IR 05000193/1993002
| ML20056C151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1993 |
| From: | Holmes S, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056C146 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-193-93-02, 50-193-93-2, NUDOCS 9303300157 | |
| Download: ML20056C151 (6) | |
Text
.
.
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-193/93412 Docket No.
50-193 License No.
E-21 Licensee:
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center l
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission South Ferry Road
!
Narragansett. Rhode Island j
Facility Name:
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center
!
!
Inspection At:
Narragansett. Rhode Island
Inspection Conducted:
February 23-25.1993
,
Inspector:
// [3
- d' ate Stephe'n Holmes, Radiation Specialist, Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities
Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)1 3 // k T Approved By:
n an%
_1 Marie Miller,dief, ERPS/I RSSB,
' date f
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
,
Areas Inspected:
Facility staffing, radiation postings, radiation worker training, routine surveys, portable survey and counting lab equipment, calibrations, personnel dosimetry, and
implementation of the emergency plan.
Results:
Health physics staffing, and routine surveys were good. Some weaknesses in
,
the following areas were noted. Written procedures for some health physics operations were not formalized; calibration of the multi-channel analyzer system was limited to University
.
investigators' calibrations and facility participation in the Environmental Protection Agency l
interlaboratory comparison program; and one of the four emergency drills was not conducted
>
during 1992. No violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
d 9303300157 930318
!
PDR ADOCK 05000193 G
_ -
-.
.
i
.
.
DETAILS i
1.0 Persons Contacted J. Cunningham, Health Physics Technician / Reactor Operator
"D. Johnson, Health Physicist
- N. Jacob, Radiation Safety Officer B. Smith, Principal Reactor Operator
- T. Tehan, Director, Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center i
- Present at exit briefing.
2.0 Status of Previousiv Identified Items 2.1 (Closed) IFI (50-143/91-01-01) Records of surveys as required by 10 CFR
,
'
20.401(b) were incomplete. Review of licensee records of routine surveys confirmed
,
that they were now complete and on file. Corrective actions had been comprehensive
'
and thorough. This matter is closed.
,
2.2 (Closed) IFI (50-143/91-01-02)
letters of Agreement had not updated as required by the facility Emergency Plan. Inspector audit of the letters of Agreement between the facility and outside support agencies showed that they had been updated as required by the Emergency Plan. This item is closed.
!
3.0 Staffine Technical Specification (TS) section J.1 requires one qualified Health Physicist on the facility staff. There were four part time staff members implementing the radiation safety program: 1-Radiation Protection Officer (RPO),1-Health Physicist (HP),1-j Reactor Operator / Health Physics Technician (RO/HPT), and a clerk typist (CT). The RPO, HP, and CT also supported the byproduct licenses at the University of Rhode j
Island. The RO/HPT also operated the reactor. The time devoted to the reactor facility was the equivalent of two full time staff members.
The shared staffing j
between the facility and the University byproduct licenses allowed great flexibility and the ability to consolidate support when required. The inspector reviewed the training and experience of the radiation protection staff and determined that the staff is
{
qualified, by training and experience, to perform the duties required by the license.
No safety concerns or violations were identified 4.0 Radiation Worker Trainine The licensee's program to provide training required by 10CFR 19.12, " Instructions to Workers," was reviewed through discussions with the RPO, observations of an experimenter performing "short irradiations," discussions with the facility custodian, and review of records and training material. All personnel entering and spending time at the facility were required to be badged. The facility used a " Personnel
'
-
\\
.
i
and review of records and training material. All personnel entering and spending
time at the facility were required to be badged. The facility used a " Personnel Management Form, NSC-22," to track and insure the pertinent training was given to
~,
each individual.
The form covered each individual's 10CFR19 training, health physics, facility tour, safety instructions, and investigator training given by their sponsor. Additional training hand-outs covered short and long " irradiations" using the rabbit system, emergency instructions, and communications.
Experimenters were provided with a Safety Guide with specific instructions and they had to demonstrate i
satisfactory knowledge to the HP before being " qualified" to perform their experiment. Training records for the experimenters and reactor operators indicated required safety training was being covered. Discussion with the facility custodian indicated that he had received the training as outlined on form NSC-22 and that he was aware of the hazards and safety precautions of working in a radiation facility.
The inspector concluded that the licensee had implemented a relevant training
'
program appropriate for the hazards present.
5.0 Radiation Postines The inspector conducted tours of the reactor controlled areas and accompanied staff 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 and radioactive material storage areas were secured and properly posted.
The monthly area survey ensured that these posting were current. NRC Forms 3 were conspicuously posted in appropriate areas throughout the facility. The radiological posting program was adequate. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
6.0 Surveys The licensee is required by 10CFR20.201 to perform such surveys as required to comply with its license and applicable regulations and insure that these suneys are reasonable to evaluate the radiation hazards that may be present.
The inspector reviewed the procedures and records of the daily, weekly, and monthly smear surveys, the monthly radiation area surveys, the weekly air sample and primary and secondary water analysis. The inspector accompanied and observed the HPT during the daily smears survey, primary and secondary water sampling, and the weekly radioactive water check. The HPT followed procedures if available, used standard safety techniques, and demonstrated the ability to perform the surveys as required.
The results of the surveys were evaluated by the HPT, and corrective actions taken and documented when readings /results exceeded set action levels.
The use of a
" Daily Technician Duties" tracking sheet, as well as the individual survey data sheets, was good. The inspector noted that health physics procedures, though some seemed limited and others were not formalized, were being followed. The licensee stated that the present written health physics procedures would be reviewed for content and that
t
'
.
..
an evaluation would be made to determine if additional formalized written procedures would be required. These actions will be reviewed in a future inspection. Within the
.
scope of this inspection, the surveys were being performed in a manner appropriate and sufficient to the circumstances to evaluate the radiation hazards that might exist and the records were complete and satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 20.401(b).
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
7.0 Portable Survey and Countine Lab Eauipment
.
-
i The inspector reviewed the use, availability, and calibration of the portable survey equipment. The inspector also reviewed calibration, quality control, and test source certification records for portable radiation monitoring instruments and counting room instruments. 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.
Calibration procedures were consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
recommendations or the manufacturers' recommendations.
The calibration source strength was verified as a transfer standard from the Providence Hospital traceable source. All instruments checked were in calibration. Calibration records were in order. The inspector noted the following weaknesses.
Calibration of the neutron rate meter involved exposure to only one known field with a pulser check on other scales. Also there were two different source
>
strengths on file for the one neutron calibration source and the basis for the
difference had not been resolved.
A copy of the NIST-traceable source certificate for the Providence Hospital's calibration source was not on file.
The licensee stated that a copy of the hospital source certification would be obtained
,
and properly filed; that an evaluation of performing a multiple point / range source check would be made; and a verification of the neutron source strength due to ingrowth would be done. These action will be reviewed in a future inspection.
(Inspector Followup Item 50-05/93-01-01)
The facility routinely used an alpha / beta counter for evaluating smears or planchet samples. Although the calibration of the unit was not formalized, NIST-traceable standards and check sources were used concurrent with every group of samples to ensure accuracy.
The multi-channel analyzer (MCA) was used primarily by the University investigators and students who performed continuing " calibrations" using manufacturer-provided software, and check sources. Facility QC and QA controls consisted of background tracking and informal peak drift verification, but did not include charting.
The facility also participated in the Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory comparison program with good correlation of the spiked sample results. The licensee stated that they would formalize the QC and QA checks, and
.-
.. - -.
-.
.
- -
-
.
.
I
.
'
.
,
acquire a NIST-traceable mixed gamma calibration source to independently perform
'
calibrations of the MCA.
These action will be myiewed in a future inspection.
(Inspector Followup Item 50-05/93-01-02) No violations were identified.
8.0 Personnel Dosimetry The licensee used a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)
accredited vendor to process personnel thermoluminescent dosimetry.
The RSO maintained both the records of the reactor facility staff and the campus staff receiving occupational exposure. The facility changed vendors the final quarter of 1992. The program included action levels for investigation of elevated exposures, lost dosimetry badges, and procedures for requesting and responding to requests for records. The exposure reports were being reviewed by the RSO. An examination of records for the past two years indicated that all exposures were within NRC limits, with most showing no exposure above background. The lifetime doses had been transferred to i
the new vendor's reporting system. All records appeared to be in order and no safety I
concerns were noted.
The licensee had implemented an effective personnel monitoring pmgram.
9.0 Emereenev Plannine
'
!
The inspector reviewed the following elements of the licensee's emergency preparedness program that are required by the NRC-approved Emergency Plan.
-Status of Letters of Agreement with outside agencies-Tour of emergency facilities and of equipment in storage-Training of personnel required by the Emergency Plan j-Type, frequency, and findings oflicensee drills All letters of Agreement between the facility and outside support agencies had been updated in the last year.
The emergency equipment had been inventoried semi-
'
annually and had being maintained as required. The tour of the emergency facilities confirmed that they were as required by the plan. Personnel training satisfied the Emergency Plan requirements. During the present changeover to low-enriched fuel and subsequent re-write of the facility Technical Specifications and Safety Analysis Report, one of the four comprehensive emergency drills had not been conducted in 1992. As noted in a previous report (50-193/91-01), it would have been difficult for the small staff to effectively conduct four annual drills. The staff confirmed that, as recommended in the previous report, they had reviewed guidance provided in ANSI Standard 15.16, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors," and were submitting an updated Emergency Plan commensurate with the hazards of the new low-enriched
{
,
fuel. The licensee stated that, after the fuel changeover this summer, they would j
conduct a full drill under the requirements of the new emergency plan before the end of 1993. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
-.
.
.
.
-.
..
.
--
-
__
. _.
.
.-
.)
..
,
.
,
10.
Recordinn Forms The inspector observed a transfer of irradiated material from the reactor to the University by the HP staff.
The transfer was quick and efficient due to the
tracking / recording form used.
This highlighted the overall use of forms by the i
licensee.
Forms were used for tracking, data recording, personnel management, transferring, releasing, and calibrating.
The forms were clear and concise, and l
enhanced acquisition, control, and archiving of data, survey results, calibrations, etc.
'
The licensee's use of forms is noteworthy.
,
t 11.
Exit Interview
,
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 on February 25,1993 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
,
i l
!
b
!
t i