IR 05000142/1975003
| ML20195E611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142, 07000223 |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1975 |
| From: | Rizzolo V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E559 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-196 NUDOCS 8806240093 | |
| Download: ML20195E611 (1) | |
Text
- - _. - _
_ - - _ _ _ __
... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __-- - __ - - -
'
,
U'ITED STATES
'
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION mtcloN v l
SVITE 2 02, W ALNUT C R E E K PL A Z A l
19 90 N. C ALIF O R NI A S OULEV A R D W ALNUT C RE EK, C ALIF OR NI A 94596 JUN 191975 H. D. Thornburg, Chief, Fie?d Support and Enforcement Branch Office of Inspection and Er.forcement, Headquarters UNIVERSITY 0 FOR'11A AT LOS ANGELES DOCKET NOS.
-14 & 70-223 The attached report by our field inspectors of a safeguards inspection of the subject facility on May 20, 1975 is forwarded for information.
I 7 'ZFl..m.-
. N. Rizzolo, Chief Materials and Plant Protection Branch
,
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-142/75-03 ) IE-V-62 70-223/75-01 )
REGION V==
-
-
50-142/75-03 ) IE-V-62
'
IE Inspection Report No. 70-223/75 01 )
50-142 University of California Docket No.70-223 Licensee R-71 License No. SN-974 at Los Anceles Priority.,
R-71/F-5 I
~
Facility Nuclear Enercy Laboratory Category Location Los Anaeles. California Type of Facility Academic institution Type of Inspection announced
-
Dates of Inspection May 20.1975 Dates of Previous Inspection January 14. 1971 (.
r r'
i Principal Inspector
.
_
Date Kobori, Auditor N
7 s'
'
Accompanying Inspectors Date B.,L. Brock, Chemist C). L' 46 :~-[-
66/7(
G. L. Hamada Chemist / Statistician Date
'
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
8 (
t Reviewed by A
s
<
s N. Rizzolo, Chief, Materials & Plant Protection Date l
Branch
.
-
,
'
IE '/-54 Copy No.
/<
a,u, m,,L
=
~yw r
my
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _,..
__
_
_
.
__
_ _.,. _..
_ _. _ _ _, _ _ _
.
~
i l
2-2.
The inspection included the following:
a.
A review of the records, reports and source documents, b.
A review of the written material control procedures, c.
A physical inventory of SNM.
d.
A determination of compliance with applicaole requirements of 10 CFR 70, "Special Nuclear Material."
C.
SUM'WY OF FINDI?:GS 1.
Determined that the licensee was in full compliance with applicable requirements of 10 CFR 70, "Special Nuclear Material."
2.
Enforcement Action None.
,
O.
LICENSEE ACTION ON PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ENFORCEMENT ITEMS Not applicable.
E.
UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES None.
F.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Current Findings None.
,
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None.
G.
MANAGEMENT INTERVIEW The results of the inspection were discussed with Mr. H. V. Brown, Director, Environmental Health and Safety, and Mr. J. Evraets, Radiological Safety Officer, at the conclusion of the inspection on May 20,1975.
\\
.
- -~,,-
-
,.
.. -. -.
--....
.
_ _ _ - _
___ _______________ __
-
-
.
.
.
-4-The reactor core of 24 fuel elements was accepted based on the core map. The storage pit was opened in part to confirm the high radiation levels of the fuel contained therein (two of the four in use storage locations were checked using a Telector gama detector with a telescoping probe or a Juno Model 8 detector). One of the two remaining in use locations contained three fuel plates and the other contained a Co-60 source. These were also accepted on the basis of the record.
The 32 gram Pu-Be source held under License SM-974 was renoved from its howitzer and verified by piece count in that the holder retention material obscured the serial number.
No samoles were taken to independently determine the SNM content of the items inventocied.
4.
Reactor Thermal Output The reactor is authorized to operate at up to 100 kilowatt hours thermal. The power level is checked annually through a heat
'
balance determination. An additional check makes use of a reference ion chamber that is fixed relative to the core.
6.
Nuclear Material Deoletion and Production Revised burnup calculations since reactor startup indicate 16.69 grams U-235 burned through December 31, 1974 with 0.37 grams of the V-235 burnup occurring during the last six months reporting period (July 1,1974 - December 31,1974).
Although the burnup calculations consider U-236 production, Pu production and burnup is not calculated.
If Pu production during a reporting period exceeds 10 grams, then the code requires that it be reported. Pu production per reporting period to date has been significantly less than 10 grams and is not expected to inc 7ase at the authorized power level.
6.
Internal Control The licensee's procedures for internal control were minimal and were a part of the Radiation Safety Procedures. The need for a specific inventory procedure was emphasized during the close-
. out meeting. The licensee has indicated in the interim that such a procedure has been prepared and its existence facilitated location of 19 grams of U-235 previously reported as MUF loss (December 31, 1974 Material Status Report (MSR)) which will be reported as a MUF gain in the ensuing MSR.
,
-
_. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
-5-7.
Records and Recorts The licensee maintains files of Forns AEC-741, "Nuclear Material Transaction Report," and Forms AEC-742, "Material Status Report," supplemented by inventory listings and user reports as his formal acord. Although no ledger type records were maintained, the licensee's files of documentation were determined adequate for material control and accounting purposes.
All Forms AEC-742 issued by the licensee were signed by the Vice Chancellor for Administration.
The University of California has satisfactorily complied with 10 CFR 70, Parts 70.51(b) and (c) with respect to records and procedures and Parts 70.52, 70.53a, and 70.54 with respect to reporting.
8.
Authorized Uses of SNM UCLA holds two NRC licenses, R-71 and SNM-974 and a California
'
State License No. 1335-70. The SNM inventory held under these licenses, all reported under reporting identification symbol (RIS) YEU, was as follows:
License R-71 Element (g)_
!sotope (g)
Enriched Uranium 9507 8849 Plutonium
30 License SNM-974 Enriched Uranium-0-
-0-Plutonium
30 Calif. License 1335-70 Plutonium
29 The University of California was in compliance with 10 CFR 70.41,
"Authorized Use of Special Nuclear Katerial," as of the
'
inspection date.
'
.
$
f
_,
. -.
._
_
_. ___,
,.
.
-
- -, _ _
___ _ - -
_____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
..
.
-6-9.
Nuclear P.aterial Balances (May 20,1975)
RI5:
YEU Enriched Uranium (g)
Less than 20% U-235 Greater than 205 U-235 Element Isotooe Element Isotope-0-
-0-9507 8349 Plutonium (g)
Element Isotope
89
-
e a
$
I
_ -
_ _. _. _ _
. -. - _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, __.,- -_,_. __,,__.___.___ _______ _. _.._, _.._ _ _._
...
...
_ _.
.
___
___
'
i
'
s W7ED sy47g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
,
,
REGION V
SulTE 202. W ALNUT C REEK *LAZ A 1990 N. C ALIFORNI A 80VLEV A RO W ALNUT C REEK. C ALIFORNI A 94596 AUG 131976
.
"
G. W. Roy, Chief, Field Coordination and Enforcement Branch, IE:HQ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES DOCKET NO. 50-142 Enclosed is the report of the special physical security inspection conducted on July 29-30, 1976 for the above facility, as a result of that inspection one item of noncompliance and several security weak-nesses were identified.
Security Weaknesses 1.
Essential equipment is not specifically identified in the Security Plan.
(See Report Details, paragraph 3)
2.
The reactor control room is considered an operational area rather than a security area.
Large plate glass windows,1/8 inch in thickness, separate the control room from the reactor.
(See Report Details, paragraph 4)
3.
There is need to improve the procedures pertaining to corrective action resulting from inspections and inventories and to add additional information for bomb threats.
Vulnerabilities We must conclude that UCLA, a non-power reactor licensee, is vulnerable to the threc man threat, militarily trained, armed with semi-automatic weapons and an insider's knowledge of the facility.
With the exception of the materials storage area there are no door alarms. The present alarm system is concentrated in the reactor high bay.
It would be possible to force any of the many doors leading and adjacent to the reactor, and then under cover of that room enter the reactor area.
Once inside the reactor room, even though an alarm would sound, it is esti-mate.d that there would be sufficient time to complete a successful act of sabotage and depart by a different door into a multiple array of hallways to avoid apprehension.
,'
-
,
,
h
$
[ Enclosure:
V. N. Rizzolo, Ch g *
,e* f( c.
Safeguaras Branch glettertoUCLAw/NoticeofViolationand copy 4 of
e:
ny,p IE Inspection Report No. 50-142/76-01 y,
p
.Dnn 1 w m,V,/J
,
-
-
ys
-
-
.
.
- - - -
..
-.
--
---
-
_-
.
--
UNITED 5707ES
.
.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COM..,$stON
'
REGION V
SUITE 202, W ALNUT C REEK PLAZ A 1990 N. C ALIFORNI A 00VLEV Amo m~uf C.um. C Amo.~, A,....
Auc u m.
The Regents of tne University of California Docket No. 50-142 School of Engineering Los Angeles, California 90024
.
Attention:
Russel O'Neil Dean of Engineering Gentlemen:
This letter refers to the inspection of your activities authorized under NRC License No. R-71 conducted by M. D. Schuster of this office on July 29-30,1976.
It also refers to the discussion of our inspection findings held by the inspector with Mr. N. Ostrander and members of his staff on July 30, 1976.
,
The inspection included examination of activities related to physical protection against industrial sabotage in accordance with applicable requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,." your Security Plan, and license conditions pertaining to physical protection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and records, interviews with #acility personnel and observations by the inspector.
>
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that one of your activities was not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as set forth in tne Notice of Violation, enclosed nerewith as Appendix A.
The item of noncompliance is categorized into the level as described in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office within 20 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement of explana-tion in reply, including:
(1) steps which have been or will be taken by you to correct the violation, and the results achieved; (2) steps whicn will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance witn be achieved.
In.accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, documentation of findings of your control and accounting procedures for safeguarding special pwise,k d
- t t
s##
/
'
/6 dN
/
%
v
,
.
- - - -
. _..
-
.
.
f
.
University of
,
California-2-ptG13M16
'
nuclear materials and your facility security procedures are exempt from disclosure; therefore, the enclosure to this letter, the inspection report, and your response to the item listed in the enclosure to this letter will not b.e placed in the Public Document Room and will receive limited distribution.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
.
/
,/,/ e '
' *
V. N. Riz2olo, Chief Safeguards Branch Enclosures:
A.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-142/76-01 cc w/ enclosures:
'
H. V. Brown, Environment, Health and Safety Officer
.
.
e
.
'
.
i
!
i
!
-
--
.
.
s a
.
APPENDIX A University of California at Los Angales Docket No. 50-142 License No. R-71
.
.
.
Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on July 29-30, 1976 it appears that one of ycur activities was not in full compliance with applicable NRC regulations and conditions of jour license, as indicated below.
'
Ouring a key inventory taken August 8, 197: it was determined by the Laboratory Security Officer that one securit/ related key was lost and one security related key was duplicated.
It was determined July 30, 1976 that contrary to good security practices no corrective action had been taken.
This is a deficiency.
.
.
-
'
S.F5
.
Copy
- ... o f copies
-.L non
-
.
.
'
.
.
.
_=
--.------_.-----.._-.._....___..___-,.._._._,_,_.....__,m
, _,,,,,.. _,.. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _, _.. _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
__________ _____ __
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP '3SICN
.
'
-
-
. 0FFICE Of INSP,E,CTION A iD ENFL.4EMENT-
'
.
dEGIONV
-
.
~
.
< LE Inspection Report No.
50-147/76 01 fir _v.1ani University of California at Docket No.
50-142 Licensee R-71 LosAnheles
_
License No.
'
F
Priority
.
Grou M4g87
Faci? ity
.
'
.
Location los Ancejf3, California 90024
,
.
Type of Facility Training /Research Reactor Type of Inspection _
Soecial. Unannounced. Physical Security Dates of Inspection July 29-30. 1976
'
Dates of Previous Inspection May 20, 1975 Principal Inspector O','. O k
_ $~ / 3 - 7 4-
-
Date M. D. Schuster, Physical Protection Inspector
.
.
None Accompanying Inspectors Date
.
Date Other Accompanying Personnel:
None t
.
,.
i.
.
f '< *> / >
'
Reviewed by
-
D***
V. N. Rizzolo, Chief, Safeguards Branch 3.<3._7L. /( Y
.
cm
a } " copw pcges
~
.
.'
g
_
-
-
..
~
~ v y v v G ff W Wff / ~
!
_
....
.
-
.
.
-.
..
..
.
.
......
. -
.
-
-
,
,
Summary of Fndings Enforcement Action A.
Violations None
'
B.
Infractions
.
None C.
Deficiencies
.
The licensee had determined througn a key inventory that one key had been lost and that one key nad been duplicated.
No corrective action had been taken as a result of tnat inventory.. (Details, paragraph 5)
O.
Deviations None Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Inspection Report 50-142/75-02 (May 20, 1975) reported one infraction pertaining to tne lack of required training in the health physics course for members of the UCLA Police Department.
The licensee took corrective action in July 1975 and completed the necessary training for members of the Police Department.
This was Verified during tnis inspection through the licensee's training records.
Unusual Occurrences None Other Significant Findings A.
Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities 1.
Essential Equipment
.
Essential equipment is not specifically identified in the security plan.
(Details paragraph 3)
-
.
.
e
'
_.
<
-
_. _ -,
. -.
,-
. - _ -,.. - -
. -.,. -,.
~,.
_ _.
_ _ - _
.,.
- - -. _.,,.
.. _, -,, -.. - -
'
.
.
,
'
-2-2.
Security Areas The reactor control room is not considered a security area.
(Details, paragraph 4)
3.
Procedures There are no provisions for corrective actions as a result of reviews, inspections or inventories.
In addition, only limited information is available in the event of a bomb threat.
(Details, paragrapn 7)
'
B.
Assessment of Licensee's Response to 'JC Request for Review and Augmentation of Security At the time of notification to licensees (February 1976), UCLA was considered a safeguards group 5, accordingly they were not notified.
Management Interview The exit interview was held on July 30, 1976.
Attendees were as follows:
.
N. Ostrander, Laboratory Manager J. Horner, Resident Healtn Physicist C. Ashbaugh, Laboratory Security Officer B. Taylor, Research Physicist NRC Region V M. Schuster, Physical Protection Inspector
.
Items Discussed / Scope of Inspection The scope of the special inspection was reiterated to be an examination of the licensee's security program and equipment with emphasis on their capabilities to withstand an external attack and included the following area s.-
Procedure No.
Subject 81705B Pnysical Protection - Security Plan 81710B Physical Protection - Essential Equipment 81715B Physical Protection - Security Areas 81720B Physical Protection - Security Systems
-
i
~
._
-
-, - _ -
_ - - -, -, ----.--
. - - - -,
,.
-.
, _ _..
l l
Wluuuulisuuuuuum
-
-
-3-
817258 Physical Protection - Security Organization 81730B Physical Protection - Access Control
'
81735B Physical Protection - Surveillance 81740B Physical Protection - Procedures 81745B Physical Protection - Security Program Review 81750B Physical Protection - Protection of Sid i
,
The licensee was advised of the item of noncor.pliance and replied that
prompt corrective action would be taken.
The licensee indicated tney J
would consider the security weaknesses for ;.cssible solutions.
With respect to defining essential equipment t..e licensee indicated they would pursue that ite'm with Licensing.
l
'
.
O e
O
l i
.
..
.
.
,
,
-
.,,_-_.-
___.
.. -
_.
..,._.-_.._.._____,_...-_,.....-_.-_....___.~__.-....m._---,,-_
__-...-,._ -
.
"
l
'
'
'
.
Details l
1.
Time on Site 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />, July 29. 1976 Arrived
-
1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br />, July 30, 1976 Departed
-
Total manhours. on site - 10
'
2.
Persons Contacted T. Zane, Reactor Supervisor N. Ostrander, Laboratory Manager J. Horner, Resident Healtn Physicist C. Ashbaugh, Laboratory Security Officer l
J. Carter, Lt. UCLA Police Department 3.
Essential Eouipment
.
The licensee's new security plan (April 1,1976) paragraph I. A contains a general descriptian and refers the reader to the attached Appendices A and B for a furtner description.
Essential equipment,
if any, for this Argonaut reactor such as; the reactor, reactor coolant system, reactor controls. etc. have not been designated.
,
4.
Security Areas The fuel storage area (radioactive storage room) and the reactor room (reactor high bay) are identified as security areas, access to which is controlled by an
"A" level key.
The reactor control room is considered an operational area (as are the classrooms) rather than a security area.
Access is controlled by the "B" level key.
5.
Security Systems The licensee's security plan sets forth the controls and a descrip-tion of the lock and key system.
A review of the licensee's s,ecurity log revealed that a key inventory was conducted on 8/18/75.
The following was entered:
"Leight lost "C" level key, Police Department made at least one extra "B" level key - marked it as 8-14."
As a result of that inventory the licensee had taken no action to correct the noted deficiencies.
This was identified as an item of noncompliance.
~
.
I
.
..
- EW m an
- - - -
--- --
-,
-
-
-
, - -
,
_,
_- _ - ____
' '
.
-5-6.
Security Organization The security organization and arrangements with LLEA are as de-sci ibed in the security plan.
It was determined that 4 patrols
-
(worst case) witn one officer each could respond to an intrusion.
In addition to the UCLA Police Department, the west Los Angeles Police Department would respond, witn additional (number is un-known) patrols.
Rapid radio communications are available between these two Police Departments.
7.
Procedures The licensee's security plan (April 1, 1976), page 8, paragraph E states "The security program will ce reviewed and tested every twelve mont.hs by the Laboratory Secur t/ Officer.
He will also
'
conduct a key inventory on a semi-annual basis."
No provisions for corrective action, if reeded, as a result of those reviews and/or
,
inventories have been included.
Bomb threat procedures provide that the laboratory would be secured
'
and evacuated.
That procedure does not contain guidance to the receiver of such calls to record all information, ask questions, listen for background noise, etc.
Also enere are no instructions as to actions to be taken for suspected items that may be an explosive device / suspected bomb or who will conduct scarches.
)
l
,
e e
'
'
.
I wm
- - -
,. - -.
.--
-.
.
., _.
_.., -,. _.
-