IR 05000002/1985004
| ML20137M321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Michigan |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1985 |
| From: | Ridgway K, Schweibinz E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137M292 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-002-85-04, 50-2-85-4, NUDOCS 8512030667 | |
| Download: ML20137M321 (6) | |
Text
-
-
,
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-002/85004(DRP)
Docket No.50-002 License No. R-28 Licensee: University of Michigan Facility Name: Ford Nuclear Reactor Inspection Conducted: November 20-22, 1985 f.(2.12<.)qs Inspector:
K. R. Ridgway
//[27/Qs Date Approve yY S w C ef O~.d7'Of
'
Technical Support Staff Date L
Inspection Summary Inspection on November 20-22, 1985 (Report No. 50-002/85004(DRP))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs, and organization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; surveillance and maintenance; fuel handling activities; and quality assurance program.
This inspection involved a total of 23 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
One violation, staff organization does not agree with that described in the Technical Specifications (Paragraph 3), was identified in the seven areas inspected.
No significant safety issues were identified in the areas inspected.
0512030667 851127 PDR ADOCK 05000002 O
PIIR
.
DETAILS s
1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Burn, Reactor Manager
- G. Cook, Assistant Reactor Manager
- Indicates those present at the exit interview.
2.
General
.
This inspection, which began at 8:30 AM on November 20, 1985, was conducted to examine the research reactor program at the University of Michigan.
The facility was toured shortly after arrival.
The general housekeeping of the facility remains satisfactory, as was noted in the
previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-002/84001(DRP)).
On July 27, 1985, Amendment 29 of License R-28 was issued by the NRC renewing the license for 20 years.
The Technical Specifications (TS),
Appendix A of the license, have been reformatted with some minor changes.
On September 18, 1985, the licensee submitted a TS change to correct a discrepancy in the minimum shutdown margin.
This was found acceptable and Amendment 30 was issued on November 11, 1985.
L The licensee had received the NRC show cause order, dated September 27, i
1985, to reduce the amount of high enriched uranium fuel (HEU) onsite
_
to that amount necessary to maintain a normal schedule of operations.
=
The renewed license does not permit operations with HEU and the reactor
-
has been operating satisfactorily several years with low enriched uranium fuel (LEU).
The licensee had completed the removal of all unirradiated HEU in three shipments to a Department of Energy facility at Oak Ridge during 1985 and has plans to ship all the remaining irradiated HEU in 1986.
Since a response was only required to show why provisions of the order should not be fulfilled, the licensee chose not to respond to the order.
3.
Organization, Logs and Records (39745)
The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
_
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. Records were available for inspection.
b. Required entries were made, c. Significant problems or incidents were documented.
d. The facility was being maintained properly.
-.
..
'.
Since the last inspection, five Senior Reactor.0perators (SRO) have resigned, three Reactor Operators (RO) have been promoted to SRO, and one R0 has been licensed.
Included in the resignations was the Supervisor of Reactor Operations, an SRO, and this position has not been filled.
The responsibilities of this position have been divided between licensed
~ operators and the Assistant Reactor Manager who is also an SRO.
These responsibility changes have been documented in the new Emergency Response Plan and in other operating procedures; however, Section 6.1.(1), Organization, of TS states that the organization structure of the Ford Nuclear Reactor shall be as shown in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.1 includes the position of Supervisor Reactor Operation in the line organization.
The licensee committed to submit a TS change to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This is considered to be a violation of TS (002/85004-01).
The licensee plans to maintain the staff at ten licensed operators which includes the Reactor Manager and Assistant iteactor Manager and to operate in most cases with two licensed operators in the facility.
The license requires one licensed operator in the control room during operations and one other individual in the facility with an SRO present in the facility or readily available on call. At present the facility is operated five days a week with 24-hour coverage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Reviews and Audits (40745)
The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
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 SAR.
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.
The bylaws of the Safety Review Committee (SRC) had been revised and approved to permit individual polling of committee members in the unusual event that a quorum is not present.
This rule has never been used.
A review of the SRC meetings indicated the committee was meeting all requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
'
.
5.
Requalification Training (41745)
_
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.
There have been no changes in the requalification
'
program and requalification examinations had been conducted in 1984 and 1985.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Procedures (42745)
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 SAR 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 licensee has incorporated most operating and administration procedures into a word processor during the last two years.
During this period, the SRC had reviewed 168 operating procedures (some several times),12 health physics procedures, and 11 administrative procedures.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to the operators and the contents of selected procedures were found adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance (61745)
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 available and adequate to perform tests, b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
Test records were available.
The licensee's surveillance program appeared to be satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
1
~
l'
.
'.
8.
Experiments (69745)
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 changes in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
The experimen'ts did not involve an unreviewed safety question, c.
i.e., 10 CFR 50.59 requirements regarding experiments were met.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity changes were identified in procedures.
e.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during an experiment. The inspector reviewed the one experiment approved since the last inspection.
-
N No violations or deviations were identified.
s 9.
Fuel Handling (60745)
The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector.
The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling
,
.,7 and their technical adequacy 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 were carried out in conformance of the
,
licensee's procedures.
s No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Transportation Activities (86740)
Since radioactive material transfers had been reviewed in a previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-002/85001(DRSS)), the inspector reviewed only records of quality control for fuel shipments made since the last inspection to determine if the Quality Assurance Program (QAP)
was being followed.
i The licensee had submitted their QAP to NRC for renewal without change and it had been approved by letter dated May 24, 1985 for a five year period.
In addition to fuel shipments, the QAP is followed for other
.significant facility changes.
The inspector reviewed the records of
'
replacement for the radiation recorder and temperature recorder.
>
,No violations or deviations were identified.
,
{
,
.
.
11.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports (90713)
The inspector reviewed the annual report, Report on Reactor Operations -
1984, for timeliness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (listed in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on October 22, 1985 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as proprietary.
The licensee acknowledged the remarks by the inspector by telecon following the meeting that TS Figure 6.1 needs to be revised to show the deletion of the Supervisor, Reactor Operation position and committed to submit this change in the near future (Paragraph 3).
This is considered a violation of TS and the licensee was notified of this by telecon on November 27, 1985.
,
I
!
I
'
L
.