IR 05000225/1985001

Insp Rept 50-225/85-01 on 850708-09.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection Program,Including Exposure Control,Instruments & Calibr,Experiments,Training, Repts & Notifications

ML20134L657
Person / Time
Site:	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Issue date:	08/26/1985
From:	Carson B, Holsopple K, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134L650	List: IR 05000225/1985001 ML20134L647
References
50-225-85-01, 50-225-85-1, NUDOCS 8509030369
Download: ML20134L657 (4)

Text

._ . __ _ _ _ . _ _

~

.

(

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N Docket N License N CX-22 Priority --

Category G Licensee: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Department of Nuclear Engineering and Science Troy, New York 12181 Facility Name: Critical Experiment Facility Inspection At: Schenectady, New York Inspection Conducted: July 8-9, 1985 Inspectors: b utb Ooldoac/t O B. H. Carson, Radidtfon Specialist 8 -24-8 5 date

~$ dun hokoscolL R-2f>-85 K. o opple, Rad 1'ation Specialist date Approved by: .

ALJ AcT 2{,!D W. Pasciak, C'hief, BWR Radiological '

Protection Section dafe Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 8-9, 1985 (Report No. 50-225/85-01)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's Radiation Protection Program. Areas inspected included Exposure Control, Instruments and Calibration, Experiments, Training, and Reports and Notifications. The inspection involved 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> onsite by two region-based inspector Results: No violations were identified.

i t

i 8509030369 850829 i

PDR ADOCM 05000225 G PM

_

.m., y .w ,% - - - y..r. ., .-.m . - y ,, y, ,

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed:

• F. Wicks, Supervisor, Critical Facility

• R. Ryan, Director, Of fice of Radiation and Nuclear Safety Other licensee employees were also contacted or interviewed during this inspectio * Attended exit interview on July 9,198 .0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following elements:

--

Status of Previously Identified Items

--

Posting and Labeling

--

Surveys

--

Exposure Control

--

Instruments and Calibration

--

Experiments

--

Training

--

Reports and Notifications 3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-225/83-03-01)

Licensee to rewrite procedure for analysis of radioactivity in moderator water. The inspectors reviewed the procedure entitled

" Analysis for Moderator Water for Radioactivity" and determined that it adequately addressed analyzing the radioactivity present in the moderator wate .0 Posting and Labeling The inspectors toured the Critical Experiment Facility (CEF) following the entrance interview. Posting of the facility and labeling of radio-active materials were in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203 requirement .0 Surveys Monthly radiation and contamination surveys of the CEF are performed by the staff of the Office of Radiation and Nuclear Safety. The inspectors

_

^

.- . . . _ .. . _-_ _

-

.

reviewed selected facility surveys for the past six months and found them to be adequat It was noted that all of the surveys indicated that there was virtually no contamination present in the CEF. The licensee indicated that this was due to the design of the fuel used in the CE Also, the licensee stated that during experiments the operator ensures that adequate radiation surveys are performed to ensure the safety of the students. The inspector suggested that radiation surveys should be taken at prescribed times during student experimentation to adequately measure and document radiation levels in the work area in order to minimize expo-sur Within the scope of this review, no items of noncompliance were note .0 Exposure Controls External Exposure Control The licensee's external exposure program was reviewed against cri-teria provided in 10 CFR 20.101, 20.202 and 20.203. The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by survey in-formation, direct observation and physical radiation measurement Within the scope of this review, no violations were note Internal Exposure Control The licensee's internal exposure control program was reviewed against criteria provided in 10 CFR 20.103(a)(1) and 20.103(b)(1). The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by interviews with cognizant representatives of the health physics staff, air sampling information, and direct inspectio The inspectors noted that there was virtually no airborne radio-activity and contamination in the CEF that would result in an in-ternal exposure hazard. Again, this is due to the design of the fuel used in the CE .

Within the scope of this review, no violations were note .0 Instrumentation and Calibration The inspectors verified that the licensee's area gamma monitors, contin-uous air monitor, criticality detector, and portable detector were cali-brated and operable. The inspectors noted that the instrument calibration data required by Technical Specifications was not readily retrievable and suggested that they would be more useful if centralized.

! Within the scope of this review, no violations were noted.

l l

.

, __

y ...m-.. _ ,a, _ ._._.__-__,,,y -

- . ~ _

.

~~

8.0 Experiments The inspectors evaluated the licensee's implementation of radiological controls during the performance of experiments by a review of the course manual. The inspectors noted that during the flux mapping experiment, the instructor should reinforce that specific dose rate readings of the fuel assembly should be made to assess the potential radiation hazard to the student during fuel handling and to evaluate the need for extremity dosimetr Within the scope of this review, no items of noncompliance were note .0 Training The licensee's training program was reviewed against the criteria pro-vided in 10 CFR 19.12, " Instructions to Workers." The licensee's per-formance relative to these criteria was determined by interviews with health physics and operations personnel. Examination of the course instruction material provided assurance that the requirements of the program were being fulfille Within the scope of this review, no violations were note .0 Reports and Notifications The licensee stated that there were no abnormal occurrences and that no reports and notifications were sent to the Commission since the last inspectio .0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on July 9, 1985. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed at that time. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto l