IR 05000157/1993002
| ML20058E499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000157 |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1993 |
| From: | Holmes S, Joyner J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058E498 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-157-93-02, 50-157-93-2, NUDOCS 9312070034 | |
| Download: ML20058E499 (7) | |
Text
.
_
_-
,
c i
I
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
REGION I
(
t l
Report No.
50-157\\93-02 Docket No.
50-157 l
l
License No.
R-80
i Licensee:
Cornell University
}
lthaca. New York 14853 Fncility Name:
Cornell University TRIGA Reactor Inspection At:
Ithaca. New York l
t b
Inspection Conducted:
November 8-10. 1993 s
.i
Inspector:
'
/
/ 77
.
Stephen Holmes, Radiation Specialist, Effluents date l
Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities j
Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
t
!
l, Approved By:
fY
&
&#/97 dames}Hf Joyner, Cliicf/FRSSB, da'te l Division of Radiatipn Safety and Safeguards t
r
Areas inspected: The areas examined included implementation of the emergency plan.
'
procedures, facilities and equipment, and drills. The examination of the radiation safety
'
program focused on staf6ng. radiation monitoring equipment, surveys, training, personnel
,
dosimetry, signs and postings.
- Results: No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identiDed.
Delineation of the health physics responsibilities for the reactor operation still needed to be
formalized.
I
i
,
l
\\
i 9312070034 931201 PDR ADOCK 05000157 G
PDR.
l
. -.
.
..
-
. -
.-
f
.,
-
l
.
I DETAILS r
!
1.0 Persons Contncted
' i,
'H. Aderhold, Reactor Supe visor
"P. Cady, Chairman, Ward Laboratory Safety Committee
- D. Clark. Laboratory Director
!
A. Garcia-Rivera, Director, Office of Environmental Health
'I
- T. Hossain, Assistant Manager for Experimental Facilities l
- T. McGiff, University Radiation safety Officer i
- Attended the exit meeting on November 10, 1993. Other personnel were contacted or interviewed during this inspection.
!
2.0 Status of Previously Identified item j
(Open) Followup Item (92-01-01) Develop policies delineating the health physics
responsibilities of the reactor operation and campus radiation protection organizations.
r An agreement in principal had been reached between the reactor facility and the
,
campus radiation safety office to appoint a reactor staff member as the Reactor
{
Radiation Safety Officer. This member would be responsible for the required j
radiation safety program as noted in the Technical Specifications and would
!
coordinate the shared responsibilities between the departments. The licensee
representatives stated that the formal written policy guidelines would be completed
i and implemented by the end of December 1993. This matter remains open and will be reviewed in a future inspection.
3.0 Emercency Plan
,
!
3.1 Chances
!
-
The inspector confirmed that there had been no changes to the Emergency Plan (EP)
,
or any offsite support agreements since the last inspection. The licensee was also
aware of those changes which would be needed to comply with the implementation of
.,
new 10CFR20. The EP and procedures had been reviewed biennially by the Ward Laboratory Safety Committee (WLSC) as required by the plan. In discussion with the
staffit was noted that, although there was adequate instrumentation available to evaluate an airborne release during an emergency, neither the EP nor the j
!
implementing procedures address the use of this capability. The licensee stated that,
although the Final Safety Analysis Report demonstrated that any release from the facility would 'oe below unrestricted release limits, they would incorporate into the procedures instructions on using the available instrumentation to evaluate airborne
,
releases. These acuens will be reviewed in a future inspection.
i
4
__
_
.
. _
.
. _
. _
_
.... _.
_
__
i
-
.
!
.
l
i 3.2 Implementine Procedures
,
i The inspector reviewed the emergency procedures, dated March 09,1992, that provided detailed instructions for emergency response. The procedures were current, i
approved and were readily available in the emergency response facilities for use by response personnel. Additionally, they are provided to those persons with unescorted j
access to the facility in the Cornell University Radiation Laboratory manual #3
-
(CURL #3). They adequately addressed classification, notification, and protective
actions required by the EP during an emergency to protect the health and safety of the l
public. Implementing procedures were consistent with the EP requirements.
!
Emergency phone list and on-call lists were also readily available and up to date.
3.3 Ilrilh The inspector reviewed the critique of and plan for the last two drills. The drills were detailed, realistic, and resulted in the identification of weaknesses and
recommendations for corrective actions to the EP. WLSC minutes showed that these
recommendations had been brought to its attention and that they had directed the l'
reactor staff to evaluate and, where appropriate, incorporate the recommendations into the EP. However, it could not be documented if this was accomplished as directed.
-l The licensee representative stated that this had been accomplished and that the
[
evaluations and recommendations would be formally documented in the future. The-l emergency evacuation alarm was functionally tested daily during startup of the
reactor. Additionally, fire evacuation drills were held quarterly to supplement
training. This was verified by the inspector and meets the requirements of the EP and
Technical Specifications. Within the scope of this review no safety concerns were
noted.
"
>
3.4 Emercency Eauioment-l The inspector toured the laboratory to inspect the emergency facilities. The fixed and
,
portable radiological air monitors, the water sampling equipment, the gamma l
spectrometers and contamination counting equipment were on hand and adequately
{
maintained. Communication consisted of phones, voice and public address systems,
!
^
and radio provided by the Department of Public Safety. First aid supplies and a small
'
emergency kit were available in the Ward laboratory near the lobby. The licensee representative stated that a formal inventory list would be provided for these supplies i
and they would be inspected on a periodic basis. The emergency response facilities,
equipment, and supplies were readily available and maintained as required by the EP.
'
h
I i
.
.
.
_
_
_.
-
.
.
__
.
,
.
!
-
i
i i
3.5 Offsite Supcod i
The inspector reviewed the written agreements for emergency support with offsite l
agencies. Only one formal written agreement was in effect with an offsite agency.
l The agreement was with State University Hospital to accept patients who have i
sustained radiation injury or have become contaminated. The other agreements with the police and fire department were deleted as, by state and city charters, they are
required to provide the support previously addressed in the written agreements. The
!
inspector contacted by phone the Department of Public Safety as noted in the plan as
,
the first step in the emergency procedures. The dispatcher had the current response i
list and phone numbers. The inspector was connected to the responsible personnel
!
promptly and questioned them with regards to their response to a request for support.
l They understood the communications and actions that would be expected of them i
during an event. Offsite and on-site support would be provided in an emergency as
{
specified in the EP.
l 3.6 Trainine f
'
The inspector reviewed training records, interviewed two operations staff, and j
questioned two Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) staff with regard to training.
i Training records of operations staff and others indicated that training was given as l
,
required by EP. The reactor operator was knowledgeable of the EP, implementing-
'
procedures, and classifying emergencies and demonstrated to the inspector the ability to respond to, stabilize, and recover from an event. Support staff from EHS directly
!
assigned for reactor emergencies consisted of a radiation specialist and the fire-
!
inspector of the Ward Lab. They participate in all drills along with other staff
-
.
members who are largely volunteer fire fighters with hazardous material training.
l
The licensee stated that training tours for the new Fire Chief and his staff were being
'
arranged. By interviews with the EP coordinator. the reactor staff, the health physics j
staff and others with regard to emergency response, the inspector determined that the
!
personnel were trained to respond to emergency events as required.
!
,
!
4.0 Staffine
r The inspector reviewed the staffing of the radiation safety program. Staffing was
}
.
good, with one Health Physicist in EHS dedicated to reactor health physics suppon
under direction of the University Radiation Safety Officer (URSO). Technical
!
!
Specifications (TS) Section 6.1.2 states that the Director of Radiation Safety or his deputy shall be responsible for overseeing the safety of Ward Laboratory operations
!
from the standpoint of radiation protection. However, the normal day-to-day HP
!
surveys and activities involving radiation safety were performed by the reactor staff.
i This included personnel dosimetry, surveys, worker training, and waste disposal. The
university HP staff also performed surveys, evaluated personnel exposures, provided j
worker training, and handled radioactive waste disposal (see section 2.0, report 50-
!
.
h
'
.
-
-
.
- -
-
_
.
!
.
I
.
'
!
,
resolved by an agreement between the reactor facility and the campus radiation safety office to appoint a staff member of the reactor as the Reactor Radiation Safety.
l Officer. This member would be responsible for the radiation safety program as j
required by the Technical Specifications and would coordinate the shared
responsibilities between the departments. The licensee representatives stated that the i
formal written policy and guidelines would be completed and implemented by the end j
of December 1993. This action will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. The
!
j inspector determined, by review of staff qualifications and interviews with HP and
~I'
i reactor staff, that they were qualified and possessed the technical expertise to perform
'
the duties required by the license and TS. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
!
.
!
5.0 Radiation Worker Training The licensee's program to provide training required by 10 CFR 19.12, " Instructions
,
!
to Workers", was reviewed through discussions with the URSO and the Reactor Supervisor, interviews with staff, and reviews of records and training materials.
!
Training is provided by the reactor staff through issuance of the CURL-3 manual,
.l I
discussions, facilities tours and attendance at the EHS radiation safety course.
Refresher training is given yearly and additional training is provide as required, i.e.
when key access is given. Review of the training program content indicated that the
.
i requisite training was being given. Interviews with staff members and checks of
<
records confirmed that the described training had been given. Observation of and
-
discussions with the HP, reactor and non-reactor staffs verified that relevant safety
training had been given. The inspector concluded that the licensee had implemented a l
'
pertinent training program appropriate for the hazards present.
6.0 Radiation Postines
!
The inspector conducted tours of the reactor controlled areas and accompanied staff l
on a general area walk-through, General housekeeping of the facility was good, with
no unmarked or unsecured radioactive materials evident. The radiation signs and
postings properly reflected the radiological conditions in the facility. Reactor facility i
and radioactive material storage areas were secured and properly posted. NRC Forms-3 were conspicuously posted in appropriate areas throughout the facility. No i
safety concerns or violations were identified.
l
!
!
!
r
,
1 i
.:
.__
__
_
t
l
L
.!
,
!
..
,
l
!
7.0 Surveys l
,
The licensee is required by 10 CFR 20.201 to perform such surveys as required to
'!
comply with the applicable regulations and insure that these surveys are reasonable to l
,
l evaluate the radiation hazards that may be present. The inspector reviewed the
!
procedures and records of the smear and radiation area surveys performed by the
!
!
reactor and university staff. Results were evaluated and corrective actions taken and
'
documented when readings /results exceeded set action levels. Contamination surveys were performed by reactor staff when conditions dictated, however, they were not
always documented. The use of survey sheets by the university HP was good and provided an excellent assessment of radiological conditions due to the sizable number
of data points. Within the scope of this inspection, the surveys were being performed
!
in a manner appropriate and sufficient to the circumstances to evaluate the radiation i
hazards that might exist, and the records satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR
20.401(b). No safety concerns or violations were identified.
!
8.0 Portable Survey and Countine Lab Eauioment
The inspector reviewed the use, availability, and calibration of the portable survey
[
equipment. The inspector also reviewed calibration, quality control, and source
certification records for portable, in-place radiation and air radiation monitoring
!'
instruments along with counting room instrumentation. The inspector determined that sufficient amounts and appropriate types of portable survey equipment were available
-
to the staff. The calibration of the portable survey equipment was performed in-house
.
by the licensee using a cesium-137 source. The licensee was creative in using a beam stop on their calibration range to determine scattered radiation fields at extended t
calibration distances. Procedures were consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the manufacturers' recommendations. Calibration sources were traceable to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology directly, or by secondary / transfer standards. Energy dependence of portable survey meters was checked for both soft and hard gamma fields. Beta meters were issued with a chart of counting efficiencies determined for the isotopes to be used by the individual j
investigator. The use of detailed forms for these efficiency calibrations, and computer tracking for calibration due dates is commendable. Although the reactor l
counting lab instruments and in-place radiation and air monitors were calibrated by.
'
the reactor staff using generally accepted techniques, there were no formal written
,
'
procedures available. The licensee representative stated that formal written procedures would be generated. This action will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. All instruments checked were in calibration. Calibration records were in f
order. Overall the licensee's program for survey instrument repair and calibration l
was exceptional. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
,
i
'
_. - -
--
. - -
_
.--
, -.
- _
,
h
,.
..
.
9.0 Personnel Dosimetry
The licensee used a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program accredited vendor to process personnel thermoluminescent dosimetry. The Ward Laboratory l
maintained their own staff's personnel dosimetry records. The Reactor Supervisor
and the University health physicist both review the exposure reports. Atypical readings or those exceeding the university limits are reported to the appropriate
,
supervisor. A written reply with an evaluation is required. The program included l
'
action levels for investigation of elevated exposures, lost dosimetry badges, and procedures for requesting and responding to requests for records. An examination of records for the past two years indicated that all personnel exposures were within NRC limits, with most showing little exposure above background. Self-reading pocket l
dosimeters are used on a daily basis by the reactor staff. This is insured by an interlock which requires a pocket chamber to be inserted in an entrance device before e
the elevator door to the reactor will open. All records appeared to be in order. The inspector's evaluation indicated that the licensee had implemented an effective personnel monitoring program.
10.0 Exit Interview l
The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 of this report
'
on November 10,1993, and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
{
,
t i
!
,
-