IR 05000188/1997001

Insp Rept 50-188/97-01 on 970407-11.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations,Maint & Facility Support

ML20138H584
Person / Time
Site:	Kansas State University
Issue date:	05/02/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138H578	List: IR 05000188/1997001 ML20138H574
References
50-188-97-01, 50-188-97-1, NUDOCS 9705070226
Download: ML20138H584 (24)

Text

.

.

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50-188 )

.

I License No.: R-88 l i

Report No.: 50-188/97-01 l

.

Licensee: Kansas State University Facility: TRIGA Mark-Il Reactor

l Location: Ward Hall, Kansas State University, '

Manhattan, Kansas Dates: April 7-11,1997 l Inspector: J. Blair Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachment: Supplemental Information

.

9705070226 970502 PDR ADOCK 05000188 0 PDR ,

,- .-. - . - ~ .

.

!

u

.

-2-

,

k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kansas State University TRIGA Mark-Il Reactor Facility i NRC Inspection Report 50 188/97-01 l

!

This routine, announced inspection reviewed the reactor operations, reactor maintenance, I surveillance testing, experiments, reactor oversight, reporting, reactor operator requalification, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and security program !

Operations l

• Reactor operations were conducted safely. No safety limits or limiting conditions ,

for operation of the reactor were exceeded. One reactor surveillance test was not  !

completed at the required frequency (Section 01.1). l

• A noncited violation was identified involving the failure to semi-annually verify that the shim rod and regulating rod drop times were less than 1 second (Section 01.1). l l

• _ Reactor experiments were properly reviewed and approved (Section 01.2). ,

,

• The control and accountability of special nuclear material on site were properly maintained (Section 01.3). i

• Reactor facility procedures were properly reviewed and approved by the reactor safeguards committee (Section O3.1). *

• Annual progress reports and a special report for the reactor facility met reporting l requirements (Section 03.2). j

• The senior reactor operators and reactor operators were very knowledgeable of the reactor operating procedures and health physics activities. The senior reactor .

operator performed reactor operational manipulations properly (Section 04).

• The reactor operator requalification program was conducted and documented as l required. Alllicensed operators had an active license (Section 05). l I

• ' A good radiation safety training program for personnel working in the reactor facility was implemented (Section 05).

• The staffing of the reactor facility met requirements. The reactor safeguards committee membership met requirements (Section 06).

• Required audits, reviews, and reactor facility inspections were conducted by the reactor safeguards committee (Section 07).

!

.

..

.

-3-Maintenance

• Reactor f acility maintenance activities were performed in accordance with approved procedures (Section M1).

Facility Suonort

• The radiation protection program was effectively implemented. Routine gamma and neutron radiation surveys of the reactor facility were performed (Section R1.1).

• The licensee's radiation survey results agreed with the NRC's radiation survey results (Section R1.1).

• Radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released from the reactor f acility met regulatory requirements (Section R1.2).

• Transfer of special nuclear material and radioactive byproduct material met applicable regulatory requirements (Section R1.3).

• Portable radiation protection survey instruments, area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and reactor pool surface monitor were properly calibrated and maintained (Section R2).

• A noncited violation was identified involving the f ailure of the reactor pool radiation monitor (Section R2).

• An excellent emergency preparedness program was maintained. Annual training was provided to onsite response personnel, and biennial training was provided to offsite emergency response personnel (Section P1).

• The approved physical security plan was properly implemented. The physical j security system was installed a.'d operated in accordance with the physical security l plan. Physical security system testing was conducted as required. The security l system experienced several problems after modifications were performed and the university police dispatcher's office was relocated (Section S1).

• A noncited violation was identified involving the f ailure of a licensed operator to maintain control of the reactor key (Section S1).

l

- . _ . -

-

._ - _ ._ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _

.

Report Details 1. Operations

'

01 Conduct of Operations 01.1 Reactor Ooerations l inspection Scope (40750)

The inspector observed reactor startup and operation and reviewed surveillance test records, operational logs, and the following documents:

I

• Monthly maintenance and surveillance reports

• Reactor checklists for selected reactor startups between June 1993 and March 1997 Observations and Findinos  !

The reactor was routinely operated approximately 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> per week for the purpose of nuclear engineering laboratory teaching, reactor system testing, reactor surveillances, and sarnple irradiations. During the time period July 1,1993, through March 31,1997, the reactor was operated for 752 experiment hours and 276 sample irradiations were performe On April 7,1997, the inspector observed two reactor pulses in conjunction with a nuclear engineering laboratory. The first pulse was for $1 worth of reactivity and the second pulse was for $1.50 worth of reactivity. The pulsing of the reactor was performed satisfactorily. The experimental data included the measurement of the fuel temperature and peak power levels during each pulse for comparison with previous pulses of the same reactivity valu On April 8,1997, the inspector observed a senior reactor operator startup and operate the reactor at 225 kilowatts. The reactor operator performed properly. All ,

'

reactor safety systems performed satisfactorily. The inspector observed a nuclear engineering student's laboratory experiment for measuring the flux profile of the j reactor core. No problems were note The inspector noted during a review of operations logs that the reactor experienced several unplanned scrams between June 1993 and March 1997. The unplanned reactor scrams were generally caused by an unintentional linear power scram. The :

inspector determined that the unplanned scrams did not involve any significant safety issues. _The licensee addressed the unplanned scrams appropriatel I

.

d 5-Based on the review of the reactor logs, reactor test records, and monthly maintenance and surveillance reports, the inspector determined that no limiting conditions for reactor operation were exceeded and that the reactor was operated in accordance with Technical Specification requirement All but one required reactor surveillance test were co apleted from June 1993 through March 1997. The completed reactor surveillance test results were property documented on the appropriate monthly surveillance ard maintenance form In a letter dated February 14,1996, the I;censee informed the NRC that the semi-annual verification of the shim rod and regulating drop times, which should have been performed in September 1995, was not performed. Technical Specification E.11.b requires that a semi-annual verification of the shim rod and regulating rod drop times be less than one secord. The failure to verify the shim rod and regulating rod drop times semi-annually is considered a violation of Technical Specification E.1 The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions addressed in their February 14,1996, letter. After the previous verification performed in March 1995, the next verification was erroneously scheduled on an annual frequency rather than the correct semi-annual frequency. On February 14,1996, the shim rod and regulating rod drop times were verified to be less than one second in compliance with the Technical Specification. The licensee now maintains the scheduling of reactor surveillance tests on a computer spreadsheet with the performance frequency dates updated correctly. The inspector determined that effective corrective actions had been implemente The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-188/9701-01). 1 Conclusions l

Reactor operations were conducted safely. No safety limits or limiting conditions for operation of the reactor were exceeded. One reactor surveillance test was not completed at the required frequency. A licensee identified violation for f ailure to semi-annually verify that the shim rod and regulating rod drop times were less than one second is dispositioned as a noncited violatio _ .

,.

-6-01.2 Experiments Inspection Scoce (40750)

The inspector reviewed the following:

Control and conduct of the active approved reactor experiments

• Selected reactor operation request forms i l Observations and Findinas  !

No new experiments for the reactor were approved since the previous NRC '

inspection conducted in May 1993. Since May 1993, eight experiments were revised and properly reviewed and approve Request forms for reactor operation documented experiment analyses for irradiation experiments. The experiment analyses were properly performed by the reactor supervisor and approved by the reactor safeguards committe Experiments were performed in accordance with approved procedures using appropriate reactor conditions. The experiments were documented in the reactor operations log. Selected reactor operation request forms were properly complete I Conclusions .

Reactor experiments were properly reviewed ar.d approved in accordance with l Technical Specification requirements. Performance of the reactor experiments was documented in the reactor operations lo .3 License Conditions and Control and Accountability for Special Nuclear Material Intspection r Scoce (85102)

The inspector reviewed:

• Material control and accountability for special nuclear material

• Nuclear material status forms Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the licensee possessed a 2-curie sealed americium-beryllium neutron startup source, which was in the reactor core. The ' inspector ,

determined that the licensee had 2 fuel elements in 2 of the fuel storage pits (one in each),24 fuel elements in the fuel storage racks at the bottom and on the inside perimeter of the reactor tank, and 81 fuel elements in the reactor cor _ .__.-__.____ _ _ _._ _..._..__.._ _._ _ __._ _ _ _....___

,

• . 'i

.

!

! i l - 7-  :

i'

2 l Two new standard fuel elements and two new instrumented fuel elements were

,

received on June 8,1995. The four new fuel elements were properly stored in the j radioactive source storage cave adjacent to the reactor room. The inspector's l j inventory of the reactor fuel elements agreed with the licensee's laat fuelinventory i performed March 31,199 +

!

. The licensee's special Nuclear Material Status Forms 742 and 742C for the period

-

l j April 1,1993, through March 31,1997, were verified. The licensee's calculations  !

! indicated that the reactor fuel contained approximately 3.79 kilograms of l uranium-235 which was less than 3.98 kilograms of uranium-235 allowed by the j

{ reactor operating license, j

!  !

j' Conclusion  ;

i

!

'

The control and accountability of special nuclear material on site met the conditions 'l of the reactor operating license, i i 1 j 03 Operations Procedures and Documentation I t  !

' i

03.1 Procedures '

Inspection Scope (40750)

i I Procedures listed in the attachment were reviewed to determine compliance with

'

l Technical Specification requirements, i

j Observations and Findinas  !

.  !

.

l~ The licensee had 37 approved experiment procedures and 25 approved reactor .

'

operating, test, and maintenance procedures. Since the last NRC inspection i

.

conducted in May 1993,8 experiment procedures and 12 reactor operating, test,  !

'

, and maintenance procedures were revised and approved. All reactor facility i procedures were reviewed and approved by the reactor safeguards committee. The i j reactor facility's procedures provided adequate guidance to ensure that reactor - i i experiments, operations, and maintenance activities were conducted properly and I consistently to meet Technical Specification requirements.

j l 4 Conclusion  ;

i i

! Reactor facility procedures were properly reviewed and approved by the reactor '

j safeguards committe j 4 .;

i

'

l 1 1 I l

,

a a

-,-4 ,- , y i -_--,_, w- w---4 ,. - - - - _ . - - - , _ . -4 -4-+----- .-

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _

, _ _ . _ - - _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

'

!

'

l

. .

-8-

,

!

03.2 Reports and Notifications t Insoection Scope (40750)

+

Reports and notifications to the NRC were revieweo to determine compliance with the reactor operating license requirement ;

Observations and Findinas i The annual progress reports of the reactor facility's activities and operations for the period July 1,1993, through June 30,1996, were submitted in a timely '

manner. One required special report, which reported a condition related to the operation of the reactor which could have prevented a nuclear system from performing its safety function as described in the Technical Specifications, was -

issued to the NRC since the last NRC inspection of the reactor facility conducted in i May 1993. The content of this special report is discussed as a noncited violation in Section 01.1 of this repor r i Conclusion i

Annual progress reports and a special report for the reactor facility met reporting ,

requirement Operator Knowledge and Performance Insoection Scooe The inspector interviewed three senior reactor operators (including the reactor f acility manager) and two reactor operators. A reactor startup, operation, and shutdown were observe Observations and Findinas The licensed reactor operators were very knowledgeable of the reactor operating procedures and health physics activitie During the reactor startups and operations discussed in Section 01.1, the reactor operator performed reactor operational manipulations properl ;

. Conclusions The senior reactor operators and reactor operators were very knowledgeable of the ]~

reactor operating procedures and health physics activities. The senior reactor operator performed reactor operational manipulations properl l

-, . . . , .-

.

.

05 Operator Training and Qualification a. Insoection Scope The inspector reviewed the following:

• Education and experience of the reactor staff and the reactor safeguards committee members

• Reactor operator requalification training program

• Radiation safety training program for personnel working in the reactor facility b. Observations and Findinas i

'

The inspector verified that alllicensed operators had an active licens The reactor staff and reactor safeguards committee members met the qualifications in accordance with Technical Specification The latest approved revision of the reactor operator requalification program was dated October 8,1974. Observations of operator manipulations were documente The operator training manual was comprehensive and included all the required subject material. Comprehensive annual written examinations for 1994,1995,and 1996 were given and successfully passed by the licensed reactor operator Completed examinations were filed in the reactor operator requalification training files. Biennial medical examinations were satisfactorily passed by the licensed reactor operator Reactor facility staff received radiation protection and emergency training annuall Students who worked routinely in the reactor facility received radiation safety and emergency training at the beginning of each semester. The training conducted by the nuclear engineering department met the requirements of 10 CFR 19.1 Conclusions The reactor operator requalification training program was conducted and documented in accordance with a NRC approved program. Alllicensed operators had an active license. The radiation safety training conducted by the nuclear engineering department met the requirements of 10 CFR 19.1 __-

,

,

.

- 10-06 Operations Organization and Administration a. Scope of Inspection (407501 The organization and staffing for the reactor facility and the reactor safeguards committee were reviewed to determine compliance with Technical Specifications requirement b. Observations and Findinas All reactor facility staff positions were filled with qualified personnel. The licensee currently had three senior reactor operators and two reactor operators. The following personnel changes were made in conjunction with the merger of the nuclear engineering and the mechanical engineering departments in August 1996:

• The director of the reactor facility retired from that position. The reactor f acility director's position and the reactor supervisor's position were combined into the reactor facility manager's positio * The former reactor supervisor became the reactor facility manager and also serves as the reactor superviso * Three senior reactor operators left the reactor facility upon graduatio * One senior reactor operator and two reactor operators joined the reactor f acility staf ,

l The reactor f acility operational responsibilities were implemented as specified in the I Technical Specification !

The reactor safeguards committee membership was in accordance with Technical Specification requirement Conclusions j The staffing of the reactor facility met Technical Specification requirements. All l reactor facility staff positions were filled with qualified personnel. The reactor :

'

safeguards committee membership met Technical Specification requirement _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _

! i

,

,

-11-

!  !

,

07 Quality Assurance  ! Scope of Inspection (40750)

i The inspector reviewed the following: l

• Audits and' reviews conducted by the reactor safeguards committee between f l September 29,1993, and February 7,1997 l l .

• Minutes of the reactor safeguards committee meetings between September 29,1993, and February 7,1997 i

. Observations and Findinas The reactor safeguards committee met semi-annually, and meeting minutes ,

,

'

documented that semi-annual audits and reviews of reactor operations, procedures, surveillance tests, and reportable occurrences were performed as required by the '

Technical Specifications. In addition, the reactor safeguards committee performed i semi-annual audits of. facility changes, maintenance operations, liquid radioactive effluents released, and also performed reactor facility inspection '

.

Moreover, the reactor safeguards committee annually reviewed the radiation {

protection program and modifications to the reactor facility which involved potential ;

unreviewed safety questions and reviewed the emergency plan and the physical  :

security plan bienniall Conclusion The reactor safeguards committee met as required and conducted audits, reviews, and reactor facility inspections as required by the Technical Specification I

1 II. Maintenance

]

M1 Conduct of Maintenance Scope of insoection (40750)  !

I t

The inspector reviewed significant maintenance activities performed between i June 1993 and March 1997, and their associated 10 CFR 50.59 review !

L

- . _ _ ,

_ ._ .- . . .. _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _.._..._ _ .._._ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . ,

'

..

.

- 12- f i

!

l

,. .

b Observations and Findinas  ;

The licensee performed several modifications to the reactor facility. These included l

' the following:  !

!

• Enlargement of the reactor control room j

!

• Replacement of the heat exchanger j i

• Replacement of the reactor operating console l

• Replacement of neutronic instrumentation in the reactor operating console l

.i e Modifications to the reactor facility security system  !

!

• Installation of thermalizing column void space drain l

!

i

• Installation of a filtration system in the reactor sump discharge system to the l sanitary sewer system ,

l The inspector verified that all reactor maintenance activities were performed in i accordance with approved procedures. No unreviewed safety questions were  ;

identifie j Conclusion i

Reactor facility maintenance activities were properly performed.- i i

IV. Facility Suncort <

'

,

R1 Radiological Protection Controls

]

R1.1 Radiation Protection Proaram t

i

Scope of Insoection j

\ ,

J The radiation protection program was reviewed to determino compliance with l l 10 CFR Part 20 and Technical Specification requiremer.t',. The inspector performed  ;

an independent radiation survey and reviewed the following:

i Radiation protection program issued September 29,1993

'

,

j * Radiation exposure records for reactor facility staff and visitors j * Selected radiation and contamination surveys for 1993-1996

.

• Radiation postings of areas within the reactor facility

.

,4,, , . - - - . . . , , , - - - , - , .

.. . . . .

.

.

-13-

, Observations and Findinas The inspector performed an independent gamma radiation survey in the reactor room on April 8,1997, while the reactor was operating at 225 kilowatts. The inspector's radiation survey results compared very well with the radiation survey !

results obtained by the licensee. In addition, the inspector toured the reactor facility and noted that radiation areas and radioactive material areas were properly poste A comprehensive radiation survey program was implemented. The radiation survey records did not indicate radiation levels above allowable limits. The licensee posted the most recent radiation survey maps near the two entrances to the reactor roo All personnel who worked in the reactor facility were issued proper beta / gamma / neutron personnel dosimetry devises. The vendor who supplied and read the dosimeters was accredited in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 20.1501(c). Reactor staff radiation exposure records for 1993,1994,  !

1995, and 1996 indicated that the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201 were not exceede l

!

Visitors or occasional students working in the reactor facility were issued a gamma '

sensitive self-reading pocket dosimeter. These self-reading pocket dosimeters were calibrated and drift checked semi-annually. The licensee's calibration and quality control programs established for the self-reading pocket dosimeters met regulatory guidance, Conclusions The licensee's radiation survey results agreed with the NRC's radiation survey results. The radiation protection program was effectively implemented. Routine I gamma and neutron radiation surveys of the reactor facility were performed. The j calibration and quality control programs established for the self-reading pocket dosimeters met regulatory guidanc >

R1.2 Radioloaical Effluent Monitorina Proaram Insoection Scope (40750)

The inspector reviewed the radiological effluent program, Observations and Findinas i

There is no Technical Specification requirement to maintain an environmental monitoring program; however, radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent releases were well below regulatory limits, t

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ -. *

,

l

-

.

io

,

i

'

! -14-1  ?

l l

,

l  ! Conclusion ,

'

l I

Radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents relcased from the reactor facility met ,

l regulatory requirement '

l \

R 1.3 Transoortation of Radioactive Material :

i Inspection Scope (86740)

l ,

l l

! The inspector reviewed selected shipping records for shipments of special nuclear j l material and radioactive byproduct material !

l \

l

' Observations and Findinas l

,

i

'

The licensee received four new TRIGA fuel elements in June 1995. The shipping

.

documentation was properly complete !

!  :

l The licensee shipped five 1-curie plutonium beryllium sources in November 199 I The shipment was made in two Department of Transportation 6M, Type B  ;

containers. The shipping documentation was properly complete !

l The licensee transferred radioactive byproduct material produced during the i irradiation of samples in conducting experiments to other licensed personnel j authorized to receive such radioactive byproduct material. The radioactive material ;

transfer log properly documented the specific isotopic activity of the radioactive byproduct material which was transferred from each irradiatica experiment, the l

!. radioactive material release survey data, and the recipient who received the

'

radioactive byproduct materia j J Conclusion I

Transfer of special nuclear material and radioactive byproduct material met applicable regulatory requirement R2 Status of Radiation Protection Instrumentation Insoection Scooe (40750)

l l The inspector reviewed the following:

• Inventory of the reactor facility's portable radiation survey instruments and i calibration records for 1994-1993 i

i * Calibration records for the area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, j and reactor pool surface monitor

l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . __ - -.

- _

_

.

O-15-b. Observations and Findinas The reactor facility's inventory of portable radiation survey instruments was adequate. All portable survey instruments were properly calibrated semi-annuall Calibrations were performed by approved procedures with radioactive sources traceable to the National Institute for Standards and Technology. The portable radiation survey instrumentation calibration and quality control programs met regulatory guidanc The four gamma area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and reactor pool surface monitor were operational in the reactor facility and met Technical Specification requirements. The area radiation monitors, continuous air monitor, and reactor pool surface monitor were calibrated annually in accordance with approved procedure In a letter dated June 20,1996, the licensee informed the NRC that at 1330 on June 20,1996, approximately 1 1/2 hour after a 4-hour reactor operation, the reactor control room meter for the reactor pool surface monitor was reading zero, when normally the reactor control room meter read approximately 30 millirem per hour. The licensee stated that the geiger-mueller detector located a few inches above the reactor pool surface may have been out of operation during part or all of the morning's reactor operation. Technical Specification C.1 requires that during reactor operations the radiation levelimmediately above the normal reactor pool surface shall be monitored. This radiation monitoring was normally accomplished by a detector located a few inches above the reactor pool surface with a read-out of the radiation exposure rate and an audible alarm in the reactor control room. The f ailure of tae radiation monitor directly above the reactor pool surface during. reactor operation is considered a violation of Technical Specification The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions addressed in their June 20,1996, letter. Reactor operations were suspended until the radiation monitor was repaired and placed back in service. The back-up radiation monitor to the reactor pool surface detector was a geiger-mueller detector located approximately 3 feet above the reactor pool surface. This radiation monitor functioned properly throughout reactor operations on June 20,1996. The inspector determined that effective corrective actions had been implemente The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable time, and nonwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-188/9701-02).

- ~ ~ - . - . _ - .- -- . . - - - - - . . . . -- . , . - - .

.

I e .

!

r

- 16- ,

- Conclusions

, Portable radiation protection survey instruments, area radiation monitors, continuous l l air munitor, and reactor pool surface monitor were properly calibrated and l maintained. A licensee identified violation for the failure of the radiation monitor

'

directly above the reactor pool surface during reactor operation is dispositioned as a ;

noncited violatio l

P1 Conduct of Emergency Preparedness Activities l Scoce of Insoection l l

i The inspector reviewed the following:

i

l

• Emergency Plan, Revision 3, July 1,1996 l

• Emergency implementing procedures l

• Exercise and drill scenarios and critiques l * Emergency equipment and supplies

• Emergency calllists

,

• Letters of agreement from local offsite support organizations l

• Training records l

l Observations and Findinas

!

The emergency plan was properly reviewed and approved by the reactor safeguards committee. Implementation of the emergency plan was proceduralized in i 15 emergency procedures. One revision to the emergency plan was submitted to l l the NRC since the previous NRC inspection. The revision was approved by the NR I The inspector confirmed that the following emergency preparedness program '

elements were properly conducted: (1) emergency calllists were accurate and posted in prominent places throughout Ward Hall and the reactor facility, (2) !

emergency preparedness training was ir>cluded in the annual requalification training program for reactor operators, and (3) biennial training for fire and police personnel was conducted. In addition, at the beginning of each semester, the licensee i conducted training of the emergency plan and emergency procedures for new j students working in the reactor facilit Emergency exercises or drills were conducted annually. The licensee's scenarios of the emergency exercises and drills and their associated critiques and evaluations performed following the exercises provided excellent documentation.

d

i ( l

l

- . - . - . - -- - - . -.. - . . . . . . . . .- - - _ - . _ -

< \

,

-

l

! ,

-17-

The licensee maintained two emergency equipment lockers outside the reactor room )

! at facility egress points. The lockers were locked and well supplied. The

! emergency equipment lockers were inventoried as required and contained the  ;

required supplies and equipment. Emergency radiation survey instruments were iri current calibration, j

j Letters of agreement with the Riley County Police Department for police and  !

evacuation control, Manhattan Fire Department for ambulance and fire department I services, and Memoria! Hospital and Saint Mary Hospital for emergency medical :

,

services were maintained and current.

,

i Coriciusions ,

An excellent emergency preparedness program was maintained. Annual training was provided to onsite response personnel, and biennial training was provided to )

l offsite emergency response personne i

! i S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities l InsDection Scope

l- The physical security program was reviewed, and the reactor facility's security I equipment was inspecte j Observations and Findinas l One revision to the physical security plan was submitted to the NRC since the previous NRC inspection. This revisior,) was reviewed and approved by the NR The reactor facility and the physical security equipment were as described in..the physical security plan and met the physical security plan's requirements. All physical barriers required by the physical security plan were installed and operational. Access to the reactor facility was effectively controlled, and security personnel, who respond to reactor facility security alarms, were properly trained.

l The reactor facility's security lock and key control program was satisfactorily

! implemented to maintain security of the reactor facility. The security key control records were satisf actor The security system for the reactor facility was maintained and implemented as specified in the physical security plan. There had been no safeguards events since the previous NRC inspectio ;

,

I

'

I

! I i  !

!  !

- -- - -.

. - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ._ _ ____ *  ;

.

D I

18-

Tests of the reactor facility's security system were performed in accordance with

- the physical security plan. The inspector witnessed a successful test of the reactor ,

l facility's security system on April 10,1997. The university police dispatcher's  !

computerized alarm system displayed appropriate response instructions and a  ;

current emergency calllis {

The security system experienced several problems after modifications were l performed and the university police dispatcher's office was relocated. Three l failures of the reactor facility's intrusion alarm system were reported to the NRC in letters dated April 21,1994, August 16,1994, and November 13,1995. The i problems were repaired and corrected in a timely manner, and the reactor facility's intrusion alarm system was returned to servic l t

l In a letter dated April 5,1995, the licensee notified the NRC that a reactor operator,  :

on April 4,1995, left the reactor key on the reactor console rather than returning it j to the key safe in the reactor control room when he left the reactor control room for l

the day. During the 51/2 hours between 1630 hours0.0189 days <br />0.453 hours <br />0.0027 weeks <br />6.20215e-4 months <br /> and 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />, April 4, 1995, only a licensed reactor operator had access to the reactor control room and l l the reactor key laying on the reactor control console. Technical Specification A. ,

!

states, " Reactor secured shall mean that condition wherein . . . the key removed i and under the control of a licensed operator." The failure of a licensed operator to  !

'

l maintain control of the reactor key is considered a violation of Technical l Specification A. ,

!  !

! The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions addressed in their  !

l April 5,1995, letter. A brightly colored identification tag was attached to the-reactor key to give a vin d reminder to reactor staff of its location. This was the 1 first time such an incident had taken place in 32 years of reactor operation. The  !

! inspector determined that effective corrective actions had been implemented, f The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected within a reasonable  !

time, and tanwillful. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited I i

violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy I l (50-188/9701-03). i i

The licensee had a program to protect safeguards information. Personnel  ;

responsible for controlling safeguards information were knowledgeable of the i requirements for storage, marking, reproduction, destruction, and transmitting '

I safeguards informatio !

l

,

!

.

.

!

!

. _ . . _

_ - . - . ~ .- - . . _ - - _. ~_ - _- . . - - . . . - - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . -

! i

!e l

i 19. '

!

! Conclusions I i The NRC approved physical security plan was properly implemented. The physical '

security system was installed and operated in accordance with the physical security plan. Physical security system testing was conducted as required. The security l system experienced . .. el problems after modifications were performed and the j' university police disputcher's office was relocated. A licensee identified violation of i failure of a licensed operator to maintain control of the reactor key is dispositioned ;

l as a noncited violation, i

S8 Miscellaneous Security issues i

.

l f

S8.1 (Closed) Violation 188/9301-01: Failure to Maintain an Effective Intrusion Detection  ;

System  !

f ( The violation identified that one area on the 12-foot (balcony) level was not  !

l monitored by motion sensors and that a person could enter the reactor room  !

l through a window on to the balcony floor undetected. Also, a person once in the l l security area could reach the top of the reactor undetected. The licensee installed j l' new motion sensors and relocated existing onec to maximize the security l monitoring in the reactor room. The inspector verified that all areas within the l

! tea: tor room were monitored with security devices. The inspector determined that I

,

l effective corrective actions had been implemente l l

l V. Manaaement Meetinas j i

X1 Exit Meeting Summary , l l

The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee representatives on  !

April 11,1997. The licensee's representatives acknowledged the findings  !

i presented. The licensee identified the physical security plan as proprietary j L informatio .i

!

!

r

!

>

?

.i b

i

,

!

'

I

!

!

. _ . - . . - .

a

e

.

ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. E. I aw, Senior Reactor Operator C. A. Bechom, Chief, Kansas State University Police Department R. L. Bridges, Assistant Radiation Safety Officer R. L. Cullers, Reactor Safeguards Committee Member N. D. Eckhoff, Chairman, Reactor Safeguards Committee R. D. Grice, Director, Kansas State University Police Department D. E. Heckathorn, Reactor Operator B. Jones, Head, Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering J. P. Lambert, Director, Radiation Safety Officer R. L. Millgren, Captain, Kansas State University Police Department J. B. Monson, Reactor Operator H. V. Rectanus, Senior Reactor Operator B. C. Ryan, Reactor Facility Manager LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 40750 Class 11 Research and Test Reactors Operations Procedure IP 81401 Plans, Procedures, and Reviews

1 IP 81403 Receipt of New Fuel at Reactor Facilities  !

IP 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic ,

Significance IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting - Reactors IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED Opened 50-188/9701-01 NCV Failure to semi-annually verify that the shim rod and regulating rod drop times were less than one second (Section 01.1)

50-188/9701-02 NCV Failure of the radiation monitor directly above the reactor pool surface during reactor operation (Section R2)

i

l l' j P' .

l 3  ;

!

!

2- j

!

NCV Failure of a licensed operator to maintain control of the reactor I 50-188/9701-03 key (Section S1)  ;

t Closed j 50-188/9701-01 NCV Failure to semi-annually verify that the shim rod and regulating !

rod drop times were less than one second (Section 01.1) i

?

50-188/9701-02 NCV Failure of the radiation monitor directly above the reactor pool [

surface during reactor operation (Section R2)

,

'

50-188/9701-03 NCV Failure of a licensed operator to maintain control of the reactor .

key (Section S1) l

!

50-188/9301-01 VIO Failure to maintain an effective intrusion detection system ;

I (Section S8.1) ,

!

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED  !

!

Ooeration. Test, and Maintenance Procedures  :

I-2 " Annual Power Level Calibration," July 1996  ;

i

3-1 " Annual Remote Area Monitor Calibration RM-55," January 1987 l

.

3-2 " Annual Remote Area Monitor Calibration RMS II," October 1990 f

!

.b 4 " Semi-annual Control Rod Drop Time Measurement," June 1996 j 5-1 " Semi-annual Check of Minimum Interlocks," June 1996 ,

52 " Semi-annual Check of 110% Safety Circuits," July 1996  !

!

6 " Semi-annual Pulse Rod Drive Cylinder and Air Supply inspection," July 1996 7 " Semi annual $1.00 Comparison Pulse," June 1994 j 9 " Entrance to the Reactor Bay, Visitor Control," April 1989 l I'

11 " Reactor Startup with Period Scram Bypassed," June 1996 12 " Functional Performance Check of Transient (Pulse) Rod," June 1994  :

!

13 " Portable Radiation Survey Meter Calibration," December 1986

-i

! 14 " Personnel Pocket Dosimeter Calibration," December 1986 [

I

I

!

L F

-

-. -. .. . - -

. 'e ie r

!'

l-3-l 15 " Reactor Startup," June 1994 16 " Reactor Shutdown," July 1996 17 " Periodic Reactor Intrusion Alarm Testing," June 1994 23 " Automatic Flux Control System," February 1996 Exoeriments 1 " Isotope Production," March 1992 2 " Reactor Checkout and Operation," February 1969 4 " Reactivity Coefficient Determinations," July 1996 5 " Approach to Critical," July 1996 6 " Control Rod Calibration," July 1996 l

11 " Flux Traverse," July 1996 11A " Flux Traverse Using in-Core Flux Probe," July 1996 23 " Pulsed Operation," June 1994 24 " Fuel Element Calibration-Position Period," July 1996 25 " Fuel to Water Reactivity Measurement," July 1996 Operator Trainina Proaram I

" Kansas State University Requalification Program for Licensed Operators," !

October 1974 l i

!

Emeraency Plan  !

" Kansas State University TRIGA Mark 11 Nuclear Reactor Emergency Plan," July 1996 Emeraency lmolementina Procedures 1 " Emergency Notifications," July 1996 2 " Radiological Surveys," January 1984 I

3 " Personnel Monitoring and Decontamination," January 1984 i

i

.___.______..__.m._ ._.________ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ _ _ ... .. _ _ _ . _ ,

e

• i e  !

!

'9' [

>

l -4- l l i l .

l i

'

4 . " Evacuation of On. Site Areas," January 1984 i  !

5 " Personnel Accountability," January 1984 I l

l i

! 6 " Assessment Actions," April 1983 -!

l

-

[ 7 "First Aid and Medical Care," April 1983  !

,

8 " Fire Fighting," December 1984 i

! -

9 "Re-Entry Operations," April 1983  !

'

10 " Facility Security," January 1984 11 " Recovery Operations," April 1983 12 " Communications and Record Keeping," December 1984 13 " Equipment and Supplies," April 1983  !

,

14 " Training and Evaluation," April 1983 15 " Preparation, Distribution, and Maintenance of Plan and Procedures," April 1983 Physical Security Plan t

,

" Kansas State University TRIGA Mark ll Reactor Physical Security Plan," July 1993 t

'

Annual Reports

!

Kansas State University TRIGA Mark Il Progress Report: July 1,1993 - June 30,1994 Kansas State University TRIGA Mark 11 Progress Report: July 1,1994 - June 30,1995 Kansas State University TRIGA Mark ll Progress Report: July 1,1995 - June 30,1996 t

I

I_______, , _ . . _ _ _ . . . . , . _ _ , , , . _ . , _ . . .