IR 05000083/2011201

IR 05000083-11-201, on April 4-7, 2011 at University of Florida - Severity Level IV and Notice of Violation

ML111110367
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	06/03/2011
From:	Nelson R Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To:	Hintenlang D Univ of Florida
DONOHUE J, NRC/NRR/DPR/PROB 415-3163
References
IR-11-201
Download: ML111110367 (20)

Text

une 3, 2011

SUBJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA - NRC ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO.

50-083/2011-201 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Dr. Hintenlang:

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a routine inspection on April 4 - 7, 2011 at your University of Florida Test Reactor Facility (Inspection Report No.

50-083/2011-201). During the inspection, the NRC staff examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to public health and safety and with the conditions of your license.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations of activities in progress.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that a Severity Level IV violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation was evaluated in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy. The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at (http:www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html).

The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions planned and taken to correct the violation and prevent recurrence is already adequately addressed in Inspection Report No. 50-083/2010-203. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description herein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, and requests for withholding a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS)). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic Reading Room) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Jack Donohue at 301-452-1950 or electronic mail at Jack.Donohue@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert A. Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-083 License No. R-56 Enclosure: NRC Inspection Report No. 50-083/2011-201 cc w/encl: See next page

University of Florida Docket No.50-083 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant of Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 State Planning and Development Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 William Passetti, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, FL 32399-1741 Test, Research and Training Reactor Newsletter Director of Nuclear Facilities University of Florida 202 Nuclear Science Building Gainesville, FL 32611-8300

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Jack Donohue at 301-452-1950 or electronic mail at Jack.Donohue@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert A. Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-083 License No. R-56 Enclosure: NRC Inspection Report No. 50-083/2011-201 cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PROBReading File RidsNrrDprPrtb RidsNrrDprPrta JDonohue,NRR MNorris (MS T3 B46M)

MCompton (Ltr only O5-A4)

GLappert, NRR DHardesty,NRR ACCESSION NO.: ML111110367 *concurrence by e-mail TEMPLATE #: NRC-002 OFFICE PROB:RI* PRPB:LA PROB:BC DPR: DD NAME JDonohue GLappert JEads R. Nelson DATE 4/20/2011 05/12/2011 06/02/2011 6/03/2011 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

NOTICE OF VIOLATION University of Florida Docket No.50-083 Training Facility License No. R-56 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 4 - 7, 2011, a violation (VIO) of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violation is listed below:

The inspector noted that Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.1, Radiation Monitoring Systems and Radioactive Effluents, Surveillances, require the reactor cell to be monitored by three area radiation monitors, two of which shall be capable of audibly warning personnel of high levels.

The output of at least two of the monitors shall be indicated and recorded in the control room.

The setpoints for the radiation monitors shall be in accordance with Table 3.3.

Contrary to the above, for an extended period of time, one of three monitors was not functioning properly and two of three recorders were disabled. This has been determined to be a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation; the corrective action planned and taken to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance will be achieved is already adequately addressed in Inspection Report No. 50-083/2010-203. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation," include the VIO number, and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS),

accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Therefore, to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.

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

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2011

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Docket No: 50-083 Report No: 50-083/2011-201 Licensee: University of Florida Facility: University of Florida Training Reactor Location: Gainesville, Florida Dates: April 4 - 7, 2011 Inspector: Jack Donohue Approved by: Johnny H. Eads, Jr., Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY University of Florida University of Florida Training Reactor Inspection Report No. 50-083/2011-201 The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selected aspects of the University of Floridas (the licensees) Class II research reactor safety program including: operations logs and records, procedures, requalification training, experiments, design changes, emergency preparedness, fuel handling and follow-up on previous identified items since the last U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection of these areas.

The licensees programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety, and in compliance with NRC requirements.

Operations Logs and Records Operation logs and records are maintained as required by the licensee's administrative procedures.

Procedures The program for changing, controlling, and implementing facility procedures was acceptably maintained as required by the Technical Specifications and the applicable procedures.

Requalification Training The requirements of the Operator Requalification Plan were being met and the plan was being acceptably implemented.

Medical examinations were being completed as required.

Experiments The conduct and control of experiments were acceptable and in accordance with procedural and Technical Specification Sections 3.5, 4.2.4 and 6.4 requirements.

Review and Audit and Design Changes Functions The review and audit program was being conducted acceptably by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee as stipulated in Technical Specifications Section 6.2.5.

Based on the records reviewed, the licensee's design change program was being implemented as required.

-2-Emergency Preparedness The Emergency Plan (EP) and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures were being audited and reviewed annually as required.

Fuel Handling Fuel handling activities and the documentation thereof were acceptable and in accordance with procedural and Technical Specification requirements.

.

Follow-up of Previously Identified Items

• Action items from the previous inspection were satisfactorily reviewed with the licensee.

REPORT DETAILS Summary of Plant Status The University of Floridas (the licensees, UF) 100 kilowatt modified Argonaut research and test reactor (RTR) continued to be shutdown following piping repair and startup preparations.

1. Operations Logs and Records a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

To verify compliance with License Condition 2.C.2 and related procedural requirements, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

• Staffing during periods of reactor operations

• Selected UFTR Operating Log pages for 2009-2011

• Selected Maintenance Log pages for 2009-2011

• UFTR SOP-0.6, Reactor Trip and Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation, Rev. 1, dated April 2002

• UFTR SOP-A.1, Pre-operational Checks, Rev. 18, dated September 2006, and the latest TCN dated September 2006

• UFTR SOP-A.2, Reactor Start-up, Rev. 13, dated November 2005

• UFTR SOP-A.3, Reactor Operation at Power, Rev. 13, dated September 2006

• UFTR SOP-A.4, Reactor Shutdown, Rev. 12, dated November 2005 b. Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed selected daily operations log pages that were recorded since January 2009 through the present. Reactor operations were carried out in accordance with written procedures as required by Technical Specifications (TS)

Section 6.3. Information on the operational status of the facility was recorded in the log book and/or on checklists as required by UFTR SOP-A.3. Logs and records also showed existing operational conditions and parameters.

The inspector determined that shift staffing does meet the minimum requirements for current operations as required by the TS and the new staffing plan calls for three additional full-time Reactor Operators (RO)s and one part-time RO.

Although there were no reactor operations during the inspection, observation of other operational functions confirmed that activities at the facility were carried out in accordance with written procedures and TS requirements.

-2-c. Conclusion Based on the logs, procedures, and associated records reviewed, the inspector determined that operations and log maintenance were acceptable and in accordance with License, TS, and procedural requirements for a shutdown condition.

2. Procedures a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to ensure that the requirements of TS Section 6.3 were met:

• Administrative controls for changing procedures

• Records of changes and temporary changes to procedures

• RSRS meeting minutes from December 2009 through December 2010

• UFTR SOP-0.1, Operating Document Controls, Rev. 4, dated June 2007

• UFTR SOP-0.5, UFTR Quality Assurance Program, Rev. 3, dated February 2003 and the latest TCN dated June 2007

• UFTR Form SOP-0.1A, Cover Sheet/Change Request Form, Rev. 4, dated June 2007

• UFTR Form SOP-0.1C, Review Standard, Rev. 4, dated June 2007 b. Observations and Findings Procedures were available for those tasks and items required by TS Section 6.3.

The procedures provided adequate guidance for the conduct of reactor and other operations. The inspector verified that the facility procedures were being reviewed biennially as required by procedure and were revised as needed.

The inspector reviewed the process used to make changes and temporary changes to facility procedures. The licensee implemented the change, review, and approval process by use of administrative procedures UFTR SOP-0.1 and SOP-0.5. The changes and temporary changes had been controlled, and reviewed and approved by the RSRS (Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee) as required.

The inspector reviewed training records and interviewed the staff, and determined that the notification of personnel on procedures and subsequent changes to procedures was effective. The inspector determined that use of, and adherence to, procedures was acceptable.

-3-c. Conclusion The inspector determined that the procedural change, control, and implementation program was acceptably maintained as required by TS and the applicable procedures.

3. Requalification Training a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

To verify that the licensee was complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 55 to implement and maintain an operator requalification program, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

• Medical examination records

• Effective dates of current operator licenses

• Operator training records and operator active duty status

• Operator competence evaluation and written examination records

• Certification Letters from the Facility Director written to qualified operators

• UFTR Operator Requalification Plan and Recertification Training Program Plan, for the period from July 2009 through June 2010, dated May 26, 2009

• UFTR SOP-0.8, Control and Documentation of Operator Licensing Requalification Training and Examination, Rev. 2, dated September 2003

• UFTR Semiannual #12 (S-12 Surveillance), Review of Requalification Training Program Binders, Rev. 3, dated February 2003 (controlled by UFTR SOP-0.5)

b. Observations and Findings As noted previously, there was one SRO licensed to operate the research reactor at the facility. The inspector noted that individual training notebooks, the Requalification Plan and Schedule, and the various operators active duty status records contained the documentation required by the program. It was also noted that due to ongoing leak restoration work, some of the training and manipulations required by the Requalification Program have been postponed, however still within the program time frame. The inspector questioned the licensee about these items and the licensee indicated that the delayed training would be completed within two months.

The inspector also determined that the SRO was completing the hours of operation and supervisory responsibilities as required by the NRC-approved requalification plan (except as noted above).

-4-The inspector noted that operators license was current. The SRO was has received the required biennial medical examinations within the required time frame.

c. Conclusion The requirements of the Operator Requalification Plan were being met and the plan was being acceptably implemented.

4. Experiments a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to assure compliance with TS Sections 3.5 and 6.4:

• Approved reactor experiments

• Selected UFTR Operating Log pages for 2007 - present

• RSRS meeting minutes for 2006 through the present

• Selected experiment logs and records for the year 2007 and 2008

• UFTR SOP-A.5, Experiments, Rev. 5, dated October 2006

• UFTR Form SOP-A.5A, Request for UFTR Operation (Run Request Form), Rev. 5, dated October 2006

• UFTR SOP-D.4, Removing Irradiated Samples from UFTR Experimental Ports, Rev. 7, dated October 2001

• UFTR SOP-D.6, Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers, Rev. 1, dated April 2000, and the latest TCN dated October 2003 b. Observations and Findings The inspector noted that experiments have not been accomplished since the last inspection due the shutdown condition.

The inspector noted experiments at the UFTR were categorized as Class I through Class IV based on their potential hazard and need for review and approval. Class l experiments were those that were required to be approved by the Reactor Manager. Class II experiments were experiments that were required to be reviewed and approved by the Reactor Manager and the Radiation Control Officer. Class III experiments were required to be reviewed and approved by the Reactor Manager and Radiation Control Officer after review and approval by the RSRS. Class IV experiments were those experiments that were required to be reviewed and approved by the Reactor Manager and Radiation Control Officer after review and approval by the RSRS and had specific emergency operating instructions for conducting the experiments.

-5-The inspector reviewed selected UFTR Request for Operation forms (also referred to as Run Request forms) that had been completed for conducting experiments during the past three years. They contained the appropriate information, hazards analyses as applicable, and had been reviewed and approved as required by TS and procedure. The experiments were then installed, performed, and removed as outlined in the approved experiment authorizations. It was noted that the majority of the experiments that had been conducted were for the purpose of neutron activation analysis (NAA) and/or lecture, tour, and demonstration of the reactor and NAA laboratory operations.

It was noted that the radioactive material produced as a result of reactor operations was properly controlled and the subsequent material transfer transactions were appropriately documented. The radioactive material was typically transferred from the reactor license (R-56) to the University of Florida -

State of Florida Radioactive Material License, No. 356-1, which has an expiration date of March 31, 2015.

c. Conclusion The procedure control of experiments were acceptable and in accordance with procedural and TS Sections 3.5, 4.2.4 and 6.4 requirements.

5. Review and Audit and Design Change Functions a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

In order to verify that the licensee had established and conducted reviews and audits as required in TS Section 6.2.5 and that design changes were reviewed as required by 10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

• Facility configuration and associated records

• Selected UFTR Operating Log pages for 2009-present

• Selected Maintenance Log pages for 2009-present

• Facility design changes and records for the past three years

• Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) meeting minutes from January 18, 2011, November 17, 2010, September 20, 2010, April 5, 2010 and December 10, 2009

• UFTR Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-0.1, Operating Document Controls, Revision (Rev.) 3, dated September 2003, and Temporary Change Notice (TCN) dated November 2005

• UFTR SOP-0.2, Control of Maintenance, Rev. 5, dated September 2003, and TCN dated November 2005

• UFTR SOP-0.3, Control of Documentation of UFTR Modifications, Rev. 1, dated October 1999, and TCN dated September 2003

• UFTR SOP-0.4, 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination, Rev. 2, dated July 2000, and TCN dated September 2003

-6-

• UFTR SOP-0.5, UFTR Quality Assurance Program, Rev. 3, dated February 2003, and the latest TCN dated November 2006 b. Observations and Findings i. Review and Audit Functions The inspector noted that, during the last two years, the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) held at least one meeting each quarter at intervals not to exceed four months as required by TS Section 6.2.5(2).

The membership also satisfied the charter requirements also stipulated in the TS. Review of the minutes indicated that the committee provided guidance and direction to ensure suitable oversight of reactor operations and that the minutes provided a record of this safety oversight. The RSRS meeting minutes and audit records also showed that safety reviews and individual audits had been completed and a report of the findings submitted to the Dean of the College of Engineering within three months of completion for the functional areas as required by the TS. The audits appeared to be comprehensive and well documented. The inspector noted that there were no significant issues discovered and that the licensee took appropriate corrective actions in response to the audit findings. Committee records documented that procedure changes were reviewed as required as well.

ii. Design Change Functions Facility design changes were controlled by UFTR SOP-0.3 and SOP-0.4.

The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations/determinations and corresponding design change packages pertaining to various changes implemented at the facility. From these reviews, the inspector determined that the facility design change evaluations had adequate supporting documentation and information. Additionally, the inspector found that the 10 CFR 50.59 reviews and approvals conducted by the RSRS were focused on safety and met TS and UFTR procedure requirements. Post installation verification testing of the systems, when required, was adequately documented when completed. Procedure and drawing changes were included in the change packages and were consistent with TS and UFTR requirements for facility changes.

c. Conclusion The review and audit program was being conducted acceptably by the RSRS as stipulated in TS 6.2.5. The design change program was being implemented as required.

-7-6. Emergency Planning a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

To verify compliance with the University of Florida Training Reactor Emergency Plan, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

• Emergency drills and exercises for the past two years

• Training records for licensee staff and support personnel

• Emergency response facilities, supplies, equipment and instrumentation

• Offsite support as documented in the Letter of Agreement with Alachua County

• Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill - Recommendations Tracking Record for 2005-2006

• UFTR SOP-0.5 Attachment Q-3, Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill, Rev. 3, dated February 2003

• UFTR SOP-A.1, Pre-operational Checks, Rev. 18, dated September 2006, and the latest TCN dated September 2006

• UFTR SOP-B.1, Radiological Emergency, Rev. 5, dated January 1995, and the latest TCN dated February 2007

• UFTR SOP-B.2, Emergency Procedure - Fire, Rev. 9, dated January 1995, and the latest TCN dated October 1999

• UFTR SOP-B.4, Emergency Procedure - Flood, Rev. 2, dated August 1997, and the latest TCN dated October 1999

• UFTR SOP-D.1, UFTR Radiation Protection and Control, Rev. 5, dated December 1993, and the latest TCN dated October 2001 b. Observations and Findings The Emergency Plan (E-Plan) in use at the UFTR facility was the same as the version most recently submitted to the NRC, Rev. 15, dated February 2007. The E-Plan was audited and reviewed biennially as required. Implementing procedures were also reviewed biennially and revised as needed to effectively implement the E-Plan. Emergency facilities, instrumentation, and equipment were being maintained and controlled, and supplies were being checked weekly as required in the E-Plan.

Through records review and through interviews with licensee personnel, emergency responders were determined to be knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in case of an emergency. The support agreement with the Alachua County Office of Emergency Management (which coordinated offsite response organizations, such as the City of Gainesville Fire Rescue and ambulance service) had been updated biennially and maintained as necessary.

Communications capabilities were acceptable with these support groups and had been tested periodically. Off-site support for the facility was verified to be in accordance with the E-Plan.

-8-Emergency evacuation drills had been conducted quarterly as required by the E-Plan. Critiques were held following the drills to document the strengths and weaknesses identified during the exercises and to develop possible solutions to any problems noted. On an annual basis, one large scale emergency evacuation drill was conducted in which an emergency scenario was simulated to test the emergency preparedness of the UFTR facility staff, and to the extent practicable, the adequacy of the response from the campus and offsite emergency organizations. Emergency preparedness and response training for reactor staff was being completed and documented.

c. Conclusion The emergency response program was being conducted in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the Emergency Preparedness Plan.

7. Fuel Handling a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)

To verify compliance with TS 3.7, 4.27 and 5.8, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

• Fuel handling and examination records

• Fuel handling equipment and instrumentation

• Selected UFTR Operating Log pages for 2008

• Selected Maintenance Log pages for 2008

• UFTR SOP-C.1, Irradiated Fuel Handling, Rev. 4, dated February 1985, and the latest TCN dated October 1999

• UFTR SOP-C.2, Fuel Loading, Rev. 6, dated September 2006, and the latest TCN dated November 2006

• UFTR SOP-C.3, Fuel Inventory Procedure, Rev. 4, dated August 1997, and the latest TCN dated November 2006

• UFTR SOP-C.4, Assembly and Disassembly of Irradiated Fuel Elements, Rev. 0, dated September 1984, and the latest TCN dated October 2003

• UTFR SOP-C.1A, UTFR Fuel Transfer Log Sheets dated March 20 -

March 21, 2008 b. Observations and Findings Following a review of the logs and associated fuel handling documentation, the inspector determined that fuel movement, inspection, log keeping, and data recording was completed as required by procedure and met TS s 3.7, 4,27 and 5.8 requirements.

-9-c. Conclusion Fuel handling activities and the documentation thereof, were acceptable and conducted in accordance with procedural and TS requirements.

8. Follow-up of Previously identified items a. Inspection Scope (IP 92701)

i. URI 50-083/2010-203-01 The inspector noted that during IR 50-083/2010-203 and in review of TS 3.4.1, Radiation Monitoring Systems and Radioactive Effluents, Surveillances, require the reactor cell to be monitored by three area monitors, two of which shall be capable of audibly warning personnel of high radiation levels. The output of at least two of the monitors shall be indicated and recorded in the control room.

The inspector noted one of three monitors was not functioning properly and two of three recorders were disabled. An unresolved item (URI No.

50-083/2010-203-01) was written to document equipment requirements between maintenance and operating conditions. The licensee took immediate corrective action to satisfy conditions and placed two portable detectors in service.

ii. IFI 50-083/2010-203-02 The inspector noted per IFI 50-083/2010-203-02 and the licensees Radiation Protection Program was established through the UF Radiation Control Guide, last revised December 1999, and the UFTR SOPs. The program required that all personnel, who had unescorted access to radiation areas or to work with radioactive material, receive training in radiation protection, policies, procedures, requirements, and facilities.

The inspector noted that in review of the radiation training records, licensed operator personnel had not completed annual training and were in the grace period. An inspector follow-up item (IFI 50-083/2010-203-02)

was issued to review training at the next scheduled inspection and verify that the program was being reviewed annually as required.

b. Observations and Findings 1. The inspector issued VIO 50-083/2011-201-01 concerning radiation monitors not working following review of URI 50-083/2010-203-01. This item is considered closed.

- 10 -

2. IFI 50-083/2010-203-02, incomplete annual radiation training was determined to be satisfactory and this item is considered closed.

c. Conclusion The inspector noted follow-up on previously identified items are considered closed.

9. Exit Meeting Summary The inspector reviewed the inspection results with members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on and April 7, 2011. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED C. Abernathy Dean, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, College of Engineering M. Berglund Senior Reactor Operator D. Hindenlang Interim Director/ Interim Reactor Supervisor of UFTR D. Munroe University of Florida Radiation Control Officer D. Norton Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering INSPECTION PROCEDURE (IP) USED IP 69001 Class II Research and Test Reactors ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Open 50-083/2011-201-01 VIO Radiation monitors were not functioning properly Closed 50-083/2010-203-01 URI Radiation Monitoring; LCO versus maintenance conditions 50-083/2010-203-02 IFI Annual radiation training in grace period by licensed personnel 50-083/2011-201-01 VIO Radiation monitors were not functioning properly LIST OF ACRONYMS USED 10 CFR Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations ADAMS NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ANSI American National Standards Institute EH&S Environmental Health and Safety IFI Inspector Follow-up Item IP Inspection Procedure LCO Limiting Condition for Operations NAA neutron activation analysis NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rev. Revision/Revised

-2-RSRS Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee RTR Research and Test Reactor SDE Shallow dose equivalent SOP Standard Operating Procedure SRO Senior Reactor Operator TCN Temporary Change Notice TS Technical Specifications UF University of Florida UFTR University of Florida Training Reactor URI Unresolved Item