IR 05000062/1986003
| ML20214N850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Jape F, Long A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214N806 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-86-03, 50-396-86-02, 50-396-86-2, 50-62-86-3, NUDOCS 8612030765 | |
| Download: ML20214N850 (8) | |
Text
.
,-
"
SoCEc,*o o
UNITED STATES
'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
["
REGtON ll o
$
, j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 3o323 h
i o
+...+
Report Nos.:
50-62/86-03 and 50-396/86-02
-
Licensee: University of Virginia Charlottesvill.e, VA 22901
-
'
Docket Nos.:
50-062 and 50-396 License Nos. :
R-66 and R-123
.
Facility Name: University of Virginia Reactor UVAR and Cavalier
'
Inspection Conducted: October 28-31, 1986 gf/ /
~
Offflk Inspector: f y M *x
"
Dite Signed
.M.
Long V~
'
Approved by:
//
_
N//f/
Frank Jape, Wection Chief y/
Dite Signed Test Programs Section
-.
,
Division of Reactor Safety
,
,
'
'
-
SUMMARY.
.
-
e
-...
-
..
,
,
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of logs and records, review and audit functions, requalification training, procedures, refueling, surveillance and maintenance, experiments' and closecut 'of followup items.
~~
Results: No violat. ions or deviation's were identified.
,
b 8612030765 861125 PDR ADOCK 05000062 G
"
,
h
, -..
- - - - - -, -. -
,e...
e
--
.-
,,.,. - - - - -, - -. - - - -
, -,, - - -
e -,,.,
.,,-,-nn-
.-.
..- -
_ _ _ _
.
.
.
.
.-
,
REPORT DETAILS
%
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted P. E. Benneche, Reactor Supervisor G. D. Conley, Senior Reactor Operator B. G. Copcutt, Radiation Safety Officer
- J. P. Farrar, Re' actor Administrator
~
0. T. Hale, Reactor Health Physicist
- R. U. Mulder, Director, Reactor Facility
- T. G. Williamson, Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering
.
Other licensee personnel contacted included faculty members, facility staff, reactor operatdrs, undergraduate and graduate students, and office personnel.
- Attended Exit Interview
.
Other Organization M. E. Carroll, Local Emergency Services Coordinator Additional persons contacted from other organizations included hospital personnel during the emergency drill.
.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 31, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
No proprietary information was reviewed during the inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Issues This subject was not addressed during the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during the inspection.
.
.
O
..
.
. -
...
F
,
'
-
.
,
.
.
.
-
,
>
- " -
,
.
.
5.
Closecut of Previdus Inspector Followup Items.
.
,
Corrective actions on the following Inspector Followup Item were reviewed and found to be satisfactory:
a.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-01:
Label and Identify Control Room Equipment Including Setpoints The inspector observed, during the tours of the facility and while witnessing a startup of the.UVAR, that the control room, equipment had identifying labels.
Many pieces of equipment had the.setpoints labeled. The licensee explained to the inspector that. to label the setpoints on every piece of control room equipment would interfere with training.
Equipment setpoints which required unit conversions were labeled.
b.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-02: Analyze' Demineralizer Pt. ping for Material Specifications
,
_
The licensee had been requested to analyze the pool demineralizer piping to verify its' integrity, and to specify piping materials in case replacements should become necessary.
-
The inspector reviewed the Demineralizer System Engineering Review, dated January 14, 1986. This document presented a thorough assessment of the safety of the system, plus recommendations for maintenance and system upgrade. Most of these recommendations have been implemented by the licensee (paragraph 11).
c.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-03: Scram Reduction Program The licensee had been requested to review their 1984 shutdown history to determine if corrective action could be taken on generic trip initiators.
The facility staff evaluated the costs and benefits of a possible program to reduce the number of unplanned shutdowns by uncovering scram patterns and eliminating the causes of such shutdowns.
The causes of scrams during the previous year were reviewed, including in particular the scrams from spurious power range s.ignals which initiated the NRC
_
concern in this area.
The licensee concluded that scrams of the research reactor have minimal safety and operational implications, as
'
they normally do not stress the reactor systems or lessen the ability of the reactor to shutdown when required. The Reactor Safety Committee (RCS) was informed of the staff's assessment that indepth studies or expensive repairs to reduce unplanned shutdowns would divert staff
'
time, funds, and reactor time from more beneficial uses. The licensee plans to handle future problems in whatever manner they determine to be
,
.
I
n
]
--
-
.
.
i
.
p the most expeditious and cost effective.
However, ht,the end of each year they will. review the scram history to determine whether or not special. efforts to reduce scrams have becoge warranted.
As the licensee has given due consideration to scram red' ction, and u
will review scram patterns yearly, this followup item will be closed.
d.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-04: Correct SCRAM Listing in 1984 Annual Report An addendum to the unplanned Shutdown list in the 1984 Annual Report was submitted to NRR on November 18, 1985.
This followup item is closed.
,
,
e.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-05: Upgrades Radiation Monitoring System (RMS)
Calibration Procedures The licensee was requested to expand RMS calibration procedures to include additional instructions and acceptance criteria for calibration and maintenance of detectors and channels, rather than referencing the vendor manuals for this information.
The RSC considered this. item at their December 13, 1986 meeting.
Standard Operating Procedure '(SOP) 7.2 refers to the detailed calibra-tion procedures in the instruction manual for each instrument.
The committee decided that it would be redundant to repeat these procedures verbatim and doing so would add approximately twenty pagas to the 50P's.
The Committee voted to make several, clarifications of the wording of S0P 7.2.
The inspector reviewed S0P 7.2 and determined that the procedure as presently written, in conjunction with the vendor manuals, is adequate to accomplish its intended purpose.
The calibration sheets used with S0P 7.2 list the pertinent data, including acceptance criteria.
f.
(Closed) IFI 062/85-03-06:
Consideration of Safety Envelope for Various Core Configuration Changes On April 17, 1979, the RSC gave blanket approval of core reactivity changes which are similar to previously used changes, providing that the excess reactivity and shutdown margin are verified to be within Technical Specification limits. The licensee requested that the RSC review the possibility of providing the operating staff with a pre-established safety envelope to define the core configurations which have been previously used and properly reviewed.
The RCS reviewed the possibility of such an envelope, and accepted the
'
staff's request to continue loading core configurations without prior approval to the extent allowed by the facility Technical Specifications (TS). An RSC review prior to loading a core configuration is generally not feasible because rod worths for shutdown margin and excess reactivity determination are measured during core loading.
i
'
(
,
y
--
mm.-g
-
y
-&
-
--
-.
a-mgr m--
F
.
.
'
-
a
.
.
The inspector reviewed the requirements for RSC approval of cor,e loading changes, and the procedural control in this area.
They are
,
adequate for reactor safety.
Section 5.'1 of the UVAR TS allows core configurations to be varied to accommodate experiments as long as the minimum shutdown margin and excess reactivity are within limits.
Section IV of the RSC charter defines specifically what changes to the reactor core do not constitute an unreviewed safety question and can, therefore, be authorized by the
-
~
c.
Director of the facility without RSC approval.
SOPS are in place to insure core configuration changes satisfy each of the-TS. limiting conditions for reactivity, and these requirements in effect define an allowable envelope.
Precautions are taken during core loading to insure reactor safety.
,
Subcritical multiplication data is taken after the addition of each element for new loadings, and efter at least the last four elements for loadings similar to previous loadings.
After a. core loadin'g is completed, the ro s.are calibrated in a xenon-free condition and the shutdown margin and excess reactivity,are
,
determined. The results of rod calibration, shutdown margin and excess reactivity measurements are reported to the RSC.
The inspector reviewed the records in the UVAR Core Configuration Log.
Changes to core configuration are being safely controlled according to the established requirements, and this followup item is closed.
~
6.
Organization, Logs and Records (39745)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's records of organization, core configuration changes (paragraph 10),
surveillance and maintenance (paragraph 11), system modifications (paragraphs 11 and 12), and experiments (paragraph 12). These areas are all well documented, and no instances of noncompliance were identified.
.
Selected sections of recent UVAR and Cavalier operating logs were reviewed for consistency with regulatory requirements. The entries appeared to be complete, and no problems were identified.
7.
Review and Audit Function (h0745)
The RSC is responsible for the review and audit of operations conducted at
.
the reactor facility to ensure ~that the reactors are operated in a manner consistent with.public safety and within the terms of the facility license.
-
The activities of the RSC for the period December 1985 through October 1986 were reviewed by examining the minutes of the RSC meetings, and.other correspondence related to' their activities.
The committee activities were
~
compared to the general requirements and functions of the RSC specified in
,
I w
-
-
.
, - -
,
r---.n.
, - -
.-s y
_.,
.---._,,--w-
_.
~
,y,c
,. -, - - -
, - - < -
_
,
.
.
.
.
-
,
Section 6.2 of the TS and in the RSC chapter. During the period reviewed, the committee satisfied the requirements for membership, meeting frequency, quorums, audits, items reviewed, and actions taken.
The committee
.
functioned as required to review and approve untried experiments, changes to the facility, and changes to standard operating procedures.
A regular semiannual audit was conducted which addressed emergency planning and pond release procedures. A special health physics audit was also conducted this year. Two unusual occurrences brought to the attention of the RSC (a rod control system malfunction and liquid waste recirculation system malfunc-
.
tion) were handled according to applicable procedures and effective corrective actions were taken.
The inspector noted that, in general, interaction and communication between the RSC and the facility staff was good.
A new QA form for 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations was implemented in December 1985.
Answers to the questions on this form are used to determine if a change to the facility constitutes an unreviewed safety question, and if RSC approval is necessary prior to implementation.
8.
Requalification Training (41745)
,,
'
'
.
The status of requalification training requirements was reviewed with' the
'
~
Facility Administrator.
The. inspector-verified that the requalification program is being conducted in accordance with' the program description approved by Operator Licensing. Adequate records are being kept to document compliance.
The facility currently has seven licensed operators, six of whom have senior licenses.
Each operator passed a written requalification examination in August of 1986.
.
9.
Procedures (42745)
The inspector reviewed all of the changes to Cavalier and UVAR Standard Operating procedures since the last inspection in this area. All procedure changes had been reviewed by the Reactor Safety Committee, as required. The Reactor Safety Committee also approved detailed procedures for special maintenance activities affecting safety pnior to the use of the procedures.
Selected completed Standard Operating Procedures for surve'llance and maintenance were reviewed' (Paragraph 11), and the inspector.iitnessed a completion of the daily checklist and a reactor startup.
No problems were identified in this area. g
,
.
10. Refueling (60745)
P The inspector reviewed the records in the. Core Configuration Log for the
-
,
l seven core loadings during the past twelve' months. Shutdown margin, excess i
reactivity, and rod worth were well controlled and documented, and appro-l priate reviews were obtained. No problems were identified in this area.
.
>
l l
._
_ _ _ - - _ _
. _.
--
_-
_ - - -
_..
FL
-
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
..
11. Surveillance a'nd Maintenance (61745)
The inspector reviewed the following surveillance and maintenance records for the UVAR for the last twelve months:
.
a.
Source Range Channel b.
Control Rod System (Maintenance,. Drop Time Measurements, Reactivity Worth Measurements, and Visual Inspections)
c.
Area radiation monitors
,
d.
Power Range Detector System
'
The following Cavalier ^ surveillance and maintenance tecords for the last twelve months were reviewed:
.
,
Control. Rod System (Maintenance, R' d Drop Measurements, and Reactivity o
a.
'
-
-
Worth. Measurements)
j
,
.
,
,
1-
~b.
Log N Instrumentation
.
r
,
c.
Linear Power and Log G Instrumentation
'
d.
Area Radiation fonitors
,
-
Planned surveillance and maintenance activities on these UVAR and Cavalier systems were conducted according to Standard Operating Procedures.
The periodic surveillance tests listed above satisfied Technical Specification requirements for surveillance frequency.
Both the UVAR and Cavalier facilities have surveillance status boards in the control room.
The surveillance test acceptance criteria are listed on the surveillance checkli sts, and all acceptance criteria were met.
The inspector also verified that whenever maintenance was performed on a system, the equipment was recalibrated or verified to be operable prior to use.
A review of QA records confirmed that system modifications are being reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 through use of the Facility Modification checklist.
Reactor Safety Committee Review was obtained when required.
The inspector reviewed the records of the following special maintenance
activities:
.
.
"
'
a.
Demineralizer System Upgrades b.
Pump seal replacement
-
Prior RSC approval of the plans for these maintenance activities was obtained.
The facility staff provided the RSC with detailed safety *
evaluations which formed an excelle,nt basis for assessing the impact of the proposed changes.
.
-
- _ _ - _ _.
,%=
-
.
..
.
s
.
'
.
,
-
,,
.
-
'
,
-
.
~
>
"
12.
Experiments (69745)
The. inspector reviewed the documentation associated with the following experiments conducted in the UVAR and Cavalier facilities during the past twelve months:
a.
UVAR Rabbit and Basket Irradiations b.
UVAR Beamport Usage c.
UVAR High Activity Na-24 Samples d.
UVAR Mineral Irradiation Facility
'
e.
-
f.
Cavalier flux mapping The records showed the experiments to have been reviewed, approved, and conducted in conformance with the Technical Specifications. and with
,
.10'CFR.50.59. All previously untried experiments were thoroughly evaluated and were approved by the RSC prior to implementation.
_
13.
Facility Tour The inspector toured the UVAR and CAVALIER facilities and observed
'
operations and activities in progress.
No items of noncompliance or
-
deviations were identified.
_
14.
Emergency Preparedness Drill
.
The inspector witnessed portions of an emergency preparedness drill.
The drill simulated the injury of three workers in a chemical explosion, followed by a fire in the facility. Overall, the drill went smoothly. The licensee will be providing Region II with a detailed critique of the events.
.
p e
@g
.
'
,
i I
.,
e
.
.
E
_2