IR 05000002/2011001

IR 05000002-11-001 and Notice of Violation, on 08/09-11/2011 - 10/12/2011, Univ of Mi Ford Nuclear Reactor

ML11299A076
Person / Time
Site:	University of Michigan
Issue date:	10/24/2011
From:	Christine Lipa NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/MCID
To:	Alexander T University of Michigan
References
IR-11-001
Download: ML11299A076 (11)

Text

ber 24, 2011

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00002/11-001(DNMS) FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Alexander:

On October 12, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed inspection activities at the Ford Nuclear Reactor, Ann Arbor, MI. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether decommissioning activities were conducted safely and in accordance with the NRC requirements. Specifically, during an on-site inspection on August 9 through 11, 2011, and subsequent in-office review through October 12, 2011, the inspector evaluated decommissioning performance and conducted independent radiation surveys and soil sampling, with soil sample evaluation of the NRC samples by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). At the conclusion of the on-site inspection, the inspector discussed the interim inspection results with members of your staff. A final report from ORISE of the results of the soil sample analysis was provided to the NRC on August 30, 2011. At the conclusion of the in-office review, a final telephone exit meeting was conducted on October 12, 2011, to discuss the final results with members of your staff.

This inspection consisted of an examination of decommissioning activities at the Ford Nuclear Reactor as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations.

Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, and interviews with 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 NRC's website at http://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 was identified by the NRC.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The guidance in NRC Information Notice 96-28, "Suggested Guidance Relating to Development and Implementation of Corrective Action," may be helpful. 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.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response, will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, Proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction.

We will gladly discuss any questions you may have regarding this inspection.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Christine A. Lipa, Chief Materials Control, ISFSI, and Decommissioning Branch Docket No.50-002 License No. R-28

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation 2. NRC Inspection Report No. 050-00002/11-001(DNMS)

REGION III==

Docket No. 050-00002 License No. R-28 Report No. 050-00002/11-001(DNMS)

Licensee: University of Michigan Facility: Ford Nuclear Reactor Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan Dates: August 9 - 11, 2011 (on-site)

through October 12, 2011 (in-office review)

NRC Inspector: Jeremy Tapp, Health Physicist NRC Observers: Theodore Smith, Project Manager, FSME Stephen Giebel, Health Physicist, FSME Nicholas Hansing, Student Engineer, RIII Approved by: Christine A. Lipa, Chief Materials Control, ISFSI, and Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Enclosure 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY University of Michigan - Ford Nuclear Reactor Inspection Report 050-00002/11-001(DNMS)

This routine decommissioning inspection included a review of the licensees current performance related to decommissioning activities, and the performance of radiation surveys and collection of soil samples. Areas reviewed included health physics and audits and reviews.

Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning

• Inspector observations of the facility determined that facility radiological and industrial controls ensured worker safety and prevented loose radiological contamination in uncontrolled areas. Instruments were adequately tested before use to demonstrate functionality and calibrated as required by the applicable procedure. The licensee took appropriate actions when radiation survey results did not compare as expected (Section 1.1).

• The annual Report on Reactor Operations was completed as required and comprehensive in content. Decommissioning Review Committee (DRC) meetings were conducted semi-annually with more than the required attendance, and discussed all current decommissioning activities. A Technical Specification violation was identified for not performing the required annual independent monitoring or audit of both decommissioning operations and quality assurance (Section 1.2).

2 Enclosure 2

Report Details 1.0 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning (69013)

1.1 Health Physics a. Inspection Scope The inspector interviewed site personnel and performed a facility and site tour to observe field conditions. The inspector evaluated the sites material condition and housekeeping, area radiological conditions, and radiological access control and associated posting/labeling. Independent radiation measurements were made throughout the areas toured and compared to the licensees postings. In addition, the inspector reviewed a sampling of routine contamination smear survey records from 2011 to evaluate whether the licensees radioactive material controls were adequate.

The inspector reviewed the licensees radiological survey instrumentation by observing licensee personnel perform instrument and detector calibration and daily source check activities. The inspector verified the activities were performed in accordance with the required procedures, specifically HP-402, Calibration of the Ludlum 2221 Scaler Ratemeter & Detectors, Revision 0, and HP-401, Survey Instrument Source Checking, Revision 0. The inspector also reviewed calibration records for a Ludlum 44-142 Probe

1. PR246233, completed on March 14, 2011, and a Ludlum 2221 Scaler Ratemeter

1. 216469, completed on June 30, 2011, to determine if they were calibrated as required by procedure.

The inspector performed independent radiation surveys and soil sampling in a cavity along the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR) and Phoenix Memorial Laboratory (PML) wall.

Beta surveys were performed on the concrete surfaces of the cavity along with the collection of three soil samples. The beta survey results were compared to the licensees to confirm the validity of their results. The three soil samples were sent to the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) for analysis of Co-60, Cs-137, and Ag-108m. The inspector reviewed the results and will potentially use them in the future to support license termination, once derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) are approved for the FNR.

b. Observations and Findings The inspector found that the facility was generally clean and free of debris and personnel hazards. Access control and postings were determined to be adequate for the radiological conditions of the facility. All routine contamination smear survey results showed no discernable loose contamination in the building. Health Physics staff used appropriate radiation sources and methods in accordance with their procedures to source check each instrument and applicable detector each day it was to be used and to calibrate each detector as required. Health Physics staff was knowledgeable of the calibration and source check process and procedures.

During radiation surveys of the cavity along the FNR and PML wall, the inspector found most direct beta measurements to be in agreement with the licensees results, which are found in Survey No. 2011-0033, dated April 20, 2011, and Survey No. 2011-0022, dated 3 Enclosure 2

March 29, 2011. But some results were approximately two times those recorded by the licensee. These results were passed along to the licensee, and subsequently, they discussed with the inspector plans to follow up and perform additional surveys. Because DCGLs for building surfaces have not been approved for the decommissioning of the FNR by the NRC, no comparison was made at this time between these survey results and their acceptability for supporting final license termination.

In addition, three soil samples were obtained from the cavity, two from the west section and one from the east section. The soil was collected from the top 6 inches next to the FNR and PML wall, where the potential for the highest level of contamination is located.

The three samples were sent to ORISE and the final results were provided to the NRC in the document, Letter Report for Analytical Results for Three Soil Samples from the University of Michigan Ford Reactor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated August 23, 2011 (ML112420852). The inspector reviewed the results and determined them to be reasonable compared to the licensees initial results and subsequent remediation activities. Depending on the DCGLs that are approved in the future for this area, these results could be potentially used to support license termination.

No findings of significance were identified.

c. Conclusions Inspector observations of the facility determined that facility radiological and industrial controls ensured worker safety and prevented loose radiological contamination in uncontrolled areas. Instruments were adequately tested before use to demonstrate functionality and calibrated as required by the applicable procedure. The licensee took appropriate actions when radiation survey results did not compare as expected.

1.2 Review and Audit a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the licensees annual Report on Reactor Operations to determine it was completed as required by Technical Specifications. The inspector reviewed Decommissioning Review Committee (DRC) meeting minutes from the previous two meetings on March 15, 2011 and September 27, 2010 to determine whether the committee performed its function as described in the Technical Specifications. The minutes reviewed also included minutes from the January 19, 2010 meeting. The inspector also reviewed independent audits required by Technical Specifications that were conducted in 2011 to determine the adequacy of their scope and evaluate the results.

b. Observations and Findings The inspector found the Report on Reactor Operations was completed as required by Technical Specifications and the content reflected current licensee activities and status.

The DRC met semi-annually as required, and a quorum existed in each meeting reviewed. The inspector found the DRC reviewed, in part, current decommissioning activities and a procedure change for soil sampling, as required by Technical Specifications.

4 Enclosure 2

The inspector requested the licensee to provide a copy of the independent audit or audits performed in 2011. The licensee could not provide any independent audit performed for 2011, as required by Technical Specifications. In addition, when the inspector requested the licensee provide the last independent audit performed, no audits could be found in the licensees records. The inspector reviewed the DRC meeting minutes for 2010 and 2011 and found no mention of scheduling or reviewing independent monitoring or audits as required. A contractor for the licensee that performed Reactor Manager duties in the past was contacted by the licensee to determine when the last independent audit was performed. The licensee has verbally stated an independent audit was last performed in 2008.

Audits are required to be conducted to independently assess program performance and determine whether policies, procedures, and practices ensure health and safety. Audits are intended to identify flaws and prompt corrective action, which results in a substantial decrease in potential for significant issues to occur. Therefore, the failure to complete the required audits of decommissioning operations and quality assurance is of more than minor safety significance given the potential impact on overall program effectiveness.

For example, radiation survey reports performed in the February to June 2011 timeframe did not receive a timely quality assurance review, which was for six months, in the most extreme case.

Technical Specification 6.3 states, in part, the following are independently monitored or audited: a. Decommissioning operations to ensure they are being performed safely and in accordance with all applicable licenses and registrations held by the University and in compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory requirements. b. The quality assurance to verify that performance criteria are met as well as to determine the effectiveness of the program in satisfying the quality assurance requirements. In addition, Technical Specification 6.3 states, in part, monitoring or audits shall be performed annually, at a minimum The failure to perform an annual independent audit, from 2009 until 2011, of both decommissioning operations and quality assurance, is a violation of Technical Specification 6.3. (VIO 05000002/11-01-01).

c. Conclusions The annual Report on Reactor Operations was completed as required and comprehensive in content. DRC meetings were conducted semi-annually with more than the required attendance, and discussed all current decommissioning activities. A Technical Specification violation was identified for not performing the required annual independent monitoring or audit of both decommissioning operations and quality assurance.

2.0 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the interim inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of the onsite inspection on August 11, 2011. After in-office review was completed on October 12, 2011, a final exit teleconference was held. The licensee acknowledged the results presented and did not identify any of the documents reviewed by the inspectors as proprietary.

ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 Enclosure 2

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee 1,2 M. Driscoll, Radiation Safety Officer 1,2 R. Blackburn, Assistant Manager of Laboratory Operations

Indicates presence at the interim on-site exit meeting held on August 11, 2011.

Indicates presence at the telephone exit meeting held on October 12, 2011.

LIST OF PROCEDURES USED IP 69013 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened Type Summary VIO 05000002/11-01-01 VIO Failed to perform independent monitoring or audits of decommissioning operations and quality assurance as required by Technical Specification 6.3 Closed None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System CFR Code of Federal Regulations DCGL Derived Concentration Guideline Level DNMS Division of Nuclear Material Safety DRC Decommissioning Review Committee FNR Ford Nuclear Reactor NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education PML Phoenix Memorial Laboratory DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Licensee documents used during the inspection were specifically identified in the Report Details above.

Attachment