ML20304A216
| ML20304A216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Utah |
| Issue date: | 05/07/2021 |
| From: | Travis Tate NRC/NRR/DANU/UNPO |
| To: | Sjoden G Univ of Utah, Salt Lake City |
| Bassett C, NRR/DANU/UNPO, 240-535-1842 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML20304A216 (19) | |
See also: IR 05000407/2020201
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
May 7, 2021
Dr. Glenn E. Sjoden, Interim Director
Utah Nuclear Engineering
Program Professor
Energy Solutions Presidential Endowed
Chair Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
110 Central Campus Drive, Room 2000
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000407/2020201 AND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
Dear Dr. Sjoden:
From October 13-23, 2020, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted an
inspection at your University of Utah TRIGA Nuclear Reactor Facility. The enclosed report
documents the inspection results which were discussed on October 16 and 23, 2020, with you,
Dr. Michael Barber, Department Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and members of
your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed various activities, and
interviewed personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that a Severity Level IV
violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation was evaluated in accordance with the
NRC Enforcement Policy. The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The violation is cited in
the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding it are described in
detail in the subject inspection report. The violation is being cited in the Notice because it
constitutes a failure to meet regulatory requirements that has more than minor safety
significance and the licensee failed to identify the violation.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. If you have additional information that you
believe the NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to the Notice. The NRC
review of your response to the Notice will also determine whether further enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
G. Sjoden
2
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.390, Public
inspections, exemptions, and requests for withholding, a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and
your response will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRCs document system
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)). ADAMS is accessible
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic
Reading Room). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy
or proprietary information, so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Craig Bassett at
(240) 535-1842, or by electronic mail at Craig.Bassett@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
for
Travis L. Tate, Chief
Non-Power Production and Utilization Facility
Oversight Branch
Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power
Production and Utilization Facilities
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50-407
License No. R-126
Enclosures:
As stated
cc: w/enclosure: See next page
Philip B.
O'Bryan
Digitally signed by
Philip B. O'Bryan
University of Utah
Docket No. 50-407
cc:
Mayor of Salt Lake City
451 South State
Room 306
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dr. Andrew S. Weyrich
Vice President for Research
University of Utah
201 South Presidents Circle, Room 210
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9011
Frederick A. Monette
Director and RSO
Environmental Health and Safety
75 S 2000 E, Room 322
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Test, Research and Training
Reactor Newsletter
Attention: Ms. Amber Johnson
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Maryland
4418 Stadium Drive
College Park, MD 20742-2115
Director, Division of Radiation Control
Dept. of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 14485
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Mr. Matthew Lund, Reactor Supervisor
Utah Nuclear Engineering Program
Joseph Merrill Engineering Building
50 S. Central Campus Drive, Room 1206
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
OFFICE
NRR/DANU/UNPO/RI
NRR/DANU/UNPO/LA
NRR/DANU/UNPO/BC*
NAME
CBassett
NParker
TTate (POBryan for)
DATE
11/12/2020
11/12/2020
5/7/2021
Enclosure 1
University of Utah
Docket No. 50-407
University of Utah TRIGA Nuclear Reactor
License No. R-126
During a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted October 13-23,
2020, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement
Policy, the violation is listed below:
University of Utah TRIGA Nuclear Reactor technical specifications (TSs) Section 6.1.3.3,
Specification 3.1, states, Events requiring the direction of the [Reactor Supervisor include]
Initial startup and approach to power of the day.
Contrary to the above, on September 2, 4, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2020, and October 9,
2020, the reactor was started up without the Reactor Supervisor being present.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Section 6.1).
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.201,
Notice of violation, the University of Utah is hereby required to submit a written statement or
explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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, 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 a Demand for Information may be
issued as to why the 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, United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html, 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. 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.
2
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, Protection of Safeguards Information: Performance Requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, Posting of notices to workers, you may be required to post
this Notice within two working days of receipt.
Dated this 7th day of May 2021
Enclosure 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
Docket No.:
50-407
License No.:
R-126
Report No.:
Licensee:
University of Utah
Facility:
University of Utah TRIGA Nuclear Reactor
Location:
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dates:
October 13 - 23, 2020
Inspector:
Craig Bassett
Approved by:
Travis L. Tate, Chief
Non-Power Production and Utilization Facility
Oversight Branch
Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power
Production and Utilization Facilities
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- 2 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
University of Utah
University of Utah TRIGA Nuclear Reactor Facility
Inspection Report No. 05000407/2020201
The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selected
aspects of the University of Utah (the licensees) 100 kilowatts Class II research reactor safety
program, including: (1) organization and staffing; (2) procedures; (3) health physics; (4) design
changes; (5) committees, audits and reviews; and, (6) transportation of radioactive material.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff determined that the licensees program
was acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety, and in compliance
with the NRC requirements. However, one violation (VIO) and one unresolved item (URI) were
identified.
Organization and Staffing
The licensees organizational structure was in compliance with requirements outlined in the
technical specifications (TSs).
One VIO was noted for failure to have the Reactor Supervisor (RS) present during initial
startup and approach to power during various days in September and October 2020 as
required by TS Section 6.1.3.3.
Procedures
Facility procedural review, revision, control, and implementation satisfied TS requirements.
Health Physics
Surveys were completed and documented appropriately to permit evaluation of the radiation
hazards present.
Postings met regulatory requirements.
Personnel dosimetry was worn as required, and doses were well within the licensees
procedural action levels and NRC regulatory limits.
Radiation monitoring equipment was maintained and calibrated, as required.
The Radiation Protection and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) programs satisfied
regulatory requirements.
Training was provided to staff members in the area of radiation protection in accordance
with regulatory requirements.
Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were within
the specified regulatory and TS limits.
- 3 -
Design Changes
Change reviews were conducted in accordance with the requirements in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59, Changes, tests and experiments.
One 10 CFR 50.59 change review involving installation of a new reactor console was not
completed and would be submitted to the NRC for review prior to resumption of reactor
operations.
Committees, Audits and Reviews
The Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) met as required.
Audits and reviews were conducted by designated individuals and reviewed by the RSC in
accordance with the requirements specified in TS Section 6.2.
Transportation of Radioactive Material
The licensee transferred radioactive waste material to the campus Radiation Safety Office
(RSO) for disposal as needed.
The RSO would handle any shipments of radioactive material from the facility.
- 4 -
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Facility Status
The University of Utah continued to operate the 100-kilowatts TRIGA Mark I research reactor as
needed in support of sample irradiation, reactor operator training, educational demonstrations,
preventive maintenance, and operational surveillance testing required by the TSs. While the
reactor was not operated during this inspection in preparation for the installation of a new
reactor console, it was typically operated one or two days a week at various power levels up to
90 kilowatts.
1.
Organization and Staffing
a.
Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69001, Section 02.01)
The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensees organization and
staffing to ensure that the requirements of Section 6.1 of the TSs were met:
management responsibilities
qualifications of facility personnel
Utah Nuclear Engineering Program (UNEP) Procedure, P-001, Description
of Operations, Revision 1, (UNEP P-001R1), Section 1, Organization and
Responsibilities
amendment number (No.) 9 to Facility Operating License No. R-126, dated
December 12, 2011, which amended the TSs
University of Utah TRIGA Reactor (UUTR) annual operating report for the
period of July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019
UUTR annual operating report for the period July 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2020
b.
Observations and Findings
(1)
Organization and Qualification
Through discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector
determined that there were no changes to management responsibilities and
the organizational structure at the UUTR facility since the last NRC
inspection in the area of radiation protection conducted in May 2018 (NRC
Inspection Report No. 50-407/2018-201).
The inspector found that the person who formerly was designated as the
Interim Facility Director took a position with a company in another state. A
new Facility Director was appointed. Because the former Interim Facility
Director was also the RS, an Assistant RS was appointed as well. The
inspector reviewed the qualifications of these individuals and determined
that the Facility Director met the requirements outlined in American National
Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANS/ANSI)-15.4-1988;
R1999, Selection and Training of Personnel for Research Reactors as
required by TS Section 6.1.4. ANSI/ANS-15.4-1988 did not establish
requirements for the position of Assistant RS. It was noted that the
- 5 -
Assistant RS did not meet the qualifications outlined in ANS/ANSI-15.4 -
1988; R1999 for the position of Level 3, RS.
(2)
Staffing
TS 6.1.3.3, Specification 3.1, states, Events requiring the direction of the
RS [include] initial startup and approach to power of the day. Through
review of records and logs, and through discussions with licensee
personnel, the inspector determined that shift staffing at the UNEP TRIGA
Reactor Facility did not meet the requirements stated in Section 6.1.3.3,
Specification 3.1 of the TSs. The console operations log indicated that, on
September 2, 4, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24, and October 9, 2020, the
Assistant RS was present during reactor startup, not the RS as required.
As noted above, the Assistant RS did not meet the qualifications outlined in
ANS/ANSI 15.4 - 1988; R1999 for the position of Level 3, RS. The
licensee was informed that failure to have a qualified RS present during
initial startup of the reactor on various days in September and October was
an VIO of TS 6.1.3.3 (VIO 05000407/2020201-01).
c.
Conclusion
The inspector determined that the organizational structure was consistent with
TS requirements. The inspector noted one VIO for failure to have the RS present
during initial startup and approach to power of the day during various days in
September and October 2020.
2.
Procedures
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 69001, Section 02.03)
The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following to verify that the
licensee complied with the requirements of TS Section 6.4:
records of procedure changes
various administrative and radiation protection procedures
related logs and records documenting procedure implementation
UNEP-035 R4, Audit and Review Program Checklist
RSC meeting minutes from December 2018 to the present
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspector noted that the licensee used procedures to conduct operations at
the facility as required and the procedures were available for those tasks and
items required by the TSs. The inspector determined that substantive changes
to the procedures were reviewed and approved by the RSC as required.
Training of personnel on procedures and the applicable changes was acceptable.
In the area of radiation protection, the licensee did not have facility-specific
procedures but was developing some for use at the reactor facility. In the
interim, reactor personnel made use of the procedures maintained by the
university RSO which were contained in the Radiological Procedures and
Records [RPR], and were available on-line at the RSO website. Those
- 6 -
procedures were reviewed and approved by the universitys Radiation Safety
Committee.
c.
Conclusion
The inspector determined that the procedural review, revision, control, and
implementation satisfied TS requirements.
3.
Health Physics
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 69001, Section 02.07)
To verify compliance with TS Sections 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.7, 5.4, 6.3, and 6.7, as well
as 10 CFR Part 19, Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection
and Investigations, and 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection against
Radiation, requirements, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
radiological signs and postings at the facility
personnel dosimetry records for 2018, 2019, and to date in 2020
environmental dosimetry records for 2018, 2019, and to date in 2020
various procedures including: UNEP-020 R13, Monthly Inspection/
Surveillance Checklist; UNEP-023 R5, Annual Maintenance and Calibration
of the Area Radiation Monitors (ARMs) and Continuous Air Monitor (CAM);
and, UNEP-032, Liquid Effluent Discharge Authorization
various RSO RPR procedures and forms including: RPR No. 50A,
Laboratory Evaluation Checklist and Laboratory Evaluation Checklist
(cont); RPR No. 50B, Total Contamination Survey; RPR No. 50C,
Removable Contamination Survey; RPR No. 50D, Exposure Rate Survey;
and, No. 50E, Radionuclide Laboratory Evaluation Report;
RSC meeting minutes for the past 2 years which included a quarterly report
from the university Radiation Safety Officer
Assessment of Radiation Dose from Air Emissions of Radioactive Material,
Calendar Year 2019, which was completed by RSO personnel
UUTR annual operating reports for the last two reporting periods
b.
Observations and Findings
(1)
Surveys
The inspector reviewed monthly radiation and contamination surveys of
licensee-controlled areas within the UUTR for the past 2 years, which
were conducted by campus RSO personnel. The inspector also reviewed
the records documenting the monthly general area radiation and
contamination surveys of the reactor room and support areas which were
completed by licensee personnel from 2019 to present. The inspector
determined that the results of all these surveys were documented,
reviewed, and evaluated, as required, and corrective actions were taken
when readings or contamination results exceeded set action levels.
- 7 -
(2)
Postings and Notices
During tours of the facility, the inspector observed that caution signs and
postings in place and controls established for the controlled areas were
acceptable for the hazards involving radiation, high radiation, and
contamination, and were posted as required by 10 CFR Part 20,
Subpart J, Precautionary Procedures. The inspector confirmed that
personnel complied with the signs, postings, and controls.
Copies of notices to workers were posted in various areas in the facility.
Radiological signs were posted at the entrances to controlled areas. The
inspector verified that the copies of NRC Form 3, Notice to Employees,
were posted at the facility as required by 10 CFR 19.11, Posting of
notices to workers, were the current version. During the inspection the
licensee also posted signs to remind everyone of the Safety Conscious
Work Environment at the facility. All UUTR staff were aware that they
could raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation.
(3)
Dosimetry
The inspector determined that the licensee used ion chamber dosimeters
for whole body monitoring of radiation exposure. The licensee also used
thermoluminescent (TLD) finger rings for monitoring radiation exposure of
the extremities. The dosimetry was supplied and processed by a National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program accredited vendor. Through
direct observation the inspector determined that dosimetry use by facility
personnel was in accordance with the university radiation protection
requirements. Examination of the dosimetry results, indicating
radiological exposures at the facility for the past 2 years, showed that all
occupational doses were within 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
(4)
Radiation Monitoring Equipment Use and Calibration
The use and calibration of radiation monitoring equipment was reviewed
by the inspector. Portable survey meters and friskers were calibrated by
campus RSO personnel. Fixed radiation detectors and the CAM were
calibrated by licensee staff personnel. The inspector reviewed calibration
records maintained by the RSO and licensee personnel. Through this
review the inspector determined that records were maintained as required
and that calibration frequencies met the requirements established in the
applicable surveillance procedures. Through observations of activities at
the UUTR facility, the inspector determined that the monitoring equipment
was used in accordance with procedure.
- 8 -
(5)
Radiation Protection Program and ALARA Policy
The licensees Radiation Protection Program was established through
various University of Utah campus documents including: (1) the RSO
Radiological Procedures and Records; (2) The University of Utah
Radiation Safety Policy Manual; (3) The University of Utah Radiation
Protection Program; and (4) RPR No. 80, Utah Nuclear Engineering
Program (UNEP) Research (TRIGA) Reactor (UUTR). The program
stated that all personnel who had unescorted access to work in a
radiation area or who worked with radioactive material were required to
receive training in radiation protection policies, principles, procedures,
and requirements prior to starting work. The inspector also confirmed
that the university Radiation Protection Program was reviewed annually,
as required. The ALARA Policy was also outlined and established in the
manuals and RPR mentioned above. The ALARA program provided
appropriate guidance for keeping doses ALARA and was consistent with
the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20.
(6)
Radiation Worker Training
As noted above, the inspector determined that all university personnel
who worked in radiation areas or handled radioactive material, including
licensee staff, were required to receive training in radiation protection.
Completion of the required training by facility personnel was verified by
RSO personnel, as well as by the Reactor Administrator and/or the RS.
Upon completion of the course, reactor staff members were issued a
dosimeter and allowed to work under the direction of a Responsible User.
The inspector reviewed documentation of the training provided to
selected licensee staff members, including the certificates of completion.
The documents indicated that all current staff members received the
required training. The inspector determined that the personnel training
program satisfied requirements in 10 CFR 19.12, Instruction to workers.
The content and periodicity of training were also acceptable and in
accordance with the regulations.
(7)
Environmental and Effluent Monitoring
The inspector reviewed the ARMs and CAM calibration records. The
ARMs and CAM were calibrated annually by licensee staff in accordance
with procedures. The monthly setpoint and high radiation warning
verification records for the monitoring equipment were also reviewed.
Corrective actions, including recalibration, were completed if the setpoint
values were exceeded.
The inspector determined that gaseous releases continued to be
monitored as required. The releases were calculated by the RSO
according to established procedure, using the Environmental Protection
Agency COMPLY code. The dose rate to the public, as a result of the
gaseous releases, was well below the dose constraint of 10 millirem per
year specified in 10 CFR 20.1101, Radiation protection programs,
- 9 -
paragraph (d). The inspector noted that airborne concentrations of
gaseous releases were also calculated by the licensee. These
calculations showed that gaseous releases were well within the
concentrations stipulated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, and
TS limits. The results were appropriately documented in the facility
annual reports, as required.
The inspector verified that there were no liquid releases from the facility to
the sanitary sewer within the past 2 years. It was noted that no solid
waste was transferred from the facility to the campus RSO during the past
2 years.
Onsite and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was completed using
environmental TLDs in accordance with the applicable university
procedures. The data indicated that there were no unusual dose rates in
the areas surrounding the UUTR facility and that there were no
measurable doses above any regulatory limits. These results were also
appropriately reported in the facility annual reports.
(8)
Facility Tours
The inspector toured the control room, reactor room, and selected
support laboratories and offices. Control of radioactive material and
control of access to radiation and high radiation areas were acceptable
and in accordance with the regulations. As noted earlier, the postings
and signs for these areas were appropriate. No problems were noted.
c.
Conclusion
Based on the observations made and the records reviewed, the inspector
determined that the Radiation Protection Program that was implemented by the
licensee satisfied regulatory requirements.
4.
Design Changes
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 69001, Section 02.08)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR 50.59 and
TS Section 6.2:
RSC meeting minutes from December 2018 to the present
UNEP Job-Aid 002 R1, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening
Form UNEP-022 R4, Maintenance Log
UUTR Annual Operating Reports for the last two reporting periods
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspector noted that one review related to control rod drives and two reviews
related to nuclear instrumentation were conducted since the last inspection. The
screening reviews for these projects were completed by the licensee to verify that
- 10 -
10 CFR 50.59 evaluations were not needed. The inspector reviewed the
screening reviews and noted that they appeared to be adequate.
The inspector determined that the licensee was in the process of conducting a
10 CFR 50.59 review related to the installation of a new reactor console. The
review was not finalized at the time of the inspection. The inspector informed the
licensee that the review needed to be complete to determine if a full evaluation
was required. The inspector requested a copy of the 10 CFR 50.59 review,
along with all the associated documentation, prior to the resumption of operations
following the installation of the new reactor console. The licensee committed to
maintaining the UUTR shutdown until all 10 CFR 50.59 and related operations
procedures are updated and agreed to submit the material to the NRC for review.
This issue is an URI and will be reviewed further (URI 05000407/2020201-02).
c.
Conclusion
The inspector determined that the licensees design change control program was
implemented as required. One 10 CFR 50.59 change review involving
installation of a new reactor console was not complete and would be submitted to
the NRC for review prior to resumption of reactor operations.
5.
Committees, Audits and Reviews
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 69001, Section 02.09)
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the review and audit
requirements in TS Section 6.2 were met:
RSC meeting minutes from December 2018 to the present
radiation safety and ALARA audits completed during the past year and
licensee responses to the safety reviews and audits
form UNEP-035 R4, Audit and Review Program Checklist
UUTR annual operating reports for the last two reporting periods
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspector verified that the RSC met at least annually as required by the TSs.
It was noted that a subcommittee (or the full committee) held quarterly meetings
in addition to the TS-required annual meetings. The inspector reviewed the RSC
meetings minutes and determined that the minutes contained, among other
documents, quarterly or monthly reports from the Reactor Director, the RS, and
the university Radiation Safety Officer. Review of the committee meeting
minutes indicated that the RSC completed the required reviews as stipulated in
the TSs.
Since the last inspection, all required audits of reactor facility activities and
reviews of programs, procedures, equipment, and proposed tests or experiments
were completed and documented as required. The inspector determined that the
audits and the associated findings were appropriately detailed and that the
licensee responded and took corrective actions as needed. Additionally, the
annual reviews of the Radiation Protection Program and the Emergency Plan, as
- 11 -
well as the biennial review of the Security Plan, were conducted and
appropriately documented.
c.
Conclusion
The inspector determined the RSC was meeting at the required frequency. Audits
and reviews were conducted as required and reviewed by the RSC in accordance
with the requirements specified in TS Section 6.2.
6.
Transportation of Radioactive Material
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 86740)
The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
UNEP-027 R6, TRIGA Reactor Irradiation Request and Performance
RPR Procedures including: No. 13, Radioisotope Acquisition and
Disposition; No. 14, Shipment of Limited Quantity of Radioisotopes; and
No. 55, Transportation of Radioactive Materials
Various forms including: Form RPR 13A, Radioisotope Package Arrival
Report; Form RPR 13B, Radioisotope Receipt and Verification; and, Form
RPR 13C, Radioisotope Disposition Record
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspector determined that records indicated that UUTR radioactive waste
designated for disposal was transferred from the reactor facility to the University
of Utahs broad scope license, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
License No. 1800001, in accordance with RSO requirements. The inspector
verified that this process was still followed.
The inspector noted that none of the licensee personnel had the current training
required to ship radioactive material as required by the Department of
Transportation. Therefore, in any instances involving the shipment of radioactive
material, the paperwork and shipments would be completed by qualified RSO
personnel.
c.
Conclusion
The inspector determined that the licensee transferred radioactive waste material
to the campus RSO as needed. The RSO would handle any shipments of
radioactive material from the facility.
7.
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 16 and 23, 2020, with
university management and facility staff. The inspector discussed the findings for each
area reviewed. The licensee did not identify any of the material provided to or reviewed
by the inspector as proprietary.
Attachment
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee Personnel
A. Allison
Student Operator Trainee
D. Feist
Lab Analyst and Student Operator Trainee
A. Foley
Senior Reactor Operator
L. Forster
Student Operator Trainee
E. Goodell
Student Operator Trainee
C. Olson
Student Operator Trainee
S. Pappas
Senior Reactor Operator and Assistant Reactor Supervisor
B. Saenz
Reactor Operator
G. Sjoden
UNEP Director and Reactor Administrator
V. Wang
Research Scientist and Operator Trainee
A. Weyrich
Vice President of Research
Other Personnel
M. Barber
Department Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of
Engineering, University of Utah
D. Dolan
Health Physicist, Radiation Safety Office, University of Utah
INSPECTION PROCEDURE (IP) USED
IP 69001:
Class II Non-Power Reactors
IP 86740:
Inspection of Transportation Activities
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened 05000407/2020201-01
Failure to have the RS present during initial startup and
approach to power of the day during various days in
September and October of 2020.05000407/2020201-02
Review the licensees completed 10 CFR 50.59 screening
and/or evaluation of the installation of a new reactor console.
Closed
None
PARTIAL LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
10 CFR
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
Area Radiation Monitors
Continuous Air Monitor
2
IP
Inspection Procedure
No.
Number
NRC
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
RPR
Radiological Procedures and Records
RS
Reactor Supervisor
Reactor Safety Committee
Radiation Safety Office
Thermoluminescent dosimeter
TSs
Technical Specifications
UNEP
Utah Nuclear Engineering Program
Unresolved Item
University of Utah TRIGA Reactor
Violation