IR 05000166/2011202
| ML113610569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Maryland |
| Issue date: | 01/05/2012 |
| From: | Johnny Eads Research and Test Reactors Branch B |
| To: | Al-Sheikhly M Univ of Maryland |
| Schoenebeck G, NRR/DPR, 415-6345 | |
| References | |
| IR-11-202 | |
| Download: ML113610569 (16) | |
Text
ary 5, 2012
SUBJECT:
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND - NRC ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-166/2011-202
Dear Dr. Al-Sheikhly:
On November 28 - December 9, 2011, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
completed a routine operations inspection at your Maryland University Training Reactor facility.
The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to the conduct of operations, compliance with the Commission=s rules, and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no safety concerns or non-compliance with NRC requirements was identified. No response to this letter is required.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390 "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system. The Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS) is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Gregory M.
Schoenebeck at 301-415-6345.
Sincerely,
/RA by P. Isaac for/
Johnny H. Eads, Jr., Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-166 License No. R-70 Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
University of Maryland Docket No. 50-166 cc:
Director, Dept. of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program Energy & Coastal Zone Administration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 Mr. Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager IV Radiological Health Program Maryland Department of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 750 Baltimore, MD 21230-1718 Mr. Vincent G. Adams Facility Coordinator Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building 090 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Tom OBrien Radiation Safety Officer Department of Environmental Safety 3115 Chesapeake Building 338 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611
January 5, 2012 Dr. Mohamad Al-Sheikhly, Director The University of Maryland Radiation Facilities and Nuclear Reactor Department of Materials Science and Engineering 2309D Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building Building 090, Stadium Drive College Park, MD 20742-2115 SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND - NRC ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-166/2011-202
Dear Dr. Al-Sheikhly:
On November 28 - December 9, 2011, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
completed a routine operations inspection at your Maryland University Training Reactor facility.
The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to the conduct of operations, compliance with the Commission=s rules, and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no safety concerns or non-compliance with NRC requirements was identified. No response to this letter is required.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390 "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system. The Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS) is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Gregory M.
Schoenebeck at 301-415-6345.
Sincerely,
/RA by P. Isaac for/
Johnny H. Eads, Jr., Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-166 License No. R-70 Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC PRTA Reading File RidsNrrDprPrta RidsNrrDprPrtb MCompton (cover letter only)(O13E19) GLappert, NRR RidsOgcMailCenter AAdams, NRR JLising, NRR GSchoenebeck, NRR Accession Nos.: ML113610569 NRC-002 OFFICE PROB PRPB:LA PROB:BC NAME GSchoenebeck GLappert JEads, PIsaac for DATE 1/3/2012 1/3/2012 1/5/2012 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Docket No: 50-166 License No: R-70 Report No: 50-166/2011-202 Licensee: The University of Maryland Facility: Maryland University Training Reactor Location: College Park, MD Dates: November 28 - December 9, 2011 Inspector: Gregory M. Schoenebeck Approved by: Johnny H. Eads, Jr., Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University of Maryland Maryland University Training Reactor NRC Inspection Report No. 50-166/2011-202 The primary focus of this routine, announced operational inspection was the onsite review of selected aspects of the University of Marylands (the licensees) Class II research reactor facility safety programs including: 1) organization and staffing; 2) operations logs and records; 3)
requalification training; 4) health physics; 5) surveillance and limiting conditions for operation; 6)
emergency planning; 7) maintenance logs and records; 8) fuel handling logs and records; and 9) transportation. The licensee=s programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety, and in compliance with NRC requirements.
Organization and Staffing
- The licensee was in compliance with organizational and staffing requirements for operation of the reactor facility.
Operations Logs and Records
- The licensees operations record keeping program conformed to Technical Specification requirements.
Requalification Training
- Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program.
Health Physics
- The radiation safety program is generally commensurate with 10 CFR 20 requirements, TS, and procedures.
Surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation
- Operations were found to be in compliance with the limiting conditions for operation and surveillances requirements as stated in the Technical Specifications.
Emergency Planning
- The records reviewed by the inspectors indicated that MUTRs Emergency Preparedness Plan, oversight, and training were being implemented as required.
-2-Maintenance Logs and Records
- The licensee maintained records documenting principal preventative maintenance activities via the new shared drive and annotated maintenance adequately in the log book.
Fuel Handling Logs and Records
- Since the last inspection there were no instances of fuel handling or movement.
Transportation
- The licensee received special nuclear material since the last inspection and it had been performed and documented as appropriate under the reactor license.
Summary of Facility Status The Maryland University Training Reactor (MUTR, the licensee) operates the 250 kilowatt (kW)
reactor in support of graduate and undergraduate research, laboratory instruction, and a variety of radiation services. During the inspection, the reactor was operated to support several new experiments which had been recently installed at the facilities neutron beam ports. The inspector observed a reactor startup and several practical evolutions as part of the inspection.
1. Organization and Staffing a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69001)
The inspectors reviewed the following to verify that the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55 and the Technical Specifications (TS) were being met:
- Annual Report July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 b. Observations and Findings Since the last inspection, the only significant changes to MUTRs organization were the qualification of three reactor operators. Currently, there are two Senior Rector Operators and four Reactor Operators licensed at the MUTR. There were no other changes that were made to the organizational and reporting hierarchy.
The inspector reviewed the minimum shift staffing requirements for reactor operations and determined that the MUTR continued to meet the TS requirements c. Conclusions The licensee was in compliance with organizational and staffing requirements for operation of the reactor facility.
2. Operations Logs and Records a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspectors reviewed selected parts of the following reactor operations records to verify that the requirements of TS Section 6.4, Records, were being met:
- OP 101, Reactor Startup Checkout, Rev. 13, dated October 1, 2011
- OP 103, Reactor Startup, Rev. 13, dated October 1, 2011
-2-b. Observations and Findings The inspector observed a reactor startup to support an experiment irradiation run. The inspector noted that the startup was performed in accordance with procedures and operations logs and records were being filled out accurately in accordance with procedures. The facility has been implementing use of a password protected shared drive to store surveillance records, maintenance records, requalification records and other pertinent facility information to satisfy TS required recordkeeping. The database can be easily accessed through the facility and can be accessed by individuals in the Radiation Safety Office (RSO)
associated with work at the MUTR. Although, the record system does not encompass all the required records there are hardcopies available upon request.
The facility intends to continue to scan documents and build upon the existing records in the shared drive The inspector found entries to be consistent with the procedural requirements; namely, such matters as pre-start checks, reactor startups, personnel on duty, experiments being performed, maintenance, surveillance, and core configurations. A spot check of required logs and records were maintained as required by TS.
c. Conclusions The licensees operations record keeping program conformed to TS requirements.
3. Requalification Training a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspectors reviewed the following to verify that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55, Operators Licenses, were being met:
- Requalification/Training Program for the Maryland University Training Reactor and associated program checklists, dated December 4, 1999
- Training Topic Lessons and checklists for 2011
- MUTR Run Time Log, various operators for 2010 and 2011
- August 25, 2010, Report 2009-2010 Biennial Comprehensive Written Examination
- Letter Biennial Requalification Training, dated August 1, 2010
- Tracking spreadsheet for operators performing license activities, 2008-2010
- Letter to NRC August 25, 2010, notifying termination of operator licenses
- Operator Requalification files for four operators (randomly selected)
-3-b. Observations and Findings The inspector found the licensees requalification plan to include the regulatory requirements, such as the two-year program; written, oral, and operating examinations; lectures; and procedure review. The facility has a weekly requalification meeting during which there is a lecture given for one of the topics listed in the requalification plan.
Records reviews indicated adequate attendance at all training lectures. Those who could not attend due to a conflict are to review the lecture notes and topics in accordance with the Requalification Plan.
c. Conclusions Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program.
4. Health Physics a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
One inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements:
- Radiation Safety Procedure (RSP-1), Instrument Calibration, dated June 2001
- RSP-2, Water Sampling, dated June 2001
- RSP-4, Air Sampling, dated June 2001
- Radiation Safety Manual, dated 2001
- Radiation Surveys for External Beam Experiments, November 9, 2011
- Radiation Safety Procedure (DRAFT), ALARA Program, not dated
- Proposal to Test the Fit of a Collimator Access Plug in the Thermal Column Cavity, dated April 15, 2011
- Proposal to Map Dose Rates Throughout the Reactor Facility With a Neutron Beam Propagating Through the Thermal Column, dated October 13, 2011
- Certificates of Radiation Training, various 2010-2011
- Reactor Operators Requalification Training, 2008
- Report on Reactor Air and Water, Samples and Analysis, and Reactor Compartment Area Monitoring, Sample/Monitoring, various 2010-2011
- Environmental Dosimeter Data, for 2010 and 2011
- Exposure Review for Ar-41 irradiation container fill and transfer, dated August 17, 2004
- Argon Production Exposures Report, dated April 17, 2007
- Air Emission Survey for Ar-41, various 2008 and 2009
- Annual Operating Report, 2010
- Proposal for Characterizing the East Beam Port Using IC-18 Ion Chamber Detectors, dated July 7, 2011
-4-b. Observations and Findings The inspector performed a detailed radiation safety record review of documents since the last NRC inspection of which pertained to radiation safety. A review of calibration records and a cross check of radiation/contamination surveys indicated that radiation monitoring equipment was being calibrated as required by procedure and that no out-of-calibration radiation monitoring equipment had been used during surveys during the instances which the inspector performed a spot check of selected radiation monitoring equipment.
The inspector observed a water sample from the MUTR pool and determined that it had been performed in accordance with procedures.
The inspector reviewed MUTRs policy on radiation safety and keeping exposure As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). Although the existing revision of the Radiation Safety Manual did not provide explicit, centralized guidance of how to achieve ALARA, the current RSO had provided draft guidance documents to the inspector with the intention of creating and defining an ALARA program which delineated the methodology and strategies for reducing dose of staff at the MUTR.
The inspector reviewed dosimetry records for the various operators at the MUTR.
The RSO maintained all records in accordance with TS requirements. The inspector noted that the dose limits for individual radiation workers at the MUTR were the same as the 10 CFR Part 20 limits (e.g., 5 Rem Whole Body). During the dosimetry review it was noted that individual rad worker doses were marginal compared to this limit and no individual exceeded the dose limits since the last NRC inspection.
Through a tour and discussion with MUTR staff it was determined that the facility had installed experimental apparatuses at two separate neutron beam ports to support research. The facility had reviewed what the experiment entailed and determined that the rector would need to operate with modified Beam Plugs installed. Since the MUTR had not operated in the past with modified Beam Plugs, it was determined by MUTR staff that the experiment would be considered a Special Experiment. Since the MUTR had not previously run at power with the East Beam Port Open, the exposure of the individuals working in the reactor building needed to be measured and understood prior to any performance of experiments. In concert, the RSO and MUTR staff created a detailed procedure on how to characterize the east beam port of the MUTR. Similarly, a procedure was created for the installation of a collimator access plug in the thermal column cavity.
On November 9, 2011, the MUTR was operated to support radiation surveys of the newly configured neutron beam experimental apparatus. During interviews with RSO staff members it was determined that there was good cooperation with the MUTR operations staff to discern radiation levels/hazards at various levels of
-5-reactor power. Conservatism was employed when raising reactor power incrementally from low levels to full power (i.e., 250 kW) to allow detailed measurements to be made at or around the shielded experimental apparatus and to adjacent areas of the restricted area and neighboring classrooms outside of the facility. The inspector reviewed the survey logs of radiation measurements made around the experimental apparatuses and determined that no levels were in excess of 100 mrem/hr, which would have created a high radiation area that required additional access controls and monitoring. The RSO staff appeared to be cognizant of the potential for high radiation areas and provided staff guidance for how to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1601 as part of the proposed experimental procedure which was reviewed and approved by the Reactor Safety Committee.
On November 30, 2011, the inspector observed a reactor startup in support of experiments at the thermal column cavity. During the startup and subsequent steady state power operations at 250 kW, the inspector toured the facility in order to interview and observe licensee personnel practices with regards to the use of dosimetry, radiation monitoring equipment, placement of radiological postings and barriers. During the tour the inspector had members of Rad Safety take measurements around the accessible area of the concrete shielding (i.e., cave)
at the east beam port beam experimental apparatus. It was determined by use of their portable neutron detector (i.e., rem-ball) that radiation levels within the accessible area of the concrete cave were in excess of 100 mrem/hr and it was also noted that there were no barriers or signs employed which would warn an individual at this access point that a high radiation area exists. When the inspector questioned the RSO staff why this area was not posted, it appeared that the staff was aware that this area (in excess of 100mrem/hr) existed, but did not consider it an area of concern because they did not determine it as an area that would be considered habitable or personnel would go during routine experimental operations; during the inspectors review of radiation surveys of the November 9. 2011, survey mapping their philosophy was confirmed as the measurement that were taken were in areas that would appear to be the most habitable. Additionally, during the review of the RSO survey maps, the inspector noted that there appeared to be many blanks missing from the survey map results at the designated survey points for the various power levels; the facility indicated that the rationale for the missing data or blanks was that the conditions (e.g., reactor power) would have corresponded to that of the expected condition of the experiment and therefore didnt warrant survey mapping for conditions which would not be encountered during normal circumstances through the course of an experimental run. During the review of the survey maps it was not evident of any posting of any high radiation area in or any high radiation fields in the vicinity around the experimental rig. During interviews with the RSO staff there appeared to be confusion as to use of two different types of neutron detectors and whose results differed by a factor of ten and when interviewing the staff it appeared that when the RSO staff used the less sensitive portable neutron detector (i.e., the rem-ball) radiation fields were lower which had been considered by the RSO to be more indicative of a true whole body dose. It was unclear to the inspector if at the time when the RSO started using the rem-ball as
-6-the detector of record was when they had not determined any high radiation areas. At this time it is unclear to the inspector if adequate surveys existed and if the proper radiation detector is being employed which would have determined the high radiation area to the accessible point of the neutron beam cave at the east beam tube. Upon various discussions with the RSO they agreed that the surveys in question were unclear and subsequently they had created a much more detailed map which clearly outlined the date, time, survey spots, and postings (if determined). It is evident that the RSO has taken strides to ensure that surveys are performed to determine areas of consideration to be posted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20. The inspector has opened Unresolved Item (URI) 50-166/2011-202-1 to investigate this matter further in order to resolve questions with regards to the two neutron detectors employed whose readings differ by factor of ten and to determine the adequacy of the facilities posting and protocol with a high radiation area.
The inspector reviewed records for operator requalification as it pertains to radiation safety. Through record reviews, it was determined that operators successfully attended training specific to radiation safety in accordance with the requalification plan.
A copy of the current NRC Form 3, Notice to Radiation Workers required by 10 CFR Part 19 was posted at various locations throughout the reactor facility.
The inspector reviewed current emission records, environmental monitoring (including dosimetry and tritium release records), and the annual report for 2010 and 2011. There were no liquid radioactive effluent releases during this period outside of 10 CFR 20 limits.
c. Conclusions The radiation safety program is generally commensurate with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements, TS, and procedures.
5. Surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspectors reviewed the following to verify compliance with TS Section 3.0, Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO), and to determine if the periodic surveillance tests on safety systems were performed as stipulated in TS Section 4.0, Surveillance Requirements:
- Annual Report July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011
- SP 202 Power Calibration, Revision 13, dated November 1, 2011
- SP 202 Power Calibration Results
- SP200 , Revision 12 Inspection, Calibration, and Maintenance Schedule, Revision 12, dated February 8, 2009
-7-
- Reactor Console Logs, April 9, 2009 through November 30, 2011
- MUTR Fission Chamber Repairs, no date b. Observations and Findings The inspector selected a sample of the TS limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) to verify implementation. With the facility being secured for repairs to the fission chamber, the MUTR performed many of the required, periodic surveillances as part of the plan and procedure for return to normal operation.
During the inspection it was determined that the failure of the fission chamber was attributed to issues (i.e., old/faulty components) associated with the circuit board within the reactor console which needed to be replaced and not the detector itself. At no point during the troubleshooting process was there a change to the integrity of the electric circuitry, only a replacement of the aforementioned part. On November 30, 2011, the inspector observed an MUTR Reactor Operator perform a reactor startup with the associated reactor startup checklist. Safety system checks were performed and completed satisfactorily for indication and response from the fission chamber detector.
On two instances during the period which the reactor was secured it was determined that the RSO staff missed the monthly air sample as required by procedure. TS 4.6.2.1 Effluents requires that reactor building air samples shall be counted for gross gamma activity, monthly with intervals not to exceed 6 weeks. This issue was discussed with the RSO and it was determined that this was to be considered a minor violation in nature as the reactor was shut down for an extensive period of time and the fact that the RSO self-identified the error and returned to the required sample frequency..
c. Conclusions Operations were generally found to be in compliance with the limiting conditions for operation and surveillances requirements as stated in the Technical Specifications.
6. Emergency Planning a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
To verify compliance with 10 CFR 50.34, Appendix E, and TS, the inspector reviewed the following documents and selective records:
- Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) for the MUTR, Revision 12, dated December 4, 1999 b. Observation and Findings The inspector reviewed the EPP and determined that it had not changed since the last inspection. The inspector toured the MUTR and found the emergency
-8-preparedness equipment and capabilities to be as described in the EPP and implementing procedures. Annual emergency drills are being conducted as required.
c. Conclusions The records reviewed by the inspectors indicated that the MUTR EPP was being maintained and implemented as required.
7. Maintenance Logs and Records a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspectors reviewed the following to verify compliance with TS Section 3.0, LCO, and to determine if the periodic surveillance tests on safety systems were performed as stipulated in TS Section 4.0, Surveillance Requirements:
- Reactor Console Logbook from March 15, 2004 to present
- MUTR Fission Chamber Repairs Report (Fall 2011), retrieved from MUTR shared drive on November 29, 2011 b. Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed selected portions of the control room and maintenance logbooks governing the interval of time since the previous inspection.
Preventative maintenance required by TS was performed as part of the surveillance program and performed to in accordance with the startup to normal operations, post MUTR fission chamber repair.
c. Conclusions The licensee maintained records documenting principal preventative maintenance activities via the new shared drive and annotated maintenance adequately in the log book.
8. Fuel Handling Logs and Records a. Inspection Scope (IP 69001)
The inspector reviewed the following to verify that requirements of TS and Administrative Procedures were being met:
- Annual Report for the MUTR, 2010
-9-b. Observation and Findings The inspector interviewed staff and determined that no fuel handling operations occurred since the last inspection.
c. Conclusions Since the last inspection there were no instances of fuel handling or movement.
9. Transportation a. Inspection Scope (IP 86740)
To verify that the licensee was complying with the applicable requirements, the inspector reviewed the following:
- Paperwork associated with the Palo Verde Source Range Nuclear Instrumentation Shipment b. Observations and Findings The licensee stated that they generally transfer radioactive material from the reactor 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.
As mentioned previously, the facility was shutdown to troubleshoot the existing fission chamber. The facility acquired several new fission chambers from the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station as spares. From the review of paperwork associated with the instruments it appeared that the transfer of special nuclear material had been performed as appropriate under the reactor license.
c. Conclusions The licensee received special nuclear material since the last inspection and it had been performed and documented as appropriate under the reactor license.
10. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on December 9, 2011, with members of licensee management. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee V. Adams Facility Coordinator and Senior Reactor Operator M. Al-Sheikhly Director, Radiation Facilities and Nuclear Reactor INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 69001 Class II Research and Test Reactors ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened URI 50-166/2011-202-1: Follow-up on high radiation area surveys and posting.
Closed None Discussed None PARTIAL LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ADAMS Agencywide Document Access Management System ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable 10 CFR Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations EPP Emergency Preparedness Plan IP Inspection Procedure LCO Limiting Conditions for Operation MUTR Maryland University Training Reactor NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PARS Publicly Available Records Rev. Revision RO Reactor Operator RSO Radiation Safety Office RSP Radiation Safety Procedure SP Surveillance Procedure TS Technical Specifications URI Unresolved Item