IR 05000199/1987002

Insp Rept 50-199/87-02 on 871022-23.No Noncompliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Research Reactor Radiological Controls Program,Including Tech Spec Requirements,Organization, Surveys,Instrument Calibrs & Procedures

ML20236W512
Person / Time
Site:	05000199
Issue date:	11/30/1987
From:	Shanbaky M, Sherbini S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236W492	List: IR 05000199/1987002 ML20236W490
References
50-199-87-02, 50-199-87-2, NUDOCS 8712080066
Download: ML20236W512 (3)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. .

.
...
.
.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 1 COMMISSIO REGION I Report No. 50-199/87-02-Docket No. 50-199

License N R-94-

. Licensee: Manhattan College Corporation     i Mechanical Engineering Department-1 Bronx, New York 10471

, Facility Name: Zero Power Reactor' Inspection At: Bronx,' New York  ; Inspection Conducted: October 22-23, 1987 Inspector:q), e ,_ D # ^ 11'73-37- i i S. Sherbini, Senior Radiation Specialist Date :1 Facilities Radiation Protection Section

   /

, Approved by: W F4 J/ M. Shanbaky,' Chief, Fa(ilities

     #/7o///
     ~Date  ;

l l Radiation Protection Section '

        '

Inspection Summary: Inspection on October 22-23,:1987-(Report No.

! 50-199/87-02)-  ; Areas Inspected: Announced, routine.. inspection of the,research react'or radiological controls program, including Technical S)ecificatio'n requirements, organization, surveys, instrument cali arations: and procedures'.- . '

 .
     .
       !

Results: The licensee was in-compliance with NRC~ requirements within' the: areas examine I" . 8712080066 871130 l PDR ADOCK 05000199 1 G PDR

       ,

i ,, I '

 .

_ ._ _____.___...._.___.__..________.___E

__

           !
           '

c s.: k* i

           .,

i

I DETAILS [ 1.0 Personnel Contacted a l  !

      * Dr. R. Berlin, . Acting Chairman, Mechanical Engineering. Department j
      * Dr. J. Hu, Chief Reactor Supervisor
         ~

q

      * denotes attendance at the exit meetin .0 Findings
           -{

Inspection of the radiological controls functions associated with the research reactor. and subcritical . assemblies' indicated; that the program is well organized and well managed. A tour of the facility.and inspection of the equipment showed that the systems appear to be well maintained, and the general housekeeping was also good. Review of documentation indicated that the reactor was being operated in accordance with procedures, and that required radiological surveys and air and water analyses were being conducted. Requirements imposed by the Technical Specifications, such as surveys and audits, were being , implemented at the specified frequencies. However, a number of weak a points were identified.in the. program. Although these weaknesses do l not compromise the safety of reactor operations, they represent potential problem areas and should be corrected. The areas of weakness are detailed belo .1 Technical Specifications require that an audit b'e. conducted _ , biennially by an outside individual or group familiar with.the l research reactor operations. A review of the audit documentation revealed that this requirement is not being implemented in a' 4 manner that is sufficient to cover all program areas. .The licensee stated that they believed that this requirement was being satisfied by the periodic inspections conducted by the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI). The inspector reviewed the report en the latest audit conducted.by ANI and determined that'the audit was ; not a comprehensive audit. The audit did not examine most areas related to radiological controls and was confined mainly to' the physical plant and reactor. operations. Audits are being. conducted - ' periodically of all reactor facility operation However,'the inspector pointed out that since these audits are' conducted by the Rer.ctor Operations Committee, the audits are not-sufficiently independent. The licensee stated that audits. by. a ' committee formed of faculty members who are not part of. reactor operation group will be institute _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_

,O
"
,

1 i

   .
    .
     .

2.2 Technical Specifications require that the two gamma radiatio j monitors mounted around the reactor pool be calibrated annuall q An operability check is also to be performed quarterly. The

       '

inspector did not find records documenting implementation of these requirements. .The licensee stated that although records were not available, these _ calibrations and tests were being performed- i regularly. However, discussions with the licensee. revealed that  ; the method used to calibrate andLcheck for operability should be l improved. The scales on the monitor channels are logarithmic and

       ~

, range from 0.01 - 100 mR/h The.. operations checks and ' calibrations are conducted at a dose rate of approximately mR/hr. 'This reading is close to the low end of the scale, and there is no indication of the operability of'the. system above mR/hr, that is, toward the middle or higher end of the scale. The licensee stated that they.will-instruct their consultant healt ., physicist to develop calibration procedures to address this I weaknes ,  ! 2.3 The results of analyses of the air and water. samples are ' expressed  ; as less than 0.005 uCi of activity. . No media concentration dat j were provided. The inspector asked the licensee to show why these ' numbers are regarded as showing compliance with regulatory requirements for air and water radioactivity'in unrestricted , , areas. _ The licensee was unable to provide details to clarify  ! their pnsition. Air and. water sampling and analyses are performed , for the licensee by a health physics consultant. The inspector l talked with the consultant and explained the . concerns. The- ' consultant stated that he will supply the licensee _ with the  ; required detail .4 The licensee does not currently have a complete set of procedures covering all aspects of radiological operations. The licensee  ! stated, however, that a list of procedures has been developed and that new procedures are being written This project is expected to

   . j be completed sometime in 198 '

3.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives _at the end of the inspection. The findings were' explained and discussed..The-licensee acknowledged the findings and stated that steps'will be taken to correct them. The' inspector stated that these. items will be reviewed-during the next inspection of the reactor facilit ,

       ,

      '
 .. _   . _ _  .-_ .___._-_________.I__d____.__._U.__J

}}