IR 05000062/1978003
| ML19274D742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274D737 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-78-03, 50-396-78-2, 50-62-78-3, NUDOCS 7902220250 | |
| Download: ML19274D742 (5) | |
Text
.
4,
[pm rec,k
~
R EGloN 11 oq UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
,
&
N, e
M'
101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.
.E
f ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 os, *. m /
Report Nos.: 50-62/78-3 and 50-396/78-2 Docket Nos.:
50-62 and 50-396 License Nos.:
R-66 and R-123 Licensee: University of Virginia
,
School of Engineering and Applied Science Department of Nuclear Engineering Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Facility Names:
UVAR and Cavalier Inspection at: UVAR and Cavalier Facilities
'
Inspection conduc
- ' November 28-30, 1978
,
/
-
Inspector: E
. We ter
/ Mt'
V-t'
I7[
Approve
_'
C'. Lewis, ChiWf /
Da t'e Reactor Projects S'ection No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on November 28-30, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-62/78-3 and 50-396/78-2)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of Reactor Safety Committee activities, experiments, operator requalification program, staff reorgaliization, system t.adifications and design changes. The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas; two items of noncompliance were identified in one area. Gnfraction - No written safety evaluation of system described in Safety Analysis Report (78-03-01)-paragraph 5.b.) (Inf raction - operating with a required system out of s,ervice (78-03-02)-paragraph 5.b)
-
.
7902220p0
.
d RII Rpt. Nos. 50-62/78b
~
I-I and 50-396/78-2 f'l l
' / w/p DETAILS I Prepared by:
7 /77< v.--,4,
a E. H. Webster, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Sup Branch Dates of Insp c o.
November 8-30, 1978 Approved b'
IZ/
% /
/ /
,
_ fC. Lewis, Cyp'/f
'Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted University of Virginia
- Dr. T. G. Williamson, Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics
- J. P. Farrar, Operations Manager T. L. Porter, Senior Reactor Operator P. E. Benneche, Staff Reactor Operator G. E. Hedrick, Senior Reactor Operator C. L. Faust, Student Reactor Operator
- B.
Shriver, Research Assistant Professor
- Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.
Licensee Action on Previcus Inspection Findings Licensee action on previous inspection findings was not reviewed during this inspection.
N 3.
New Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
Exit Interview
.
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 30, 1978.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Licensee
-
management agreed with the noncompliance item denoted (78-03-02). but indicated disagreement with the item designated (78-03-01).
,
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-62/78-3 I-2 and 50-396/78-2
.
5.
Reactor Safety Committee Activities The inspector reviewed the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) written statement of responsibilities dated October 7, 1977, and the RSC minutes from Janvary 1978 to November 1978.
The written statement, required by Technical Specification 6.2.d stated the authority and responsibilities of the RSC satisfactorily.
A review of the minutes of all RSC meetings and memorandums between the Operating Supervisor and the RSC members
.
over the year revealed the following:
a.
The RSC conducted audits of the facility twice, on a six month basis, as required by the written statement; although the depth of the audits appeared to be adequate, the inspector suggested the scope of these audits being broadened.
Licensee management agreed to look into this matter.
b.
On September 9, 1978, the Operating Supervisor reported, in a memorandum to the RSC, that an additional demineralizer had been installed in the UVAR pool water purification system. Discussion with licensee staff revealed that, although all members of the RSC were aware of the change proposal in Spring, 1978, no formal safety review had been conducted as the system was not considered to have safety significance.
10 CFR 50.59(b) specifically requires that a change to a system discussed in the Safety Analysis Report have a written safety evaluation that provides the bases for the determination that the change is not an unreviewed safety question and that the written evaluation be maintained.
The pool water purification system is discussed in Section 4.7 of the UVAR Revised Safety Analysis Report and in Figure IV-1 of that report. The lackofwrittensafetyevaluationofthischangeisconsidergd,to be an infraction.
(78-03-01)
.,
c.
On October 19, 1978, the RSC approved a security procedure which in part authorized disconnection of the Emergency Exit Manhole Hatch Open Switch from the reactor scram circuitry.
This change allowed the hatch to be shut during reactor operations so access from outside the building would be secured.
On October 23, 1978, the subject hatch switch was disconnected and the hatch shut and latched during subsequent reactor operations through November 28, 1978.
Technical Specification 3.5 requires the Emergency Exit Manhole Hatch Open Switch be operable during reactor operations.
'
-
Operation of the reactor with the manhold hatch closed and the switch inoperable is in noncompliance (infraction 78-03-02).
The inspector verified that the subject hatch switch was returned to
'
an operable status prior to resuming plant operation on November 28, 197.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-62/78-3 I-3 and 50-396/78-2 d.
The annual report, dated Janvary 4, 1978, required by Technical Specification 6.7.e appeared to report all information required.
The inspector discussed the format of this report in regard to the specific items required in the Technical Specification.
Licensee management agreed that clarity of report topics was lacking in several areas and committed to improve this in future reports.
This area will be a subject of review following receipt of the next annual report.
(0 pen item 78-03-03)
.
'
6.
Operator Requalification Program a.
The inspector reviewed the requalification records of three staff licensed operators and six student licensed operators for both the UVAR and CAVALIER facilities. Records appeared to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55, Appendix A.
b.
The inspector interviewed three licensed operators to ascertain the success of the program in maintaining adequate knowledge levels. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
c.
The inspector discussed the planning and documentation systems used to organize and manage the program with licensee personnel.
The current systems appeared cumbersome and lacked foresight in written plans. Licensee management committed to upgrade the requalification planning system to assure continued satisfactory performance (open item 78-03-04).
7.
Experiments - UVAR and CAVALIER The inspector reviewed the irradiation records, the operating logs and RSC minutes to insure that experiments conducted in both UVAR and the CAVALIER were properly approved, conducted and recorded.
The inspector noted one administrative error that was promptly corrected by' licensee personnel. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
8.
Operator Staffing - UVAR and CAVALIER The inspector observed the staffing for both UVAR and the CAVALIER and checked the off-hours notification system used by the University of Virginia police. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
9.
Maintenance Records - UVAR and CAVALIER
.
The inspector reviewed maintenance records and operating logs to insure that no unauthorized design changes or modifications were conducted, that calibration procedures were conducted at the proper frequency and per procedures, and that no Limiting Safety System Settings or Limiting Conditions for Operation were exceeded.
Aside from one administrative
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-62/78-3 I-4 and 50-396/78-2
.
error which was' corrected and the related items noted in paragraphs 5.b and 5.c, the inspector had no further questions in this area.
10.
Upcoming Staff Change The inspector was informed that Dr.
B. L. Shriver will soon be assigned as facility director, replacing Dr.
T. G. Williamson, who will continue as Chairman of the Nuclear Engineering and Engine.ering Physics Department.
.,
The inspector reviewed Dr.
Shriver's qualifications with the requirements of ANSI 15.4-1977 and had no further questions in this area.
'
-,
e e