IR 05000002/1981004
| ML20039E024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 03001988, University of Michigan |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Patricia Pelke, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039E018 | List: |
| References | |
| 30-01988-81-01, 30-1988-81-1, 50-002-81-04, 50-2-81-4, NUDOCS 8201060441 | |
| Download: ML20039E024 (8) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-2/81-04; 30-1988/81-01
,
Docket No. 50-2; 30-1988 License No. R-28; 21-00215-04
.
Licensee: University of Michigan Phoenix Memorial Laboratory Ann' Arbor, MI 48105 Facility Name: Ford Nuclear Reactor Inspection Conducted: November 16-20, 1981 l(d./$t/hwtt Inspectors:
K. R. Ridgtiay hi.
dg M n
&
/ 2.//yfgj P. R. Pelke
/2[/d/
Approved By: D ief Reactor Projects Section IA Inspection Summary Inspection on November 16-20, 1981 (Report No. 50-02/81-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs and organization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; surveillance and maintenance; experiments; fuel handling activities; radiation protection program; radwaste management program; emergency plan; and followup action relative to IE Circulars; noncom-pliances and Open Inspection Items. This inspection-involved a total of 86 inspector-hours (64 onsite) by two NRC inspectors including '?
inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas inspected.
f G
-.
.
-
-
- -
-.
.-
-
.
-
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- W. Kerr, Director, Phoenix Project
- R. Burn, Reactor Manager
- G. Cook, Assistant Reactor Manager
- B. DuCamp, Supervisor of Reactor Operators
- A. Solari, Campus RSO
- M. Driscoll, Health Physicist
- G. Callewaert, Health Physics Technician J. Jones, Manager, Radiation Laboratory
- Indicates those present at the exit interview.
2.
General This. inspection, which began at 1:00 p.m. on November 16, 1981, was conducted to examine the overall program at the Ford Nuclear Reactor except security and material accountability and control. An initial tour of the ' facility was made shortly after arrival while the reactor was at full power. Conditions of the facility were found to be acceptable.
On February 10, 1981, Amendment No'. 27 of the license was issued permitting the receipt and use of. low enriched uranium (leu) fuels of intermetallic uranium aluminide and uranium oxide cermet. The leu fuel is to be used in a full-core demonstration to begin December 6, 1981, as part of the U. S. Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor Program. The leu fuel for the-test has been received. The planned testing program in progress during the inspection involved radiation of. foils with the high enriched core prior to loading and testing the leu core.
3.
Organization, Logs and Records The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Hazards Summary Report. The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operation, and fuel handling or refueling operations.
The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
a.
Required entries were made.
b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
c.
The facility was being maintained properly.
d.
Records were available for inspection.
-2-
.
.
...
.
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Reviews and Audits l
The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
!
L a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by Technical Specifications or Hazards Summary Report.
b.
That the review committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements and frequency of meetings had been met.
c.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
During the review of the Safety Review Committee (SRC) meeting minutes, the insoector noted that the minutes dated January 26, 1981, did not list the members present. The licensee stated that SRC attendance would be clearly documented i.n the future so quorum requirements may be verified.
The inspector noted that modificaticas and procedure revisions requiring SRC approval were sometimes implemented prior to the approval. The licensee stated that the modification request form would be changed to indicate whether or not modifications and procedure changes are substantive. All substantive modifications to the facility or procedure changes will be reviewed by the SRC prior to implementation.
Modification No. 90, New Rad Position Digital Indicators, was completed without the required review signature on the Modification Request form (MR). The modification was scheduled for review by the SRC at tae next meeting since the Reactor Manager had classified it as a nonsubstantive modification not requiring prior approval by the SRC. The reactor Manager stated the Modification Request had been reviewed and approved and the signature oversight would be corrected.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations.
-3-
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
The inspector noted that the operators did not date their requalifi-
~
cation exams and sign their name on each answer sheet. The licensee agreed to correct this item.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
This review also verified:
a.
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel and maintain the facility.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
c.
That required checklists and forms were used.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate.
The inspector noted that the control room copy of OP-202, Shim Safety Rod Inspection, did not have a revision dated September 1981.
Additionally, the Master Copy of 3P-202 located in the Administrative Assistant's office was missing Paragraphs 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10, however, the Control Room copy was correct. The licensee agreed to correct these discrepancies.
The inspector recommends that AEC be changed to NRC in future procedure revisions.
7.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:
a.
That when necessary, procedures were availab?,e and adequate to perform the tests.
b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
Test records were available.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-4-
.
-
.
.
.
8.
Experiments
.The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor logs that:
a.
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under approved reactor conditions.
b.
New experiments or char.ges in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
c.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question, i.e., 10 CFR 50.59.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures.
e.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during the experiment.
No items of. noncompliance were identified.
9.
Refueling The facility refueling (fuel handling) program was reviewed by the inspector. The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and the technical adequacy of them in the areas of radiation protection, criticality safety, Technical Specification and security plan requirements. The inspector determined by records review and discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations and startup tests were carried out in conformance to the licensee's procedures.
The 1981 Fuel Movement Schedules were reviewed. The inspector noted that five schedules were not signed by the Reactor Manager, Assistant Reactor Manager, or Supervisor of Reactor Operators immediately _after the last listed fuel movement as required by'OP-106, Paragraph 7.8.
The procedure permits approval of fuel movements by telephone in urgent situations and after the Lead Reactor Operator has filled out and signed-the schedule. The procedure in this case is unclear if the above management signature after the last fuel movement is required or not. The licensee stated in a telecon following the inspection that Procedure OP-106 would be revised to require the management signature following telephone approvals.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Fuel Shipping The inspector reviewed records of the two irradiated fuel shipments.
made in 1981 to determine that conditions of the Certificate of Compliance for the BMI-1 shipping cask and DOT regulations were followed.
-5-
- -
.
-
-
- -
.
.*
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
IE Circular Followup For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that'the Circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular was applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
81-02, Performance of NRC Licensed Individuals While on Duty.
12.
Radiation Control The inspector reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and made observations and independent surveys to verify that radiation
-
controls were being carried out in accordance with the licensee and NRC regulations. The areas covered were:
a.
Posting and labeling of restricted areas and radioactive materials.
b.
Control of irradiated samples.
c.
Calibration of radiation detection instruments.
d.
Required periodic dose and contamination surveys, e.
Exposure records of personnel.
f.
Posted areas of the facility.
g.
Personnel training.
h.
Independent s irveys.
i.
Pool water activity and heavy water tritium content.
The Health Physicist assigned to the facility had completed revising and adding to the Health Physics Procedure System. All but seven ofthetwenty-eightproceduypshadbeenupdatedorwerenewprocedures since the last inspection. - One procedure had been deleted. Pro-cedures HP-107 through 111 and 201 through 204 were reviewed by the inspector and found to be adequate.
1/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-02/80-05; 30-1988/80-02
~
-6-
.
>
- - -.
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_-__ -__ _
- _ _ ____-_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
4
.. -
,
The highest whole body' dose for the 'first.9 months of-1981 was 690 mrems from film badge data and the highest hand exposure was 1390 areas.
In 1980-the highs were between:790 and 1000 mrems whole body
and five persons received hand exposures between 1000 and 2000 mrems.-
- The average exposure to the 159 badged persons was less than 100 mrems.
.,
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
13.
Radioactive Effluents a.
Liquid Effluents
,
During 1980,.59,704 gallons of. liquid effluents were released
~
to the sanitary sewer through two in-series five-micron filters.
The average concentration of gross beta-gamma activity was 0.35%
of the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) in 10 CFR 20 when using the 300 dilution factor allowing for the average daily.
volume in the North Campus sewer system. The inspector reviewed releases for the first three quarters of 1981. No abnormal releases were made during this period.
b.
Airborne Effluents
,
The inspector reviewed.the airborne. effluents for 1980. The dilution factor of 400 allowed by the technical specifications was not necessary to satisfy the release limits for iodine
(20.4% MPC) or particulates (0.41% MPC) but was necessary for gaseous releases, Ar-41, (493% without the dilution factor i
.
and 1.23% with the dilution factor). Releases for the first
.
three quarters of 1981 were reviewed and no ' abnormal releasesi
'
were made during this period.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i 14.
Followup on Items of Noncompliance (Closed) 30-1988/80-02, Failure to maintain documentation of the safety analyses of DOT specification type 7A containers used for
.
shipping Type A quantities of radioactive materials from the l
Phoenix Memorial Laboratory. The inspector reviewed the safety analysis for two Type 7A containers that were tested following the noncompliance citation.
!
15.
Emergency Plan On June-12, 1980, the licensee submitted the Ford Nuclear Reactor Emergency Plan to. licensing for review and approval. The licensee has been operating under the plan since 1975.
The inspector determined that commitments made in the plan such
as' annual. review and update, annual drills, procedures, training, emcrgency equipment and testing of alarms had been -conducted.
.
'
-7-
.
- - -. - -
- -
..
-
. -
- - -
-
-
-
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ - -.
.. _. _ _ _ _
. _ -, _ _ --
_ _ _ _ _ _.. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _.
O
,-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
16. Review of Periodic and Special Reports The inspector reviewed the following reports for timeliness of sub-mittal and adequacy of information submitted:
..
Report on Reactor Operations 1980 submitted March, 1981.
17. Exit-Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1981, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
-
-8-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _,