IR 05000097/1985002
| ML20127N094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000157, 05000097 |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1985 |
| From: | Bicehouse H, Carson B, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127N080 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-097-85-02, 50-157-85-02, 50-157-85-2, 50-97-85-2, NUDOCS 8507010431 | |
| Download: ML20127N094 (7) | |
Text
,_
-
.
i
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 85-02 Docket No.
50-97,50-157 License No. R-89, R-80 Priority Category C
---
~ Licensee: Cornell University Ward Laboratory of Nuclear Engineering Ithaca, New York 14850 Facility Name:
Cornell University Inspection At:
Ithaca, New York Inspection Conducted: May 20 - 23, 1985 Inspectors:
D/."Ai//Ir 45/ f v
B.'ta'rslin, Rap)'ation Specialist
/!at6 N.^ I
& lnl95 H. Bicehouse, Radiation Specialist date Approved by:
WdnY/i/dc (.[//!ri W. %sciak,"Chie
/dat e
/
BWR Radiation S ty Section Inspection Summary:
. Scope:
This routine, announced inspection involved 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> onsite by two
.
region based inspectors. The licensee's radiation protection and radioactive waste management programs were reviewed with emphasis in the areas of exposure control, training, procedures and equipment, posting and labeling, instrumen-tation, access control, surveys, effluents and effluent monitoring.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations were noted. One weakness was identified in the area of the University Radiation Safety Office oversight of-Ward Laboratory activities.
,
8507010431 850625 PDR ADOCK 05000097 G
}
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed:
- Dr. D. D. Clark, Director Ward Laboratory of. Nuclear Engineering Dr. K. B. Cady, Chairman of the Ward Laboratory Reactor Safety Committee
- P. Craven, Reactor Operator Other licensee employees and students were contacted or interviewed during this inspection.
- Attended the exit interview on~May 23, 1985.
2.
purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection and radioactive waste management programs with respect to the following elements:
training
procedures / experiments
external / internal exposure controls
posting / labeling
access control
surveys instrumentation
.
procedures for controlling release of effluents
airborne / liquid effluents
effluent monitoring
records
3.
Radiation Protection Training The licensee's radiation protection training program was reviewed with respect to the criteria contained in 10 CFR 19. The licensee's perfor-mance relative to this criteria was determined by individual interviews with licensee personnel and Cornell University students using the labora-tory facility.
. _ _ _.
_ _ _ ___ --
.
.
Cornell University Ward Lab.
p Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.
4.
External Exposure Control The' licensee's external expor,ure control program was reviewed against criteria provided in 10 CFR 20 for each respective topic:
personnel monitorino.
--
permissible doses:
--
exposure to minors:
--
exposure history:
10 CFR 20.102; and
--
exposure records:
--
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by reviewing personnel exposure documentation and interviews with cognizant licensee representatives.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.
5.
Internal Exposure Control The licensee's internal exposure control program was reviewed against the following criteria:
'
use of engineering controls:
10 CFR 20.103 (b) (1), Technical Spect-
--
fications 3.7 (R-80); and internal exposure limits:
10 CFR 20.103 (a) (1) and 20.103 (a) (2).
--
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by:
review of Technical Specifications (5.0) Design Features and (6.0)
--
Administrative Controls with regard to health physics support of experimental activities; and interviews with members of the licensee staff regarding internal ex-
--
posure control techniques and work practices.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.
6.
Posting, Labeling and Access Control The licensee's posting, labeling and access control program was reviewed
~ with respect to the criteria outlined in the following areas:
posting, labeling:
--
-
.
.
Cornell University Ward Lab.
radiation area:
--
high radiation area:
--
airborne radioactivity area:
--
radioactive materials:
10 CFR 20.203 (e); and
--
storage areas:
10 CFR 20,207.
--
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by:
a direct inspection (walk-through) of the laboratory facilities; and
--
examination of selected radiologically controlled areas.
--
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.
It was noted, however, that the 2,000 gallon low level radiation waste tank room was posted as an airborne radioactivity area.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that the room was neither an airborne radioactivity area or had significant amounts of removable radioactive contamination to warrant such a posting of the area. The licensee was advised of the observation. Appropriate actions are pendin'g results of the licensee's investigation into the matter.
,
7.
Radioactive Waste Management The licensee's control program for solid, liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes associated with Ward Nuclear Reactor Labo;atory operations was reviewed with respect to the following criteria:
10 CFR 20.106, 20.301, 20.302, 20.303,*and 20.401;
--
NRC License No. R-80, Technical Specifications 3.6, (" Release of
--
.
Argon-41"), 3.7, (" Ventilation System"), and 6.10, (" Plant Operating Records"); and
-
--
NRC License No. R-89, Technical Specifications 3.6, (" Measuring And Safety Channel"), 3.7, (" Isolation Of Reactor Cell"), and 6.10, (" Plant Operating Records").
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by:
interviews and discussions with Ward Nuclear Reactor Laboratory and
--
University Radiation Safety Office personnel; examination of operating reports, logs and release records (for
--
gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes);
._
,
.
.
Cornell University Ward Lab.
--
review of procedures and policies concerning radioactive wastes.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were noted.
8.
Experiments The licensee's program for review and approval of experiments using the TRIGA Reactor or the Zero Power Reactor was reviewed against criteria and guidance provided in the following:
10 CFR 20.201, " Surveys;"
--
NCR License No. R-80, Technical Specifications 6.4 (" Review Of
--
Proposals For Experiments"), and 3.8 (" Limitations On Experiments"),
NRC License No. R-89, Technical Specification 6.4, " Review Of Pro-
--
posals For Experiments;" and ANSI N401-1974 (ANS-15.6), " Review Of Experiments For Research
--
Reactors."
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria and guidance was determined by:
interviews and discussions with Ward Nuclear Reactor Laboratory
--
personnel; observations of facilities and equipment associated with the TRIGA
--
and Zero Pawer reactors; review of TRIGA Reactor beam experiments including neutron
--
diffraction, neutron radiography and neutron attenuation; review of TRIGA Reactor activation experiments including neutron
--
activation analyses;
.
'
--
review of contractor-sponsored tests of radiation detection equip-ment at the TRIGA Reactor; and review of the critical experiments conducted by students as portions
--
of nuclear engineering courses.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were noted.
9.
Surveys The licensee's program for routinely measuring radiation and radioactive contamination levels, evaluating the hazards associated with those levels and providing radiological controls appropriate to the levels noted was
.
.
Corne11' University Ward Lab.
reviewed against criteria provided in 10 CFR 20. The licensee's perfor-mance relative to the criteria was determined by discussions with the l
_ reactor operator, examination of survey records and other documents and
'
direct observation and measurements by the inspectors.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were noted.
10.
Instrumentation Various licensee survey instruments and the area radiation monitoring system was reviewed with respect to the criteria listed in ANSI N323-1978.
The licensee's performance relative to this criteria was determined by:
physical examination of the survey instruments and area radiation
--
monitors for operability, functional performance and location with respect to technical specifications; and
--
review of instrument and radiation monitor calibration records Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.
All areas reviewed during this inspection were found to be adequate in scope to support operations of the Ward Laboratory.
There was, however, one weakness noted in the program.
The weakness related to the interface between the Ward Laboratory and the University Dadiation Safety Office. According to Technical Specification 6.1 (g) and Part 2.2.6 of the Cornell Radiation Safety Manual, the Radi-ation Safety Office shall have the responsibility for overseeing the safety of Ward Laboratory Operations from the stand point of radiation protection.
Within our review of the licensee's routine laboratory operations and selected experimental activities, the active oversight role on the part of the University Radiation Safety Office was weak. This matter was brought to the attention of the licensee representative (Dr. D. Clark)
at the time of the exit interview. Appropriate action to correct the apparent deficiency will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
(50-157/85-03-01)
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensees representatives (denoted in Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection-on May 23, 1985.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and identified findings as described in this report.
.
_.. - _., _ _,
.
-
--
'
,.
. Cornell University Ward Lab.
7'
,
_
~At no time during the inspection was written material provide'd to'the licensee by.the inspector.
.
W e
i i
,
!
c i