IR 05000166/2007201

IR 05000166-07-201, on 06/11-15/2007, for University of Maryland, Maryland University Training Reactor

ML071800229
Person / Time
Site:	University of Maryland
Issue date:	07/03/2007
From:	Johnny Eads NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTB
To:	Al-Sheikhly M Univ of Maryland - College Park
Voth M, NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRT, 415-1210
References
IR-07-201
Download: ML071800229 (18)

Text

July 3, 2007Dr. Mohamad Al-Sheikhly, DirectorRadiation Facilities and Nuclear Reactor Department of Materials Science and Engineering 2309D Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building Building 090, Stadium Drive The University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-2115SUBJECT:NRC ROUTINE, ANNOUNCED INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-166/2007-201

Dear Dr. Al-Sheikhly:

This letter refers to the inspection conducted on June 11-15, 2007, at your research reactorfacility. The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, theinspection 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, no safety concerns or noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified.

However, one inspector follow-up item was identified which will be revisited in a future inspection. No response to this letter is required.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and itsenclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC PublicDocument Room or from the NRC's 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 at301-415-1210.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Johnny H. Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-166License No. R-70Enclosure: NRC Inspection Report No. 50-166/2007-201cc w/enclosure: See next page University of MarylandDocket No. 50-166 cc:

Director, Dept. of Natural ResourcesPower Plant Siting Program Energy & Coastal Zone Administration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401Mr. Roland Fletcher, DirectorCenter for Radiological Health Maryland Department of Environment 201 West Preston Street

7 th Floor Mail RoomBaltimore, MD 21201Mr. Vincent G. AdamsFacility Coordinator Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building 090 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742Maureen M. Kotlas, DirectorDepartment of Environmental Safety 3115 Chesapeake Building 338 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611

ML071800229OFFICEPRTB:RIPRTB:LAPRTB:BCNAMEMVothEHyltonJEads DATE7/2/20077/2/20077/3/2007 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONDocket No:50-166License No:R-70 Report No:50-166/2007-201 Licensee:University of Maryland Facility:Maryland University Training Reactor Location:College Park, Maryland Dates:June 11-15, 2007 Inspector:Marcus H. Voth Approved by:Johnny H. Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation EXECUTIVE SUMMARYMaryland University Training ReactorNRC Inspection Report No. 50-166/2007-201The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the on-site review of selectedaspects and activities since the last NRC inspection of the licensee's Class II non-power reactor safety programs including: organization and staffing, operations logs and records, procedures, health physics, design changes, committees, audits and reviews, maintenance logs and records, transportation and follow-up of previously identified items. The licensee's programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health andsafety, and in compliance with NRC requirements. Organization and Staffing

!The reactor organization and staffing were consistent with Technical Specificationrequirements.

Operations Logs and Records

!Operational activities were found to be consistent with applicable Technical Specification and procedural requirements but improved documentation is needed.

!An Inspector Follow-up Item was opened:- Improved documentation of Technical Specification complianceProcedures

!Procedural control and implementation satisfied Technical Specification requirements.Health Physics

!The inspector determined that the licensee's radiation protection program metapplicable regulatory and Technical Specification requirements. Design Changes

!The licensee demonstrated effective implementation of a design change processprocedure in conformance with regulations.Committees, Audits and Reviews

!Review and oversight functions of the Reactor Safety Committee appear to meetTechnical Specification requirements but written documentation requires improvement to reach this conclusion without verbal augmentation.

-2-Maintenance Logs and Records

!The licensee kept a maintenance log to record major maintenance activities not otherwise included in the reactor operations logs.Transportation

!The licensee did not make any radioactive material shipments under the reactor licenseduring the past two years. Follow-up of Previously Identified Items

!An Inspector Follow-up Item was closed:- Follow-up to verify that the licensee conducts intermittent surveys in the reactor bay

!An Inspector Follow-up Item and an Un-Resolved Item were discussed but remain open:- Follow-up to verify that the licensee reviews the Memorandum of Understanding withthe Prince Georges County Fire Department- Failure to conduct visual inspections of the control rods in accordance with TechnicalSpecification requirements REPORT DETAILSSummary of Plant StatusThe licensee's research reactor, licensed to operate at a maximum steady-state thermal powerof 250 kilowatts, continues to be operated in support of academic classes, educational demonstrations, operator training, surveillance, and experiments. During the inspection the inspector observed the reactor being started up, operated to perform surveillance tests, and shut down. 1. Organization and Staffinga.Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the staffingrequirements in Technical Specifications (TS) Section 6.1 Organization:*organization diagram*qualifications of key personnel

• NRC-issued Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Operator (RO)

licenses*Reactor Console Logbook, March 15, 2006 to presentb.Observations and FindingsThe Maryland University Training Reactor (MUTR) organizational structure andthe responsibilities of the reactor management and staff had not changed since the last inspection (see NRC Inspection Report No. 50-166/2006-201). Current licensed staff consisted of the Facility Director (FD) and the Facility Coordinator(FC), both of whom maintain SRO licenses and two students who maintain RO licenses. Four additional students were in training for license examinations near the end of the year. The MUTR staff's qualifications satisfied the training and experiencerequirements stipulated in the TS. The operations log and associated records confirmed that shift staffing met the minimum requirements for duty personnel. TS Figure 6-1, Administrative Organization, shows reactor operations to besupported by the Radiation Safety Office. Specifically it shows three positions:

- Director, Environmental Safety Department/Radiation Safety Officer (RSO)

- Asst. Radiation Safety Officer

- Radiation Safety Office Staff The inspector found three individuals performing the first function shown in TSs:

- Director, Department of Environmental Safety

- Deputy Director, Department of Environmental Safety

- Radiation Safety Officer and a single individual with occasional contract help covering the two latter positions. The inspector found that despite the reduced staffing in the Radiation Safety Office, which provided the oversight required by multiple university licenses, activities conducted under the reactor license continued to receive-2-adequate radiation safety support. The licensee had commissioned a study to assess the adequacy of campus-wide radiation safety oversight and was awaiting the final report at the time of the inspection. c.ConclusionThe reactor organization and staffing were consistent with TS requirements.2.Operation Logs and Recordsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that selected records weremaintained as required by TS Section 6.3, Review and Audit, 6.6, Reports, and 6.7, Records:*Annual Report for the MUTR for the dates July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 *Facility file of Annual Reports for the MUTR and transmittal letters*Maintenance Procedure MP 300, 10 CFR 50.59 Determination forMaintenance Activities, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Operations Procedure OP-101, Reactor Startup Checkout, Rev 12(March 27, 2000)*Completed Initial Reactor Startup Checklist forms for the period of timefrom December 5, 2006 to present*Procedure OP-102, Reactor Shutdown Checkout, Rev 12(March 27, 2000)*Completed Reactor Shutdown Checklist forms for the period of time fromOctober 27, 2006 to present*Observation of Startup # 3865; ascension to full power; collection of air,reactor water, and floor contamination smear samples; radiation survey of the reactor area; and reactor shutdown *Procedure and data recorded for Reactor Compartment RadiationMonitoring, April 19, May 25, and June 14, 2007*Procedure and data recorded for Reactor Air and Water Sampling andAnalysis, April 11 and May 11, and June 14, 2007*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of July 14, 2004, July 15, 2004*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of December 9, 2004,December 9, 2004*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of June 22, 2006, June 23, 2006*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of November 19, 2006,November 21, 2006*Reactor Console Logbook for the period March 15, 2006 to presentb.Observations and FindingsReactor operations were carried out following written procedures and TSrequirements. A review of the logs and records indicated that TS operational limits had not been exceeded. The inspector determined that reactor operations-3-were carried out following written procedures. There were a total of 41 reactor startups logged during calendar year 2006.Scrams that occurred during reactor operations were recorded in the reactorlogbook in red pen. Four scrams had occurred during the inspection period, two due to loss of commercial electrical power and two due to period scrams during reactor power increases.The 2006 Annual Report summarized the required information and was issued inaccordance with TS Section 6.6.1. No special reports were submitted pursuant to TS Sections 6.6.2 or 6.6.3.A number of situations were identified throughout the inspection wheredocumentation did not convince the inspector of full compliance with the TS; however, verbal discussion indicated a deficiency in documentation rather than compliance. An inspector follow-up item was created to track the following areas for adequate documentation of TS compliance:

- Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) minutes did not clearly record action taken at meetings. RSC records did not clearly indicate that members were appointed to the RSC in compliance with TS 6.2.1 requirements and that the required audit activities delineated in TS 6.2.4 (2) were included in audits. Additional detail on this issue can be found in Section 6 of this report.

- The annual reactor facility As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

Program audit required by TS 6.2.5 was addressed as a summary statement in the annual reports of the Radiation Safety Program; the inspector did not consider the statement to be evidence that an ALARA Program audit had been performed and the results presented at an RSC meeting as required by TS 6.2.5.

Additional detail on this issue can be found in Section 4 of this report.

- Annual Reports were prepared in accordance with TS 6.6.1 and put on file but were apparently not sent to the NRC as required.

- Procedure MP 300, 10 CFR 50.59 Determination for Maintenance Activities, contained an apparent error that could result in the inadvertent failure to perform a safety review.

- SNM inventory reports were prepared and filed but not in the form consistent with the official national (electronic) record keeping system.

These issues will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection and tracked as Inspector Follow-up Item No. 50-166/2007-201-01 IFI.c.ConclusionsOperational activities were found to be consistent with applicable TS andprocedural requirements but improved documentation is needed.3.Proceduresa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the requirements of TSSection 6.3 were being met concerning written procedures:

-4-*Surveillance Procedure 200, Instrument Calibration and MaintenanceSchedule, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Surveillance Procedure 202, Reactor Power Calibration, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Surveillance Procedure 206, Pool Water Conductivity Determination, Rev12 (March 27, 2000)*Surveillance Procedure 209, Procedure for Control and Accounting forSNM at the MUTR, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000) *Maintenance Procedure 300, 10 CFR 50.59 Determination forMaintenance Activities, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Maintenance Procedure 301, Dismantling and Re-assembling FuelBundle, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Maintenance Procedure 303, Fuel Movement, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)

• File 16.1, Control Rod Calibration and Shutdown Margin, performedSeptember 22, 2006*File 16.2, Power Calibration, performed annually 2001 through 2006b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector verified by review of a random selection of written procedures thatthey addressed activities delineated in TS Section 6.3, were approved by the RSC, and were of acceptable clarity and detail. Provisions existed for making temporary changes to the procedures that did not change their original intent per TS 6.3; this provision had not been used since the previous inspection. The inspector noted that in recent years the reactor power calibration procedurewas documented with a computer-generated data sheet that did not include the signature lines for review and approval as in the original data sheet. As a result, on occasion one or both signatures were omitted from the data sheet on file.

The licensee processed a procedural change before the end of the inspection, restoring the signature lines.c.ConclusionsProcedural control and implementation satisfied TS requirements.4.Health Physicsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 19and Part 20 and the applicable TS requirements:*Radiation Safety Manual - University of Maryland, August 16, 2001*Radiation Safety Office Departmental Procedure #001, InstrumentCalibration, October 2003*Radiation Safety Office Departmental Procedure #002, Water Sampling,November 3, 2003*Radiation Safety Office Departmental Procedure #004, Air Sampling,November 3, 2003-5-*Radiation Safety Office Departmental Procedure #016, PregnantWorkers in a Radiation Environment*2004 Audit of the University of Maryland Radiation Protection Program

• 2005 Audit of the University of Maryland Radiation Protection Program

• Occupancy Radiation Exposure Reports for Reactor Fixed Monitors andPersonnel for 2006*Occupancy Radiation Exposure Reports for Reactor Fixed Monitors andPersonnel for 2007*radiological signs and posting

• Global Dosimetry Solutions Environmental Report, February 26, 2007

• Global Dosimetry Solutions Environmental Report, May 17, 2007

• University of Maryland Radiation Facilities Visitor Log, dated fromJanuary 2004 to present*calibration data on radiation monitoring equipmentb.Observations and FindingsThe RSO administered a campus-wide radiation protection program whichincluded activities conducted under the reactor license. A written description of the Radiation Protection Program as well as implementing procedures were reviewed.During the inspection the inspector observed radiation monitoring performed inthe reactor room. This procedure was newly initiated since the previous inspection, closing out an inspector follow-up item also discussed in Section 9 of this report. Data gathered in monthly surveys indicated that throughout the year there were no unexpectedly high radiation levels present. Likewise, radiation worker dosimetry monitoring indicated that doses were near background levels.

Visitors to the reactor signed a logbook and were issued self-reading dosimeters.

The inspector reviewed the log and found that no significant radiation doses were measured. The inspector also reviewed results of the environmental monitoring program. The reactor facility was monitored with six "close-in dosimeters." Beyond that were seven "campus monitors." Results available for the two periods of time prior to the inspection indicated approximately 30 millirem per quarter on both the close-in and the more distant monitors. This was approximately the background radiation level. The licensee calculated the maximum potential production of Ar-41 in the reactor using the Environmental Protection Agency computational code "COMPLY," which showed that the licensee was in Level 2 compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1).The inspector verified that current versions of NRC Form 3 required by 10 CFRPart 19 were posted at the entrances to the reactor bay and the ROS's office.

Areas with radiation and contamination hazards present and radioactive material storage areas were found to be properly posted. No unmarked radioactive material was found in the facility.The calibration data on devices was noted as the inspector toured the facility. Alldevices observed were found to be within their calibration period.

-6-The inspector observed that proper precautions are used to maintain radiation doses for personnel as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The RSO considered the 2004 and 2005 audit reports of the Radiation Protection Program to meet the requirement of TS 6.2.5 for an audit of the reactor facility ALARA Program. An external audit of the Radiation Protection Program was performed in early 2007 which is being used for the 2006 annual audit requirement; this audit report was not yet available for review. As noted in Section 2 of this report, the inspector identified as a follow-up item a need for improved documentation indicating that the audit requirements had in fact been performed.The inspector verified that appropriate training was being administered to bothradiation workers and emergency personnel with need to enter the facility; this was accomplished by reviewing the structure of the training program, training materials used, and records of training administered. The licensee indicated that they do not support a respiratory protection programnor do they perform planned special exposures.c.ConclusionsThe inspector determined that the licensee's radiation protection program metapplicable regulatory and TS requirements. 5.Design Changesa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)In order to verify that any modifications to the facility were consistent with10 CFR 50.59, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of:*Proposal to Remove the Access Plug to the Thermal column, June 22, 2006*Procedure MP 300, 10 CFR 50.59 Determination for MaintenanceActivities, Rev 12 (March 27, 2000)*Annual Report for the MUTR for the dates July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005

• Annual Report for the MUTR for the dates July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006

• Reactor Console Logbook for the period March 15, 2006 to presentb.Observations and FindingsThrough review of applicable records and interviews with licensee personnel, theinspector verified that administrative controls were in place, requiring the appropriate review and approval of facility changes prior to implementation.

Since the previous inspection the licensee performed only one evolution utilizing the facility change review process, removal of the thermal shield plug to measure dose rates inside of the thermal column in preparation for a new experiment. A safety analysis was prepared by the reactor staff and reviewed by the RSC. The inspector questioned the licensee regarding a decision block in Procedure MP 300; there was not adequate time to resolve this matter during the inspection so it was added to the inspector follow-up item in Section 2 of this report.

-7-c.ConclusionsThe licensee demonstrated effective implementation of a design change process procedure in conformance with regulations.6.Committees, Audits, and Reviewsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the audits and reviewsstipulated in TS Section 6.2 were being completed by the RSC:*Annual E-Drill/External Audit Results, S. Petras (Constellation NuclearServices) to M. Al-Sheikhly (UMD), August 18, 2004*Annual E-Drill/External Audit Results, S. Petras (Constellation NuclearServices) to M. Al-Sheikhly (UMD), August 19, 2005*Annual E-Drill/External Audit Results, S. Petras (Constellation NuclearServices) to M. Al-Sheikhly (UMD), July 28, 2006*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of July 14, 2004, July 15, 2004*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of December 9, 2004,December 9, 2004*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of June 22, 2006, June 23, 2006*Reactor Safety Committee Minutes for Meeting of November 19, 2006,November 21, 2006b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector found that the RSC appears to be meeting all aspects of therequirements; however, written documentation does not support this conclusion without verbal input from the licensee. As a result, Inspector Follow-up Item 50-166/2007-201-01 was created as summarized in Section 2 of this report.The RSC membership met the requirements of TS 6.2.2(1), had at least twomeetings per year in compliance with TS 6.2.2(2), and had the quorum present at meetings as required by TS 6.2.2(3). While meeting minutes were maintained pursuant to TS 6.2.2(4), they failed to record all actions taken by the committee, particularly those required review functions identified in TS 6.2.3. Audits were conducted in compliance with TS 6.2.4(1) but neither the audit reports nor the meeting minutes indicated that the scope of the audit included all functions identified in TS 6.2.4(2). Likewise, meeting minutes or referenced reports in the RSC file did not provide evidence that the reactor ALARA Program was being audited with audit results being presented to the RSC in accordance with TS 6.2.5. TS 6.2.1 requires that the Department Chairman name members to the RSC andinfers that a chairman be designated. While minutes indicated names of committee members, RSC files did not contain documentation of appointments to the committee or the term of the appointment.

-8-c.ConclusionsReview and oversight functions of the RSC appear to meet TS requirements but written documentation requires improvement to reach this conclusion without verbal augmentation. 7.Maintenance Logs and Recordsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)To verify that the licensee was complying with the applicable requirements, theinspector reviewed selected aspects of:*Annual Report for the MUTR for the dates July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006*MUTR Maintenance Logbook

• Reactor Console Logbook for the period March 15, 2006 to presentb.Observations and FindingsThe inspector reviewed the maintenance log and found that there were noentries for the past year. The Facility Coordinator explained that most maintenance is recorded with operations logs (see Section 2 of this report) such as the Reactor Console Log, startup and shutdown procedure log records, or surveillance records. The maintenance log is reserved for unusual or major maintenance as evidenced by the last entry which was for a control rod inspection, showing locknut locations of fuel bundles B4, C3, C7, and C8.c.ConclusionsThe licensee kept a maintenance log to record major maintenance activities nototherwise included in the reactor operations logs.8.Transportationa.Inspection Scope (IP 86740)To verify that the licensee was complying with the applicable requirements, theinspector reviewed the following:*[Receiver] Shipment, Memo for Record, March 16, 2007b.Observations and Findings The licensee stated that they generally transfer radioactive material from thereactor license to the broad scope campus license for use by experimenters on campus or for processing as waste along with other campus radioactive waste.

As a result, shipments under the reactor license are unusual and infrequent.

There had been no Type B shipments under the reactor license for at least the past two years. The only other shipment during this time was the above-referenced item that was irradiated in the reactor. Analysis showed that the-9-quantity of each isotope identified was below the exempt threshold defined by 49 CFR 173.436 and the shipment was therefore exempt.c.ConclusionsThe licensee did not make any radioactive material shipments under the reactorlicense during the past two years.9.Followup of Previously Identified Itemsa.Inspection Scope (IP 92701)To verify that the licensee was complying with the applicable requirements, theinspector reviewed selected aspects of:*Procedure and data recorded for Reactor Compartment RadiationMonitoring, April 19, May 25, and June 14, 2007*Procedure and data recorded for Reactor Air and Water Sampling andAnalysis, April 11 and May 11, and June 14, 2007b.Observations and Findings (1)50-166/2006-201-01 IFI - Follow-up to verify that the licensee conductsintermittent surveys in the reactor bayIn response to this IFI the licensee has begun a monthly routine ofrecording radiation survey instrument readings at specified locations throughout the reactor compartment, collecting and counting contamination swipe samples, and collecting and counting reactor water and air samples while the reactor is operating at full power. The inspector observed execution of the above procedures and data from recent months. This fully satisfies the concern raised by the inspector and the IFI therefore closed.(2)50-166/2006-201-02 IFI - Follow-up to verify that the licensee reviewsthe Memorandum of Understanding with the Prince Georges County Fire DepartmentThe licensee reported that the current Memorandum of Understandingletters remains in effect but they are being updated to reflect recent changes, including new signing officials in the university administration.

Signatures are imminent but this item will remain open until the new letters are executed.(3)50-166/2006-201-01 URI - Failure to conduct visual inspections of thecontrol rods in accordance with TS requirements Work continued on an automated system for tracking the schedule forrequired surveillances. Until an improved tracking system is made functional the licensee continued to perform surveillances using a manual tracking system. This item will therefore remain open.

-10-c.ConclusionsAn Inspector Follow-up Item was closed:50-166/2006-201-01 IFI - Follow-up to verify that the licensee conductsintermittent surveys in the reactor bayAn Inspector Follow-up Item and an Un-Resolved Item were discussed butremain open:50-166/2006-201-02 IFI - Follow-up to verify that the licensee reviewsthe Memorandum of Understanding with the Prince Georges County Fire Department50-166/2006-201-01 URI - Failure to conduct visual inspections of thecontrol rods in accordance with TS requirements 10.Exit MeetingThe inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management at theconclusion of the inspection on June 15, 2007. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented and did not request consideration that any of the information discussed be withheld from public disclosure.

LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED LicenseeV. Adams Facility Coordinator and Senior Reactor OperatorM. Al-Sheikhly Director, Radiation Facilities and Nuclear Reactor I. GiffordGraduate Research Assistant and Reactor Operator S. HandRadiation Safety Officer M. Kotlas Director, Department of Environmental Safety R. S. LupinAssociate Director, Department of Environmental Safety G. PertmerChairman of the Reactor Safety Committee and Associate Dean B. Zidek Health PhysicistINSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 69001Class II Non-Power ReactorsIP 86740Transportation IP 92701Follow-upITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDOPENED:50-166/2007-201-01 IFIImproved documentation of TS compliance regarding RSCrecords, ALARA audit, annual report submission, 50.59 implementation, and electronic SNM inventory reports.CLOSED:50-166/2006-201-01 IFIFollow-up to verify that the licensee conducts intermittent surveysin the reactor bay.DISCUSSED:50-166/2006-201-01 URIFailure to conduct visual inspections of the control rods inaccordance with TS requirements. 50-166/2006-201-02 IFIFollow-up to verify that the licensee reviews the Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the Prince Georges County Fire Department.LIST OF ACRONYMS USEDADAMSAgencywide Document Access and Management SystemALARAAs Low As Reasonably Achievable CFRCode of Federal Regulations FCFacility Coordinator FDFacility Director IFIInspector Follow-up Item IPInspection Procedure-2-MUTRMaryland University Training Reactor NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission ROReactor Operator RSCReactor Safety Committee RSORadiation Safety Officer SROSenior Reactor Operator TSTechnical Specifications UMDUniversity of Maryland URIUnresolved Item