ML062330308

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-05/2006-201

ML062330308
Person / Time
Site:	Pennsylvania State University
Issue date:	08/24/2006
From:	Johnny Eads NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTB
To:	Pell E Pennsylvania State Univ, University Park, PA
Bassett C, NRR/DRIP/REXB, 404-562-4899
References
IR-06-201
Download: ML062330308 (11)

Text

August 24, 2006Dr. Eva J. PellVice President for Research Dean of the Graduate School The Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO.50-05/2006-201

Dear Dr. Pell:

This refers to the inspection conducted on April 3 - 7, 2006, at the Pennsylvania StateUniversity Breazeale Research Reactor. 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 noncompliance of NRC requirements or safety concerns was identified. Noresponse 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 available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic ReadingRoom) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

.Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Dan Hughes at NRCheadquarters at 301-415-1631.Sincerely,

/RA/Johnny Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-05License No. R-2

Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-05/2006-201cc w/enclosure: See next page Pennsylvania State University cc:Mr. Eric J. Boeldt, Manager of Radiation Protection The Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504Dr. C. Frederick Sears, DirectorThe Pennsylvania State University Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-1504Mr. William P. Dornsife, DirectorBureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection

13 th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Bldg.P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469Test, Research and Training Reactor NewsletterUniversity of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 August 24, 2006Dr. Eva J. PellVice President for Research Dean of the Graduate School The Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO.50-05/2006-201

Dear Dr. Pell:

This refers to the inspection conducted on April 3 - 7, 2006, at the Pennsylvania StateUniversity Breazeale Research Reactor. 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 noncompliance of NRC requirements or safety concerns was identified. Noresponse 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 available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public Electronic ReadingRoom) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

.Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Dan Hughes at NRCheadquarters at 301-415-1631.Sincerely,/RA/Johnny Eads, Branch Chief Research and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-05License No. R-2

Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-05/2006-201cc w/enclosure: See next pageDistributionPUBLICPRTBr/fAAdamsCBassettPIsaac MMendoncaPDoyleTDragounDHughesEHylton BDavis (cover letter only)(O5-A4)

NRR enforcement coordinator (Only IRs with NOVs, O10-H14)ACCESSION NO.: ML062330308TEMPLATE #: NRR-106OFFICEPRTB:RIPRTB:PMPRTB:LAPRTB:SCNAMEGBassett:tlsDHughesEHyltonJEadsDATE/ /2006/ /200608/22 /200608/24/2006OFFICIAL RECORD COPY U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONDocket No:50-005 License No:R-2 Report No:50-05/2006-201 Licensee:Pennsylvania State University Facility:Breazeale Research Reactor Location:University Park, Pennsylvania Dates:April 3 - 7, 2006 Inspector:Thomas F. Dragoun Approved by:Johnny Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The focus of this routine, announced inspection was the on-site review of selected aspects ofthe licensee's Class II non-power research reactor operation including: procedures, requalification program, surveillance and limiting conditions for operation, experiments, healthphysics program, and oversight by the Safeguards Committee.The licensee's programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health andsafety, and in compliance with NRC requirements. Procedures

!The procedural control and implementation program satisfied Technical Specificationrequirements.Requalification Training

!Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program.Surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operations

!The records review indicated that the surveillance program was conducted inaccordance with Technical Specification requirements.Experiments

!Experiments were conducted within the constraints established by the TechnicalSpecifications.Health Physics

!The Radiation Protection Program being implemented by the licensee satisfiedregulatory requirements.Committees, Audits, and Reviews

!The Reactor Safeguards Committee provided the oversight required by the TechnicalSpecifications.

Report DetailsSummary of Plant StatusThe Director provided a detailed tour of the facility for the benefit of the incoming NRCinspector. The reactor was started and shutdown several times for experiments, training, and service work. The inspector observed the 8 o'clock daily coordination meeting for all staff.1.PROCEDURES a.Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to determine if procedures were maintainedas required by Technical Specification 6.3 "Operating Procedures", NRC requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and licensee administrative requirements:*Use of "Change Record for Procedures" checklist to review changes made tofollowing procedures:

- AOP-3, "Loss of Cobalt-60 Pool Water" Revision 3 reviewed on August 20, 2003

- CCP-9, "Transient Rod Drive and Air Supply" Revision 4 reviewed on January 16, 2006

- SOP-2, "Daily Checkout Procedure" Revision 17 reviewed on January 24, 2006*Procedures conducted for compliance with Technical Specifications asfollows:

- CCP-1 "Control Rod Speed and Scram Time Checks" Revision 5 datedDecember 10, 2004 satisfies requirements in TS Sections 4.2.2, 3.13, 3.21, 3.22, and 3.26.

- CCP-8 "Calibration of Air Monitors" Revision 8 dated February 13, 2006 satisfies TS section 3.6.1 and 4.6.1.

- CCP-18 "Review of Procedures" Revision 4 dated October 17, 2005 satisfies the administration requirement for a biennial review of procedures. *Observed a reactor startup using procedure SOP-1, "Reactor OperatingProcedure" Revision 13 *Procedures AP-1 Revision 2, AP-6 Revision 3, and AP-8 Revision 5 werecompared to verify that the benefits from a consistent format was also applied to non-technical procedures b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector noted that all procedures at the facility have the same format and content and provide comprehensive guidance. These factors contribute to proper implementation by the staff. Procedures were readily available when requested by the inspector. The inspector was often able to find procedures and other documentation unassisted due to the highly structured filling system. Allprocedures required by the TS were available.

c.ConclusionsThe procedural control and implementation program satisfied Technical Specification requirements.2.REQUALIFICATION TRAINING a.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed selected records to determine if the RequalificationProgram approved by the NRC on July 9, 1997, and requirements in 10 CFR55.59 were implemented. The review included:*operator license status*operator training records

• operator physical examination records

• operator examination records

• operator active duty statusb.Observations and FindingsThere were no changes to this program since the last NRC inspection. Theinspector reviewed the records of the physical exams, annual evaluations, biennial written exams, and reactivity manipulations for four of the operators. All were up-to-date with the requirements of the program. c.ConclusionsOperator requalification was conducted as required by the RequalificationProgram.3.SURVEILLANCE a.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following regarding conduct of surveillance on safetysystems as specified by TS 4.0:*Procedure CCP-1, "Control Rod Speed and Scram Time Checks" Revision 5*Procedure SOP-2, "Daily Checkout Procedure" Revision 11, effectiveJanuary 19, 2004 *Procedure CCP-7, "Wide Range Channel Electronic Checks" Revision 2*Procedure CCP-14, "Power Range Channel Electronic Checks" Revision 2 *Procedure CCP-9, "Transient Rod Drive and Air Supply" Revision 4b.Observations and FindingsThe data records were well maintained and showed that surveillancerequirements specified in TS were completed on schedule and in accordance with licensee procedures. All the recorded results were within the TS and procedurally prescribed parameters.c.ConclusionsThe records review indicated that the surveillance program was conducted inaccordance with Technical Specification requirements.4.EXPERIMENTSa.Inspection Scope (IP 69001)The inspector reviewed the following to confirm that experiments were conductedin accordance with TS 3.7, "Limitations of Experiments" and TS 6.4, "Review and Approval of Experiments":*Procedure SOP 9, "Pneumatic Transfer System Operation" Revision 3, datedOctober 7, 2005*Procedure SOP 5, "Experiment Evaluation and Authorization" Revision 4

• Procedure SOP-7, "Qualification of Reactor Pool Reactor OperatingPositions" Revision 4*Memorandum from the Radiation Safety Officer and the Associate Directorfor Operations dated October 17, 2005 authorizing certain personnel to use of the rabbit systemb.Observations and FindingsThe inspector observed the experimental samples placed in-core and theprocess for relocating the reactor core for certain experiments. These activities were conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure. Operation of the pneumatic transfer system (rabbit system) was described in detail by thelicensee.c.ConclusionsExperiments were conducted within the constraints established by the TS. 5.HEALTH PHYSICSThe inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 20and TS Section 6 requirements and procedural requirements: *Administrative Procedure AP-18, "Radiation Protection Program" Revision 2,effective January 13, 2004*Annual Operating Report for Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 dated

• December 15, 2005

• NRC Materials License Number 37 - 00185 - 04, Docket 030 - 00952, expiresSeptember 30, 2008*Policy "Rules and Procedures for the use of Radioactive Material at thePennsylvania State University," Spring 2001*Radiation survey maps, "Radioactive Material Survey" for all levels in thereactor building required to be completed weekly. Data for 2006*Quarterly radiation surveys. Data for 2004 and 2005

• Personnel exposure records for 2005

• Control of solid, liquid, and gaseous radioactive waste

• Organization and staffing of the radiation protection function of theEnvironmental Health and Safety programb.Observations and FindingsThe reactor radiation protection program had not changed since the lastinspection and remains a subset of the campus program with oversight provided by the University Isotopes Committee (UIC). The program was documented and its status was reviewed annually by the RSO as required by 10 CFR 20.1101. Training of new radiation workers and experimenters was a multi-step process. The initial training consisted of a self-paced computerized program available on the Universities web site. The next step includes a practical demonstration of the protective devices and techniques. A 40-question exam covering the general radiation protection concepts was administered and successful candidates were referred to the reactor staff or Principal Investigator for the detailed training associated with the particular apparatus. The content of this training satisfied the requirements in 10 CFR 19.12. Caution signs and postings were as required by 10 CFR 20, Subpart J. Routineradiological surveys were completed on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis in accordance with program requirements. Equipment used for these activities were maintained, calibrated and used acceptably. The survey reports were particularly well detailed and provided a thorough record and description of the radiological status of the area, including the condition of posted warning signs, presence of radwaste, condition of survey meters stationed in the area, and abnormal radiation levels. Personnel dosimetry records indicated doses were well below NRC limits and,with one exception, were below the licensee's administrative limit of 10% of the NRC limit (500 mrem per year). The RSO stated that efforts to reduce theindividuals dose are continuing. The calculation of the concentration of radioactivity in liquid waste are completedby the RSO. If the liquid was determined to meet the criteria for discharge to the sewer, the RSO notifies the reactor staff. The liquid may be discharged to thesewer or processed through an evaporator.c.ConclusionsThe radiation protection program acceptably satisfied NRC requirements. 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 completed:*Reactor Safeguards Committee (RSC) composition.*Committee meeting minutes for January 17, 2006; April 12, October 11, andJanuary 18, 2005b.Observations and FindingsThe meeting minutes showed that the safeguards committee met as required bythe TS with a quorum present. The committee composition was as specified in the TS. Five members were from the science and engineering fields and one member was a health physicist. The issues and oversight provided by the committee were in accordance with the review function with effective follow up of decisions. c.ConclusionsAudits were conducted by the RSC according to the requirements specified in theTS. 7.EXIT INTERVIEWThe inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management atthe conclusion of the inspection on April 7, 2006. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDLicenseeE. Boeldt, Manager, Radiation ProtectionM. Bryan, Research Engineer L. Burton, Dean of Engineering M. Claver, Director, Environmental Health and Safety T. Flinchbaugh, Associate Director for Operations M. Linsley, EHS Program Manager T. Litzinger, Chair, Safeguards Committee M. Morlang, Reactor Engineer/Supervisor RSEC E. Pell, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School F. Sears, Director, Radiation Science & Engineering CenterINSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 69001CLASS II NON-POWER REACTORSITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDOPENED:NoneCLOSED:NoneLIST OF ACRONYMS USEDCFRCode of Federal RegulationsIPInspection Procedure NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission RPRadiation Protection RSCPenn State Reactor Safeguards Committee RSORadiation Safety Officer TSTechnical Specifications