IR 05000166/1993001
| ML20044H175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Maryland |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Holmes S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044H173 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-166-93-01, 50-166-93-1, NUDOCS 9306080027 | |
| Download: ML20044H175 (5) | |
Text
,
.
.
.
h U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Repod No.
50-166/93-01 Docket No.
50-166 License No.
E-20 Licensee:
University of Marvland College Park Facility Name:
Maryland University Training Reactor Inspection At:
College Park. Maryland Inspection Conducted: May 11-13.1993 b
Inspector:
,
Steph5n W. Holmes, Radiation Specialist Date Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
~
w
,c Approved By:
/M
4%'dh..-
P 2 Vi >
?
,
<f LBob Bores, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB Date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected: The areas examined included staffing, reactor logs, operating procedures, operator requalification program, surveillances, control of experiments, maintenance and design changes, oversight, and status of previous violations.
Results:
The licensees program enhancements in the areas of procedures and control of experiments were notable. The calibration of the gamma spectrometry system for the air sample analyses had not been finalized. A new certified source with which to perform the calibration was being procured by the licensee. No violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
,
i
\\
9306080027 930528 PDR ADOCK 05000166
,
i G
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
- V. Adams, Facility Manager
- W. Chappas, Director MUTR T. Long, Manager, Radiation Safety Office
- M. Scalingi, Senior Reactor Operator
- M. Wuttig, Chairman, Department of Materials and Nuclear Engineering
- Attended the exit interview on May 13, 1993 2.0 Status of Previousiv Identified Items 2.1 (Closed) Violation (VIO 50-166/92-01-01) Records of surveys performed during experimental operations, including glove-box contamination surveys were not being
-
maintained. Contamination surveys of the glove-box area and other operations surveys were now being maintained. This item is closed.
2.1 (Open) Violation (VIO 50-166/92-01-02) The licensee failed to perform adequate surveys to identify the radiation hazards present. The licensee was now performing surface contamination surveys when measurements of irradiated samples indicated significant activation. However, the calibration of the gamma spectrometry system for the air sample analyses had not been finalized. The licensee was procuring a new certified source and would perform an air sample calibration upon receipt of the source.
This item is open 2.1 (Closed) Violation (VIO 50-166/92-01-03) Reactor pool water gamma activity was not being adequately evaluated as required by the technical specifications. The gamma spectrometry system had been calibrated for the analysis of reactor pool water and the procedure now requires that the presence of fission products be evaluated. This item is closed.
3.0 Staffing Technical Specifications (TS) Section 6.1.3 require a minimum of two operations staff, one of whom must hold a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license.
The current
operations staff consisted of ten personnel; three permanent staff (the facility Director,
!
Manager, and maintenance / electronics Technician, and seven students.
Six staff members held SRO licenses, three held Reactor Operator (RO) licenses, and the Technician was unlicensed. The staff was qualified and possessed the technical expertise
,
to perform the duties required by the license. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
-l J
- _ _ - - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _.
.
,
,
4.0 Reactor Records Reactor operating records are required by Section 6.7 of the TS. The inspector audited these records, interviewed operators, and observed uses oflogs during reactor operations.
Records of power level, operating periods, unusual events, calibration and maintenance procedures, and start-up and shut-down checks were being kept. Reactor operating records and logs were being maintained as required by TS and written procedures.
Discussion with the facility manager revealed that there was limited written guidance on what specific information was required to be entered in the various logs and records.
The licensee stated that they would evaluate the instructions on logging information and ensure that adequate direction was available to the staff delineating information to be recorded. Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were noted.
5.0 Operatine Procedures written procedures are required by Section 6.3 of the TS, and are also required to be reviewed and approved prior to use and subsequent to any substantive changes. The inspector reviewed the operational procedures, interviewed staff members, and observed a reactor start-up, critical operation, manual and automatic power changes, manual scram, shut-down, and the operator's use of procedures and check sheets during these operations. The reactor operations were completed in accordance with the written procedures with careful attention to specifics. Implementation of and adherence to the procedures were good. Written procedures were available for allitems required by TS.
In a previous inspection the inspector noted that guidance on action levels, limits, and acceptance criteria had been lacking in the procedures. A full review and update of the procedures had just been performed by the facility director and the R.eactor Safety Sub Committee (RSSC). These procedures were explicit, delineated limits and action levels and, through the use of a standard format, easily followed. The procedures will be implemented upon approval by the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC). The licensee stated that they would continue to evaluate their guidance on limits, action levels and acceptance criteria. Overall, the licensee maintained acceptable written procedures. Within the scope of this inspection no safety concerns or violations were noted.
6.0 Onerator Recualification Procram An examination of the training records, exams, and interviews with operators indicated that all current operators were still within their first requalification cycle and had yet to complete their operational and written exams. The inspector verified that the operators were performing the minimum reactor manipulations and participating in the ENNU 320 course as required. Review of the training records of three former operators indicated that they successfully completed all aspects of the requalification program. Previous
.
.
exam questions demonstrated good technical depth. The licensee's method of tracking the operators' time and operations on console was effective. The requalification program was being implemented adequately to ensure appropriate training of the operators.
7.0 Surveillances The inspector reviewed selected records and procedures for the conduct of surveillances required by TS Section 4.0 " Surveillance Requirements."
All surveillances were completed at the required intervals while some, such as pool conductivity, were performed more frequently than required. This represented good licensee initiative.
Surveillances were conducted under actual operating conditions and provided a high confidence that the system would operate as designed.
The facility's gamma
'
spectrometry system occasionally indicated peaks that its software program did not identify. Although the facility procedure required that the presence of fission products be evaluated, the licensee did not formally document the evaluation of these peaks. The inspector's review of the available analyses did not indicate the presence of fission products in the reactor pool water. The licensee stated that they would formally document the evaluation of these unidentified peaks" in the future. Additionally, the record of the last annual calibration of the radiation area monitors (RAM), which had been examined by the inspector during the previous inspection, could not be found. The licensee stated that, if the records were not located by the first of June, the monitors would be recalibrated. (IFI 93-01-01) These actions will be reviewed in a future inspection.
Within the scope of this review, the licensee's overall program for surveillances was found to be effective.
8.0 Control of Experiments The licensee's program for the control of experiments was reviewed with respect to the requirements in TS 3.5, TS 6.4, and Operating Procedure-105 " Installation of Experiments." The inspector reviewed the approvals and precautions incorporated in experiments. Technical reviews were made, controls and limitations were imposed, and safety was achieved. The forms used to approve experiments were safety oriented and provided guidance to the investigator on experiment limitations.
New or special experiments were reviewed by the RSC as required. Although Operating Procedure-105 provided detailed instruction on experiment limitations and approvals to ensure compliance with the TS, neither the RSC minutes nor the approved experiment request form formally documented that all the specific TS Section 3.5 experiment limitations had been addressed by the RSS approval. At present, the staff refers to the Isotope Img Book to ensure that a requested experiment had been previously performed in the last two years and, thus, had RSC approval. Since the MUTR is primarily a teaching reactor, most experiments are older standard / routine operations. The last "new experiment" was approved in 1989. The licensee stated that, as a program upgrade, they were recertifying the standard / routine experiments through the RSC, documenting TS Section._.
_
_
.
_
ll
' *
!
.
. -
i
'
5-
experiment limitation reviews, and were retaining the records as a standard reference of
approved experiments. This action will be verified in a future inspection. Within the
scope of this review no safety concerns or violations were noted.
!
'!
9.0 Maintenance and Design Channes
-
The inspector examined maintenance and design change records applicable' to
'
Maintenance Procedures-300,301,302,304, and information recorded in the maintenance log book. Procedures and documentation logs for ' changes and maintenance were
!
adequate.
The staff was aware of the requirements and properly implemented ~
maintenance and design changes. Changes were evaluated against the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. The licensees use of a flow chart in conjunction with its Maintenance
,
Procedure 300 for this evaluation was notable. No safety concerns were noted.
!
10.0 Oversieht
,
The inspector reviewed the RSC minutes for the past two years and the last independent audit. The semiannual meeting schedule and the committee membership satisfied TS l
requirements.' Review of the minutes indicated the committee provided appropriate guidance, direction and oversight to the safety program and ensured suitable use of the reactor. He minutes were clear, and recorded the safety oversight of reactor operations.
.
The audit was pertinent and technically suitable. The RSC performed it's duties as j
required by the license and TS.
i 11.0 Exit Interview i
The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 on May 13,
1993, and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection. The licensee provided
the RAM calibration comments in section 7.0.
.,
-j I
,
?
!
I
-
>
<
.
. -.
-
-
.
.
.