ML20134G495
| ML20134G495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Texas A&M University |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134G471 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-059-96-01, 50-59-96-1, NUDOCS 9611130231 | |
| Download: ML20134G495 (23) | |
See also: IR 05000059/1996001
Text
c- ;
= {
.
ENCLOSURE 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.: 50-059
License No.: R-23 i
i
l
Report No.: 50-059/96-01
I
Licensee: Texas A&M University
Facility: AGN-201 M Reactor
Location: Zachry Engineering Center, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas
Dates: September 30 through October 3,1996, and October 24,1996
Inspector: J. Blair Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist
Plant Support Branch
Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Attachment: Supplemental information
1
4
4
4
l
l
}
i
i
3
!
-
9611130231 961108
0 ADOCK 05000059
.
.
-2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Texas A&M University AGN-201M Reactor Facility
NRC Inspection Report 50-059/96-01
This routine, announced inspection reviewed the reactor operations, reactor maintenance,
surveillance testing, experiments, reactor oversight, reporting, reactor operator
requalification, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and security programs.
Operations
- Reactor operations were conducted well. No safety limits or limiting conditions for
operation of the reactor were exceeded. The licensee's logs and records adequately
documented reactor operations (Section 01.1).
- All Technical Specification surveillance requirements were properly performed
(Section 01.2).
- All reactor experiments were properly reviewed, authorized, and performed. The
reactor experiments were satisfactorily documented in the reactor operations log
(Section 01.3).
- The licensee's inventory and control of special nuclear material on site were
properly maintained (Section 01.4).
- Operating procedures, maintenance procedures, and experiment procedures
provided adequate guidance to ensure that reactor operations, surveillances, and
experiments were conducted properly and consistently (Section 03.1).
- Excellent reactor operations logs and records were praperly maintained
(Section 03.2).
- Annual operating reports for the reactor f acility met reporting requirements
(Section 03.3).
- The senior reactor operators were knowledgeable of routine operating procedures
and performed reactor operational manipulations properly and efficiently
(Section 04).
- An excellent reactor operator requalification program was conducted as required
(Section 05).
- The reactor f acility organizational structure and staffing and the Reactor Safety
Board membership met requirements. All organizational positions were filled with
qualified personnel. The reactor operational responsibilities were implemented as
required (Section 06).
_ . _ .. _ . _ ____ . _ . - _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _.___. __ .. ______ _ _ _.
'
.
1 ,
) .
, ,
!
.!
! -3- l
J ;
!
1
The Reactor Safety Board met at least annually. However, the Reactor Safety
i Board did not ensure that the required reviews and audits of the reactor facility )
j activities were performed. Quarterly audits were not conducted as required i
j (Section 07).
4
i
- A violation was identified involving the failure to perform required audits of reactor !
facility activities (Section 07).
1
l
1
i
Maintenance '
1
I
,
i * Reactor maintenance activities were performed properly and in accordance with i
approved procedures. The licensee's logs and records satisfactorily documented :
'
'
reactor maintenance activities (Section M1). l
l
'
Enaineerina l
- !
,
- There were no reactor design changes since the previous inspection (Section E2). ;
I Facility Sucoort
i
!
- Appropriate radiation protection practices were implemented. Minimal radiation I
'
hazards were present with the reactor operated as observed. Radiation surveys met
- Technical Specification and regulatory requirements. Portable radiation survey ~
- instruments assigned to the reactor facility were adequate and were calibrated 1
] properly (Section F.1).
.
- A violation was identified involving the failure to perform annual reviews of the
, radiation protectior program (Section R1).
4
1
'
- A good emergency preparedness program was maintained. Appropriate training
i was provided to onsite and offsite emergency response personnel (Section P1).
- Generally, the approved physical security plan was properly implemented. The
i Reactor Safety Board did not perform the required annual reviews of the physical
- security plan (Section S1).
,
j
e A violation was identified involving the failure to perform annual reviews of the
j physical security plan (Section S1).
}
4
)
i
i
- -
i
l :
,i !
,. -
.--.m. - - . , . .~ s.~-. , ,,. - e
.
.
4
Report Details
1. Operations
01 Conduct of Operations
01.1 Reactor Operations
a. Inspection Scope (40750)
Reactor operations logs and records were reviewed, and reactor operations were
observed to determine compliance with reactor Operating License Conditions 2.C(1)
and 2.C(2) and the requirements in Technical Specifications 2.0 and 3.0.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector observed the licensee start up and operate the reactor at 0.5 watts
for approximately 30 minutes on October 2,1996, to observe operator activities
and the operation of the reactor safety systems. The inspector noted that the
reactor was operated approximately 95 hours0.0011 days <br />0.0264 hours <br />1.570767e-4 weeks <br />3.61475e-5 months <br /> during the 4 year period from June 1,
1992, through May 31,1996, for the purpose of laboratory teaching, reactor
system testing, and reactor surveillances.
Based on the review of the reactor operations log, the inspector verified that
between October 1992 and September 1996, that the licensee did not exceed a
thermal power level of 5 watts as specified in reactor Operating License Condition
2.C(1).- The inspector verified that the reactor safety limits were not exceeded and
were in compliance with Technical Specifications 2.1 and 2.2. The Technical
Specification limiting conditions for operation of the reactor were reviewed. During
the annual control rod reactivity worth determinations, the reactor shutdown margin
and excess reactivity were verified to be within Technical Specification limits. The
inspector verified that all of the required reactor control system instrument
channels, safety circuits, and safety interlocks required by the Technical
Specifications were tested and operable and were included as part of the reactor
startup checklist which were completed prior to each startup of the reactor. The
licensee's logs and records adequately documented reactor operations.
c. Conclusions
Reactor operations were conducted well. No safety limits or limiting conditions for I
operation of the reactor were exceeded. The licensee's logs and records adequately
documented reactor operations.
I
.
.
-5-
01.2 Technical Specification Surveillance Reauirements
a. inspection Scope (40750)
Reactor surveillance test results were reviewed to determine compliance with the
requirements in Technical Specification 4.0.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector verified that all required reactor surveillance tests were completed for
1993,1994, and 1995. The following Technical Specification required surveillance
tests were verified to be completed according to approved maintenance procedures
and at the required frequencies.
Comoletion
Technical Soecification item Freauency Date
4.1.a Safety and Control Rod Annual 7/08/92
Reactivity Worth Determination 5/18/93
(Maintenance Procedure RCAL) 9/08/94
8/24/95
4.1.b Total Excess Reactivity and Annual 7/08/92
Shutdown Margin Determination 5/19/93
(Maintenance Procedure ROEX) 9/14/94
8/25/95
4.2.a Safety and Control Rod Scram Annual 7/01/92
Times Determination 5/18/93
(Maintenance Procedure RDTM) 9/08/94
8/31/95
Average Control Rod Reactivity Annual 6/30/92
Insertion Rate Determination 5/18/93
(Maintenance Procedure RITM) 9/08/94
8/28/95
4.2.b Safety and Control Rods and Biennial 3/12/91
Drives inspection 1/15/93
(Maintenance Procedure CRIS) 6/03/95
1
I
l
-
)
4
-6- l
1
I
1
4.2.d Channel Test of the Seismic Semiannual 6/05/92 )
Displacement Interlock 12/08/92
'
(Maintenance Procedure EITL) 2/17/93
8/22/93 l
5/09/94 i
10/04/94
5/10/95
8/31/95
4.2.g Calibration of the Period, Annual 6/30/92
Count Rate, and Power Level 5/12/93
of the Measuring Channels 9/05/94
(Maintenance Procedures PD2M, 8/07/95
C1LT, C2LT, C2HT, and C3HT)
4.2.h Shield Tank Water Level Interlock Annual 6/30/92
(Maintenance Procedure WITL) 5/05/93
9/12/P I
I
8/28/0:-
Shield Water Temperature Interlock Annual 6/30/92
(Maintenance Procedure TITL) 5/19/93
9/14/94
8/29/95
4.3.b Shield Tank Visual Inspection Annual 6/30/92
(Maintenance Procedure SWTI) 5/05/93
9/12/94
8/28/95
4.4.a Portable Radiation Survey Annual 11/20/92
Instrument Calibrat%n 11/04/97, l
(Maintenance Procec.ure RSIC) 12/08/94 !
12/20/95
4.4.c Radiation Survey of the Reactor Annual 7/16/92
Room, Reactor Control Room, and 5/27/93
Accelerator Room 9/06/94
(Maintenance Procedure RADS) 8/22/95
c. Conclusion
All reactor surveillance tests were completed at the required frequencies, and the
surveillance test results met Technical Specification requirements.
__a. , . aL,. .-. -
'
,
l
l
l
f
.7
l
!
01.3 Experiments
a. Insoection Scoce (40750)
The program for control and conduct of the 10 approved reactor experiments
including evaluations, authorizations, conduct, and documentation of experiments
performed was reviewed to determine compliance with the requirements in
Technical Specifications 3.3,6.6, and 6.7.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector verified that each experiment procedure was reviewed and approved
by the reactor supervisor, reactor administrator (head of the nuclear engineering
department), and the chairman of the Reactor Safety Board as required by Technical
Specifications, it was noted that all 10 reactor experiments were approved in
January 1976 and that the licensee had not approved any new experiments for the
.
reactor since that time.
l
The reactor was used routinely as a research and instructional tool to suoport the
requirements of several nuclear engineering courses and reactor operator training as
well as performing preventive maintenance and operational surveillances required by
the Technical Specifications. Experiments were performed in accordance with
approved procedures under approved reactor conditions and were properly
documented in the reactor operations log.
c. Conclusion
All reactor experiments were properly reviewed, authorized, and performed. The
reactor experiments were satisfactorily documented in the reactor operations log.
01.4 License Conditions and Control and Accountability for Soecial Nuclear Material
a. Inspection Scoce (85102)
License conditions for special nuclear material and the special nuclear material
control and accountability program were reviewed. The storage and inventory of
the licensee's special nuclear material were reviewed for compliance with the
reactor Operating License R-23, Amendment 12, dated April 25,1979.
b. Observations and Findinas
Reactor Operating License Condition 2.B(2) authorizes the possession of up to 700
grams of contained uranium-235, enriched to less than 20 percent in uranium
'
dioxide embedded in radiation stabilized polyethylene, and up to 16 grams of
plutonium-239 in the form of a sealed plutonium-beryllium neutron source, which
i may be used for reactor startup. The inspector verified that the licensee possessed
l
l
.
1
I
.
-8-
{
a 1-curie plutonium-beryllium neutron startup source and that it was stored in the
reactor tank for use in reactor startup. The inspector reviewed the licensee's
inventory of the reactor fuelinstalled in the reactor. Based on the licensee's
inventory, the reactor's fuel contained 666.5 grams of uranium-235, which was
less than the 700 grams of uranium-235 allowed by the Reactor Operating License.
This uranium-235 was embedded in 26 fuel elements, two safety rods, and two
control rods distributed in the reactor core. The inspector determined that there
was no change in the quantity of reactor fuel since the previous NRC inspection
conducted in October 1992.
c. Conclusion
The licensee's inventory and control of special nuclear material on site were
properly maintained.
O3 Operations Procedures and Documentation
03.1 Procedures !
a. inspection Scoce (40750)
The procedures listed in the attachment were reviewed to determine compliance
with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.6.
b. Observations and Findinas
The licensee had approved procedures, checklists, and data forms for safety-related
and operational activities that included reactor startup, operation, and shutdown;
reactor maintenance and surveillance testing; and calibration of reactor
instrumentation. The inspector determined that the licensee had 9 approved
operating procedures, 28 approved maintenance procedures for surveillance testing
and calibration activities, and 10 approved experiment procedures. The inspector
noted that the last revision to the reactor operating procedures was made in April
1986 and approved in August 1986. The reactor maintenance procedures were
written and approved in October 1979, and various maintenance procedures had
been revised since then with the latest revisions approved in February 1988. The
experiment procedures were written and approved in January 1976 and had not
been revised since that time. No procedures had been written or revised since the
previous NRC inspection conducted in October 1992. The inspector verified tha'. all
reactor facility procedures were reviewed and approved by the reactor supervisor,
rearx administrator (Head of the Nuclear Engineering Department), and the Reactor
Safety Board as required by the Technical Specifications.
I
l
.-
.
9
c. Conclusion l
Operating procedures, maintenance procedures, and experiment procedures
provided adequate guidance to ensure that reactor operations, surveillances, and
experiments were conducted properly and consistently to meet Technical
l
Specification requirements.
03.2 Ooerations Loas and Records 1
i
a. Insoection Scope (40750) ?
Documentation of reactor operations activities for the period November 1992
through September 1996 was reviewed to determine compliance with the i
requirements in Technical Specification 6.10.
b. Observations and Findinas -
Logs and records documenting reactor operation, experiment performance, reactor
7
startups, instrument checks and calibrations, radiation surveys, and personnel '
radiation exposure were reviewed. The inspector determined that the annual
reactor operating reports and the operations logs and records adequately !
documented reactor operations activities. The monthly, semi-annual, annual, and
biennial reactor surveillance checklists and surveillance test results for the period :
January 1993 through September 1996 were reviewed. The licensee's logs and l
records were clear, concise, and legible. Reactor operations and testing were j
satisfactorily docurnented in accordance with the Technical Specification ;
requirements.
c. Conclusion
Excellent reactor operations logs and records were properly maintained.
O3.3 Reports and Notifications
I
'
.
a. Insoection Scope (40750) !
Reports and notifications to the NRC were reviewed to determine compliance with i
the requirements in Technical Specification 6.9. I
I
b. Observations and Findinas
The licensee submitted the required annual reports of the reactor facility activities
and operations for the time periods June 1,1992 through May 31,1993, June 1,
1993 through May 31,1994, June 1,1994 through May 31,1995, and June 1,
i
1
l
. l
.
-10-
1995 through May 31,1996. The inspector verified that these reactor facility
annual reports met the Technical Specification requirements. No special reports l
4
were issued to the NRC since the last NRC inspection of the reactor facility. l
1
c. Conclusion
Annual operating reports for the reactor facility met reporting requirements. 1
04 Operator Knowledge and Performance
l
'
a. Inspection Scope
4
The two senior reactor operators were interviewed, and a reactor startup and
l showdown were observed. Operating procedures were reviewed as the senior
reactor operator conducted reactor operations.
.
b. Observations and Findinas
No problems were identified.
1
c. Conclusions
.
The senior reactor operators were knowledgeable of routina operating procedures
and performed reactor operational manipulations property and efficiently.
05 Operator Training and Qualification
a. Insoection Scope
l
The education and experience of the current reactor staff and the Reactor Safety l
Board members were reviewed. l
The requalification training program for the senior reactor operators and the training
program for nuclear engineering department students working in the reactor facility
area were reviewed to determine agreement with recommendations in Industry
Standard ANSl/ANS 15.4-1988 and Regulatory Guides 8.13 and 8.29 and
compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 19.12, operator requalification
program, and Technical Specification 6.3.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector determined that all of the reactor staff and Reactor Safety Board
members met the qualifications per Technical Specifications.
,
.
.
l
l
-11- l
l
The inspector noted that the reactor operator requalification program, dated l
May 20,1988, was approved by the NRC, and it conformed to the requirements of l
10 CFR Part 55.59. Lectures were conducted as required. Observations of l
operator manipulations were documented. The lecture outline for the reactor
. l
operator requalification program was comprehensive, and it included all the required l
subject material. Comprehensive annual written examinations for 1993,1994, and i
1995 were given and successfully passed by the senior reactor operators. The I
completed examinations were included in the senior reactor operators' individual
training records as required. The requalification training records for the two senior
reactor operators contained all of the documentation required by the approved
operator requalification program. The licensee had developed good operator
requalification record forms to track and document reactor operator requalification
requirements. Annual medical examinations were satisfactorily passed by the two
senior reactor operators.
The inspector reviewed the nuclear engineering department's orientation training
given to students who work around the AGN-201M reactor. The student
orientation training material and attendance records were reviewed. The students
who worked routinely in the nuclear engineering department and around the reactor
had received radiation protection and emergency training at the beginning of the
academic year. The training conducted by the nuclear engineering department met
the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12.
c. Conclusions
An excellent reactor operator requalification training program was being conducted
and docurnented in accordance with a NRC approved program. Excellent reactor
operator requalification training records wera being maintained. A good student j
orientation program, which familiarized students working around the reactor facility l
with radiation protection and emergency procedures, was implemented. ;
06 Operations Organization and Administration ,
a. Scooe of Inspection (40750_)
The organization and staffing were reviewed to determine compliance with the
requirements in Technical Specification 6.1.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector verified that the organizational structure and assignment of
responsibilities were as specified in Technical Specification 6.1. All organizational
positions were filled with qualified personnel. The licensee had two senior reactor
operators. There were no reactor operators. The licensee had several staffing
changes since the last NRC inspection conducted in October 1992. Over the past
four years, the Dean of the College of Engineering (Chairman of the Reactor Safety
..
- . - . -- . , .- -
.
i
. I
i
1
-12- I
Board) changed three times. A new radiological safety officer was appointed. The
inspector verified that the reactor operational responsibilities were implemented as '
specified in the Technical Specifications.
The Reactor Safety Board's membership was in accordance with Technical
Specification requirements. The inspector noted that the Reactor Safety Board had
responsibility for both the AGN-201M (Docket No.50-059) and TRIGA (Docket No.
50-128) reactor facilities located at Texas A&M University.
c. Conclusions
The reactor facility organizational structure and staffing met the Technical
Specification requirements. All organizational positions were filled with qualified
personnel. The reactor operational responsibilities were implemented as required.
The Reactor Safety Board membership met requirements.
07 Quality Assurance in Operations
a. Scope of Inspection (40750)
The inspector reviewed the audits and reviews conducted to determine compliance
with the requirements in Technical Specifications 6.1.6, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, and 6.4.3.
Minutes of the Reactor Safety Board meetings from January 22,1993 to
May 31,1996 were reviewed.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector determined that Reactor Safety Board meetings were held at least
annually as required by Technical Specification 6.4.1. However, the inspector
noted that the agendas and minutes of the Reactor Safety Board meetings included
very few entries concerning the AGN-201M reactor f acility. The required audits of
reactor f acility activities and reviews of procedures, equipment changes, proposed !
tests or experiments, were not documented in the Reactor Safety Board minutes, if j
performed.
During the previous inspection conducted in October 1992, the inspector observed,
during the review of the quarterly audit reports, that it was sometimes difficult to
always be certain that all of the requirements in Technical Specification 6.4.3.a and
applicable operating license conditions were reviewed annually. This observation
was discussed with the licensee during the inspection and along with the possibility
of developing an audit checklist to ensure that all the items were reviewed and
audited annually as required by Technical Specification 6.4.3.a. During the exit ,
meeting on October 2,1992, the licensee acknowledged the inspector's j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . - . . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _
~
..
l.
<.
-13-
'
i.
! observation and agreed to evaluate their audit process and the use of an audit
, checklist as guidance in performing the reactor facility audits. However, the
, evaluation of the audit process was not performed, and an audit checklist was not
j developed.
j
j The inspector verified that biennial reviews of the emergency plan were conducted
i on February 8,1991, January 22,1993, and August 25,1994. The reviews were
-
performed by the Head of the Nuclear Engineering Department (Roactor
Administrator for the AGN-201M reactor facility and member of the Reactor Safety
l Board) who was responsible for the development and implementation of the
- emergency plan and who was also the designated emergency director rather than an
j individual not responsible for the item reviewed and audited. The inspector noted
i that the review of the emergency plan performed on January 22,1993, was
j documented in the reactor maintenance log but was not documented in the Reactor
( Safety Board minutes as being reviewed by the Reactor Safety Board. A biennial
- review of the security plan was last conducted and documented in the Reactor
,
Safety Board minutes on August 25,1994.
,
Technical Specification 6.1.6 states, in part, "The Reactor Safety Board shall be
a responsible for,.. . . conducting periodic audits of procedures, reactor operations
- and maintenance, equipment performance, and records; . . . reporting all their
findings and recommendations concerning the reactor facility to the Head of the
'
Department of Nuclear Engineering."
l
l Technical Specification 6.4.3 states, " Audits of f acility activities shall be performed
4
at least quarterly under the cognizance of the Reactor Safety Board but in no case
4
by the personnel responsible for the item audited. These audits shall examine the
. operating records and encompass but shall not be limited to the following:
!
! a. The conformance of the facility operation to the Technical Specifications and
l applicable license conditions, at least annually.
. !
i b. The Facility Emergency Plan and implementing procedures, at least every
i two years.
i c. The Facility Security Plan and implementing procedures, at least every two
years." !
On October 1,1996, the inspector determined that quarterly audits to meet the
, requirements in Technical Specifications 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 were not conducted by
i- members of the Reactor Safety Board since the second quarter of 1992. The
i inspector also determined that the audits of the emergency plan and the security
! plan were performed by the Head of the Nuclear Engineering Department (Reactor
- Administrator for the AGN-201M reactor facility) who was responsible for the
j development and implementation of the emergency plan and security plan rather
- than by someone not responsible for the items audited in accordance with Technical
l
i
4
&
.. -- -_ . , _ ,
_ _ _
.
.
,
- 14-
4
Specification 6.4.3. The failure to ensure that quarterly audits of f acility activities
and reactor operations were performed since the second quarter of 1992, the failure
to ensure that biennial audits of the emergency plan and implementing procedures
'
were performed by an individual who was not responsible for the audited item since
February 8,1991, and the failure to ensure that biennial audits of the security plin
i and implementing procedures were performed by an individual who was not
responsible for the audited item since August 25,1994,i<; a violation of Technical i
Specifications 6.1.6 and 6.4.3. (VIO 9601-01)
c. Conclusions
j
The Reactor Safety Board met at least annually. However, the Reactor Safety
Board did not ensure that tha required reviews and audits of the reactor facility
activities were performed. Quarterly audits were not conducted as required. A
violation was identified involving the failure to perform required audits of reactor
facility activities and required reviews using an individual who was not responsible l
for the audited item. l
l
II. Maintenance
M1 Conduct of Maintenance
2
a. Scoce of Inspection (40750)
4
Reactor maintenance logs and records were reviewed.
b. Observations and Findinas
.
During the time period from June 1992 through May 1996, the licensee replaced
several vacuum tubes, the 1.25-volt battery, the 10 -13 dashpot, both Keithley
'
4102 relays, and the power transformer in Channel 2; and repaired several electrical
connections in Channel 2. All of the components replaced during the performance
of the preventive and corrective maintenance programs were identical replacements
and did not involve any unreviewed safety questions. The safety-related corrective
maintenance performed on the reactor and operations console was properly
documented in the reactor's maintenance log and the licensee's annual reports of
reactor operation.
c. Conclusions
Reactor maintenance activities were performed properly and in accordance with
approved procedures. The licensee's logs and records satisf actorily documented
reactor maintenance activities.
Ill. Enaineerina
_ _ _ _.._. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
i
1
k
- .
,
b
- -15-
!
i
E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment
4
,
There were no reactor design changes since the previous inspection.
,
IV. Facility Support-
-
R1 Radiological Protection Controls
(
a. Scope of Insoection
$ The radiation protection program was reviewed to determino compliance with the
requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and Technicd Specificatior s 3.4, 4.4, 5.3.d, 6.1.8,
6.10.1.e, and 6.10.2.d.
4
j The selected records were reviewed, personnel were interviewed, observations
l were made, and independent radiation surveys of the reactor facility were
performed.
The following documents were reviewed:
- Annual radiation dose summaries for 1993-1995
2 * Annual radiation and contamination surveys for 1993-1995
- Survey instrument calibration reccrds for 1993-1995
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector noted that all personnel who worked in the reactor facility had been
issued proper whole body dosimetry which was sensitive to beta, gamma, and
thermal neutron radiations. The inspector determined that the vendor who supplied
and read the dosimeters was accredited in accordance with the requirements in
10 CFR 20.1601(c), Personnel exposure records for 1993,1994, and 1995
indicated met the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201 were not exceeded.
The inspeuor determined that the licensee had implemented a proper radiation
survey prognim. The required annual radiation surveys were thorough, included
neutron surveys, and met Technical Specification and 10 CFR 20.1501(a)
requirements. The licensee had developed survey maps of the reactor room and
accelerator room located directly above the reactor room which designated specific
locations where radiation dose rate measurements were to be taken at specified
reactor operation power levels. Annual radiation dose rate surveys conducted in
1993,1994, and 1995 were performed at nine specific locations designated on the
reactor room map and at two specific locations designated on the accelerator room
map. The dose rate surveys were performed at reactor operating power lesels of O,
. __ ___ _ _ _._ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . .
i . j
- l
-16-
i
1,3, and 5 watts. it was noted that the maximum dose rate (beta-gamma-neutron)
identified near the reactor was approximately 450 millirem per hour when the
reactor was operating at a maximum of five watts thermal power. l
The inspector performed an independent area radiation survey and confirmed that i
radiation levels in unrestricted areas did not exceed the limits of 10 CFR -
l
20.1302(a)(2)while the reactor was operating at a maximum power level of 5 l
l watts. The licensee had survey records as documentation of its radiation
measurements, and the inspector's survey results compared very well with the
l licensee's survey results. Restricted areas were posted in accordance with
The inspector reviewed the licensee's inventory of portable radiation survey '
instruments and found them to be adequate. Calibrated instruments were available ;
I at the time of inspection. Calibrations of the instruments used to perform radiation l
l surveys were performed with radioactive sources traceable to national standards. l
'
l
l 10 CFR 20.1101(c) states, " The licensee shall periodically (at least annually) ;
L review the radiation protection program content and implementation." The
! inspector determined on October 16,1996, while performing an in-office review of
the licensee's audit and review program, that annual reviews of the radiation i
'
protection program, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1101(c),were not performed
since the implementation of "new" 10 CFR Part 20 on January 1,1994. The
l licensee's failure to perform annual reviews of the radiation protection program is a
l
violation of 10 CFR 20.1101(c). (VIO 9601-02)
!
c. Conclusions
Appropriate radiation protection practices were implemented. Minimal radiation
hazards were present and observed when the reactor was operated. Radiation
surveys met Technical Specification and regulatory requirements. Portable radiation
survey instruments assigned to the reactor f acility were adequate and were
calibrated properly. A violation was identified involving the failure to perform
annual reviews of the radiation protection program during 1994 and 1995.
P1 Conduct of Emergency Preparedness Activities
a. Scope of Inspection
i The inspector reviewed the emergency plan for the reactor facility to determine
compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(r) and in Technical
Specifications 6.4.3.b and 6.6.f.
,
i
.
.
-17-
The following documentation was reviewed:
- Emergency implementing procedures
- Exercise and drill scenarios l
- Emergency call lists
- Letters of agreement from local offsite support organizations
- Training records
l
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector verified that there were no revisions to the emergency plan since the
previous inspection. i
The inspector verified that emergency call lists were accurate and posted in the l
proper places. l
The licensee had conducted annual training for fire and police personnel in j
conjunction with conducting the required emergency drills. The licensee had l
conducted training of the emergency plan and emergency procedures for all
pertinent nuclear engineering department personnel at the beginning of each
academic year. The inspector also verified that emergency preparedness training
was included in the annual requalification training for reactor operators as required
by Technical Specifications.
The inspector confirmed that exercises or drills were conducted January 15,1993,
January 5,1994, January 13,1995, and January 10,1996. The frequency was in
accordance with the commitments of the emergency plan. The inspector reviewed
the licensee's documentation of the emergency exercises and the critiques and
evaluations performed following the exercises.
l
Letters of agreement with the City of College Station for ambulance and fire
department services and Columbia Medical Center and St. Joseph Regional Health
Center for medical services were maintained and current, j
c. Conclusions
A good emergency preparedness program was maintained. Appropriate training
was provided to onsite and offsite emergency response personnel.
- . - - . . - . - . . - - - - - - . _ . - - - . - . ~ . . - - . - - .. -
. :
4
'
, e
. -18-
l
2
I
S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities
- a. Insoection Scope
The inspector reviewed the physical security plan to determine compliance with the {
! requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(p), Operating License Condition 2.D, and Technical 1
i Specifications 6.4.3.c and 6.6.f. ,
I l
'
j The inspector interviewed the reactor supervisor. Additionally, the inspector toured
4
the reactor facility and compared the reactor facility and security equipment with !
j the description and requirements in the physical security plan. 1
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector verified that there were no revisions to the physical security plan
since the previous inspection.
The inspector verified that the site and facilities were as described in the physical
security plan and that all physical barriers required by the physical security plan
were installed and operational. The inspector verified that the security key control
and combination lock control programs were implemented satisfactorily to maintain
. security of the reactor facility. Through interviews with the reactor supervisor and
reviews of logs, the inspector determined that security for the facility was
implemented as specified in the physical security plan. There had been no security
problems or safeguards events since the previous inspection.
License Condition 2.D states, "The licensee shall maintain in effect and fully
implement all provisions of the NRC-approved physical security plan, . . . ."
Section 3.5 of the AGN-201M Reactor Facility Security Plan states, "The security '
program will be reviewed annually by the Reactor Safety Board described in the I
license. The results of each meeting will be forwarded to the NRC with the annual
report for the facility."
On October 1,1996, the inspector determined that the Reactor Safety Board did I
not perform the required annual reviews of the physical security plan in accordance ,
with the requirements in Section 3.5 in the physical security plan since August 25, I
1994, and the results of the annual reviews were never forwarded to the NRC with
the annual reports for the facility. The failure to perform annual reviews of the
physical security plan and forward the results of the annual reviews to the NRC
with the annual reports for the facility is a violation of License Condition 2.D and
the physical security plan. (VIO 9601-03)
_- _ . ._ . - _ ._ _ ._._ _ _ _._. _ ._.. . __ _ _. _ - . . . _ . _ .. _ . . . _. _ . . _.._
.
a
.
-19-
c. Conclusions
Generally, the approved physical security plan was properly implemented. The
However, the Reactor Safety Board did not perform the required annual reviews of
the physical security plan. A violation was identified involving the failure to perform
annual reviews of the physical security plan since August 25,1994, and never
forwarding the results of the annual reviews to the NRC with the annual reports for
the facility.
V. Manaaement Meetinas
X1 Exit Meeting Summary
The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee representatives on
October 3,1996. The licensee's representatives acknowledged the findings
presented. The licensee identified the physical security plan as proprietary
information.
A followup exit meeting was conducted telephonically on October 24,1996, to
discuss a third violation dealing with the failure to perform annual reviews of the
radiation protection program.
l
l
l
.
.
..e-,
. . . . . _ - - -- _ . . .. .. - . . .
.
.
, . l
.
ATTACHMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORM ATION
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
- Licensee
'
M. Adams, Assistant Professor, Member of Reactor Safety Board
4
R. Berry, Reactor Supervisor
1. Hamilton, Assistant Professor, Senior Reactor Operator
J. Holste, Assistant Dean, College of Engineering, Chairman of Reactor Safety Board
C. Meyer, Radiation Safety Officer
J. Poston, Reactor Administrator, Head of Nuclear Engineering Department
W. Reece, Associate Professor, Member of Reactor Safety Board
LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 40750 Class ll Research and Test Reactors Operations Procedure
IP 81401 Plans, Procedures, and Reviews
IP 81403 Receipt of New Fuel at Reactor Facilities
IP 81431 Fix Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic
Significance
IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting - Reactors
IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities !
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED
Opened
1
059/9601-01 VIO Quarterly Audits )
059/9601-02 VIO Annual Radiation Protection Program Reviews
059/9601-03 VIO Annual Physical Security Plan Rev:ews
e.
1
1
e.
-2-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Operatina Procedures
3.1, " General Operating Rules," August 15,1986
3.2, " Operational Information," August 15,1986
3.3, " Checkout Procedure," August 15,1986 :
3.4, "Startup Procedure," August 15,1986 j
3.5, " Operating Conditions," August 15,1986 '
3.6, " Shutdown," August 15,1986 '
3.7, "Other Conditions," August 15,1986
3.8, " Radiation Protection," August 15,1986 ;
3.9, " Reactor Maintenance," August 15,1986 i
!
!e
Maintenance Procedures
'
CAPH, " Maintenance Procedure for Checking Suberitical Assembly Water
Conductivity," September 7,1983 !
EITL, " Maintenance Procedure for Testing Earthquake interlock," October 11,
1979 l
SWIT, " Maintenance Procedure for Conducting a Detailed Shield Water Tank *
Inspection," October 11,1979 ;
PWCL, " Maintenance Procedure for Power Calibration," October 11,1979
CH1P, " Maintenance Procedure for Setting Channel 1 High Voltage,"
February 3,1988 i
CH2P, " Maintenance Procedure for Setting Channel 2 High Voltage," i
February 3,1988 -
CH3P, " Maintenance Procedure for Setting Channel 3 High Voltage," i
February 3,1988 !
SKMP, " Maintenance Procedure for Setting Skirt Monitor High Voltage," t
October 11,1979 1
PD2M, " Maintenance Procedure to Calibrate Channel 2 Period Meter and to Verify l
Short Period Trip," January 22,1986 '
C1LT, " Maintenance Procedure to Calibrate Channel 1 and Verify Low Trip,"
October 11,1979
C2LT, " Maintenance Procedure to Verify Channel 2 Low Trip," September 7,1983
C3LT, " Maintenance Procedure to Calibrate Channel 3 and Verify Low Trip,"
September 7,1983
C2HT, " Maintenance Procedure to Calibrate Channel 2 and Verify High Trip,"
October 11,1979
C3HT, " Maintenance Procedure to Calibrate Channel 3 and Verify High Trip,"
September 7,1983
ROEX, " Maintenance Procedure or Determining the Total Excess Reactivity,"
October 11,1979
_ _-- _
_ . _ . _ . _ . . __ . _ _ ._ _ _
4
o
4
1
o
-3-
I
RCAL, " Maintenance Procedure for Determining the Rer.ctivity Worth of Each
Control Rod," October 11,1979
RDTM, " Maintenance Procedure for Measuring Rod Drop Times," January 28,1983
- RITM, " Maintenance Procedure for Measuring Control Rod Reac*.svity insertion
'
Rates," October 11,1979
TITL, " Maintenance Procedure for Testing Low Reactor Tank Temperature ,
Interlock," October 11,1979 l
W1 TL, " Maintenance Procedure for Testing Shield Water Level Interlock," I
January 31,1986
RSIC, " Maintenance Procedure for Calibrating Radiation Survey Instruments,"
October 11,1979 ~
RADS, " Maintenance Procedure for Counting a Radiation Survey of the AGN-201M
Reactor Facility," October 11,1979
EVAC, " Evacuation Procedure Drill," July 20,1987
CRIS, " Maintenance Procedure for Conducting a Detailed Control Rod Inspection
and Functional Check," October 11,1979
EPEX, " Emergency Plan Exercise," July 20,1987
Experiments
RXEP-1, "Startup and Operation of the AGN-201M Reactor," January 27,1976
REXP-2, " Irradiation of Compounds Composed of Elements One Through Eighty-three
in the Glory Hole or Access Port," January 27,1976
REXP-3, " Control Rod Calibration by the Rod Drop Method," January 27,1976
REXP-4, " Control Rod Calibration by Positive Period i4easurement," January 27,1976
REXP-5, " Reactivity Perturbations," January 27,1976
REXP-6, " Delayed Neutron Half-life Measurements," January 27,1976
REXP-7, " Transfer Function Measurement," January 27,1976
REXP-8, " Irradiation of Natural or Enriched Uranium in the AGN-201M Glory Hole," l
January 27,1976 '
REXP-9, " Irradiation Experiments in the Thermal Column," January 27,1976 l
REXP-10, "A Critical Experiment for the AGN-201M Reactor," January 27,1976 '
1
Operator Trainina Proaram
"Requalification Program for Licensed Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators,"
May 26,1987
l
l
i
. . - ._ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ -- __ . . . . . _.
,
lc
a
e
,o
'
I
4
!
Emeraency Plan and Procedures
- AGN-201M Reactor Facility Emergency Plan, September 1984
l
l PE-1, " Personnel Injury," October 8,1984 ,
PE-2, " Personnel Injury involving Radioactive Contamination," October 8,1984 I
PE-3, " Radioactive Contamination of Personnel or Spill of Radioactive Material Within the l
Reactor Facility," October 8,1984
i PE-4, " Suspected Radiation Overexposure of Personnel," October 8,1984
'
EA-1, " Reactor Facility Fire," March 14,1989
EA-2, " Bomb Threat," March 14,1989
EA-3, " Civil Disturbance," March 14,1989
l - EA-4, " Severe Natural Phenomena," March 14,1989
l EA-5, " General Emergency Alert," March 14,1989
,
RE-1, " Reactor Emergency," August 15,1986
l
'
Physical Security Plan and Procedures
l
l
AGN-201M Reactor Facility Security Plan, February 27,1991
SP-1, " Security Procedure for Access to the Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Areas,"
! October 5,1984 '
l
SP-2, " Security Procedure for Access to the AGN-201M Reactor Room," October 5,1984 i
'
SP-3, " Security Procedure for Access to the Accelerator Room," October 5,1984
!
Annual Reports
I Annual Operating Report for -lune 1,1992 - May 31,1993
j Annual Operating Report for June 1,1993 - May 31,1994
- Annual Operating Report for June 1,1994 - May 31,1995
'
Annual Operating Report for June 1,1995 - May 31,1996
l
!
,
l
I
i
-