|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000112/1987001]] |
| | number = ML20207S709
| |
| | issue date = 02/26/1987
| |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-112/87-01 on 870126-30.Violations Noted:Failure to Maintain Records in Proper Units,Failure to Provide Emergency Planning Training & Failure to Maintain Ltrs of Agreement
| |
| | author name = Baer R, Murray B
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000112
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-112-87-01, 50-112-87-1, NUDOCS 8703200200
| |
| | package number = ML20207S705
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 8
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000112/1987001]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:7 --
| |
| . ..
| |
| APPENDIX C
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| REGION IV,
| |
| -
| |
| ~NRC Inspection Report: 50-112/87-01 License: R-53
| |
| Docket: .50-112
| |
| Licensee: University of Oklahoma
| |
| 865 Asp Ave., Room 212
| |
| Norman, Oklahoma 73019
| |
| Facility Name: AGN-211P, Research Reactor (100W)
| |
| <
| |
| Inspection At: University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
| |
| -
| |
| Inspection Conducted: January 26-30, 198/ I
| |
| Inspector:
| |
| Rf E. 3aer, Radiation Specialist, Facilities
| |
| 2/I
| |
| Date '
| |
| /
| |
| Radiological Protection Section
| |
| -Approved: (llAdOl/l dAi(#1 8[b[b7
| |
| Date '
| |
| B. Murray, Chief,' Facilijties Radiological
| |
| Protection Section
| |
| Inspection Summary
| |
| Inspection Conducted January 26-30, 1987 (Report 50-112/87-01)
| |
| Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's
| |
| organization and management controls, operations and maintenance logs, records,
| |
| operator requalification program, radiation protection, radioactivity releases,
| |
| transportation, emergency planning, physical security plan, nuclear material
| |
| safeguards, and an allegation.
| |
| Results: Within the areas inspected, three violations were identified (failure
| |
| to maintain records in proper units, paragraph 8; failure to provide emergency
| |
| planning training, and failure to maintain letters of agreement, paragraph 13).
| |
| 8703200200 870316 2
| |
| PDR ADOCK 0500
| |
| 0
| |
| | |
| _ __
| |
| __--_--__-z---.- _ _ _ __----- _ __ _ -- _-- _ - _ __
| |
| :. . .-
| |
| '.
| |
| i
| |
| L
| |
| DETAILS
| |
| l~
| |
| 1. Persons Contacted
| |
| *D. M. Egle, Director, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear
| |
| Engineering
| |
| *C. M. Jensen, Reactor Director and Senior Reactor Operator
| |
| *P. Skierkowski, Radiation Safety Officer
| |
| M. C. Smith, Radiation Safety Technician
| |
| K. A. Messana, Safety Inspector, Department of Public Safety
| |
| D. McGhee, Captain, Norman Fire Department
| |
| The NRC inspector also. interviewed other licensee and City of Norman
| |
| employees including police officers and firemen.
| |
| * Denotes those present during the exit interview on January 30, 1987.
| |
| 2. Status of Facility
| |
| The AGN-211P reactor was operated approximately 40 times between
| |
| January 11, 1985, and April 24, 1986. The reactor has not been operated
| |
| since April 24, 1986. The licensee no longer offers courses of
| |
| instruction in the School of Nuclear Engineering or performs research in
| |
| nuclear technology which would require the operation of the reactor. The
| |
| licensee has discussed with the NRC procedures for "mothballing" the
| |
| reactor.
| |
| 3. Organization and Management Control
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the organization and management controls to
| |
| determine compliance with Technical Specification (TS) 6.1.
| |
| The current organization was verified to be consistent with TS Figure 4,
| |
| " Administrative Organization of University of Oklahoma Reactor AGN 211P"-
| |
| except for the positions of Reactor Supervisor and Reactor Staff. The TS
| |
| allows the Reactor Director to also serve as the Reactor Supervisor. The
| |
| status of licensed operators, membership and meetings or the Reactor
| |
| Safety Committee (RSC), and other matters concerning supervision of the
| |
| reactor facility were examined. The NRC inspector noted that the position
| |
| of Reactor Director had been filled by the only qualified senior' reactor
| |
| operator presently on campus.
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the minutes of meetings conducted by the RSC
| |
| and verified that the committee had met quarterly since thelprevious
| |
| inspection and reviewed matters related to the reactor. It was verified
| |
| that records reflected attendance by designated committee members. The
| |
| following items were routinely reviewed by the committee:
| |
| . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
| |
| | |
| - -
| |
| - .
| |
| -. ,
| |
| , ,
| |
| ,
| |
| f
| |
| - 4
| |
| . . . . ,
| |
| % v *
| |
| ' N
| |
| 3-
| |
| ; , ,
| |
| -
| |
| ~. .
| |
| Reactor Surveillance. Logs *
| |
| ~
| |
| ' Facilities Manual .
| |
| >. -
| |
| . Fuel Element _ Inspection and Inventory
| |
| '
| |
| Reactor Maintenance Log
| |
| -Requalification Program-
| |
| Physical. Security Plan.
| |
| Emergency Plan . .
| |
| Reactor Operations and Sample-Irradiation Logs
| |
| . <-
| |
| -
| |
| Reactor; Experiments
| |
| ,
| |
| No violations'or' deviations were identified.
| |
| ?_ 14; Operation and Maint$ nance' Logs
| |
| ~
| |
| .The NRC. inspector reviewed the following logs for the period January 1,
| |
| =
| |
| .1985, through January 27, 1987, to determine compliance with'TS 3.1, 3.2,
| |
| !3.3,3.4,4.2,-o.21(g),anoo.21(n).
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| i ~~
| |
| !
| |
| : Reactor Operations Log
| |
| Reactor Maintenance Log
| |
| -All maintenance and~ operations activities appeared to have been conducted
| |
| ~
| |
| 1,
| |
| ' '
| |
| in.a manner consistent 1with the TS requirements and administrative
| |
| { ' procedures.
| |
| I
| |
| No'violationshar deviations were identified.
| |
| ; 5. -Procedures
| |
| e EThe NRC inspector reviewed operating and surveillance procedures to
| |
| , . determine compliance with the requirements of TS 3.4, 4.1, 4.2,-and 6.12.
| |
| L'- The reactor operations manual contained procedures for:
| |
| i
| |
| *
| |
| " Normal Startup, Operation and Shutdown of the AGN-211 Reactor
| |
| *
| |
| Reactor Startup,-Operation and Shutdown L'og
| |
| *
| |
| ; Completion of the-Irradiation Request Form
| |
| *
| |
| Experiment Request
| |
| '*'
| |
| ( iProcedure for Core Rearrangement
| |
| ;
| |
| L-
| |
| ,
| |
| .The surveillance activities log contained the procedures and logs for:
| |
| *
| |
| I Low Water Level Switch Interlock Test
| |
| *
| |
| Temperatcre Interlock ~
| |
| *
| |
| ll Circulation Pump Interlock
| |
| *' ' Water Conductivity-Meter Calibration
| |
| i
| |
| *'
| |
| l Air-Water Monitor. Adjustment
| |
| *
| |
| High Voltage'DC: Power Supplies Calibration
| |
| ~
| |
| [ *
| |
| ! ~
| |
| , *-
| |
| Low Power and Period Meter Calibration
| |
| ! Linear Power Channel Calibration
| |
| ' *
| |
| Neutronic Power Calibration
| |
| l
| |
| l-
| |
| i
| |
| t . ,
| |
| - .
| |
| S i
| |
| | |
| . . . .
| |
| .. - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| . .. .
| |
| . . .
| |
| .
| |
| 4
| |
| Safety and Control Rod Surveillance
| |
| -
| |
| Emergency Evaluation Horn Test
| |
| Security Alarm System Test
| |
| The NRC inspector verified that limits regarding excess reactivity,
| |
| control and safety rod worths, scram capabilities, and safety systems were
| |
| not exceeded. The records of surveillance test results did not indicate
| |
| any unusual conditions.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 6. Records
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's records 'for ' reactor operations,
| |
| reactor component changes /replecement, and calibrations. The licensee had
| |
| replaced the four control rod drive motors in .lulv 1985, in acenrdance ,
| |
| with an. approved procedure. The licensee had not made any facility
| |
| modifications during the inspection period.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 7. Operator Requalification Program
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's reactor operator requalification
| |
| training program for compliance with 10 CFR.Part 55, Appendix A. The NRC
| |
| inspector reviewed training documents for the currently licensed operator
| |
| and previously licensed individuals to determine agreement with the
| |
| requalification program approved by the NRC on February 23, 1933.
| |
| The NRC inspector noted the last training session was held on April 25,
| |
| 1986, at which time the three licensed reactor operators were in
| |
| attendance. Since April 25, 1986, the 1icensee has lost the services of
| |
| two of these reactor operators. Records indicate the reactor was last
| |
| operated on April 24, 1986.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 8. Radiation Protection
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation protection program to
| |
| determine compliance with 10 CFR Parts, 19.11, 19.12, 19.13,'20.101,
| |
| 20.104, 20.201, 20.202, 20.203, 20.207, 20.401, 20.403, 20.405, 20.408,
| |
| and 20.409 and 50.54(q).
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed records, interviewed personnel, made
| |
| observations, and performed independent surveys.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 20.401(b) requires that each licensee shall maintain records
| |
| in the same units used in this part, showing the results of surveys
| |
| required by 20.201(b), . . . ." 10 CFR Part 20.5(a) states that
| |
| h si -
| |
| | |
| . . .
| |
| 5
| |
| radioactivity is commonly, and for purposes of the regulations in this
| |
| part shall be, measured in terms of disintegrations per unit time or in
| |
| curies.
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed radiation and contamination survey records of
| |
| surveys performed to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.201(b),
| |
| during the period January 1,1985, through December 31, 1986, in rooms 106
| |
| and 107 of the Nuclear Engineering Laboratory (NEL) building. The NRC
| |
| inspector determined that smear surveys taken to detect removable
| |
| contamination were recorded in counts per minute. It was also noted that
| |
| the licensee's procedures did not include a method for converting counts
| |
| per minute into disintegrations per minute.
| |
| The NRC inspector stated that failure to maintain records in the same
| |
| units used in 10 CFR Part 20.5 was considered an apparent violation of 10
| |
| CFR Part 20.401(b). (112/8701-01)
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the course outline, lesson plans, and viewed
| |
| video tapes of the training program, " Radiation Safety for Laboratory
| |
| , Personnel." The NRC inspector verified that individuals were receiving
| |
| the training required in-10 CFR Part 19.12 and recommended by Regulatory
| |
| Guide 8.13.
| |
| 9. Radioactive Releases
| |
| The licensee does not maintain a detailed environmental surveillance
| |
| program (e.g. collection and analysis of water, soil, and vegetation
| |
| samples). There are no specific license requirements that such a program
| |
| be maintained.
| |
| A licensee representative stated that no liquid effluent releasas have
| |
| been made since the last inspection. The licensee's operation records
| |
| indicate that gaseous releases are within 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 10. Transportation (Fuel Shipments)
| |
| The NRC inspector verified that there had been no fuel shipments since the
| |
| previous operational inspection.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 11. Nuclear Materials Safeguards
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the nuclear materials inventory program to
| |
| determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 70.53. The NRC inspector reviewed
| |
| the accountability procedures and practices, records and material status
| |
| reports. The procedures, practices, and records were found to be well
| |
| implemented. Responsibilities and response requirements were defined
| |
| clearly and understood, and appropriate test procedures were being used.
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| ]-.: .
| |
| 6
| |
| The licensee had not received or shipped any radioactive materials s_ince
| |
| -
| |
| the previous inspection.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| - 12. Physical Security Plan
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical
| |
| security program through visual examinations, review of records, and
| |
| ~ discussions with appropriate faculty and campus security, personnel. The
| |
| review indicated that the physical security plan was being implemented,
| |
| responsibilities and response requirements were defined clearly and
| |
| understood, and the required tests were being performed.
| |
| -No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| , .
| |
| 13. Emergency Planning
| |
| .The NRC inspector reviewed the emergency preparedness program to determine
| |
| agreement with commitments made in the Emergency Preparedness Plan.
| |
| The licensee fully implemented,the Emergency Preparedness Plan in
| |
| November 1984 and the emergency notification list was updated on March 7,
| |
| 1986.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 50.54(q) requires that a licensee authorized to operate a
| |
| research reactor shall follow and maintain in effect an' emergency plan.
| |
| Section 10.4, of the Emergency Preparedness Plan states, '.'The' Emergency
| |
| Plan shall be revised and updated as required based on drill results or
| |
| changes in the. facility and shall be reviewed annually by the reactor as
| |
| required based on drill results or changes in the facility and shall be
| |
| reviewed annually by the reactor staff to ensure the plan is adequate and
| |
| up to date." Section 3.1 addresses assistance from offsite organizations
| |
| and states " Written agreements with-these organizations are included in
| |
| Appendix A to this plan."
| |
| The NRC inspector determined on January 28, 1987, that the letter of
| |
| agreement with the Norman Municipal Hospital dated November 15, 1983,
| |
| expired on October 1, 1984. The NRC inspector stated that failure to
| |
| review and update the letter of-agreement with the Norman Municipal-
| |
| Hospital was an apparent violation of requirements of 10 CFR
| |
| Part 50.54(q). (112/8701-02)
| |
| Section 10.1, of the Emergency Preparedness Plan addresses training that
| |
| will be provided to individuals with emergency response-responsibilities
| |
| and states that the University Police and Norman Fire Department shall be
| |
| trained on an annual basis in radiation safety and NEL facility emergency
| |
| procedures.
| |
| | |
| _
| |
| rc +
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| - +
| |
| # .: . .
| |
| >
| |
| w .
| |
| t
| |
| 7-
| |
| .
| |
| '
| |
| .The NRC inspector reviewed the video tape prepared by the licensee which
| |
| : addresses the facility emergency procedures. The NRC inspector also-
| |
| '
| |
| q
| |
| discussed with representatives of the University _ Police and the Norman
| |
| '
| |
| Fire Department the-training being received. The NRC inspector determined ~
| |
| on January 29,.1987 that training in radiation safety and the NEL facility
| |
| emergency procedures were not being received by all individuals from the
| |
| University Police and Norman Fire Department who would respond to an
| |
| emergency at the NEL facility. The NRC inspector discussed with licensee
| |
| representatives the training _ requirements contained in the Emergency s
| |
| Preparedness Plan. The licensee stated that training.had been provided
| |
| to selected individuals in the' police and fire departments. However,
| |
| other individuals who might be-required to respond to emergency.
| |
| situations had not received the required training. The failure to
| |
| provide the required training to all personnel is an apparent violation-
| |
| of-10 CFR Part 50.54(q). (112/8701-03)
| |
| ^
| |
| 14. - dllegation (4-86-A-109)
| |
| The NRC h'ad received a copy- of the Oklahoma Observer newspaper article
| |
| from the' licensee which' had alleged that personnel working near the
| |
| '
| |
| University of Oklahoma reactor had: (a) received radiation overexposures
| |
| during the past 10-20 years, (b) radiation exposures in adjacent rooms
| |
| ,
| |
| were above the regulatory limits, and (c) the reactor staff failed to lock -
| |
| a room directly above the reactor while the reactor was in _ operation.
| |
| ''
| |
| ~
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed selected reports, radiation survey records',
| |
| , environmental radiation dosimeter results, person'el n radiation exposure
| |
| : histories, and reactor operation logs for the period' July 1971 through
| |
| December 1986: #
| |
| p
| |
| Allegation, Part (a) , I
| |
| , The NRC inspector's review of radiation exposure histories and
| |
| li environmental radiation dosimeter results indicated the. highest
| |
| recorded exposure was less than 750 millirem / year for personnel
| |
| '
| |
| *
| |
| assigned to wear radiation dosimetry, and less than 120 millirem / year
| |
| for areas monitored by environmental radiation dosimeters. The NRC
| |
| inspector was not able to substantiate this portion of the
| |
| allegation.
| |
| Allegation, Part (b)
| |
| The AGN-211P reactor is located below grade level in the NEL
| |
| building. The NRC inspector's review of facility records indicated
| |
| that rooms adjacent to the reactor facility did not increase in
| |
| radiation levels as a result of reactor operations. The NRC
| |
| inspector was not able to substantiate this portion of the
| |
| allegation.
| |
| | |
| e
| |
| _
| |
| .
| |
| ,. v- - - - -
| |
| y s - q- ,
| |
| m
| |
| ,
| |
| s,
| |
| s93 A
| |
| .c
| |
| .::*. c.
| |
| , 'a . ;-
| |
| .\. ,' ,_
| |
| .y
| |
| *: ) ;;- , ~, ~
| |
| ;u y' .: . , ~ ~
| |
| . ] ; ),;r a ,k . \:
| |
| .v [t'' '
| |
| s
| |
| y*
| |
| G }g;&,_j L { i;
| |
| ~
| |
| '
| |
| }
| |
| '
| |
| 8 '
| |
| 3
| |
| -
| |
| ,,
| |
| o -r [ ,>
| |
| 4
| |
| -
| |
| i
| |
| s- /
| |
| (
| |
| . , , ,
| |
| /> $ y
| |
| '
| |
| . t _ l.
| |
| '
| |
| Q '
| |
| hM Allegation, Part-(c)V S \: h.' d, , s
| |
| < .
| |
| , ; \ :) \y .
| |
| -
| |
| t The licensee had includsd 'in th- reactor startup, . operation,/anh ' '
| |
| shutdownlog'acheckoffline$em"storageroom(NEL-214) locked"and
| |
| .y
| |
| . the reactor ope *ator had the oaly key which allows access irito .this
| |
| '7- -
| |
| -
| |
| room The NRC'(inspcctor's,y(view of reactor logs . indicated tLe
| |
| s
| |
| storige room.hid been lock!d prior to reactor operations. The NRC r
| |
| inspe'ctor was' jat able to Yubstantiate this portjoi of the
| |
| allegation.
| |
| Q,
| |
| ,
| |
| 3., s .s N. :! ;.
| |
| ,
| |
| e
| |
| j' i-
| |
| 15~. Exit Interview v
| |
| 3
| |
| ''
| |
| , ;y, ,.
| |
| (e
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| y 1 e .
| |
| -The NRC inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusb n ofs, ' (
| |
| '(q
| |
| -
| |
| the inspection on January 30, 1987. The' NRC inspector' summarized ,the 3 }:
| |
| scope and findings of the inspection. s A , 4
| |
| -
| |
| s. .. $x s
| |
| '
| |
| .), '
| |
| q
| |
| - ' '
| |
| ,
| |
| K
| |
| x. .
| |
| u'\ x-
| |
| ~
| |
| ,
| |
| ''
| |
| p. !g~
| |
| ll ;t c ,
| |
| ' ~
| |
| , j 'n
| |
| ;
| |
| -
| |
| '
| |
| '4 .<
| |
| "
| |
| --(
| |
| % v
| |
| w_. j V. ,
| |
| y
| |
| TE '
| |
| .j. i s- ( i
| |
| [\ \ :
| |
| cg k
| |
| 4 Yjg- U
| |
| n
| |
| s ,,\ y
| |
| ,o % ,
| |
| W
| |
| \\ .
| |
| \
| |
| b '\J
| |
| '
| |
| '
| |
| '
| |
| , \ j )
| |
| % t !.
| |
| ^
| |
| 4
| |
| .'
| |
| c
| |
| ,
| |
| s,
| |
| [. ..
| |
| '
| |
| it 1. -, ,
| |
| ; .
| |
| h a ,
| |
| P ,
| |
| ,i ,
| |
| Jl t c( 3.
| |
| .g s ,; , < ,
| |
| s
| |
| ,- ., ,
| |
| e 4
| |
| -
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| '% g' i i
| |
| f
| |
| s
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| e
| |
| t
| |
| ,' .
| |
| '
| |
| \ - ,
| |
| x
| |
| . -
| |
| s
| |
| 1
| |
| #
| |
| i
| |
| 1' 4
| |
| j, _ v l s
| |
| s* s c 1
| |
| T 'I , T
| |
| ' \
| |
| -
| |
| '
| |
| y %
| |
| , - --, p._ - - . , -
| |
| ,, ...,-m . - - , . - , . - m
| |
| }}
| |