IR 05000057/1990001
| ML20012E534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Buffalo |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1990 |
| From: | Chawaga D, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012E531 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-057-90-01, 50-57-90-1, NUDOCS 9004050348 | |
| Download: ML20012E534 (6) | |
Text
,
,
t o'
'
}
,
-
-
.
e--
.
,
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION I
i Report No.
50-57/90-01
!
Docket No.
50-57 i
License No.
B-22
-
Licensee:
Etate University of New York at Buffalo (
Ruffalo. New York 14214
,
Facility Name:
Buffalo Material Research Cantar Inspection At:
Buffalo. New York
'
Inspection Conducted:
February 12-13. 1990
!
Inspector m
3 -2A-9o D. Chawaga,URadiation 9pecialist date l
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Approved by:
RLW M
3/Z3[fD
'
W.
Pasciak, Chief, Fabildties Radiation date Protection Section
,
Insoection Snumary: Inspection on February 12-13, 1990 (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-57/90-01)
Areas Insoected: This inspection was a routine announced safety inspection of the radiological controls program at the Buffalo Material Research Center.
Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were identified.
i j.@$430$$!!> SOS'@7
,
O
.
-
.
_
. - - -
_ -
-
-
. - _ _ _
o
.'
- .
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Personnel Contacted L. Henry, General Manager, Buffalo Material Research Center (BMRC)
'
- J. Griffin, Senior Health Physicist, BMRC
- D. Sullivan, Director, BMRC i
- Denotes attendance at exit interview on Feb. 13, 1990.
2,0 Purpogg The purpose of this announced inspection was to review the licensee's performance in the following functional areas
,
i o
Organization and Staffing; o
Calibration and Use of Portable and Fixed Radiation Monitoring Devices, and Personnel Dosimetry; o
Postings and Other Radiological Controls; o
Training and Qualification of Health Physics Staff i
Members;
o Radiological Surveys.
'
In addition, the inspector discussed plans for the reactor tank leak repair outage scheduled for later this year.
l
>
3.0 oraanization and staffina I
The health physics staff at the Buffalo Material Research g
l Center (BMRC) consists of four health physicists (senior technicians) and two undergraduate students (junior technicians) who report to the Senior Health Physicist.
The Senior Health Physicist reports to the Director of the BNRC who reports to the General Manager of the BMRC.
l On February 20, 1990, the General Manager of the BMRC
'
informed the inspector that the Senior Health Physicist had submitted his resignation.
The resulting vacancy apparently leaves technician level workers reporting to the Director of BMRC.
The Director of the facility, in obtaining his senior
,
L reactor operator's license, has demonstrated basic L
competence in health physics.
The background and training of the Director was not as extensive (in the area of health
'
physics) as the individual who resigned.
This was discussed with the General Manager of the BMRC.
The General Manager of the BMRC, who once worked as the Senior Health Physicist, assured the inspector that he would dedicate the time required to ensure that adequate health L
_
_
.
_
_
_
__
. _ _
_ _ _.
j
-
.
.
!
M
)
1 physics controls are applied to the program, including this J
year's reactor tank modification outage and until a new Senior Health Physicist can be appointed.
No violations were found in this ares 4.0 calibration and Use of Portable and Fiwad Radiation Monitorina Devices, and Personnel Dominatry Portable survey instruments are stored at various designated j
locations throughout the reactor building when not in use.
Tracking of calibration due dates is achneved through the use of a calibration record book, a schedule board in the Health Physics office and a computerized monthly task list I
for the department.
Although the licensee has a six month calibration frequency requirement, the inspector noted that typically instruments are calibrated every two months.
The inspector found current calibration stickers on all 16 portable instruments examined, indicating good licensee attention to instrument calibration.
Source checks are performed prior to the use of all but two
,
survey instruments.
The two survey meters excluded from source check requirements are the Bicron RSO-5 ion chamber type exposure rate meters.
These instruments do not contain internal sources to facilitate this test.
The licensee stated that response testing prior to intermittent use of
>
all radiation survey instruments is important and plans to implement a method for testing the Bicron RSO-5.
- Calibration and operability checks of area and effluent radiation monitors are performed by a Senior Reactor Operator.
Monthly operability checks for these monitors are L
required by the licensee's operating procedure, OP-26.
A l
review of the licensee's records from December of 1988 to present indicated that the monthly checks had been performed with the exception of January 1989.
A review of strip chart data indicated that the test had been performed and that the test record was missing.
Considering the relative completeness of this file, this appeared to be an isolated
!
incident and not a programmatic flaw.
Quarterly calibrations and cnnual sensitivity checks for area and effluent monitors were found to be complete for the year of 1989.
The inspector verified that the Health Physics l
Department had reviewed these calibrations.
A direct l
inspection of area and effluent monitoring units by the
inspector revealed that they are well maintained and
'
operating adequately.
Film badges and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are provided to the licensee through a service contract with Landauer, Inc..
The inspector reviewed the licensee's
-.
-.-
-
...
. -..
.
.
- - -
..
.
-
.
!
'
,
-> i i
i r
,
'
o
,
provided to the licensee through a service contract with
!
Landauer, Inc..
The inspector reviewed the licensee's i
quality assurance program for this service from November of
1988 to present and found it to be complete.
Approximately l
every three months, the licensee exposes condenser "R" i
chambers and TLDs to the same radiation field and then
!
compares the TLD results provided by the vendor to the I
,
National Institut3 of Standards and Technology (NIST)
]
traceable condenser "R" chamber results.
)
No violations were found in this area.
,
i 6.0 Postinas and other Radioloalcal controla j
Area radiation postings were observed to be in accordance with the requirements of 10 CTR 20.203.
The station's only i
room posted "High Radiation Area" contained the primary
'
water recirculation domineraliser.
The room was found to be
'
locked, current radiation survey records adequately reflected the radiation levels measured by the inspector.
!
contaminated areas in the facility were well defined and i
'
properly controlled.
!
!
The inspector observed " Radiation Area" postings on and l
around containers and rooms which could potentially store
,
radioactive material.
The licensee was informed that it was
-
e
,
not appropriate to use " Radiation Area" postings intended to j
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203(b) as a substitute i
for " Radioactive Material Storage Area" postings required by
i 10 CFR 20.203(e) and (f).
The licensee acknowledged the l
l need to properly post " Radioactive Materials Storage Areas".
[
However, during the inspection period, no inappropriate
.
!
radioactive material postings were observed.
No violations were found in this area.
6.0
'Irainina and oualification of Health Physics Staff Members I
,
i A formal program does not exist for requalification of f
health physics personnel in the area of radiation protection.
Inspector discussions with the Senior Health
,
l Physicist indicated that, due to the small number of health physics personnel on at:ff, the Senior Health Physicist has
remained familiar with the credentials and capabilities of (
,
each of his subordinates.
Training and other personnel l
development efforts are provided informally.
These efforts i
have included preparation and presentation of special j
i reports on tcpics related to health physics.
Recent topics
!
have included: ion chamber theory, internal dosimetry,
'
accelerator health physics and X-ray dosimetry and safety.
Tho licensee viewed the development of a formal requalification process as an opportunity for program
!
g
-
-
-.. - - -.
.. -.
.
.
_. _..
. _ _
_
__
_
_.
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
,
o
'
.
.
!
improvement and has decided to implement a program which documente continued compliance with 10 CFR 19.12.
Currently the licensee requires the health physicists to be trained and qualified prior to performing tasks in the l
following functional areast hot cell entries, portable
!
survey instrument calibration, offluent analysis and
!
release, primary water analysis, sealed source leak tests i
and continuous air monitor calibrations.
l The licenses stated that each Health Physicist had in excess of 6 years experience.
Resumes were not available for the
inspector to verify these experience levels, j
'
No violations were found in this area.
,'
7.0 Radioloaical surveys l
!
In a review of radiological surveys, the inspector observed that the licensee does not document exposure rates below 2.5 mR/hr.
Although these surveys satisfy the requirements of i
10 CFR 20.201, this practice does not provide exposure rate j
information in many srems where measurable exposure rates
exist.
Recording exposure rates below 2.5 mR/hr would help j
to familiarize workers with dose rate gradients throughout l
the facility and more strongly supports the concept of "As i
Low As Reasonably Achievable" (A! ARA) as described in 10 CTR 20.1(c).
,
A note on each nurvey map indicates that areas on the map, f
unless otherwise noted, are less than 2.5 mR/hr.
Therefore,
!
,
each completed survey map implies that every point on the i
,
map was evaluated for dose rate and that no point exceeded l
2.5 mR/hr.
In practice, this intensive survey process is
,
not psrformed.
[
i The licensee has decided to lower the threshold for
!
.
I recording area dose rates and will indicate dose rates only
{
where measurements were taken.
The licensee is also i
i evaluating methods for designating " low dose waiting areas"
,
to help workers pursue AIARA practices while in the field.
[
i No violations were found in this area.
j 8.0 Reactor Tank Mak Renair Outage f
i The licensee provided the inspector with a preliminary dose equivalent estimate of approximately 5 person ren for t
completion of the tasks scheduled for the 1990 Reactor Tank Leak Repair Outage.
The licensee plans to further refine
!
this estimate as more information becomes available for nach L
task to be performed.
!
t
!
- _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
,
_,
..
.
l
- r-
.
,
G Using a portable GN probe (frisker), the inspector noted that no detectable contamination could be found in the wet dirt sampled at the area of the leak.
9.0 ruft Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in section 1.0 of the report, on February 13, 1990.
The inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection at that time.
,
.
.
-