IR 05000192/1992002
| ML20126L088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000192, University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1993 |
| From: | Spitzberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126L086 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-192-92-02, 50-192-92-2, 50-602-92-02, 50-602-92-2, NUDOCS 9301070336 | |
| Download: ML20126L088 (9) | |
Text
- - _ _ . - . . - . - - -.- _ _ . - . - . .-_ - - . .. - .
.
'
-
APPENDIX
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV ,
,
inspection Report: 50-602/92-02 50-192/9202 Operating Licenses: R-129 R-92-Licensee: Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory 10100 Burnet Road The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 facility Name: Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laborato_ry ,
Inspection At: Taylor Hall and Balcones Research Center Austin, Texas Inspection Conducted: December 7-11, 1992 Inspector: L. T. Ricketson, P.E., Senior Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Section Approved: [ /
'r'- 9 T D. Blair Spitzberg,Jctyng Chief
~
Date Facilities Ins #6ction Programs Section Inspection Summary Areas inspected: Routine, announced inspection of decommissioning program, organization and staffing, procedures,. operator requalification training .
experiments, health physics program,1 committee audi_ts and reviews, emergency 1 .
planning, physical security, material control, and accountin Results:
- The licensee was complying-with the Decommissioning Plan'for Taylor Hall and was performing its final survey .
L -* There had-been no organizational or personnel changes,- and the licensee.
'
met the Technical Specification staffing requirement.
"
- DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY.INFORMATION DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT-2-9301070336-930105-PDR ADOCK 05000192
"O PDR
- .-- .
. . . - .- - - .- .. .- . , , - - . _ ,
,:
. -. - _~ . - - . . _ - - . . - . - - - - . - . . . ..
,
,
,
,
..
'
'
-2-e Controlled copies of the licensee's procedures were current and the procedures'.provided suitable guidanc .
, Reactor operators were properly qualifle e Experiments were properly reviewed and approve .
e The health physics program conformed to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 ,
e There have been no design changes to the facility, e The Nuclear Reactor Committee met at the required frequency and performed its review function in accordance with Technical Specification-
.
requirement '
- Emergency drills were conducted in accordance with the licensee's emergency pla e Radioactive materials were prepared properly for transportation and shipments were made without inciden Summary of Inspection Findinas:
e Open item 602/8904-!0 was closed (Section 5).
Attachments e Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting e Attachment 2 - Physical Security Program Inspection (PROPRIETARYINFORMATION)
,
t L
l,
DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ,
l DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT 2
'
.v, m., -, c~e,n , .. '. ,.v.,.., , . , . e n...n.a,em----,-.
.
,,,s._,..,,..n.. - , . _ , , - . . - _ - , . ,_ _ . . . . . , , , , - - - , . .
_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
.r . .
i
.
F k' 4
- ~- _3_
DETAILS J
1 REACTOR STATUS , ,
1.1 TRIGA - MARK I
'
' ;censee had completed Items 1 - 7 as shown in Section 1.1.6 of the-
/w rioning Plan. Completed actions included the removal of an activated s 5 the reactor tank and the actisated portion of the reactor pi . Jd around the reactor pit were used to reduce groundwater intrusion A to oit. -Water pumped from the pit was collected in barrels and sampled tc tm compliance with reaulatory release requirements. Some contaminated ma 'a > and radioactive wastes were still on site at the time of the ! r, ' e n but were packaged and ready for shipment. Some components and eq ' se -
vere decontaminated and moved to the Nuclear Engineering Teaching
'aboratu v for possible future use. The cobalt-60 irradiator was also .
L relocatet to the Balcones Research sit The licensee was in the process of performing final surveys. The inspector performed random surveys on. the flooring around the reactor pit and the results agreed closely with those of the licensee. NRC will conduct
,
additional surveys after the licensee has completed its revie .2 1RIGA - MARK Il
. The licensee operateo the-reactor in the Nuck, cngineering Teaching
, Laboratory about once per week or the equivalent of approximately 35 megawatt hours since initial criticality on March 12, 199 CLASS II NON-POWER REACTORS (407S0) .
,
2.1 OrganizatR . and Staffina
,
The inspector rev awed the licensee's organization and staffing to determine compliance with Technical Specifications There had been no organizational or personnel changes since the previous inspection.
- The licensee hsd two senior reactor operators and met the requirements of
Technical Specification 6.1.3. Thus far, the licensee has-operated on a
'
single shif .2 Procedures lhe inspector reviewed selected operating procedures to determine compliance with Technical Specification 6.3.
'
.
DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
- - DECONTROt. LED WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT 2
_4 The licensee maintained three sets of controlled copies of procedures. All were current except for one minor exception. Procedure Admin-6,
" Authorization of Experiments," had been revised to include the health physicist on the attachment which listed individuals who had reviewed and approved proposed experiments. The latest revision of the procedure which included the revised attachment sheet had not been filed in the controlled copies. The inspector confirmed that the licensee had made very few changes to the procedures since they were reviewed during the previous inspectio The inspector reviewed the health physics procedures and noted that they provided sufficient guidance. These procedures included:
HP-1 " Radiation Monitoring - Personnel" HP-2 " Radiation Monitoring - Facility" --
HP-3 "ETL ALARA Program" HP-4 " Radiation Protection Training" HP-5 " Portable Monitoring Equipment" HP-6 " Radioactive Material Control" HP-7 " Radiation Work Permit" Y
m The inspector noted that HP-5 had been revised to account for neutron
)d ~
-
'
scattering which occurred during the calibration of neutron survey 5' ' instrument The licensee had not implemented a procedure which used gas to calibrate the argon-41 monitor. The procedure in effect used a sealed sourc .3 Reaualification Training The inspector reviewed the licensee's reoualification program to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 and the operator requalification progra Records of requalification confirmed that the licensee had completed lectures covering the required topics. The reactor supervisor was exempt from testing requirements, but the inspector reviewed the test results of the other senior reactor operator and noted excellent performanc .4 Experiments The inspector reviewed the licensee's experiment review and approval process to determine compliance with Technical Specification The number of experiments performed was low. The inspector reviewed minutes of safety review committee meetings and dete!.-mined that the licensee had approved three categories of experiments. Reviews of the individual experiments were thoroug Reactivity worths had been evaluated, and the inspector did not identify unreviewed safety question DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION DECONTRO11FD WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT 2
__ __-__ _ __ ____- ___ _ _ ___-_ _ __- -
- _ __ _ - _ _ _ -
I l
.
-5-2.5 Health Physics The inspector reviewed the licensee's health physics program to determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 2 The inspector reviewed personnel monitoring records for 1992 and noted that all radiation exposures were within regulatory limits. Personnel monitor ag .
devices were supplied by a vendor. Selected personnel used extremity monitoring. All personnel wore pocket ion chamber The inspector reviewed selected examples of radiation surveys, including startup surveys, and noted that they were performed properly and that records included the information required. The licensee performed radiation measurements at 50, 300, 600, and 1000 kilowatts. No radiation streaming or shielding voids were identified. A routine survey schedule for the facility was established, and the survey program was clearly defined in Procedure HP- Calibration of portable radiation survey instrumentation, except for neutron survey instruments, was performed by the campus radiation safety office. The inspector randomly verified that calibrated instruments were used to perform survey Calibration for the neutron survey instruments were performed using a rderated californium-252 source housed at the Nuclear Engineering Teaching
_aborator Since the previous inspection, the licensee had evaluated the effects of scattering neutrons in the specific room whr.re calibrations were performed and had formulated correction factors to be applied to the instruments. Procedure HP-5 had been revised to include the new informatio It was noted in the previous inspection report that the argon-41 monitoring system was calibrated using sealed sources rather than gas. -Using the same method, the licensee performed an additional calibration of the system in September 1992. Licensee representatives reiterated that they plan to use argon-41 for calibrations during the first operating year; however, they were continuing to trend the performance of the argon monitoring system ar.d to evaluate its efficiency prior to implementing the new methodolog Radioactive gaseous effluents were within Technical Specification limit Chapter 9 of the Safety Analysis Report addressed the storing, sampling, and releasing of liquid radioactive wastes; however, licensee representatives stated that there have been no liquid radioactive releases and that the facility was designed so that there should be ao releases from the reactor are The inspector toured the facility and observed that notices to workers were posted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 19.11 and that areas of the facility were posted in accordance uith 10 CFR 20.203 where appropriat DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT 2
__
__ . _ _ _ . . .. . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . .. _ _ .
.
-
.,
'
-
-6-Radiation work permits were used in areas in which it was deemed necessary to
-
provide additional guidance to workers. The' inspector reviewed selected ,
examples of the radiation work permits and determined that they'provided- ,
'
sufficient guidanc .
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation safety training program and determined that it satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12. The inspector -
also verified that selected persons had_ received the required training. The training program used lectures and films _to= present topics. The licensee will begin testing individuals who have completed radiation safety training in February 199 .6 Desian Chances There have been no design changes which would require a review in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, 2.7 Committee. Audits. and Reviews ,
The inspector reviewed the activities of the Nuclear Reactor Committee to determine compliance with Technical Specification The inspector determined that the Nuclear Reactor Committee met the-
-
requirements for meeting frequency. The committee performed review functions as required by Technical Specification 6.2.3 but had not-yet' performed thel audit functions required by Technical Specification 6.2.4. (The reactor has not-yet-been in operation -for a full- year.)
2.8 Emeraency Plannino The-inspector reviewed the licensee's actions to determine compliance with the Emergency Response Plan, Revision- The-inspector observed that emergency procedures were current and_ available. to -
users. Emergency drills were conducted:as required with the latest- having-
-
been conducted on October 30, 1992. The- Austin Fire Department and the Austin .
Emergency Medical Service _ participated in the drill. -Critiques: from offsite organizations were _ reviewed and maintained for future reference.
,
Current letters of agreement were on file from offsite' organizations,- such as the county hospital and city fire department. The inspector _-noted that-providing training in radiation safety to-members of'offsite organizations was'
not a requirement of the Emergency Plan; however,' the licensee was evaluating -
such training. The inspector spoke to representatives of the offsite organizations who stated that they would be receptive to _the training, i their schedule of duties, permitte ._
' DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROiT ETARYINFORMATION-DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPAR/ud:D FROM ATTACHMENT 2;
-- _
- - - . -- .-.
~ . _ . - .- .. . .- . -- -- . . - - _ . -
- = :;
-
-
-7- ,
2.9 TConclusions There had been no changes to the licensee's organization or staffing since the pre.vious inspection. The licensee complied with:the minimum staffing level required by Technical Specification Appropriate procedures were maintained and reactor operators maintained their knowledge and skill level through a suitable requalification progra Although few in number at this time, the experiments were reviewed thoroughly -
and approved by the Nuclear Reactor Committe Elements of the health physics program, including personnel exposure control, radiation level monitoring, and r&dioactive effluent monitoring and control, conformed to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 There were no design changes _to the facilit The Nuclear Reactor Committee performed its required, review function. The reactor had not operated for an entire year; therefore, audits by the -
committee were not yet required to be complete The licensee had conducted an emergency drill-within the previous year. The drill included -the participation of offsite response organization FIXED SITE PHYSICAL-PROTECTION OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL OF LOW STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE-AND MATERIAL CONTROL AND ACC0bNTING- (81401, 81431, and 85102)-
'~
The inspector reviewed the implementation of the . Physical Security Plan to determine compliance with the requirements of Section 2.C(3) of..the Facility
' Operating License and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.54(p).
~
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.790(d),_the material concerning the: Physical-
-Security Plan is exempt from disclosure. .Therefore, this material is-discussed in the Attachment-2 to this Appendix-and will not be placed in the Public Document Roo TRANSPORTATION ACTI'/ITIES (86740)--
L The: licensee's program was inspected to determine compliance with the
!- requirements of 10 CFR Part -71 and Department of Transportation- .
L
- Regulations 49 CFR 171 through 178.
L -
The inspector reviewed -shipping- records documenting the transfer- of cobalt-60 sources from Taylor Halleto the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory and-noted that the shipments were- properly- surveyed and the surveys documente . Shipping papers were properly completed and emergency information was _
p _provided. Procedures for the transfer were available,'andLthey provided DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARATED FROM- ATTACHMENT 2-L L , ._
L l=
- - , - -
- -
. . - - -. _ _ . - . _ _ - . _ _ _ ..
-
_ . _ _ _ _ -
. -
.
-8-
-
sufficient guidance for the workers. The licensee maintained a copy of the certification for the-shipping container. lThe shipment was completed without--
inciden FOLLOWUP-ON PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS (Closed)Open-Item:602/8904-10: Transfer of -Irradiated! Reactor Fuel and cobalt-60 Irradiator. Details related to the development of procedures for fuel shipment and training _of personnel participating in.the transfer were discussed in NRC Inspection Report- 50-602/92-01; 50-192/92-01. During this; inspection, the inspector reviewed procedures used for the cobalt-transfer 'and -
found them to be satisfactory. The inspector also determined-that individuals involved in the transfer had been adequately trained in the procedures and the potential hazards associated with the operatio ,
G h
DOCUMENT CONTAINS PHOPHIETARY INFORMATION -
DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARATED FROMl ATTACHMENT 2-
,
l
- ,.,-..z.-- .m-.r, ,, ,,_,,.,m , , , ,, e,r,, .,m ,..o,.. ,, e - r,-- e
. __..._ -__ _ _ - . _ _ _-. _ . _ . . .
. . .
.
-
.
ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED-1.1 Licensee Personnel 1.1.1 Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratony
- T. L. Bauer, Assistant Director
- H. G. Krause,-Manager of Operations and Maintenance
- B. W. Wehring, Director
- J. C. White, Health Physicist 1.1.2 Other University of Texas Organizations J. G. Sanchez, Radiation Safety Inspector, Campus Radiation Safety Office-W. G. Tisdale, Officer, University Police 1.2 Others C. 01ttman, Regianal Inspector, Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control K. Poisson, Assistant Administrator, Brackenridge Hospital C. Wren, Training Coordinator, City of Austin Fire Department
- Denotes personnel tht', attended the exit meeting. In addition to the personnel listed, tho' inspector contacted other personnel during this inspection perio EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on December 11, 1992. During this meeting, the inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the' report. The licensee did
-
ident'fy as proprietary information' provided to and reviewed by.the inspector which is described in Attachment 2.
DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION DECONTROLLED WHEN SEPARAWD FROM ATTACHMENT 2
- w g- W---1+-, y y