IR 05000054/1978004
| ML19282B230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054 |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1978 |
| From: | Architzel R, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B227 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-054-78-04, 50-54-78-4, NUDOCS 7903090440 | |
| Download: ML19282B230 (9) | |
Text
.
.
'.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
Region I Report No.
50-54/78-04 Docket No.
50-54 License No.
R-81 Priority
--
Category F
Licensee:
Union Carbide Corcoration P.O. Box 324 Tuxedo, New York 10987 Facility Name:
UCC Research Reactor Inspection at:
Corporate Research Laboratory, Sterling Forest, New York.
Inspu:. ion conducted: August 8-10, 1978 Inspectors:
Y F/29/76'
R. Architzel, Reactor inspector cate signed date signed date signed Approved by:
?.0.0 9 (7) h^12 E.C. ItCabe, Jr., Chief Reactor cate signed Projects Section, No. 2, RO & NS Branch Insoection Summary:
_
Insoection on Aucust 8-10,1978 (Recort No. 50-54/78-04)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional inspector of proceceres, surveillance and experiments.
A facility tour was conducted.
The inspection involved 18 inspector hours onsite by one regionally based NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
79.03090440 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- K.
George, Senior Development Scientist
- D. Holzgraf, Manager, Nucleonics H. Hart, Facility Engineer A. Innis, Experiment Coordinator C. Konnerth, Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs Manager
- J. McGovern, Production Manager, Radiochemicals
- J. Paradiso, Reactor Supervisor L. Thelin, Health Physicist
- denotes those present at exit interview.
Other licensee employees, including reactor operators and adminis-trative staff, were also contacted.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinas (Closed) Noncompliance (54/77-03-01) Committee Approval of Rabbit Tube Irradiations.
The licensee rasponded to this item in a letter dated October 3, 1977.
The inspector reviewed new procedure X6-03, Rabbit Tube Irradiations, October 1977.
This procedure describes the limits of Rabbit Tube Irradiations, controls over its use,and documentation requirements.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (54/77-03-03) Reactivity worth of experiments may be higher than values being used.
This item remains open as described in paragraph 5.
3.
Facility Procedures a.
The inspector reviewed. administrative Procedure AD-01 and RM-01, P,egulations Manual.
These procedures delineate the requirements for procedure review and approval.
Methods for changing procedures, both temporary and permanent, are delineated.
The inspector discussed the licensee's requirements for adherence to written procedures with the Reactor Supervisor.
The licensee stated that, although not established in writing, operators duties included following procedures as written.
The inspector questioned the Production Manager concerning how he performed the semi annual review of procedures as required by Procedure RM-01, Regulations Manual.
The licensee stated i. hat at present the review was not being accomplished, however the review.muld be accomplished.
This item is unresolved (54/78-04-01.)
.
'
'
.
~
b.
The inspector reviewed the following procedures maintained in the Control Room to ascertain if they were the latest revision and if they were approved and reviewed by the Safety Committee.
Procedure Title Revision AD-01 Procedures Manual September, 1977 RM-01 Regulations Manual December,1974 EP-01 Emergency Plan-General May, 1978 EP-02 Hi Level Radiation December, 1974 Incident EP-03 Radiation Alarms, October, 1975 Reactor
- RS-01 Reactor Console September, 1977 Checklist
- RS-02 Process Equipment August,1976 Checklist
- RS-03 Electronic Equipment September, 1976 Checklist RS-04 Reactivity and Core September, 1975 Checklist
- RS-06 Reactor Restart October, 1975 Checklist
- Sampling comparison of these procedures with Final Hazards Summary Report System descriptions was accomplished to evaluate procedure adequacy and applicability to the as built systems.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Surveillance Testino a.
Test Review The inspector reviewed the following surveillance tests on a sampling basis to verify that the procedures were adequate, that the tests were performed at the required frequency, and that the test results were acceptable and reviewed.
Test Title Frecuency Performed RS-33 Control Rod Annual April 14, 1978 Calibrations RS-34 Emergency Core Semi Annual October 28, 1977; Spray Test May 5,1978 RS-38 Emergency Generator Semi Annual May 24,1977; Load Test January 27,1978; and, June 15, 1978 RS-39 Flow Meter Semi Annual October 28, 1977; Calibration May 5, 1978
.
'
.
The inspector questioned the licensee concerning the acceptance criteria for procedure RS-39, Flow Meter Calibration.
Values of both 1% and 3% accuracy were listed in the procedure, and the test as accomplished yielded 2% accuracy (measured flow versus indicated.)
The licensee stated that the correct accuracy was 3% and that procedure RS-39 would be revised to state the correct value.
This item is unresolved pending revision of procedure RS-39. (54/78-04-02.)
b.
Technical Soecification Recuirements A review of the following Technical Specification or licensee requirements was conducted to verify operation within prescribed limits.
FSHR B.6, Minimum Primary Flow Rate 2200 gpm:
Observed
--
2320 gpm.
FSHR Change 8, Pool Water Temperature less that 100 F,
--
can go to 115 F if Automatic High Flux Reverse Set Point Lowered:
Observed 101 F, Reverse set at 120%.
License Amendment 10, FSHR paragraph E.2.a.(1)(g)(1),
--
Inventory of solid fuel bearing materials being irradiated in the reactor corc at any one time shall be limited to 200 gm of source and/or 400 gm of special nuclear material (SNM):
THIS PARAGRAPH INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, IT CONTAINED 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC-DISCLOSURE.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
5.
Experiraents a.
Irradiations The majority of irradiations conducted at the facility fall in the area of " preparation of radioisotopes" as described in the FHSR (Section 2.a(2)).
FHSR Section 2.b states that experiments require the joint approval of the Safety Cocmittee and the Operations Group.
The total allowed worth of all experiments in the core is 2.0%
aK/K.
Approval of routine radioisotope production is accomplished through Regulations Manual procedure X6-01, " Isotope and Service Irradiations," which provides a list of criteria applied by the Reactor Supervisor in scheduling irradiations.
.
.
.
.
~
Procedure X6-01 is approved by the Safety Committee and thus controls the types of irradiations which can be conducted without further specific review and approval.
Irradia.ons performed during the month of June, 1978 were reviawed. The licensee records irradiations on Isotope and Service Irradiation Forms, Sample Schedule Sheets, and notation in the Reactor Log Book. The Sample Schedule Sheet for the week of June 16-22, 1978 could not be located, however irradiations performed were recoverable from the Reactor Log Book. The inspector noted this was an isolated case by verifying all other 1978 Sample Schedule Sheets were available.
THIS PARAGPAPH INTEtlTI0tlALLY LEFT BLANK, IT CONTAIllED 10 CFR 2.790 INFORt4ATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
.
.
~.
'.
.
.
THIS PARAGRAPH INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, IT CONTAINED 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
b.
Fission Product Molybdenum (FFM) Production The licensee's program for irradiation of SNM in the core is described in various license amendments and amendment appli-cations. Basically, SNM is irradiated in stringers placed in various core positions, each stringer containing a maximum of four experiment capsules. Requirements include:
400 gms of SNM and/or 200 gms of source material, maximum
--
in core; 50 gms of SNM and/or 200 gms source material per capsule;
--
--
.5% a'k/k single experiment (stringer) reactivity worth; 2.0% ak/k aggregate experiment worth; and,
--
,
13 KW per capsule.
--
The licensee tracks total experiment worth on a reactor core status board.
In addition, Reactivity and Core Checklists are prepared prior to startups.
Periodically the licensee measures the reactivity worth of experiments by noting the differential worth of the bank of shim arms between critical positions with the experiment inserted and removed.
The inspector reviewed the FPM experiments installed during a startup on August 4, 1978.
.
e
..
,
.
THIS PARAGRAPH INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, IT CONTAINED 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
Dr.ing a previous inspection, an unresolved item (77-03-03)
wea identified concerning the licensee's apparently nonconservative approach to determine Experimental reactivity worths. The inspector expressed concern that the licensee still does not estimate reactivity worth in a conservative fashion.
The following particular nonconservative approaches were pointed out:
(1)
Integral red worths of the bank of 5 shim rods are utilized to determine experiment worths.
These had last been calculated during July 1976 using the Rod bump method.
Periodic (annual) determinations of total red worth have been performed and these indicate a greater total rod worth, yet the licensee had not redetermined integral rod worths. The values determined for the 5 rods during each of the tests are tabulated:
Rod Worth By Rod Rod Worth By Rod Bump Method (7/76)
Drop Method (4/78)
Shim No.
(% ak/k)
(% ak/k)
1.28 1.367
2.65 2.943
2.19 1.724
0.82 1.10
2.41 2.68 Total 9.35 9.814
.
.,
.
.
(2)
The experiment worths being utilized on thu Core Status Board were not the highest which had been caiculated.
Since the rod worths had not been redetermined there is no reason to suspect that one experiment worth detemination is more accurate than any other, the difference of these values on August 4,1978 was.14% ak/k.
(3)
One of the FPM expe'riment worths (F-7) has not been recalculated following redetermination of rod worth in 1976.
,
(4)
No correlation is made between actual SNM in the experiment to that contained when the experiment worth was determined.
On August 4,1978 more SNM was in the core than the amount which had been used to determine reactivity worth (The excess was 10.73 q).
Because these experiments are positive worth this appears to be a non conservative practice.
The inspector stated that this item (77-03-03) remains unresolved and would be further discussed with his management.
6.
Licensee Event Report License R-81 paragraph 4.H requires reporting of situations connected with operation of the facility which could possibly result in an unsafe condition.
On June 19, 1978, while returning to the reactor to power following a routine power change the Shim Rod Drive Switch fciled resulting in continued rod withdrawal (2 Rods) following release of the switch.
The rods were reversed by the operator using the Manual Reverse Switch and the reactor manually scrammed.
The licensee reported this event to the NRC (Division of Reactor Licensing, Operating Reactors Branch 3) in a letter dated June 20, 1978 describing the event, the cause (mechanical failure of the contact leaf for the switch and the corrective action (replacing the switch).
The inspector requested that a copy of future reports of this nature be forwarded to the NRC Regional office. The licensee stated that this would be done.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Unresolved Items Items about which more information is required to determine acceptability are considered unresolved.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 contain unresolved items.
.
.
,.
~
..
'
-
.
-
g 8.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection a meeting was held (see paragraph 1 for attendees) to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
The unresolved items were identified.
The area of FPM experimental worth considerations was further discussed in a telephone conversation between members of the licensee's staff and this office on August 16, 1978.
The licensee agreed to accomplish the following i'. ems concerning establishment of experimental worths:
(1)
The Safety Committee would review and document, with supporting calculations, the time duration of validity of rod worth curves, and establish recalibration criteria.
(2) Verify or establish accurate or conservative means of quantifying experiment worth, including correlation to the SNM in the experiment, and use the values so obtained in maintaining the required running inventory of experiment worth.
The licensee stated that these actions would be completed within 60 days.
.