IR 05000199/1993001
| ML20128F844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000199 |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1993 |
| From: | Dragoun T, Holmes S, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128F829 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-199-93-01, 50-199-93-1, NUDOCS 9302120054 | |
| Download: ML20128F844 (5) | |
Text
I i
\
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {
REGION I
Report N /93.:01 Docket N License N E-9_4 Licensee: Manhattan college comoration Mechanical Engineering DJEaIlmtal Riverdale. New York 10471 Fncility Nnme: Zero Power Reacmr_
Inspection At: Hiycrdale New Yor Inspection Conducted: January 19-20. 1991, inspectors: / #
.
~
b f7 Stephen Ifolmes, Radiation Specialist, Effluents ' date Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
n .
a
?
l
/ W>tgi '
twew .d/9[73 Thomas Dragoun, IVojectpientist, ERPS,FRSSB 'date Approved By: N 72N/A6b o7 * 5~~ T3
~
Marie Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected; The areas examined included staffing, oversight, surveys, radiation monitoring equipment, signs and postings, procedures, training, mid personnel monitorin ,
Implementation of the emergency plan was also examine EnUlts The staffing level and professional expertise is sufficient to perform the duties required by the license and the overall radi. tion protection program is commensurate with the hazards presented by the reactor. No violations of regulatory requirements were identifie .
9302120054 930205 PDR ADOCK 03000199 O PDR
-.w
_
,,
' ,,is
.
gf%* %",n
,,,is uo e o*"' l, c-s'^ "'" ,,,~,, .p;",',',lri "'"'
,
ynn mth e4 '"
. f( 1,
., ,,,,,. pw
,e e,u,u v ,,,, oc.oa
- ,,c4,,,,,n,p",,g,iiiv";yc,znQn",,,~'"
,s as a,
l ,,, si .g,.g,,i~ x". 4,.i r a 4g ~. nic g a >> - & .. % , e -
, p,po yi , ,, ,,,
r fo
. ,
,,, ,m
'
.,
92f;e,,g, gi ,,.qa l)p?y$,4:s?g,,,n
"
c. .
~ 4
,
,p t$y,h!!$:"N'";"n"
,.,
%"*
, $,,,,a. i"s,p y
>;;;,,m"~^f,
'
,t
! 1'O !
,
ga,4 !* ?n p '
", ,
I (,m ntteI ,yso-u
,, ,00 c,
.
.
" * . ,, s9, ,yM . 1,s
,, , ,
"
"' '
mc.cde n fkf'kh ff [k,'
<
hhh!ff$,',f;'!bl,kb?$:k."k hbll!!$",;)~
y:e" ' '
m' ' o"
- ,,uv;lll"~$$",
- c'c .o,g$ $,%,;,,a"isn!"'"'gnim ia
-
y
gr, o ,7,0
,o
'k"lb;,[k,luN'""
ad u '"f y.!ii o 9 ,, U"A a.f//
a i,7Ol"'!4,.)'O ' O g
- - - - - - -
o
./, ,
/'
1.0 l'cligni.fanitteled DETAILS
,
, t
'
- R. Berlin, Reactor Administrator i
- W. Duggan, Chief Reactor Supervisor j
' Attended the Exit meeting on 20 Jnuary 199 .0 Status of Previousiv identified Ilttus : (Closed) Violation (90-02-01) Failure to calibrate the reactor gamma radiation monitors. The gamma radiation monito have been calibrated with the
'
licensec's new National Institute of Stal.darris and Technology (NIST).
traceable 2 millicurie Cs 137 source. Calibration procedures followed American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommendations. The licensee - ,
has completed the corrective actions described it it's letter dated January 28, 1991. This item is close .2 (Closed) Impector Followup item (90&O3) Lack of an evaluation of the adequacy of the radioanalytical methods and inadequate data reporting and iecording format. The licensee has implemented a set of new reporting forms, incorporated the routine analydcal HP methods into the Laboratory hianual and verified that the independent vendor is licensed by the state to provide the radicinalytical services This matter is close ;
t 2,3 (Closed) Weakness noted (90 02)The Reactor Operations hianual was not properly reviewed, approved, or fully implemented. The hianhattan College Zero Power Reactor laboratory hianual has been reviewed and approved by the Reactor Operations Committee and issued. This item is close .0 Hitdlation Prottrilon Erognlitt SnrE n t
The licensee is required by 10CFR20.2]l to perform such surveys as required to comply with its lleense and applicable regulations and ensure that these surveys are reasonable to evaluate the radiation hazards that may be presen The hianhattan Cellege Zero Power Reactor (h1CZPER) is a light water pool-type using low-enriched uranium fuel with a maximum design power level of only 100 milliwatts, it is therefore used solely for teaching and training. The inspector reviewed the procedures and records of the semi annual smear, radiation area, and air sampling surveys. Overall the surveys were being performed in a manner appropriate and sufficient to evaluate the radiation hazards that _might exist, considering the facilitics' low level of hazard. These surveys are performed by an outside consultant who uses an independent vendor to provide a double check on the accuracy of his results. This lab is .
'
licensed by the State of New York to provide these services. New survey reporting forms recently have been prc4uced to enhance the usability of d3e survey results in showing compliance with tegulatory requirements and will be used for the next semiannual survey. Use of these forms will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. (IFI 93-01-01) No safety concerns or violations w identifie ,
f:
g ,, , - - - , - . - . . ~ , - , -. - - , , , . ,_,.% c ,y. , wg ,___ <-=,. _._,.m.., , _,,.y .. , _ ,,,r_,._,. yp. py.. p w , , . , ,.%, , , . . . , ,. ,p ,y, g , y
-
--- -
.
3,
.
s.,e, ~
,
rgg,,,creice=n-
"
W p rs@nd %Dt ga SRC d Dmi* I t to P 33 d r # i are oe u- .a-N 8'*%' e - g ar .oe6eime g Cs'3;SaS;ffaiE.$$5*C*l@Ug,' *
'oGS M f s*ffsh*g,.s cogent e geactor .4 , gngudes S . 333 no Safdy
{
trJn y pt " a3 e - ca e s Ec %e" r g 35, .9-resp ea '$a * notea. w e c ccms * e , . .
moni10U^E E hich 0 T Po'xer W # an =PP 5eu 5}aalpr
- l2@$$$($5"C$i$ "L'd1ka
=m e r e m e r:
=,,11, g,. - % , .
-
E M '*
i (emented 2 presen ^ b f un e t m ug da -screes. o
,e
'5% < ,'5 ': ""6 React 0f Wisg@CI;Q*aesg:,
~
g % ;, ,0 * r iaeminea-Concerns O
_ _ . _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ -_
'
M l'estings General housekeeping of the facility was good, with no unmarked or unsecured 1 radioactive materials evident. The warning signs and postings properly reflected the radiological conditions in the facility, Reactor facility and ,
radioactive material storage areas were secured and properly posted. NRC !
Forms 3 were conspleuously posted in appropriate areas throughout the !
facility. The radiological posting program was adequate. No safety concerns i or violations were identified.' )
l
,
3.3 hriunutLI19shnttry The licensee uses a NVLAp accredited vendor to process personnel TLD
'
dosimetry, A review of records indleated that all exposures were within NRC -
limits with most showing no exposure above background. These results are consistent with the facility's low exposure potential. The dosimetry results are 1 reviewed by the Reactor Administrator and reported to the Reactor Operation:,
'
Committee (ROC). The icview includes action levels for investigation of elevated exposure and procedures for requesting previous exposures and responding to such requests All records appeared to be in order and no safety concerns were noted. The licensee has implemented an effective personnel monitoring program, 3.4 Training >
'
The Manhattan College Zero power Reactor Laboratory Manual, which implemented the reactor program, was reviewed and approved by the ROC on
,
November 13, 1991. Together with class course work, die manual provides l adequate guidance and instruction to radiation workers, i.e. students, and !
l fulfills the requirements of an ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
,
program, llased on the facility's low power level and limited use, the licensee has implemented an adequate training program appropriate for the hazards j presen .5 Salling The current s'aff consists of a Reactor Administrator, a Chief Reactor Supervisor, a part time Reactor Operator, and a half time lab assistant during l the school terms, The reactor administrator and supervisor both have Senior i Operator Licenses and extensive experience in the nuclear field, The reactor- operator is employed in the nuclear field and is pursuing a degree and the lab
, assistant is an_ engineering degree candidate. The staff is qualified and possess l the technical expertise to perform the duties required by the license, No safety _
concerns or violations were identifie _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _
. - .- . . - - - -- - -
,
.
> 4
!
3.6 Rttn}21tl The inspector reviewed the ROC's minutes for the past two years. The committee's meeting schedule and membership satisfy technical specification (TS) requirements. Review of the minutes indicated the committee is active in -
providing appropriate guidance, direction and oversight to the safety program l and ensures suitable use of the reactor. The committee performed it's duties as required by the license and T .7 EDItaldclurvey Eatt]Dutral The inspector reviewed the use, stockpile, and calibration of the portabic )
survey equiprnent. Sufficient amounts and appropriate types of portable ,
survey equipment were available. Calibrations were performed off site by a -
certified vendor using National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)+ !
traceable radiation sources and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ;
'
or manufacturer accepted techniques. All instruments checked were in calibration. Calibration records were in order. portable survey equipment was being properly maintained and calibmte .8 ll1$latt31tila11on Monlinn The permanent radiation monitoring equipment is required by TS to be available and functioning during reactor operations. The availability, functioning, and calibration of the radiation area monitors (RAMS) were evahtated. The inspected RAMS were available and functional. Review of records indicated that acceptable TS-authorized calibration procedures were ,
~
being followed in house and that the frequency met license requirements. Use of the new NIST traceable calibration source will enhance the RAM calibration. Within the scope of this review no safety concerns were observe .9 Emercenev Pinnnine The inspector reviewed elements of the licensee's emergency preparedness-program that are required by the NRC-approved Emergency plan (EP). The plan was also reviewed during an independent audit of the facility conducted last year. The plan is being updated periodically as indicated by current call and hospital response rosters. Approval of such by the ROC satisfies the TS -
annual review requirement. In discussion the licensee stated that formal documentation of this review will be made and that they will pursue !
arrangements to have the reactor facility included in tours made by the police -l and fire department personnel of other on-campus radiological areas. (IFl l 93-01-02) The reactor facility and emergency equipment are as described in the plan. Interviews with the Reactor Administrator and Chief Reactor l i
Supervisor showed that they were knowledgeable of the emergency plan and could properly implement the plan. Due to the facility's low power level, no
.
annual drills are required. Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns i or deficiencies were identifie '
I e , - . - , , r , --.me , - - - - - + - - , e-,- a
-_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . .
o
.
4.0 lhlLittienkit The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in Sect!on 1.0 on Januc.ry 20,1993 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspectio _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _