

facility. The licensee stated that extremity rings would be worn for

approximately six months to reassess the magnitude and significance

of personnel extremity dose. The inspector stated that this would be

reviewed during future inspections (Inspector Followup Item  ;

50-297/87-03-01). ,

'

No violations or deviations were identified.

l

c. 10 CFR 20.203 specifies the requirements for posting radiation areas,

high radiation areas and radioactive material areas.

During tours of the facility the inspector observed the above posting

and verified through observation of survey records that postings and

survey measurements were congruent. l

No violations or deviations were identified.

i

d. 10 CFR 19.11 requires each licensee to conspicuously post current

copies of (1) 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20; (2) the license; (3) operating

procedures; and (4) Form NRC-3, in sufficient places to permit

individuals engaged in licensed activity to observe them on the way '

If posting the documents

to and from any ) licensed activity location.specified in (1, (2) and (3) is

post a notice which describes the document and states where they may

be examined.

During tours of the facility the inspector noted the presence of the 1

required postings at both entrances and exits from the Pulstar

reactor bay,

l

No violations or deviations were identified.

e. Technical Specification 6.3.a.8 states that operating procedures shall

be written, updated periodically and followed for radiation control

and shall be maintained and available to all operating personnel.

l-

_ _ _ _ - _ _ -

_

.- , __

  • *

4

Proceduro HP-4C 1, Utilization of Reactor Irradiation Facilities, '

Revision 1, January 7,1986, Paragraph 8 states that the stringer is

placed on the Bridge for dose rate measurement which shall be

provided to the Reactor Operator for entry on Form NRP-3 (Run Sheet).

Procedure HP-40-1, Paragraph 6 further states that Reactor Operations

will be notified before removing anything from the pool.

Further discussions with licensee personnel concerning reactor

irradiations elicited the fact that the control of each irradiation

was maintained by a Run Sheet which were kept on the operating

console of the reactor. The inspector reviewed the numerous Run

Sheets that had been completed during the month of July 1987, and

noticed that in the majority of cases, the column denoting radiation

level after experiment irradiation had not been completed as required

by procedure. The licensee stated that the reason for this was

twofold: (1) irradiations were often -left under water for several

days af ter irradiation to permit decay of short lived radioactivity,

and consequently dose rate measurements were not available, and

(2) actual practice had evolved at the facility such that personnel

removed experiments from the pool as needed without regard for the

presence or absence of Operations personnel in the Control Room to

record dose rate measurements. The -inspector pointed out that

procedure HP-40-01 required that Operations be notified prior to

removal of anything from the reactor pool. The licensee stated that

this was not usually done since irradiated material was often removed

early in the morning before Operations personnel were available and '

that the success of the program required flexibility in this regard.

Licensee representatives further stated that while dose rate

measurements had not recorded in many instances, such surveys had

been performed on both the aluminum baskets and on the target

material after removal from the plastic bottle by individuals trained

in proper survey technique. The licensee explained that since most

irradiations were for neutron activation analysis, a survey to ensure

low activity of the sample was mandatory to prevent destruction of

sensitive counting equipment. The inspector stated that for

radiation protection purposes, surveys of the baskets were of more

interest than the target material since dose rates may be several

orders of magnitude greater than those of the target which are

usually less than 5 mR. The licensee stated that surveys were always

performed even though the data on the Run Sheet did not reflect this

practice.

Failure to follow radiation control procedure HP-40-1 requirements to

record dose rate measurements on Run Sheets after irradiations and to

notify reactor operations before removal of material from the reactor

pool were identified as two examples of an apparent violation of

Technical Specification 6.3.a.S (50-297/87-03-02).

- - _ -

_ _ _ _ . _ .

'

. .

5

i

f. ' Instrument Calibration

10 CFR 20.201(b) requires each licensee to make or cause to be made

such surveys as may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the

regulations, and are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate

the radiation hazards that may be present. 10 CFR 20.201(a) defines

survey to mean an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the

production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive

materials which may include a physical survey of the location of

materials and equipment, and measurements of levels of radiation or

concentrations of radioactive material present.

During tours of the facility, the inspector observed instruments in

use. At the exit from the reactor bay to the Control Room, two

Eberline RM-14s with HP-210 probes were available for personnel to

monitor themselves for contamination before entry into the Control

Room, a clean area. . Both of these instruments had calibration

stickers on them that indicated that calibration was approximately

six months overdue. The licensee stated that the instruments had

been calibrated on schedule (quarterly) and that the old sticker had

not been removed. To verify calibration of the instruments, a review

of licensee records was undertaken. During 1986, RM-14s were

calibrated on the required frequency; however, for the first two 4

quarters . of 1987, no calibration records could be found. The

licensee stated that instrument records had recently been reorganized

and that the ones in question must have been misplaced since they

believed the instruments had been calibrated on the appropriate .

frequency. At the time of the Exit Interview the records had not

been located. The use of calibrated instruments in performing

personal and other types of surveys was discussed. The inspector

stated that failure to be able to demonstrate that calibrated

instruments had been used to perform surveys would be conisdered a

violation of 10 CFR 20.201(b). Presently, however, this area will be ,

considered an unresolved item pending completion of the licensee's l

search for the records and will be evaluated during future

inspections (50-297/87-03-03), t

i

Discussions concerning instrument calibration, source checks and ]

response checks were held with licensee representatives. The i

licensee stated that response checks were generally performed on a l

wee'kly basis and consisted of exposing the instrument and attached )

probe to a button source of Pu-239 with an activity of greater than j

150,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm). At times, other sources j

were used or were available for use. A positive deflection of the 4

instrument needle was considered ample verification of instrument j

performance although this methodology was not delineated in a j

The licensee also stated that source

'

radiation control procedure.

checks of these RM-14 instruments were not performed, i.e. , exposing

an instrument to a known activity source in a fixed geometry in

relation to the detector and verifying that the instrument read

accurately, plus or minus a permissible error.

l

E-- - )

.__. .- _ __ --__- -___

,

.. , ,.

-

.

t

,:r 6

Calibration of the RM-14 was ' discussed. =The licensee stated that an

' electronic calibration was performed following the' manufacturer's

recommendations; however, these ' recommendation.s' had never 'been

, formalized into a procedure. The inspector' stated that Technical

' Specification 6;3.a.8 required that radiationccontrol procedures be -

written. Failure to ' maintain ' written procedures for instrument

calibration. was ' identified as an additional example of an. apparent

violation' of . Technical Specification 6.3.a.8 -(50-297/87-03-02).

The use' of source checks .versus response checks for instrumentation

was1 considered during which11t was pointed out by the inspector.,

that use of a response check, a needle. deflection in response to a

.snell radioactive ; source, failed to verify that an instrument. was

~

performing accurately in that no acceptance criteria for instrument

performance ~under7 these conditions ' had been established. The

,

inspector stated.that conducting source checks rather than response

checks for instruments between calibrations was standard industry.

practice :for. verifying that the instrument was working

appropriately. The . licensee stated that this practice would be

re-evaluated.

5. . Transportation (86740)

,

'10 CFR 71.5(a) requires each licensee who transports licensed naterial'

outside the confines of its plant or other place of use to' comply with the

applicable requirements of the' Department of Transportation in

49 CFR Parts 170 through.189.

The inspector reviewed the records of shipments of radioactive material

from the facility made between April 1987 through August 1987.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Followup' on Bulletins and Circulars (92703)

s a. (Closed)Bulletin 78-01, Neutron Monitoring Practices. The inspector

reviewed current practices for neutron monitoring at the . facility.

Routinely, the reactor bay was surveyed for neutron radiation using  !

an Eberline PNR-4: the results of which indicate a minimal neutron .

hazard (less .than 5 mR/ hour). These readings are taken after the

reactor has been at 100 percent power for at least 30 minutes. Other

administrative controls include prohibitions against beam ~ port

removal .with the reactor at power and use of the Radiation Work

ll Permit program. A Radiation Work Permit is required when neutron

'

hazard is anticipated. Neutron dosimetry is not normally worn by

personnel, but is readily available should the need arise.

b. (Closed)Bulletin 78-08, Radiation Levels from Fuel Element Transfer

Tubes. This Bulletin is not applicable to the licensee's facility.

s

-- _-

- _ _ _ - .

, ,

n.

k. . ,

3

7.

..

- c. ~(Closed)' Circular 78-03.J Pack' aging' Greater than Type A-Quantities of.

. Low' . Specific Activity Radioactive . Material for~ Transport.

-

The.

' inspector ; reviewed . the licensee's _- Quality Assurance Prograrn.. for.

transportation of ? greater _ than Type. A : quantities 'of: radioactive '

.

-material and .found its provisions.iadequate to L meet regulatory -

requirements,

p.

'd.. (Closed)Bulletin 79-19, Packaging of Low-level Radioactive Waste .for:-

Transport and Burial. Procedure: HP-10-5, Transfer and Shipment of'

Radioactive Material,' and its attendant checklists,3which implement '

theE elements of the . program - for - transportation.. of radioactive -

, -l

materials, was reviewed .. and found to be ' congruent ~with .the-

.

,.

requirements of 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189.

o . .;

'

.

t.

I'

. . .

l'

{

'

!

!

i l

L l

!

o_ _ _