ML071010399: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:April 13, 2007Dr. David Vasbinder, DirectorBuffalo Materials Research Center
{{#Wiki_filter:April 13, 2007
Dr. David Vasbinder, Director
Buffalo Materials Research Center
State University of New York
State University of New York
Rotary Road
Rotary Road
Buffalo, NY 14214-3096SUBJECT:NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Buffalo, NY 14214-3096
SUBJECT:         NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Dr. Vasbinder:
Dear Dr. Vasbinder:
On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection atyour Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection
On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at
your Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection
results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice
results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice
President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the NRC's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The
President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.
inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed  
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC
compliance with the NRCs rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The
requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The
inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed
circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The
personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC
violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance
requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The
circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The
violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance
with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure
with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements. In accordance with Section 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, and requests forwithholding," of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC PublicDocument Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide
compliance with regulatory requirements.
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC
In accordance with Section 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, and requests for
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at404-358-6515.Sincerely,/RA/ Jennifer M. Golder forMichael J. Case, Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking
withholding, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,
Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-057
and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public
License No. R-77Enclosures:1. Notice of Violation
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRCs Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at
404-358-6515.
                                              Sincerely,
                                              /RA/ Jennifer M. Golder for
                                              Michael J. Case, Director
                                              Division of Policy and Rulemaking
                                              Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50-057
License No. R-77
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation
2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201
2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201
cc w/encl.: Please see next page  
cc w/encl.: Please see next page
State University of New York at BuffaloDocket No. 50-057
 
State University of New York at Buffalo      Docket No. 50-057
cc:
cc:
Barbara Youngberg, ChiefRadiation Section
Barbara Youngberg, Chief
Radiation Section
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7255Mr. John P. SpathNYS Energy Research and Development
Albany, NY 12233-7255
  Authority
Mr. John P. Spath
NYS Energy Research and Development
Authority
17 Columbia Circle
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203-6399Test, Research, and Training  Reactor Newsletter
Albany, NY 12203-6399
Test, Research, and Training
  Reactor Newsletter
University of Florida
University of Florida
202 Nuclear Sciences Center
202 Nuclear Sciences Center
Gainesville, FL 32611  
Gainesville, FL 32611
Dr. David Vasbinder, Director                               April 13, 2007Buffalo Materials Research Center
 
Dr. David Vasbinder, Director                         April 13, 2007
Buffalo Materials Research Center
State University of New York
State University of New York
Rotary Road
Rotary Road
Buffalo, NY 14214-3096
Buffalo, NY 14214-3096
SUBJECT:NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
SUBJECT:         NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Dr. Vasbinder:
Dear Dr. Vasbinder:
On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at
On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at
your Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection
your Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection
results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice
results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice
President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the NRC's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The
President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.
inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed  
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC
compliance with the NRCs rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The
requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The
inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed
circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The
personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC
violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance
requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The
circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The
violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance
with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure
with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements. In accordance with Section 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, and requests forwithholding," of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC PublicDocument Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide
compliance with regulatory requirements.
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC
In accordance with Section 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, and requests for
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at404-358-6515.Sincerely,Michael J. Case, Director /RA/ Jennifer M. GolderDivision of Policy and Rulemaking
withholding, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,
Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-057
and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRCs Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at
404-358-6515.                                   Sincerely,
                                                Michael J. Case, Director /RA/ Jennifer M. Golder
                                                Division of Policy and Rulemaking
                                                Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50-057
License No. R-77
License No. R-77
Enclosures:
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation
1. Notice of Violation
2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201
2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201
cc w/encl.: Please see next pageDISTRIBUTION
cc w/encl.: Please see next page
:PUBLICPRTA r/fRidsNrrDprPrtaRidsNrrDprPrtbMRobertsTCarterDBarss (MS O6-H2)BDavis (Ltr only O5-A4)ACCESSION NO.: ML071010399                                                                     TEMPLATE #: NRR-106OFFICEPRT:RIPRT:LAPRT:BCDPR:ODNAMECBassett:EHyltonJEadsJGolder forMCaseDATE04/10/200704/11/200704/13/200704/13/2007OFFICIAL RECORD COPY  
DISTRIBUTION:
ENCLOSURE 1NOTICE OF VIOLATIONState University of New York at BuffaloDocket No.: 50-057Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC)License No.: R-77During an NRC inspection conducted on April 2-4, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements wasidentified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
PUBLIC          PRTA r/f        RidsNrrDprPrta        RidsNrrDprPrtb
Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:Section 11.5.3 of the Technical Specifications requires that an independent audit shall beconducted annually of BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance
MRoberts        TCarter          DBarss (MS O6-H2) BDavis (Ltr only O5-A4)
activities. Contrary to the above, documented independent audits were not conducted during the years2004, 2005, and 2006. This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).
ACCESSION NO.: ML071010399                                           TEMPLATE #: NRR-106
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the State University of New York at Buffalo ishereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
  OFFICE                PRT:RI              PRT:LA                PRT:BC              DPR:OD
Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the
  NAME                  CBassett:           EHylton                JEads              JGolder for
                                                                                        MCase
  DATE                04/10/2007          04/11/2007            04/13/2007          04/13/2007
                                        OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 
                                                                                      ENCLOSURE 1
                                      NOTICE OF VIOLATION
State University of New York at Buffalo                                          Docket No.: 50-057
Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC)                                           License No.: R-77
During an NRC inspection conducted on April 2-4, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements was
identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
Section 11.5.3 of the Technical Specifications requires that an independent audit shall be
conducted annually of BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance
activities.
Contrary to the above, documented independent audits were not conducted during the years
2004, 2005, and 2006.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the State University of New York at Buffalo is
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the
responsible inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
responsible inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and shouldinclude for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should
include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for
disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the
disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the
results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and
results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and
(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include
(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include
previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required
previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required
response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order
response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order
or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.  
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, withthe basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRCPublic Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
NRC's document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the
NRCs document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal
privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public
privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public
without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic
without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic
Reading Room) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If personal privacy or proprietaryinformation is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed
Reading Room) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If personal privacy or proprietary
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed
copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted
copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted
copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such
copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such
material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have
material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have
-2-withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why thedisclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the
 
                                                -2-
withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the
disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the
information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential
information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential
commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an
commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an
acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two workingdays.Dated at Rockville, Marylandthis 13th day of April, 2007  
acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONDocket No:50-057License No:R-77
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
Report No:50-057/2007-201
days.
Licensee:State University of New York at Buffalo
Dated at Rockville, Maryland
Facility:Buffalo Materials Research Center  
this 13th day of April, 2007
Location:Rotary Road, South CampusBuffalo, New YorkDates:April 2 - 4, 2007
 
Inspector:Craig Bassett
              U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Approved by:Johnny H. Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B
              OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Docket No:   50-057
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
License No: R-77
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYState University of New York at BuffaloBuffalo Materials Research CenterReport No.: 50-057/2007-201This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of the licensee's programsconcerning organization and staffing; review and audit and design change functions; radiation
Report No:   50-057/2007-201
Licensee:   State University of New York at Buffalo
Facility:   Buffalo Materials Research Center
Location:   Rotary Road, South Campus
            Buffalo, New York
Dates:       April 2 - 4, 2007
Inspector:   Craig Bassett
Approved by: Johnny H. Eads, Branch Chief
            Research and Test Reactors Branch B
            Division of Policy and Rulemaking
            Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
                                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                              State University of New York at Buffalo
                                Buffalo Materials Research Center
                                    Report No.: 50-057/2007-201
This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of the licensees programs
concerning organization and staffing; review and audit and design change functions; radiation
protection; environmental monitoring; operations, maintenance, and surveillance; fuel handling;
protection; environmental monitoring; operations, maintenance, and surveillance; fuel handling;
emergency preparedness; transportation; safeguards and security; and material control and
emergency preparedness; transportation; safeguards and security; and material control and
accounting since the inspection of these areas. The licensee's programs were directed toward
accounting since the inspection of these areas. The licensee's programs were directed toward
the protection of public and facility worker health and safety and were in compliance with NRC
the protection of public and facility worker health and safety and were in compliance with NRC
requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified. Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirements
requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
!Organization and Staffing met the requirements specified in Technical SpecificationSection 11.
Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirements
!Annual Technical Reports were generally being prepared and issued by March 31 ofeach year as required by Technical Specification Section 15.1.Review, Audit, and Design Change Functions
!       Organization and Staffing met the requirements specified in Technical Specification
!The review and oversight functions required by Technical Specification Section 11.5were performed by the Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee.
        Section 11.
!An apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct an independent audit annually asrequired by Technical Specification Section 11.5.3.
!       Annual Technical Reports were generally being prepared and issued by March 31 of
!Design changes were performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.Radiation Protection Program
        each year as required by Technical Specification Section 15.1.
!Surveys were being completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of theradiation hazards present.
Review, Audit, and Design Change Functions
!Postings met the regulatory requirements specified in 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.
!       The review and oversight functions required by Technical Specification Section 11.5
!Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses were well within thelicensee's procedural action levels and NRC's regulatory limits.
        were performed by the Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee.
!Radiation monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required.
!       An apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct an independent audit annually as
!Acceptable radiation protection training was being provided to facility personnel.
        required by Technical Specification Section 11.5.3.
!The Radiation Protection Program being implemented by the licensee satisfiedregulatory requirements.  
!       Design changes were performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
-2-Environmental Montoring
Radiation Protection Program
!Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases werewithin the specified regulatory and Technical Specification limits.Operation and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities
!       Surveys were being completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the
!The maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicableTechnical Specifications and procedural requirements.Fuel Handling and Movement
        radiation hazards present.
! Fuel handling activities had been documented appropriately and the documents werebeing maintained as required by the Technical Specifications.Emergency Preparedness
!       Postings met the regulatory requirements specified in 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.
!Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventories were beingcompleted as required.
!       Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses were well within the
!Annual drills were generally being held but there was no documentation that drills wereheld during the last two years. When drills were held, follow-up critiques were
        licensees procedural action levels and NRCs regulatory limits.
conducted and corrective actions taken as needed.
!       Radiation monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required.
!The emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance with theEmergency Plan.Transportation
!       Acceptable radiation protection training was being provided to facility personnel.
!Radioactive material was shipped in accordance with the applicable regulations. Safeguards and Security
!       The Radiation Protection Program being implemented by the licensee satisfied
!The physical protection features, equipment, and procedures of the Buffalo MaterialsResearch Center satisfied the Physical Protection Plan requirements.Material Control and Accounting
        regulatory requirements.
!Special Nuclear Material was being controlled and inventoried as required and thedocumentation indicating that the spent nuclear fuel had been transferred off-site had
 
been completed and submitted as required.  
                                              -2-
REPORT DETAILSSummary of Plant StatusThe State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) Materials Research Centerresearch reactor has been shut down since June 1994 and is currently held by the licensee
Environmental Montoring
under a Possession Only License (POL).  Reactor fuel was shipped off site in September 2005
!     Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were
and no fuel remains on site.  The containment building and adjacent shops, laboratories, and
      within the specified regulatory and Technical Specification limits.
offices are unoccupied.  Facilities are periodically entered for campus police tours, radiation
Operation and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities
surveys, calibrations, and surveillances on equipment.  Shops and laboratories are occasionally
!     The maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicable
      Technical Specifications and procedural requirements.
Fuel Handling and Movement
!     Fuel handling activities had been documented appropriately and the documents were
      being maintained as required by the Technical Specifications.
Emergency Preparedness
!     Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventories were being
      completed as required.
!     Annual drills were generally being held but there was no documentation that drills were
      held during the last two years. When drills were held, follow-up critiques were
      conducted and corrective actions taken as needed.
!     The emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance with the
      Emergency Plan.
Transportation
!     Radioactive material was shipped in accordance with the applicable regulations.
Safeguards and Security
!     The physical protection features, equipment, and procedures of the Buffalo Materials
      Research Center satisfied the Physical Protection Plan requirements.
Material Control and Accounting
!     Special Nuclear Material was being controlled and inventoried as required and the
      documentation indicating that the spent nuclear fuel had been transferred off-site had
      been completed and submitted as required.


used.1. Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirementsa.Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69002)To verify staffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in TechnicalSpecifications (TS) Sections 11 and 15 were being met, the inspector reviewed:*organization and staffing for the Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC)*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo (also referred to as the University at Buffalo[UB]), Amendment Number (No.) 26, dated May 4, 2005*administrative controls and management responsibilities specified in the TSSection 11*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
                                          REPORT DETAILS
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
Summary of Plant Status
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) Materials Research Center
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007b.Observations and Findings(1)Organization and StaffingFollowing shutdown of the research reactor, the remaining reactor staff and linemanagement was reassigned to other positions within the University organization
research reactor has been shut down since June 1994 and is currently held by the licensee
and, in some instances, relocated to other areas on campus.  Selected personnel
under a Possession Only License (POL). Reactor fuel was shipped off site in September 2005
continue to have collateral responsibility for the reactor program and thereby
and no fuel remains on site. The containment building and adjacent shops, laboratories, and
satisfy the minimum staffing requirements specified by TS 11.2.The licensee's current organizational structure and assignment of responsibilitieswere consistent with those specified in the TS Section 11.1 and Figure 1.  All
offices are unoccupied. Facilities are periodically entered for campus police tours, radiation
positions were filled with qualified personnel.  Through discussions with licensee
surveys, calibrations, and surveillances on equipment. Shops and laboratories are occasionally
representatives the inspector determined that no functional changes had occurred
used.
in the organization since the last NRC inspection documented in NRC Inspection
1.  Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirements
Report No. 50-057/2003-201. Review of records verified that management
    a.  Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69002)
responsibilities were administered as required by TS Section 11 and applicable
          To verify staffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in Technical
procedures.  
          Specifications (TS) Sections 11 and 15 were being met, the inspector reviewed:
 
          *   organization and staffing for the Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC)
-2-(2) Reporting Requirements - Annual Technical ReportsThe inspector reviewed the Annual Technical Reports that had been submitted bythe licensee since 2003.  It was noted that the annual reports summarized the
          *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo (also referred to as the University at Buffalo
required information and were usually issued at the frequency specified in TS
              [UB]), Amendment Number (No.) 26, dated May 4, 2005
Section 15. It was also noted that the 2005 Annual Facility Technical Report
          *   administrative controls and management responsibilities specified in the TS
BMRC at the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) was not
              Section 11
issued until April 28, 2006.  (The 2006 Annual Report was issued on March 30,
          *  SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
2007.)  The licensee was informed that failure to issue the 2005 Annual Technical
          *  SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
Report by March 31, 2006, was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS Section
          *  SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
15.1.  However, this failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is
          *  SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007
being treated as a minor violation not subject to formal enforcement action,
    b.  Observations and Findings
consistent with Section IV of the NRC Enforcement Policy
          (1) Organization and Staffing
.c.ConclusionsOrganization and staffing met TS Sections 11 requirements.  Facility Annual TechnicalReports were generally issued by March 31 of the following year as required by TS
              Following shutdown of the research reactor, the remaining reactor staff and line
Section 15.1.2.Review and Audit, and Design Change Functions
              management was reassigned to other positions within the University organization
a.Inspection Scope (IP 69002)To verify that the licensee had conducted reviews and audits as required in TSSection 11.5 and to determine whether modifications to the facility, if any, were
              and, in some instances, relocated to other areas on campus. Selected personnel
consistent with 10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed:*completed audits and reviews from 2002 to the present*10 CFR 50.59 design change, "Fission Plate Sizing," dated June 2005
              continue to have collateral responsibility for the reactor program and thereby
*Operating Committee meeting minutes from July 2003 through the present
              satisfy the minimum staffing requirements specified by TS 11.2.
*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
              The licensees current organizational structure and assignment of responsibilities
*Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee meeting minutes from September2003 through the presentb.Observations and Findings(1)Review and Audit FunctionsTS Section 11.5.3 requires that an independent audit shall be conducted annuallyof BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance activities.The inspector reviewed minutes of the Reactor Decommissioning SafetyCommittee (RDSC) meetings since 2003. The minutes showed that the
              were consistent with those specified in the TS Section 11.1 and Figure 1. All
committee met at least twice per calendar year as required by TS Section
              positions were filled with qualified personnel. Through discussions with licensee
11.5.1.5 and that a quorum was present at each meeting. The topics considered
              representatives the inspector determined that no functional changes had occurred
during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in TS Section 11.5.1.7.  
              in the organization since the last NRC inspection documented in NRC Inspection
-3-The RDSC conducted reviews of those items specified in TS Section 11.5.1 asrequired. However, it was noted that independent audits had been conducted in
              Report No. 50-057/2003-201. Review of records verified that management
2002 and 2003 but none had been completed since. The licensee indicated that
              responsibilities were administered as required by TS Section 11 and applicable
an audit had been conducted in 2004 or 2005 but there was no documentation of
              procedures.
that audit on record.The licensee was informed that failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRCactivities annually as required was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS
 
Section 11.5.3 (VIO 50-057/2007-201-01).(2)Design Change FunctionsThe inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 design change review that had beenconducted in 2005. It had been completed by staff members and reviewed and
                                            -2-
approved by the Operating Committee (a subcommittee of the RDSC) as allowed
      (2) Reporting Requirements - Annual Technical Reports
by TS Section 11.5.2. The 50.59 review was concise but thorough and
          The inspector reviewed the Annual Technical Reports that had been submitted by
adequately addressed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2).c.Conclusions
          the licensee since 2003. It was noted that the annual reports summarized the
  The RDSC generally performed their review and oversight functions as required by TSSection 11.5. However, an apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct
          required information and were usually issued at the frequency specified in TS
independent audits annually as required by TS Section 11.5.3. Design changes were
          Section 15. It was also noted that the 2005 Annual Facility Technical Report
being reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.3.   Radiation Protection Programa.Inspection Scope (IP 69002 )The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensee's radiation protectionprogram (RPP) to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 were being met:*BMRC 2006 Radiation Safety Task List*Personnel dosimetry/exposure records for 2005 to 2006
          BMRC at the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) was not
*radiological signs and postings in various areas of the facility
          issued until April 28, 2006. (The 2006 Annual Report was issued on March 30,
*selected survey records of the BMRC facility for 2004 through the present
          2007.) The licensee was informed that failure to issue the 2005 Annual Technical
*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
          Report by March 31, 2006, was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS Section
*As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) and Radiation Protection Programreviews*selected Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S) instrument calibration recordsfor 2005 and 2006*BMRC Health Physics Procedure (HPP) No. 4, "Radiation Work Permits," Rev.dated October 2000*BMRC HPP No. 5, "Building Survey," Rev. dated January 5, 2005
          15.1. However, this failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is
*BMRC HPP No. 20, "Contamination Survey Techniques," Rev. dated April 2004
          being treated as a minor violation not subject to formal enforcement action,
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
          consistent with Section IV of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
  c.  Conclusions
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
      Organization and staffing met TS Sections 11 requirements. Facility Annual Technical
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007  
      Reports were generally issued by March 31 of the following year as required by TS
-4-b.Observations and Findings(1)Surveys The inspector reviewed selected monthly and "as needed" contamination andradiation surveys completed during the past three years. The surveys had been
      Section 15.1.
performed and documented as required by BMRC procedures. Results were
2. Review and Audit, and Design Change Functions
evaluated and corrective actions taken and documented when readings/results
  a.  Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
exceeded the licensee's established limits. The inspector's review of the survey
      To verify that the licensee had conducted reviews and audits as required in TS
records confirmed that contamination in the facility was infrequent. The inspector
      Section 11.5 and to determine whether modifications to the facility, if any, were
determined that the survey program satisfied 10 CFR 20.1501(a) requirements.(2)Postings and NoticesDuring tours of the facility, the inspector observed that caution signs, postings,and controls in radiologically controlled areas were acceptable for the associated
      consistent with 10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed:
hazards involving radiation, high radiation, and contamination and were
      *  completed audits and reviews from 2002 to the present
implemented as required by 10 CFR 20, Subpart J. The facility's radioactive
      *   10 CFR 50.59 design change, Fission Plate Sizing, dated June 2005
material storage areas were properly posted as well. No unmarked radioactive
      *  Operating Committee meeting minutes from July 2003 through the present
material was detected in the facility. Through observations of and interviews with
      *  TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
licensee staff the inspector confirmed that personnel complied with the signs,
      *   Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee meeting minutes from September
postings, and controls. The inspector noted that copies of NRC Form-3 and notices to workers wereposted in appropriate areas in the facility as required by 10 CFR Part 19.  
          2003 through the present
However, it was noted on the first day of the inspection that the posted version of
  b. Observations and Findings
NRC Form-3 was out-of-date. This was brought to the attention of the licensee
      (1) Review and Audit Functions
and, before completion of the inspection, the licensee obtained copies of the most
          TS Section 11.5.3 requires that an independent audit shall be conducted annually
current NRC Form-3 and posted them as required.(3)DosimetryThe inspector determined that the licensee used film badges for whole bodymonitoring of beta and gamma radiation exposure. The licensee also used
          of BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance activities.
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) finger rings for extremity monitoring. The
          The inspector reviewed minutes of the Reactor Decommissioning Safety
dosimetry was supplied and processed by a National Voluntary Laboratory
          Committee (RDSC) meetings since 2003. The minutes showed that the
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited vendor, Global Dosimetry Solutions,
          committee met at least twice per calendar year as required by TS Section
Inc. An examination of the dosimetry results indicating radiological exposures at
          11.5.1.5 and that a quorum was present at each meeting. The topics considered
the facility for the past two years showed that the highest occupational doses, as
          during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in TS Section 11.5.1.7.
well as doses to the public, were within 10 CFR Part 20 limitations. In fact, the
 
records showed that the highest annual whole body exposure received by a single
                                            -3-
reactor staff member or a contractor for 2005 was 0 millirem (mr) deep doseequivalent (DDE). The highest annual extremity exposure for that year was
          The RDSC conducted reviews of those items specified in TS Section 11.5.1 as
100 mr shallow dose equivalent (SDE) and that dose was received by a
          required. However, it was noted that independent audits had been conducted in
contractor involved in shipping the spent fuel. The records also showed that the
          2002 and 2003 but none had been completed since. The licensee indicated that
highest annual whole body exposure received by a single staff member for 2006
          an audit had been conducted in 2004 or 2005 but there was no documentation of
was 0 mr DDE and the highest annual extremity exposure for 2006 was 0 mr
          that audit on record.
SDE.
          The licensee was informed that failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRC
-5-Through direct observation the inspector determined that dosimetry wasacceptably used by facility personnel and exit frisking practices were in
          activities annually as required was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS
accordance with facility radiation protection requirements. (4)Radiation Monitoring EquipmentThe inspector reviewed the BMRC calibrations done since January 2005, andconfirmed that the calibrations for the portable survey meters and laboratory
          Section 11.5.3 (VIO 50-057/2007-201-01).
instruments had been completed as required. Examination of selected radiation
      (2) Design Change Functions
monitoring equipment indicated that the instruments had the acceptable up-to-
          The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 design change review that had been
date calibration sticker attached. The instrument calibration records indicated
          conducted in 2005. It had been completed by staff members and reviewed and
calibration of portable survey meters was typically completed by EH&S staff
          approved by the Operating Committee (a subcommittee of the RDSC) as allowed
personnel. However, some instruments were shipped to vendors for calibration.  
          by TS Section 11.5.2. The 50.59 review was concise but thorough and
The inspector verified that the instruments were calibrated semiannually which
          adequately addressed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2).
met procedural requirements and records were maintained as required.    (5) Radiation Work PermitsThe inspector reviewed selected Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) that had beenwritten, used, and closed out during 2005 and 2006. It was noted that the
  c. Conclusions
instructions specified in BMRC HPP No. 4 had been adequately followed.  
      The RDSC generally performed their review and oversight functions as required by TS
Appropriate review by management and health physics personnel had been
      Section 11.5. However, an apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct
completed. The controls specified in the RWPs were acceptable and applicable
      independent audits annually as required by TS Section 11.5.3. Design changes were
for the type of work being done. (6) TrainingThe inspector reviewed the radiation worker (or rad worker) training given toBMRC staff members. The training program included initial rad worker training
      being reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
for those new to the facility and refresher training for all staff members (and all
3. Radiation Protection Program
rad workers on campus) every year. The type of initial training given was based
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002 )
upon the position and/or duties of the person. The training program was
      The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensee's radiation protection
acceptable.(7) Radiation Protection Program The licensee's Radiation Protection Program ( RPP) was a combination of theHPPs specific to the BMRC and the university's Radiation Safety Program.  
      program (RPP) to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 were being met:
Although individual procedures had been revised, the RPP had not appreciably
      *   BMRC 2006 Radiation Safety Task List
changed since the last NRC inspection. The inspector verified that the RPP was
      *   Personnel dosimetry/exposure records for 2005 to 2006
being reviewed at least annually as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(c). c.ConclusionsThe inspector determined that the RPP being implemented by the licensee satisfiedregulatory requirements because: 1) surveys were being completed and documented
      *   radiological signs and postings in various areas of the facility
as required by 10 CFR Part 20.1501(a), TS, and licensee procedures; 2) postings met
      *   selected survey records of the BMRC facility for 2004 through the present
regulatory requirements; 3) the personnel dosimetry program was acceptably  
      *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
-6-implemented and doses were in conformance with licensee and 10 CFR Part 20 limits; 4) portable survey meters and radiation monitoring and laboratory instruments were
      *   As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) and Radiation Protection Program
being maintained and calibrated as required; and, 5) appropriate radiation worker
          reviews
training was being provided licensee personnel.4.Environmental Monitoringa.Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
      *  selected Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S) instrument calibration records
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the requirements of10 CFR Part 20 and TS Sections 3.7, 4.7, and 6.6: *counting and analysis records associated with releases*Rad Waste Water Log - Transfer Data Sheets for 2004 to present
          for 2005 and 2006
*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
      *   BMRC Health Physics Procedure (HPP) No. 4, Radiation Work Permits, Rev.
*BMRC HPP No. 2, "Radioactive Waste Water Releases," Rev. dated February
          dated October 2000
2003*BMRC HPP No. 3, "Contaminated Water Analysis," Rev. dated October 2000
      *   BMRC HPP No. 5, Building Survey, Rev. dated January 5, 2005
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
      *   BMRC HPP No. 20, Contamination Survey Techniques, Rev. dated April 2004
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007b.Observation and FindingsThe BMRC averaged two to three liquid effluent releases to the sanitary sewer peryear. The inspector confirmed that the storage, analysis, and release of liquid
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
radioactive effluents was done in accordance with TS Section 7, 10 CFR 20.2003, and
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007
procedural requirements. Releases were less the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20
 
Appendix B, Table 3.Since the reactor is shut down, the only gaseous radioactive releases were naturalradon and its daughter products. On-site and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was accomplished using variousenvironmental monitoring station TLDs as required by the applicable procedures.  
                                          -4-
Data indicated that there were no measurable doses to the public above natural
b. Observations and Findings
background radiation. c.ConclusionEffluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases werewithin the specified regulatory limits.5.Operations and Maintenance and Surveillance Activitiesa.Inspection Scope (IP 69002)  
  (1) Surveys
-7-The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to verify compliance with TSSections 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the applicable procedures and to determine that
      The inspector reviewed selected monthly and as needed contamination and
      radiation surveys completed during the past three years. The surveys had been
      performed and documented as required by BMRC procedures. Results were
      evaluated and corrective actions taken and documented when readings/results
      exceeded the licensees established limits. The inspectors review of the survey
      records confirmed that contamination in the facility was infrequent. The inspector
      determined that the survey program satisfied 10 CFR 20.1501(a) requirements.
  (2) Postings and Notices
      During tours of the facility, the inspector observed that caution signs, postings,
      and controls in radiologically controlled areas were acceptable for the associated
      hazards involving radiation, high radiation, and contamination and were
      implemented as required by 10 CFR 20, Subpart J. The facilitys radioactive
      material storage areas were properly posted as well. No unmarked radioactive
      material was detected in the facility. Through observations of and interviews with
      licensee staff the inspector confirmed that personnel complied with the signs,
      postings, and controls.
      The inspector noted that copies of NRC Form-3 and notices to workers were
      posted in appropriate areas in the facility as required by 10 CFR Part 19.
      However, it was noted on the first day of the inspection that the posted version of
      NRC Form-3 was out-of-date. This was brought to the attention of the licensee
      and, before completion of the inspection, the licensee obtained copies of the most
      current NRC Form-3 and posted them as required.
  (3) Dosimetry
      The inspector determined that the licensee used film badges for whole body
      monitoring of beta and gamma radiation exposure. The licensee also used
      thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) finger rings for extremity monitoring. The
      dosimetry was supplied and processed by a National Voluntary Laboratory
      Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited vendor, Global Dosimetry Solutions,
      Inc. An examination of the dosimetry results indicating radiological exposures at
      the facility for the past two years showed that the highest occupational doses, as
      well as doses to the public, were within 10 CFR Part 20 limitations. In fact, the
      records showed that the highest annual whole body exposure received by a single
      reactor staff member or a contractor for 2005 was 0 millirem (mr) deep dose
      equivalent (DDE). The highest annual extremity exposure for that year was
      100 mr shallow dose equivalent (SDE) and that dose was received by a
      contractor involved in shipping the spent fuel. The records also showed that the
      highest annual whole body exposure received by a single staff member for 2006
      was 0 mr DDE and the highest annual extremity exposure for 2006 was 0 mr
      SDE.
 
                                          -5-
        Through direct observation the inspector determined that dosimetry was
        acceptably used by facility personnel and exit frisking practices were in
        accordance with facility radiation protection requirements.
  (4) Radiation Monitoring Equipment
        The inspector reviewed the BMRC calibrations done since January 2005, and
        confirmed that the calibrations for the portable survey meters and laboratory
        instruments had been completed as required. Examination of selected radiation
        monitoring equipment indicated that the instruments had the acceptable up-to-
        date calibration sticker attached. The instrument calibration records indicated
        calibration of portable survey meters was typically completed by EH&S staff
        personnel. However, some instruments were shipped to vendors for calibration.
        The inspector verified that the instruments were calibrated semiannually which
        met procedural requirements and records were maintained as required.
   (5) Radiation Work Permits
        The inspector reviewed selected Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) that had been
        written, used, and closed out during 2005 and 2006. It was noted that the
        instructions specified in BMRC HPP No. 4 had been adequately followed.
        Appropriate review by management and health physics personnel had been
        completed. The controls specified in the RWPs were acceptable and applicable
        for the type of work being done.
  (6) Training
        The inspector reviewed the radiation worker (or rad worker) training given to
        BMRC staff members. The training program included initial rad worker training
        for those new to the facility and refresher training for all staff members (and all
        rad workers on campus) every year. The type of initial training given was based
        upon the position and/or duties of the person. The training program was
        acceptable.
  (7) Radiation Protection Program
        The licensees Radiation Protection Program ( RPP) was a combination of the
        HPPs specific to the BMRC and the universitys Radiation Safety Program.
        Although individual procedures had been revised, the RPP had not appreciably
        changed since the last NRC inspection. The inspector verified that the RPP was
        being reviewed at least annually as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(c).
c. Conclusions
  The inspector determined that the RPP being implemented by the licensee satisfied
  regulatory requirements because: 1) surveys were being completed and documented
  as required by 10 CFR Part 20.1501(a), TS, and licensee procedures; 2) postings met
  regulatory requirements; 3) the personnel dosimetry program was acceptably
 
                                              -6-
      implemented and doses were in conformance with licensee and 10 CFR Part 20 limits;
      4) portable survey meters and radiation monitoring and laboratory instruments were
      being maintained and calibrated as required; and, 5) appropriate radiation worker
      training was being provided licensee personnel.
4. Environmental Monitoring
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
      The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the requirements of
      10 CFR Part 20 and TS Sections 3.7, 4.7, and 6.6:
      *   counting and analysis records associated with releases
      *   Rad Waste Water Log - Transfer Data Sheets for 2004 to present
      *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
      *   BMRC HPP No. 2, Radioactive Waste Water Releases, Rev. dated February
            2003
      *   BMRC HPP No. 3, Contaminated Water Analysis, Rev. dated October 2000
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
      *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007
  b. Observation and Findings
      The BMRC averaged two to three liquid effluent releases to the sanitary sewer per
      year. The inspector confirmed that the storage, analysis, and release of liquid
      radioactive effluents was done in accordance with TS Section 7, 10 CFR 20.2003, and
      procedural requirements. Releases were less the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20
      Appendix B, Table 3.
      Since the reactor is shut down, the only gaseous radioactive releases were natural
      radon and its daughter products.
      On-site and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was accomplished using various
      environmental monitoring station TLDs as required by the applicable procedures.
      Data indicated that there were no measurable doses to the public above natural
      background radiation.
  c. Conclusion
      Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were
      within the specified regulatory limits.
5. Operations and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
 
                                      -7-
The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to verify compliance with TS
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the applicable procedures and to determine that
surveillances and checks were being completed as required by TS Sections 3, 4, 5,
surveillances and checks were being completed as required by TS Sections 3, 4, 5,
and 8, the inspector reviewed:*Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present*selected surveillance and calibration data and records for 2003-2006
and 8, the inspector reviewed:
*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
*   Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present
*BMRC HPP No. 2, "Radioactive Waste Water Releases," Rev. dated February
*   selected surveillance and calibration data and records for 2003-2006
2003*BMRC Operating Procedure (OP) No. 8, "Reactor Data and Record Keeping,"revision (Rev.) dated August 1992*BMRC OP No. 11, "Security and Equipment Checklist," Rev. dated January 10, 1995*BMRC OP No. 21, "Primary Water System and the Cleanup and MakeupDemineralizer Systems," Rev. dated March 19, 1997*BMRC OP No. 22, "Pool Level Annunciator Testing," Rev. dated June 22, 1998
*   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
*BMRC OP No. 23, "Routine Pool Water Addition Using Commercial DemineralizerTanks," Rev. dated April 24, 2003*BMRC OP No. 26A, "Area Radiation Monitor System," Rev. dated August 1989
*   BMRC HPP No. 2, Radioactive Waste Water Releases, Rev. dated February
*BMRC OP No. 26B, "Effluent and Primary Coolant Monitor Systems," Rev. datedMay 1994*BMRC OP No. 26C, "Continuous Air Monitors," Rev. dated May 1990
    2003
*BMRC OP No. 27, "Air-Locks and Truck Door," Rev. dated August 1992
*   BMRC Operating Procedure (OP) No. 8, Reactor Data and Record Keeping,
*BMRC OP No. 28, "Containment Ventilation System," Rev. dated August 1989
    revision (Rev.) dated August 1992
*BMRC OP No. 32, "Emergency Pool Fill," Rev. dated August 1992
*   BMRC OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, Rev. dated January 10,
*BMRC OP No. 57, "Facility Security," Rev. dated July 16, 1998
    1995
*BMRC OP No. 76, "Temperature Measuring System," Rev. dated August 1989
*   BMRC OP No. 21, Primary Water System and the Cleanup and Makeup
*BMRC OP No. 77, "Quarterly Checks," Rev. dated July 25, 2002
    Demineralizer Systems, Rev. dated March 19, 1997
*BMRC Form, "BMRC Operations 2004 Master Task List," undated
*   BMRC OP No. 22, Pool Level Annunciator Testing, Rev. dated June 22, 1998
*BMRC Form, "BMRC Operations 2005 Master Task List," undated
*   BMRC OP No. 23, Routine Pool Water Addition Using Commercial Demineralizer
*BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, "Security and EquipmentChecklist," Rev. dated June 28, 2004*BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, "Weekly Security and EquipmentChecklist," Rev. dated May 12, 2004*BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, "Effluent Monitor Quarterly Checks," Rev.dated September 28, 2000*BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, "Quarterly Continuous Air MonitorCalibrations," Rev. dated September 28, 2000*BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, "Area Monitor Quarterly Checks," Rev.dated September 28, 2000*BMRC Form checksheet associated with OPNo. 77, "Quarterly Checksheet," Rev.dated July 25, 2002*BMRC Form, "Monthly Area and Effluent Monitor Operability Checks
    Tanks, Rev. dated April 24, 2003
*BMRC Form, "2006 BMRC Radiation Safety Task List," Rev. dated March 13, 2006*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
*   BMRC OP No. 26A, Area Radiation Monitor System, Rev. dated August 1989
*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005  
*   BMRC OP No. 26B, Effluent and Primary Coolant Monitor Systems, Rev. dated
-8-*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006*SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007b.Observations and Findings(1)OperationsUnder the POL no power operations are authorized. The only major activity thatoccurred recently was the shipment of fuel from the site in 2005.(2)Maintenance and SurveillanceSince the fuel shipment in September 2005, the licensee had focused onmaintaining the integrity and security of the facility, performing required health
    May 1994
physics surveys, and fulfilling TS maintenance and monitoring requirements.  
*   BMRC OP No. 26C, Continuous Air Monitors, Rev. dated May 1990
These operations were carried out following written procedures and checklists.  
*   BMRC OP No. 27, Air-Locks and Truck Door, Rev. dated August 1992
Information on the operational status of the facility had been recorded in log
*   BMRC OP No. 28, Containment Ventilation System, Rev. dated August 1989
books and on checklists as required by TS Section 14 and licensee procedures. The inspector attempted to verify that selected daily, monthly, quarterly, annual,and other periodic checks, tests, verifications, and calibrations for TS-required
*   BMRC OP No. 32, Emergency Pool Fill, Rev. dated August 1992
surveillances were completed as stipulated. As noted previously, there was no
*   BMRC OP No. 57, Facility Security, Rev. dated July 16, 1998
longer any fuel on site and consequently, various of the TS requirements were no
*   BMRC OP No. 76, Temperature Measuring System, Rev. dated August 1989
longer applicable. Nevertheless, the licensee chose to continue to implement
*   BMRC OP No. 77, Quarterly Checks, Rev. dated July 25, 2002
some of the requirements reasoning that such resources would be needed during
*   BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 2004 Master Task List, undated
active decommissioning. However, the inspector noted that some of the
*   BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 2005 Master Task List, undated
checklists that had been used in the past to document completion of various
*   BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment
checks, verifications, and calibrations were no longer being filled out. The
    Checklist, Rev. dated June 28, 2004
licensee had stopped completing the following forms: 1) BMRC Form used daily
*   BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment
associated with OP No. 11, "Security and Equipment Checklist," 2) BMRC Form
    Checklist, Rev. dated May 12, 2004
Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, "Weekly Security and Equipment Checklist," 3)
*   BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Effluent Monitor Quarterly Checks, Rev.
BMRC Form, "BMRC Operations 20xx Master Task List," 4) BMRC Form
    dated September 28, 2000
checksheet associated with OP No. 77, "Quarterly Checksheet," and, 5) BMRC
*   BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Quarterly Continuous Air Monitor
Form, "20xx BMRC Radiation Safety Task List.It was also noted that the
    Calibrations, Rev. dated September 28, 2000
Security Log was no longer being completed but the Reactor Logbook was being
*   BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Area Monitor Quarterly Checks, Rev.
completed as needed. The licensee indicated that the forms and checklists were
    dated September 28, 2000
being reviewed to determine exactly what checks, tests, verifications, and
*   BMRC Form checksheet associated with OPNo. 77, Quarterly Checksheet, Rev.
calibrations were currently required. Once this review was completed, the forms
    dated July 25, 2002
and checklists would be revised as appropriate.Because some of the previously used forms and checklists were not beingcompleted, it was difficult to verify that the correct surveillances were being
*   BMRC Form, Monthly Area and Effluent Monitor Operability Checks
completed. In reviewing the available strip charts from air monitors, various
*   BMRC Form, 2006 BMRC Radiation Safety Task List, Rev. dated March 13,
computer data bases being maintained by the licensee and the university public
    2006
safety department, and the records maintained by the Radiation Safety Office, the
*   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
inspector was able to infer that the checks and tests were being completed as
*   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
required. The licensee was encouraged to complete their review of what tasks
 
were required to be done according to the TS or what tasks were to be  
                                          -8-
-9-maintained to prepare for decommissioning and to complete a revision of therequired forms so that proper documentation could be filled out and maintained
  *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
as required. The issue of completing a review of what tasks were required to be
  *   SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007
done according to the TS and completing an appropriate revision of the required
b. Observations and Findings
forms and records will be followed by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up Item
  (1) Operations
(IFI) and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (IFI 50-057/2007-201-
      Under the POL no power operations are authorized. The only major activity that
02).c.ConclusionsThe maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicableTS and procedural requirements. 6.Fuel Handling and Movementa.Inspection Scope (IP 69002)To verify that fuel handling and transfer documentation had been completed and wasbeing maintained as required by TS Section 14.2, the inspector reviewed:*Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
      occurred recently was the shipment of fuel from the site in 2005.
*BMRC OP No. 8, "Reactor Data and Record Keeping," Rev. dated August 1992
  (2) Maintenance and Surveillance
*BMRC HPP No. 4, "Radiation Work Permits," Rev. dated October 2000b.Observations and FindingsAs noted above, all fuel had been shipped from site in September 2005. Proceduresfor fuel movement required that such actions be documented and the TS required that
      Since the fuel shipment in September 2005, the licensee had focused on
the records be maintained. Through review of applicable records and logs, the
      maintaining the integrity and security of the facility, performing required health
inspector determined that all fuel movements had been recorded in the reactor log and
      physics surveys, and fulfilling TS maintenance and monitoring requirements.
on individual fuel element log sheets as required.c.Conclusions
      These operations were carried out following written procedures and checklists.
  The documentation of fuel handling activities was adequate and was being maintainedas required by facility TS and procedures. 7.Emergency Preparednessa.Inspection Scope (IP 69002)The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:*emergency drills and exercises for 2000 through 2003*RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present
      Information on the operational status of the facility had been recorded in log
*emergency response facilities, supplies, equipment and instrumentation
      books and on checklists as required by TS Section 14 and licensee procedures.
*BMRC Emergency Plan (E-Plan), Revision 2, dated November 21, 1988  
      The inspector attempted to verify that selected daily, monthly, quarterly, annual,
-10-*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005*BMRC Emergency Procedure (EP) No. 1, "Staff General Emergency Procedure,"Rev. dated May 1987*BMRC EP No. 2, "BMRC Medical Emergency Procedure," Rev. dated July 1995
      and other periodic checks, tests, verifications, and calibrations for TS-required
*BMRC EP No. 6, "BMRC Emergency Procedure - Fire at the Buffalo MaterialsResearch Center," Rev. dated January 1996*BMRC EP No. 10, "Building Evacuation Procedure," Rev. dated February 24, 1993*BMRC EP No. 11, "Initial Assembly and Assessment," Rev. dated July 29, 1993
      surveillances were completed as stipulated. As noted previously, there was no
*BMRC EP No. 12, "Bomb and Security Threats Procedure," Rev. dated June 20, 2003*BMRC EP No. 13, "Emergency Notification by Public Safety: Emergency at theNuclear Facility," Rev. dated January 24, 1994*BMRC EP No. 15, "Severe Radiation Exposure," Rev. dated November 9, 1993
      longer any fuel on site and consequently, various of the TS requirements were no
*BMRC EP No. 17, "Emergency Notification Procedure," Rev. dated November 10, 1993b.Observations and Findings(1) Emergency Plan and ProceduresThe BMRC Emergency Plan in use at the reactor facility was the same as theversion most recently submitted to the NRC. The RDSC generally audited and
      longer applicable. Nevertheless, the licensee chose to continue to implement
reviewed the E-Plan annually. Implementing procedures were reviewed and
      some of the requirements reasoning that such resources would be needed during
revised as needed to effectively execute the E-Plan. When the inspector
      active decommissioning. However, the inspector noted that some of the
reviewed the notification procedures in use by University Police dispatch, it was
      checklists that had been used in the past to document completion of various
noted that the procedures were current and the Police dispatchers were aware
      checks, verifications, and calibrations were no longer being filled out. The
and knowledgeable of their responsibilities with regard to BMRC emergences. (2) Emergency Facilities and EquipmentEmergency facilities, instrumentation, and equipment were being maintained andcontrolled as required by E-Plan Section 9 and supplies were being inventoried
      licensee had stopped completing the following forms: 1) BMRC Form used daily
semiannually as required by E-Plan Section 9.4. (3) Annual Emergency DrillsSection 14 of the Emergency Plan required that the licensee conduct a minimumof three emergency drills per year. These drills were to include two evacuation
      associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, 2) BMRC Form
drills and one action drill.The inspector reviewed documentation of the latest emergency action drill held atthe BMRC. The last annual drill required by the E-Plan had been conducted on
      Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment Checklist, 3)
September 14, 2004. The drill was designed to simulate the spread of
      BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 20xx Master Task List, 4) BMRC Form
contamination throughout the BMRC. Both BMRC and Environment Health and
      checksheet associated with OP No. 77, Quarterly Checksheet, and, 5) BMRC
Safety (EH&S) staffs participated in the response. A Critique was held following
      Form, 20xx BMRC Radiation Safety Task List. It was also noted that the
the drill to discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified during the exercise  
      Security Log was no longer being completed but the Reactor Logbook was being
-11-and to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. The results of thiscritique were documented as required. It was noted that no documentation existed of any drill held during 2005 or 2006,and indeed, the licensee indicated that no actual drills were conducted. However,
      completed as needed. The licensee indicated that the forms and checklists were
the licensee stated that, in preparation for the fuel shipment in September 2005,
      being reviewed to determine exactly what checks, tests, verifications, and
various accident scenarios were reviewed and discussed by the staff and
      calibrations were currently required. Once this review was completed, the forms
corrective actions were also discussed. This was thought to suffice for a drill but
      and checklists would be revised as appropriate.
the review was not documented. In 2006, a Memorandum To File was issued on
      Because some of the previously used forms and checklists were not being
December 27. It stated that the Operating Committee had determined that an
      completed, it was difficult to verify that the correct surveillances were being
Emergency Drill for calendar year was not necessary and would not be
      completed. In reviewing the available strip charts from air monitors, various
performed.The licensee was informed that failure to hold annual emergency drills during2005 and 2006 was an apparent violation of Section 14 of the Emergency Plan.  
      computer data bases being maintained by the licensee and the university public
However, because of the current status of the facility and the absence of fuel, this
      safety department, and the records maintained by the Radiation Safety Office, the
failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is being treated as a minor
      inspector was able to infer that the checks and tests were being completed as
violation not subject to formal enforcement action, consistent with Section IV of
      required. The licensee was encouraged to complete their review of what tasks
the NRC Enforcement Policy
      were required to be done according to the TS or what tasks were to be
.c.ConclusionsThe emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance withthe E-Plan.8. Transportation of Radioactive Materiala.Inspection Scope (IP 86740)The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
 
*accountability records and radioactive material storage locations
                                            -9-
*radioactive materials transportation and transfer records for 2005
            maintained to prepare for decommissioning and to complete a revision of the
*BMRC HPP No. 12, "Radioactive Material Receipt and Inventory," Rev. dated
            required forms so that proper documentation could be filled out and maintained
June 1990b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector reviewed the records of the shipment of spent fuel and other radioactivematerial that was transferred from the reactor in 2005. The review indicated that the
            as required. The issue of completing a review of what tasks were required to be
records had been filled out properly and that the material had been shipped in
            done according to the TS and completing an appropriate revision of the required
accordance with the regulatory requirements stipulated by the Department of
            forms and records will be followed by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up Item
Transportation and the NRC.c.ConclusionsThe shipment of radioactive material by the licensee satisfied NRC and Department ofTransportation requirements.  
            (IFI) and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (IFI 50-057/2007-201-
-12-9.Security and Safeguards a.Inspection Scope (IPs 81401 and 81431)The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:security systems, equipment and instrumentations*BMRC Reactor Log No. 101 - July 25, 1993 to present
            02).
*RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present
  c. Conclusions
SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety Department security history records for Januarythrough April 2007*TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
      The maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicable
State University of New York at Buffalo, License No. R-77, Docket No. 50-57,Security Plan for the Protection of special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic
      TS and procedural requirements.
Significance, Revision No. 7, dated February 1, 1998*BMRC OP No. 11, "Security and Equipment Checklist," Rev. dated January 10, 1995*BMRC OP No. 57, "Facility Security," Rev. dated July 16, 1998
6. Fuel Handling and Movement
*BMRC OP No. 77, "Quarterly Checks," Rev. dated July 25, 2002
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
*BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, "Security and EquipmentChecklist," Rev. dated June 28, 2004*BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, "Weekly Security and EquipmentChecklist," Rev. dated May 12, 2004b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical security plan(PSP). The inspector toured the facility and confirmed that the physical security
      To verify that fuel handling and transfer documentation had been completed and was
systems (barriers and alarms), equipment, and instrumentation were as required by
      being maintained as required by TS Section 14.2, the inspector reviewed:
the PSP. Keys to access doors were held and controlled only by designated
      *   Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present
personnel. Access and key control was implemented in accordance with licensee
      *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
procedures and as required by the plan. The inspector also confirmed that the
      *   BMRC OP No. 8, Reactor Data and Record Keeping, Rev. dated August 1992
security checks, tests, and verifications were performed as required. Corrective
      *   BMRC HPP No. 4, Radiation Work Permits, Rev. dated October 2000
actions were taken when problems were noted. The inspector verified that there had
  b. Observations and Findings
been no safeguards events since the last security inspection.The inspector visited the SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department. SUNY -Buffalo police/public safety personnel provided security for the BMRC facility as
      As noted above, all fuel had been shipped from site in September 2005. Procedures
required by the PSP including periodic patrols and initial response to security events at
      for fuel movement required that such actions be documented and the TS required that
the facility. The inspector interviewed a Senior Staff Assistant and a police
      the records be maintained. Through review of applicable records and logs, the
officer/dispatcher and determined that they were knowledgeable of the reactor facility
      inspector determined that all fuel movements had been recorded in the reactor log and
and their responsibilities in case of a security event. The inspector observed a test of
      on individual fuel element log sheets as required.
the BMRC security system composed of a test signal sent from the reactor facility to
  c. Conclusions
the police dispatch office. The test was successful and the equipment and personnel
      The documentation of fuel handling activities was adequate and was being maintained
responded as required. The inspector also noted a good working relationship between
      as required by facility TS and procedures.
BMRC staff members and SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department personnel.  
7. Emergency Preparedness
-13-c.ConclusionsBased on the observations, the inspector found that the physical security features,equipment, and procedures of the BMRC satisfied the PSP requirements.10. Material Control and Accountinga.Inspection Scope (IP 85102)To verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 70, the inspector reviewed: *accountability records and fuel transfer records*Special Nuclear Material (SNM) Database physical inventory data for periodending September 30, 2006*nuclear material inventories (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 742) for the past threeyearsb.Observations and FindingsThe material control and accountability protocol established by the licensee trackedlocations and content of special nuclear material under the research reactor license.  
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)
A physical inventory of all SNM on site was conducted semiannually by the licensee.  
      The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
The inspector reviewed and verified that the semiannual material inventories had been
      *   emergency drills and exercises for 2000 through 2003
performed as required. The inspector verified that the appropriate forms had been completed and submittedas required following the shipment of fuel from site in 2005. This included a review of
      *   RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present
the material control and accountability forms (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 742) for the
      *   emergency response facilities, supplies, equipment and instrumentation
past two years. c.ConclusionsSNM was being controlled and inventoried and records were completed and submittedto the regulatory agencies as required.11.Exit InterviewThe inspection scope and results were summarized on April 4, 2007, with licenseerepresentatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The
      *   BMRC Emergency Plan (E-Plan), Revision 2, dated November 21, 1988
licensee acknowledged the findings.  
 
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDLicensee PersonnelM.AdamsManager, BMRC Program / Safety Engineer, EH&S ServicesJ.RaabAssociate Vice President for Facilities, SUNY - Buffalo  
                                        -10-
D.SchroederReactor Technician / Engineer, EH&S Services
  *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
D.VasbinderDirector of BMRC / Interim Director, EH&S ServicesOther PersonnelS. BarrySenior Staff Assistant, SUNY - Buffalo Public SafetyL. BureyEmergency Planning Coordinator, EH&S Services
  *   BMRC Emergency Procedure (EP) No. 1, Staff General Emergency Procedure,
B. FrazerRadiation Safety Specialist, EH&S Services
      Rev. dated May 1987
J. McGrathUniversity Police Officer 1, SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety
  *   BMRC EP No. 2, BMRC Medical Emergency Procedure, Rev. dated July 1995
M. PierroSpecial Projects Coordinator, EH&S Services
  *   BMRC EP No. 6, BMRC Emergency Procedure - Fire at the Buffalo Materials
J. SlawsonRadiation Safety Officer, Manager Radiation Safety Division, EH&S ServicesINSPECTION PROCEDURE USEDIP 69002Class III Non-power ReactorsIP 81401Plans, Procedures, and Reviews
      Research Center, Rev. dated January 1996
IP 81431Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low StrategicSignificanceIP 85102Material Control and Accounting
  *   BMRC EP No. 10, Building Evacuation Procedure, Rev. dated February 24,
IP 86740Inspection of Transportation ActivitiesITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDOpenedVIO 50-057/2007-201-01Failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRC activitiesannually as required by TS Section 11.5.3.IFI50-057/2007-201-02Follow-up on the licensee's actions to complete a review of whattasks are required to be done according to their TS and then
      1993
completing an appropriate revision of the required documentation.
  *   BMRC EP No. 11, Initial Assembly and Assessment, Rev. dated July 29, 1993
Closed None  
  *   BMRC EP No. 12, Bomb and Security Threats Procedure, Rev. dated June 20,
LIST OF ACRONYMS USEDBMRC Buffalo Materials Research Center CFRCode of Federal Regulations
      2003
EH&S Environment, Health, and Safety
  *   BMRC EP No. 13, Emergency Notification by Public Safety: Emergency at the
EP Emergency Procedure
      Nuclear Facility, Rev. dated January 24, 1994
  *   BMRC EP No. 15, Severe Radiation Exposure, Rev. dated November 9, 1993
  *   BMRC EP No. 17, Emergency Notification Procedure, Rev. dated November 10,
      1993
b. Observations and Findings
  (1) Emergency Plan and Procedures
      The BMRC Emergency Plan in use at the reactor facility was the same as the
      version most recently submitted to the NRC. The RDSC generally audited and
      reviewed the E-Plan annually. Implementing procedures were reviewed and
      revised as needed to effectively execute the E-Plan. When the inspector
      reviewed the notification procedures in use by University Police dispatch, it was
      noted that the procedures were current and the Police dispatchers were aware
      and knowledgeable of their responsibilities with regard to BMRC emergences.
  (2) Emergency Facilities and Equipment
      Emergency facilities, instrumentation, and equipment were being maintained and
      controlled as required by E-Plan Section 9 and supplies were being inventoried
      semiannually as required by E-Plan Section 9.4.
  (3) Annual Emergency Drills
      Section 14 of the Emergency Plan required that the licensee conduct a minimum
      of three emergency drills per year. These drills were to include two evacuation
      drills and one action drill.
      The inspector reviewed documentation of the latest emergency action drill held at
      the BMRC. The last annual drill required by the E-Plan had been conducted on
      September 14, 2004. The drill was designed to simulate the spread of
      contamination throughout the BMRC. Both BMRC and Environment Health and
      Safety (EH&S) staffs participated in the response. A Critique was held following
      the drill to discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified during the exercise
 
                                              -11-
            and to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. The results of this
            critique were documented as required.
            It was noted that no documentation existed of any drill held during 2005 or 2006,
            and indeed, the licensee indicated that no actual drills were conducted. However,
            the licensee stated that, in preparation for the fuel shipment in September 2005,
            various accident scenarios were reviewed and discussed by the staff and
            corrective actions were also discussed. This was thought to suffice for a drill but
            the review was not documented. In 2006, a Memorandum To File was issued on
            December 27. It stated that the Operating Committee had determined that an
            Emergency Drill for calendar year was not necessary and would not be
            performed.
            The licensee was informed that failure to hold annual emergency drills during
            2005 and 2006 was an apparent violation of Section 14 of the Emergency Plan.
            However, because of the current status of the facility and the absence of fuel, this
            failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is being treated as a minor
            violation not subject to formal enforcement action, consistent with Section IV of
            the NRC Enforcement Policy.
  c. Conclusions
      The emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance with
      the E-Plan.
8. Transportation of Radioactive Material
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 86740)
      The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
      *   accountability records and radioactive material storage locations
      *   radioactive materials transportation and transfer records for 2005
      *   BMRC HPP No. 12, Radioactive Material Receipt and Inventory, Rev. dated
            June 1990
  b. Observations and Findings
      The inspector reviewed the records of the shipment of spent fuel and other radioactive
      material that was transferred from the reactor in 2005. The review indicated that the
      records had been filled out properly and that the material had been shipped in
      accordance with the regulatory requirements stipulated by the Department of
      Transportation and the NRC.
  c. Conclusions
      The shipment of radioactive material by the licensee satisfied NRC and Department of
      Transportation requirements.
 
                                            -12-
9. Security and Safeguards
  a. Inspection Scope (IPs 81401 and 81431)
      The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
      C    security systems, equipment and instrumentations
      *   BMRC Reactor Log No. 101 - July 25, 1993 to present
      *   RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present
      C    SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety Department security history records for January
          through April 2007
      *   TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
      C    State University of New York at Buffalo, License No. R-77, Docket No. 50-57,
          Security Plan for the Protection of special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic
          Significance, Revision No. 7, dated February 1, 1998
      *   BMRC OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, Rev. dated January 10,
          1995
      *   BMRC OP No. 57, Facility Security, Rev. dated July 16, 1998
      *   BMRC OP No. 77, Quarterly Checks, Rev. dated July 25, 2002
      *   BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment
          Checklist, Rev. dated June 28, 2004
      *   BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment
          Checklist, Rev. dated May 12, 2004
  b. Observations and Findings
      The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical security plan
      (PSP). The inspector toured the facility and confirmed that the physical security
      systems (barriers and alarms), equipment, and instrumentation were as required by
      the PSP. Keys to access doors were held and controlled only by designated
      personnel. Access and key control was implemented in accordance with licensee
      procedures and as required by the plan. The inspector also confirmed that the
      security checks, tests, and verifications were performed as required. Corrective
      actions were taken when problems were noted. The inspector verified that there had
      been no safeguards events since the last security inspection.
      The inspector visited the SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department. SUNY -
      Buffalo police/public safety personnel provided security for the BMRC facility as
      required by the PSP including periodic patrols and initial response to security events at
      the facility. The inspector interviewed a Senior Staff Assistant and a police
      officer/dispatcher and determined that they were knowledgeable of the reactor facility
      and their responsibilities in case of a security event. The inspector observed a test of
      the BMRC security system composed of a test signal sent from the reactor facility to
      the police dispatch office. The test was successful and the equipment and personnel
      responded as required. The inspector also noted a good working relationship between
      BMRC staff members and SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department personnel.
 
                                              -13-
    c.   Conclusions
        Based on the observations, the inspector found that the physical security features,
        equipment, and procedures of the BMRC satisfied the PSP requirements.
10. Material Control and Accounting
    a.   Inspection Scope (IP 85102)
        To verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 70, the inspector reviewed:
        *   accountability records and fuel transfer records
        *   Special Nuclear Material (SNM) Database physical inventory data for period
              ending September 30, 2006
        *   nuclear material inventories (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 742) for the past three
              years
    b.   Observations and Findings
        The material control and accountability protocol established by the licensee tracked
        locations and content of special nuclear material under the research reactor license.
        A physical inventory of all SNM on site was conducted semiannually by the licensee.
        The inspector reviewed and verified that the semiannual material inventories had been
        performed as required.
        The inspector verified that the appropriate forms had been completed and submitted
        as required following the shipment of fuel from site in 2005. This included a review of
        the material control and accountability forms (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 742) for the
        past two years.
    c.   Conclusions
        SNM was being controlled and inventoried and records were completed and submitted
        to the regulatory agencies as required.
11. Exit Interview
    The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 4, 2007, with licensee
    representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The
    licensee acknowledged the findings.
 
                        PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee Personnel
M.Adams          Manager, BMRC Program / Safety Engineer, EH&S Services
J.Raab          Associate Vice President for Facilities, SUNY - Buffalo
D.Schroeder      Reactor Technician / Engineer, EH&S Services
D.Vasbinder      Director of BMRC / Interim Director, EH&S Services
Other Personnel
S. Barry        Senior Staff Assistant, SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety
L. Burey        Emergency Planning Coordinator, EH&S Services
B. Frazer        Radiation Safety Specialist, EH&S Services
J. McGrath      University Police Officer 1, SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety
M. Pierro        Special Projects Coordinator, EH&S Services
J. Slawson      Radiation Safety Officer, Manager Radiation Safety Division, EH&S Services
                              INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED
IP 69002    Class III Non-power Reactors
IP 81401    Plans, Procedures, and Reviews
IP 81431    Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic
            Significance
IP 85102    Material Control and Accounting
IP 86740    Inspection of Transportation Activities
                        ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
VIO 50-057/2007-201-01      Failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRC activities
                            annually as required by TS Section 11.5.3.
IFI 50-057/2007-201-02      Follow-up on the licensees actions to complete a review of what
                            tasks are required to be done according to their TS and then
                            completing an appropriate revision of the required documentation.
Closed
None
 
                          LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
BMRC  Buffalo Materials Research Center
CFR    Code of Federal Regulations
EH&S   Environment, Health, and Safety
EP     Emergency Procedure
E-Plan Emergency Plan
E-Plan Emergency Plan
HPP Health Physics Procedure
HPP   Health Physics Procedure
IFIInspector Follow-up Item
IFI    Inspector Follow-up Item
IPInspection Procedure
IP    Inspection Procedure
NCV Non-Cited Violation
NCV   Non-Cited Violation
NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC    Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PSPPhysical Security Plan
PSP    Physical Security Plan
RPP Radiation Protection Program
RPP   Radiation Protection Program
RSO Radiation Safety Officer  
RSO   Radiation Safety Officer
RDSCReactor Decommissioning Safety Committee
RDSC  Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee
SNMSpecial Nuclear Materials
SNM    Special Nuclear Materials
SUNYState University of New York
SUNY  State University of New York
TS Technical Specifications
TS     Technical Specifications
UBUniversity of Buffalo - State University of New York at Buffalo
UB    University of Buffalo - State University of New York at Buffalo
VIOViolation
VIO    Violation
}}
}}

Revision as of 07:30, 23 November 2019

IR 05000057-07-201, on 04/02-04/2007; State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo Materials Research Center; and Notice of Violation
ML071010399
Person / Time
Site: University of Buffalo
Issue date: 04/13/2007
From: Michael Case
NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR
To: Vasbinder D
State Univ of New York
Eads J, NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTB, 415-1471
References
IR-07-201
Download: ML071010399 (23)


See also: IR 05000057/2007201

Text

April 13, 2007

Dr. David Vasbinder, Director

Buffalo Materials Research Center

State University of New York

Rotary Road

Buffalo, NY 14214-3096

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Dr. Vasbinder:

On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at

your Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection

results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice

President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and

compliance with the NRCs rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The

inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed

personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC

requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The

circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The

violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance

with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure

compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with Section 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, and requests for

withholding, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,

and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public

Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRCs Agencywide

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at

404-358-6515.

Sincerely,

/RA/ Jennifer M. Golder for

Michael J. Case, Director

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.50-057

License No. R-77

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201

cc w/encl.: Please see next page

State University of New York at Buffalo Docket No.50-057

cc:

Barbara Youngberg, Chief

Radiation Section

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233-7255

Mr. John P. Spath

NYS Energy Research and Development

Authority

17 Columbia Circle

Albany, NY 12203-6399

Test, Research, and Training

Reactor Newsletter

University of Florida

202 Nuclear Sciences Center

Gainesville, FL 32611

Dr. David Vasbinder, Director April 13, 2007

Buffalo Materials Research Center

State University of New York

Rotary Road

Buffalo, NY 14214-3096

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-057/2007-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Dr. Vasbinder:

On April 2-4, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at

your Buffalo Materials Research Center facility. The enclosed report documents the inspection

results, which were discussed on April 4, 2007, with you, Dr. Joseph Raab, Assistant Vice

President, University Facilities, and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and

compliance with the NRCs rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The

inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed

personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC

requirements. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The

circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The

violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of attention to detail.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in accordance

with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure

compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with Section 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, and requests for

withholding, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, its enclosure,

and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public

Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRCs Agencywide

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at

404-358-6515. Sincerely,

Michael J. Case, Director /RA/ Jennifer M. Golder

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.50-057

License No. R-77

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-057/2007-201

cc w/encl.: Please see next page

DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PRTA r/f RidsNrrDprPrta RidsNrrDprPrtb

MRoberts TCarter DBarss (MS O6-H2) BDavis (Ltr only O5-A4)

ACCESSION NO.: ML071010399 TEMPLATE #: NRR-106

OFFICE PRT:RI PRT:LA PRT:BC DPR:OD

NAME CBassett: EHylton JEads JGolder for

MCase

DATE 04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

State University of New York at Buffalo Docket No.: 50-057

Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC) License No.: R-77

During an NRC inspection conducted on April 2-4, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements was

identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC

Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:

Section 11.5.3 of the Technical Specifications requires that an independent audit shall be

conducted annually of BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance

activities.

Contrary to the above, documented independent audits were not conducted during the years

2004, 2005, and 2006.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the State University of New York at Buffalo is

hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the

responsible inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation

(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should

include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for

disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the

results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and

(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include

previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required

response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order

or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,

suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with

the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.

Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC

Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the

NRCs document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal

privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public

without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic

Reading Room) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If personal privacy or proprietary

information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed

copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted

copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such

material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have

-2-

withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the

disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the

information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential

commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an

acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working

days.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland

this 13th day of April, 2007

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

Docket No: 50-057

License No: R-77

Report No: 50-057/2007-201

Licensee: State University of New York at Buffalo

Facility: Buffalo Materials Research Center

Location: Rotary Road, South Campus

Buffalo, New York

Dates: April 2 - 4, 2007

Inspector: Craig Bassett

Approved by: Johnny H. Eads, Branch Chief

Research and Test Reactors Branch B

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State University of New York at Buffalo

Buffalo Materials Research Center

Report No.: 50-057/2007-201

This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of the licensees programs

concerning organization and staffing; review and audit and design change functions; radiation

protection; environmental monitoring; operations, maintenance, and surveillance; fuel handling;

emergency preparedness; transportation; safeguards and security; and material control and

accounting since the inspection of these areas. The licensee's programs were directed toward

the protection of public and facility worker health and safety and were in compliance with NRC

requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.

Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirements

! Organization and Staffing met the requirements specified in Technical Specification

Section 11.

! Annual Technical Reports were generally being prepared and issued by March 31 of

each year as required by Technical Specification Section 15.1.

Review, Audit, and Design Change Functions

! The review and oversight functions required by Technical Specification Section 11.5

were performed by the Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee.

! An apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct an independent audit annually as

required by Technical Specification Section 11.5.3.

! Design changes were performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

Radiation Protection Program

! Surveys were being completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the

radiation hazards present.

! Postings met the regulatory requirements specified in 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.

! Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses were well within the

licensees procedural action levels and NRCs regulatory limits.

! Radiation monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required.

! Acceptable radiation protection training was being provided to facility personnel.

! The Radiation Protection Program being implemented by the licensee satisfied

regulatory requirements.

-2-

Environmental Montoring

! Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were

within the specified regulatory and Technical Specification limits.

Operation and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities

! The maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicable

Technical Specifications and procedural requirements.

Fuel Handling and Movement

! Fuel handling activities had been documented appropriately and the documents were

being maintained as required by the Technical Specifications.

Emergency Preparedness

! Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventories were being

completed as required.

! Annual drills were generally being held but there was no documentation that drills were

held during the last two years. When drills were held, follow-up critiques were

conducted and corrective actions taken as needed.

! The emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance with the

Emergency Plan.

Transportation

! Radioactive material was shipped in accordance with the applicable regulations.

Safeguards and Security

! The physical protection features, equipment, and procedures of the Buffalo Materials

Research Center satisfied the Physical Protection Plan requirements.

Material Control and Accounting

! Special Nuclear Material was being controlled and inventoried as required and the

documentation indicating that the spent nuclear fuel had been transferred off-site had

been completed and submitted as required.

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) Materials Research Center

research reactor has been shut down since June 1994 and is currently held by the licensee

under a Possession Only License (POL). Reactor fuel was shipped off site in September 2005

and no fuel remains on site. The containment building and adjacent shops, laboratories, and

offices are unoccupied. Facilities are periodically entered for campus police tours, radiation

surveys, calibrations, and surveillances on equipment. Shops and laboratories are occasionally

used.

1. Organization and Staffing and Reporting Requirements

a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69002)

To verify staffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in Technical

Specifications (TS) Sections 11 and 15 were being met, the inspector reviewed:

  • organization and staffing for the Buffalo Materials Research Center (BMRC)
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo (also referred to as the University at Buffalo

[UB]), Amendment Number (No.) 26, dated May 4, 2005

  • administrative controls and management responsibilities specified in the TS

Section 11

  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Organization and Staffing

Following shutdown of the research reactor, the remaining reactor staff and line

management was reassigned to other positions within the University organization

and, in some instances, relocated to other areas on campus. Selected personnel

continue to have collateral responsibility for the reactor program and thereby

satisfy the minimum staffing requirements specified by TS 11.2.

The licensees current organizational structure and assignment of responsibilities

were consistent with those specified in the TS Section 11.1 and Figure 1. All

positions were filled with qualified personnel. Through discussions with licensee

representatives the inspector determined that no functional changes had occurred

in the organization since the last NRC inspection documented in NRC Inspection

Report No. 50-057/2003-201. Review of records verified that management

responsibilities were administered as required by TS Section 11 and applicable

procedures.

-2-

(2) Reporting Requirements - Annual Technical Reports

The inspector reviewed the Annual Technical Reports that had been submitted by

the licensee since 2003. It was noted that the annual reports summarized the

required information and were usually issued at the frequency specified in TS

Section 15. It was also noted that the 2005 Annual Facility Technical Report

BMRC at the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) was not

issued until April 28, 2006. (The 2006 Annual Report was issued on March 30,

2007.) The licensee was informed that failure to issue the 2005 Annual Technical

Report by March 31, 2006, was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS Section

15.1. However, this failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is

being treated as a minor violation not subject to formal enforcement action,

consistent with Section IV of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

c. Conclusions

Organization and staffing met TS Sections 11 requirements. Facility Annual Technical

Reports were generally issued by March 31 of the following year as required by TS

Section 15.1.

2. Review and Audit, and Design Change Functions

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)

To verify that the licensee had conducted reviews and audits as required in TS

Section 11.5 and to determine whether modifications to the facility, if any, were

consistent with 10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed:

  • completed audits and reviews from 2002 to the present
  • 10 CFR 50.59 design change, Fission Plate Sizing, dated June 2005
  • Operating Committee meeting minutes from July 2003 through the present
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee meeting minutes from September

2003 through the present

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Review and Audit Functions

TS Section 11.5.3 requires that an independent audit shall be conducted annually

of BMRC decommissioning, maintenance, operations, and surveillance activities.

The inspector reviewed minutes of the Reactor Decommissioning Safety

Committee (RDSC) meetings since 2003. The minutes showed that the

committee met at least twice per calendar year as required by TS Section

11.5.1.5 and that a quorum was present at each meeting. The topics considered

during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in TS Section 11.5.1.7.

-3-

The RDSC conducted reviews of those items specified in TS Section 11.5.1 as

required. However, it was noted that independent audits had been conducted in

2002 and 2003 but none had been completed since. The licensee indicated that

an audit had been conducted in 2004 or 2005 but there was no documentation of

that audit on record.

The licensee was informed that failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRC

activities annually as required was an apparent violation (VIO) of the TS

Section 11.5.3 (VIO 50-057/2007-201-01).

(2) Design Change Functions

The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 design change review that had been

conducted in 2005. It had been completed by staff members and reviewed and

approved by the Operating Committee (a subcommittee of the RDSC) as allowed

by TS Section 11.5.2. The 50.59 review was concise but thorough and

adequately addressed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2).

c. Conclusions

The RDSC generally performed their review and oversight functions as required by TS

Section 11.5. However, an apparent violation was noted for failure to conduct

independent audits annually as required by TS Section 11.5.3. Design changes were

being reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

3. Radiation Protection Program

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002 )

The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensee's radiation protection

program (RPP) to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 were being met:

  • BMRC 2006 Radiation Safety Task List
  • Personnel dosimetry/exposure records for 2005 to 2006
  • radiological signs and postings in various areas of the facility
  • selected survey records of the BMRC facility for 2004 through the present
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) and Radiation Protection Program

reviews

  • selected Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S) instrument calibration records

for 2005 and 2006

  • BMRC Health Physics Procedure (HPP) No. 4, Radiation Work Permits, Rev.

dated October 2000

  • BMRC HPP No. 5, Building Survey, Rev. dated January 5, 2005
  • BMRC HPP No. 20, Contamination Survey Techniques, Rev. dated April 2004
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007

-4-

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Surveys

The inspector reviewed selected monthly and as needed contamination and

radiation surveys completed during the past three years. The surveys had been

performed and documented as required by BMRC procedures. Results were

evaluated and corrective actions taken and documented when readings/results

exceeded the licensees established limits. The inspectors review of the survey

records confirmed that contamination in the facility was infrequent. The inspector

determined that the survey program satisfied 10 CFR 20.1501(a) requirements.

(2) Postings and Notices

During tours of the facility, the inspector observed that caution signs, postings,

and controls in radiologically controlled areas were acceptable for the associated

hazards involving radiation, high radiation, and contamination and were

implemented as required by 10 CFR 20, Subpart J. The facilitys radioactive

material storage areas were properly posted as well. No unmarked radioactive

material was detected in the facility. Through observations of and interviews with

licensee staff the inspector confirmed that personnel complied with the signs,

postings, and controls.

The inspector noted that copies of NRC Form-3 and notices to workers were

posted in appropriate areas in the facility as required by 10 CFR Part 19.

However, it was noted on the first day of the inspection that the posted version of

NRC Form-3 was out-of-date. This was brought to the attention of the licensee

and, before completion of the inspection, the licensee obtained copies of the most

current NRC Form-3 and posted them as required.

(3) Dosimetry

The inspector determined that the licensee used film badges for whole body

monitoring of beta and gamma radiation exposure. The licensee also used

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) finger rings for extremity monitoring. The

dosimetry was supplied and processed by a National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited vendor, Global Dosimetry Solutions,

Inc. An examination of the dosimetry results indicating radiological exposures at

the facility for the past two years showed that the highest occupational doses, as

well as doses to the public, were within 10 CFR Part 20 limitations. In fact, the

records showed that the highest annual whole body exposure received by a single

reactor staff member or a contractor for 2005 was 0 millirem (mr) deep dose

equivalent (DDE). The highest annual extremity exposure for that year was

100 mr shallow dose equivalent (SDE) and that dose was received by a

contractor involved in shipping the spent fuel. The records also showed that the

highest annual whole body exposure received by a single staff member for 2006

was 0 mr DDE and the highest annual extremity exposure for 2006 was 0 mr

SDE.

-5-

Through direct observation the inspector determined that dosimetry was

acceptably used by facility personnel and exit frisking practices were in

accordance with facility radiation protection requirements.

(4) Radiation Monitoring Equipment

The inspector reviewed the BMRC calibrations done since January 2005, and

confirmed that the calibrations for the portable survey meters and laboratory

instruments had been completed as required. Examination of selected radiation

monitoring equipment indicated that the instruments had the acceptable up-to-

date calibration sticker attached. The instrument calibration records indicated

calibration of portable survey meters was typically completed by EH&S staff

personnel. However, some instruments were shipped to vendors for calibration.

The inspector verified that the instruments were calibrated semiannually which

met procedural requirements and records were maintained as required.

(5) Radiation Work Permits

The inspector reviewed selected Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) that had been

written, used, and closed out during 2005 and 2006. It was noted that the

instructions specified in BMRC HPP No. 4 had been adequately followed.

Appropriate review by management and health physics personnel had been

completed. The controls specified in the RWPs were acceptable and applicable

for the type of work being done.

(6) Training

The inspector reviewed the radiation worker (or rad worker) training given to

BMRC staff members. The training program included initial rad worker training

for those new to the facility and refresher training for all staff members (and all

rad workers on campus) every year. The type of initial training given was based

upon the position and/or duties of the person. The training program was

acceptable.

(7) Radiation Protection Program

The licensees Radiation Protection Program ( RPP) was a combination of the

HPPs specific to the BMRC and the universitys Radiation Safety Program.

Although individual procedures had been revised, the RPP had not appreciably

changed since the last NRC inspection. The inspector verified that the RPP was

being reviewed at least annually as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(c).

c. Conclusions

The inspector determined that the RPP being implemented by the licensee satisfied

regulatory requirements because: 1) surveys were being completed and documented

as required by 10 CFR Part 20.1501(a), TS, and licensee procedures; 2) postings met

regulatory requirements; 3) the personnel dosimetry program was acceptably

-6-

implemented and doses were in conformance with licensee and 10 CFR Part 20 limits;

4) portable survey meters and radiation monitoring and laboratory instruments were

being maintained and calibrated as required; and, 5) appropriate radiation worker

training was being provided licensee personnel.

4. Environmental Monitoring

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)

The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the requirements of

10 CFR Part 20 and TS Sections 3.7, 4.7, and 6.6:

  • counting and analysis records associated with releases
  • Rad Waste Water Log - Transfer Data Sheets for 2004 to present
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • BMRC HPP No. 2, Radioactive Waste Water Releases, Rev. dated February

2003

  • BMRC HPP No. 3, Contaminated Water Analysis, Rev. dated October 2000
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007

b. Observation and Findings

The BMRC averaged two to three liquid effluent releases to the sanitary sewer per

year. The inspector confirmed that the storage, analysis, and release of liquid

radioactive effluents was done in accordance with TS Section 7, 10 CFR 20.2003, and

procedural requirements. Releases were less the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20

Appendix B, Table 3.

Since the reactor is shut down, the only gaseous radioactive releases were natural

radon and its daughter products.

On-site and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was accomplished using various

environmental monitoring station TLDs as required by the applicable procedures.

Data indicated that there were no measurable doses to the public above natural

background radiation.

c. Conclusion

Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were

within the specified regulatory limits.

5. Operations and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)

-7-

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to verify compliance with TS

Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the applicable procedures and to determine that

surveillances and checks were being completed as required by TS Sections 3, 4, 5,

and 8, the inspector reviewed:

  • Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present
  • selected surveillance and calibration data and records for 2003-2006
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • BMRC HPP No. 2, Radioactive Waste Water Releases, Rev. dated February

2003

  • BMRC Operating Procedure (OP) No. 8, Reactor Data and Record Keeping,

revision (Rev.) dated August 1992

  • BMRC OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, Rev. dated January 10,

1995

  • BMRC OP No. 21, Primary Water System and the Cleanup and Makeup

Demineralizer Systems, Rev. dated March 19, 1997

  • BMRC OP No. 22, Pool Level Annunciator Testing, Rev. dated June 22, 1998
  • BMRC OP No. 23, Routine Pool Water Addition Using Commercial Demineralizer

Tanks, Rev. dated April 24, 2003

  • BMRC OP No. 26A, Area Radiation Monitor System, Rev. dated August 1989
  • BMRC OP No. 26B, Effluent and Primary Coolant Monitor Systems, Rev. dated

May 1994

  • BMRC OP No. 26C, Continuous Air Monitors, Rev. dated May 1990
  • BMRC OP No. 27, Air-Locks and Truck Door, Rev. dated August 1992
  • BMRC OP No. 28, Containment Ventilation System, Rev. dated August 1989
  • BMRC OP No. 32, Emergency Pool Fill, Rev. dated August 1992
  • BMRC OP No. 57, Facility Security, Rev. dated July 16, 1998
  • BMRC OP No. 76, Temperature Measuring System, Rev. dated August 1989
  • BMRC OP No. 77, Quarterly Checks, Rev. dated July 25, 2002
  • BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 2004 Master Task List, undated
  • BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 2005 Master Task List, undated
  • BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment

Checklist, Rev. dated June 28, 2004

  • BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment

Checklist, Rev. dated May 12, 2004

  • BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Effluent Monitor Quarterly Checks, Rev.

dated September 28, 2000

  • BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Quarterly Continuous Air Monitor

Calibrations, Rev. dated September 28, 2000

  • BMRC Form associated with OPNo. 26, Area Monitor Quarterly Checks, Rev.

dated September 28, 2000

  • BMRC Form checksheet associated with OPNo. 77, Quarterly Checksheet, Rev.

dated July 25, 2002

  • BMRC Form, Monthly Area and Effluent Monitor Operability Checks
  • BMRC Form, 2006 BMRC Radiation Safety Task List, Rev. dated March 13,

2006

  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2003 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2004
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2004 Annual Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005

-8-

  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2005 Annual Technical Report, dated April 28, 2006
  • SUNY - Buffalo, BMRC 2006 Annual Technical Report, dated March 30, 2007

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Operations

Under the POL no power operations are authorized. The only major activity that

occurred recently was the shipment of fuel from the site in 2005.

(2) Maintenance and Surveillance

Since the fuel shipment in September 2005, the licensee had focused on

maintaining the integrity and security of the facility, performing required health

physics surveys, and fulfilling TS maintenance and monitoring requirements.

These operations were carried out following written procedures and checklists.

Information on the operational status of the facility had been recorded in log

books and on checklists as required by TS Section 14 and licensee procedures.

The inspector attempted to verify that selected daily, monthly, quarterly, annual,

and other periodic checks, tests, verifications, and calibrations for TS-required

surveillances were completed as stipulated. As noted previously, there was no

longer any fuel on site and consequently, various of the TS requirements were no

longer applicable. Nevertheless, the licensee chose to continue to implement

some of the requirements reasoning that such resources would be needed during

active decommissioning. However, the inspector noted that some of the

checklists that had been used in the past to document completion of various

checks, verifications, and calibrations were no longer being filled out. The

licensee had stopped completing the following forms: 1) BMRC Form used daily

associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, 2) BMRC Form

Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment Checklist, 3)

BMRC Form, BMRC Operations 20xx Master Task List, 4) BMRC Form

checksheet associated with OP No. 77, Quarterly Checksheet, and, 5) BMRC

Form, 20xx BMRC Radiation Safety Task List. It was also noted that the

Security Log was no longer being completed but the Reactor Logbook was being

completed as needed. The licensee indicated that the forms and checklists were

being reviewed to determine exactly what checks, tests, verifications, and

calibrations were currently required. Once this review was completed, the forms

and checklists would be revised as appropriate.

Because some of the previously used forms and checklists were not being

completed, it was difficult to verify that the correct surveillances were being

completed. In reviewing the available strip charts from air monitors, various

computer data bases being maintained by the licensee and the university public

safety department, and the records maintained by the Radiation Safety Office, the

inspector was able to infer that the checks and tests were being completed as

required. The licensee was encouraged to complete their review of what tasks

were required to be done according to the TS or what tasks were to be

-9-

maintained to prepare for decommissioning and to complete a revision of the

required forms so that proper documentation could be filled out and maintained

as required. The issue of completing a review of what tasks were required to be

done according to the TS and completing an appropriate revision of the required

forms and records will be followed by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up Item

(IFI) and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (IFI 50-057/2007-201-

02).

c. Conclusions

The maintenance and surveillance activities were generally consistent with applicable

TS and procedural requirements.

6. Fuel Handling and Movement

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)

To verify that fuel handling and transfer documentation had been completed and was

being maintained as required by TS Section 14.2, the inspector reviewed:

  • Reactor Logbook No. 101 entries for 2003 through the present
  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • BMRC OP No. 8, Reactor Data and Record Keeping, Rev. dated August 1992
  • BMRC HPP No. 4, Radiation Work Permits, Rev. dated October 2000

b. Observations and Findings

As noted above, all fuel had been shipped from site in September 2005. Procedures

for fuel movement required that such actions be documented and the TS required that

the records be maintained. Through review of applicable records and logs, the

inspector determined that all fuel movements had been recorded in the reactor log and

on individual fuel element log sheets as required.

c. Conclusions

The documentation of fuel handling activities was adequate and was being maintained

as required by facility TS and procedures.

7. Emergency Preparedness

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69002)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

  • emergency drills and exercises for 2000 through 2003
  • RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present
  • emergency response facilities, supplies, equipment and instrumentation

-10-

  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005
  • BMRC Emergency Procedure (EP) No. 1, Staff General Emergency Procedure,

Rev. dated May 1987

  • BMRC EP No. 2, BMRC Medical Emergency Procedure, Rev. dated July 1995
  • BMRC EP No. 6, BMRC Emergency Procedure - Fire at the Buffalo Materials

Research Center, Rev. dated January 1996

  • BMRC EP No. 10, Building Evacuation Procedure, Rev. dated February 24,

1993

  • BMRC EP No. 11, Initial Assembly and Assessment, Rev. dated July 29, 1993
  • BMRC EP No. 12, Bomb and Security Threats Procedure, Rev. dated June 20,

2003

  • BMRC EP No. 13, Emergency Notification by Public Safety: Emergency at the

Nuclear Facility, Rev. dated January 24, 1994

  • BMRC EP No. 15, Severe Radiation Exposure, Rev. dated November 9, 1993
  • BMRC EP No. 17, Emergency Notification Procedure, Rev. dated November 10,

1993

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Emergency Plan and Procedures

The BMRC Emergency Plan in use at the reactor facility was the same as the

version most recently submitted to the NRC. The RDSC generally audited and

reviewed the E-Plan annually. Implementing procedures were reviewed and

revised as needed to effectively execute the E-Plan. When the inspector

reviewed the notification procedures in use by University Police dispatch, it was

noted that the procedures were current and the Police dispatchers were aware

and knowledgeable of their responsibilities with regard to BMRC emergences.

(2) Emergency Facilities and Equipment

Emergency facilities, instrumentation, and equipment were being maintained and

controlled as required by E-Plan Section 9 and supplies were being inventoried

semiannually as required by E-Plan Section 9.4.

(3) Annual Emergency Drills

Section 14 of the Emergency Plan required that the licensee conduct a minimum

of three emergency drills per year. These drills were to include two evacuation

drills and one action drill.

The inspector reviewed documentation of the latest emergency action drill held at

the BMRC. The last annual drill required by the E-Plan had been conducted on

September 14, 2004. The drill was designed to simulate the spread of

contamination throughout the BMRC. Both BMRC and Environment Health and

Safety (EH&S) staffs participated in the response. A Critique was held following

the drill to discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified during the exercise

-11-

and to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. The results of this

critique were documented as required.

It was noted that no documentation existed of any drill held during 2005 or 2006,

and indeed, the licensee indicated that no actual drills were conducted. However,

the licensee stated that, in preparation for the fuel shipment in September 2005,

various accident scenarios were reviewed and discussed by the staff and

corrective actions were also discussed. This was thought to suffice for a drill but

the review was not documented. In 2006, a Memorandum To File was issued on

December 27. It stated that the Operating Committee had determined that an

Emergency Drill for calendar year was not necessary and would not be

performed.

The licensee was informed that failure to hold annual emergency drills during

2005 and 2006 was an apparent violation of Section 14 of the Emergency Plan.

However, because of the current status of the facility and the absence of fuel, this

failure constituted a violation of minor significance and is being treated as a minor

violation not subject to formal enforcement action, consistent with Section IV of

the NRC Enforcement Policy.

c. Conclusions

The emergency preparedness program was generally conducted in accordance with

the E-Plan.

8. Transportation of Radioactive Material

a. Inspection Scope (IP 86740)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

  • accountability records and radioactive material storage locations
  • radioactive materials transportation and transfer records for 2005
  • BMRC HPP No. 12, Radioactive Material Receipt and Inventory, Rev. dated

June 1990

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector reviewed the records of the shipment of spent fuel and other radioactive

material that was transferred from the reactor in 2005. The review indicated that the

records had been filled out properly and that the material had been shipped in

accordance with the regulatory requirements stipulated by the Department of

Transportation and the NRC.

c. Conclusions

The shipment of radioactive material by the licensee satisfied NRC and Department of

Transportation requirements.

-12-

9. Security and Safeguards

a. Inspection Scope (IPs 81401 and 81431)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

C security systems, equipment and instrumentations

  • BMRC Reactor Log No. 101 - July 25, 1993 to present
  • RDSC meeting minutes from September 2003 through the present

C SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety Department security history records for January

through April 2007

  • TS for the BMRC, SUNY - Buffalo, Amendment No. 26, dated May 4, 2005

C State University of New York at Buffalo, License No. R-77, Docket No. 50-57,

Security Plan for the Protection of special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic

Significance, Revision No. 7, dated February 1, 1998

  • BMRC OP No. 11, Security and Equipment Checklist, Rev. dated January 10,

1995

  • BMRC OP No. 57, Facility Security, Rev. dated July 16, 1998
  • BMRC OP No. 77, Quarterly Checks, Rev. dated July 25, 2002
  • BMRC Form used daily associated with OP No. 11, Security and Equipment

Checklist, Rev. dated June 28, 2004

  • BMRC Form Attachment 2 to OP No. 11, Weekly Security and Equipment

Checklist, Rev. dated May 12, 2004

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical security plan

(PSP). The inspector toured the facility and confirmed that the physical security

systems (barriers and alarms), equipment, and instrumentation were as required by

the PSP. Keys to access doors were held and controlled only by designated

personnel. Access and key control was implemented in accordance with licensee

procedures and as required by the plan. The inspector also confirmed that the

security checks, tests, and verifications were performed as required. Corrective

actions were taken when problems were noted. The inspector verified that there had

been no safeguards events since the last security inspection.

The inspector visited the SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department. SUNY -

Buffalo police/public safety personnel provided security for the BMRC facility as

required by the PSP including periodic patrols and initial response to security events at

the facility. The inspector interviewed a Senior Staff Assistant and a police

officer/dispatcher and determined that they were knowledgeable of the reactor facility

and their responsibilities in case of a security event. The inspector observed a test of

the BMRC security system composed of a test signal sent from the reactor facility to

the police dispatch office. The test was successful and the equipment and personnel

responded as required. The inspector also noted a good working relationship between

BMRC staff members and SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety/Police Department personnel.

-13-

c. Conclusions

Based on the observations, the inspector found that the physical security features,

equipment, and procedures of the BMRC satisfied the PSP requirements.

10. Material Control and Accounting

a. Inspection Scope (IP 85102)

To verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 70, the inspector reviewed:

  • accountability records and fuel transfer records

ending September 30, 2006

years

b. Observations and Findings

The material control and accountability protocol established by the licensee tracked

locations and content of special nuclear material under the research reactor license.

A physical inventory of all SNM on site was conducted semiannually by the licensee.

The inspector reviewed and verified that the semiannual material inventories had been

performed as required.

The inspector verified that the appropriate forms had been completed and submitted

as required following the shipment of fuel from site in 2005. This included a review of

the material control and accountability forms (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 742) for the

past two years.

c. Conclusions

SNM was being controlled and inventoried and records were completed and submitted

to the regulatory agencies as required.

11. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 4, 2007, with licensee

representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The

licensee acknowledged the findings.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee Personnel

M.Adams Manager, BMRC Program / Safety Engineer, EH&S Services

J.Raab Associate Vice President for Facilities, SUNY - Buffalo

D.Schroeder Reactor Technician / Engineer, EH&S Services

D.Vasbinder Director of BMRC / Interim Director, EH&S Services

Other Personnel

S. Barry Senior Staff Assistant, SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety

L. Burey Emergency Planning Coordinator, EH&S Services

B. Frazer Radiation Safety Specialist, EH&S Services

J. McGrath University Police Officer 1, SUNY - Buffalo Public Safety

M. Pierro Special Projects Coordinator, EH&S Services

J. Slawson Radiation Safety Officer, Manager Radiation Safety Division, EH&S Services

INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED

IP 69002 Class III Non-power Reactors

IP 81401 Plans, Procedures, and Reviews

IP 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic

Significance

IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting

IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

VIO 50-057/2007-201-01 Failure to conduct an independent audit of BMRC activities

annually as required by TS Section 11.5.3.

IFI 50-057/2007-201-02 Follow-up on the licensees actions to complete a review of what

tasks are required to be done according to their TS and then

completing an appropriate revision of the required documentation.

Closed

None

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

BMRC Buffalo Materials Research Center

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EH&S Environment, Health, and Safety

EP Emergency Procedure

E-Plan Emergency Plan

HPP Health Physics Procedure

IFI Inspector Follow-up Item

IP Inspection Procedure

NCV Non-Cited Violation

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PSP Physical Security Plan

RPP Radiation Protection Program

RSO Radiation Safety Officer

RDSC Reactor Decommissioning Safety Committee

SNM Special Nuclear Materials

SUNY State University of New York

TS Technical Specifications

UB University of Buffalo - State University of New York at Buffalo

VIO Violation