IR 05000062/1990004
| ML20059M905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1990 |
| From: | Belisle G, Burnett P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059M883 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-90-04, 50-62-90-4, NUDOCS 9010050357 | |
| Download: ML20059M905 (7) | |
Text
= =,.,,,,
, - -
-
.
.
UNITE 3 8TATES
/pm me 'g
..
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3g RE060h II
e 101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.
'*t
-
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323 -
,e.***
Report Nos.: 50-62/90-04'
Licensee: University of Virginia Charlottesville,VA 22901
..,,
Docket Nos.: 50-62 License Nos.: R-66 Facility.Name: University of Virginia Reactor, UVAR Inspection Conducted: August 20 - 23, 1990 Inspector:
/
/fM s 8//I'!8d P. T. Burnett u
I^
'Date Signed I!(/d Approved by:
N( F G. A. Belisle,' Chief, IYate Signed
,
= Test Programs Section
'
Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
-
This routitie, unannounced inspection-addressed the annual-inspection cf opem-tions activities at a Class 1 research reactor and the followup of open iter:s..
jf Results:
..
Use of the facility has increased above the level of activity observed in the previous inspection.
The facility staff is largely unchanged and' retains.a
<
,
- considerable amount of experience.
No new types of experiments have. been aerformed since the last inspection.
Surveillance:and maintenance activitic-1 ave been carried out in a timely and acceptable manner.
One' unresolved item from an earlier inspection.was determined to be a viola-tion:
Reactor' Safety Consnittee audits did not include an annual review of the'.
.' -
operations, Md irradiations logbooks.
Corrective action for. that violatioii'
was completed before the end of the inspection - paragraph 7.a.
i
'No additional violations or deviations were identified.
>
'
..
I 7010050357 900924
-
ADOCK 050 g 2 DR j
l:
-
..
,
-
.
L
'
L
'
'
.
REPORT DDAlLS
)
I 1..
Persons Contacted i:
Licensee Employees l
- P. Allaire, Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics
.
'
,
- P. Benneche, Supervisor, Reactor Operations i
!'
- R..Mulder,: Director, Reactor Facility
]
Other licensee employees contacted includea engineers, technicians, operators, and office personnel.
,
- Attended ~ exit interview on August 23, 1990.
.
.
Acronyms. and initialisms used throughout this report are defined in the j
final paragraph.
!
Organization,--Logs,andRecords(39745)
a.
Organization j
The organization is as described in TS Figure 5.1.
A new chairman
of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics was
,sointed recently, following the retirement of the previous chair-
,
nn.
There have been no other fignificant. changes in the fr.cility staff since the previcus' inspection, and the current naif have
-
considerable experience at the facility.
j B
.
.
b.-
. Review of Operations Logs
'
-
l UVAR operations logbooks #28 and #29 were reviewed for the period i
from September 1, 1989, to August 21, 1990.
Other than about ten entries of debris-being noted on the top of fuel elements during
%'
frequent core visual examinations. no other entries were of concern
~
to the inspector.
Although, most of-these entries were accompanied
l E
by the statement that the object noted was too small to interfere with flow through the fuel element, a need for better control of l
materials in' and around the reactor pool is indicated.
With the ce9 version to LEU fuel, the number of. fuel plates-per element will
!
increase from 18 to 22,' with concomitantly narrower flow channels.
t In-pool debris may be of even greater concern at that time.
The l
facility ' director did respond to the inspector's concerns for the recurring problem of debris being observed on the. top of fuel assemblies.
He characterized the debris as algae growing in the
,
pool. paint chips from the pool wall, and wood from the spent fuel
+
storage. rack.
He then described plans in place to clean up the pool t
!
.
- -
.. - - - -.
. - - -
-
- -.
- - - - - -
- - -
. -
- - - -
.
- - - - - -
._
E
'.
t
.
'
.
during the period between removal of the HEU core and installation of the LEU core.
Log entries were sufficiently thorough and complete to. follow the progress of activities at the f acility and to corroborate the surveillance and experimental activities discussed later in this report.
Review of the day to-day activities was facilitated by review of the UVAR Daily Checklist, which was audited for the month of June 1990, and the UVAR Operating Conditions Data Sheet, which was audited for the months of October 1989, March 1990, and June 1990.
The final pages of the UVAR Logs are used to summarize the reactor scrams.. There were 43 during the period reviewed, about a year, Eighteen were ascribed to instrument noise or power fluctua61ons, eight came from outright power interruptions.
Only one could be called a personnel error and that had little or no safety signifi-Cance.
c.
Review of Reactor Irradiations
.The Irradiations Log for the period from September 1989 to August 1990 was-reviewed along with some of the more recent Routine Irradi-ation Request forms.
Although the use of the reactor appeared to have increased, no need for further review of these activities was identified.
d.
Maintenance Activities Maintenance activities were reviewed in concert with the review of surveillance activities, sinco they are iu common files, and are addressed in parrgraph 6.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Reactor Safety Committee Review and Audit Activities (4074S)
a.
Review Activities The RSC met nine times between September 26, 1989, and July 2 1990.
This frequency far exceeded the minimum requirements of TS 6.2.2(2)
and vas responsive to the needs of the facility.
The pending conyt.sion of the reactor fuel from HEU to LEU added to the work le*,d, which is likely to continue for another year.
The minutes of the meetings confirm that eeary agenda item received thorough and technically sound review and that the RSC is functioning as an independent body.
L-
!
.
,
. - -
>
'l
!
t
b.
Audit Activities
,
TS 6.2.3(6) requires that the RSC audit operational recoros for
!
compliance with procedures, TS, and license-provisions.
The audit
'
,
for the period from October 1,1989, to March 31, 1990, included a t
review of only one month of the UVAR Log, February 1990, which was
selected as being a typical month of reactor use.
The audit obser-i vations were pertinent with respect to scheduling and recording core
,
visual examinations, detection of numerical entry errors, and a
concern for the observations of debris on the fuel.
A more exten-
'
sive audit might have raised a RSC concern for the frequent need,
over a period of. several months, to reposition power channel 2 to
~
correct a non-conservative indication of power.
(That problem was
,
finally resolved by replacement of the ion chamber and cable connec-tions.)
i The revised audit schedule was issued on June 8,1990, and describes
!
operational records as having an annual audit requirement.
Internal memoranda define RSC audits as spot checks of selected operational records, that do not necessarily cover all of the records produced in the period reviewed.
In addition to the annual RSC audit, the
,
Reactor Administrator, the secretary to the RSC, does conduct a periodic review of the operations. logbook.
That review is documented by a' signed, stamped entry in the logbook.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
4.
Reactor Operator Requalification Training (41745)
The reactor operator requalification training program is now on a schedule that conforms to the. licensee's commitments.
All five currently licensed 09erators attended the prescribed series of lectures between September ;, 1989,-and June 28, 1990. All operators passed the regt:alifi-
+
cation ~ examination given on June 28, 1990.
The examination appeared to adequately challenge the operators' knowledge in the required testing
areas.
Overall grades ranged.from 81.7 to 98.2.
The lowest grade on any i
'
test section was 73.
Operators with section scores less than 80 were counseled by the reactor administrator, who reviewed the entire examina-
.'
tion separately with each incitidual.
No violations. or deviations were identified.
5.
Procedures (42745)
,
The inspector witnessed the reactor startup and escalation to full power on August 21, 1990 and in conjunction with that activity reviewed the
,
following standard operating procedures:
-a.
4.1, Daily Checklist, b.
4.2,-Startup Checklist, c.
4.3, Power Checklist, and d.
5.1, Procedures for Reactor Startup.
.
'
'
.
'
j
,
The operator adhered to the procedures without deviation, and the proce-dures apr'ared adequate to meet their objectives.
i No violations or deviations were identified.
l 6.
Surveillance and Maintenance Activities (61745)
Shim rod drop time tests required by TS 4.1(1) were performed with j
acceptable frequency e~l results dur*.19 the two-year period imediately
preceding this inspection.
i l
Pursuant to TS 4.1(2), shim rod and regulating rod reactivity worths were i
measured for each new core configuration, a total of four, used during the year immediately preceding this inspection. This test confirmed that both SDM and excess reactivity were within TS limits.
Additionally the reactivity worth of each experimental facility was remeasured with each change in configuration.
The longest interval between measurements was
less than seven months.
j The most recent annual, visual inspections of Shim rods were performed on December 19, 1988, and January 2, 1990. No material defects were observed.
The semiannual calibration of the power range channels, required by TS 4.2(3), were performed with acceptable frequency and results during the 18-month period immediately preceding this inspection.
In addition the surveillance was performed following maintenance to replace a meter in channel 1 and a detector in channel 2.
,
TS 4.2(4)y power range calibration by reactor heat balance, required by, was per The weekl year preceding the inspection.
In performing the calibration, only the temperature rise-through the core was considered, without correction for.
,
variation in coolant flou rate from the nominal value of 1066 gpm. Since
>
the actual flow was less than that expected.ana the temperature rise was compared with the predicted full-power temperature rise at the expected flow, this calibration was conservative.
However, the procedure would give nonconservative results if the flow were to increase above the expected value.
Within the year, cleaning the screens upstream of the
,
pump resulted in an increase in flow rate from 1010 to 1040 gpm.
If further system improvements increased flow above 1066 gpm, overpower operation could ' result if flow is not specifically accounted for in the surveillance.
In support of the heat balance measurements, the primary flow monitor and core delta-temperature monitor were calibrated semiannually with accept-able results.
c
,
__
,
_
,
-
Q l
.
'
..
.
~
i
,
!
The annual ECCS flow calibrations were last performed on September 27,
.
1988, and October 6,1989, with acceptable results.
.
TS 4.6(4) requires verification of the confinement building leak rate f
only when fueled experiments generating more than one watt are performed.
No such experiments had been performed in over ten years.
Nevertheless, the licensee concluded that a lesk rate test would be prudent and con-ducted a fifty-hour test beginning on May 7,1990.
The test method was
[
that described in the VVAR Design and Analysis Handbook.
The measured leakages of 30 percent in 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> and 50 percent in 41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br /> satisfied
'
,
the limiting conditions of TS 3.7.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
.
7.
FollowupofUnresolveditems(92701)
i a.
(Closed) 50-062/89-03-01:
RSC audit of the operations logbook and i
. irradiations logbook had not been performed since 1985.
Based upon discussions with. NRR/PDNP it was concluded that the
,
intent of TS 6.2.3(6) was that these important and primary opera-tional records be audited annually.
Consequently, failure to
.
perform these audits has been identified as a violation (50-062/90-04-01),
The licensee was informed of this conclusion by a telephone call from the Region II office on March 21, 1990.
As discussed in paragraph 3.b. the licensee has instituted a program of
I annual operational audits, ar.d one prcJuctive audit has been com-l pleted. Therefore, no response to this violaticn will be required.
b.
(Closed) 50-062/89-03-02:
Slippage in completing the annual opera-tor requalification cycle was observed.
Based upon discussions with NRR/PDNP, it was concluded that the slippage was tolerable as long as the licensee corrected the problem and took positive steps to prevent its recurrence.
As discussed in
,
L paragraph 4, that corrective action has been completed, and this
' item is closed.
-8.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on August 23, 1990, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector de-scribed the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The i,
'
I licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or r3 viewed by the inspector during this inspection.
One violation for which no response is required was identified:
L
-
-
-
-
- '.
,.
'
.
,
50-062/90-04-01:
Failure to conduct annual audits of operational records
- paragraph 7.a.
9.
Acronyms and Initialisms Used throughout This Report ECCS emergency core cooling system HEU high enrichment uranium LEU low enrichment uranium NRR USNRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PDNP Non-Power Reactor, Decommissioning and Environmental Project Directorate RSC Reactor Safety Committee SDM shutdown margin TS Technical Specification UVAR University of Virginia Reactor
.
.
_