IR 05000150/1999201
| ML20204B225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ohio State University |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204B207 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-150-99-201, NUDOCS 9903220033 | |
| Download: ML20204B225 (13) | |
Text
.- ,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No: 50-150 License No: R-75 Report No: 50-150/99-201 Licensee: Ohio State University Facility Name: Ohio State University Research Reactor
'l Location: Columbus, Ohio Dates: February 8-12,1999 Inspector: T. M. Burdick Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director, I Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate l
i
!
M
$" " 3 990304" "DN ,
.
. ,
Executive Summary Ohio State University Research Reactor Report No. 50-150/99-201(DRPM)
This routine, announced inspe:: tion included aspects of organization, periodic and special reports, and operations and maintenance; operations and maintenance procedures; requalification training; surveillance; experiments; radiation controls; environmental protection; design change, audit, and review; emergency preparedness; fuel har.dling activities (69001);
transpodation activities (86740); review of licensee reports (90713); Physical Security (81431);
and Material Control (85102).
Oraanization (69001)
e The Ohio State University Research Reactor organization has been relatively stable over the past two years. (Section 1.0)
Ooerations and Maintenance (69001)
e Reactor operation and maintenance were gnd and in accordance with the reactor's license conditions and T.S. requirements. Logs and records were acceptabl (Section 2.0)
Procedures. Reaualification Proaram. Surveillance. Experiments. Fuel Handlina (69001). and Periodic and Special Reports (90713)
e No concerns were identified. (Sections 3.0,4.0,5.0,6.0,11.0, and 12.0)
Radiation Control (69001)
- The radiation protection program was erfective in protecting the staff and publi Exposures were consistently maintained at low levels. (Section 7.0)
Environmental Protection (69001)
- Airborne and liquid releases were within the regulatory limits. Radioactive waste accumulations were reduced dramatically. (Section 8.0)
Audits and Reviews (69001)
e Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) meetings were conducted within the specified 1 time perio e The annual ROC audit had not been addressing technica! specification complianc e Radiation safety audits were acceptable as they addressed a variety of areas and processes and identified appropriate issues. (Section 9.0)
Emeraency Preparedness (69001)
- Emergency Plan drills and training were conducted satisfactorily. (Section 10.0)
I l
- .
.
~
l l
.,
Transportation (86740) Transportation requirements were generally me (Section 13.0)
Physica! Security and Material Accountina (81431 and 85102)
- ' The licensee's program requirements had been reduced with NRC approval commensurate with a reduction in possession of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) to an amount of low strategic significance. (Sections 14.0 and 15.0)
l l
,
.
DETAIL S Facility Summa:y The Onio State University Research Reactor (OSURR) has been operating for neutron activation analysis, limited isotope ploduction, and teachin .0 Organization !nspection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed Technical Specifications (T.S.) and the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) related to organization and staffing and compared the requirements with current condition Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the organizational structure and assignment of responsibilities were as specified in T.S. The membership of the ROC was in accordance with T.S. and the SAR. There
. has been some turnover in committee membership however committee
! membership and meetings were as required. Meeting minutes were reviewed with no problems note The inspector verified minimum staffing requirements were met during reactor operation Conclusions Compliance with T.S. requirements was acceptable and ob. served reactor facility material conditions were goo .0 Operations and Maintenance Activities Inspection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the reactor operaticns and maintenance logs and observed ongoing reactor operations to determine compliance with the Operating License Conditions and the requirements in Observations and Findinas The licensee had operated the reactor intermittently at various thermal power levels in accordance with Operating License Conditions. The inspactor verified that they were in co'aptiance with Selected reactor operator logs were reviewed. The operator logs were sufficient to determine routine dat .
'
.
'
.
The operators appeared proficient, demonstrated good procedural compliance, and made appropriate log entries for the observed perio The inspector accompanied operators and observed a safety conscious and professional attitud The inspector observed prestart checks and reactor startu The licensee has reviewed Y2K issues and concluded that, although there have been numerous digital processor circuits installed, none of them were subject to the date proble Conclusions The reactor was operated and maintained in accordance with the reactor's license conditions, safety limits and limiting conditions for operation. The licensee's logs and records appropriately documented reactor operations and maintenance activities. Operators were observant and systematic in both operations and experiment activitb .0 Procedures Inspection Scoce (6900_1)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's written procedures for operating and maintaining the reactor, performing surveillance activities, and conducting experiments to determine compliance with the requirements in the Observations and Findinas Procedures were detailed, clear, and current. No concerns were identifie Conclusions The licensee had approved procedures to sufficiently conduct reactor operations, maintenance, experiments, surveillance testing, and instrument calibrations to ensure compliance with T.S. requirement .0 Requalification Training Inspection Scoce (69001.)
The inspector reviewed the reactor operator requalification training progra,1 to determinc compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 19.12 and 10 CFR 55.5 ,
i
.
.
i
) Observations and Findinas I
The licensee's annual written exams and operating tests was acceptable. Each licensed operator had a current license and physical examinatio !
Requalification training was implemented as require ! Conclusions i
An acceptable training program was being conducted. Acceptable training records were being maintaine I l
a 5.0. Surveillance I Inspection Scope (69001) i
!
The inspector reviewed selected surveillance test documentation and observed activities to determine comphance with the requirements in ;
[ Observations and Findinas l
!
Routine surveys and surveillances observed were acceptable. Calibration records for selected instruments were reviewed. T.S. required instrument surveillance records were reviewed. No problems were identified. Records were clear and additional detailed information was recorded where appropriate in equipment history log Conclusions Selected reactor surveillance tests had been completed and documented at the required frequencies, and the surveillance test results met T.S. requirement .0 Experiments Inspection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program to control and conduct experiments performed in the reactor to determine compliance with the requirements in Observations and Findinas One new type of experirnent was conducted since the last inspection. No problems were identifie Conclusions All reactor experiments were conducted in accordance with properly reviewed and approved procedures and satisfactorily documented in the reactor operations lo t
,
.
d 4 Radiation Control Inspection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the radiation protection program and records to determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and Observations and Findinos l Radiation exposures were low and survey results indicated that the reactor lab was a low dose facility. Instrumentation was calibrated and verified operabl l Inspector surveys conducted confirmed the dose rate records. Radiation Safety conducted audits at tile reactor every month as required. Results were documente Conclusion The licensee's facility does not pose a significant radiation problem to workers, visitors, or the publi .0. Environmental Protection Insoection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the discharge or removal of radioactive liquid, gases, and solids from the reactor laborator Observations and Findinos Liquid and airborne effluent monitoring records showed that the releases were within the regulatory limit The health physicist (HP) was not familiar with the 10 CFR 20 constraint rule regarding releases. The inspector ensured that the reactor staff was aware of the requirement and that the facility was in complianc The inspector determined that they properly stored and posted the solid radioactive waste as require d for decay in storage or prior to shipment. Much of the stored waste had been properly disposed of since the last inspectio Conclusions Airborne and liquid releases and solid waste disposal were within the regulatory limit r .
.
, !
,
5 Audit and Reviews Inspection Scoce (69001)
i The ' inspector reviewed the meetings, audits, and reviews conducted by the ROC to determine compliar.ce with the requirements in Observations and Findinas The required T.S. operations safety audits were conducted, however, they were I
not addressing compliance with T.S. as intended. No other items of noncompliance were identified. The licensee acknowledged the oversight and plans to correct the problem during the preparations for license renewal ]
application this year. This failure constitutes a violation of minor significance and, !
in accordance with NUREG/BR 0195 (Rev 2), NRC Enforcement Manual, Section 3.5.c, is not subject to formal enforcement action. It will be reviewed for ]
corrective action in the future (50-150/99-201-01) Conclusions Safety audits were acceptable except for a minor violatio .0 Emergency Preparedness Inspection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the emergency plan and the last two annual drills for the
,
reactor laboratory, interviewed licensee employees, and inventoried storage lockers to determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q) and (r), Observations and Findinas The inspector discussed the emergency plan and procedures with the reactor staff, campus security alarm dispatchers, and campus police. Annual emergency drills were documented. Procedure reviews were documented as well. The inspector noted one minor discrepancy between the licensee's and the j campus police procedures which the licensee plans to correc l Conclusions
The licensee maintained the licensee's emergency program in a state of Operational readines .0 Fuel Handling Insoection Scope (69001)
The inspector reviewed the fuel handling procedures and records at the reactor laboratory, and interviewed employees to determine compliance with T.S.
\.
,-
. !
'
.
6 Observations and Findinas The licensee handles fuel for reconfiguration and annual inspection purposes and critical experiments. The last inspection was routine with no problems noted by the license I Conclusions The licensee's procedure and documentation for annual fuel inspections were acceptabl i l
12.0 Rev;ew of Periodic and Special Reports I Inspection Scope (90713)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's submittal of reports and notifications to the NRC to determine compliance with the requirements in Observations and Findinos The inspector found the last two annual reports routine and acceptabl Conclusions The licensee had submitted required reports to the NRC in accordance with requirement .0 Transportation of Radioactive Materials Inspection Scope (86740)
The inspector reviewed the licensec.'s radioactive materials shipping program, retiewed logs, and interviewed employees to determine compliance with the requirements in Department of Transportation (DOT) and NRC regulations,49 CFR Parts 172 & 173 and 10 CFR Part 71, respectively, Onservations and Findinas Most of the licensee's shipments were limited quant:*ies. One staff member was certified to peform shipping. The inspector identificd instances where the Associale Director, a licensed senior reactor operator (SRO), had signed the papers for radioactive shipmenb. Although he was not a certified shipper he was knowledgeable of the requirements snd oversees all reactor lab operations including the shipping. He plans to obtain shipping certification for himself and ano!her SRO this year. This failure constitutes a violation of minor significance and, in accordance with NUREG/BR 0195 (Rev 2), NRC Enforcement Manual, Section 3.5.c, is not subject to formal enforcement action. ;t will be reviewed for corrective action in the future (50-150/99-201-02)
l
. \
.
. Conclusions The licensee has conducted transportation of radioactive materials in compliance with regulations with the exception of a m;nor violatio .0 Physical Security Insoection Scope (81431)
01.01 To assure that the licensee has a physical protection system that will: j a. minimize the potential for unauthorized removal of special nuclear material (SNM), and l
b. facilitate the location and recovery of missing SN ,02 To assure that the licensee's physical protection program adequately j
'
implements the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 7 Observations and Findinas No concerns were identifie Conclusions The licensee had implemented an approved program for SNM of low strategic significance (LSNM).
1 P.1aterial Control and Accounting Inspection Scone (85102)
01.01 Determine whether the iicensee has limited his possession and use of special nuclear material (SNM) to the locations and purposes authorized under licens .02 Determine whether the licensee has implemented an adequate and effective program to account for and control the SNM in his possessio Observations and Findinas The current health physicist had only recently begun completing the required reports. Some minor errors were noted by the inspector and relayed to the license Conclusion The licensee was using and controlling authorized SNM as require f-:
t:
o ,
,
.,
! 8 l
16.0
'
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspector presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at an exit meeting on February 12,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings I presented. The inspector asked the licensee whether any material examined during the {
l inspection should be considered proprietary. They identified no proprietary information.
!
l l
!
l l
i
..,
%
Partial List of Persons Contacted D. Miller Reactor Director, OSURR l
- R. Meyser Associate Reactor Director, OSURR
- R. Peterson Radiation Safety Office, OSU i
The inspector also contacted other supervisory, technical, and administrative staff personnel as wel * Denotes those attending the exit meeting on February 12,199 Inspection Procedures Usg i
Class 11 Nonpower Reactors
'
IP 69001 IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities IP 90713 Review of Periodic and Special Reports IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting IP 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of LSNM l
Items Opened and Closed )
Open 50-150/99-201-01 IFl Audit for T.S. Compliance 50 150/99-201-02 IFl Shipper Certification Closed None List of Documents Reviewed ]
l Safety Analysis Report ]
Safety Evaluation Report Reactor Operating License
Technical Specifications {
Administrative Procedures l j
Operating Procedures j
Maintenance Procedures *
Surveillance Procedures j
Shipping records and procedures
?/aintenance and Surveillance Records E..nergency procedures j Training Program j i
Emergency Plan Dosimetry Records
!
Training Records Various Reports :
t -
'.
e
. i
)
List of Acronyms Used ;
I ALARA As Low as Reasonably Achievable j CFR Code of Federal Regulations OOT Department of Transportation HP Health Physics LSNM Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic Significance i NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSURR Ohio State University Research Reactor l PDR Public Document Room i RSO Radiation Safety Officer j ROC Reactor Operations Committee SAR Safety Analysis Report SNM Special Nuclear Material { Technical Specifications !
,
i I
I l
L