IR 05000166/1999201

Insp Rept 50-166/99-201 on 990517-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Organizational Structure & Functions, Operations,Review & Audit Program,Rp Program,Operator Requalification Program,Surveillance Program & Experiments

ML20195G761
Person / Time
Site:	University of Maryland
Issue date:	06/14/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195G687	List: IR 05000166/1999201 ML20195G682
References
50-166-99-201, NUDOCS 9906160157
Download: ML20195G761 (12)

Text

' '

fQ. . .

p.;

!:

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

l;

l Docket No: , 50-166 License No: ' R-7'O .

. Report No: '.50-166/99-201

,

,

Licensee: University of Maryland Facility: Maryland University Training Reactor

,

Location: College Park, Maryland -

Dates: . May 17 - 20,- 1999

,

. Ir.spector: Thomas F. Dragoun l

-

i Approved by: Ledyard B. Marsh, Chie i Events Assessment, Generic Communications and 1

~ Non-Power Reactors Branch

Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation - i i

.

A 9906160157 990614

'

PDR ADOCK 05000166 .,

G PDR .[

,'

h. ma 1

q a

. .

'

'l..,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l

~

~ This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of selected aspects of the

, operations program, organizational structure and functions program, review and audit program, radiation protection program, operator requalification program, surveillance '

program, experimental program, pr'ocedural control program, emergency preparedness 3 program, special nuclear material control and accountability, and physical security program since the last NRC inspection of these area 'The licensee's programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health !

and safety, and in compliance with NRC requirement ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS .

The organizational structure and functions were consistent with Technical Specification j requirement ]

I

. OPERATIONS The operations program satisfied Technical Specification requirement REVIEW AND AUDIT l

.The review and audit program satisfied Technical Specification requirement )

l

' ADIATION' PROTECTION R

o

_

Tlie radiation protection program satisfied NRC requirement !

s l

- OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION' )

~

Operator.requalification was conducted as required by'the_Requalification Progra SURVEILLANCE ,

'Th's surveillance program satisfied Technical Specification requirement l EXPERIMENTS '

The program for experiments satisfied Technical Specification and procedural requirementsi

]

PROCEDURES

The procedural control and implementation program satisfied Technical Specification requirement ,

L a

g --

..-

.f.

y .z l

l: 2 --

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS-  ;

The emergency preparedness program was conducted in accordance with the current i Emergency Plan.' Action was required to improve timeliness in updating the Emergency _ j Plan and resolution of emergency drill finding ]

SAFEGUARDS ~

. Special Nuclear Materials were acceptably controlled and inventorie SECURITY - 3-Security activities and systems satisfied Physical Protection Plan requirement !

l l

I

,

'

t

'

. _ . _

cy -

.

.%-

Report Details

.

,

Summary of Plant Status i

During the' inspection;the reactor.was not operate ,

i

' 1.- ORGANIZATidNAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS Scone (IP 69001)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of

- organization and staffing e qualifications e management responsibilities -

e .. ~ administrative controls . 1 ' Observations and Findinas The organizational structure had changes since the last inspection. All reactor staff personnel contin'ue to have collateral duties. The Director of Radiation Facilities is

, responsible for the reactor, a cobalt irradiator, and a linear ac'celerator but is now a I faculty' member (Associate Professor). .The organizational structure and i

, qualifications of the staff were as required by technical specifications (TS). The !

licensed staff consists of three Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) (all staff), one !

Reactor Operator (RO) (a student), and two trainees (one staff and one student) 1 and is adequate to support operations. The Director of Radiation Facilities and l l Operations Supervisor are new. However, good teamwork was demonstrated by

~

'

the staff during the replacement of the' sump water storage tank, cleanup of the ;

. sump pit, and fabrication of beam port experimental apparatu ;

. l Conclusions '

The organizational structure and functions were consistent with Technical Specification requirement ~ . OPERATIONS

. c .' lScoce'ilP 69001)-

lThe inspector reviewed selected ~ aspects of:

e' operationallogs and record's

=*' staffing for operations e ' .. selected operational, startup, or. shutdown activities

>

q- .

..

.

-2-

' Observations and Findinas i

The operating logs and records were clear and provided an indication of operational )

activities. Recordkeeping was performed as specified in the startup, operations, and shutdown procedures. Unanticipated scrams were logged in red ink for ease of -)

. identification. Space is provided for recording equipment malfunctions, however,

. there are few entries. The Operations Supervisor stated that equipment has been i

- trouble-fre The logs and records indicated that shift staffing including on-call personnel was as required by TS. . Logs and records also showed that operational conditions and j parameters were consistent with license and TS requirements, c.' . Conclusions The operations program satisfied Technical Specification requirement . ILyVlEW AND AUDIT l

! Scope (IP 69001)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:.

!

-e reactor safety committee meetings e - audit records e responses to safety reviews and audits j e .. reactor safety committee member qualifications *

!

~ Observations and Findinas Records showed that the reactor safety committee meetings were conducted at the LTS required frequency. Topics of these meetings were consistent with TS requirements to provide guidance, direction, and oversight, and to ensure  :

acceptable use of the reactor-The records showed that outside audits had been completed in those' areas outlined

.. in the TS and at the required frequency. - The qualifications of outside audit personnel satisfied TS requirement '

The inspector noted that the safety reviess and audits and the associated findings were acceptably detailed and that the licensee responded and took corrective L actions as needed except for items related to the emergency plan as discussed in Section 9 of this report.

.

,' '

fl . c.: lConclusioni

.g . The review and audit program satisfied Technical Specification requirement .

'4l RADIATION PROTECTION . Scone (IP 89001i

'

The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:

e' radiation 'psotection department staffing e l radiation protection policies and procedures ef .. radiological signs and posting (e routine surveys and monitoring-e ; effluent monitoring and control e' - radiation ~ protection training

.e [ personnel dosimetry program and records " maintenance and calibration of radiation monitoring equipment e As Low As Reasonably' Achievable (ALARA) reviews ' Observations and Findinas

~

The radiation protection program had not changed since the last inspectio However, the RSO stated h's intention to retire soon. Licensee management stated-that the RSO would be replaced and the staffing level in the radiation protection -

- section would be maintaine The annual report showed that the air emissions of radioactive material to the

. environment met the-10 millirem constraint specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).

NRC Form 3, " Notice to Employees," was posted in accordance with

.

10 CFR 19.11. Caution signs, postings and controls for radiation areas were as required in 10 CFR 20, Subpart J. ~ Licensee personnel observed the indicated

. precautions for access to_ radiation area ~ Use of dosimeters were in accordance with radiation protection requirements. In

January 1999 the licensee began using LUXEL dosimeters in place of the TLDs to record personnel exposures.' TLDs continue to be used to monitor doses at 10 locations in the reactor room. These locations generally represent worst case conditions in the room.- Radiological exposure records showed that occupational

~

' doses and doses to the public were within 10 CFR Part 20 limitations. Training

. records showed that personnel were acceptably trained in radiation protection practice >

%

=

g,c ,

[ I.; 7 ,

l , *%

.. , .. h _ Radiation monitoring and survey activities wore as required. Equipment used for -

    .
 . these' activities were maintained, calibrated and used acceptably. An adequate
   .

supply of portable instruments were located in the controlled ars ' ALARA reviews were acceptably performed as require The licensee did not require a respiratory protection program or planned special 1

 . exposure progra Conclusions The radiation protection program satisfied NRC requirement .' .QfEBATOR REQtlALIFICATION
       '
       ' Scope (IP 69001)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects ofi e . operator licenses

  -

o- operator training records ioperator physical examination records e- . operator enmination records o' operat's active duty status b, Observations and Findinas The Requalif': cation Program was maintained up to-date and was at mid-cycle. All

 , operator licenses were current. Records showed that operator training was
 . consistent with the Requalification Program requirements. . Physical examinations of the operators were conducted as required. Recordt, showed that written and operating _ examinations of the operators were acceptably implemented. Logs showed that operators maintained active duty status as required. Discussions of facility modifications and procedure'che^ ps were informal due to the small size of the staf Conclusions Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalificatiun Progra ,

i

?

m -

y , ; . n. . '

  <
   ,
   ,
    ,

i '

   . ,

f ._ , I g; . , p:f

 -
     -5-1 -
 .6  SMBy_EILLANCE
 : a.'  Sgpn(IP 69001)
.

iThe inspecter reviewed selected aspects of:

      ~

. , e ' lsunioillince and' calibration procedures e (. data sheets and records i _ _ , : . ' Observations and Findinas

   ; Surveillance, test and LCO verifications and c'alibrations were completed 'on schedule and in accordance with licensee procedures. All the recorded results were complete and within the TS procedurally prescribed parameters... A motor driven
  ". mixer was added to stir the reactor pool water during the calorimetric calibration of .
  '

the. reactor power level indicators. iThis improved the result Conclusiorts ;

    -
      .
  . The' surveillance program satisfied Technical Specification iequirement <
 - EXPFRIMENTS Scone UP 690011 H
 '

The inspector reviewed ' selected aspects of: h 4

 -

e1 i experimental program requirements

  - 'e - procedures -

L- -e ' logs and records' . e Texperimental administrative cont als and precautions j [ T b. ' Observations'and Findinas

  *

L . Most experiments at the facility were routine procedures _ conducted as part of

' '
  .-

educational c'ourses. No new'or unknown-type experiments had been initiated,

  ,

reviewed, or approved since the last inspection. ' However, the beam ports, which were blocked and locked during the previous inspection were made accessble in L [ ' L anticipation of future use, in l Conclusions g; w >

    -
   . The program for experiments satisfied Technical Specification and procedural
'.

W requirement M y

  .. e c

_

n gzh$' ,_ , f

    ,

3b n

::t y
     "
     - 6-
 '
 : 8. -. PROCEDURES w
. . .
 ,

a.) ' Scope (IP 69001)

  '
 ^  The. inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
   '

l

        )
        .
  ..

e - procedure changes

  .e-
'
 .
  '

procedural implementation :

  -
  > e llogs and records
.
., : Observations and Findinas'.

I Administrative control rif changes to procedures, and. associated review and

  .~ approval by the Reactar Safety Committee were as required. ? All procedures were
 '
  , rebaselined in 1993. ' The new Operations Supervisor initiated additional revisions
  . in 1998 after his' appointment to the position. -The procedures continue to' be clea Land detailed...-Training of personnel on procedures and changes was acceptabl nOnly fou'r sets of controlled proceduies are issued to ensure th'at current versions-
     -
     ~ ~

are'used.f Procedural requirements were consistent with the limited safety' settings and operating conditions specified in the T cb ' Conclusions The procedural control and implementation program satisfied Technical Specification requirement .

1 9. ; EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS i

 / Scone (IP 69001)
  . The inspector reviewed selected aspects of:
        ) ,the Emergency Plan     !
  .e4 --implementing procedures    i s  De :- training e; , offsite support o emergency drills and exercises    ;
        !
        !

        !

I L >

T. . ." ,

       )
:;,;  >      1
._       1 y 6,  i L ,       j
    - 7.-
'bb Observations and Findinac
 ' The Emergency Plan ~(E Plan) in use at the reactor was the version approved by the
   .
 . NRC.i The E Plan was audited and reviewed as required. However, an effort to update the plan began in 1996 but no revision has been' submitted to the RSC for approval. The delay was attributed to the licensee's administrative requirement -

that ownership of the plan rests with the University's Department of Environmental J

 ~ Safety rather than the reactor operations group. In addition, all offsite support .

such as fkefightingl local police, ambulance service, and hospital treatment for a contaminated injured person must be arranged through the Prince Georges County

'
       ]

Fire Department (PGCFD). The PGCFD signed an agreement for support of reactor i emergencies seventeen years ago, in 1982, but has not acted on a revised agreement sent to them.1 Furthermore, resolution of problems with beepers noted

 'during a communications drillin February 1999 remain unresolved. Licensee management stated that these timeliness issues would be addressed, possibly by
 - shifting responsibility for updating the emergency plan to the reactor group. This matter will be reviewed in a future inspection (Inspector Follow up item ;

50 166/99-201-01)-

  .     .

Emergency drills had been conducted as required by the E-Plan. Critiques were

   ~

held following the drills to discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified during the exercise an'd to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. - The ' results of these critiques were documented and filed. Emergency preparedness and ; response training was being completed as require ' ~ Conclusions  ! The emergency preparedness program was conducted in accordance with the l current Emergency Plan. Action to update the Plan was require . i

       >

10.- SAFEGUARDS - l l . Scope (IP 85102F i

,.The inspector reviewed selected aspects of

l e' assignment of responsibility for special nuclear material l ! .e- ' accountability records and reports '

       ,
       )
  ~
,

g # ,

.t'
  -
   '8-
   - Observations and Findinos The' licensee was maintaining a . system of controls that provided the quantity, q
 - identity, and current location of all special nuclear material (SNM) within the
 '

facility. .The possession and use of SNM was limited to the locations and purposes authorized under the license. The material control and accountability forms )

 '(DOE /NRC Forms 741 and 742) were prepared and transmitted as required. The licensee stated that the annual physical inventory report will be revised to include a count of fuel pins instead of gram quantitie Conclusions Special Nuclear Materials were acceptably controlled and inventorie !

1 SECURITY Scope (IP 81431) The inspector reviewed selected aspects of: o physical protection equipment implementation of the Physical Protection Plan l b Observations and FindiJgg Physical protection systems (barriers and alarms), equipment and instrumentation ! were as required by the Physical Protection Plan. Access control was as lequire Implementing procedures were consistent with the Physical Protection Pla Conclusions l Security activities and systems satisfied Physical Protection Plan requirement > 1 Exit Meetino Summary The inspector piesented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on May 20,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente .

 +

L

Q: ' 'Qu' _ q. .

     ,
-

4;f i .t h'I. <

 ,    ,

' y' . 1 , d

    : PARTIAL LIST OF, PERSONS CONTACTED
    .

i i u

    -

i Licensee V. Adams, Senior Rea'ctor Dperator

 : M.' Al,-Sheikhly, Director, Radiation Facilities  ,

A. C.hristou! Chairman, Department of Materials and Nuclear Engineering

 .
 -
 " 'J. Floyd,LReactor Operations Supervisor -

M. Gavrilas, Associate Professor, Nuclear Engineering Program L. Igras, Director, Department of Environmental Safety  ; T. Long, Radiation Safety Officer .

        '
 . G. Pertmer, Associate Professor, Nuclear Engineering Program
'

NRG .. ..

    .
 " A.- Adamsi Senior Project Manager, REXB-

! J. Lyons, Deputy Branch Chief, NRR/ DRIP /REXB L - M. Mendoncai Senior Project Manager, REXB.

'

 ( T. Michaels, Senior Project Manager / REXB t
-
  ,   INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED L  IP.69001  CLASS ll NON-POWER REACTORS   !

. 11P 81431 ~ ~ FIXED SITE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF SNM OF LOW STRATEGIC l

    ' SIGNIFICANCE IP. 85102  MATERIAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING i

! i ITEMS OPENEDiCLOSED, AND DIGCUSSED

        ;

OPENER: - l l- 50-166l99-201-01 (IFI)~ Resolve timeliness issues regarding the Emergency Pla CLOSED: None'

 ,    LiS' T OF ACRONYMS USED
 ; ALARA '- . As Low As Reasonably Achievable CFR-  Code of Federal Regulations'

NRC- ' Nuclear Regulatcry Commission

   -

PGCFD- Prince Georges County Fire Department  ! RP- LRadiation Protection  ;

        '

RSC Reactor Safety Committee RSO- . Radiation _ Safety Office s :SNM- . Special nuclear material i xTLDn . Thermoluminescent dosimeter  !

 /J i TS , Technical Specifications -    !

    <

s

        -
.

j }}