IR 05000083/1977004

IE Insp Rept 50-083/77-04 on 770721-22.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Security Plan,Sys & Areas,Access Control,Surveillance & Security Program Review

ML20054C811
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, 05000083
Issue date:	03/01/1977
From:	Annast M, Kenna W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19323G049	List: IR 05000083/1975002 IR 05000083/1977004 IR 05000139/1975001 IR 05000139/1975002 IR 05000139/1976001 IR 05000139/1977003 IR 05000139/1978002 IR 05000139/1978004 IR 05000139/1979002 IR 05000139/1979003 IR 05000139/1980002 IR 05000139/1980003 ML20054C747 ML20054C768 ML20054C771 ML20054C781 ML20054C784 ML20054C787 ML20054C792 ML20054C797
References
FOIA-81-339 50-083-77-04, 50-83-77-4, NUDOCS 8204210704
Download: ML20054C811 (4)

Text

I

.

N

.

..

,

1. ? "IC UNITED STATES

,8

&r,(0

• .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

,

{ h"5 > [g g REGION ll 230 PE ACHT REE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217 JJ,: [E

• - Nw e

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 o

.....

Report No.:

50-83/77-4 Docket No.:

50-83 License No.:

R-56 Category:

Licensee:

University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Cainesville, Florida 32601 Facility:

University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR)

Inspection at:

University of Florida Inspection conducted:

July 21-22, 1977 Inspector:

nas j

.

.

~

'

Reviewed by:,

/

~~77 if. BV Kenna, Chi f

[D/te([

Safeguards Brane Inspection Summarv Inspection of July 21-22,1977 (Report No. 50-83/77-4)

l Areas Inspected:

Announced inspection of physical security program.

Areas inspected were selected portions of security plan, security areas, security systems, security organization, access control, surveillance, procedures and security program review.

The inspection involved 13 man hours on site by one NRC inspector.

Results: Within the scope of the inspection, there were no ite:ns of nonecupliance identified.

i l

8204210704 811110 l,

PDR FOIA POLLOCK81-399 PDR

,

___

_

_

_.

-

!

.

%

.

.

.

www

.

.

-

RII Rpt. No. 50-83/77-4 I-l L,1};.

u)

i Q.h.

M/

DETAILS I Prepared by:

11 a s M. V.' Anna s t, Investig M r *

1. Datd Security and Investigation Section Safeguards Branch Dates of Inspection:

July 21-22, 1977 Reviewed by:

MM f /t / 7 7

,

l J.

. J p er,lChief

/Date Se ritf.and Investigation Section Safeguards Branch l

1.

Persons Contacted'

I (

• Dr. J. Carroll, Acting Chairman, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department

• W. Delk, Assistant Reactor Supervisor H. Gogun, Senior Reactor Operator G. Fogle, Reactor Operator l

D. Deutra, Campus Maintenance Technician V. Holliman, Executive Officer, Campus Police

,

l J. Ward, Sergeant, Campus Police

• Denotes those present at exit interview on July 22, 1977.

2.

Security Plan The current version of the University of Florida Training Reactor l

(UFTR) security plan was approved by Licensing on April 18, 1975.

A revision, dated September 15, 1976, has been submitted and is presently pending approval.

The revised plan does not appear to degrade the existing security posture and conforms to the general outline of inspection procedures 81410 - 81455.

-

.

3.

Essential Equipment The UFTR is an Argonaut-type reactor fueled with uranium enriched to 93% U-235 and with an authorized power limit of 100 Kw.

The authorized SNM possession limit is 4.82 kg of U-235.

All essential equipment was adequately described.

4.

Security Areas The security areas were established as designated in the security plan and equipped with acceptable barriers.

_

_

'.

~

_

_ _ _ _...

- -

- - - -

- -

-

.

'

..

.

..-

.

.

RII Rpt. No. 50-83.77-4 I-2 r

[

r I

5.

Security systems The security systems consisted of locks and keys, alarm systems and communications.

Key control was in accordance with the security plan, however no provisions had been made for periodic key inventories and loss of keys.

The security alarm system consisted of six (6)

ultrasonic motion detection devices within the reactor cell and four (4) magnetic contact switches on the doors to the security area.

The alarms had line supervision and were tamper indicating.

Each of the motion detection units was equipped with a back-up battery pack.

The alarms are computer controlled by the Security and Fire Computer. system and annunciate at the campus police station.

The annunciation is of a single zone (Building 577) and no provision has been made to differentiate between the various alarms.

The alarm system was tested and performance was acceptable.

l There were no specific procedures for response to alarms by campus police and no provisions for compensatory measures in cases of alarm system failure.

Communications consisted of telephones and hold-up alarm, located in the reactor control room.

A portable hold-up alarm transmitter was also provided to report emergencies in the reactor cell and adjoining areas.

6.

Security organization The security organization was as described in the security plan.

Campus police were aware of their responsibilities to respond to emergencies at the UFTR.

A contingency planning meeting had been

.

held with local law enforcement authorities (LLEA) in October 1976.

l There was no formal description of expected response times or numbers of persons and vehicles responding. No formal procedure had been developed by the campus police to designate which law enforcement organization would be notified to respond for assistance.

Usually GainesvilI* Tolice are notified but instructions are verbal.

It was found thr1, c'ccasion, only one campus policeman would be

.

availabic to ro >en to un alarm at the UFTR and may require immediate backup by lyc. ! l'

enforcement officials.

l 7.

Access Control The categories of personnel authorized access to the security areas were cicarly described and the means used to control access was adequately Lnplemented.

The feasibility of maintaining the reactor control room door locked during working hours was discussed with facility personnel.

-

-

.

%

..

-

~,.

-

.

RII Rpt. No. 50-83/77-4 I-3 8.

Surveillance Surveillance of essential equipment and security areas was as described in the security plan and was deemed adequate.

9.

Procedures Procedures were reviewed and were found acceptable, with exceptions noted in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.

10.

Security Program Review The methods and responsibilities for security program review were adequately described in the security plan and were found acceptable.

'

11.

Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-l graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 22, 1977. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection. The following items were discussed:

a.

The alarm system back-up power and transmission line supervision are not described in the security plan.

b.

Expected LLEA response times as well as expected number of vehicles and/or responsc individuals are not described in the security plan, c.

There is no commitment in the security plan to periodic key inventories and other provisions of Regulatory Guide 5.12.

d.

The reactor control room is not locked during times of occupancy.

The feasibility of locking this door was reviewed.

I e.

There are no written procedures covering campus police response to security alarms or compensatory measures for inoperative alarms.

f.

There are no written procedures for campus police designating the local law enforcement organizations that would be summoned'

for assistance.

Licensee representatives agreed to consider all of the items discussed for impicmentation.

.

-

-