IR 05000057/1993002

Insp Rept 50-057/93-02 on 930901-03.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Health Physics Oversight & Safety Limits Compliance During Reactor Operations

ML20057E130
Person / Time
Site:	University of Buffalo
Issue date:	09/21/1993
From:	Bores R, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20057E129	List: IR 05000057/1993002 ML20057E127
References
50-057-93-02, 50-57-93-2, NUDOCS 9310070332
Download: ML20057E130 (3)

Text

.

n..--.c

-.. -,, -. ~

.

....

--.c.~

..

,.

.

n._

-, =...

.. -

...

...,

.._

!

l

,,

,

'

.

d

l

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'-

l

.

REGION I

i

~i

' Report.No.: 50-57/93-02-

~

' Docket No.i. 50-57 j

.

License No.: R-77 l

l Licensee:

State University of New York at Buffalo j

Rotary Road. South Camous

Buffalo. New York j

Facility Name:

Buffalo Materials Research Center Inspection At:

Buffalo. New York i

Inspection Conducted: September 1-3. 1993 j

'

'

l

~

Inspector:

mmf-de 9.,2./ 9J.

Thomas Dragoun, ProjeVScientist, Effluents

' date j

Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities.'

j Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB).

l Approved By:

7M/b'

-

Robert $res, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards L

-

'

l Areas Reviewed: Status of previously identified items, Health Physics oversight, and

.

compliance with safety limits during reactor operations.

I i

Res!]Lu No safety concerns or violations were observed. However, the relationship between the SUNY Radiation Safety Officer and the contractor Health Physics staff should be evaluated to assure adequate independence of the contractor health physics organization from the contractor reactor operations organization.

i 9310070332 930928 PDR (4 DOCK 05000057 EI}

[d.

i G

i PDR o

.

_

-

..

. -..

u. -

. _., _

_._, 2.w _ I

.

-

-

.

.

.-

-

-

-

.-

,

.

-

-

.

!

-

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted i

j M. Adams, BMR Operations Manager i

• L. Henry, BMR General Manager and Acting Director

• M. Pierro, SUNY Radiation Safety Officer i

l

• E. Psyk, BMR Reactor Operator

• J. Slawson, BMR Senior Health Physicist

!

• Attended the Exit Interview on September 3,1993.

2.0 Previously Ideritified Items l

!

l 2.1 (Closed) Followun Item (50-57/93-01-03) Train HP personnel to recognize j

.

radiological accidents described in the Safety Analysis Report. The General

[

l Manager indicated that the HP personnel attended the recent operator

!

!

requalification training regarding reactor accidents. They will also attend _

i future training sessions that are appropriate. This matter is closed.

I 2.2 (Closed) Violation (50-57/93-01-02) The Facility Operating Committee did not conduct annual reviews of the Emergency Plan and implementing

.

i procedures. Subsequent to the emergency exercise held in May 1993, the Committee conducted the annual review and initiated changes to the procedures. The inspector reviewed the draft changes and found them to be

!

appropriate. Licensee corrective actions described in a letter dated May 26, 1993 were complete and satisfactory.

2.3 (Open) Violation (50-57/93-01-04) The licensee failed to conduct the annual action drill required by the Emergency Plan. The 1993 drill was conducted.

,

The status of long term corrective actions described in the licensee's May 26, 1993 response letter are as follows:

l

• Fill the Facility Director position - on hold, pending management review.

• Re-evaluate the Nuclear Safety Committee - same as above.

• RSO to conduct written audits - implementation underway.

• SUNY Environmental Health and Safety Department to actively participate -

ceardination efforts were completed.

This violation remains open until the uncompleted actions are finished and are reviewed in a future inspection.

,

b

.-.

.

.

.

-

.

.

.

3.0 Health Physics Oversight The organizational structure of the radiation protection program as described in Technical Specification (TS) 6.1 is unique. The HP personnel with responsibility for day-to-day activities are employed by the contractor who operates the facility but is i

not the licensee. The RSO with responsibility for implementation of the HP program is employed by the licensee (SUNY). There was no direct reporting relationship

,

between these personnel. In a management meeting held March 17, 1993, the NRC expressed concerns that the licensee ensure that the contractor HPs are independent of reactor operations, and that proactive oversight by the RSO be increased. The licensee stated that oversight by the RSO would be increased and routine, formal audits would be instituted. The inspector interviewed the RSO and the Senior Health Physicist (contractor) regarding these changes. Interfacing between HP personnel was found to be more frequent and the RSO audits were underway. The contractor staff had adequate training and experience to oversee routine activities. However, the

-

extent of independence of the contractor HP group from reactor operations could not be assessed. Performance of this program will be reviewed in a future inspection.

4.0 Reactor Safety Limits TS Section 2.0 provides the reactor safety limits and the settings for safety systems.

The inspector reviewed conformance with these requirements through a review of records, procedures, and interviews with operators. Within the scope of this review, no deficiencies were noted.

The inspector also reviewed conformance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) specified in TS Sections 3.1,3.2, and 3.4. No deficiencies were noted and all operating conditions met these limits or were more conservative. The inspector observed that changes had been made to some surveillance procedures in pencil. The licensee stated that minor changes are accumulated and then a formal change to the

'

procedure is made at a convenient time. The inspector noted a specification for an automatic reactor control system that was removed. The licensee stated that this specification was not deleted since the automatic system may be re-installed in the future. The inspector noted that there was no procedure for the maintenance of the charcoal filter in the emergency exhaust duct. The licensee stated that the filter is routinely replaced and this would be documented in the future. The inspector had no further questions.

5.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in Section 1.0 on September 3,1993, and summarized the scope and fm' dings of this inspection. The i

licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.