ML071130003
| ML071130003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Lowell |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2007 |
| From: | Michael Case NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| To: | Kegel G Univ of Massachusetts - Lowell |
| Eads J, NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTB, 415-1471 | |
| References | |
| IR-07-201 | |
| Download: ML071130003 (20) | |
See also: IR 05000223/2007201
Text
April 23, 2007
Dr. Gunter Kegel
Director - Radiation Laboratory
University of Massachusetts - Lowell
One University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-223/2007-201
Dear Dr. Kegel:
This letter refers to the inspection conducted on March 26-29, 2007, at your Research Reactor
Facility. The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your facility. The enclosed
report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on March 29, 2007, with you,
Dr. John Wooding, Provost, and other members of your staff.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the
inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records,
interviews with personnel, and observations of activities in progress. Based on the results of
this inspection, the NRC has identified a violation of NRC requirements. The violation is cited in
the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding it are described in
detail in the subject inspection report. The violation is of concern because it indicates a lack of
attention to detail. In addition, one unresolved item and one inspector follow-up item were
identified which will be revisited in a future inspection.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response in
accordance with its policies to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to
ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its
enclosures, and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public inspection
in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Marcus H. Voth at
301-415-1210.
Sincerely,
/RA/Jennifer Golder for
Michael J. Case, Director
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50-223
License No. R-125
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation
2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-223/2007-201
cc w/enclosures: See next page
University of Massachusetts - Lowell Docket No. 50-223
cc:
Mayor of Lowell
City Hall
Lowell, MA 01852
Mr. Leo Bobek
Reactor Supervisor
University of Massachusetts - Lowell
One University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
19th Floor
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Director
Radiation Control Program
Department of Public Health
90 Washington Street
Dorchester, MA 02121
Nuclear Preparedness Manager
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
40 Worcester Road
Framingham, MA 01702-5399
Test, Research, and Training
Reactor Newsletter
University of Florida
202 Nuclear Sciences Center
Gainesville, FL 32611
OFFICE PRTB:RI PRTB:LA PRTB:BC DPR:DIR
NAME MVoth:cah EHylton JEads MCase
DATE 4/23/07 4/23/07
ENCLOSURE 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Radiation Laboratory Docket No.: 50-223
University of Massachusetts - Lowell License No.: R-125
During an NRC inspection conducted on March 26-29, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements
was identified. In accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions, NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 55.53 Conditions of licenses, states Each license contains and is subject to the
following conditions whether stated in the license or not:. 55.53(h) states The licensee shall
complete a requalification program as described by 55.59. 55.59 Requalification, states (a)
Requalification requirements. Each licensee shall - (1) Successfully complete a requalification
program ..... conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 24 months in duration. (2) Pass
a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test. .... (c)
Requalification program requirements. .... (1) Schedule. The requalification program must be
conducted for a continuous period not to exceed two years, and upon conclusion must be
promptly followed, pursuant to a continuous schedule, by successive requalification programs.
Contrary to the above, one licensed senior reactor operator did not take requalification written
examinations or annual operating tests between 1998 and 2004.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Massachusetts - Lowell is hereby
required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the
responsible inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a Reply to a Notice of Violation and should
include: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or
severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the
corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full
compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed
correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an
adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order or Demand for
Information may be issued as to why the facility license should not be modified, suspended, or
revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the
-2-
NRCs document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal
privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public
without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic
Reading Room) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If personal privacy or proprietary
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed
copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted
copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such
material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have
withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the
disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the
information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential
commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an
acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland
this 23rd day of April, 2007
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
Docket No: 50-223
License No: R-125
Report No: 50-223/2007-201
Licensee: University of Massachusetts
Facility: Research Reactor at the University of Massachusetts - Lowell
Location: Lowell, Massachusetts
Dates: March 26-29, 2007
Inspectors: Marcus H. Voth
Phillip T. Young
Approved by: Johnny Eads, Branch Chief
Research and Test Reactors Branch B
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
University of Massachusetts - Lowell
Research Reactor Facility
NRC Inspection Report No.: 50-223/2007-201
This routine, announced inspection included on-site review of the licensees programs
concerning organization and staffing; operations, maintenance, and fuel handling logs and
records; procedures; reactor operator requalification training; surveillance and limiting
conditions for operation; experiments; design changes; oversight committee reviews;
emergency planning; and transportation. Specific findings in each of these areas include:
Organization and Staffing
! The organization and staffing were consistent with Technical Specification requirements.
Operations Logs and Records
! The logs and records of operation provided adequate documentation of operations and
indication that Technical Specification requirements were being met.
Procedures
! The existing facility procedures and the procedure review and upgrade project were
found to be in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
Requalification Training
! An unresolved item was identified concerning documentation of how ANSI/ANS
Standard 15.4 had been applied in medical examinations for licensed reactor operators.
! An apparent violation was identified for the failure of one licensed senior reactor
operator to complete requalification written examinations and annual operating tests
which were a condition of the operators license.
! The licensee was found to be in compliance with other requirements of the regulations
and requalification program.
Surveillance and Limiting Conditions of Operations
! The inspector found proper compliance with limiting conditions for operation and
completion of surveillance requirements in accordance with the licensees Technical
Specifications.
Experiments
! The inspector did not identify any failure to meet Technical Specification requirements
but did identify need for better documentation of the approval process for minor
variations of routine experiments which will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
-2-
Design Changes
! The licensee had demonstrated the ability to implement design changes in accordance
with regulations.
Committees, Audits and Reviews
! Review and oversight functions were being executed in accordance with Technical
Specification requirements.
Emergency Planning
! The emergency preparedness program was maintained in accordance with the
Emergency Plan and the emergency procedures.
Maintenance Logs and Records
! Maintenance required by Technical Specifications was being performed under the
surveillance program.
Fuel Handling Logs and Records
! Fuel inspection was performed and fuel movements were logged in accordance with
Technical Specification requirements.
Transportation
! Regulatory and license requirements were met in the shipment reviewed.
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status
The licensees one megawatt research reactor had been operated in support of educational
experiments and demonstrations, research and service irradiations, reactor operator training,
and periodic equipment surveillances. The licensee reported annual operation of 117 critical
hours and 55 megawatt hours of operation in the most recent annual report. The inspector
observed a reactor checkout and startup during the inspection.
1. Organization and Staffing
a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the staffing
requirements in Technical Specifications (TS) Section 6.1, Organization and
Management:
- University of Massachusetts - Lowell (UML) Radiation Laboratory
organization chart, Rev. May 2006
- Reactor Console Logbook #28 covering the period from February 28,
2005 to present
b. Observations and Findings
The reactor staff included three staff members with Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) licenses and five licensed student operators, three with SROs and two
with ROs. Reactor logbook entries that were reviewed identified personnel at the
controls and on call in compliance with TS requirements. Through discussion
with personnel the inspector verified that the licensees organizational structure
was consistent with TS Figure 6.1.
c. Conclusion
The organization and staffing were consistent with TS requirements.
2. Operations Logs and Records
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with regulatory and
license requirements:
- Reactor Console Logbook #28 covering the period from February 28,
2005 to present
- Operating Procedure RF-RO-9A, Reactor Operator Instruction Form,
Rev. August 30, 2001
- Operating records from the following 2006 files:
-2-
RF-4, Daily Routine Check Sheet
RF-5, Radiation Monitoring System Daily Checks
RF-RO-7B, Pre-Startup Checksheet (Forced Convection)
RF-RO-6A, Critical Hourly Readings
RF-RO-6B, Radiation Monitoring Critical Hourly Readings
RF-RO-6C, Reactor Shutdown Sheet
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector observed a reactor checkout, startup, increase to full power and
shut down. While the operator was thoroughly familiar with the procedures and
had committed them to memory, he was methodical in following them and
documenting readings. He followed the written instruction RF-RO-9A, Reactor
Operator Instruction Form, and completed Forms RF-4, RF-5, RF-RO-6A/B/C,
and RF-RO-7B. The inspector reviewed selected reactor console logbook
entries and checklists performed over the past year and found them complete.
c. Conclusion
The logs and records of operation provided adequate documentation of
operations and indication that TS requirements were being met.
3. Procedures
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify that the licensee was complying
with the requirements of TS Section 6.3, Operating Procedures:
- University of Massachusetts - Lowell Research Reactor (UMLRR)
Procedure Manual
- Master matrix of procedure changes in process
- Reactor Safety Subcommittee (RSSC) minutes for 2006
- Administrative Procedure AP-1, Procedure Control and Distribution
- Administrative Procedure AP-2, Procedure Development
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector reviewed the licensees system of procedures which addressed
each of the TS requirements. The licensee was three years into a methodical
procedure review and upgrade project, reportedly about half done. Priority was
being given to those procedures in greatest need of revision. The review policy
was that major changes with potential for safety significance were reviewed by
the RSSC and signed by the RSSC chairman. Changes of lesser potential for
safety significance were reviewed and signed by two staff members and
summarized in a report for discussion at the next RSSC meeting. Minor changes
of an editorial nature were processed by the author only. The inspector reviewed
-3-
RSSC records and procedure changes, concluding that the review being given to
procedure changes was appropriately commensurate with the safety significance
of changes.
c. Conclusions
The existing facility procedures and the procedure review and upgrade project
were found to be in accordance with TS requirements.
4. Requalification Training
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the requirements
of 10 CFR Part 55 and the licensees NRC-approved requalification program:
- Requalification Program for Licensed Reactor Operators and Licensed
Senior Reactor Operators, License No. R-125, June 22, 1978
- ANSI/ANS-15.4-1988, Selection and Training of Personnel for Research
Reactors
- UMLRR Reactor Operator Medical Evaluations Records
- UMLRR Reactor Operator Requalification Training Records
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector reviewed records of five randomly selected licensed reactor
operators. Compliance with requirements was verified with the following
exceptions.
In all cases physical examinations were performed within the required time
periods. However, it was not clear from records that medical examinations were
performed in accordance with the ANSI standard as was certified by the facility
on NRC Forms 396. While the inspector did not observe any indication that
operators may not meet these criteria, documentation did not consistently
indicate that tests were performed to substantiate conclusions regarding
ANSI/ANS 15.4-1988 Section 7.2.3, Disqualifying Conditions, and 7.2.4, Specific
Minimum Capacities Required for Medical Qualification, or whether special
consideration was given under 7.3, Waiver or Specifically Limited Approval. This
matter is identified as an Unresolved Item (URI) and will be reviewed during a
future inspection (URI 50-223/2007-201-01).
Records indicated that one NRC licensed SRO did not take requalification written
examinations or annual operating tests between 1998 and 2004. During this
time the operator was considered inactive and did not perform duties that
required an SRO. However, 10 CFR 55.53 requires that as a condition of an
operator license the licensee must participate in a requalification program
meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59. The facility licensee was informed
that failure to administer the written examination or annual operating test to the
-4-
SRO in question was an apparent violation (VIO) of 10 CFR 55.53 (VIO 50-
223/2007-201-02).
c. Conclusions
An unresolved item was identified concerning documentation of how ANSI/ANS
Standard 15.4 had been applied in medical examinations for licensed reactor
operators.
An apparent violation was identified for the failure of one licensed SRO to
complete requalification written examinations and annual operating tests which
were a condition of the operators license.
The licensee was found to be in compliance with other requirements of the
regulations and requalification program.
5. Surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with surveillance
requirements and limiting conditions stated in the TS:
- Reactor Console Logbook #28 covering the period from February 28,
2005, to present
- Surveillance Master Schedule
- Operating records from the following 2006 files:
RF-4, Daily Routine Check Sheet
RF-5, Radiation Monitoring System Daily Checks
RF-RO-7B, Pre-Startup Checksheet (Forced Convection)
RF-RO-6A, Critical Hourly Readings
RF-RO-6B, Radiation Monitoring Critical Hourly Readings
RF-RO-6C, Reactor Shutdown Sheet
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector selected for detailed review a sample of limiting conditions for
operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements from Sections 3.0 and 4.0,
respectively, of the facility TS. He proceeded to verify that each selected LCO or
surveillance was incorporated in facility procedures, performed on the required
frequency, performed in a manner that adequately met the intent of the TS, and
documented appropriately. The inspector found that each of these
characteristics were being implemented appropriately.
c. Conclusions
The inspector found proper compliance with LCOs and completion of
surveillance requirements in accordance with the licensees TS.
-5-
6. Experiments
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with Section 6.8,
Approval of Experiments, of the licensees TS:
- Irradiation Request Forms (IRF) for January 2005 to February 2007
b. Observations and Findings
The TS consider two types of experiments. New experiments require evaluation
by the Reactor Safety Subcommittee (RSSC). Performing an experiment having
prior RSSC approval or a minor variation of a routine experiment requires
approval of the Reactor Supervisor (RS) and Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) or
their respective designee.
The inspector found that new experiments were evaluated and documented by
the RSSC over the life of the facility with relatively few new experiments
evaluated in recent year. Most experiments currently performed are considered
minor variations of routine experiments. While the initial experiments considered
reactivity worth, effects of pressure and temperature buildup, radiation inventory,
etc., the approval process for minor variations was intended to conclude that the
variations fell within an umbrella of conditions approved for the initial experiment.
This conclusion was supposedly being documented on IRFs signed by the RS
and RSO.
The inspector found that some experiments were considered to be identical to
others and were therefore performed without RS and RSO approvals on the IRF.
The IRFs did not reference the original approved experiment under which a
minor variation was being considered nor the umbrella considered to exist for
approved experiment. While the inspector did not identify a safety issue or non-
compliance, he noted that the IRF as presently used did not document
compliance with the TS. The licensee indicated that the IRF usage would be
reviewed in light of the inspectors comments. This matter is identified as an
Inspector Followup Item (IFI) and will be reviewed during a future inspection (IFI
50-223/2007-201-03).
c. Conclusions
The inspector did not identify any failure to meet TS requirements but did identify
need for better documentation of the approval process for minor variations of
routine experiments which will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
-6-
7. Design Changes
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
In order to verify that any modifications to the facility were consistent with
10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
- 50.59 Guidance File
- Safety Evaluation Determination for UMLRR Drives Control System,
February 2003
b. Observations and Findings
The Licensee stated that they did not have a specific procedure for making
changes to the facility, procedures or experiments but rather worked directly
from NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.59 and TS 6.2.2 [RSSC review and audit
responsibilities] on the few occasions that facility changes were made. The most
recent change that reached the threshold for notification of the NRC via the
annual report for the facility, but not prior NRC approval, was the 2003 change
cited above. The inspector reviewed this file which consisted of the 50.59
review, design and installation notes, pre-operational test procedures and
records of training on the changes.
c. Conclusions
The licensee has demonstrated the ability to implement design changes in
accordance with regulations.
8. Committees, Audits, and Reviews
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that TS Section 6.2, Review and
Audit, was being properly implemented:
- UML Radiation Safety Guide, August 2005
- Minutes of the RSSC meetings for December of 2005 and March, June,
September and December of 2006
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector verified that the TS 6.2 requirements for the RSSC were being
met. In particular, the Radiation Safety Guide included a charter for the
Radiation Safety Committee (RSC), showing the RSSC reporting the RSC and
the RSC reporting to the Chancellor. RSSC minutes document meeting
frequency, quorums, and matters considered that demonstrate TS compliance.
-7-
c. Conclusions
Review and oversight functions were being executed in accordance with TS
requirements.
9. Emergency Planning
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify that the emergency preparedness
was being maintained:
- Emergency Preparedness Plan for the University of Massachusetts
Lowell Research Reactor, Revision 5
- Letters of Agreement with the City of Lowell Fire Department, City of
Lowell Police Department, Saints Memorial Medical Center, and Trinity
Ambulance Service
- results of quarterly inventory of emergency supplies
- results of table top drill conducted February 20, 2007, including the
referenced facility emergency procedures
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector reviewed the table top drill conducted on February 22, 2007. The
drill scenarios were realistic and challenging. The drill was well attended by
facility staff and campus police. The post drill critique identified three program
improvements to enhance campus police response.
Letters of agreement for off-site support were renewed in February and March of
2007. Interviews with the ambulance service, campus police, and Lowell Fire
Department indicated a co-operative and effective relationship.
Emergency response supplies were inventoried quarterly.
c. Conclusions
The emergency preparedness program was maintained in accordance with the
Emergency Plan and the emergency procedures.
10. Maintenance Logs and Records
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
To verify compliance with TS requirements the inspector reviewed selected
aspects of:
- Reactor Console Logbook #28 covering the period from February 28,
2005 to present
-8-
b. Observations and Findings
Maintenance that is specified as TS surveillance requirements was treated as
part of the licensees surveillance program. Such maintenance is therefore
addressed in Section 5 of this report along with other surveillance requirements.
c. Conclusions
Maintenance required by TS was being performed under the surveillance
program.
11. Fuel Handling Logs and Records
a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to assure compliance with TS 6.3.2:
- UMLRR Procedure RO-2, Unloading and Reloading the Core to a Known
Configuration, Rev.5, Issued April 1, 2005
- UMLRR Procedure RO-8, Handling of Irradiated Fuel, Rev.2, Issued
May 22, 1991
- UMLRR Procedure RO-10, Receipt and Storage of New Fuel Elements,
Rev.1, Issued February 16, 1984
- Core Loading Maps file, 1994 to present
b. Observations and Findings
The licensee reported that other than fuel moves in and out of the core for
inspection, the last fuel moves were made January 3, 2003. TS 4.7 requires that
a representative sample of reactor fuel elements must be inspected visually
every two years. Documents were reviewed for the inspection of five elements
on January 23, 2007. The previous inspection was done in December of 2004.
c. Conclusions
Fuel inspection was performed and fuel movements were logged in accordance
with TS requirements.
12. Transportation
a. Inspection Scope (IP 86740)
The inspector reviewed the following records to verify compliance with regulatory
requirements for the shipment of radioactive material:
- Shipping records for an Imaging and Sensing Technology detector,
shipped July 14, 2006
-9-
b. Observations and Findings
The licensee reported that most shipments had been done under the campus
broad byproduct material license; relatively few shipments were performed under
the reactor license which was being inspected. Only one shipment of radioactive
material was made under the reactor license since 2004 when some unirradiated
highly enriched uranium fuel plates were shipped. The recent shipment
identified above was a radiation detector that was subjected to a neutron
radiograph, making it slightly radioactive.
c. Conclusion
Regulatory and license requirements were met in the shipment reviewed.
13. Exit Meeting
The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee representatives at the
conclusion of the inspection on March 29, 2007. The inspector discussed the
observations for each area reviewed and the apparent violation, follow-up item and
unresolved item. The licensee acknowledged the findings and did not identify as
proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the
routine inspection.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
L. Bobek Reactor Supervisor
G. Kegel Radiation Laboratory Directory
D. Medich Radiation Safety Officer
M. Montesalvo Radiation Services Manager
J. Nelson Senior Reactor Operator
N. Rashidifard Senior Reactor Operator
T. Regan Chief Reactor Operator
S. Snay Health Physics Technician
J. White Professor of Chemical Engineering and Radiation Safety Subcommittee
Chairman
L. Winnett Administrative Assistant
J. Wooding Provost and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Others
John Vail City of Lowell Fire Department
John Chemaly Trinity Ambulance Service
Gus Savastano Massachusetts Department of Public Health Radiation Control Program
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 69001 Class II Non-Power Reactors
IP 86740 Transportation
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
OPENED:
50-223/2007-201-01 URI Documentation of the application of ANSI/ANS-15.4-1988 in
reactor operator medical examinations
50-223/2007-201-02 VIO Failure of SRO to take requalification written examinations and
annual operating tests
50-223/2007-201-03 IFI Documentation of TS compliance when approving minor
variations of routine experiments
CLOSED:
None
DISCUSSED:
None
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
IFI Inspector Followup Item
IP Inspection Procedure
IRF Irradiation Request Form
LCO Limiting condition for Operation
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PARS Publically Available Records
PSP Physical Security Plan
RO Reactor Operator
RS Reactor Supervisor
RSC Reactor Safety Committee
RSO Radiation Safety Officer
RSSC Reactor Safety Subcommittee
Rev Revision
SRO Senior Reactor Operator
TS Technical Specification
UML University of Massachusetts - Lowell
UMLRR University of Massachusetts - Lowell Research Reactor
URI Unresolved Item
VIO Violation