IR 05000005/1987003
| ML20237H541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1987 |
| From: | Markley M, Shanbaky M, Weadock A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H487 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-005-87-03, 50-5-87-3, NUDOCS 8709030314 | |
| Download: ML20237H541 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
\
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 87-03 j Docket No. 50-05 Priority -- Category F License No. R-2 Licensee: The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania Facility Name: Breazeale Nuclear Reactor Inspection At: University Park, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted July 20-21, 1987 Inspectors: A (d L _
' ) _,
A. Weadock, Radiation Specialist date h. N s M $ I W M. Markley, Radiat' ion Siiecialist date i
Approved by: R.L. d W x bRadiation P.,1 date B1 M. Shanbaky, Chief FacilMies Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 20-21, 1987 (Re,nort No.50-05/87-03).
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of Radiation Controls activTties associated with the reactor license. Areas inspected included:
posting and labeling, instrument calibration, surveys, exposure controls, and reports and audits, Results: Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identifie DR 37082e ADOCK 05000005 PDR
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ____
_
,
.
.
Details 1.0 Persons Contacted ,
During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacte * Voth - Director, Breazeale Nuclear Reactor
- R. Granlund - University Health Physicist
- T. Flinchbaugh - Reactor Supervisor D. Raupach - Reactor Utilization Specialist W. Ford - Health Physics Technician
- Attended the exit interview on July 21, 198 .0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review Radiation Controls activities conducted in association with the licensee's reactor licens The following creas were reviewed:
- status of previously identified items,
-
posting and labelin instruments and monitor calibration,
- survey exposure control reports and audit .0 Status of Previously Identified Items (Closed) Follow-Up Item (85-01-03): Review licensee reactor facility and environmental Ar-41 measurement The inspector reviewed a licensee report titled "Ar-41 Measurements at Penn State Breazeale Reactor" dated July 30, 1986. This report ,
describes a recent series of Ar-41 surveys made inside and outside !
the reactor building during reactor operation. The inspector determined that the survey methodology was adequate. Results indicate that Ar-41 concentrations both inside and outside the reactor building remain below 10 CFR 20 limits during extended reactor operatio \
3.2 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (85-01-01): Health Physics (HP) staff neutron detector not calibrated at frequency required by materiale licens An NRC inspection of the University material licenses was conducted during April,1986. No violations concerning instrument calibration were identified during that inspection. During the current inspection, the subject neutron detector was noted to be within the calibration frequency as required by the reactor portable survey a___---______
,
-
.
instrument calibration procedure. The inspector also determined the reactor staff has procured a new portable neutron detector which will be under the responsibility of and maintained by the reactor staf .3 (Closed) Unresolved Item (85-01-02): Adequacy of calibration procedures for reactor bay radiation monitor .
The licensee recently revised the reactor bay and beam hole lab area radiation monitor calibration procedures to include monitor response acceptance criteria. The inspector reviewed monitor calibration frequencies and actual calibration data and determined the licensee is performing satisfactory area monitor calibrations. Details are discussed in Section .0 Posting and Labeling The inspectors toured the Pennsylvania State Breazeale Reactor (PSBR)
immediately following the entrance interview. Posting of the facility and labeling of radioactive materials were in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203 requirements. The inspectors noted improvements in posting and housekeeping which included the following:
- " Radioactive Material" signs were on the walls adjacent to posted laboratory doors such that the posting was not obscured when the door was ope Temporary " Radiation Area'" postings were established for work in progres The inspectors identified this as an area of improvement over the previous inspectio No violations were identifed in this are .0 Instrument Calibration The licensee's program for calibration of area radiation monitors, air activity monitors, and portable survey instruments was reviewed by the following methods:
- inspection of in-place equipment and stored instruments for calibration stickers;
- review of selected area monitor and portable survey instrument calibration records;
- review of the following procedures:
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - _ . _ - _ _
_. ,
..
1:
i
.s;
L
!
- CCP-10," Calibration of Area Radiation Monitors"
- CCP-12," Calibration of Portable Survey Instruments.and Functional check of Pocket Dosimeters."
CCP-8, " Calibration of Air Monitors."
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identifed. The inspector. noted substantial improvement in the performance of Technical Specification required area radiation monitor calibrations. The licensee has revised their calibration procedures to include specific monitor acceptance criteria for use during calibratio Review of calibration data indicated these criteria were met during calibration. Required calibration frequencies (annual) for area radiation monitors, air monitors, and portable instruments were generally adhered to. One concern with instrument calibration was noted, however, and is discussed belo The licensee maintains a bench top proportional counter in a laboratory room in the reactor building. This instrument is used routinely by the
- reactor staff.and periodically by the Health Physics (HP) staff'to count smears. The. inspector noted that the period between the last two calibrations had extended to approximately 15 months; specifically, from April, 1986 to July, 1987. Subsequent. investigation into why this instrument' had been allowed to exceed an annual frequency identified th following deficiencies:
- no. specific calibration procedure existed for this instrument;
- although source-checked daily, no source-check acceptance criteria had been established;
-
'
both the HP and reactor groups thought the other group was responsible for calibrating and maintaining the instrumen The inspector was able to verify, by review of calibration and source check data contained in the instrument logbook, that the counter had been adequately calibrated and had not subsequently significantly declined in response during the 15 month period. Consequently, sample analysis results were considered valid during the perio The inspector indicated to the licensee that the above deficiencies implied a lack of clear responsibility for the instrument. The licensee acknowledged this and committed to making the following improvements in this area:
- clear responsibility for calibrating and maintaining the proportional counter would be assigned to one of the involved groups;
- a calibration procedure for the instrument would be develope Implementation of the above committment will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection in this area (05/87-03-01).
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - . _ .
..
.
6.0 Surveys Routine daily contamination surveys of the unrestricted areas of the reactor building are performed by the reactor taff in accordance with ,
A0P-4, " Daily Smear Surveys." More extensive routine surveys of the i reactor facility are performed by the University HP staf The inspectors reviewed selected routine and job-specific facility surveys performed during 1987 and 198 Surveys were performed as required and were considered adequate in scope to identify radiological hazards. The inspector did note, however, that instrument type, serial numbers, and calibration dates were often not included on survey forms completed by both the reactor staff and HP technicians. The inspector identified this as an improvement item to the license The Reactor Director indicated that the reactor staff would be briefed concerning the need to include instrument identification on completed survey fonns. The University Health Physicist indicated his staff had been briefed concerning this subject in the past. A revision to the survey forms requiring instrument parameters to be recorded is now being considered as a means to upgrade documentatio Scope and content of licensee surveys will continue to be reviewed during subsequent inspection .0 Exposure Controls 7.1 Controls During Experimentation The inspector evaluated the licensee's radiological controls for irradiation experiments by the following methods:
- discussion with licensee personnel;
- observation of a neutron radiography experiment on July 20, 1987;
-
observation of licensee efforts to retrieve an unsecured experiment from the reactor pool on July 21, 1987;
- review of selected portions of control room logbooks #41 and 42;
- review of selected control room start-up " daily checkout sheets,"
- review of selected "PSBR Experiment Evaluation and Authorization" sheets;
- review of the following procedares:
50P-1," Reactor Operation using a Beam Port Experimental Facility,"
,
S0P-8," Release of Irradiated Experiments;"
A0P-1, " Hot Cell Entry Procedure."
t
___ _ ___ _ _ __ _ -__ __ _-_-_
.
.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identifie The licensee exhibited strong positive control over the performance
,
of irradiation experiments. Experimental irradiation requests by various users are reviewed and approved by a member of the reactor staff prior to irradiation. Part of this review includes checking the estimated experiment activity against the users byproduct license limits, which are maintained in a authorization book in the control room. This book contains specific radiological controls to be implemented during the irradiation of certain experiment The inspector observed the performance of a neutron radiography experiment on July 20, 1987, and noted that the requirements of SOP-1 were implemented. Changes in area dose rates, with consequen change in area postir.g requirements were recognized and addressed in the procedur On July 21, 1987, at approximately 1115, while the inspector was in the PSBR control room ad the reactor was operating at 1 MW, the East reactor bay area radiation monitor went to an ALERT conditio The licensee indicated the ALERT setpoint for this monitor, positioned approximately 3 feet over the reactor pool was 15 millirem /hr. Immediate survey and inspection of the pool area by an operator revealed no obvious cause for the increased radiation level. However, since the operator's survey verified the monitor reading, the reactor was immediately scramme Subsequent inspection revealed that an experiment, positioned in the core during startup, had become unsecured and floated to the top of the pool. Survey of the experiment indicated approximately 30 mr/hr at 1 meter. With the assistance of the machine shop, the licensee was able to quickly modify a long pipe which was used to capture and store the experiment under water to allow for decay. A long handled tool was used to direct the experiment into the pip Licensee actions in the above incident demonstrated an effective reliance on instrument indications, and good recognition of and response to radiological condition .2 Dosimetry ,
The inspector reviewed the 1986 quarterly and annual personnel I radiation monitoring exposure records as well as area monitoring results. These records were provided by Landauer as contracted by the Health Phyrics Office. Selected individual exposure records were reviewed, indicating no significant exposure The inspector did note, during the above review, that one
! individual work;ng in the reactor facility ostensibly received l a 280 mrad skin exposure during the last quarter of 198 This exposure appeared anomalous for the following reasons:
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ . _ - _ _ _ _
_ _-_ - __ _ - _ - .
.p ,
'e
..
..
- the individual, although monitored for several years, had never received previous exposure;
. no commensurate whole body _ dose was recorded;
- skin exposure situations are not typical at research reactor The licensee's Health Physics staff acknowledged the 'above exposure 3 appeared atypical and should have been noted during their review of the exposure records. Subsequent preliminary questioning of the worker by.the licensee failed to identify any changes in work habits or operations that would account for the observed exposure. The ,
'
inspector noted that the above anomalous exposure was well within regulatory. limits and was the single anomaly note .0 Reports and Audits .
The following reports, audits and Reactor Safeguard Comittee meeting minutes were reviewed during the course of this inspection: )
- July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 Annual Opeating Report of the Penn State Breazeale Reactor facility (PSBR);
- 1986 annual audit of the PSBR,
-
Reactor Safeguard Comittee meeting minutes for meetings held on
~
!
October 10, 1986; February 2, 1987; April 13, 1987; and July 17, 198 Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identifie The licensee was meeting Technical Specification required frequencies for audits, operating reports, and comittee meetings. Minutes of.the Reactor. Safeguards Committee were quite thorough and demonstrated a high level of awareness and concern by the comittee regarding potential radiological concern The inspector also noted that, although not specifically required by the licensee's Technical Specifications, the 1986 PSBR audit included a review of' facility radiological control No procedural or regulatory violations were noted in the radiological controls section of the audi However, several recommendations were made which have already been or are !
in the process of being responded to by the Health Physics staf .0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held on July 21, 1987 with the members of the licensee's staff denoted in Section 1.0. At that time, the scope, content, and findings of the inspection were summarized by the inspector !
I i
- __